Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The deal splits the Tories whilst a referendum would split LAB

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited November 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The deal splits the Tories whilst a referendum would split LAB as well

One of the arguments that pro-second referendum Tory MPs are using at the moment is that the Brexit deal basically splits the Tories and Labour gets off scot free in spite of its equivocation and huge policy differences. So it is being said that if there was a referendum then it would split Labour as well.

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 8,429
    edited November 2018
    First, unlike May in a 'Who can give a straight answer?' competition.
  • As it is Black Friday, public service announcement. For those that don’t know camelcamelcamel is a great website for tracking historical prices on amazon so you can check if it really is a good deal or not.

    Does camelcamelcamel only cover Amazon?
    Yes, Amazon and third party sellers on Amazon. However, with that combined data that is pretty good indicator of the "real" market value of an item.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,774

    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,893
    edited November 2018
    Fourth (was first, but Vanilla ate my post).
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,350
    May's changing her tune again and again on what happens if the Deal is voted down.

    I guess there's only one way to find out...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,384
    I see Sir John Hayes has named his price for supporting the Gov't.
  • Pulpstar said:

    I see Sir John Hayes has named his price for supporting the Gov't.

    My parents have known him for years. The stories they could tell...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,774
    Pulpstar said:

    I see Sir John Hayes has named his price for supporting the Gov't.

    That's how the deal gets passed, then.
  • As it is Black Friday, public service announcement. For those that don’t know camelcamelcamel is a great website for tracking historical prices on amazon so you can check if it really is a good deal or not.

    Does camelcamelcamel only cover Amazon?
    Yes, Amazon and third party sellers on Amazon. However, with that combined data that is pretty good indicator of the "real" market value of an item.
    If you use Chrome as your browser, the Keepa extension does the same thing for Amazon pages. Really useful.
  • Pulpstar said:

    I see Sir John Hayes has named his price for supporting the Gov't.

    I am sure it is a total coincidence...
  • Good header.

    As I have said several times, clear your diaries for May/June.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 28,754
    On topic, this shows how much the mood has changed. Julia Hartley-Brewer's applause line is greeted with silence.

  • notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    Immigration
  • notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 44,609
    Well, even with that not a landslide perhaps.

    But I don't see how a ref is avoided if Mps actually believe what they say about no deal. For Tories it is a bit better than a GE after dividing so publicly and for labour they can claim to not back a side bit leave it to the people.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 8,586
    edited November 2018
    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    Good point. Can somebody remind me again why that was ruled out exactly?

    Edit: save yourselves the bother - just seen @TheWhiteRabbit's response
  • notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    Good point. Can somebody remind me again why that was ruled out exactly?
    Immigration
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 2,701
    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 8,586

    As it is Black Friday, public service announcement. For those that don’t know camelcamelcamel is a great website for tracking historical prices on amazon so you can check if it really is a good deal or not.

    Does camelcamelcamel only cover Amazon?
    Yes, Amazon and third party sellers on Amazon. However, with that combined data that is pretty good indicator of the "real" market value of an item.
    Ok thanks. Looking for a non-contract iPhone SE to replace Mrs. P's old iPhone 5C. Refurbished doesn't sound like a good idea but there's a huge range of prices for a phone that is basically end of life.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 44,609

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,774

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    Maybe the Commons will have to stage a referendum about what the question should be in any second referendum.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,601
    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I suspect turnout would be right down in a second referendum - with some boycotting.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,774
    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
  • This is a few hours old now, but is I think correct. The Tories will be decimated if a no Deal Brexit happens:

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,601
    edited November 2018
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/22/cabinet-brexiteers-gambling-managed-no-deal-good-chance-bet/

    "The threat of the Tory whips – “May’s deal or no Brexit” – is fast losing its potency because a striking number of senior Brexiteers now believe that her deal is far worse. Thursday’s “political declaration” confirmed her plan: send £39 billion to Brussels with almost no assurances of what will be given in return. A free trade deal is spoken of, but not guaranteed.

    We learned on Thursday that, in spite of Britain promising to align with EU regulations, we are not even being promised frictionless trade. Astonishingly, Northern Ireland is ceded to the EU regulatory orbit – for as long as the EU wants it."

    "There might be a bigger Brexit deal in two years’ time, but having banked both our money and Ireland, the EU has almost no incentive to give us one. “Free movement will be next to go,” says one former Cabinet Brexiteer. “We’d be better staying in. No question.”"

