Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » When we are over the line, Brexit happens, then what?

24

Comments

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 9,171

    I see labour are tackling the big issues again today....war on grouse shooting.

    Giving the toffs a kick in the nads. I think that can be described as appealing to the base.

    Pity the announcement doesn't go further.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 19,795

    TOPPING said:

    So if the £ collapses to, say, 0.5 euros Germany will go bust?

    It's a view.....
    If the £ collapses to € then German exports to the UK will be twice as expensive, while British exports to the EU will be half as expensive. Do you disagree?
    Yes of course but the fall in the £ since 2016 has not led to any improvement in the UK's balance of trade. However it has led to a considerable increase in UK import prices which means that living standards here are lower then would otherwise have been the case.
    Actually there hasn't been a considerable increase in inflation, inflation is actually below and not above target. So you're wrong there.

    As for the UK's balance of trade, we just posted our first trade surplus in eight years: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade
    There has been a SIGNIFICANT rise in inflation since the vote in 2016. From under 1% to peaking above 3%, well above the BoE TARGET of 2%.

    Oh wait, a two percentage points rise in the rate of inflation to you is marginal. God help us if under those terms we ever get what you might term a substantial rise in inflation.
    Inflation peaked 0.1% above the BoE letter writing threshold of 3% and came back down under control the next month.

    Any variation within the 2% bounds of 1% to 3% is normal and marginal yes. Inflation above 3% or below 1% is concerning, hence the letters being necessary at that point and no letter necessary to explain why we have LOW INFLATION at 1.9% as because our inflation being BELOW TARGET it is still within acceptable bounds.
    Letter writing threshold is one percentage point above the TARGET. Inflation has been above TARGET for quite some time.

    Low inflation = 1.9%, eh? I take it your application for next governor of the BoE has been submitted?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 35,409
    Diane Abbott has indicated Labour could be planning a rapid vote of no confidence against Boris Johnson once parliament returns in September, saying the party was in talks with other opposition groups on how best to proceed.

    While the shadow home secretary said it was “above my pay grade” to confirm any plans, she agreed Labour and other parties would need to move quickly when the recess ended to stop a no-deal Brexit before 31 October.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/12/labour-exploring-rapid-no-confidence-vote-in-pm-in-early-september-no-deal-brexit
  • CaptainBuzzkillCaptainBuzzkill Posts: 213
    edited August 12
    The greatest benefit to life in the UK immediately post Brexit will be the hysterical doomsters going suddenly quiet when it becomes apparent the sky isn't going to fall in as life goes on pretty much as it now.

    The hyperbole is getting utterly ridiculous and is actually counter-productive for remainers because they have painted a future of horror the day after we exit which is a bar so low as to be easily cleared by reality.

    Normal people will just shake their heads, remind themselves again not to believe Project Fear and carry on with their lives.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 30,520

    nichomar said:

    So Cyclefree thinks the break with the EU could for the UK potentially be like the break up of Yugoslavia?

    This really is nuts. You people have taken leave of your sense...

    Bonkers.

    Actually she doesn’t say that at all rather pointing out the benefits of working together to achieve the separation is more fruitful than not.
    Then why quote Yugoslavia? The implication is clear. With "no deal" that is on the cards.

    I am all for "working together" but it takes two to tango. The EU says it will not negotiate on anything except the terms of the WA which as shownn were unacceptable to Parliament.

    So what is your point?
    Are you confident that the domestic fall out from No Deal would unite the country sufficiently to come through the problems it creates, or would the British state be tested beyond its capacity?
    I am completely confident that following the UK's withdrawal from the EU we will not have "a Yugoslavia", yes.

    You are delusional to suggest otherwise. Bonkers.
    Is there no country whose withdrawal from the EU could end badly, or is your ultra-confidence reserved for the UK?
    Most countries would be fine, including the UK. I cannot speak for all of Europe because i dont know every country sufficiently well.

    But what is clear is that the author's (and i suspect your) knowledge of the background to the Yugoslavian war, and the history of that part of the world generally, is deficient relative to the claim you are making.
    Any analysis of the UK that concludes that a break up marred by violence is impossible no matter the circumstances shows a deficient understanding of the history of these islands.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 657

    As a voter the power will be in your and your fellow citizens hands rather than the hands of voters who are citizens of other countries.

    And yet, on election night TV coverage never shows us how people in Germany, France or Italy voted in our UK elections.

    "And The Tories are short of a majority thanks to voters in Belguim voting Lib Dem..."
    So laws are only set in our UK Parliament? Not the European Parliament?

    I can live with that then.
    We set our laws in our own Parliament as always. We send both elected MEPs and HMG appointed representatives to agree Europe-wide laws.

    There are no dictators involved.
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 502
    Cyclefree said:

    nichomar said:

    So Cyclefree thinks the break with the EU could for the UK potentially be like the break up of Yugoslavia?

    This really is nuts. You people have taken leave of your sense...

    Bonkers.

    Actually she doesn’t say that at all rather pointing out the benefits of working together to achieve the separation is more fruitful than not.
    Then why quote Yugoslavia? The implication is clear. With "no deal" that is on the cards.

    I am all for "working together" but it takes two to tango. The EU says it will not negotiate on anything except the terms of the WA which as shownn were unacceptable to Parliament.

    So what is your point?
    Are you confident that the domestic fall out from No Deal would unite the country sufficiently to come through the problems it creates, or would the British state be tested beyond its capacity?
    I am completely confident that following the UK's withdrawal from the EU we will not have "a Yugoslavia", yes.

    You are delusional to suggest otherwise. Bonkers.
    I was comparing Czechoslovakia to Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union.

    Is there a risk of renewed violence in Northern Ireland? Yes.

    How big a risk? I don"t know.

    Brexiteers don't seem to care about this, if one believes opinion polls. I find that quite shocking.

    Do I think that Britain will end up like Yugoslavia? No.

    It is nonetheless a cautionary tale for how apparently peaceful countries can very quickly fall apart when their raison d'etre vanishes. No country is immune if those in charge do not have a care for the country's structures, institutions, society etc. Unifying the country needs to mean more than a slogan.

    Do I think that there is a plan for what a No Deal Brexit means and what happens after?

    No. Perhaps one of the No Dealers will tell us what this plan, if it exists, consists of.
    To use it as an example of where no deal potentially gets us is both slightly unhinged and, in my opinion, irresponsible.



  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,377
    Dura_Ace said:

    He wouldn't last another 24 hours as tory leader if he came out with that load of crap.

    OK, so the ERG and many party members would be upset.

    But what could they do?

    And would they?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,278

    The greatest benefit to life in the UK immediately post Brexit will be the hysterical doomsters going suddenly quiet when it becomes apparent the sky isn't going to fall in as life goes on pretty much as it now.

    The hyperbole is getting utterly ridiculous and is actually counter-productive for remainers because they have painted a future of horror the day after we exit which is a bar so low as to be easily cleared by reality.

    Normal people will just shake their heads, remind themselves again not to believe Project Fear and carry on with their lives.

    Until their lives are affected, of course.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 19,795
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Scottish question? Not enough English apparently.

    “Worried English voters” don’t care about partisan point-scoring against the SNP on devolved issues.
    They dont like their interests being sacrificed for Scotland for Labour to gain office.

    There are many english issues on which SNP MPs get to decide. Voters understand that.
    Absolute bolloxs, EVIL is alive and well and SNP never vote on English only matters. More lies.
    Explain Sunday Trading and Fox Hunting then?
    Sunday trading as I have explained to you previously affected Scotland, they were given opportunity to change it to make it English only but chose not to do so. Fox hunting I have no clue or care, if your whole argument is based on that you are dafter than I could imagine, only a moron could think ripping animals to pieces for some rich oicks pleasure is of any relevance .
    It's the principle, Malc, the principle.

    https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33516713
  • felixfelix Posts: 8,995

    Excellent article. All I see from No Deal is less freedom for me, my family, my friends, my business, my fellow UK citizens and for the UK itself. I would love to understand what I am missing. Can anyone help?

    You are missing the freedom for you, and your UK family, UK friends and fellow UK citizens at UK elections to elect politicians to set laws that best suit you, your family, your friends, your business, your fellow citizens and the UK itself.

    As a voter the power will be in your and your fellow citizens hands rather than the hands of voters who are citizens of other countries.

    I already have the freedom to elect politicians to best set laws for me, my family, my friends, my business, the UK etc. After No Deal, though, it will be governments elected by people in other countries - or which are not elected at all - which decide the UK's economic and trading future, as well as the extent to which I can offer services in the EU, travel in the EU, work in the EU, move capital around the EU, and so on. I will be less free than I am now.
    Seconded! Some at least of my grandchildren are very disappointed at the reduction in future options.
    If more youngsters had bothered to vote in 2016 they'd not be disappointed.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,335
    Does Lucas' plan mean the remain campaign is starting to completely run out of ideas on how to actually stop Boris as they're not prepared for the nuclear option of installing Corbyn ?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 15,118

    nichomar said:

    So Cyclefree thinks the break with the EU could for the UK potentially be like the break up of Yugoslavia?

    This really is nuts. You people have taken leave of your sense...

    Bonkers.

    Actually she doesn’t say that at all rather pointing out the benefits of working together to achieve the separation is more fruitful than not.
    Then why quote Yugoslavia? The implication is clear. With "no deal" that is on the cards.

    I am all for "working together" but it takes two to tango. The EU says it will not negotiate on anything except the terms of the WA which as shownn were unacceptable to Parliament.

    So what is your point?
    Are you confident that the domestic fall out from No Deal would unite the country sufficiently to come through the problems it creates, or would the British state be tested beyond its capacity?
    I am completely confident that following the UK's withdrawal from the EU we will not have "a Yugoslavia", yes.

