politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With the Iowa betting markets now being opened a helpful prime

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With the Iowa betting markets now being opened a helpful primer on how its caucuses actually work

Ladbrokes and Betfair have now got markets up on the first big hurdle in WH2020 – the Iowa Caucuses which are scheduled for February 3rd next year. Because of their historical importance and that so many Democrats are contenders this looks set to be a hugely significant day.

Read the full story here

Philip_Thompson

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

No, it doesn’t. The Irish border is of no economic consequence to the UK. All the actual No Deal issues are the ones that affect the mainland. Those will still be there whether or not a Hard Border goes up in Ireland - and it’s those that will drive the UK back to the negotiating table. At which point the backstop will be a pre-requisite for talks resuming.

Or the UK doesn't 'drive back' to the negotiating table but holds open the possibility of talks.

If a hard border does come about that will drive Ireland back to talks. So we can refuse the backstop until they drop it.
If a hard border does not come about then it will show the backstop to be the heaping pile of bovine manure we always said it was.

Either way, so long as we hold firm we win.

DecrepitJohnL

Be aware Iowa is said to also have an online caucus this year (alongside the bricks and mortar ones) whose dynamics (and participants) may be different from those seen in the past.

TOPPING

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

No, it doesn’t. The Irish border is of no economic consequence to the UK. All the actual No Deal issues are the ones that affect the mainland. Those will still be there whether or not a Hard Border goes up in Ireland - and it’s those that will drive the UK back to the negotiating table. At which point the backstop will be a pre-requisite for talks resuming.

Or the UK doesn't 'drive back' to the negotiating table but holds open the possibility of talks.

If a hard border does come about that will drive Ireland back to talks. So we can refuse the backstop until they drop it.
If a hard border does not come about then it will show the backstop to be the heaping pile of bovine manure we always said it was.

Either way, so long as we hold firm we win.

We won't hold firm though. May didn't, to her credit, and neither will Boris.

eek

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

No, it doesn’t. The Irish border is of no economic consequence to the UK. All the actual No Deal issues are the ones that affect the mainland. Those will still be there whether or not a Hard Border goes up in Ireland - and it’s those that will drive the UK back to the negotiating table. At which point the backstop will be a pre-requisite for talks resuming.

Or the UK doesn't 'drive back' to the negotiating table but holds open the possibility of talks.

If a hard border does come about that will drive Ireland back to talks. So we can refuse the backstop until they drop it.
If a hard border does not come about then it will show the backstop to be the heaping pile of bovine manure we always said it was.

Either way, so long as we hold firm we win.

Why would I hard border drive Ireland back into talks?

Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will.

Philip_Thompson

FPT:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

algarkirk said:

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

FF43 said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1163963029924528133?s=21

Bingo!

This is the real reason why Ireland won't concede, ever, on the backstop. Yes it can follow the UK by diverging from the EU in step. But it goes against its economic interest to do so, and more importantly, against their idea of who they are. It doesn't see why it automatically should be making the concession rather than the UK whose project this is, and which is hostile to Ireland anyway. It thinks, thanks to the backing of the EU, it can face the UK down on this issue.

Yes, and under May they were probably right.

I don’t think Boris will back down (you can argue about his motives)

Unfortunately Varadkar decided to try and strong arm the U.K. for party political benefit.

Ireland can face down the UK even if Boris doesn't back down. This is perhaps the crux of the question about where the balance of power lies that many people don't get.

Can it? GFA counts for little if Ireland puts up a border; backstop counts for nothing if they don't.

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

Boris will blink. Is my prediction. You heard it here first.

I hope very much you are wrong. He will lose my respect if he does.

The fact we are even debating the matter shows how much progress we have made in a positive direction. You were assuring me for the longest time there wasn't a chance we would leave without the awful backstop.

We won't leave without the backstop. Categorically.

What odds to you give on that "categorically" certainty?

I'm happy to have a straight bet for the cost of my Conservative Party membership. Can't remember how much that is - £35?

So I say when we leave we will do so without the backstop as currently formulated. If we leave without a deal or with a legally-binding change to the backstop [not the PD] then I win.
If we do leave with the backstop as currently formulated OR revoke then you win.

Bet for straight cost of Conservative Party membership, as I will not be a member if we sign up to the backstop. I'm happy with that. Deal?

geoffw

FPT

geoffw said:

Ireland may not want a "hard border" with the UK, but for the EU it will be a border with an external entity, and a well defined border is intrinsic to the CU and the SM. So the EU will require Ireland to put it in place. The onus then falls to Ireland to persuade the EU that there are alternatives to a physical border. So Ireland has a pretty strong incentive to cooperate with the UK in exploring those alternatives.

Philip_Thompson

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

No, it doesn’t. The Irish border is of no economic consequence to the UK. All the actual No Deal issues are the ones that affect the mainland. Those will still be there whether or not a Hard Border goes up in Ireland - and it’s those that will drive the UK back to the negotiating table. At which point the backstop will be a pre-requisite for talks resuming.

Or the UK doesn't 'drive back' to the negotiating table but holds open the possibility of talks.

If a hard border does come about that will drive Ireland back to talks. So we can refuse the backstop until they drop it.
If a hard border does not come about then it will show the backstop to be the heaping pile of bovine manure we always said it was.

Either way, so long as we hold firm we win.

We won't hold firm though. May didn't, to her credit, and neither will Boris.

May didn't to her shame which is why she is gone. If Boris makes the same mistake as May he deserves her fate.

Brom

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/08/21/yellowhammer-port-chaos-not-even-project-fear-slapstick/

Good read for any history buffs on the nonsense that is Yellowhammer

MikeSmithson

DecrepitJohnL said:

Be aware Iowa is said to also have an online caucus this year (alongside the bricks and mortar ones) whose dynamics (and participants) may be different from those seen in the past.

A key fact here is that however many participate in the virtual caucus its outcome will be weighted to ensure it only represents 10% of the State's result.

TOPPING

Philip_Thompson said:

So I say when we leave we will do so without the backstop as currently formulated. If we leave without a deal or with a legally-binding change to the backstop [not the PD] then I win.
If we do leave with the backstop as currently formulated OR revoke then you win.

Bet for straight cost of Conservative Party membership, as I will not be a member if we sign up to the backstop. I'm happy with that. Deal?

Hmm can we amend it to something that achieves the same as the backstop? Ie that administratively retains the backstop measures?

If that is a huge problem then I'm happy for the bet as you describe but I will retain bragging rights if what we end up with looks, smells, and feels like a backstop.

Philip_Thompson

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

No, it doesn’t. The Irish border is of no economic consequence to the UK. All the actual No Deal issues are the ones that affect the mainland. Those will still be there whether or not a Hard Border goes up in Ireland - and it’s those that will drive the UK back to the negotiating table. At which point the backstop will be a pre-requisite for talks resuming.

Or the UK doesn't 'drive back' to the negotiating table but holds open the possibility of talks.

If a hard border does come about that will drive Ireland back to talks. So we can refuse the backstop until they drop it.
If a hard border does not come about then it will show the backstop to be the heaping pile of bovine manure we always said it was.

Either way, so long as we hold firm we win.

Why would I hard border drive Ireland back into talks?

Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will.

Northern Ireland isn't the UK and opposition to the backstop comes from both NI Unionists and English and Welsh nationalists and Scottish unionists. Few of them are likely to change.

Even if NI changes its mind [and NI nationalists won't change their mind, 98% already back the backstop and we are ignoring them] it won't necessarily change the UK's mind.

The drive for the backstop is coming from Ireland. If Ireland says they have an alternative the EU has no justification to stay firm anymore.

kle4

FF43 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

JosiasJessop said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jessop, I'd be delighted to hear how I'm responsible for the actions of Dominic Grieve, or the decision of pro-EU MPs to repeatedly reject the deal, having voted to leave the EU, making no deal the course we're currently on.

(Snip)

You are doing it again: you point your finger at the remainers and scream that they're the ones who have caused this mess. You don't point at the ERG who gave remainers cover by repeatedly emptying their bowels over anything that wasn't hard no-deal brexit. Why should moderate remainers have voted for it when the very people who wanted Brexit were screeching about how bad it was?