    "As recently as last week, Mrs May had hoped that the passage of time would lead MPs to see her deal as the most pragmatic option. But they’re coming to believe that her deal – this blind Brexit with nothing clear at the end of it – would guarantee years of instability, making the Tories forever seen as the party that botched Brexit, reviving populism and near-guaranteeing victory for Jeremy Corbyn.

    There are, now, no safe Brexit options. The Brexiteers’ plan – betting on her losing next month’s vote, then pushing for a managed no-deal – is a massive gamble. But a great many Tories are coming to believe that nodding through Mrs May’s Brexit deal might be the most reckless gamble of all."
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 26,863
    In some ways it's surprising that in the United States they still require all 12 jurors to agree on a verdict.
  • Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    Good question. Someone should ask them.
  • Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    The problem is that several groups would see the benefit of voting down the deal and causing no deal. Labour because it believes the Conservatives will get the blame; the ERG because it doesn't want a deal; the DUP because of NI; possibly Scottish Conservative MPs and some of the SNP on fisheries; and pro-Remain Tory MPs because they believe it will lead to a second referendum.

    Labour will say, if it comes to a debate on a second referendum, it wants a GE instead and so vote against it and I can't see enough Conservatives supporting it either.
  • AndyJS said:

    In some ways it's surprising that in the United States they still require all 12 jurors to agree on a verdict.

    As part of a wider system that sees far few decisions in court (but more juries compared to judges' decisions)
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    TGOHF said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I suspect turnout would be right down in a second referendum - with some boycotting.

    Yes, many who fear their side will lose will no doubt cry off.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,522
    TGOHF said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/22/cabinet-brexiteers-gambling-managed-no-deal-good-chance-bet/

    "The threat of the Tory whips – “May’s deal or no Brexit” – is fast losing its potency because a striking number of senior Brexiteers now believe that her deal is far worse. Thursday’s “political declaration” confirmed her plan: send £39 billion to Brussels with almost no assurances of what will be given in return. A free trade deal is spoken of, but not guaranteed.

    We learned on Thursday that, in spite of Britain promising to align with EU regulations, we are not even being promised frictionless trade. Astonishingly, Northern Ireland is ceded to the EU regulatory orbit – for as long as the EU wants it."

    "There might be a bigger Brexit deal in two years’ time, but having banked both our money and Ireland, the EU has almost no incentive to give us one. “Free movement will be next to go,” says one former Cabinet Brexiteer. “We’d be better staying in. No question.”"

    "As recently as last week, Mrs May had hoped that the passage of time would lead MPs to see her deal as the most pragmatic option. But they’re coming to believe that her deal – this blind Brexit with nothing clear at the end of it – would guarantee years of instability, making the Tories forever seen as the party that botched Brexit, reviving populism and near-guaranteeing victory for Jeremy Corbyn.

    There are, now, no safe Brexit options. The Brexiteers’ plan – betting on her losing next month’s vote, then pushing for a managed no-deal – is a massive gamble. But a great many Tories are coming to believe that nodding through Mrs May’s Brexit deal might be the most reckless gamble of all."

    Isn't it because the EU won't negotiate anything on the future relationship until the UK is a third party? A50 only says that "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 1,528
    edited November 2018

    This is a few hours old now, but is I think correct. The Tories will be decimated if a no Deal Brexit happens:

    Perhaps Mr Hodges can write an article in the DM giving us the benefit of his knowledge, basic services. So the water will be turned off, the rubbish not collected, the potholes filled even less than they are now. I look forward to it.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Mrs May might have played a blinder here! We shall see.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,774

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    Good question. Someone should ask them.
    It's not rocket science. I voted Leave because I want to Leave, not to take part in some weird Parliamentary game between the different Conservative factions.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,522

    AndyJS said:

    In some ways it's surprising that in the United States they still require all 12 jurors to agree on a verdict.

    As part of a wider system that sees far few decisions in court (but more juries compared to judges' decisions)
    Isn't some insanely high percentage of prosecutions are by plea-bargain, like over 90%?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 44,609
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    This is a few hours old now, but is I think correct. The Tories will be decimated if a no Deal Brexit happens:

    It will be the 1979 winter of discontent. Bodies unburried, bins uncollected spectre that will be hung around the cons neck for twenty years.