    You are delusional to suggest otherwise. Bonkers.
    Is there no country whose withdrawal from the EU could end badly, or is your ultra-confidence reserved for the UK?
    Most countries would be fine, including the UK. I cannot speak for all of Europe because i dont know every country sufficiently well.

    But what is clear is that the author's (and i suspect your) knowledge of the background to the Yugoslavian war, and the history of that part of the world generally, is deficient relative to the claim you are making.
    You are claiming something I have not said.

    "Possibly the nearest was Czechoslovakia’s division in two in 1993. That was relatively peaceful – certainly by contrast with the bloodier break-ups following the collapse of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia – and without too much dislocation."

    I specifically state that there is no precedent for what Britain is doing. Which is why it would be nice if the government were to have a plan for the weeks, months and years after 31 October.

    Is that too much to ask?
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 502
    Cyclefree said:

    nichomar said:

    So Cyclefree thinks the break with the EU could for the UK potentially be like the break up of Yugoslavia?

    This really is nuts. You people have taken leave of your sense...

    Bonkers.

    Actually she doesn’t say that at all rather pointing out the benefits of working together to achieve the separation is more fruitful than not.
    Then why quote Yugoslavia? The implication is clear. With "no deal" that is on the cards.

    I am all for "working together" but it takes two to tango. The EU says it will not negotiate on anything except the terms of the WA which as shownn were unacceptable to Parliament.

    So what is your point?
    Are you confident that the domestic fall out from No Deal would unite the country sufficiently to come through the problems it creates, or would the British state be tested beyond its capacity?
    I am completely confident that following the UK's withdrawal from the EU we will not have "a Yugoslavia", yes.

    You are delusional to suggest otherwise. Bonkers.
    I was comparing Czechoslovakia to Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union.

    Is there a risk of renewed violence in Northern Ireland? Yes.

    How big a risk? I don"t know.

    Brexiteers don't seem to care about this, if one believes opinion polls. I find that quite shocking.

    Do I think that Britain will end up like Yugoslavia? No.

    It is nonetheless a cautionary tale for how apparently peaceful countries can very quickly fall apart when their raison d'etre vanishes. No country is immune if those in charge do not have a care for the country's structures, institutions, society etc. Unifying the country needs to mean more than a slogan.

    Do I think that there is a plan for what a No Deal Brexit means and what happens after?

    No. Perhaps one of the No Dealers will tell us what this plan, if it exists, consists of.
    I have been a reader of Political Betting for many years but comment only rarely.
    However i really do think this sort of echo-chamber nonsense needs to be called out for what it is.

    No wonder most of the country has switched off.

    And, as i say, i voted "Remain" in 2016.
  • felixfelix Posts: 8,995

    I see labour are tackling the big issues again today....war on grouse shooting.

    It's an upgrade on fre Owls!
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 23,370
    edited August 12
    Morning all. @CycleFree is quite right: crashing out with no transition is an unthinkable jump into the unknown, for which there is now no time to plan properly, and even if there were, there's a lot you simply cannot plan for. It is, quite simply, utter madness, which no responsible government could contemplate.

    I see there has been some discussion of the excellent Institute for Goverment paper on what MPs can do to stop this madness. I don't know if this has already been covered, but there is a very significant passage on page 11, which seems to me (IANAL etc) to offer a way out of the very considerable difficulties. This is the first time I've seen a specific proposal which might actually work:

    MPs could try to amend the motion of no confidence itself, so that it gave MPs control of the order paper on designated days. If MPs took this approach, then the motion (as amended) if passed would, almost certainly, not be effective under the Act – although such an amendment would need to be ruled in scope.

    This means that even if the government lost, that loss would not automatically trigger the 14-day period when other MPs could attempt to form a government, and which would result in a general election if none could. But it would still give control of the order paper to backbenchers.


    This strikes me as extremely smart. The idea would be for Corbyn to table a VONC, but for the effect of the VONC not to be to bring down the government (which is highly dangerous as a route to stopping No Deal, as the paper explains elsewhere, and also very difficult for Tory MPs), but as a ruse to get control of the parliamentary timetable. Once sane MPs have control of the timetable, they can, with the help of a no-doubt sympathetic Speaker, start legislating for sanity, starting with appointing a High Representative for Article 50 Extension, authorised by parliament to request an extension.

    Dunno if it would work, but it looks the best chance to me. Otherwise it's Ms CycleFree's scenario of doom.

    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/parliament-role-before-31-october-brexit-FINAL.pdf
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,123

    The greatest benefit to life in the UK immediately post Brexit will be the hysterical doomsters going suddenly quiet when it becomes apparent the sky isn't going to fall in as life goes on pretty much as it now.

    The hyperbole is getting utterly ridiculous and is actually counter-productive for remainers because they have painted a future of horror the day after we exit which is a bar so low as to be easily cleared by reality.

    Normal people will just shake their heads, remind themselves again not to believe Project Fear and carry on with their lives.

    Straw Man Alert!
    Remainers are not claiming that the sky will fall in. Rather leavers are claiming that remainers are claiming that the sky will fall in.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 23,881
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    So if the £ collapses to, say, 0.5 euros Germany will go bust?

    It's a view.....
    If the £ collapses to € then German exports to the UK will be twice as expensive, while British exports to the EU will be half as expensive. Do you disagree?
    Yes of course but the fall in the £ since 2016 has not led to any improvement in the UK's balance of trade. However it has led to a considerable increase in UK import prices which means that living standards here are lower then would otherwise have been the case.
    Actually there hasn't been a considerable increase in inflation, inflation is actually below and not above target. So you're wrong there.

    As for the UK's balance of trade, we just posted our first trade surplus in eight years: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade
    There has been a SIGNIFICANT rise in inflation since the vote in 2016. From under 1% to peaking above 3%, well above the BoE TARGET of 2%.

    Oh wait, a two percentage points rise in the rate of inflation to you is marginal. God help us if under those terms we ever get what you might term a substantial rise in inflation.
    Inflation peaked 0.1% above the BoE letter writing threshold of 3% and came back down under control the next month.

    Any variation within the 2% bounds of 1% to 3% is normal and marginal yes. Inflation above 3% or below 1% is concerning, hence the letters being necessary at that point and no letter necessary to explain why we have LOW INFLATION at 1.9% as because our inflation being BELOW TARGET it is still within acceptable bounds.
    Letter writing threshold is one percentage point above the TARGET. Inflation has been above TARGET for quite some time.

    Low inflation = 1.9%, eh? I take it your application for next governor of the BoE has been submitted?
    "Inflation has been above TARGET for quite some time" at a time when it is 1.9% and target is 2%?

    Please explain to me when 1.9% became above 2%. I think we're getting to the root of your misunderstanding.

    Yes 1.9% is low. It is acceptably low, it is within bounds.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129

    I see labour are tackling the big issues again today....war on grouse shooting.

    Labour's policy offering is for the birds.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,940
    edited August 12
    felix said:

    Excellent article. All I see from No Deal is less freedom for me, my family, my friends, my business, my fellow UK citizens and for the UK itself. I would love to understand what I am missing. Can anyone help?

    You are missing the freedom for you, and your UK family, UK friends and fellow UK citizens at UK elections to elect politicians to set laws that best suit you, your family, your friends, your business, your fellow citizens and the UK itself.

    As a voter the power will be in your and your fellow citizens hands rather than the hands of voters who are citizens of other countries.

    I already have the freedom to elect politicians to best set laws for me, my family, my friends, my business, the UK etc. After No Deal, though, it will be governments elected by people in other countries - or which are not elected at all - which decide the UK's economic and trading future, as well as the extent to which I can offer services in the EU, travel in the EU, work in the EU, move capital around the EU, and so on. I will be less free than I am now.
    Seconded! Some at least of my grandchildren are very disappointed at the reduction in future options.
    If more youngsters had bothered to vote in 2016 they'd not be disappointed.
    Agreed; my two grandchildren (and granddaughter-in-law) who can vote did so. The one who's so cut up is 16.
    Pompous statement; I was brought up to do my civic duty and did my best to do the same with my children and encourage them to so the same with their children.
  • felixfelix Posts: 8,995
    Pulpstar said:

    Does Lucas' plan mean the remain campaign is starting to completely run out of ideas on how to actually stop Boris as they're not prepared for the nuclear option of installing Corbyn ?

    I thought she wanted a GOWW!
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 502
    eristdoof said:

    The greatest benefit to life in the UK immediately post Brexit will be the hysterical doomsters going suddenly quiet when it becomes apparent the sky isn't going to fall in as life goes on pretty much as it now.

    The hyperbole is getting utterly ridiculous and is actually counter-productive for remainers because they have painted a future of horror the day after we exit which is a bar so low as to be easily cleared by reality.

    Normal people will just shake their heads, remind themselves again not to believe Project Fear and carry on with their lives.

    Straw Man Alert!
    Remainers are not claiming that the sky will fall in. Rather leavers are claiming that remainers are claiming that the sky will fall in.
    To suggest that the UK could end up like Yugolsavia potentially, as this article does, i think rather gives the lie to your claim.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 19,795
    edited August 12

    Morning all. @CycleFree is quite right: crashing out with no transition is an unthinkable jump into the unknown, for which there is now no time to plan properly, and even if there were, there's a lot you simply cannot plan for. It is, quite simply, utter madness, which no responsible government could contemplate.

    I see there has been some discussion of the excellent Institute for Goverment paper on what MPs can do to stop this madness. I don't know if this has already been covered, but there is a very significant passage on page 11, which seems to me (IANAL etc) to offer a way out of the very considerable difficulties. This is the first time I've seen a specific proposal which might actually work:

    MPs could try to amend the motion of no confidence itself, so that it gave MPs control of the order paper on designated days. If MPs took this approach, then the motion (as amended) if passed would, almost certainly, not be effective under the Act – although such an amendment would need to be ruled in scope.

