Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The terrible truth about Brexit

12346

Comments

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Xenon said:

    What exactly is the point of a TV debate if we're not going to get to vote on the outcome?

    It just seems completely pointless, unless May is going to call for a referendum (which might be her plan).

    Virtue signally rubbish by May - just trying to pressurise her MPs to bend over and take the EU 's blank cheque without lube.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752

    We apologise for the late running of this Brexit, this is due to the taking back of the wrong sort of control.

    I would save that one for later after we end up with an extension because MPs can't make up their minds.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,230
    Anorak said:

    viewcode said:

    I am surprised when British people mock the German armed services for being inadequate and undangerous. Would we prefer them to be adequate and dangerous?

    As a powerful ally between us and Russia, then yes, very much so.
    Fair point
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,956
    edited November 2018
    It appears Donald Trump may have walked into the greatest ambush since the battle of Lake Trasimene

    President Donald Trump's lawyer has acknowledged that he received briefings from attorneys for Paul Manafort while Manafort was cooperating with Robert Mueller, an unusual development that legal experts say raises the specter of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

    Trump's chief defense lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told the Associated Press that Manafort's attorneys had been briefing him, a fact first reported by The New York Times, to whom Giuliani also confirmed the briefings.


    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/experts-giuliani-s-statements-raise-specter-witness-tampering-obstruction-n941191
  • It appears Donald May have walked into the greatest ambush since the battle of Lake Trasimene

    President Donald Trump's lawyer has acknowledged that he received briefings from attorneys for Paul Manafort while Manafort was cooperating with Robert Mueller, an unusual development that legal experts say raises the specter of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

    Trump's chief defense lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told the Associated Press that Manafort's attorneys had been briefing him, a fact first reported by The New York Times, to whom Giuliani also confirmed the briefings.


    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/experts-giuliani-s-statements-raise-specter-witness-tampering-obstruction-n941191

    Donald May?!?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752
    edited November 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    viewcode said:

    TGOHF said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/20/german-armed-forces-not-equipped-do-job-rules-watchdog/

    None of the German navy’s six submarines were operational at the end of last year, and only nine of a planned 15 frigates are in service.

    None of the Luftwaffe’s 14 A400M transport aircraft were airworthy on several occasions last year, and replacement aircraft had to be chartered to bring serving troops home

    The German tank battalion that is due to take command of the taskforce currently only has nine operational tanks out of a total of 48

    It's a weird characteristic that I frequently observe: that of mocking your opponents for their failures. Remainers err greatly when they mock Jacob Rees-Mogg for his failure to count to 48, because it may stimulate him to gain more letters and exceed 48. Similarly I am surprised when British people mock the German armed services for being inadequate and undangerous. Would we prefer them to be adequate and dangerous?
    Why would we be more worried about German Armed forces than French ones. World War II is as much history as the Napoleonic wars now.
    I thought Yes Minister explained this decades ago.
    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751814/quotes
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    It appears Donald Trump may have walked into the greatest ambush since the battle of Lake Trasimene

    President Donald Trump's lawyer has acknowledged that he received briefings from attorneys for Paul Manafort while Manafort was cooperating with Robert Mueller, an unusual development that legal experts say raises the specter of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

    Trump's chief defense lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told the Associated Press that Manafort's attorneys had been briefing him, a fact first reported by The New York Times, to whom Giuliani also confirmed the briefings.


    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/experts-giuliani-s-statements-raise-specter-witness-tampering-obstruction-n941191

    They named a battle after a hairspray?
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793

    glw said:


    I'm very opposed to the people's vote, on matters of several principles.

    But, if there's to be a PV, and if May's deal has already been comprehensively rejected by Parliament, I don't see how or why Parliament would then go through the absurd spectacle of letting something that has been decisively rejected be suddenly resurrected by a referendum.

    The first referendum showed the real dangers of a holding a referendum where Parliament doesn't believe one of the two outcomes is reasonable. Making the same mistake AGAIN would be unforgivable.

    *IF* we have a PV, and I really hope we don't, it's imperative for the government and Parliament to be able to broadly accept any answer. And if it can't, then don't ask it.

    It seems to me the only answer they would really want to broadly accept would be Remain. Which means under your criteria ( and I believe you are correct) the 2nd referendum is indeed a complete waste of time.
    I agree with the above posters. It would be utterly bonkers for Parliament to call a referendum to endorse something they won't pass themselves. We could very easily end up in another stalemate and see calls start for a third referendum.

    So if there is to be another referendum it would need two choices, Remain and a form of Leave that Parliament will support (but Lord knows what that might be).

    Given the Parliament seems incapable of agreeing on a form of Leave that has a majority support, I don't see how a legitimate referendum could be called. It almost certainly end up as choice between Remain or Leave in name only.
    And that question has already been asked and answered.
    And if people still want to leave, Remain won't win, anyway. The only danger to Leave is if the country has changed its mind. If so, leaving after all would be against the democratic will of the country.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752
    TGOHF said:

    Xenon said:

    What exactly is the point of a TV debate if we're not going to get to vote on the outcome?

    It just seems completely pointless, unless May is going to call for a referendum (which might be her plan).

    Virtue signally rubbish by May - just trying to pressurise her MPs to bend over and take the EU 's blank cheque without lube.
    Not sure that analogy works. We are the ones writing the cheques.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234

    It appears Donald May have walked into the greatest ambush since the battle of Lake Trasimene

    President Donald Trump's lawyer has acknowledged that he received briefings from attorneys for Paul Manafort while Manafort was cooperating with Robert Mueller, an unusual development that legal experts say raises the specter of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

    Trump's chief defense lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told the Associated Press that Manafort's attorneys had been briefing him, a fact first reported by The New York Times, to whom Giuliani also confirmed the briefings.


    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/experts-giuliani-s-statements-raise-specter-witness-tampering-obstruction-n941191

    Mueller seems to be the master Machiavellian lawyer of the silver screen. Everyone is simply following pre-planned paths into carefully laid traps upon traps.

    Manafort has ensnared himself in a legal trap three layers deep, because Mueller knew that Manafort would be corrupt and dishonest in a predictable way.

    Played him like kipper, stitched him up like a fiddle.
  • The most depressing part of the prospect of this debate is that we'd have to compare May and Corbyn to Heath v Foot and Jenkins v Benn. If you want to see how far the stature and value of our politicians has fallen just take a look...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuZrzwm6CJs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zBFh6bpcMo
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,547

    It appears Donald Trump may have walked into the greatest ambush since the battle of Lake Trasimene

    President Donald Trump's lawyer has acknowledged that he received briefings from attorneys for Paul Manafort while Manafort was cooperating with Robert Mueller, an unusual development that legal experts say raises the specter of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

    Trump's chief defense lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told the Associated Press that Manafort's attorneys had been briefing him, a fact first reported by The New York Times, to whom Giuliani also confirmed the briefings.


    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/experts-giuliani-s-statements-raise-specter-witness-tampering-obstruction-n941191

    It's hardly a blunder into an ambush, when Manafort openly remained part of the joint defence agreement with numerous White House staffers, and it seemed fairly clear from the outset that Manafort was acting openly as a spy in the Mueller camp while purportedly co-operating.

    It is, of course, immensely stupid on both Manafort and Trump's part, and they will likely suffer legal consequences.
  • XenonXenon Posts: 471
    TGOHF said:

    Xenon said:

    What exactly is the point of a TV debate if we're not going to get to vote on the outcome?

    It just seems completely pointless, unless May is going to call for a referendum (which might be her plan).

    Virtue signally rubbish by May - just trying to pressurise her MPs to bend over and take the EU 's blank cheque without lube.
    She is either going to ask the EU to remain or have a referendum without no deal as an option, which is essentially the same thing as the deal is so bad no one will vote for it.