The ERGers set the mood about the WA.

Yet in the eyes of the Brexiteers, it's all someone else's fault. In realty, we are all to blame to some extent.

But the biggest shovel of ordure needs pouring over the brexiteers, and those who wanted Brexit over every other consideration about the good of the country and its people.

I don't see how you can conclude other than those MPs who want to remain or leave with a deal have (collectively) been stupid beyond all belief.

The ERG want to leave without a deal. They're very. very likely to get their way.

They're getting their way, despite being only 50 or 60 strong in Parliament. The other 600 odd MPs have been comprehensively outwitted.

In that case why does Johnson (and by implication yourself also) blame those wanting a deal for the No Deal he himself imposes on the country, after having voted against the deal twice before? Why doesn't he just say, No Deal is cool?

He will, but not yet as he still needs to give those who do want a deal in his party the cover to not move on him. Its like how Corbyns opponents pop up and whinge but beyond the Tiggers take no more than minor action, as they dont like him but are too cowardly to act.

Dealers in the Tories are either ok with or resigned to no deal, or currently fooling themselves so they can justify doing nothing.

Step 1 - it's not happening
Step 2 - it could happen but we wont back it
Step 3 - its happening and it's too late for us to stop it

AlastairMeeks said:

The noteworthy thing about Boris Johnson's sub-Churchillian tweeted video is how he doesn't even pretend to have anything to say to those who do not support Brexit and how he expressly sets up London and the south east as the enemy. Considering he has a London seat himself, that's quite brave.

Perhaps he intends to move back to the country and change seats?

eek

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

No, it doesn’t. The Irish border is of no economic consequence to the UK. All the actual No Deal issues are the ones that affect the mainland. Those will still be there whether or not a Hard Border goes up in Ireland - and it’s those that will drive the UK back to the negotiating table. At which point the backstop will be a pre-requisite for talks resuming.

Or the UK doesn't 'drive back' to the negotiating table but holds open the possibility of talks.

If a hard border does come about that will drive Ireland back to talks. So we can refuse the backstop until they drop it.
If a hard border does not come about then it will show the backstop to be the heaping pile of bovine manure we always said it was.

Either way, so long as we hold firm we win.

Why would I hard border drive Ireland back into talks?

Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will.

Northern Ireland isn't the UK and opposition to the backstop comes from both NI Unionists and English and Welsh nationalists and Scottish unionists. Few of them are likely to change.

Even if NI changes its mind [and NI nationalists won't change their mind, 98% already back the backstop and we are ignoring them] it won't necessarily change the UK's mind.

The drive for the backstop is coming from Ireland. If Ireland says they have an alternative the EU has no justification to stay firm anymore.

So why would / will Ireland drop the border? Every statement you made there is about the UK so you haven't answered my question.

williamglenn

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

No, it doesn’t. The Irish border is of no economic consequence to the UK. All the actual No Deal issues are the ones that affect the mainland. Those will still be there whether or not a Hard Border goes up in Ireland - and it’s those that will drive the UK back to the negotiating table. At which point the backstop will be a pre-requisite for talks resuming.

Or the UK doesn't 'drive back' to the negotiating table but holds open the possibility of talks.

If a hard border does come about that will drive Ireland back to talks. So we can refuse the backstop until they drop it.
If a hard border does not come about then it will show the backstop to be the heaping pile of bovine manure we always said it was.

Either way, so long as we hold firm we win.

Why would I hard border drive Ireland back into talks?

Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will.

Northern Ireland isn't the UK [snip]

Err...

Philip_Thompson

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

So I say when we leave we will do so without the backstop as currently formulated. If we leave without a deal or with a legally-binding change to the backstop [not the PD] then I win.
If we do leave with the backstop as currently formulated OR revoke then you win.

Bet for straight cost of Conservative Party membership, as I will not be a member if we sign up to the backstop. I'm happy with that. Deal?

Hmm can we amend it to something that achieves the same as the backstop? Ie that administratively retains the backstop measures?

If that is a huge problem then I'm happy for the bet as you describe but I will retain bragging rights if what we end up with looks, smells, and feels like a backstop.

For the terms of a bet I think that complicates matters and I'm not sure who could neutrally abritrate that matter, so unless someone neutral is happy to abritrate that if you're happy to go with the terms I'd prefer that. Realistically I think its moot since the EU have said they're refusing to renegotiate anyway I think any renegotiation that does occur would be meaningful.

Any change to PD is not meaningful.

Philip_Thompson

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

No, it doesn’t. The Irish border is of no economic consequence to the UK. All the actual No Deal issues are the ones that affect the mainland. Those will still be there whether or not a Hard Border goes up in Ireland - and it’s those that will drive the UK back to the negotiating table. At which point the backstop will be a pre-requisite for talks resuming.

Or the UK doesn't 'drive back' to the negotiating table but holds open the possibility of talks.

If a hard border does come about that will drive Ireland back to talks. So we can refuse the backstop until they drop it.
If a hard border does not come about then it will show the backstop to be the heaping pile of bovine manure we always said it was.

Either way, so long as we hold firm we win.

Why would I hard border drive Ireland back into talks?

Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will.

Northern Ireland isn't the UK [snip]

Err...

What is confusing you about that?

kle4

algarkirk said:

Gardenwalker said:

FF43 said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1163963029924528133?s=21

Bingo!

This is the real reason why Ireland won't concede, ever, on the backstop. Yes it can follow the UK by diverging from the EU in step. But it goes against its economic interest to do so, and more importantly, against their idea of who they are. It doesn't see why it automatically should be making the concession rather than the UK whose project this is, and which is hostile to Ireland anyway. It thinks, thanks to the backing of the EU, it can face the UK down on this issue.

This proposal is frankly bizarre, and offensive to the Irish. I am not sure what Johnson thinks it might achieve apart from hastening No Deal and securing long lasting Irish enmity in the bargain.

Every configuration of the problem is bizarre and offensive to someone. The Commons finds the backstop bizarre and offensive (though I don't). Boris has to find something which the Commons will accept. Such voting evidence as there is shows that TMs deal without the backstop is the only current candidate. The ERG extremists will never be satisfied, nor will the DUP. Moderate Labour MPs are the key to a solution. No Deal is bizarre and offensive to even more people than a tweaked TM deal.

The commons doesn't really find the back stop bizarre and offensive. About 2-3 dozen mps do, though a handful of those including boris proved they are willing to stomach it, and around 250-300 find Brexit bizarre and offensive. Theyd vote down anything the backstop was irrelevant to those people opposing the WA.

It won't get through the commons with the backstop but the makeup of those who voted down the WA and their reasons fit doing so does not put the backstop high on the list vs stopping any form of brexit .

Peter_the_Punter

Chatting with some Irish friends yesterday they tell me the local gangs and paramilitaries are already gearing up for the increased business a hard border will bring.

Nice to know Brexit works for some.

Philip_Thompson

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

No, it doesn’t. The Irish border is of no economic consequence to the UK. All the actual No Deal issues are the ones that affect the mainland. Those will still be there whether or not a Hard Border goes up in Ireland - and it’s those that will drive the UK back to the negotiating table. At which point the backstop will be a pre-requisite for talks resuming.

Or the UK doesn't 'drive back' to the negotiating table but holds open the possibility of talks.

If a hard border does come about that will drive Ireland back to talks. So we can refuse the backstop until they drop it.
If a hard border does not come about then it will show the backstop to be the heaping pile of bovine manure we always said it was.

Either way, so long as we hold firm we win.

Why would I hard border drive Ireland back into talks?

Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will.

Northern Ireland isn't the UK and opposition to the backstop comes from both NI Unionists and English and Welsh nationalists and Scottish unionists. Few of them are likely to change.

Even if NI changes its mind [and NI nationalists won't change their mind, 98% already back the backstop and we are ignoring them] it won't necessarily change the UK's mind.

The drive for the backstop is coming from Ireland. If Ireland says they have an alternative the EU has no justification to stay firm anymore.

So why would / will Ireland drop the border? Every statement you made there is about the UK so you haven't answered my question.

Because you introduced the UK into it.