    This means that even if the government lost, that loss would not automatically trigger the 14-day period when other MPs could attempt to form a government, and which would result in a general election if none could. But it would still give control of the order paper to backbenchers.


    This strikes me as extremely smart. The idea would be for Corbyn to table a VONC, but for the effect of the VONC not to be to bring down the government (which is highly dangerous as a route to stopping No Deal, as the paper explains elsewhere, and also very difficult for Tory MPs), but as a ruse to get control of the parliamentary timetable. Once sane MPs have control of the timetable, they can, with the help of a no-doubt sympathetic Speaker, start legislating for sanity, starting with appointing a High Representative for Article 50 Extension, authorised by parliament to request an extension.

    Dunno if it would work, but it looks the best chance to me. Otherwise it's Ms CycleFree's scenario of doom.

    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/parliament-role-before-31-october-brexit-FINAL.pdf

    My previous albeit, yes, weak joke was significantly under-appreciated. The rebels should recruit Andy Serkis because he is a master of motion capture.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129

    felix said:

    Excellent article. All I see from No Deal is less freedom for me, my family, my friends, my business, my fellow UK citizens and for the UK itself. I would love to understand what I am missing. Can anyone help?

    You are missing the freedom for you, and your UK family, UK friends and fellow UK citizens at UK elections to elect politicians to set laws that best suit you, your family, your friends, your business, your fellow citizens and the UK itself.

    As a voter the power will be in your and your fellow citizens hands rather than the hands of voters who are citizens of other countries.

    I already have the freedom to elect politicians to best set laws for me, my family, my friends, my business, the UK etc. After No Deal, though, it will be governments elected by people in other countries - or which are not elected at all - which decide the UK's economic and trading future, as well as the extent to which I can offer services in the EU, travel in the EU, work in the EU, move capital around the EU, and so on. I will be less free than I am now.
    Seconded! Some at least of my grandchildren are very disappointed at the reduction in future options.
    If more youngsters had bothered to vote in 2016 they'd not be disappointed.
    Agreed; my two grandchildren (and granddaughter-in-law) who can vote did so. The one who's so cut up is 16.
    Is, or was?
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 502
    Cyclefree said:

    nichomar said:

    So Cyclefree thinks the break with the EU could for the UK potentially be like the break up of Yugoslavia?

    This really is nuts. You people have taken leave of your sense...

    Bonkers.

    Actually she doesn’t say that at all rather pointing out the benefits of working together to achieve the separation is more fruitful than not.
    Then why quote Yugoslavia? The implication is clear. With "no deal" that is on the cards.

    I am all for "working together" but it takes two to tango. The EU says it will not negotiate on anything except the terms of the WA which as shownn were unacceptable to Parliament.

    So what is your point?
    Are you confident that the domestic fall out from No Deal would unite the country sufficiently to come through the problems it creates, or would the British state be tested beyond its capacity?
    I am completely confident that following the UK's withdrawal from the EU we will not have "a Yugoslavia", yes.

    You are delusional to suggest otherwise. Bonkers.
    Is there no country whose withdrawal from the EU could end badly, or is your ultra-confidence reserved for the UK?
    Most countries would be fine, including the UK. I cannot speak for all of Europe because i dont know every country sufficiently well.

    But what is clear is that the author's (and i suspect your) knowledge of the background to the Yugoslavian war, and the history of that part of the world generally, is deficient relative to the claim you are making.
    You are claiming something I have not said.

    "Possibly the nearest was Czechoslovakia’s division in two in 1993. That was relatively peaceful – certainly by contrast with the bloodier break-ups following the collapse of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia – and without too much dislocation."

    I specifically state that there is no precedent for what Britain is doing. Which is why it would be nice if the government were to have a plan for the weeks, months and years after 31 October.

    Is that too much to ask?
    You claim that the Yugoslav break-up, by association, is a potential alternative.

    This is utter, unhinged nonsense.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 23,881

    As a voter the power will be in your and your fellow citizens hands rather than the hands of voters who are citizens of other countries.

    And yet, on election night TV coverage never shows us how people in Germany, France or Italy voted in our UK elections.

    "And The Tories are short of a majority thanks to voters in Belguim voting Lib Dem..."
    So laws are only set in our UK Parliament? Not the European Parliament?

    I can live with that then.
    We set our laws in our own Parliament as always. We send both elected MEPs and HMG appointed representatives to agree Europe-wide laws.

    There are no dictators involved.
    Who said anything about dictators? Not me. I have never once compared the EU to a dictatorship.

    So you are saying that voters in Germany, France and Italy do get to set Europe-wide laws that apply to the UK. As I said. Post-Brexit those laws can be UK-wide only and we get to set them with our own voters.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 657

    Morning all. @CycleFree is quite right: crashing out with no transition is an unthinkable jump into the unknown, for which there is now no time to plan properly, and even if there were, there's a lot you simply cannot plan for. It is, quite simply, utter madness, which no responsible government could contemplate.

    I see there has been some discussion of the excellent Institute for Goverment paper on what MPs can do to stop this madness. I don't know if this has already been covered, but there is a very significant passage on page 11, which seems to me (IANAL etc) to offer a way out of the very considerable difficulties. This is the first time I've seen a specific proposal which might actually work:

    MPs could try to amend the motion of no confidence itself, so that it gave MPs control of the order paper on designated days. If MPs took this approach, then the motion (as amended) if passed would, almost certainly, not be effective under the Act – although such an amendment would need to be ruled in scope.

    This means that even if the government lost, that loss would not automatically trigger the 14-day period when other MPs could attempt to form a government, and which would result in a general election if none could. But it would still give control of the order paper to backbenchers.


    This strikes me as extremely smart. The idea would be for Corbyn to table a VONC, but for the effect of the VONC not to be to bring down the government (which is highly dangerous as a route to stopping No Deal, as the paper explains elsewhere, and also very difficult for Tory MPs), but as a ruse to get control of the parliamentary timetable. Once sane MPs have control of the timetable, they can, with the help of a no-doubt sympathetic Speaker, start legislating for sanity, starting with appointing a High Representative for Article 50 Extension, authorised by parliament to request an extension.

    Dunno if it would work, but it looks the best chance to me. Otherwise it's Ms CycleFree's scenario of doom.

    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/parliament-role-before-31-october-brexit-FINAL.pdf

    Let us hope that sanity prevails in that case.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,377
    ydoethur said:

    Labour's policy offering is for the birds.

    But wouldn't you prefer one in the hand from Labour to two in the bush with Boris Johnson?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 8,014
    Zephyr said:

    On topic.

    I think the value bet is brexit never happens.

    Too many people with money and influence in this country know brexiteers have it wrong.

    The fundamental flaw in brexit is the beef is with the political dimension of the EU, not the economic integration. Switzerland is not actually in the EU but has a closer economic integration today than we will have on the outside. And that’s the flaw in the brexit plan, believing to deal with your issues with the political integration you have to become hostile to the economic integration, taking a different global Britain path.

    You don’t. Quite simply in years to come with the benefit of hindsight everyone will say you don’t.

    That may well be true, but if we look at history we can see plenty of examples of countries that cause themselves economic harm to make a political point.

    I think it was de Valera who led Ireland into an "economic war" against Britain, for example. Perhaps, sometimes, it is necessary for a country to overreact for a while before it can approach the relationship more rationally.

    From a purely selfish perspective I don't want the next twenty years of my life to coincide with such a "learning experience" for my country, but that doesn't mean it isn't about to happen.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 15,851

    I see labour are tackling the big issues again today....war on grouse shooting.

    Giving the toffs a kick in the nads. I think that can be described as appealing to the base.

    Pity the announcement doesn't go further.
    Giving them a good boot up the arse as well?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129
    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    Labour's policy offering is for the birds.

    But wouldn't you prefer one in the hand from Labour to two in the bush with Boris Johnson?
    That could be misinterpreted given the sexual proclivities of both of them!
  • eristdoof said:



    Straw Man Alert!
    Remainers are not claiming that the sky will fall in. Rather leavers are claiming that remainers are claiming that the sky will fall in.

    Seriously?

    The hysterical nonsense from a number of the usual suspects has been ongoing for a good while now.

    Brexit will actually be healthy for some of them as it should hopefully allow them to find some closure for the sake of their own mental health.

    And it isn't just remainers on here who have become unhinged...there are a number of public figures who have also been driven seemingly crazy.
  • CurrystardogCurrystardog Posts: 110
    edited August 12

    Morning all. @CycleFree is quite right: crashing out with no transition is an unthinkable jump into the unknown, for which there is now no time to plan properly, and even if there were, there's a lot you simply cannot plan for. It is, quite simply, utter madness, which no responsible government could contemplate.

    I see there has been some discussion of the excellent Institute for Goverment paper on what MPs can do to stop this madness. I don't know if this has already been covered, but there is a very significant passage on page 11, which seems to me (IANAL etc) to offer a way out of the very considerable difficulties. This is the first time I've seen a specific proposal which might actually work:

    MPs could try to amend the motion of no confidence itself, so that it gave MPs control of the order paper on designated days. If MPs took this approach, then the motion (as amended) if passed would, almost certainly, not be effective under the Act – although such an amendment would need to be ruled in scope.

    This means that even if the government lost, that loss would not automatically trigger the 14-day period when other MPs could attempt to form a government, and which would result in a general election if none could. But it would still give control of the order paper to backbenchers.


    This strikes me as extremely smart. The idea would be for Corbyn to table a VONC, but for the effect of the VONC not to be to bring down the government (which is highly dangerous as a route to stopping No Deal, as the paper explains elsewhere, and also very difficult for Tory MPs), but as a ruse to get control of the parliamentary timetable. Once sane MPs have control of the timetable, they can, with the help of a no-doubt sympathetic Speaker, start legislating for sanity, starting with appointing a High Representative for Article 50 Extension, authorised by parliament to request an extension.