    What a complete failure she has been.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,547
    viewcode said:

    TGOHF said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/20/german-armed-forces-not-equipped-do-job-rules-watchdog/

    None of the German navy’s six submarines were operational at the end of last year, and only nine of a planned 15 frigates are in service.

    None of the Luftwaffe’s 14 A400M transport aircraft were airworthy on several occasions last year, and replacement aircraft had to be chartered to bring serving troops home

    The German tank battalion that is due to take command of the taskforce currently only has nine operational tanks out of a total of 48

    It's a weird characteristic that I frequently observe: that of mocking your opponents for their failures. Remainers err greatly when they mock Jacob Rees-Mogg for his failure to count to 48, because it may stimulate him to gain more letters and exceed 48. Similarly I am surprised when British people mock the German armed services for being inadequate and undangerous. Would we prefer them to be adequate and dangerous?

    Given that they are our allies, yes.
  • eek said:

    <

    If any Parliament offered the option of Deal or No Deal every MP would be against the wall when the inevitably revolution occurred...

    Rubbish. Why should Remain get two chances (or more if we give the "wrong" answer again.)

    Be assured that is the message that will be on every doorstep.

    "They think you are too stupid to understand so they want you to vote again"
    "You didn't vote the right way last time so they will keep asking you until you do what they want"

    That sounds like an effective message for people voted Leave, and got what they expected.

    It doesn't sound like an effective message for people who voted Leave but didn't get what they expect, or changed their minds, because these people will be conscious of the possibility that a non-stupid voter can not get what they expect, or change their minds.
  • Nigelb said:

    It appears Donald Trump may have walked into the greatest ambush since the battle of Lake Trasimene

    President Donald Trump's lawyer has acknowledged that he received briefings from attorneys for Paul Manafort while Manafort was cooperating with Robert Mueller, an unusual development that legal experts say raises the specter of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

    Trump's chief defense lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told the Associated Press that Manafort's attorneys had been briefing him, a fact first reported by The New York Times, to whom Giuliani also confirmed the briefings.


    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/experts-giuliani-s-statements-raise-specter-witness-tampering-obstruction-n941191

    It's hardly a blunder into an ambush, when Manafort openly remained part of the joint defence agreement with numerous White House staffers, and it seemed fairly clear from the outset that Manafort was acting openly as a spy in the Mueller camp while purportedly co-operating.

    It is, of course, immensely stupid on both Manafort and Trump's part, and they will likely suffer legal consequences.
    The thing I’m loving/admiring is Mueller making them to admit to unspecified crimes in various states thus making them impervious to a Trump pardon.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,952
    Polruan said:

    eek said:

    <

    If any Parliament offered the option of Deal or No Deal every MP would be against the wall when the inevitably revolution occurred...

    Rubbish. Why should Remain get two chances (or more if we give the "wrong" answer again.)

    Be assured that is the message that will be on every doorstep.

    "They think you are too stupid to understand so they want you to vote again"
    "You didn't vote the right way last time so they will keep asking you until you do what they want"

    And "Who actually governs the UK - MPs, or you, the voters?"
    I thought the government governed the country, subject to being able to command the confidence of MPs. Did I miss a major constitutional change recently?
    Except when those MPs don't command the confidence of voters. By telling those voters "No, we won't implement your fucking Brexit...."
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,251
    eek said:

    eek said:

    <

    If any Parliament offered the option of Deal or No Deal every MP would be against the wall when the inevitably revolution occurred...

    Rubbish. Why should Remain get two chances (or more if we give the "wrong" answer again.)

    Be assured that is the message that will be on every doorstep.

    "They think you are too stupid to understand so they want you to vote again"
    "You didn't vote the right way last time so they will keep asking you until you do what they want"

    You said there would be violence if the result went the wrong way. I merely highlight that the violence will be aimed in 1 particular direction (probably regardless of the result) if MP's fail to do the one thing they are supposed to do in a Parliamentary democracy...
    There's also the question of potential terrorism during what would be a horrendously bitter campaign itself. The backdrop to the 2017 General Election provides a warning - the relative absence of terrorism since is not entirely coincidental. Of course no one is saying we should be bombed out of making our democratic choices but I really don't think parliament will be behaving responsibly (as well as abrogating their duties) by handing back the choice to us,
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    Nigelb said:

    It appears Donald Trump may have walked into the greatest ambush since the battle of Lake Trasimene

    President Donald Trump's lawyer has acknowledged that he received briefings from attorneys for Paul Manafort while Manafort was cooperating with Robert Mueller, an unusual development that legal experts say raises the specter of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

    Trump's chief defense lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told the Associated Press that Manafort's attorneys had been briefing him, a fact first reported by The New York Times, to whom Giuliani also confirmed the briefings.


    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/experts-giuliani-s-statements-raise-specter-witness-tampering-obstruction-n941191

    It's hardly a blunder into an ambush, when Manafort openly remained part of the joint defence agreement with numerous White House staffers, and it seemed fairly clear from the outset that Manafort was acting openly as a spy in the Mueller camp while purportedly co-operating.

    It is, of course, immensely stupid on both Manafort and Trump's part, and they will likely suffer legal consequences.
    Yes, because Mueller was at least one step ahead, knew full well what Manafort was and carefully fed him on tasty morsels that he'd be unable to resist sharing with Trump.

    It was all planned and prepared for by Mueller. And it doesn't even seem to have occurred to Manafort that he was being set up.

    Manafort is the perfect patsy. Loyal but dumb.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    Nigelb said:

    It appears Donald Trump may have walked into the greatest ambush since the battle of Lake Trasimene

    President Donald Trump's lawyer has acknowledged that he received briefings from attorneys for Paul Manafort while Manafort was cooperating with Robert Mueller, an unusual development that legal experts say raises the specter of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

    Trump's chief defense lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told the Associated Press that Manafort's attorneys had been briefing him, a fact first reported by The New York Times, to whom Giuliani also confirmed the briefings.


    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/experts-giuliani-s-statements-raise-specter-witness-tampering-obstruction-n941191

    It's hardly a blunder into an ambush, when Manafort openly remained part of the joint defence agreement with numerous White House staffers, and it seemed fairly clear from the outset that Manafort was acting openly as a spy in the Mueller camp while purportedly co-operating.

    It is, of course, immensely stupid on both Manafort and Trump's part, and they will likely suffer legal consequences.
    The thing I’m loving/admiring is Mueller making them to admit to unspecified crimes in various states thus making them impervious to a Trump pardon.
    Would you mind explaining how that works?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752

    The most depressing part of the prospect of this debate is that we'd have to compare May and Corbyn to Heath v Foot and Jenkins v Benn. If you want to see how far the stature and value of our politicians has fallen just take a look...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuZrzwm6CJs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zBFh6bpcMo

    2nd or 3rd time in the last few days I have had occasion to regret that Roy Jenkins never became PM. Their debate echoes every argument made today but it is conducted with courtesy and respect.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,545

    The most depressing part of the prospect of this debate is that we'd have to compare May and Corbyn to Heath v Foot and Jenkins v Benn. If you want to see how far the stature and value of our politicians has fallen just take a look...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuZrzwm6CJs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zBFh6bpcMo

    Couldn't agree more. In the 1970s it would have been inconceivable for a cabinet-level politician to decide which side to take in the Europe debate on the basis of their own career interest. Indeed it could be argued that Jenkins gave up his chance to lead Labour because of his passionate belief in the European ideal.
  • Anorak said:

    Nigelb said:

    It appears Donald Trump may have walked into the greatest ambush since the battle of Lake Trasimene

    President Donald Trump's lawyer has acknowledged that he received briefings from attorneys for Paul Manafort while Manafort was cooperating with Robert Mueller, an unusual development that legal experts say raises the specter of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

    Trump's chief defense lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told the Associated Press that Manafort's attorneys had been briefing him, a fact first reported by The New York Times, to whom Giuliani also confirmed the briefings.