Taking the UK out [and thus taking "Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will" out of your original post] a hard border will drive Ireland back into negotiations because Ireland doesn't want to have a hard border.

The "insurance policy" will have brought about what it was supposed to insure against. So why continue to demand it?

kle4

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

No, it doesn’t. The Irish border is of no economic consequence to the UK. All the actual No Deal issues are the ones that affect the mainland. Those will still be there whether or not a Hard Border goes up in Ireland - and it’s those that will drive the UK back to the negotiating table. At which point the backstop will be a pre-requisite for talks resuming.

Or the UK doesn't 'drive back' to the negotiating table but holds open the possibility of talks.

If a hard border does come about that will drive Ireland back to talks. So we can refuse the backstop until they drop it.
If a hard border does not come about then it will show the backstop to be the heaping pile of bovine manure we always said it was.

Either way, so long as we hold firm we win.

Why would I hard border drive Ireland back into talks?

Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will.

Northern Ireland isn't the UK [snip]

Err...

What's incorrect about that? Is he not just saying that NI is not the UK as a whole, not claiming NI is not in the UK? And as such the impact of any option on all the UK is more relevant than one part?

Easy to disagree with but you seem to have gotten stuck on the opening for reasons that escape me before you even tried to disagree.

williamglenn

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

No, it doesn’t. The Irish border is of no economic consequence to the UK. All the actual No Deal issues are the ones that affect the mainland. Those will still be there whether or not a Hard Border goes up in Ireland - and it’s those that will drive the UK back to the negotiating table. At which point the backstop will be a pre-requisite for talks resuming.

Or the UK doesn't 'drive back' to the negotiating table but holds open the possibility of talks.

If a hard border does come about that will drive Ireland back to talks. So we can refuse the backstop until they drop it.
If a hard border does not come about then it will show the backstop to be the heaping pile of bovine manure we always said it was.

Either way, so long as we hold firm we win.

Why would I hard border drive Ireland back into talks?

Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will.

Northern Ireland isn't the UK [snip]

Err...

What is confusing you about that?

Northern Ireland is the UK, and any fallout there will be the UK's problem.

Philip_Thompson

kle4 said:

algarkirk said:

Gardenwalker said:

FF43 said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1163963029924528133?s=21

Bingo!

This is the real reason why Ireland won't concede, ever, on the backstop. Yes it can follow the UK by diverging from the EU in step. But it goes against its economic interest to do so, and more importantly, against their idea of who they are. It doesn't see why it automatically should be making the concession rather than the UK whose project this is, and which is hostile to Ireland anyway. It thinks, thanks to the backing of the EU, it can face the UK down on this issue.

This proposal is frankly bizarre, and offensive to the Irish. I am not sure what Johnson thinks it might achieve apart from hastening No Deal and securing long lasting Irish enmity in the bargain.

Every configuration of the problem is bizarre and offensive to someone. The Commons finds the backstop bizarre and offensive (though I don't). Boris has to find something which the Commons will accept. Such voting evidence as there is shows that TMs deal without the backstop is the only current candidate. The ERG extremists will never be satisfied, nor will the DUP. Moderate Labour MPs are the key to a solution. No Deal is bizarre and offensive to even more people than a tweaked TM deal.

The commons doesn't really find the back stop bizarre and offensive. About 2-3 dozen mps do, though a handful of those including boris proved they are willing to stomach it, and around 250-300 find Brexit bizarre and offensive. Theyd vote down anything the backstop was irrelevant to those people opposing the WA.

It won't get through the commons with the backstop but the makeup of those who voted down the WA and their reasons fit doing so does not put the backstop high on the list vs stopping any form of brexit .

498 MPs voted to trigger Article 50, 114 to reject it.

Therefore only around 114 should "find Brexit bizarre and offensive".

Any MPs who voted to trigger Article 50 but oppose Brexit are themselves bizarre.

Benpointer

Brom said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/08/21/yellowhammer-port-chaos-not-even-project-fear-slapstick/

Good read for any history buffs on the nonsense that is Yellowhammer

Oh great... the fall of France wasn't so bad after all.

Here's a more balanced view of the seemingly likely descent into self-inflicted harm. Sadly plausible...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/21/1914-brexit-calamity-inevitable-remainers

TOPPING

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

So I say when we leave we will do so without the backstop as currently formulated. If we leave without a deal or with a legally-binding change to the backstop [not the PD] then I win.
If we do leave with the backstop as currently formulated OR revoke then you win.

Bet for straight cost of Conservative Party membership, as I will not be a member if we sign up to the backstop. I'm happy with that. Deal?

Hmm can we amend it to something that achieves the same as the backstop? Ie that administratively retains the backstop measures?

If that is a huge problem then I'm happy for the bet as you describe but I will retain bragging rights if what we end up with looks, smells, and feels like a backstop.

For the terms of a bet I think that complicates matters and I'm not sure who could neutrally abritrate that matter, so unless someone neutral is happy to abritrate that if you're happy to go with the terms I'd prefer that. Realistically I think its moot since the EU have said they're refusing to renegotiate anyway I think any renegotiation that does occur would be meaningful.

Any change to PD is not meaningful.

Yes it is complicating. We will agree on that (your) bet and if either one of us feels it is not 100% appropriate to claim victory then so be it.

Philip_Thompson

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

So I say when we leave we will do so without the backstop as currently formulated. If we leave without a deal or with a legally-binding change to the backstop [not the PD] then I win.
If we do leave with the backstop as currently formulated OR revoke then you win.

Bet for straight cost of Conservative Party membership, as I will not be a member if we sign up to the backstop. I'm happy with that. Deal?

Hmm can we amend it to something that achieves the same as the backstop? Ie that administratively retains the backstop measures?

If that is a huge problem then I'm happy for the bet as you describe but I will retain bragging rights if what we end up with looks, smells, and feels like a backstop.

For the terms of a bet I think that complicates matters and I'm not sure who could neutrally abritrate that matter, so unless someone neutral is happy to abritrate that if you're happy to go with the terms I'd prefer that. Realistically I think its moot since the EU have said they're refusing to renegotiate anyway I think any renegotiation that does occur would be meaningful.

Any change to PD is not meaningful.

Yes it is complicating. We will agree on that (your) bet and if either one of us feels it is not 100% appropriate to claim victory then so be it.

Deal.

TOPPING

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

No, it doesn’t. The Irish border is of no economic consequence to the UK. All the actual No Deal issues are the ones that affect the mainland. Those will still be there whether or not a Hard Border goes up in Ireland - and it’s those that will drive the UK back to the negotiating table. At which point the backstop will be a pre-requisite for talks resuming.

Or the UK doesn't 'drive back' to the negotiating table but holds open the possibility of talks.

If a hard border does come about that will drive Ireland back to talks. So we can refuse the backstop until they drop it.
If a hard border does not come about then it will show the backstop to be the heaping pile of bovine manure we always said it was.

Either way, so long as we hold firm we win.

Why would I hard border drive Ireland back into talks?

Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will.

Northern Ireland isn't the UK and opposition to the backstop comes from both NI Unionists and English and Welsh nationalists and Scottish unionists. Few of them are likely to change.

Even if NI changes its mind [and NI nationalists won't change their mind, 98% already back the backstop and we are ignoring them] it won't necessarily change the UK's mind.

The drive for the backstop is coming from Ireland. If Ireland says they have an alternative the EU has no justification to stay firm anymore.

So why would / will Ireland drop the border? Every statement you made there is about the UK so you haven't answered my question.

Because you introduced the UK into it.

Taking the UK out [and thus taking "Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will" out of your original post] a hard border will drive Ireland back into negotiations because Ireland doesn't want to have a hard border.

The "insurance policy" will have brought about what it was supposed to insure against. So why continue to demand it?

A hard border will drive the UK not Ireland back to the negotiating table.

SouthamObserver

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

No, it doesn’t. The Irish border is of no economic consequence to the UK. All the actual No Deal issues are the ones that affect the mainland. Those will still be there whether or not a Hard Border goes up in Ireland - and it’s those that will drive the UK back to the negotiating table. At which point the backstop will be a pre-requisite for talks resuming.