    Dunno if it would work, but it looks the best chance to me. Otherwise it's Ms CycleFree's scenario of doom.

    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/parliament-role-before-31-october-brexit-FINAL.pdf

    Isn't what you are suggesting just Parliament legislating to remain?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,278

    Morning all. @CycleFree is quite right: crashing out with no transition is an unthinkable jump into the unknown, for which there is now no time to plan properly, and even if there were, there's a lot you simply cannot plan for. It is, quite simply, utter madness, which no responsible government could contemplate.

    I see there has been some discussion of the excellent Institute for Goverment paper on what MPs can do to stop this madness. I don't know if this has already been covered, but there is a very significant passage on page 11, which seems to me (IANAL etc) to offer a way out of the very considerable difficulties. This is the first time I've seen a specific proposal which might actually work:

    MPs could try to amend the motion of no confidence itself, so that it gave MPs control of the order paper on designated days. If MPs took this approach, then the motion (as amended) if passed would, almost certainly, not be effective under the Act – although such an amendment would need to be ruled in scope.

    This means that even if the government lost, that loss would not automatically trigger the 14-day period when other MPs could attempt to form a government, and which would result in a general election if none could. But it would still give control of the order paper to backbenchers.


    This strikes me as extremely smart. The idea would be for Corbyn to table a VONC, but for the effect of the VONC not to be to bring down the government (which is highly dangerous as a route to stopping No Deal, as the paper explains elsewhere, and also very difficult for Tory MPs), but as a ruse to get control of the parliamentary timetable. Once sane MPs have control of the timetable, they can, with the help of a no-doubt sympathetic Speaker, start legislating for sanity, starting with appointing a High Representative for Article 50 Extension, authorised by parliament to request an extension.

    Dunno if it would work, but it looks the best chance to me. Otherwise it's Ms CycleFree's scenario of doom.

    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/parliament-role-before-31-october-brexit-FINAL.pdf

    My guess is that any attempt to prevent a No Deal Brexit that is dependent on Jeremy Corbyn playing ball is doomed to failure. This is the reason why I cannot see how we do not crash out on 31st October.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 23,881
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Scottish question? Not enough English apparently.

    “Worried English voters” don’t care about partisan point-scoring against the SNP on devolved issues.
    They dont like their interests being sacrificed for Scotland for Labour to gain office.

    There are many english issues on which SNP MPs get to decide. Voters understand that.
    Absolute bolloxs, EVIL is alive and well and SNP never vote on English only matters. More lies.
    Explain Sunday Trading and Fox Hunting then?
    Sunday trading as I have explained to you previously affected Scotland, they were given opportunity to change it to make it English only but chose not to do so. Fox hunting I have no clue or care, if your whole argument is based on that you are dafter than I could imagine, only a moron could think ripping animals to pieces for some rich oicks pleasure is of any relevance .
    It didn't apply to Scotland.

    The SNP argued it affected Scotland indirectly despite not applying whatsoever to Scotland, using such butterfly affect arguments anything can be deigned to not be English only making the entire argument moot.

    I oppose Fox Hunting, but the principle is of relevance.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 15,851

    nichomar said:

    So Cyclefree thinks the break with the EU could for the UK potentially be like the break up of Yugoslavia?

    This really is nuts. You people have taken leave of your sense...

    Bonkers.

    Actually she doesn’t say that at all rather pointing out the benefits of working together to achieve the separation is more fruitful than not.
    Then why quote Yugoslavia? The implication is clear. With "no deal" that is on the cards.

    I am all for "working together" but it takes two to tango. The EU says it will not negotiate on anything except the terms of the WA which as shownn were unacceptable to Parliament.

    So what is your point?
    Are you confident that the domestic fall out from No Deal would unite the country sufficiently to come through the problems it creates, or would the British state be tested beyond its capacity?
    I am completely confident that following the UK's withdrawal from the EU we will not have "a Yugoslavia", yes.

    You are delusional to suggest otherwise. Bonkers.
    Is there no country whose withdrawal from the EU could end badly, or is your ultra-confidence reserved for the UK?
    Most countries would be fine, including the UK. I cannot speak for all of Europe because i dont know every country sufficiently well.

    But what is clear is that the author's (and i suspect your) knowledge of the background to the Yugoslavian war, and the history of that part of the world generally, is deficient relative to the claim you are making.
    Any analysis of the UK that concludes that a break up marred by violence is impossible no matter the circumstances shows a deficient understanding of the history of these islands.
    We're gonna negotiate this difficult transition without a single bullet being fired. Look at the precedents.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,940
    edited August 12
    ydoethur said:

    felix said:

    Excellent article. All I see from No Deal is less freedom for me, my family, my friends, my business, my fellow UK citizens and for the UK itself. I would love to understand what I am missing. Can anyone help?

    You are missing the freedom for you, and your UK family, UK friends and fellow UK citizens at UK elections to elect politicians to set laws that best suit you, your family, your friends, your business, your fellow citizens and the UK itself.

    As a voter the power will be in your and your fellow citizens hands rather than the hands of voters who are citizens of other countries.

    I already have the freedom to elect politicians to best set laws for me, my family, my friends, my business, the UK etc. After No Deal, though, it will be governments elected by people in other countries - or which are not elected at all - which decide the UK's economic and trading future, as well as the extent to which I can offer services in the EU, travel in the EU, work in the EU, move capital around the EU, and so on. I will be less free than I am now.
    Seconded! Some at least of my grandchildren are very disappointed at the reduction in future options.
    If more youngsters had bothered to vote in 2016 they'd not be disappointed.
    Agreed; my two grandchildren (and granddaughter-in-law) who can vote did so. The one who's so cut up is 16.
    Is, or was?
    Is. Currently waiting for GCSE results.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 19,795

    "Inflation has been above TARGET for quite some time" at a time when it is 1.9% and target is 2%?

    Please explain to me when 1.9% became above 2%. I think we're getting to the root of your misunderstanding.

    Yes 1.9% is low. It is acceptably low, it is within bounds.

    Oh No!!

    We've got to go back to the graph!!!

    Please take a look to inform yourself. Any special requirements on how to read the picture please let me know.

    TYIA.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Why would Corbyn just try to get us to remain?

    He doesn't like the EU. He doesn't like the Conservatives. He doesn't like the UK. The Conservatives taking the UK out of the EU in a cackhanded manner is a triple triumph for Corbyn.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,278

    As a voter the power will be in your and your fellow citizens hands rather than the hands of voters who are citizens of other countries.

    And yet, on election night TV coverage never shows us how people in Germany, France or Italy voted in our UK elections.

    "And The Tories are short of a majority thanks to voters in Belguim voting Lib Dem..."
    So laws are only set in our UK Parliament? Not the European Parliament?

    I can live with that then.
    We set our laws in our own Parliament as always. We send both elected MEPs and HMG appointed representatives to agree Europe-wide laws.

    There are no dictators involved.
    Who said anything about dictators? Not me. I have never once compared the EU to a dictatorship.

    So you are saying that voters in Germany, France and Italy do get to set Europe-wide laws that apply to the UK. As I said. Post-Brexit those laws can be UK-wide only and we get to set them with our own voters.

    Just as UK voters have set Europe-wide laws that apply in Germany, France and Italy. Which laws that have been set do you object to? There must be dozens. You cannot seriously want to diminish the UK generally, weaken our economy and make British citizens and companies less free than they are now solely to ensure that the UK Parliament can make laws in certain areas that to all intents and purposes will look like those which would have been made anyway via the EU.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 11,651

    Morning all. @CycleFree is quite right: crashing out with no transition is an unthinkable jump into the unknown, for which there is now no time to plan properly, and even if there were, there's a lot you simply cannot plan for. It is, quite simply, utter madness, which no responsible government could contemplate.

    I see there has been some discussion of the excellent Institute for Goverment paper on what MPs can do to stop this madness. I don't know if this has already been covered, but there is a very significant passage on page 11, which seems to me (IANAL etc) to offer a way out of the very considerable difficulties. This is the first time I've seen a specific proposal which might actually work:

    MPs could try to amend the motion of no confidence itself, so that it gave MPs control of the order paper on designated days. If MPs took this approach, then the motion (as amended) if passed would, almost certainly, not be effective under the Act – although such an amendment would need to be ruled in scope.

    This means that even if the government lost, that loss would not automatically trigger the 14-day period when other MPs could attempt to form a government, and which would result in a general election if none could. But it would still give control of the order paper to backbenchers.


    This strikes me as extremely smart. The idea would be for Corbyn to table a VONC, but for the effect of the VONC not to be to bring down the government (which is highly dangerous as a route to stopping No Deal, as the paper explains elsewhere, and also very difficult for Tory MPs), but as a ruse to get control of the parliamentary timetable. Once sane MPs have control of the timetable, they can, with the help of a no-doubt sympathetic Speaker, start legislating for sanity, starting with appointing a High Representative for Article 50 Extension, authorised by parliament to request an extension.

    Dunno if it would work, but it looks the best chance to me. Otherwise it's Ms CycleFree's scenario of doom.

    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/parliament-role-before-31-october-brexit-FINAL.pdf

    If that happened, then I think Boris should go to the Palace and recommend that Her Maj sends for Corbyn.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 15,851
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Scottish question? Not enough English apparently.

    “Worried English voters” don’t care about partisan point-scoring against the SNP on devolved issues.
    They dont like their interests being sacrificed for Scotland for Labour to gain office.