    Beginnning to feel that a no deal would cause disruption but it would be a black Wednesday type of shock that will totally detach us from the European project and do so for ever.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
    Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

    I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,601
    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
    I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

  • RobD said:

    AndyJS said:

    In some ways it's surprising that in the United States they still require all 12 jurors to agree on a verdict.

    As part of a wider system that sees far few decisions in court (but more juries compared to judges' decisions)
    Isn't some insanely high percentage of prosecutions are by plea-bargain, like over 90%?
    Yes, but do remember that the plea bargain burns at both ends. Cases which do not end with a conviction at all in the UK end with a plea bargain in the US, not just those cases which would go to trial in the UK.
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171
    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
    I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

    Do you really think if a brilliant brexiteer was in charge the deal would have been any different. The EU would still be the same EU
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,434
    edited November 2018

    This is a few hours old now, but is I think correct. The Tories will be decimated if a no Deal Brexit happens:

    The Tories will be decimated if we Remain as well. Actually just losing one in ten would be the very least they could expect. I would not be surprised to see them destroyed as a political force.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 46,454
    Anazina said:

    There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

    It was all over the campaign though.

    All of the targeted ads with questionable funding sources. There is no question it motivated voters.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.

    Grr.. there was no option for that. Leave or remain. EFTAis leave. Modify our welfare state so it’s less atttractive and let’s get on with it.
  • This is a few hours old now, but is I think correct. The Tories will be decimated if a no Deal Brexit happens:

    Perhaps Mr Hodges can write an article in the DM giving us the benefit of his knowledge, basic services. So the water will be turned off, the rubbish not collected, the potholes filled even less than they are now. I look forward to it.
    He probably means that there won't be any Good Brie.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 44,609

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    The problem is that several groups would see the benefit of voting down the deal and causing no deal. Labour because it believes the Conservatives will get the blame; the ERG because it doesn't want a deal; the DUP because of NI; possibly Scottish Conservative MPs and some of the SNP on fisheries; and pro-Remain Tory MPs because they believe it will lead to a second referendum.

    Labour will say, if it comes to a debate on a second referendum, it wants a GE instead and so vote against it and I can't see enough Conservatives supporting it either.
    Labour do want a GE but one is probably coming anyway as the Tories are done, DUP or not. They're too divided to last with no or a small majority. So they can try for GE and fail then back a ref.

    Enough labour remainers could be tempted for a ref as they believe remain will win, so do enough Tories support that or think it's the only way to maybe get the deal done.

    I do think remain would win. Most remainers will vote the same and we know not all leavers would with this dealm
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,690
    I have been somewhat under the weather of late and struggling to keep up with all the twists and turns of this but I must confess that the position of Raab and seemingly others that May's deal is worse than remaining confounds me completely.

    It is true that May's deal is a soft Brexit; that it gives the EU far more say over our future laws and regulations than many would like and that it contains the infamous backstop which potentially gives the EU even more power and say over the laws of NI. It also leaves us rather more beholden to them in respect of a future FTA than I would like. This is all unfortunate and regrettable but a fairly inevitable consequence of the incompetence with which the negotiations have been conducted. Some of it was always inevitable regardless standing the comparative strength of the parties.

    OTOH it gets us out of the political mechanisms of the EU, it provides a necessary transitional period, it keeps the disruption to trade to a minimum, it makes it clear that it will be our decision whether we wish to keep free movement once that transitional period is over, it gets us out of the CAP, it largely leaves the decision about whether we remain in the CFP at the end of the transitional period down to us, it prevents the EU from seeking to impose any laws on us outwith the scope of the SM and even there we are simply being asked to accept that if we choose to pass laws incompatible with the SM that we are accepting the consequences of that.