    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/experts-giuliani-s-statements-raise-specter-witness-tampering-obstruction-n941191

    It's hardly a blunder into an ambush, when Manafort openly remained part of the joint defence agreement with numerous White House staffers, and it seemed fairly clear from the outset that Manafort was acting openly as a spy in the Mueller camp while purportedly co-operating.

    It is, of course, immensely stupid on both Manafort and Trump's part, and they will likely suffer legal consequences.
    The thing I’m loving/admiring is Mueller making them to admit to unspecified crimes in various states thus making them impervious to a Trump pardon.
    Would you mind explaining how that works?
    Rather than go through costly trials with extra sentences the guilty party pleads guilty to ‘unspecified crimes in state X’ thus they don’t receive extra prison time, or reduced prison time.

    Since these are state crimes, Trump cannot pardon them, he can only pardon federal crimes.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,547

    Nigelb said:

    It appears Donald Trump may have walked into the greatest ambush since the battle of Lake Trasimene

    President Donald Trump's lawyer has acknowledged that he received briefings from attorneys for Paul Manafort while Manafort was cooperating with Robert Mueller, an unusual development that legal experts say raises the specter of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

    Trump's chief defense lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told the Associated Press that Manafort's attorneys had been briefing him, a fact first reported by The New York Times, to whom Giuliani also confirmed the briefings.


    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/experts-giuliani-s-statements-raise-specter-witness-tampering-obstruction-n941191

    It's hardly a blunder into an ambush, when Manafort openly remained part of the joint defence agreement with numerous White House staffers, and it seemed fairly clear from the outset that Manafort was acting openly as a spy in the Mueller camp while purportedly co-operating.

    It is, of course, immensely stupid on both Manafort and Trump's part, and they will likely suffer legal consequences.
    The thing I’m loving/admiring is Mueller making them to admit to unspecified crimes in various states thus making them impervious to a Trump pardon.
    Manafort's plea deal was the most ungenerous one possible within the bounds of the law (some provisions were subsequently challenged in court and upheld).

    That he agreed to it indicates how stupid and/or desperate he was.
  • eek said:

    <

    If any Parliament offered the option of Deal or No Deal every MP would be against the wall when the inevitably revolution occurred...

    Rubbish. Why should Remain get two chances (or more if we give the "wrong" answer again.)

    Be assured that is the message that will be on every doorstep.

    "They think you are too stupid to understand so they want you to vote again"
    "You didn't vote the right way last time so they will keep asking you until you do what they want"

    That sounds like an effective message for people voted Leave, and got what they expected.

    It doesn't sound like an effective message for people who voted Leave but didn't get what they expect, or changed their minds, because these people will be conscious of the possibility that a non-stupid voter can not get what they expect, or change their minds.
    I think you have a serious gap in your understanding of human nature if you believe that.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752
    It is really not fair to smear us all with what passes as thinking in the ERG.
  • DavidL said:

    The most depressing part of the prospect of this debate is that we'd have to compare May and Corbyn to Heath v Foot and Jenkins v Benn. If you want to see how far the stature and value of our politicians has fallen just take a look...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuZrzwm6CJs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zBFh6bpcMo

    2nd or 3rd time in the last few days I have had occasion to regret that Roy Jenkins never became PM. Their debate echoes every argument made today but it is conducted with courtesy and respect.
    They had fought in / lived through WW2. You cannot but respect your opponents when you have a shared life experience like that. It is our blessing of having lived through easy times that has given us the curse of poor leadership now.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741

    The most depressing part of the prospect of this debate is that we'd have to compare May and Corbyn to Heath v Foot and Jenkins v Benn. If you want to see how far the stature and value of our politicians has fallen just take a look...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuZrzwm6CJs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zBFh6bpcMo

    I was reminded of the infamous flour bombing of Roy Jenkins at East Ham Town Hall in September 1975 which I thought had been related to the EEC Referendum but occurred after that vote.

    During the EEC Referendum Jenkins famously appeared alongside William Whitelaw and Jo Grimond (two other political titans of their time) on the YES platform.

    The flour bombing occurred on September 9th 1975 when Jenkins came to a public meeting to ex-press support for Roy Prentice who had been sacked by his local constituency Labour Party. On the platform with Jenkins and Prentice were Tom Jackson and Shirley Williams.

    Some attribute the flour bombing to left-wing local Labour Party members opposed to Prentice while others claim it was an anti-immigration protest (remembering the dockers who marched in support of Powell in 1968) while others claim it was down to John Tyndall's National Front.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113

    Foxy said:

    glw said:


    I'm very opposed to the people's vote, on matters of several principles.

    But, if there's to be a PV, and if May's deal has already been comprehensively rejected by Parliament, I don't see how or why Parliament would then go through the absurd spectacle of letting something that has been decisively rejected be suddenly resurrected by a referendum.

    The first referendum showed the real dangers of a holding a referendum where Parliament doesn't believe one of the two outcomes is reasonable. Making the same mistake AGAIN would be unforgivable.

    *IF* we have a PV, and I really hope we don't, it's imperative for the government and Parliament to be able to broadly accept any answer. And if it can't, then don't ask it.

    It seems to me the only answer they would really want to broadly accept would be Remain. Which means under your criteria ( and I believe you are correct) the 2nd referendum is indeed a complete waste of time.
    I agree with the above posters. It would be utterly bonkers for Parliament to call a referendum to endorse something they won't pass themselves. We could very easily end up in another stalemate and see calls start for a third referendum.

    So if there is to be another referendum it would need two choices, Remain and a form of Leave that Parliament will support (but Lord knows what that might be).

    Given the Parliament seems incapable of agreeing on a form of Leave that has a majority support, I don't see how a legitimate referendum could be called. It almost certainly end up as choice between Remain or Leave in name only.
    And that question has already been asked and answered.
    Parliament is sovereign and can ask any question in a #peoplesvote that it chooses.

    I don't think you get a veto.
    Another one who scorns democracy. If they press ahead with this then vetoes will be the least of their worries.
    What should be the greatest of their worries?
    A massive increase in support for extremist parties along with a collapse in the vote generally. What is the point in voting at all if your vote is going to be ignored. The moderates will opt for the latter whilst the extremists will opt for the former. But whichever way they do it the decision will be fatal for democracy.
    Massive increase to, what, 10%? How many seats will that result in?

    And what do you mean by ‘fatal’? Will we never be allowed to vote again?

    Project Hysterical.
  • DavidL said:

    It is really not fair to smear us all with what passes as thinking in the ERG.
    This explains it.

    John Redwood read history at Oxford.
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,251

    DavidL said:

    The most depressing part of the prospect of this debate is that we'd have to compare May and Corbyn to Heath v Foot and Jenkins v Benn. If you want to see how far the stature and value of our politicians has fallen just take a look...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuZrzwm6CJs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zBFh6bpcMo

    2nd or 3rd time in the last few days I have had occasion to regret that Roy Jenkins never became PM. Their debate echoes every argument made today but it is conducted with courtesy and respect.
    They had fought in / lived through WW2. You cannot but respect your opponents when you have a shared life experience like that. It is our blessing of having lived through easy times that has given us the curse of poor leadership now.
    That plus the relatively easy life our parliamentarians have had since half their responsibilities were contracted out to the EU. Having said that I wouldn't be averse to paying MPs more to attract the talent if we ever manage to get to the stage where we are masters of our destiny again.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752
    edited November 2018

    DavidL said:

    The most depressing part of the prospect of this debate is that we'd have to compare May and Corbyn to Heath v Foot and Jenkins v Benn. If you want to see how far the stature and value of our politicians has fallen just take a look...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuZrzwm6CJs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zBFh6bpcMo

    2nd or 3rd time in the last few days I have had occasion to regret that Roy Jenkins never became PM. Their debate echoes every argument made today but it is conducted with courtesy and respect.
    They had fought in / lived through WW2. You cannot but respect your opponents when you have a shared life experience like that. It is our blessing of having lived through easy times that has given us the curse of poor leadership now.
    I think that lets our current generation of incompetents off too easy. And not just them. A nation who thinks that twitter is a means of having a meaningful conversation really doesn't have the patience or concentration span sufficient for a debate like that.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited November 2018

    Anorak said:

    The thing I’m loving/admiring is Mueller making them to admit to unspecified crimes in various states thus making them impervious to a Trump pardon.