    There are many english issues on which SNP MPs get to decide. Voters understand that.
    Absolute bolloxs, EVIL is alive and well and SNP never vote on English only matters. More lies.
    Explain Sunday Trading and Fox Hunting then?
    Sunday trading as I have explained to you previously affected Scotland, they were given opportunity to change it to make it English only but chose not to do so. Fox hunting I have no clue or care, if your whole argument is based on that you are dafter than I could imagine, only a moron could think ripping animals to pieces for some rich oicks pleasure is of any relevance .
    Actually the SNP didn't vote on the fox hunting legislation, they only threatened to, and brave Sir Cam ran away. Job done.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 23,370

    Isn't what you are suggesting just Parliament legislating to remain?

    No, although it might have to come to that. But that is for later, once we've got time as a country to consider what we actually want. The first stage is to remove the October 31st cliff-edge, which is brain-dead even under the stated policy of our esteemed PM (he still claims he wants a deal, which is clearly impossible by October 31st, even in the unlikely event that the EU were happy to meet his conditions).
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 502

    I see labour are tackling the big issues again today....war on grouse shooting.

    Giving the toffs a kick in the nads. I think that can be described as appealing to the base.

    Pity the announcement doesn't go further.
    Giving them a good boot up the arse as well?

    eristdoof said:



    Straw Man Alert!
    Remainers are not claiming that the sky will fall in. Rather leavers are claiming that remainers are claiming that the sky will fall in.

    Seriously?

    The hysterical nonsense from a number of the usual suspects has been ongoing for a good while now.

    Brexit will actually be healthy for some of them as it should hopefully allow them to find some closure for the sake of their own mental health.

    And it isn't just remainers on here who have become unhinged...there are a number of public figures who have also been driven seemingly crazy.


    Completely agree.

    A lot of us are utterly fed up with some of the increasing nonsense spouted by Cyclefree, Alistair Meeks etc.

    Fine to have a view. Staying in the EU and revoking Article 50 are all perfectly reasonable views to hold. But some of the worse nonsense we see on this site does increasingly need to be called out.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,123

    To compare post-Brexit UK potentially to Yugoslavia is completely and utterly deranged.

    It shows the absurd levels to which the Remain argument has sunk. Brexit has driven some people almost literally mad.

    I write as someone who voted 'Remain".

    But she didn't compare Brexit to Yugolslavia. Read the Article again.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,278
    edited August 12
    felix said:

    I see labour are tackling the big issues again today....war on grouse shooting.

    It's an upgrade on fre Owls!

    Now that the Tories have decided to embrace the magic money tree Labour has to look for other differentiators. They have won the spending argument, bizarrely.

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 3,825
    edited August 12
    kinabalu said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    He wouldn't last another 24 hours as tory leader if he came out with that load of crap.

    OK, so the ERG and many party members would be upset.

    But what could they do?

    And would they?
    The only part of the Leave coalition that might be fine with it would be the bewildered elderly; a significant proportion of whom think we've already left and that it is always Wednesday.

    The other two pillars of The Leave Project (thick as fuck WWC and disaster capitalists) would not stand for it so the tories would depose Boris to replace him with anybody who promised No Deal like I,Raabot.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 23,370
    tlg86 said:

    If that happened, then I think Boris should go to the Palace and recommend that Her Maj sends for Corbyn.

    That would be an excellent outcome for the Conservative Party. Dumping the problem in Corbyn's lap, with no majority to actually do anything other than stop the madness of the crash-out, whilst at the same time discrediting Boris in the eyes of his current temporary fans, would be a double win for the party.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 8,014

    Morning all. @CycleFree is quite right: crashing out with no transition is an unthinkable jump into the unknown, for which there is now no time to plan properly, and even if there were, there's a lot you simply cannot plan for. It is, quite simply, utter madness, which no responsible government could contemplate.

    I see there has been some discussion of the excellent Institute for Goverment paper on what MPs can do to stop this madness. I don't know if this has already been covered, but there is a very significant passage on page 11, which seems to me (IANAL etc) to offer a way out of the very considerable difficulties. This is the first time I've seen a specific proposal which might actually work:

    MPs could try to amend the motion of no confidence itself, so that it gave MPs control of the order paper on designated days. If MPs took this approach, then the motion (as amended) if passed would, almost certainly, not be effective under the Act – although such an amendment would need to be ruled in scope.

    This means that even if the government lost, that loss would not automatically trigger the 14-day period when other MPs could attempt to form a government, and which would result in a general election if none could. But it would still give control of the order paper to backbenchers.


    This strikes me as extremely smart. The idea would be for Corbyn to table a VONC, but for the effect of the VONC not to be to bring down the government (which is highly dangerous as a route to stopping No Deal, as the paper explains elsewhere, and also very difficult for Tory MPs), but as a ruse to get control of the parliamentary timetable. Once sane MPs have control of the timetable, they can, with the help of a no-doubt sympathetic Speaker, start legislating for sanity, starting with appointing a High Representative for Article 50 Extension, authorised by parliament to request an extension.

    Dunno if it would work, but it looks the best chance to me. Otherwise it's Ms CycleFree's scenario of doom.

    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/parliament-role-before-31-october-brexit-FINAL.pdf

    My guess is that any attempt to prevent a No Deal Brexit that is dependent on Jeremy Corbyn playing ball is doomed to failure. This is the reason why I cannot see how we do not crash out on 31st October.

    In the mooted scenario I don't see why Corbyn wouldn't whip against any amendment that would stop the VoNC from being a VoNC, and I'd have thought it would be ruled out of order as a wrecking amendment (though I could see Bercow allowing it).

    I'm inclined to agree that Corbyn is an impediment.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,377
    Nigelb said:
    Kamala looking a bit clingy there. Liz the steady parent.

    One of these 2 gets it, I think.

    Or perhaps both. Wonder if they could be a joint ticket?
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 502
    eristdoof said:

    To compare post-Brexit UK potentially to Yugoslavia is completely and utterly deranged.

    It shows the absurd levels to which the Remain argument has sunk. Brexit has driven some people almost literally mad.

    I write as someone who voted 'Remain".

    But she didn't compare Brexit to Yugolslavia. Read the Article again.
    She did. By association. Where agreement is not reached.

    It is an hysterical and unhelpful simile. And sadly increasingly representative of the "remain" debate.
  • theakestheakes Posts: 363
    Government falls, a unity type alternatives does take over, then what either another referendum or probably leave the EU with Mrs May's deal., the irony of it all.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 23,881
    TOPPING said:

    "Inflation has been above TARGET for quite some time" at a time when it is 1.9% and target is 2%?

    Please explain to me when 1.9% became above 2%. I think we're getting to the root of your misunderstanding.

    Yes 1.9% is low. It is acceptably low, it is within bounds.

    Oh No!!

    We've got to go back to the graph!!!

    Please take a look to inform yourself. Any special requirements on how to read the picture please let me know.

    TYIA.

    The graph shows a period of inflation being dangerously low and out of control, when the Governor of the Bank of England had to write repeated letters how to get it back under control . . . then it being under control throughout minus a small bump above target where he wrote a letter but it was back under control the next month.

    Now sure what you're getting from the graph other than that? Unless, perhaps out of some naive ignorance, you think the trough on the graph during which the Governor was writing how to get inflation back under control is somehow a baseline and not an aberration?
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 502
    Dura_Ace said:

    kinabalu said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    He wouldn't last another 24 hours as tory leader if he came out with that load of crap.

    OK, so the ERG and many party members would be upset.

    But what could they do?

    And would they?
    The only part of the Leave coalition that might be fine with it would be the bewildered elderly; a significant proportion of whom think we've already left and that it is always Wednesday.

    The other two pillars of The Leave Project (thick as fuck WWC and disaster capitalists) would not stand for it so the tories would depose Boris to replace him with anybody who promised No Deal like I,Raabot.
    This is just appalling and foolish as a level of debate and interaction.

    So all 17.4m people who voted to leave are either "elderly", "thick as fuck white working class" or "disaster capitalists"??!!

    Jesus Christ are you people unhinged....
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 657

    Why would Corbyn just try to get us to remain?

    He doesn't like the EU. He doesn't like the Conservatives. He doesn't like the UK. The Conservatives taking the UK out of the EU in a cackhanded manner is a triple triumph for Corbyn.

    Perhaps because no politician wants to be holding the Brexit parcel when the music stops ... :D
  • nichomar said:

    So Cyclefree thinks the break with the EU could for the UK potentially be like the break up of Yugoslavia?

    This really is nuts. You people have taken leave of your sense...

    Bonkers.

    Actually she doesn’t say that at all rather pointing out the benefits of working together to achieve the separation is more fruitful than not.
    Then why quote Yugoslavia? The implication is clear. With "no deal" that is on the cards.

    I am all for "working together" but it takes two to tango. The EU says it will not negotiate on anything except the terms of the WA which as shownn were unacceptable to Parliament.

    So what is your point?
    Are you confident that the domestic fall out from No Deal would unite the country sufficiently to come through the problems it creates, or would the British state be tested beyond its capacity?
    I am completely confident that following the UK's withdrawal from the EU we will not have "a Yugoslavia", yes.

    You are delusional to suggest otherwise. Bonkers.
    Is there no country whose withdrawal from the EU could end badly, or is your ultra-confidence reserved for the UK?
    Most countries would be fine, including the UK. I cannot speak for all of Europe because i dont know every country sufficiently well.

    But what is clear is that the author's (and i suspect your) knowledge of the background to the Yugoslavian war, and the history of that part of the world generally, is deficient relative to the claim you are making.
    Any analysis of the UK that concludes that a break up marred by violence is impossible no matter the circumstances shows a deficient understanding of the history of these islands.
    We're gonna negotiate this difficult transition without a single bullet being fired. Look at the precedents.
    Jo Cox?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 23,881

    felix said:

    I see labour are tackling the big issues again today....war on grouse shooting.

    It's an upgrade on fre Owls!

    Now that the Tories have decided to embrace the magic money tree labour has to look for other differentiators. They have won the spending argument, bizarrely.