    I really don't think that you have to be a glass half full kind of guy or gal to recognise that this is a major step away from the EU, that it is consistent with the referendum result and that it also reflects the fact that the decision to leave was close. I can understand, even if I disagree, with those who say that no deal would be better, that we can make the mini deals to protect residents, transport links etc but we should not agree to any of this. I do not understand how anyone who apparently wanted to leave would say that they would rather stay as an alternative. Do they really think that there is a chance in hell that the UK would want to revisit this issue again for another 40 years? I mean, seriously?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 44,609

    This is a few hours old now, but is I think correct. The Tories will be decimated if a no Deal Brexit happens:

    The Tories will be decimated if we Remain as well. Actually just losing one in ten would be the very least they could expect. I would not be surprised to see them destroyed as a political force.
    They need years of quiet to rebuild. But they won't get that.
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 1,528
    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
    I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

    Dom Cummings did, he is on record as saying that current MP's and the Civil Service could not deliver a beneficial Brexit or his definition of a beneficial Brexit.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 75,246
    edited November 2018
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    Because it wasn't about Leave winning per se

    1) People like Boris were only interested in furthering their career, he thought backing Leave would see him become Tory Leader/PM

    2) Gove thought Leave would lose 70/30 if Leave was fronted by the likes of IDS and Farage, so he backed a much harder form of Brexit as a way of getting Leave to 45% to tell the EU this far and no further. He never expected to deliver on his promises and campaign. Why do you think he regrets the nasty xenophobic focus on Turkey

    3) Some Leavers weren't BOOers until the referendum, they were reformers, so they hadn't really thought about the practicalities of Leaving but concluded Remaining wasn't an option. cf Raab and Dover/Calais.
  • Anazina said:

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
    Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

    I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.
    Were you in a coma during the referendum, did you miss all the stuff about ending free movement?
  • DavidL said:

    I do not understand how anyone who apparently wanted to leave would say that they would rather stay as an alternative. Do they really think that there is a chance in hell that the UK would want to revisit this issue again for another 40 years? I mean, seriously?

    I think it's a negotiating tactic: only by threatening to vote against can they hope to get the deal toughened up. Playing with fire, as I said earlier, but there is a certain rationale.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    Anazina said:

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
    Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

    I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.
    Were you in a coma during the referendum, did you miss all the stuff about ending free movement?
    Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 44,609
    DavidL said:

    I have been somewhat under the weather of late and struggling to keep up with all the twists and turns of this but I must confess that the position of Raab and seemingly others that May's deal is worse than remaining confounds me completely.

    It is true that May's deal is a soft Brexit; that it gives the EU far more say over our future laws and regulations than many would like and that it contains the infamous backstop which potentially gives the EU even more power and say over the laws of NI. It also leaves us rather more beholden to them in respect of a future FTA than I would like. This is all unfortunate and regrettable but a fairly inevitable consequence of the incompetence with which the negotiations have been conducted. Some of it was always inevitable regardless standing the comparative strength of the parties.

    OTOH it gets us out of the political mechanisms of the EU, it provides a necessary transitional period, it keeps the disruption to trade to a minimum, it makes it clear that it will be our decision whether we wish to keep free movement once that transitional period is over, it gets us out of the CAP, it largely leaves the decision about whether we remain in the CFP at the end of the transitional period down to us, it prevents the EU from seeking to impose any laws on us outwith the scope of the SM and even there we are simply being asked to accept that if we choose to pass laws incompatible with the SM that we are accepting the consequences of that.

    I really don't think that you have to be a glass half full kind of guy or gal to recognise that this is a major step away from the EU, that it is consistent with the referendum result and that it also reflects the fact that the decision to leave was close. I can understand, even if I disagree, with those who say that no deal would be better, that we can make the mini deals to protect residents, transport links etc but we should not agree to any of this. I do not understand how anyone who apparently wanted to leave would say that they would rather stay as an alternative. Do they really think that there is a chance in hell that the UK would want to revisit this issue again for another 40 years? I mean, seriously?

    Some believe remaining will see such a backlash that we will proper brexit in short order. Same as remainers who back no deal thinking we will rejoin sooner due to the pain.

    Or perhaps they simply don't actually think the EU is so bad as they claim .
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,774

    DavidL said:

    I do not understand how anyone who apparently wanted to leave would say that they would rather stay as an alternative. Do they really think that there is a chance in hell that the UK would want to revisit this issue again for another 40 years? I mean, seriously?