    Would you mind explaining how that works?
    Rather than go through costly trials with extra sentences the guilty party pleads guilty to ‘unspecified crimes in state X’ thus they don’t receive extra prison time, or reduced prison time.

    Since these are state crimes, Trump cannot pardon them, he can only pardon federal crimes.
    Ah. I see. I hadn't appreciated the fact that the Prez can only pardon federal crimes.

    A quick google indicates that State Governors can pardon state crimes. I would hope that Mueller has chosen his states wisely (I suspect he has).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,547

    Anorak said:

    Nigelb said:

    It appears Donald Trump may have walked into the greatest ambush since the battle of Lake Trasimene

    President Donald Trump's lawyer has acknowledged that he received briefings from attorneys for Paul Manafort while Manafort was cooperating with Robert Mueller, an unusual development that legal experts say raises the specter of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

    Trump's chief defense lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told the Associated Press that Manafort's attorneys had been briefing him, a fact first reported by The New York Times, to whom Giuliani also confirmed the briefings.


    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/experts-giuliani-s-statements-raise-specter-witness-tampering-obstruction-n941191

    It's hardly a blunder into an ambush, when Manafort openly remained part of the joint defence agreement with numerous White House staffers, and it seemed fairly clear from the outset that Manafort was acting openly as a spy in the Mueller camp while purportedly co-operating.

    It is, of course, immensely stupid on both Manafort and Trump's part, and they will likely suffer legal consequences.
    The thing I’m loving/admiring is Mueller making them to admit to unspecified crimes in various states thus making them impervious to a Trump pardon.
    Would you mind explaining how that works?
    Rather than go through costly trials with extra sentences the guilty party pleads guilty to ‘unspecified crimes in state X’ thus they don’t receive extra prison time, or reduced prison time.

    Since these are state crimes, Trump cannot pardon them, he can only pardon federal crimes.
    And the forfeiture of assets he agreed to is both civil and criminal - so again irreversible by Presidential pardon. So he's effectively bankrupt, whatever happens.

    Which would make fighting any state charges rather difficult. Particularly should they be brought in several states...
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793

    eek said:

    <

    If any Parliament offered the option of Deal or No Deal every MP would be against the wall when the inevitably revolution occurred...

    Rubbish. Why should Remain get two chances (or more if we give the "wrong" answer again.)

    Be assured that is the message that will be on every doorstep.

    "They think you are too stupid to understand so they want you to vote again"
    "You didn't vote the right way last time so they will keep asking you until you do what they want"

    That sounds like an effective message for people voted Leave, and got what they expected.

    It doesn't sound like an effective message for people who voted Leave but didn't get what they expect, or changed their minds, because these people will be conscious of the possibility that a non-stupid voter can not get what they expect, or change their minds.
    I think you have a serious gap in your understanding of human nature if you believe that.
    Then why are you worrying about what would happen if Remain were to win?
    If you're right, it'll end up with the Deal approved and an exit. No problems.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,547
    Anorak said:

    Anorak said:

    The thing I’m loving/admiring is Mueller making them to admit to unspecified crimes in various states thus making them impervious to a Trump pardon.

    Would you mind explaining how that works?
    Rather than go through costly trials with extra sentences the guilty party pleads guilty to ‘unspecified crimes in state X’ thus they don’t receive extra prison time, or reduced prison time.

    Since these are state crimes, Trump cannot pardon them, he can only pardon federal crimes.
    Ah. I see. I hadn't appreciated the fact that the Prez can only pardon federal crimes.

    A quick google indicates that State Governors can pardon state crimes. I would hope that Mueller has chosen his states wisely (I suspect he has).
    New York and California feature prominently.
  • Anorak said:

    Anorak said:

    The thing I’m loving/admiring is Mueller making them to admit to unspecified crimes in various states thus making them impervious to a Trump pardon.

    Would you mind explaining how that works?
    Rather than go through costly trials with extra sentences the guilty party pleads guilty to ‘unspecified crimes in state X’ thus they don’t receive extra prison time, or reduced prison time.

    Since these are state crimes, Trump cannot pardon them, he can only pardon federal crimes.
    Ah. I see. I hadn't appreciated the fact that the Prez can only pardon federal crimes.

    A quick google indicates that State Governors can pardon state crimes. I would hope that Mueller has chosen his states wisely (I suspect he has).
    I believe one of them is California.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    edited November 2018
    Anorak said:


    Would you mind explaining how that works?

    Trump can only pardon a federal conviction.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Some leavers.
  • Anorak said:

    Anorak said:

    The thing I’m loving/admiring is Mueller making them to admit to unspecified crimes in various states thus making them impervious to a Trump pardon.

    Would you mind explaining how that works?
    Rather than go through costly trials with extra sentences the guilty party pleads guilty to ‘unspecified crimes in state X’ thus they don’t receive extra prison time, or reduced prison time.

    Since these are state crimes, Trump cannot pardon them, he can only pardon federal crimes.
    Ah. I see. I hadn't appreciated the fact that the Prez can only pardon federal crimes.

    A quick google indicates that State Governors can pardon state crimes. I would hope that Mueller has chosen his states wisely (I suspect he has).
    I believe one of them is California.
    Given how much they love Trump, I am sure they will go easy on him.
  • Nigelb said:

    Anorak said:

    Nigelb said:

    It appears Donald Trump may have walked into the greatest ambush since the battle of Lake Trasimene

    President Donald Trump's lawyer has acknowledged that he received briefings from attorneys for Paul Manafort while Manafort was cooperating with Robert Mueller, an unusual development that legal experts say raises the specter of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

    Trump's chief defense lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told the Associated Press that Manafort's attorneys had been briefing him, a fact first reported by The New York Times, to whom Giuliani also confirmed the briefings.


    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/experts-giuliani-s-statements-raise-specter-witness-tampering-obstruction-n941191

    It's hardly a blunder into an ambush, when Manafort openly remained part of the joint defence agreement with numerous White House staffers, and it seemed fairly clear from the outset that Manafort was acting openly as a spy in the Mueller camp while purportedly co-operating.

    It is, of course, immensely stupid on both Manafort and Trump's part, and they will likely suffer legal consequences.
    The thing I’m loving/admiring is Mueller making them to admit to unspecified crimes in various states thus making them impervious to a Trump pardon.
    Would you mind explaining how that works?
    Rather than go through costly trials with extra sentences the guilty party pleads guilty to ‘unspecified crimes in state X’ thus they don’t receive extra prison time, or reduced prison time.

    Since these are state crimes, Trump cannot pardon them, he can only pardon federal crimes.
    And the forfeiture of assets he agreed to is both civil and criminal - so again irreversible by Presidential pardon. So he's effectively bankrupt, whatever happens.