    No the Tories haven't. They've gone back to Cameron's "sharing the proceeds of growth", the Tories aren't expanding the deficit at a time of a high deficit.
  • eristdoof said:


    But she didn't compare Brexit to Yugolslavia. Read the Article again.

    Yes she did, read the last paragraph.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 23,370

    In the mooted scenario I don't see why Corbyn wouldn't whip against any amendment that would stop the VoNC from being a VoNC, and I'd have thought it would be ruled out of order as a wrecking amendment (though I could see Bercow allowing it).

    I'm inclined to agree that Corbyn is an impediment.

    I'm not sure he could whip against such an amendment. To do so would make Labour directly and unambiguously responsible for not preventing crash-out (and to be fair, Labour supported Cooper-Boles, which was similar).

    I agree with you and Southam on Corbyn and his minders being a large part of the problem, though.
  • glwglw Posts: 5,372

    My guess is that any attempt to prevent a No Deal Brexit that is dependent on Jeremy Corbyn playing ball is doomed to failure. This is the reason why I cannot see how we do not crash out on 31st October.

    Yes all these whizzo plans to stop no-deal Brexit look fine until you realise that they require Corbyn making all the right moves.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Mrs C, Labour MPs could've backed the deal. They preferred to be partisan (if they actually wanted no deal, as per the ERG, that'd be a different matter).

    Almost nobody has covered themselves in glory. The front benches are narrow-minded idiots, by and large, and both Remain and Leave MPs have conspired to bugger things up.

    It reeks of the Angeli dynasty.


  • Jo Cox?

    Why would you bring up the actions of one mentally ill individual?

    I could see the value in warning remainers about playing with fire in attempting to subvert the will of 17+ million people but even that would be sinking down to the nutty level already occupied by those same remainers.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 15,851
    edited August 12

    nichomar said:

    So Cyclefree thinks the break with the EU could for the UK potentially be like the break up of Yugoslavia?

    This really is nuts. You people have taken leave of your sense...

    Bonkers.

    Actually she doesn’t say that at all rather pointing out the benefits of working together to achieve the separation is more fruitful than not.
    Then why quote Yugoslavia? The implication is clear. With "no deal" that is on the cards.

    I am all for "working together" but it takes two to tango. The EU says it will not negotiate on anything except the terms of the WA which as shownn were unacceptable to Parliament.

    So what is your point?
    Are you confident that the domestic fall out from No Deal would unite the country sufficiently to come through the problems it creates, or would the British state be tested beyond its capacity?
    I am completely confident that following the UK's withdrawal from the EU we will not have "a Yugoslavia", yes.

    You are delusional to suggest otherwise. Bonkers.
    Is there no country whose withdrawal from the EU could end badly, or is your ultra-confidence reserved for the UK?
    Most countries would be fine, including the UK. I cannot speak for all of Europe because i dont know every country sufficiently well.

    But what is clear is that the author's (and i suspect your) knowledge of the background to the Yugoslavian war, and the history of that part of the world generally, is deficient relative to the claim you are making.
    Any analysis of the UK that concludes that a break up marred by violence is impossible no matter the circumstances shows a deficient understanding of the history of these islands.
    We're gonna negotiate this difficult transition without a single bullet being fired. Look at the precedents.
    Jo Cox?
    Lyra McKee.

    Neither had anything to do with Brexit of course, and anyone who says so is an hysterical, smelly poo pants* Remoaner.

    *Metaphorically of course, I believe polling suggests that it's Leavers who err on the literal side of the description.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 657
    edited August 12

    As a voter the power will be in your and your fellow citizens hands rather than the hands of voters who are citizens of other countries.

    And yet, on election night TV coverage never shows us how people in Germany, France or Italy voted in our UK elections.

    "And The Tories are short of a majority thanks to voters in Belguim voting Lib Dem..."
    So laws are only set in our UK Parliament? Not the European Parliament?

    I can live with that then.
    We set our laws in our own Parliament as always. We send both elected MEPs and HMG appointed representatives to agree Europe-wide laws.

    There are no dictators involved.
    Who said anything about dictators? Not me. I have never once compared the EU to a dictatorship.

    So you are saying that voters in Germany, France and Italy do get to set Europe-wide laws that apply to the UK. As I said. Post-Brexit those laws can be UK-wide only and we get to set them with our own voters.
    We already set UK laws and in France the French vote for French law and in Germany the Germans do German laws, etc, etc.

    And through our EU representatives we all set European laws which each govt then implements via its own Parliament which is why there are variations across Europe. The UK has always tended to overdo EU law whilst some other countries are more lax in their approach.

    Post-Brexit, we will do as other countries tell us because we will have no power and no choices except one - isolation.

    We will be less like Singapore and more like N Vietnam especially with Boris "I will not resign even if I lose" Johnson in charge.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,335
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:
    Kamala looking a bit clingy there. Liz the steady parent.

    One of these 2 gets it, I think.

    Or perhaps both. Wonder if they could be a joint ticket?
    Warren gets the last touch on the back there, she's in charge.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 19,795
    edited August 12

    TOPPING said:

    "Inflation has been above TARGET for quite some time" at a time when it is 1.9% and target is 2%?

    Please explain to me when 1.9% became above 2%. I think we're getting to the root of your misunderstanding.

    Yes 1.9% is low. It is acceptably low, it is within bounds.

    Oh No!!

    We've got to go back to the graph!!!

    Please take a look to inform yourself. Any special requirements on how to read the picture please let me know.

    TYIA.

    The graph shows a period of inflation being dangerously low and out of control, when the Governor of the Bank of England had to write repeated letters how to get it back under control . . . then it being under control throughout minus a small bump above target where he wrote a letter but it was back under control the next month.

    Now sure what you're getting from the graph other than that? Unless, perhaps out of some naive ignorance, you think the trough on the graph during which the Governor was writing how to get inflation back under control is somehow a baseline and not an aberration?
    You see? That's how wars start. You are (surely not ignorantly) conflating "target" with "letter writing threshold". I mean I even put the word "target" in capitals because I thought you might have trouble understanding it. I'll do it again, here we go: the inflation rate was for a significant period above the BoE's TARGET.

    It also popped up above the threshold above which the BoE has to write a letter explaining itself. From just about the time of the 2016 vote, the rate of inflation rose. I would say significantly. You say it didn't really rise at all but as the picture is there, let it do the heavy lifting and people can make their own minds up although I'm right.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 23,370

    eristdoof said:


    But she didn't compare Brexit to Yugolslavia. Read the Article again.

    Yes she did, read the last paragraph.
    The last paragraph compares the break-up of Czechoslovakia with the break-up of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. It doesn't compare the latter two with Brexit.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,660

    Isn't what you are suggesting just Parliament legislating to remain?

    No, although it might have to come to that. But that is for later, once we've got time as a country to consider what we actually want. The first stage is to remove the October 31st cliff-edge, which is brain-dead even under the stated policy of our esteemed PM (he still claims he wants a deal, which is clearly impossible by October 31st, even in the unlikely event that the EU were happy to meet his conditions).
    The problem, Richard, is for a disturbingly large number, it seems leaving the EU without a Deal on 31/10 has become such an article of faith no amount of argument will persuade them otherwise.

    To be fair, the experience of the 2016 Referendum and its aftermath has shattered confidence in "experts" and a lot of people seem genuinely to believe life will go on unaffected once we leave. No one will lose their job or suffer in any way and the "what was all the fuss about?" party will strut around claiming vindication.

    There's also the substantial minority who are bored with the whole thing seeing the news bulletins day after day going round in circles. It's not the Hell I can't stand, it's the purgatory as someone might once have said. I still believe a lot of people who voted LEAVE on 23/6/16 thought we would be out on 24/6/16. Three and a bit years on, they are past caring, they just want it done. It's not even about democratic legitimacy any more, it's about patience or the lack of it. People want to move on and talk about other things - they are sick and tired of Brexit and the paralysis it has caused.

    This is what Boris has tapped into - the world weariness, the exhaustion and he knows he has to deliver or his support will melt faster than an ice cream on a hot day. People don't care how bad it gets - they'll simply be happy it's over.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 25,437

    Morning all. @CycleFree is quite right: crashing out with no transition is an unthinkable jump into the unknown, for which there is now no time to plan properly, and even if there were, there's a lot you simply cannot plan for. It is, quite simply, utter madness, which no responsible government could contemplate.

    I see there has been some discussion of the excellent Institute for Goverment paper on what MPs can do to stop this madness. I don't know if this has already been covered, but there is a very significant passage on page 11, which seems to me (IANAL etc) to offer a way out of the very considerable difficulties. This is the first time I've seen a specific proposal which might actually work:

    MPs could try to amend the motion of no confidence itself, so that it gave MPs control of the order paper on designated days. If MPs took this approach, then the motion (as amended) if passed would, almost certainly, not be effective under the Act – although such an amendment would need to be ruled in scope.

    This means that even if the government lost, that loss would not automatically trigger the 14-day period when other MPs could attempt to form a government, and which would result in a general election if none could. But it would still give control of the order paper to backbenchers.


    snip

    Dunno if it would work, but it looks the best chance to me. Otherwise it's Ms CycleFree's scenario of doom.

    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/parliament-role-before-31-october-brexit-FINAL.pdf

    My guess is that any attempt to prevent a No Deal Brexit that is dependent on Jeremy Corbyn playing ball is doomed to failure. This is the reason why I cannot see how we do not crash out on 31st October.

    In the mooted scenario I don't see why Corbyn wouldn't whip against any amendment that would stop the VoNC from being a VoNC, and I'd have thought it would be ruled out of order as a wrecking amendment (though I could see Bercow allowing it).

    I'm inclined to agree that Corbyn is an impediment.
    Nothing he has done so far, from the day the referendum was called until now, suggests that he will do anything other than just allow a Tory No Deal Brexit to happen.