Or the UK doesn't 'drive back' to the negotiating table but holds open the possibility of talks.

If a hard border does come about that will drive Ireland back to talks. So we can refuse the backstop until they drop it.
If a hard border does not come about then it will show the backstop to be the heaping pile of bovine manure we always said it was.

Either way, so long as we hold firm we win.

Being less free, poorer and more dependent on the goodwill of others is a funny kind of victory. But as previously discussed you and I see these things in different ways.

However, in the real world it will not be the backstop that drives the UK back to the negotiating table, it will be what’s happening more broadly as the result of No Deal. I get you think everything will be fine. If it isn’t, though, we’ll be back for a deal. And that’s why there’s no reason for the EU/Ireland to agree anything now. Either there won’t be any problems, or they get the backstop.

kle4

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

algarkirk said:

Gardenwalker said:

FF43 said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1163963029924528133?s=21

Bingo!

This is the real reason why Ireland won't concede, ever, on the backstop. Yes it can follow the UK by diverging from the EU in step. But it goes against its economic interest to do so, and more importantly, against their idea of who they are. It doesn't see why it automatically should be making the concession rather than the UK whose project this is, and which is hostile to Ireland anyway. It thinks, thanks to the backing of the EU, it can face the UK down on this issue.

This proposal is frankly bizarre, and offensive to the Irish. I am not sure what Johnson thinks it might achieve apart from hastening No Deal and securing long lasting Irish enmity in the bargain.

Every configuration of the problem is bizarre and offensive to someone. The Commons finds the backstop bizarre and offensive (though I don't). Boris has to find something which the Commons will accept. Such voting evidence as there is shows that TMs deal without the backstop is the only current candidate. The ERG extremists will never be satisfied, nor will the DUP. Moderate Labour MPs are the key to a solution. No Deal is bizarre and offensive to even more people than a tweaked TM deal.

The commons doesn't really find the back stop bizarre and offensive. About 2-3 dozen mps do, though a handful of those including boris proved they are willing to stomach it, and around 250-300 find Brexit bizarre and offensive. Theyd vote down anything the backstop was irrelevant to those people opposing the WA.

It won't get through the commons with the backstop but the makeup of those who voted down the WA and their reasons fit doing so does not put the backstop high on the list vs stopping any form of brexit .

498 MPs voted to trigger Article 50, 114 to reject it.

Therefore only around 114 should "find Brexit bizarre and offensive".

Any MPs who voted to trigger Article 50 but oppose Brexit are themselves bizarre.

I dont disagree on that score but we are where we are and given statements made it is clear that is how hundreds of them feel even though that makes their A50 vote very very stupid. For a time they had cover of maybe wanting a better deal but the reasoning of such much of the opposition proves that a lie.

eek

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

No, it doesn’t. The Irish border is of no economic consequence to the UK. All the actual No Deal issues are the ones that affect the mainland. Those will still be there whether or not a Hard Border goes up in Ireland - and it’s those that will drive the UK back to the negotiating table. At which point the backstop will be a pre-requisite for talks resuming.

Or the UK doesn't 'drive back' to the negotiating table but holds open the possibility of talks.

If a hard border does come about that will drive Ireland back to talks. So we can refuse the backstop until they drop it.
If a hard border does not come about then it will show the backstop to be the heaping pile of bovine manure we always said it was.

Either way, so long as we hold firm we win.

Why would I hard border drive Ireland back into talks?

Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will.

Northern Ireland isn't the UK and opposition to the backstop comes from both NI Unionists and English and Welsh nationalists and Scottish unionists. Few of them are likely to change.

Even if NI changes its mind [and NI nationalists won't change their mind, 98% already back the backstop and we are ignoring them] it won't necessarily change the UK's mind.

The drive for the backstop is coming from Ireland. If Ireland says they have an alternative the EU has no justification to stay firm anymore.

So why would / will Ireland drop the border? Every statement you made there is about the UK so you haven't answered my question.

Because you introduced the UK into it.

Taking the UK out [and thus taking "Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will" out of your original post] a hard border will drive Ireland back into negotiations because Ireland doesn't want to have a hard border.

The "insurance policy" will have brought about what it was supposed to insure against. So why continue to demand it?

But the border will be there because the UK have created it and forced it upon Ireland.

Do you really think they will separate in any way from Europe to help the UK out of a mess the UK created themselves?

Philip_Thompson

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

No, it doesn’t. The Irish border is of no economic consequence to the UK. All the actual No Deal issues are the ones that affect the mainland. Those will still be there whether or not a Hard Border goes up in Ireland - and it’s those that will drive the UK back to the negotiating table. At which point the backstop will be a pre-requisite for talks resuming.

Or the UK doesn't 'drive back' to the negotiating table but holds open the possibility of talks.

If a hard border does come about that will drive Ireland back to talks. So we can refuse the backstop until they drop it.
If a hard border does not come about then it will show the backstop to be the heaping pile of bovine manure we always said it was.

Either way, so long as we hold firm we win.

Why would I hard border drive Ireland back into talks?

Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will.

Northern Ireland isn't the UK and opposition to the backstop comes from both NI Unionists and English and Welsh nationalists and Scottish unionists. Few of them are likely to change.

Even if NI changes its mind [and NI nationalists won't change their mind, 98% already back the backstop and we are ignoring them] it won't necessarily change the UK's mind.

The drive for the backstop is coming from Ireland. If Ireland says they have an alternative the EU has no justification to stay firm anymore.

So why would / will Ireland drop the border? Every statement you made there is about the UK so you haven't answered my question.

Because you introduced the UK into it.

Taking the UK out [and thus taking "Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will" out of your original post] a hard border will drive Ireland back into negotiations because Ireland doesn't want to have a hard border.

The "insurance policy" will have brought about what it was supposed to insure against. So why continue to demand it?

A hard border will drive the UK not Ireland back to the negotiating table.

I don't think the UK is as bothered as Ireland by a hard border.

Philip_Thompson

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

No, it doesn’t. The Irish border is of no economic consequence to the UK. All the actual No Deal issues are the ones that affect the mainland. Those will still be there whether or not a Hard Border goes up in Ireland - and it’s those that will drive the UK back to the negotiating table. At which point the backstop will be a pre-requisite for talks resuming.

Or the UK doesn't 'drive back' to the negotiating table but holds open the possibility of talks.

If a hard border does come about that will drive Ireland back to talks. So we can refuse the backstop until they drop it.
If a hard border does not come about then it will show the backstop to be the heaping pile of bovine manure we always said it was.

Either way, so long as we hold firm we win.

Why would I hard border drive Ireland back into talks?

Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will.

Northern Ireland isn't the UK and opposition to the backstop comes from both NI Unionists and English and Welsh nationalists and Scottish unionists. Few of them are likely to change.

Even if NI changes its mind [and NI nationalists won't change their mind, 98% already back the backstop and we are ignoring them] it won't necessarily change the UK's mind.

The drive for the backstop is coming from Ireland. If Ireland says they have an alternative the EU has no justification to stay firm anymore.

So why would / will Ireland drop the border? Every statement you made there is about the UK so you haven't answered my question.

Because you introduced the UK into it.

Taking the UK out [and thus taking "Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will" out of your original post] a hard border will drive Ireland back into negotiations because Ireland doesn't want to have a hard border.

The "insurance policy" will have brought about what it was supposed to insure against. So why continue to demand it?

But the border will be there because the UK have created it and forced it upon Ireland.

Do you really think they will separate in any way from Europe to help the UK out of a mess the UK created themselves?

No. That's not what I said.

Philip_Thompson

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

algarkirk said:

Gardenwalker said:

FF43 said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1163963029924528133?s=21

Bingo!

This is the real reason why Ireland won't concede, ever, on the backstop. Yes it can follow the UK by diverging from the EU in step. But it goes against its economic interest to do so, and more importantly, against their idea of who they are. It doesn't see why it automatically should be making the concession rather than the UK whose project this is, and which is hostile to Ireland anyway. It thinks, thanks to the backing of the EU, it can face the UK down on this issue.

This proposal is frankly bizarre, and offensive to the Irish. I am not sure what Johnson thinks it might achieve apart from hastening No Deal and securing long lasting Irish enmity in the bargain.