    Which would make fighting any state charges rather difficult. Particularly should they be brought in several states...
    Mueller is magnificent, he really should win the Time Person of the Year award.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,836
    As it becomes clear what a terrible idea it was to have an EU referendum the calls grow for us to have an EU referendum. Perhaps it is money talking (I’ve bet heavily against it) but c’mon. It would be a truly absurd course of action. It's not happening.
  • kinabalu said:

    As it becomes clear what a terrible idea it was to have an EU referendum the calls grow for us to have an EU referendum. Perhaps it is money talking (I’ve bet heavily against it) but c’mon. It would be a truly absurd course of action. It's not happening.

    So what is happening? Do tell.
  • eek said:

    <

    If any Parliament offered the option of Deal or No Deal every MP would be against the wall when the inevitably revolution occurred...

    Rubbish. Why should Remain get two chances (or more if we give the "wrong" answer again.)

    Be assured that is the message that will be on every doorstep.

    "They think you are too stupid to understand so they want you to vote again"
    "You didn't vote the right way last time so they will keep asking you until you do what they want"

    That sounds like an effective message for people voted Leave, and got what they expected.

    It doesn't sound like an effective message for people who voted Leave but didn't get what they expect, or changed their minds, because these people will be conscious of the possibility that a non-stupid voter can not get what they expect, or change their minds.
    I think you have a serious gap in your understanding of human nature if you believe that.
    Then why are you worrying about what would happen if Remain were to win?
    If you're right, it'll end up with the Deal approved and an exit. No problems.
    Because the basic principle of a second referendum where the same question is asked again is wrong. Whether my personal choice wins or not it does serious damage to faith in, and respect for, democracy. The principle of asking the same question again because you didn't like the first answer is one that causes scorn amongst right minded people and which will massively impact on the way in which Parliament is viewed.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741
    DavidL said:


    I think that lets our current generation of incompetents off too easy. And not just them. A nation who thinks that twitter is a means of having a meaningful conversation really doesn't have the patience of concentration span sufficient for a debate like that.

    That's technology, David. How would the generation of Asquith, Lloyd George and |Balfour have reacted to television and the 24-hour news cycle?

    I admire May's dedication and work ethic - who wouldn't? - but she has now invested all her political capital in this and you'd be forgiven for wondering what was happening to everything else while she hawks her Deal round the country?

  • GeorgeStephanopoulos
    @GStephanopoulos


    Michael Cohen, Pres Trump’s former personal attorney, reaches new plea deal with Mueller this morning. Expected to enter guilty plea for false statements to Congress coupled with dozens of hours of testimony potentially damaging to Pres Trump--Special Counsel values testimony.

    ho ho ho
  • kinabalu said:

    As it becomes clear what a terrible idea it was to have an EU referendum the calls grow for us to have an EU referendum. Perhaps it is money talking (I’ve bet heavily against it) but c’mon. It would be a truly absurd course of action. It's not happening.

    So what is happening? Do tell.
    We fall out with No Deal next March and Rejoin by 2027.

    Thank you Leavers, especially the ERG.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752

    DavidL said:

    It is really not fair to smear us all with what passes as thinking in the ERG.
    This explains it.

    John Redwood read history at Oxford.
    I think the old saying of lies, damned lies and statistics explains it even better but one of Tony Benn's better arguments (I may need a lie down after this) was that the trade deficit that had manifested itself after we joined the Common Market in 1972 was the equivalent to the loss of 500k jobs. It was all of £700m at the time compared with about £60bn today. Even allowing for inflation this is a problem that has got much, much worse has, a serious deflationary effect on our economy and has been a drain on our wealth.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234


    They had fought in / lived through WW2. You cannot but respect your opponents when you have a shared life experience like that. It is our blessing of having lived through easy times that has given us the curse of poor leadership now.

    As Sun-Tzu said:

    Always forgive your enemies...
    But not before they are hanged.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    edited November 2018

    The principle of asking the same question again because you didn't like the first answer is one that causes scorn amongst right minded people and which will massively impact on the way in which Parliament is viewed.

    The same question is asked at every election.

    Not asking the same question because you are frightened people have changed their minds is one that causes scorn amongst right minded people
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    You'd think any reasonably intelligent person would have realised they were being set up.

    But Mueller has fully and completely grokked how that heady mixture of large ego and small brain that afflicts Trump cadres can be used as a weapon.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752
    stodge said:

    DavidL said:


    I think that lets our current generation of incompetents off too easy. And not just them. A nation who thinks that twitter is a means of having a meaningful conversation really doesn't have the patience of concentration span sufficient for a debate like that.

    That's technology, David. How would the generation of Asquith, Lloyd George and |Balfour have reacted to television and the 24-hour news cycle?

    I admire May's dedication and work ethic - who wouldn't? - but she has now invested all her political capital in this and you'd be forgiven for wondering what was happening to everything else while she hawks her Deal round the country?
    Although I think the effect of Brexit is massively overstated I don't think I would go so far as to argue it was a trivial matter. It might have benefited from some greater attention at a somewhat earlier stage when DD was mooning about. I would agree, however, that it is time to put this particular issue to bed and concentrate on more important matters.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,545
    stodge said:

    The most depressing part of the prospect of this debate is that we'd have to compare May and Corbyn to Heath v Foot and Jenkins v Benn. If you want to see how far the stature and value of our politicians has fallen just take a look...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuZrzwm6CJs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zBFh6bpcMo

    I was reminded of the infamous flour bombing of Roy Jenkins at East Ham Town Hall in September 1975 which I thought had been related to the EEC Referendum but occurred after that vote.

    During the EEC Referendum Jenkins famously appeared alongside William Whitelaw and Jo Grimond (two other political titans of their time) on the YES platform.

    The flour bombing occurred on September 9th 1975 when Jenkins came to a public meeting to ex-press support for Roy Prentice who had been sacked by his local constituency Labour Party. On the platform with Jenkins and Prentice were Tom Jackson and Shirley Williams.

    Some attribute the flour bombing to left-wing local Labour Party members opposed to Prentice while others claim it was an anti-immigration protest (remembering the dockers who marched in support of Powell in 1968) while others claim it was down to John Tyndall's National Front.
    Reg Prentice. The flour bomb incident illustrates another change in the political world - in the 1970s, even at the height of the IRA bombing campaign, there was almost no security around top politicians. There was no attempt to select audiences at public meetings, the PM had a single, unarmed, bodyguard, no outriders or convoy, Downing Street was a public road and it was possible for anyone to walk straight in to the central lobby at Westminster without any security checks. So naturally politicians seemed much less detached from real life than they are today.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,259

    It is amazing how she maintains her polite and mannered response to so many who clearly want to take down the deal for a multiple of conflicting reasons. She loses me in detail though, just amazing.

    And some think Corbyn could handle both this cross examination and detail, really they do
    Its really not difficult giving the same answer 100 times no matter what the question.

    She is hopeless.

    Thankfully she will be gone soon
    And then what Bigjohn?
    And then we negotiate a better deal or we have an in out Referendum or a GE

    We cannot carry on with this completely useless woman in charge.

    She has spent 30 months to get to this load of crap.

    Seriously
    As you say it's taken 30 months to get this WA negotiated.

    The idea that someone else (be they BoJo, Gove, Corbyn, McDonnell or Uncle Tom Cobley) could step in and magically negotiate a fresh deal with a pissed-off and intransigent EU, and that that new deal would magically command the support of the HoC is, frankly, beyond laughable.
    You are ruling out a better deal OK I don't

    If not we either have a No Deal/ Remain Referendum or a GE

    TM has spent 30 months pleasing nobody.

    Sooner she goes the better.

    We need to get on.

    She has wasted 85% of the time available to get a terrible deal.

    Time for robotic pontification is over.
    Look, I don't say a better deal couldn't have been negotiated but your view of what is a better deal will not match mine, which will not match grabcoque's, which will not match GIN's etc. etc.

    What is it about this deal that is so terrible from your perspective?
    The Backstop that we need EU permission to leave.