    I think it's a negotiating tactic: only by threatening to vote against can they hope to get the deal toughened up. Playing with fire, as I said earlier, but there is a certain rationale.
    That would be rational, but having read the ravings of people like Andrew Lilico on twitter, I think some of them truly believe what they're saying
  • kle4 said:

    This is a few hours old now, but is I think correct. The Tories will be decimated if a no Deal Brexit happens:

    The Tories will be decimated if we Remain as well. Actually just losing one in ten would be the very least they could expect. I would not be surprised to see them destroyed as a political force.
    They need years of quiet to rebuild. But they won't get that.
    Nor do they deserve it. No party has an inherent right to exist and given how badly they have screwed up the most important job they have had to do in the last 50 years they deserve no sympathy and no help. They are unfit to exist as a potentially governing party.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 46,454
    notme said:

    Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.

    And all 6 of them post here regularly
  • This jury are being very slow. Unlike Ms Onasanya's car.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 26,863
    RobD said:

    AndyJS said:

    In some ways it's surprising that in the United States they still require all 12 jurors to agree on a verdict.

    As part of a wider system that sees far few decisions in court (but more juries compared to judges' decisions)
    Isn't some insanely high percentage of prosecutions are by plea-bargain, like over 90%?
    Plea bargains are pretty corrupt most of the time IMO. If you say to someone who's protesting their innocence that you'll offer them five years in jail if they plead guilty compared to life imprisonment if they plead not guilty and are found guilty, 99% of people are going to plead guilty even if they know they're innocent.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Scott_P said:

    notme said:

    Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.

    And all 6 of them post here regularly

    I thought it was the message on the bus that was the clincher? That was about the club fees and how we could spend them better in the uk.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 46,454

    No party has an inherent right to exist and given how badly they have screwed up the most important job they have had to do in the last 50 years they deserve no sympathy and no help. They are unfit to exist as a potentially governing party.

    This applies to Labour at least as much as the Tories
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 2,701

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    The problem is that several groups would see the benefit of voting down the deal and causing no deal. Labour because it believes the Conservatives will get the blame; the ERG because it doesn't want a deal; the DUP because of NI; possibly Scottish Conservative MPs and some of the SNP on fisheries; and pro-Remain Tory MPs because they believe it will lead to a second referendum.

    Labour will say, if it comes to a debate on a second referendum, it wants a GE instead and so vote against it and I can't see enough Conservatives supporting it either.
    Labour will only vote for a second referendum if it is clear that it can't get a GE. However, it's not likely that the government could survive a second referendum so in practice a Labour-led government is likely to result from either a GE or a referendum. If a referendum backs remain I think a general election would follow very quickly, it's hard to see how the Tories could avoid a split in those circumstances.
  • notme said:

    Anazina said:

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
    Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

    I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.
    Were you in a coma during the referendum, did you miss all the stuff about ending free movement?
    Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.
    I know but it was the second most important reason, in fact you could argue that it was a subset of number one.

    image
  • This jury are being very slow. Unlike Ms Onasanya's car.

    Joyridden by a mystery Russian...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,522
    AndyJS said:

    RobD said:

    AndyJS said:

    In some ways it's surprising that in the United States they still require all 12 jurors to agree on a verdict.

    As part of a wider system that sees far few decisions in court (but more juries compared to judges' decisions)
    Isn't some insanely high percentage of prosecutions are by plea-bargain, like over 90%?
    Plea bargains are pretty corrupt most of the time IMO. If you say to someone who's protesting their innocence that you'll offer them five years in jail if they plead guilty compared to life imprisonment if they plead not guilty and are found guilty, 99% of people are going to plead guilty even if they know they're innocent.
    Yes, it's a rotten system. They need magistrates' courts.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,136

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    Because it wasn't about Leave winning per se

    1) People like Boris were only interested in furthering their career, he thought backing Leave would see him become Tory Leader/PM

    2) Gove thought Leave would lose 70/30 if Leave was fronted by the likes of IDS and Farage, so he backed a much harder form of Brexit as a way of getting Leave to 45% to tell the EU this far and no further. He never expected to deliver on his promises and campaign. Why do you think he regrets the nasty xenophobic focus on Turkey

    3) Some Leavers weren't BOOers until the referendum, they were reformers, so they hadn't really thought about the practicalities of Leaving but concluded Remaining wasn't an option. cf Raab and Dover/Calais.
    They wanted to stick it to the man.

    Problem is that the man is the one that fills the supermarket shelves for them.
  • mattmatt Posts: 2,926

    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
    I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

    Dom Cummings did, he is on record as saying that current MP's and the Civil Service could not deliver a beneficial Brexit or his definition of a beneficial Brexit.
    Perhaps because it is impossible. Convenient to have the cult of betrayal running early though.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Anazina said:

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
    Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

    I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.
    Were you in a coma during the referendum, did you miss all the stuff about ending free movement?
    I heard lots of stuff during the referendum campaign. Including pledges on buses and the like.