    "Present, but not involved" will be his epitaph.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 19,795

    Dura_Ace said:

    kinabalu said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    He wouldn't last another 24 hours as tory leader if he came out with that load of crap.

    OK, so the ERG and many party members would be upset.

    But what could they do?

    And would they?
    The only part of the Leave coalition that might be fine with it would be the bewildered elderly; a significant proportion of whom think we've already left and that it is always Wednesday.

    The other two pillars of The Leave Project (thick as fuck WWC and disaster capitalists) would not stand for it so the tories would depose Boris to replace him with anybody who promised No Deal like I,Raabot.
    This is just appalling and foolish as a level of debate and interaction.

    So all 17.4m people who voted to leave are either "elderly", "thick as fuck white working class" or "disaster capitalists"??!!

    Jesus Christ are you people unhinged....
    That's a ridiculous interpretation of The Durster's post. He didn't say all Brexiters were TAPS. I would put the proportion as an overwhelming majority. Tops.

  • The last paragraph compares the break-up of Czechoslovakia with the break-up of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. It doesn't compare the latter two with Brexit.

    Read the context of the bloodshed and how it was supposedly only avoided with freedom of movement, compensation, currency sharing, treaties etc etc.

    The suggested corollary of a no-deal Brexit resulting in a Balkans style disaster is perfectly clear.

    It is just swivel-eyed loony nonsense of the sort that has no place in serious discussion.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 14,566
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:
    Kamala looking a bit clingy there. Liz the steady parent.

    One of these 2 gets it, I think.

    Or perhaps both. Wonder if they could be a joint ticket?
    A little early to say.

    But I'm beginning to wonder about shorting Biden heavily at his current favourite odds. Though I have not written off his chances, I think it's going to be a struggle for him.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,123

    eristdoof said:

    To compare post-Brexit UK potentially to Yugoslavia is completely and utterly deranged.

    It shows the absurd levels to which the Remain argument has sunk. Brexit has driven some people almost literally mad.

    I write as someone who voted 'Remain".

    But she didn't compare Brexit to Yugolslavia. Read the Article again.
    She did. By association. Where agreement is not reached.

    It is an hysterical and unhelpful simile. And sadly increasingly representative of the "remain" debate.
    Read the article again. She claimed Brexit is not like the break up of Yugoslavia.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 23,370
    stodge said:


    The problem, Richard, is for a disturbingly large number, it seems leaving the EU without a Deal on 31/10 has become such an article of faith no amount of argument will persuade them otherwise.

    To be fair, the experience of the 2016 Referendum and its aftermath has shattered confidence in "experts" and a lot of people seem genuinely to believe life will go on unaffected once we leave. No one will lose their job or suffer in any way and the "what was all the fuss about?" party will strut around claiming vindication.

    There's also the substantial minority who are bored with the whole thing seeing the news bulletins day after day going round in circles. It's not the Hell I can't stand, it's the purgatory as someone might once have said. I still believe a lot of people who voted LEAVE on 23/6/16 thought we would be out on 24/6/16. Three and a bit years on, they are past caring, they just want it done. It's not even about democratic legitimacy any more, it's about patience or the lack of it. People want to move on and talk about other things - they are sick and tired of Brexit and the paralysis it has caused.

    This is what Boris has tapped into - the world weariness, the exhaustion and he knows he has to deliver or his support will melt faster than an ice cream on a hot day. People don't care how bad it gets - they'll simply be happy it's over.

    Yes, I agree with all that. However, once the world-weariness collides with reality, they won't be happy it for very long, especially as it won't be over.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,982

    malcolmg said:

    IanB2 said:

    Adonis is probably right that if Brexit collapses, Sindy will fade from view. Aside from a three-year demonstration of how difficult and dangerous it all is, the issue of whether Sindy means leaving the EU arises once again, and the boost Sindy is receiving from remainer sentiment in Scotland drops away.

    I think not, the same dictatorship will still be in place grinding us into the dust. It is not going away any time soon Brexit or not.
    You mean Westminster, I take it Malc!
    Yes OKC,


  • Jo Cox?

    Why would you bring up the actions of one mentally ill individual?

    I could see the value in warning remainers about playing with fire in attempting to subvert the will of 17+ million people but even that would be sinking down to the nutty level already occupied by those same remainers.
    It was the phrase ' without a single bullet being fired'.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 14,566


    The last paragraph compares the break-up of Czechoslovakia with the break-up of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. It doesn't compare the latter two with Brexit.

    Read the context of the bloodshed and how it was supposedly only avoided with freedom of movement, compensation, currency sharing, treaties etc etc.

    The suggested corollary of a no-deal Brexit resulting in a Balkans style disaster is perfectly clear.

    It is just swivel-eyed loony nonsense of the sort that has no place in serious discussion.

    Your wilful misreading is exactly the kind of swivel-eyed loony rhetorical posturing of the sort that has no place in serious discussion....

    Particularly as Cyclefree further clarified the point in the comments below.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 23,881
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    "Inflation has been above TARGET for quite some time" at a time when it is 1.9% and target is 2%?

    Please explain to me when 1.9% became above 2%. I think we're getting to the root of your misunderstanding.

    Yes 1.9% is low. It is acceptably low, it is within bounds.

    Oh No!!

    We've got to go back to the graph!!!

    Please take a look to inform yourself. Any special requirements on how to read the picture please let me know.

    TYIA.

    The graph shows a period of inflation being dangerously low and out of control, when the Governor of the Bank of England had to write repeated letters how to get it back under control . . . then it being under control throughout minus a small bump above target where he wrote a letter but it was back under control the next month.

    Now sure what you're getting from the graph other than that? Unless, perhaps out of some naive ignorance, you think the trough on the graph during which the Governor was writing how to get inflation back under control is somehow a baseline and not an aberration?
    You see? That's how wars start. You are (surely not ignorantly) conflating "target" with "letter writing threshold". I mean I even put the word "target" in capitals because I thought you might have trouble understanding it. I'll do it again, here we go: the inflation rate was for a significant period above the BoE's TARGET.

    It also popped up above the threshold above which the BoE has to write a letter explaining itself. From just about the time of the 2016 vote, the rate of inflation rose. I would say significantly. You say it didn't really rise at all but as the picture is there, let it do the heavy lifting and people can make their own minds up although I'm right.
    No, inflation will always vary but so long as it is within 1% of the Target it is under control. The idea of keeping it perpetually 2.0% is preposterous.

    You're not right. The Governor of the Bank of England has a duty to keep inflation within 2% +/- 1%, yes at the time of the 2016 vote inflation was too low and the Governor had already written a couple of letters explaining what was being done to get it back up . . . and as the graph shows it was already starting to rise back up following those letters anyway. Since then inflation has remained under control with only one letter having to be written.

    You may want to play silly buggers but you will only confuse anyone who is deeply ignorant about the subject matter and doesn't understand that 1% to 3% is what is OK, not that <1% is the target.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 23,881



    Jo Cox?

    Why would you bring up the actions of one mentally ill individual?

    I could see the value in warning remainers about playing with fire in attempting to subvert the will of 17+ million people but even that would be sinking down to the nutty level already occupied by those same remainers.
    It was the phrase ' without a single bullet being fired'.
    An unfortunate phrase in the circumstances, but the tragic murder had nothing to do with Leave winning. If anything it hurt the campaign.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 14,566

    eristdoof said:

    To compare post-Brexit UK potentially to Yugoslavia is completely and utterly deranged.

    It shows the absurd levels to which the Remain argument has sunk. Brexit has driven some people almost literally mad.

    I write as someone who voted 'Remain".

    But she didn't compare Brexit to Yugolslavia. Read the Article again.
    She did. By association. Where agreement is not reached.

    It is an hysterical and unhelpful simile. And sadly increasingly representative of the "remain" debate.
    It wasn't a simile.

    One might say that is sadly representative of the level of comprehension displayed on the leave side.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,982

    felix said:

    I see labour are tackling the big issues again today....war on grouse shooting.

    It's an upgrade on fre Owls!

    Now that the Tories have decided to embrace the magic money tree labour has to look for other differentiators. They have won the spending argument, bizarrely.

    No the Tories haven't. They've gone back to Cameron's "sharing the proceeds of growth", the Tories aren't expanding the deficit at a time of a high deficit.
    You now seem to have same virus as HYFUD
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,335
    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:
    Kamala looking a bit clingy there. Liz the steady parent.

    One of these 2 gets it, I think.

    Or perhaps both. Wonder if they could be a joint ticket?
    A little early to say.

    But I'm beginning to wonder about shorting Biden heavily at his current favourite odds. Though I have not written off his chances, I think it's going to be a struggle for him.
    Clinton could barely draw a whelk to a whelk stall compared to Trump & Sanders last time, but she won the nomination and then the popular vote in the general. OK granted those votes weren't in the right places but rally crowds =/= votes.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 23,881
    malcolmg said:

    felix said:

    I see labour are tackling the big issues again today....war on grouse shooting.

    It's an upgrade on fre Owls!

    Now that the Tories have decided to embrace the magic money tree labour has to look for other differentiators. They have won the spending argument, bizarrely.

    No the Tories haven't. They've gone back to Cameron's "sharing the proceeds of growth", the Tories aren't expanding the deficit at a time of a high deficit.
    You now seem to have same virus as HYFUD
    When did the Tories expand the deficit?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 23,370


    The last paragraph compares the break-up of Czechoslovakia with the break-up of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. It doesn't compare the latter two with Brexit.

    Read the context of the bloodshed and how it was supposedly only avoided with freedom of movement, compensation, currency sharing, treaties etc etc.

    The suggested corollary of a no-deal Brexit resulting in a Balkans style disaster is perfectly clear.

    It is just swivel-eyed loony nonsense of the sort that has no place in serious discussion.

    Right, well don't discuss it then. I agree (as indeed the header says) that the break-up of Yugoslavia is not a precedent.