    Pah - we could abrogate if we really felt is had become an issue the EU weren't playing ball on.

    Anyway, doesn't the backstop give us free cake... Customs Union access with no contributions? Can't see the EU letting us stay there for very long tbh.

    We can have our cake but not eat it.

    Very frustrating.
    In what sense can we not eat it?
    We remain in the customs union for ever and can not sign trade deals/
    ...remain in a Customs Union for ever for free. What's not to like?
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    Scott_P said:


    Not asking the same question because you are frightened people have changed their minds is one that causes scorn amongst right minded people

    Do not ask any question you will not like the answer to is sound life advice. For Parliaments and people.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,836
    @ richard nabavi

    What IS happening? I wish I knew.

    Gun to head my prediction is that we leave on 29 March next year under this deal or something close to it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752

    Nigelb said:

    Anorak said:

    Nigelb said:

    It appears Donald Trump may have walked into the greatest ambush since the battle of Lake Trasimene

    President Donald Trump's lawyer has acknowledged that he received briefings from attorneys for Paul Manafort while Manafort was cooperating with Robert Mueller, an unusual development that legal experts say raises the specter of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

    Trump's chief defense lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told the Associated Press that Manafort's attorneys had been briefing him, a fact first reported by The New York Times, to whom Giuliani also confirmed the briefings.


    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/experts-giuliani-s-statements-raise-specter-witness-tampering-obstruction-n941191

    It's hardly a blunder into an ambush, when Manafort openly remained part of the joint defence agreement with numerous White House staffers, and it seemed fairly clear from the outset that Manafort was acting openly as a spy in the Mueller camp while purportedly co-operating.

    It is, of course, immensely stupid on both Manafort and Trump's part, and they will likely suffer legal consequences.
    The thing I’m loving/admiring is Mueller making them to admit to unspecified crimes in various states thus making them impervious to a Trump pardon.
    Would you mind explaining how that works?
    Rather than go through costly trials with extra sentences the guilty party pleads guilty to ‘unspecified crimes in state X’ thus they don’t receive extra prison time, or reduced prison time.

    Since these are state crimes, Trump cannot pardon them, he can only pardon federal crimes.
    And the forfeiture of assets he agreed to is both civil and criminal - so again irreversible by Presidential pardon. So he's effectively bankrupt, whatever happens.

    Which would make fighting any state charges rather difficult. Particularly should they be brought in several states...
    Mueller is magnificent, he really should win the Time Person of the Year award.
    I agree. I remember one of the Tims from America giving a vivid description of the relentless nature of an FBI investigation. Mueller seems to embody that ethic and focus.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793

    eek said:

    <

    If any Parliament offered the option of Deal or No Deal every MP would be against the wall when the inevitably revolution occurred...

    Rubbish. Why should Remain get two chances (or more if we give the "wrong" answer again.)

    Be assured that is the message that will be on every doorstep.

    "They think you are too stupid to understand so they want you to vote again"
    "You didn't vote the right way last time so they will keep asking you until you do what they want"

    That sounds like an effective message for people voted Leave, and got what they expected.

    It doesn't sound like an effective message for people who voted Leave but didn't get what they expect, or changed their minds, because these people will be conscious of the possibility that a non-stupid voter can not get what they expect, or change their minds.
    I think you have a serious gap in your understanding of human nature if you believe that.
    Then why are you worrying about what would happen if Remain were to win?
    If you're right, it'll end up with the Deal approved and an exit. No problems.
    Because the basic principle of a second referendum where the same question is asked again is wrong. Whether my personal choice wins or not it does serious damage to faith in, and respect for, democracy. The principle of asking the same question again because you didn't like the first answer is one that causes scorn amongst right minded people and which will massively impact on the way in which Parliament is viewed.

    It's not the same question.
    It's another question (ratify the Withdrawal Agreement versus Remain on status quo) where one of the options is very similar to one of those from the earlier referendum (Leave somehow versus Remain with Cameron's Deal).

    A lot has developed since then. It's not a straight and immediate rerun, which is what your stance seems to imply. Neither is it a series of identical questions until we tire and switch to "the acceptable answer", as you've suggested. A vote to ratify the WA sees us out immediately and Remain dead (Rejoin may rise from its corpse, but you've previously accepted that's a different question and valid).

    Further, the Deal leaves open the future direction - which can be to Norway, Canada, or No Deal.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414


    They had fought in / lived through WW2. You cannot but respect your opponents when you have a shared life experience like that. It is our blessing of having lived through easy times that has given us the curse of poor leadership now.

    As Sun-Tzu said:

    Always forgive your enemies...
    But not before they are hanged.
    Actually I think that was Heine.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752

    stodge said:

    The most depressing part of the prospect of this debate is that we'd have to compare May and Corbyn to Heath v Foot and Jenkins v Benn. If you want to see how far the stature and value of our politicians has fallen just take a look...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuZrzwm6CJs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zBFh6bpcMo

    I was reminded of the infamous flour bombing of Roy Jenkins at East Ham Town Hall in September 1975 which I thought had been related to the EEC Referendum but occurred after that vote.

    During the EEC Referendum Jenkins famously appeared alongside William Whitelaw and Jo Grimond (two other political titans of their time) on the YES platform.

    The flour bombing occurred on September 9th 1975 when Jenkins came to a public meeting to ex-press support for Roy Prentice who had been sacked by his local constituency Labour Party. On the platform with Jenkins and Prentice were Tom Jackson and Shirley Williams.

    Some attribute the flour bombing to left-wing local Labour Party members opposed to Prentice while others claim it was an anti-immigration protest (remembering the dockers who marched in support of Powell in 1968) while others claim it was down to John Tyndall's National Front.
    Reg Prentice. The flour bomb incident illustrates another change in the political world - in the 1970s, even at the height of the IRA bombing campaign, there was almost no security around top politicians. There was no attempt to select audiences at public meetings, the PM had a single, unarmed, bodyguard, no outriders or convoy, Downing Street was a public road and it was possible for anyone to walk straight in to the central lobby at Westminster without any security checks. So naturally politicians seemed much less detached from real life than they are today.
    Its a good point well made.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    edited November 2018
    DavidL said:

    stodge said:

    DavidL said:


    I think that lets our current generation of incompetents off too easy. And not just them. A nation who thinks that twitter is a means of having a meaningful conversation really doesn't have the patience of concentration span sufficient for a debate like that.

    That's technology, David. How would the generation of Asquith, Lloyd George and |Balfour have reacted to television and the 24-hour news cycle?

    I admire May's dedication and work ethic - who wouldn't? - but she has now invested all her political capital in this and you'd be forgiven for wondering what was happening to everything else while she hawks her Deal round the country?
    Although I think the effect of Brexit is massively overstated I don't think I would go so far as to argue it was a trivial matter. It might have benefited from some greater attention at a somewhat earlier stage when DD was mooning about. I would agree, however, that it is time to put this particular issue to bed and concentrate on more important matters.
    The thing is, for her party, there is no more important matter.

    You can demand that her party "move on". But that can't happen. Civil wars cannot be rushed, and cannot be brought to a close until the requisite amount of blood has been spilled, and either one side is crushed completely or the primary combatants die of old age.
  • Scott_P said:

    The principle of asking the same question again because you didn't like the first answer is one that causes scorn amongst right minded people and which will massively impact on the way in which Parliament is viewed.

    The same question is asked at every election.

    Not asking the same question because you are frightened people have changed their minds is one that causes scorn amongst right minded people
    Interesting that you had to cut out the first sentence of my comment to justify your reply. Why is that I wonder? Because you are dumb or just fundamentally dishonest. I strongly suspect the latter.

    For the record I will repeat what I actually said and you chose to excise.

    "Because the basic principle of a second referendum where the same question is asked again is wrong. Whether my personal choice wins or not it does serious damage to faith in, and respect for, democracy."