Every configuration of the problem is bizarre and offensive to someone. The Commons finds the backstop bizarre and offensive (though I don't). Boris has to find something which the Commons will accept. Such voting evidence as there is shows that TMs deal without the backstop is the only current candidate. The ERG extremists will never be satisfied, nor will the DUP. Moderate Labour MPs are the key to a solution. No Deal is bizarre and offensive to even more people than a tweaked TM deal.

The commons doesn't really find the back stop bizarre and offensive. About 2-3 dozen mps do, though a handful of those including boris proved they are willing to stomach it, and around 250-300 find Brexit bizarre and offensive. Theyd vote down anything the backstop was irrelevant to those people opposing the WA.

It won't get through the commons with the backstop but the makeup of those who voted down the WA and their reasons fit doing so does not put the backstop high on the list vs stopping any form of brexit .

498 MPs voted to trigger Article 50, 114 to reject it.

Therefore only around 114 should "find Brexit bizarre and offensive".

Any MPs who voted to trigger Article 50 but oppose Brexit are themselves bizarre.

I dont disagree on that score but we are where we are and given statements made it is clear that is how hundreds of them feel even though that makes their A50 vote very very stupid. For a time they had cover of maybe wanting a better deal but the reasoning of such much of the opposition proves that a lie.

No, the opposition is just putting party politics before the best interests of the country.

SouthamObserver

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

No, it doesn’t. The Irish border is of no economic consequence to the UK. All the actual No Deal issues are the ones that affect the mainland. Those will still be there whether or not a Hard Border goes up in Ireland - and it’s those that will drive the UK back to the negotiating table. At which point the backstop will be a pre-requisite for talks resuming.

Or the UK doesn't 'drive back' to the negotiating table but holds open the possibility of talks.

If a hard border does come about that will drive Ireland back to talks. So we can refuse the backstop until they drop it.
If a hard border does not come about then it will show the backstop to be the heaping pile of bovine manure we always said it was.

Either way, so long as we hold firm we win.

Why would I hard border drive Ireland back into talks?

Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will.

Northern Ireland isn't the UK and opposition to the backstop comes from both NI Unionists and English and Welsh nationalists and Scottish unionists. Few of them are likely to change.

Even if NI changes its mind [and NI nationalists won't change their mind, 98% already back the backstop and we are ignoring them] it won't necessarily change the UK's mind.

The drive for the backstop is coming from Ireland. If Ireland says they have an alternative the EU has no justification to stay firm anymore.

So why would / will Ireland drop the border? Every statement you made there is about the UK so you haven't answered my question.

Because you introduced the UK into it.

Taking the UK a hard border.

The "insurance policy" will have brought about what it was supposed to insure against. So why continue to demand it?

A hard border will drive the UK not Ireland back to the negotiating table.

I don't think the UK is as bothered as Ireland by a hard border.

The UK’s hard border will not just be in Northern Ireland. That is the problem. The hard borders that matter will be on the mainland - at our ports and airports.

MikeSmithson

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

No, it doesn’t. The Irish border is of no economic consequence to the UK. All the actual No Deal issues are the ones that affect the mainland. Those will still be there whether or not a Hard Border goes up in Ireland - and it’s those that will drive the UK back to the negotiating table. At which point the backstop will be a pre-requisite for talks resuming.

Or the UK doesn't 'drive back' to the negotiating table but holds open the possibility of talks.

If a hard border does come about that will drive Ireland back to talks. So we can refuse the backstop until they drop it.
If a hard border does not come about then it will show the backstop to be the heaping pile of bovine manure we always said it was.

Either way, so long as we hold firm we win.

Why would I hard border drive Ireland back into talks?

Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will.

Northern Ireland isn't the UK and opposition to the backstop comes from both NI Unionists and English and Welsh nationalists and Scottish unionists. Few of them are likely to change.

Even if NI changes its mind [and NI nationalists won't change their mind, 98% already back the backstop and we are ignoring them] it won't necessarily change the UK's mind.

The drive for the backstop is coming from Ireland. If Ireland says they have an alternative the EU has no justification to stay firm anymore.

So you want the UK to break its obligations in the Belfast Agreement?

CarlottaVance

https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1164100951168421888?s=20

I suppose you could call it the "Union Dividend"......

kle4

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

algarkirk said:

Gardenwalker said:

FF43 said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1163963029924528133?s=21

Bingo!

This is the real reason why Ireland won't concede, ever, on the backstop. Yes it can follow the UK by diverging from the EU in step. But it goes against its economic interest to do so, and more importantly, against their idea of who they are. It doesn't see why it automatically should be making the concession rather than the UK whose project this is, and which is hostile to Ireland anyway. It thinks, thanks to the backing of the EU, it can face the UK down on this issue.

This proposal is frankly bizarre, and offensive to the Irish. I am not sure what Johnson thinks it might achieve apart from hastening No Deal and securing long lasting Irish enmity in the bargain.

Every configuration of the problem is bizarre and offensive to someone. The Commons finds the backstop bizarre and offensive (though I don't). Boris has to find something which the Commons will accept. Such voting evidence as there is shows that TMs deal without the backstop is the only current candidate. The ERG extremists will never be satisfied, nor will the DUP. Moderate Labour MPs are the key to a solution. No Deal is bizarre and offensive to even more people than a tweaked TM deal.

The commons doesn't really find the back stop bizarre and offensive. About 2-3 dozen mps do, though a handful of those including boris proved they are willing to stomach it, and around 250-300 find Brexit bizarre and offensive. Theyd vote down anything the backstop was irrelevant to those people opposing the WA.

It won't get through the commons with the backstop but the makeup of those who voted down the WA and their reasons fit doing so does not put the backstop high on the list vs stopping any form of brexit .

498 MPs voted to trigger Article 50, 114 to reject it.

Therefore only around 114 should "find Brexit bizarre and offensive".

Any MPs who voted to trigger Article 50 but oppose Brexit are themselves bizarre.

I dont disagree on that score but we are where we are and given statements made it is clear that is how hundreds of them feel even though that makes their A50 vote very very stupid. For a time they had cover of maybe wanting a better deal but the reasoning of such much of the opposition proves that a lie.

No, the opposition is just putting party politics before the best interests of the country.

I dont think you've understood my comment as I dont see where you've arrived at disagreeing with it based on your comment.

williamglenn

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

No, it doesn’t. The Irish border is of no economic consequence to the UK. All the actual No Deal issues are the ones that affect the mainland. Those will still be there whether or not a Hard Border goes up in Ireland - and it’s those that will drive the UK back to the negotiating table. At which point the backstop will be a pre-requisite for talks resuming.

Or the UK doesn't 'drive back' to the negotiating table but holds open the possibility of talks.

If a hard border does come about that will drive Ireland back to talks. So we can refuse the backstop until they drop it.
If a hard border does not come about then it will show the backstop to be the heaping pile of bovine manure we always said it was.

Either way, so long as we hold firm we win.

Why would I hard border drive Ireland back into talks?

Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will.

Northern Ireland isn't the UK and opposition to the backstop comes from both NI Unionists and English and Welsh nationalists and Scottish unionists. Few of them are likely to change.

Even if NI changes its mind [and NI nationalists won't change their mind, 98% already back the backstop and we are ignoring them] it won't necessarily change the UK's mind.

The drive for the backstop is coming from Ireland. If Ireland says they have an alternative the EU has no justification to stay firm anymore.

So why would / will Ireland drop the border? Every statement you made there is about the UK so you haven't answered my question.

Because you introduced the UK into it.

Taking the UK out [and thus taking "Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will" out of your original post] a hard border will drive Ireland back into negotiations because Ireland doesn't want to have a hard border.

The "insurance policy" will have brought about what it was supposed to insure against. So why continue to demand it?

A hard border will drive the UK not Ireland back to the negotiating table.

I don't think the UK is as bothered as Ireland by a hard border.

How much will it cost the UK, in every sense, to manage that scenario?

kle4

Oh great, the gov is delaying a decision on HS2 for the end of the year. Not a ploy to keep on board the pro and anti sides in an autumn GE, nossir.

malcolmg

Benpointer said:

Brom said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/08/21/yellowhammer-port-chaos-not-even-project-fear-slapstick/

Good read for any history buffs on the nonsense that is Yellowhammer

Oh great... the fall of France wasn't so bad after all.