    Perhaps you should turn your attention to the point she was actually making - that the split of Czechoslovakia went smoothly. It's a great pity that we are throwing away the option of splitting off from the EU smoothly.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,982

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Scottish question? Not enough English apparently.

    “Worried English voters” don’t care about partisan point-scoring against the SNP on devolved issues.
    They dont like their interests being sacrificed for Scotland for Labour to gain office.

    There are many english issues on which SNP MPs get to decide. Voters understand that.
    Absolute bolloxs, EVIL is alive and well and SNP never vote on English only matters. More lies.
    Explain Sunday Trading and Fox Hunting then?
    Sunday trading as I have explained to you previously affected Scotland, they were given opportunity to change it to make it English only but chose not to do so. Fox hunting I have no clue or care, if your whole argument is based on that you are dafter than I could imagine, only a moron could think ripping animals to pieces for some rich oicks pleasure is of any relevance .
    Actually the SNP didn't vote on the fox hunting legislation, they only threatened to, and brave Sir Cam ran away. Job done.
    LOL, so it was fake news from these nutters as usual
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 657
    edited August 12
    malcolmg said:

    felix said:

    I see labour are tackling the big issues again today....war on grouse shooting.

    It's an upgrade on fre Owls!

    Now that the Tories have decided to embrace the magic money tree labour has to look for other differentiators. They have won the spending argument, bizarrely.

    No the Tories haven't. They've gone back to Cameron's "sharing the proceeds of growth", the Tories aren't expanding the deficit at a time of a high deficit.
    You now seem to have same virus as HYFUD
    Brexit Blinkers - like the ones horses wear to stop other things startling them, and probably for much the same reasons :D
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 502
    eristdoof said:

    eristdoof said:

    To compare post-Brexit UK potentially to Yugoslavia is completely and utterly deranged.

    It shows the absurd levels to which the Remain argument has sunk. Brexit has driven some people almost literally mad.

    I write as someone who voted 'Remain".

    But she didn't compare Brexit to Yugolslavia. Read the Article again.
    She did. By association. Where agreement is not reached.

    It is an hysterical and unhelpful simile. And sadly increasingly representative of the "remain" debate.
    Read the article again. She claimed Brexit is not like the break up of Yugoslavia.
    She quotes the Czech velvet divorce as one where agreement was reached beforehand. She quotes the break up of Yugoslavia and the USSR as ones where this didnt happen. She ends by writing: "Instead, Britain is relying on…..well, what exactly?" . The implication is clear.

    And if the break-up of Yugoslavia has, in Cyclefree's opinion, no relevance or read-across then why quote it?

    Unhinged and unhelpful. Its is, also, no way to win the debate...
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 26,673
    I for one await with interest worked-through visions from Leavers of what Brexit might look like. The only one I've seen so far, CANZUK, is completely crackers.

    Otherwise, it seems focussed on irrational and visceral hatred of the EU.
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 502
    Nigelb said:


    The last paragraph compares the break-up of Czechoslovakia with the break-up of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. It doesn't compare the latter two with Brexit.

    Read the context of the bloodshed and how it was supposedly only avoided with freedom of movement, compensation, currency sharing, treaties etc etc.

    The suggested corollary of a no-deal Brexit resulting in a Balkans style disaster is perfectly clear.

    It is just swivel-eyed loony nonsense of the sort that has no place in serious discussion.

    Your wilful misreading is exactly the kind of swivel-eyed loony rhetorical posturing of the sort that has no place in serious discussion....

    Particularly as Cyclefree further clarified the point in the comments below.
    It is there in black and white.

    If the break up of Yugoslavia has no relevance in her view then why quote it?

    When in a hole, best to stop digging...
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 657

    Dura_Ace said:

    kinabalu said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    He wouldn't last another 24 hours as tory leader if he came out with that load of crap.

    OK, so the ERG and many party members would be upset.

    But what could they do?

    And would they?
    The only part of the Leave coalition that might be fine with it would be the bewildered elderly; a significant proportion of whom think we've already left and that it is always Wednesday.

    The other two pillars of The Leave Project (thick as fuck WWC and disaster capitalists) would not stand for it so the tories would depose Boris to replace him with anybody who promised No Deal like I,Raabot.
    This is just appalling and foolish as a level of debate and interaction
    There is no debate in this place. Just trench warfare with neither side gaining an inch.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,982
    TOPPING said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    The Scottish question? Not enough English apparently.

    “Worried English voters” don’t care about partisan point-scoring against the SNP on devolved issues.
    They dont like their interests being sacrificed for Scotland for Labour to gain office.

    There are many english issues on which SNP MPs get to decide. Voters understand that.
    Absolute bolloxs, EVIL is alive and well and SNP never vote on English only matters. More lies.
    Explain Sunday Trading and Fox Hunting then?
    Sunday trading as I have explained to you previously affected Scotland, they were given opportunity to change it to make it English only but chose not to do so. Fox hunting I have no clue or care, if your whole argument is based on that you are dafter than I could imagine, only a moron could think ripping animals to pieces for some rich oicks pleasure is of any relevance .
    It's the principle, Malc, the principle.

    https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33516713
    Principles butter no parsnips Topping and as per TUD's post it was made up as they never voted as stated.
    So both his assertions were bollox, one was a UK matter and the other was imaginary. As I stated the SNP never vote on English only matters.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,377
    Dura_Ace said:

    The only part of the Leave coalition that might be fine with it would be the bewildered elderly; a significant proportion of whom think we've already left and that it is always Wednesday.

    The other two pillars of The Leave Project (thick as fuck WWC and disaster capitalists) would not stand for it so the tories would depose Boris to replace him with anybody who promised No Deal like I,Raabot.

    Right, I see. So you think pressure from the members would act on Tory MPs to do this even though most are opposed to No Deal. Maybe so. I see the logic. But I think not. I think they'd give him the extra time he asks for.

    I guess what matters is what the Great Man thinks. If he reads it like you he will certainly not do what I predict (since remaining PM is numero uno) and therefore that would spell Election and/or No Deal this autumn for sure.

    Not long to wait to find out. Exciting innit!
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 657

    I for one await with interest worked-through visions from Leavers of what Brexit might look like. The only one I've seen so far, CANZUK, is completely crackers.

    Otherwise, it seems focussed on irrational and visceral hatred of the EU.

    I see you have finally understand the motivations of the Leave campaign :+1:
  • I for one await with interest worked-through visions from Leavers of what Brexit might look like. The only one I've seen so far, CANZUK, is completely crackers.

    Otherwise, it seems focussed on irrational and visceral hatred of the EU.

    But think of the blue passports and the Romanian-free train journeys. Sunlit uplands!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 11,651

    tlg86 said:

    If that happened, then I think Boris should go to the Palace and recommend that Her Maj sends for Corbyn.

    That would be an excellent outcome for the Conservative Party. Dumping the problem in Corbyn's lap, with no majority to actually do anything other than stop the madness of the crash-out, whilst at the same time discrediting Boris in the eyes of his current temporary fans, would be a double win for the party.
    I don't see Boris resigning the leadership of the Conservative Party in this scenario.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 30,520

    eristdoof said:

    eristdoof said:

    To compare post-Brexit UK potentially to Yugoslavia is completely and utterly deranged.

    It shows the absurd levels to which the Remain argument has sunk. Brexit has driven some people almost literally mad.

    I write as someone who voted 'Remain".

    But she didn't compare Brexit to Yugolslavia. Read the Article again.
    She did. By association. Where agreement is not reached.

    It is an hysterical and unhelpful simile. And sadly increasingly representative of the "remain" debate.
    Read the article again. She claimed Brexit is not like the break up of Yugoslavia.
    She quotes the Czech velvet divorce as one where agreement was reached beforehand. She quotes the break up of Yugoslavia and the USSR as ones where this didnt happen. She ends by writing: "Instead, Britain is relying on…..well, what exactly?" . The implication is clear.

    And if the break-up of Yugoslavia has, in Cyclefree's opinion, no relevance or read-across then why quote it?

    Unhinged and unhelpful. Its is, also, no way to win the debate...
    What percentage chance do you think there is of the break up of the UK? What chance do you think there is that this could happen in a controlled, planned way, versus an unplanned domino effect?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,660
    edited August 12

    When did the Tories expand the deficit?

    There is a valid point here - there suddenly seems to be money for everything since Johnson became Prime Minister. The amounts are not small and while I fully accept the efforts of the Coalition (not just the Conservatives) to reduce the deficit were successful, the fact remains there is still a huge debt to be paid down and it seems churlish to leave that to future generations.

    Second, if we have some money to spare, where should it go? Some will immediately say tax cuts but I'd much prefer to see the money spent on infrastructure projects, research & development and other areas where the long term economic benefits are considerably more attractive than the short-term electoral.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 14,566
    edited August 12
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:
    Kamala looking a bit clingy there. Liz the steady parent.

    One of these 2 gets it, I think.

    Or perhaps both. Wonder if they could be a joint ticket?
    A little early to say.

    But I'm beginning to wonder about shorting Biden heavily at his current favourite odds. Though I have not written off his chances, I think it's going to be a struggle for him.
    Clinton could barely draw a whelk to a whelk stall compared to Trump & Sanders last time, but she won the nomination and then the popular vote in the general. OK granted those votes weren't in the right places but rally crowds =/= votes.
    In a multi candidate nomination fight, with the frontrunner struggling to keep above 30% in the polls, the early states are going to be important. And enthusiasm and organisation matter a great deal in caucus states.

    I think we've seen fairly clearly that Biden is not going to dominate in any of the debates, so it's hard to see what other than inertia is going to keep him in front.
    He isn't outraising or out-organising his closest opponents.

    Note I haven't said Biden can't get the nomination - just that I think his odds too short now.
This discussion has been closed.