    I would work on your honesty if I were you before you choose to post on here again.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,049
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    It is really not fair to smear us all with what passes as thinking in the ERG.
    This explains it.

    John Redwood read history at Oxford.
    I think the old saying of lies, damned lies and statistics explains it even better but one of Tony Benn's better arguments (I may need a lie down after this) was that the trade deficit that had manifested itself after we joined the Common Market in 1972 was the equivalent to the loss of 500k jobs. It was all of £700m at the time compared with about £60bn today. Even allowing for inflation this is a problem that has got much, much worse has, a serious deflationary effect on our economy and has been a drain on our wealth.
    The downside of Free Trade is loss of treasure to nations that are better at it than we are.

    Something consumers may benefit from in the short term, but perhaps food for thought in post Brexit Britain. Perhaps some tarrif and NTB as well as import substitution is nessecary for sovereignty to be real.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752

    DavidL said:

    stodge said:

    DavidL said:


    I think that lets our current generation of incompetents off too easy. And not just them. A nation who thinks that twitter is a means of having a meaningful conversation really doesn't have the patience of concentration span sufficient for a debate like that.

    That's technology, David. How would the generation of Asquith, Lloyd George and |Balfour have reacted to television and the 24-hour news cycle?

    I admire May's dedication and work ethic - who wouldn't? - but she has now invested all her political capital in this and you'd be forgiven for wondering what was happening to everything else while she hawks her Deal round the country?
    Although I think the effect of Brexit is massively overstated I don't think I would go so far as to argue it was a trivial matter. It might have benefited from some greater attention at a somewhat earlier stage when DD was mooning about. I would agree, however, that it is time to put this particular issue to bed and concentrate on more important matters.
    The thing is, for her party, there is no more important matter.

    You can demand that her party "move on". But that can't happen. Civil wars cannot be rushed, and cannot be brought to a close until the requisite amount of blood has been spilled, and either one side is crushed completely or the primary combatants die of old age.
    Again I think the generality overstates it. There is undoubtedly a sizeable portion of the party to whom this has been an obsession but I think it remains a minority of the party as a whole.

    It's a curiosity that at the time of that excellent Jenkins/Benn debate this was very largely an argument on the left and the Tories were pretty united about the EEC being a good thing.

  • ...remain in a Customs Union for ever for free. What's not to like?

    Picking up on your choice of words, if we are in 'a' customs union rather than 'the' customs union we are truly screwed. Being in the same position of Turkey as far as the trade relationship with the EU and third parties is concerned is a very bad thing.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741
    DavidL said:


    Although I think the effect of Brexit is massively overstated I don't think I would go so far as to argue it was a trivial matter. It might have benefited from some greater attention at a somewhat earlier stage when DD was mooning about. I would agree, however, that it is time to put this particular issue to bed and concentrate on more important matters.

    Indeed but May has made this all about her - she has seemingly been leading the negotiations and the Deal has her political capital running through it.

    Where for instance is Stephen Barclay? Why isn't he up there taking the questions - because it's HER Deal and she feels a responsibility and an obligation for it. I understand that - that's her ethos - I think it's misguided because it appears, as you say, "more important matters" are being left.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,259


    ...remain in a Customs Union for ever for free. What's not to like?

    Picking up on your choice of words, if we are in 'a' customs union rather than 'the' customs union we are truly screwed. Being in the same position of Turkey as far as the trade relationship with the EU and third parties is concerned is a very bad thing.
    Fair point, I meant 'the' of course since AIUI that is what the being in the backstop means.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234


    They had fought in / lived through WW2. You cannot but respect your opponents when you have a shared life experience like that. It is our blessing of having lived through easy times that has given us the curse of poor leadership now.

    As Sun-Tzu said:

    Always forgive your enemies...
    But not before they are hanged.
    Actually I think that was Heine.
    You are correct, it seems. Also:

    Always forgive your enemies - nothing annoys them so much
    -- Oscar Wilde


  • It's not the same question.
    It's another question (ratify the Withdrawal Agreement versus Remain on status quo) where one of the options is very similar to one of those from the earlier referendum (Leave somehow versus Remain with Cameron's Deal).

    A lot has developed since then. It's not a straight and immediate rerun, which is what your stance seems to imply. Neither is it a series of identical questions until we tire and switch to "the acceptable answer", as you've suggested. A vote to ratify the WA sees us out immediately and Remain dead (Rejoin may rise from its corpse, but you've previously accepted that's a different question and valid).

    Further, the Deal leaves open the future direction - which can be to Norway, Canada, or No Deal.

    It is the same question. Leave or Remain. That is the question that has already been decided. If we are to have a referendum it should respect the last vote and only ask the form of Leave. Those arguing that Leave was not well defined at the last vote would then have their question resolved as we would be choosing between two defined alternatives.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786

    I would work on your honesty if I were you before you choose to post on here again.

    I don't think it's dishonest to select the specific part of a post to which you're replying. It's a courtesy to the reader.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    For the record I will repeat what I actually said and you chose to excise.

    "Because the basic principle of a second referendum where the same question is asked again is wrong.

    I chopped that out because it's also bollocks

    Asking voters to vote is not anti-democratic, whatever questions are on the ballot and however often you do it.

  • ...remain in a Customs Union for ever for free. What's not to like?

    Picking up on your choice of words, if we are in 'a' customs union rather than 'the' customs union we are truly screwed. Being in the same position of Turkey as far as the trade relationship with the EU and third parties is concerned is a very bad thing.
    Fair point, I meant 'the' of course since AIUI that is what the being in the backstop means.
    Which is fair enough. I don't particularly like it but as you say it has downsides for both sides so I am not sure it would last that long in its current form.
  • Just wait until they indict one of Trump’s kids.

    The meltdown will be glorious.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,259
    The more I think about this, the more I think we should take May's deal, then drag our heels for as long as possible to invoke the backstop and free membership of the Customs Union it provides.

    I am no doubt missing or misunderstanding something. Perhaps a fellow PBer can put me straight?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    It is the same question. Leave or Remain. That is the question that has already been decided.

    You want to disenfranchise anyone who changed their mind, like many of the Brexiteers

    That would not be democratic
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,755


    They had fought in / lived through WW2. You cannot but respect your opponents when you have a shared life experience like that. It is our blessing of having lived through easy times that has given us the curse of poor leadership now.

    As Sun-Tzu said:

    Always forgive your enemies...
    But not before they are hanged.
    Actually I think that was Heine.
    You are correct, it seems. Also:

    Always forgive your enemies - nothing annoys them so much
    -- Oscar Wilde

    OTOH "Man's greatest joy is to slaughter his enemies, to crush them and drive them before him, and to listen to the lamentations of their women" - Conan the Barbarian.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,952
    kinabalu said:

    @ richard nabavi

    What IS happening? I wish I knew.

    Gun to head my prediction is that we leave on 29 March next year under this deal or something close to it.

    I tend to agree, although I think it more likely the Deal will be "re-badged" by a new PM. The time for getting a materially better deal was much, much earlier in the process. And who that new PM will be, I have no idea.

    The nearest to closure on the whole thing might be for a Brexiteer to have to implement something very close to May's deal. That might then shut them up.

    Might.
  • I would work on your honesty if I were you before you choose to post on here again.

    I don't think it's dishonest to select the specific part of a post to which you're replying. It's a courtesy to the reader.
    Not when it changes the whole meaning of what was being said. Scott has history of this sort of dishonesty - and of getting caught out for it. Which I suppose his why he generally confines himself to reposting other people's comments instead.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,836
    The 2016 referendum result was an instruction to the UK govt to negotiate the best terms that they could for the UK to leave the EU. They have now done that. By definition they have. So we must leave on that basis. Mustn't we.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    stodge said:

    The most depressing part of the prospect of this debate is that we'd have to compare May and Corbyn to Heath v Foot and Jenkins v Benn. If you want to see how far the stature and value of our politicians has fallen just take a look...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuZrzwm6CJs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zBFh6bpcMo

    I was reminded of the infamous flour bombing of Roy Jenkins at East Ham Town Hall in September 1975 which I thought had been related to the EEC Referendum but occurred after that vote.