    So what?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,690

    DavidL said:

    I do not understand how anyone who apparently wanted to leave would say that they would rather stay as an alternative. Do they really think that there is a chance in hell that the UK would want to revisit this issue again for another 40 years? I mean, seriously?

    I think it's a negotiating tactic: only by threatening to vote against can they hope to get the deal toughened up. Playing with fire, as I said earlier, but there is a certain rationale.
    It's completely bonkers. It makes people think that remaining would not be so bad after all and that it is ok to disregard the public vote because even those who argued for leave have now recognised it is all too difficult. As a negotiating tactic its right up there with playing Russian roulette where you have one go aiming at your own head and the next go aiming at your own feet.
  • felixfelix Posts: 8,666
    OT: A second referendum would be a just reward for the idiots on the extrme right of the Tory party. I firmly believe it would be a vote to Remain in the EU.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 46,454
    DavidL said:

    It's completely bonkers.

    That is the Brexiteers favoured zone...
  • currystar said:

    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
    I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

    Do you really think if a brilliant brexiteer was in charge the deal would have been any different. The EU would still be the same EU
    But there were plenty of people accurately pointing out the mistakes that were being made before they were even agreed. I mean people who genuinely wanted things to go well rather than hardline opponents on either side. It was obvious from the start that agreeing the EU scheduling was a ridiculous idea. If the UK had stood their ground on that and made a cogent argument even the EU would have seen it was daft. Agreeing the Irish backstop was another daft idea. Deciding to represent only the views of a tiny hardline minority of the electorate rather than having a Brexit for the widest number of people.

    A moderate Brexit supporter would have been able to see these things - as did many on both sides of the referendum divide - and would have had a far better chance of selling a sensible compromise than someone who clearly did not understand or even want to understand why people voted Brexit.

    I can well imagine May sat in meetings in Brussels saying ' look I am really sorry about this. I didn't vote for Brexit and have no idea why people did'. It may be a way to keep friends in the EU but it is no way to try and run a negotiation.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    notme said:

    Anazina said:

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
    Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

    I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.
    Were you in a coma during the referendum, did you miss all the stuff about ending free movement?
    Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.
    I know but it was the second most important reason, in fact you could argue that it was a subset of number one.

    image
    "you could argue that it was a subset of number one" is among the weakest lines of argument I have ever heard on this. The options were Leave or Remain. That's it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,774

    kle4 said:

    This is a few hours old now, but is I think correct. The Tories will be decimated if a no Deal Brexit happens:

    The Tories will be decimated if we Remain as well. Actually just losing one in ten would be the very least they could expect. I would not be surprised to see them destroyed as a political force.
    They need years of quiet to rebuild. But they won't get that.
    Nor do they deserve it. No party has an inherent right to exist and given how badly they have screwed up the most important job they have had to do in the last 50 years they deserve no sympathy and no help. They are unfit to exist as a potentially governing party.
    That's actually been the case for most of my adult life. Time and again, the Conservatives form a circular firing squad.
  • matt said:

    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
    I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

    Dom Cummings did, he is on record as saying that current MP's and the Civil Service could not deliver a beneficial Brexit or his definition of a beneficial Brexit.
    Perhaps because it is impossible. Convenient to have the cult of betrayal running early though.
    Of course it wasn't impossible. There were plenty of Brexits that would have been beneficial but apparently they wouldn't have been a 'proper Brexit' according to the Remainers (including May).
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I do not understand how anyone who apparently wanted to leave would say that they would rather stay as an alternative. Do they really think that there is a chance in hell that the UK would want to revisit this issue again for another 40 years? I mean, seriously?

    I think it's a negotiating tactic: only by threatening to vote against can they hope to get the deal toughened up. Playing with fire, as I said earlier, but there is a certain rationale.
    It's completely bonkers. It makes people think that remaining would not be so bad after all and that it is ok to disregard the public vote because even those who argued for leave have now recognised it is all too difficult. As a negotiating tactic its right up there with playing Russian roulette where you have one go aiming at your own head and the next go aiming at your own feet.