Here's a more balanced view of the seemingly likely descent into self-inflicted harm. Sadly plausible...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/21/1914-brexit-calamity-inevitable-remainers

Perfect description of where we are and where we are going, it will be No Deal and ramifications of that will be Scottish Independence and likely Irish Reunification. Many years of turmoil ahead and disaster for many as well.

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1164100951168421888?s=20

I suppose you could call it the "Union Dividend"......

LOL, another set of rigged numbers, get a life.

CarlottaVance

At least they've found him:

BEIJING (Reuters) - A Chinese national working at Britain’s Hong Kong consulate has been detained in China’s border city of Shenzhen for violating the law, the Chinese foreign ministry said on Wednesday, likely worsening already strained ties between Beijing and London.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-hongkong-protests-britain-idUKKCN1VB0NG

TOPPING

Philip_Thompson said:

I don't think the UK is as bothered as Ireland by a hard border.

A plausible scenario is:

Hard border = resurgence of terrorist activity = need for British troops to protect border posts and officials.

At the height of Op Banner there were 40,000-odd forces on the ground sent by the UK government (HMF, plus UDR plus RUC).

Those days are gone. The army is now around 80,000 strong so to replicate the Op Banner manning would take the entire British army. Leaving no wiggle room for quelling any troublesome middle Eastern dictators or a pesky Russia for example.

We simply could not cope.

kle4

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1164100951168421888?s=20

I suppose you could call it the "Union Dividend"......

LOL, another set of rigged numbers, get a life.

Rigged in what way, may I ask? I dont know how it is calculated but given any conclusion alone does not prove a rigging, what have they done to rig that conclusion?

CarlottaVance

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1164100951168421888?s=20

I suppose you could call it the "Union Dividend"......

LOL, another set of rigged numbers, get a life.

Issued by the Scottish Government?

If you think that, you should get a new government......

Philip_Thompson

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

No, it doesn’t. The Irish border is of no economic consequence to the UK. All the actual No Deal issues are the ones that affect the mainland. Those will still be there whether or not a Hard Border goes up in Ireland - and it’s those that will drive the UK back to the negotiating table. At which point the backstop will be a pre-requisite for talks resuming.

Or the UK doesn't 'drive back' to the negotiating table but holds open the possibility of talks.

If a hard border does come about that will drive Ireland back to talks. So we can refuse the backstop until they drop it.
If a hard border does not come about then it will show the backstop to be the heaping pile of bovine manure we always said it was.

Either way, so long as we hold firm we win.

Why would I hard border drive Ireland back into talks?

Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will.

Northern Ireland isn't the UK and opposition to the backstop comes from both NI Unionists and English and Welsh nationalists and Scottish unionists. Few of them are likely to change.

Even if NI changes its mind [and NI nationalists won't change their mind, 98% already back the backstop and we are ignoring them] it won't necessarily change the UK's mind.

The drive for the backstop is coming from Ireland. If Ireland says they have an alternative the EU has no justification to stay firm anymore.

So you want the UK to break its obligations in the Belfast Agreement?

No I think we should honour our obligations. It is the so call spirit of the agreement I don't think we should honour via the backstop.

CarlottaVance

You know that "invest in infrastructure with bond prices so low" idea.....

https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1164104166417031168?s=20

Pulpstar

Peter_the_Punter said:

Chatting with some Irish friends yesterday they tell me the local gangs and paramilitaries are already gearing up for the increased business a hard border will bring.

Nice to know Brexit works for some.

Romantic ideals of Irish unity probably taking a distant second place to making some cold hard cash these days.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. JohnL, does the US have online voting (at actual elections) or is it just for the caucus?

Philip_Thompson

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

I dont disagree on that score but we are where we are and given statements made it is clear that is how hundreds of them feel even though that makes their A50 vote very very stupid. For a time they had cover of maybe wanting a better deal but the reasoning of such much of the opposition proves that a lie.

No, the opposition is just putting party politics before the best interests of the country.

I dont think you've understood my comment as I dont see where you've arrived at disagreeing with it based on your comment.

I do understand it. I just don't think you can put every opposition MP who voted to invoke Article 50 but voted (by whip) to reject a Tory Brexit as opposing Brexit rather than opposing Tories. For Corbyn and his ilk it is Tories not Brexit he is against.

glw

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1164100951168421888?s=20

I suppose you could call it the "Union Dividend"......

That's a shortfall of about £4,500 for every person employed in Scotland.

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1164100951168421888?s=20

I suppose you could call it the "Union Dividend"......

LOL, another set of rigged numbers, get a life.

Issued by the Scottish Government?

If you think that, you should get a new government......

Change the record, they are made up by UK using fake numbers , ie Scotland appears to be borrowing a fortune and rest of UK in surplus, how do they work that out when Scotland cannot borrow money. You people really are stupid and mendacious it is not just a pretence.
If you are going to LIE at least try and make it believable.

Pulpstar

CarlottaVance said:

You know that "invest in infrastructure with bond prices so low" idea.....

https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1164104166417031168?s=20

lol - I thought it was Heathrow being given the decision at the end of the year ?

What is the combined public spend on LHR3 and HS2 up to now ?

DecrepitJohnL

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. JohnL, does the US have online voting (at actual elections) or is it just for the caucus?

American elections (and the primaries) differ from state to state. So far as I know, no state has online voting for the presidential election -- I've not looked, though.

CarlottaVance

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1164100951168421888?s=20

I suppose you could call it the "Union Dividend"......

LOL, another set of rigged numbers, get a life.

Issued by the Scottish Government?

If you think that, you should get a new government......

Change the record, they are made up by UK using fake numbers , ie Scotland appears to be borrowing a fortune and rest of UK in surplus, how do they work that out when Scotland cannot borrow money. You people really are stupid and mendacious it is not just a pretence.
If you are going to LIE at least try and make it believable.

https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/899745383009718272?s=20

Nicola's a liar too then?

And Eck?

https://twitter.com/miller_iain/status/1163895224961294338?s=20

And the IndyRef white paper:

https://twitter.com/DavidRMacKinnon/status/1164107229202714624?s=20

JohnO

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

malcolmg

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1164100951168421888?s=20

I suppose you could call it the "Union Dividend"......

LOL, another set of rigged numbers, get a life.

Rigged in what way, may I ask? I dont know how it is calculated but given any conclusion alone does not prove a rigging, what have they done to rig that conclusion?

They just look at overall numbers and have no idea how to split but always manage to make Scotland borrowing most of the money whilst rUK borrows almost zero. They are just made up bollox as it is purely a made up split of the total numbers , used to try and promote how munificent the union is to Scotland. Complete and utter lies and not bearing any resemblance of how Scotland would be if independent.
It suits halfwitted rabid unionists like Carlotta that want to crow about how bad Scotland is , nothing else. Scottish Government are given a set of rigged numbers and have to get on with it as there are no other numbers.

MikeSmithson

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

No, it doesn’t. The Irish border is of no economic consequence to the UK. All the actual No Deal issues are the ones that affect the mainland. Those will still be there whether or not a Hard Border goes up in Ireland - and it’s those that will drive the UK back to the negotiating table. At which point the backstop will be a pre-requisite for talks resuming.

Or the UK doesn't 'drive back' to the negotiating table but holds open the possibility of talks.

If a hard border does come about that will drive Ireland back to talks. So we can refuse the backstop until they drop it.
If a hard border does not come about then it will show the backstop to be the heaping pile of bovine manure we always said it was.

Either way, so long as we hold firm we win.

Why would I hard border drive Ireland back into talks?

Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will.

Northern Ireland isn't the UK and opposition to the backstop comes from both NI Unionists and English and Welsh nationalists and Scottish unionists. Few of them are likely to change.

Even if NI changes its mind [and NI nationalists won't change their mind, 98% already back the backstop and we are ignoring them] it won't necessarily change the UK's mind.

The drive for the backstop is coming from Ireland. If Ireland says they have an alternative the EU has no justification to stay firm anymore.