    During the EEC Referendum Jenkins famously appeared alongside William Whitelaw and Jo Grimond (two other political titans of their time) on the YES platform.

    The flour bombing occurred on September 9th 1975 when Jenkins came to a public meeting to ex-press support for Roy Prentice who had been sacked by his local constituency Labour Party. On the platform with Jenkins and Prentice were Tom Jackson and Shirley Williams.

    Some attribute the flour bombing to left-wing local Labour Party members opposed to Prentice while others claim it was an anti-immigration protest (remembering the dockers who marched in support of Powell in 1968) while others claim it was down to John Tyndall's National Front.
    His subsequent behaviour fully justified the moves against Prentice by the Left in his constituency - and made the likes of Jenkins and Williams look very foolish.
    I was always surprised that Labour MPs did not seek to make Prentice a Parliamentary leper following his defection and dishonourable failure to resign his seat. They should have made his life hell by refusing all pairing arrangements with him.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    Dems have been searching for an excuse to re-open the Russia enquiry when they take over in January.

    HOW GOSH DARNED CONVENIENT.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,542
    kinabalu said:

    As it becomes clear what a terrible idea it was to have an EU referendum the calls grow for us to have an EU referendum. Perhaps it is money talking (I’ve bet heavily against it) but c’mon. It would be a truly absurd course of action. It's not happening.

    Yep. The question doesn't get any more sensible the second time. I think the only purpose of a second referendum is to rubber stamp a collective change of mind. It's s judgement call of how far ahead Remain would need to be to hold such a vote. I don't have a problem with a second referendum on democratic grounds. If we vote Leave again, voters world have the right to be irritated. If we vote Remain, the democratic will has been allowed to prevail.
  • Scott_P said:

    For the record I will repeat what I actually said and you chose to excise.

    "Because the basic principle of a second referendum where the same question is asked again is wrong.

    I chopped that out because it's also bollocks

    Asking voters to vote is not anti-democratic, whatever questions are on the ballot and however often you do it.
    Nope you chopped it out because it made your reply garbage. Just as you have done a second time.

    "Because the basic principle of a second referendum where the same question is asked again is wrong. Whether my personal choice wins or not it does serious damage to faith in, and respect for, democracy."

    You really are one of the most fraudulent posters on here.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,952
    stodge said:

    DavidL said:


    Although I think the effect of Brexit is massively overstated I don't think I would go so far as to argue it was a trivial matter. It might have benefited from some greater attention at a somewhat earlier stage when DD was mooning about. I would agree, however, that it is time to put this particular issue to bed and concentrate on more important matters.

    Indeed but May has made this all about her - she has seemingly been leading the negotiations and the Deal has her political capital running through it.

    Where for instance is Stephen Barclay? Why isn't he up there taking the questions - because it's HER Deal and she feels a responsibility and an obligation for it. I understand that - that's her ethos - I think it's misguided because it appears, as you say, "more important matters" are being left.
    Is Stephen Barclay even still in post? Surely he's counted all the DExEU paper clips by now?
  • Sean_F said:


    They had fought in / lived through WW2. You cannot but respect your opponents when you have a shared life experience like that. It is our blessing of having lived through easy times that has given us the curse of poor leadership now.

    As Sun-Tzu said:

    Always forgive your enemies...
    But not before they are hanged.
    Actually I think that was Heine.
    You are correct, it seems. Also:

    Always forgive your enemies - nothing annoys them so much
    -- Oscar Wilde

    OTOH "Man's greatest joy is to slaughter his enemies, to crush them and drive them before him, and to listen to the lamentations of their women" - Conan the Barbarian.
    "hot water, good dentishtry and shoft lavatory paper" - Cohen the Barbarian
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,259

    Scott_P said:

    For the record I will repeat what I actually said and you chose to excise.

    "Because the basic principle of a second referendum where the same question is asked again is wrong.

    I chopped that out because it's also bollocks

    Asking voters to vote is not anti-democratic, whatever questions are on the ballot and however often you do it.
    Nope you chopped it out because it made your reply garbage. Just as you have done a second time.

    "Because the basic principle of a second referendum where the same question is asked again is wrong. Whether my personal choice wins or not it does serious damage to faith in, and respect for, democracy."

    You really are one of the most fraudulent posters on here.
    Come on guys - it's a bit early for panto season...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Nope you chopped it out because it made your reply garbage. Just as you have done a second time.

    "Because the basic principle of a second referendum where the same question is asked again is wrong. Whether my personal choice wins or not it does serious damage to faith in, and respect for, democracy."

    You really are one of the most fraudulent posters on here.

    Bollocks.

    Your statement, in part or in full, is also still bollocks.

    "Because the basic principle of a second referendum where the same question is asked again is wrong."

    You have a limited understanding of democracy (or honesty)

    Asking voters to vote is not anti-democratic, whatever questions are on the ballot and however often you do it.

    "Whether my personal choice wins or not it does serious damage to faith in, and respect for, democracy."

    No. it doesn't.

    Asking voters to vote is not anti-democratic, whatever questions are on the ballot and however often you do it.

    "Because the basic principle of a second referendum where the same question is asked again is wrong. Whether my personal choice wins or not it does serious damage to faith in, and respect for, democracy."

    Bollocks.

    Asking voters to vote is not anti-democratic, whatever questions are on the ballot and however often you do it.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Come on guys - it's a bit early for panto season...

    Oh, no it isn't...
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    edited November 2018

    The more I think about this, the more I think we should take May's deal, then drag our heels for as long as possible to invoke the backstop and free membership of the Customs Union it provides.

    I am no doubt missing or misunderstanding something. Perhaps a fellow PBer can put me straight?

    Not sure you are. If you think membership of he CU is a good thing - which clearly you do - then that does seem an obvious route to take. I assume at some point both sides will want to do an FTA so it will depend on who blinks first. One reason I think why it should not be May in charge by that time.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    @Richard_Tyndall @Scott_P

    Dial it down a couple of notches before somebody wheels in a surplus German water cannon.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,837

    The more I think about this, the more I think we should take May's deal, then drag our heels for as long as possible to invoke the backstop and free membership of the Customs Union it provides.

    I am no doubt missing or misunderstanding something. Perhaps a fellow PBer can put me straight?

    Not sure you are. If you think membership of he CU is a good thing - which clearly you do - then that does seem an obvious route to take. I assume at some point both sides will want to do an FTA so it will depend on who blinks first. One reason I think why it should not be May in charge by that time.
    It won't be if the deal passes, as the DUP will DEFINITELY VONC the Tories then.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,259
    Scott_P said:

    Come on guys - it's a bit early for panto season...

    Oh, no it isn't...
    I set them up... :smile:
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,670
    edited November 2018
    kinabalu said:

    The 2016 referendum result was an instruction to the UK govt to negotiate the best terms that they could for the UK to leave the EU. They have now done that. By definition they have. So we must leave on that basis. Mustn't we.

    No because they made a hash of it and got us the worst possible deal outside of NO Deal which they said was better than a bad deal. They lied through their teeth and now want to stitch us up for their own personal gain.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,547

    Just wait until they indict one of Trump’s kids.

    The meltdown will be glorious.

    If you look at Trump's recent tweets - something I usually avoid - the meltdown has perhaps already begun (though with Trump, it's a bit difficult to tell).
This discussion has been closed.