    The odious Jake Rees has a third gun, permanently wedged up his anal passage.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,601
    currystar said:

    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
    I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

    Do you really think if a brilliant brexiteer was in charge the deal would have been any different. The EU would still be the same EU
    No but we might have realised this much sooner - perhaps 18 months ago and got ready for a clean Brexit.
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171

    currystar said:

    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
    I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

    Do you really think if a brilliant brexiteer was in charge the deal would have been any different. The EU would still be the same EU
    But there were plenty of people accurately pointing out the mistakes that were being made before they were even agreed. I mean people who genuinely wanted things to go well rather than hardline opponents on either side. It was obvious from the start that agreeing the EU scheduling was a ridiculous idea. If the UK had stood their ground on that and made a cogent argument even the EU would have seen it was daft. Agreeing the Irish backstop was another daft idea. Deciding to represent only the views of a tiny hardline minority of the electorate rather than having a Brexit for the widest number of people.

    A moderate Brexit supporter would have been able to see these things - as did many on both sides of the referendum divide - and would have had a far better chance of selling a sensible compromise than someone who clearly did not understand or even want to understand why people voted Brexit.

    I can well imagine May sat in meetings in Brussels saying ' look I am really sorry about this. I didn't vote for Brexit and have no idea why people did'. It may be a way to keep friends in the EU but it is no way to try and run a negotiation.
    With their treatment of Greece I just can't see the EU acting any differently towards us.
  • Sobering reading for PB Tories from Goodwin:

    " ‘Corbynomics’, which is cutting through."

    https://unherd.com/2018/11/corbynomics-winning-britain/
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,690

    This jury are being very slow. Unlike Ms Onasanya's car.

    Joyridden by a mystery Russian...
    Surely this happens to your car all the time. And you lend out both your phones at the same time of course. Nothing surprising about that at all.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,326
    TGOHF said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I suspect turnout would be right down in a second referendum - with some boycotting.

    That would be good if the boycotting was done by Leavers. They would have even less reason to complain at the result.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,774

    currystar said:

    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
    I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

    Do you really think if a brilliant brexiteer was in charge the deal would have been any different. The EU would still be the same EU
    But there were plenty of people accurately pointing out the mistakes that were being made before they were even agreed. I mean people who genuinely wanted things to go well rather than hardline opponents on either side. It was obvious from the start that agreeing the EU scheduling was a ridiculous idea. If the UK had stood their ground on that and made a cogent argument even the EU would have seen it was daft. Agreeing the Irish backstop was another daft idea. Deciding to represent only the views of a tiny hardline minority of the electorate rather than having a Brexit for the widest number of people.

    A moderate Brexit supporter would have been able to see these things - as did many on both sides of the referendum divide - and would have had a far better chance of selling a sensible compromise than someone who clearly did not understand or even want to understand why people voted Brexit.

    I can well imagine May sat in meetings in Brussels saying ' look I am really sorry about this. I didn't vote for Brexit and have no idea why people did'. It may be a way to keep friends in the EU but it is no way to try and run a negotiation.
    Even if that was the case, such a PM would probably have faced the same difficulties with his/her own side. There are people who regard any compromise as betrayal.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,601

    Sobering reading for PB Tories from Goodwin:

    " ‘Corbynomics’, which is cutting through."

    https://unherd.com/2018/11/corbynomics-winning-britain/

    Why is his best PM rating falling like a house brick then ?
  • notme said:

    Anazina said:

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
    Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

    I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.
    Were you in a coma during the referendum, did you miss all the stuff about ending free movement?
    Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.
    I know but it was the second most important reason, in fact you could argue that it was a subset of number one.

    image
    So as we have said all along, immigration was not the main driving factor behind the Leave vote and yet we have sacrificed every other possible Brexit on the alter of ending EU migration. I hope HYUFD sees that.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,774
    TGOHF said:

    Sobering reading for PB Tories from Goodwin:

    " ‘Corbynomics’, which is cutting through."

    https://unherd.com/2018/11/corbynomics-winning-britain/

    Why is his best PM rating falling like a house brick then ?
    The message may be popular but the messenger isn't, as the Tories found in the Noughties.
  • DavidL said:

    This jury are being very slow. Unlike Ms Onasanya's car.