So you want the UK to break its obligations in the Belfast Agreement?

No I think we should honour our obligations. It is the so call spirit of the agreement I don't think we should honour via the backstop.

Well how do we honour it then?

eek

JohnO said:

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

Boris isn't going to get an election with those numbers - Corbyn will insist on an extension to kill it.

Mind you those Brexit numbers are too low..

kle4

JohnO said:

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

All very good for the Tories but they had good polls earlier this year, it does not speak to how it will hold up if Boris' bluster does not keep BXP on side should he fail.

AlastairMeeks

It's way too early to work out what is going to happen in February next year. It wouldn't surprise me at all if another one of the unfancied contenders breaks out before then, at least for a while.

Pulpstar

MikeSmithson said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Be aware Iowa is said to also have an online caucus this year (alongside the bricks and mortar ones) whose dynamics (and participants) may be different from those seen in the past.

A key fact here is that however many participate in the virtual caucus its outcome will be weighted to ensure it only represents 10% of the State's result.

Blimey. Bad news for Andrew Yang I guess.

Pulpstar

JohnO said:

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

This is the "No deal" dividend for the Tories. Boris has the ex BXP voters on board IFF he either delivers no Deal or an election before Oct 31st.

Gardenwalker

Pulpstar said:

CarlottaVance said:

You know that "invest in infrastructure with bond prices so low" idea.....

https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1164104166417031168?s=20

lol - I thought it was Heathrow being given the decision at the end of the year ?

What is the combined public spend on LHR3 and HS2 up to now ?

Clearing the “barnacles” / fucking the economy even further.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. O, that poll has BP at 5%, but another (YouGov?) had them about 14%.

That almost entirely explains the Conservatives being 42% in the former and about 32% in the latter.

edmundintokyo

MikeSmithson said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Be aware Iowa is said to also have an online caucus this year (alongside the bricks and mortar ones) whose dynamics (and participants) may be different from those seen in the past.

A key fact here is that however many participate in the virtual caucus its outcome will be weighted to ensure it only represents 10% of the State's result.

That must be a dilemma for the campaigns: If you push online voting on your supporters you can get more votes, but some of the people who would have shown up at the caucus will vote online. If you're seriously in the running for delegates you may prefer to avoid it.

We could end up with two winners, one getting the most delegates and another getting the most votes, with the latter having more votes than the former by quite a margin.

Pulpstar

AlastairMeeks said:

It's way too early to work out what is going to happen in February next year. It wouldn't surprise me at all if another one of the unfancied contenders breaks out before then, at least for a while.

So long as it isn't Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang

Cory Booker might have a day in the sun.

Gardenwalker

JohnO said:

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

Amazing. Very low LD, Green and Brexit numbers.

TOPPING

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I don't think the UK is as bothered as Ireland by a hard border.

A plausible scenario is:

Hard border = resurgence of terrorist activity = need for British troops to protect border posts and officials.

At the height of Op Banner there were 40,000-odd forces on the ground sent by the UK government (HMF, plus UDR plus RUC).

Those days are gone. The army is now around 80,000 strong so to replicate the Op Banner manning would take the entire British army. Leaving no wiggle room for quelling any troublesome middle Eastern dictators or a pesky Russia for example.

We simply could not cope.

In fact it's worse than that because as there is no longer a UDR the British army would need to make up those numbers. So with preparing to go, being there, and leave after going there aren't even the numbers to police a hard border if the UK wanted the army to do that and nothing else at all.

CarlottaVance

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Precisely. The second we Brexit Schrodinger's Irish border gets resolved.

Currently there is said to be both a need for a border and a need not to have a border, the cat is said to be alive and dead. Once we Brexit we open the box and find if the border cat is alive or dead and the backstop vanishes.

No, it doesn’t. The Irish border is of no economic consequence to the UK. All the actual No Deal issues are the ones that affect the mainland. Those will still be there whether or not a Hard Border goes up in Ireland - and it’s those that will drive the UK back to the negotiating table. At which point the backstop will be a pre-requisite for talks resuming.

Or the UK doesn't 'drive back' to the negotiating table but holds open the possibility of talks.

If a hard border does come about that will drive Ireland back to talks. So we can refuse the backstop until they drop it.
If a hard border does not come about then it will show the backstop to be the heaping pile of bovine manure we always said it was.

Either way, so long as we hold firm we win.

Why would I hard border drive Ireland back into talks?

Northern Ireland will suffer far more than Ireland will.

Northern Ireland isn't the UK and opposition to the backstop comes from both NI Unionists and English and Welsh nationalists and Scottish unionists. Few of them are likely to change.

Even if NI changes its mind [and NI nationalists won't change their mind, 98% already back the backstop and we are ignoring them] it won't necessarily change the UK's mind.

The drive for the backstop is coming from Ireland. If Ireland says they have an alternative the EU has no justification to stay firm anymore.

So you want the UK to break its obligations in the Belfast Agreement?

No I think we should honour our obligations. It is the so call spirit of the agreement I don't think we should honour via the backstop.

Well how do we honour it then?

By not breaching the letter of it, to start with.

Where will NI "consent" for changes to EURegs come from?

CarlottaVance

JohnO said:

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

Much as I wouldn't mind that poll it does have "outlier" written all over it.....Two thirds of the Brexit Party going to Con......nah.....

AlastairMeeks

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It's way too early to work out what is going to happen in February next year. It wouldn't surprise me at all if another one of the unfancied contenders breaks out before then, at least for a while.

So long as it isn't Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang

Cory Booker might have a day in the sun.

Cory Booker is one I have my eye on. I also think Julian Castro potentially has a bit of a run in him. But then I thought he might already have caught light, but so far the relevant electorate disagrees.

Pulpstar

Gardenwalker said:

JohnO said:

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

Amazing. Very low LD, Green and Brexit numbers.

Importantly for betting purposes :

St Albans Hertfordshire LIB gain from CON : Anne Main

CarlottaVance

malcolmg said:

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1164100951168421888?s=20

I suppose you could call it the "Union Dividend"......

LOL, another set of rigged numbers, get a life.

Rigged in what way, may I ask? I dont know how it is calculated but given any conclusion alone does not prove a rigging, what have they done to rig that conclusion?

They just look at overall numbers and have no idea how to split but always manage to make Scotland borrowing most of the money whilst rUK borrows almost zero. They are just made up bollox as it is purely a made up split of the total numbers , used to try and promote how munificent the union is to Scotland. Complete and utter lies and not bearing any resemblance of how Scotland would be if independent.
It suits halfwitted rabid unionists like Carlotta that want to crow about how bad Scotland is , nothing else. Scottish Government are given a set of rigged numbers and have to get on with it as there are no other numbers.

Q: Who produces GERS?

A: GERS is produced by Scottish Government statisticians. It is designated as a National Statistics product, which means that it is produced independently of Scottish Ministers and has been assessed by the UK Statistics Authority as being produced in line with the Code of Practice for Statistics. This means the statistics have been found to meet user needs, to be methodologically sound, explained well and produced free of political interference.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-gers/

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Smithson, that sounds bloody weird.

So if 2 people vote, for candidate A, that'll have more impact than if 100,00 vote total and 80,000 back candidate A?

This reminds me of why subscription models for books, with a pre-determined pool for paying authors, is so daft.

StuartDickson

JohnO said:

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

SNP at 5% of GB VI ?!? Wow.

Corresponds to a whacking great VI share in Scotland. 50% ish?

dixiedean

Pulpstar said:

Gardenwalker said:

JohnO said:

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

Amazing. Very low LD, Green and Brexit numbers.

Importantly for betting purposes :

St Albans Hertfordshire LIB gain from CON : Anne Main

Importantly also, Con take Leigh, Wansbeck and Blyth Valley.
This is GE 2017 run up repeated.

Theuniondivvie

StuartDickson said:

JohnO said:

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

SNP at 5% of GB VI ?!? Wow.

Corresponds to a whacking great VI share in Scotland. 50% ish?

Careful, you'll have HYUFD telling you that these are the wrong kind of subsamples.