    Joyridden by a mystery Russian...
    Surely this happens to your car all the time. And you lend out both your phones at the same time of course. Nothing surprising about that at all.
    Of course. Only this afternoon, this bloke who said his name was Sergei knocked on my door. He said he was an DPD delivery driver and could he borrow my car and mobiles for the afternoon, so he could finish his rounds.

    Should I be getting worried he hasn't returned yet?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,326

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
    The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,384
    DavidL said:

    This jury are being very slow. Unlike Ms Onasanya's car.

    Joyridden by a mystery Russian...
    Surely this happens to your car all the time. And you lend out both your phones at the same time of course. Nothing surprising about that at all.
    Live look at a couple of the juror's latest tweets :

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,774
    DavidL said:

    This jury are being very slow. Unlike Ms Onasanya's car.

    Joyridden by a mystery Russian...
    Surely this happens to your car all the time. And you lend out both your phones at the same time of course. Nothing surprising about that at all.
    It reminds me of former MP Mark Devine who got a VAT invoice from some bloke down the pub who he couldn't trace.
  • Scott_P said:

    No party has an inherent right to exist and given how badly they have screwed up the most important job they have had to do in the last 50 years they deserve no sympathy and no help. They are unfit to exist as a potentially governing party.

    This applies to Labour at least as much as the Tories
    I agree. It applies to any party but it was the Tories who were in charge for the last 3 years so it was their responsibility to sort this out.
  • felix said:

    OT: A second referendum would be a just reward for the idiots on the extrme right of the Tory party. I firmly believe it would be a vote to Remain in the EU.

    Raab and the others in the ERG display an IQ of the kindergarten

    Going round saying this is worse than remain invites 48% of the Country saying we have told you so for the last two years so let's agree to remain

    Indeed almost guaranteeing a substantial remain vote in a referendum

  • Scott_P said:

    notme said:

    Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.

    And all 6 of them post here regularly
    TSE's poll posting puts that little myth to bed.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,601

    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
    I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

    Dom Cummings did, he is on record as saying that current MP's and the Civil Service could not deliver a beneficial Brexit or his definition of a beneficial Brexit.
    Yes - he won the referendum then was proved right again that the civil service isn't fit for much at all apart from "managed decline".

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 26,863
    felix said:

    OT: A second referendum would be a just reward for the idiots on the extrme right of the Tory party. I firmly believe it would be a vote to Remain in the EU.

    Believe is the right word for it. There isn't much evidence from the polls that another referendum would produce a significantly different result.
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 1,528
    edited November 2018
    DavidL said:

    This jury are being very slow. Unlike Ms Onasanya's car.

    Joyridden by a mystery Russian...
    Surely this happens to your car all the time. And you lend out both your phones at the same time of course. Nothing surprising about that at all.
    Will this come down to a technicality? As I understand it the offence is that the NIP form was filled in incorrectly. If the prosecution can not prove that she had knowledge of the filling in of the form has she not broken that law?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 28,754

    notme said:

    Anazina said:

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
    Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

    I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.
    Were you in a coma during the referendum, did you miss all the stuff about ending free movement?
    Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.
    I know but it was the second most important reason, in fact you could argue that it was a subset of number one.

    image
    So as we have said all along, immigration was not the main driving factor behind the Leave vote and yet we have sacrificed every other possible Brexit on the alter of ending EU migration. I hope HYUFD sees that.
    The principal decision that people would want to be taken here is deciding who can come here. For many, "sovereignty" was just code for immigration.
  • notme said:

    Anazina said:

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
    Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

    I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.
    Were you in a coma during the referendum, did you miss all the stuff about ending free movement?
    Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.
    I know but it was the second most important reason, in fact you could argue that it was a subset of number one.

    image
    So as we have said all along, immigration was not the main driving factor behind the Leave vote and yet we have sacrificed every other possible Brexit on the alter of ending EU migration. I hope HYUFD sees that.
    Wrong, because there is other polling available that reinforces my point.

    Britain’s vote to leave the EU was the result of widespread anti-immigration sentiment, rather than a wider dissatisfaction with politics, according to a major survey of social attitudes in the UK.

    Findings from the British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey published on Wednesday show Brexit was the result of widespread concern over the numbers of people coming to the UK – millions of whom have done so under the EU’s freedom of movement rules in recent years.


    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-latest-news-leave-eu-immigration-main-reason-european-union-survey-a7811651.html#
This discussion has been closed.