Brom

CarlottaVance said:

JohnO said:

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

Much as I wouldn't mind that poll it does have "outlier" written all over it.....Two thirds of the Brexit Party going to Con......nah.....

Would broadly agree however I think Cons can hit close to 40 under Boris and BXP will poll single figures if we leave this year. LD should be in the 15-20 zone realistically so very much the bottom end.

Boris has so far been very assured so unsurprising it is showing up in the polls.

CatMan

Errrrr

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1164108955339120641?s=20

CarlottaVance

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) - As the deadline for Britain to quit the European Union approaches, thousands of people are expressing interest in a Brexit beach party in the Netherlands to say a fond farewell.

By Wednesday morning, nearly 10,000 people had signed up on Facebook to attend the proposed event that would allow people to sit in deck chairs looking out to sea as "Great Britain wakes up as a closed institution" while enjoying "Dutch chips, French wine and German beer."

Another 60,000 have expressed interest in the Oct. 31 party at Wijk aan Zee, northwest of Amsterdam.

The plan is the brainchild of documentary maker Ron Toekook, who tells Dutch broadcaster NOS it will be "as if you are saying goodbye to a good friend who you hope will return sometime."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-7378787/Thousands-interested-Dutch-idea-Brexit-beach-party.html

Slackbladder

eek said:

JohnO said:

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

Boris isn't going to get an election with those numbers - Corbyn will insist on an extension to kill it.

Mind you those Brexit numbers are too low..

Is it? If it comes to the crunch between no Brexit and Brexit.

I'm starting to actually no blame remainers for No-Deal, They had the power to get the WA on-board, and they went for No-Brexit or bust....

Well guess what, we're getting bust now.

Brom

CarlottaVance said:

You know that "invest in infrastructure with bond prices so low" idea.....

https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1164104166417031168?s=20

Hopefully no go. Improving rail links from Hull to Liverpool should be the government priority.

SouthamObserver

CarlottaVance said:

JohnO said:

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

Much as I wouldn't mind that poll it does have "outlier" written all over it.....Two thirds of the Brexit Party going to Con......nah.....

The previous Kantar poll had BXP on 10%, just a week or so before they got most votes in the Euro election. The interesting thing about this poll is the size of the Labour to Tory swing. It looks pretty huge to me - and that would be a gamechanger if it happened.

With all polls currently, my rule of thumb is to look at how the No Deal/anti-No Deal votes stack up. This poll is at the top end for No Deal parties, but is broadly in line with the others we have seen. The key, of course, is vote allocation within the two blocs.

Gardenwalker

Brom said:

CarlottaVance said:

You know that "invest in infrastructure with bond prices so low" idea.....

https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1164104166417031168?s=20

Hopefully no go. Improving rail links from Hull to Liverpool should be the government priority.

Why not both?

StuartDickson

Theuniondivvie said:

StuartDickson said:

JohnO said:

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

SNP at 5% of GB VI ?!? Wow.

Corresponds to a whacking great VI share in Scotland. 50% ish?

Careful, you'll have HYUFD telling you that these are the wrong kind of subsamples.

A couple of months ago HY was quoting a sub-sample of a sub-sample of a sub-sample. With a straight face.

CarlottaVance

And the outcomes of this higher spending are?

https://twitter.com/theSNP/status/1164110280546299906?s=20

JohnO

CarlottaVance said:

JohnO said:

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

Much as I wouldn't mind that poll it does have "outlier" written all over it.....Two thirds of the Brexit Party going to Con......nah.....

CarlottaVance said:

JohnO said:

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

Much as I wouldn't mind that poll it does have "outlier" written all over it.....Two thirds of the Brexit Party going to Con......nah.....

Reading Anthony Wells on Twitter, Kantar does not include the BP and the Greens on their first prompt - you have to scroll further down to see them. Would explain (in part) why both are polling poorly!

CatMan

I know that a rogue poll is a poll you don't like, but no way am I believing that Tory score until it shows up in more polls.

Slackbladder

Of course, if all the 'chatter' is about building a coalition to 'block Brexit' it's not outside the area of common sense that the opposite is happening in the leaver camp to ensure Brexit happens....

Luckyguy1983

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I don't think the UK is as bothered as Ireland by a hard border.

A plausible scenario is:

Hard border = resurgence of terrorist activity = need for British troops to protect border posts and officials.

At the height of Op Banner there were 40,000-odd forces on the ground sent by the UK government (HMF, plus UDR plus RUC).

Those days are gone. The army is now around 80,000 strong so to replicate the Op Banner manning would take the entire British army. Leaving no wiggle room for quelling any troublesome middle Eastern dictators or a pesky Russia for example.

We simply could not cope.

The proposed border installations and personnel would be Republic of Ireland border installations and personnel. Whilst I am sure we would be supportive in any way we could, the responsibility to protect them would be the Republic's.

dixiedean

StuartDickson said:

JohnO said:

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

SNP at 5% of GB VI ?!? Wow.

Corresponds to a whacking great VI share in Scotland. 50% ish?

More like 60%...although rounding could be 4.5 I guess.

Theuniondivvie

CarlottaVance said:

JohnO said:

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

Much as I wouldn't mind that poll it does have "outlier" written all over it.....Two thirds of the Brexit Party going to Con......nah.....

So you actually want the Britain Trump Tories to do well? I see as with so many on here, your problems with BJ were but a passing fancy.

Gallowgate

https://twitter.com/anthonyjwells/status/1164108486202056705?s=21

Pulpstar

StuartDickson said:

JohnO said:

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

SNP at 5% of GB VI ?!? Wow.

Corresponds to a whacking great VI share in Scotland. 50% ish?

54% is the lower limit for 5%. My guess is the 5% includes Plaid too ? That adds 0.6%, so 46% or so is indicated.

My guess is it is an outlier on the high side but it isn't a number the SNP can reach if they're polling sub 40% however the maths is done.

StuartDickson

eek said:

JohnO said:

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

Boris isn't going to get an election with those numbers - Corbyn will insist on an extension to kill it.

Mind you those Brexit numbers are too low..

Agreed. If the Tories are anywhere near 40% then Corbyn will chicken out.

ydoethur

Gallowgate said:

https://twitter.com/anthonyjwells/status/1164108486202056705?s=21

Lizards don't Kantar, but unicorns do

Brom

Gardenwalker said:

Brom said:

CarlottaVance said:

You know that "invest in infrastructure with bond prices so low" idea.....

https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1164104166417031168?s=20

Hopefully no go. Improving rail links from Hull to Liverpool should be the government priority.

Why not both?

Cost and time. Improving rail links across the North would have a wider impact IMO than improving connections to London from the North. Hull to Liverpool is around the same distance as London to Birmingham yet suffers from an inadequate, slow, overpriced rail service. I'd sooner a Northern powerhouse than further increase the brain drain to London.

StuartDickson

dixiedean said:

StuartDickson said:

JohnO said:

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

SNP at 5% of GB VI ?!? Wow.

Corresponds to a whacking great VI share in Scotland. 50% ish?

More like 60%...although rounding could be 4.5 I guess.

60% is completely infeasible. Even 50% is far higher than other GB and Scottish polling.

Reluctantly, I must say that this poll has “rogue” written all over it.

StuartDickson

Pulpstar said:

StuartDickson said:

JohnO said:

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

SNP at 5% of GB VI ?!? Wow.

Corresponds to a whacking great VI share in Scotland. 50% ish?

54% is the lower limit for 5%. My guess is the 5% includes Plaid too ? That adds 0.6%, so 46% or so is indicated.

My guess is it is an outlier on the high side but it isn't a number the SNP can reach if they're polling sub 40% however the maths is done.

Concur.

dixiedean

StuartDickson said:

eek said:

JohnO said:

Apparently new Kantar poll (fieldwork 15-19 Aug) showing:

Cons 42!!
Lab 28
LDs 15
Brexit 5
SNP 5
Green 3

Boris isn't going to get an election with those numbers - Corbyn will insist on an extension to kill it.

Mind you those Brexit numbers are too low..

Agreed. If the Tories are anywhere near 40% then Corbyn will chicken out.

He didn't last time. Those figures are actually better than the polls when May called it.