Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dangerous corner. Where would we be now if Remain had won 52:4

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited December 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dangerous corner. Where would we be now if Remain had won 52:48?

The musical cigarette box played the Wedding March. Britain chose narrowly but decisively to vote to leave the EU. One of the frustrations with the universe that we live in is that we never get to see what would have happened if things had panned out differently.  

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • The first Noel.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,153

    The first Noel.

    On the second day of Brexit....
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,447
    Very classy stuff. Nigel Farage, My Struggle, chuckles...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,153
    Fun article, but the economic projection sound way off to me.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 1,463
    But - but - all the Leavers assure us they'd have totally accepted the result if it went the other way.
    The fact that Farage was already calling for another referendum when it looked on the night as though Leave had lost is neither here nor there. They'd all not only have accepted it, but converted to sincere pro-Europeans and called for adoption of the Euro and Schengen.

    Incidentally, I found it highly amusing when it turned out that the immediate petition to call for a rerun turned out to have been started by a Leaver just before the vote (believing his side would lose), who was most put out by the way it took off, saying that he now (mysteriously) believed that the vote should be final.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,509
    That's rather a fun - and probably eerily accurate - piece of alternate history.

    Of course, it misses the LibDem surge under Tim Farron...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 23,576
    JohnO said:

    Very classy stuff. Nigel Farage, My Struggle, chuckles...

    Disagree. I think it’s tasteless and unnecessary and diminishes the rest of a fun and interesting article.

    It’s arguably libellous.

    At a minimum I’m calling Godwin.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,153
    rcs1000 said:

    That's rather a fun - and probably eerily accurate - piece of alternate history.

    Of course, it misses the LibDem surge under Tim Farron...

    Uncannily mirroring reality...

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 75,311
    edited December 2018
    Not just Farage, that numpty Raab too, from early June 2016.


    Tory MPs may push for second referendum after 2020 if Remain win, says Vote Leave minister

    Conservative MPs may push for a second referendum on EU membership with a few years if Remain win, Dominic Raab, the justice minister, has said.

    Raab, who is a senior figure in Vote Leave, made the revelation in an interview with the House magazine. He said that he would expect MPs to respect the verdict of the people but also that it was inevitable that the prospect of a second referendum would be an issue in the next leadership contest, which he said he hoped would be near the 2020 general election.

    This was particularly the case if Leave lost narrowly, he said.

    His comment implies candidates in the next leadership contest may be under pressure to offer a second referendum after the 2020 election.

    Raab told the magazine:

    You would be naïve to suggest that [a second referendum] wouldn’t become a factor and one element in that [the next leadership contest.]

    I think the sensible thing, if it’s very close – within a couple of points – would be to take pause, respect the verdict of the British people and effectively shelve this debate until that point, which I hope is going to be as close to the 2020 election as possible.

    I think that’s the pragmatic, sensible approach. Then we can all get on with delivering the business of government ...

    I think the public would expect us to accept their verdict, but of course things change. I’m just realistic and I’d like people to acknowledge that whenever the Tory leadership election is, I think it’s obvious that it will be part of that.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/09/eu-referendum-live-wollaston-remain-vote-leave-sturgeon-johnson?page=with:block-57597df6e4b064f52e5f9967#block-57597df6e4b064f52e5f9967
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 887
    The Farage pot shot is in poor taste. Mr Meeks is still suffering with Brexcosis, even in the counterfactual.
  • JohnO said:

    Very classy stuff. Nigel Farage, My Struggle, chuckles...

    That had me giggling for hours as well.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,154
    Very amusing thanks.
  • Pauly said:

    The Farage pot shot is in poor taste. Mr Meeks is still suffering with Brexcosis, even in the counterfactual.

    Poor taste? I think not. What is in poor taste is the fact that the media don't show him up for the nasty little fascist that he is
  • Charles said:

    JohnO said:

    Very classy stuff. Nigel Farage, My Struggle, chuckles...

    Disagree. I think it’s tasteless and unnecessary and diminishes the rest of a fun and interesting article.

    It’s arguably libellous.

    At a minimum I’m calling Godwin.
    Well the Board of Deputies have criticised Farage for repeating a well known anti Semitic trope that Hitler used.
  • PS. Great "alternative history" Mr Meeks. Perhaps you should write an alternative history novel, where the Nazis won WW2..oh, perhaps it has already been done!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 23,576
    Once

    Not just Farage, that numpty Raab too, from early June 2016.


    Tory MPs may push for second referendum after 2020 if Remain win, says Vote Leave minister

    Conservative MPs may push for a second referendum on EU membership with a few years if Remain win, Dominic Raab, the justice minister, has said.

    Raab, who is a senior figure in Vote Leave, made the revelation in an interview with the House magazine. He said that he would expect MPs to respect the verdict of the people but also that it was inevitable that the prospect of a second referendum would be an issue in the next leadership contest, which he said he hoped would be near the 2020 general election.

    This was particularly the case if Leave lost narrowly, he said.

    His comment implies candidates in the next leadership contest may be under pressure to offer a second referendum after the 2020 election.

    Raab told the magazine:

    You would be naïve to suggest that [a second referendum] wouldn’t become a factor and one element in that [the next leadership contest.]

    I think the sensible thing, if it’s very close – within a couple of points – would be to take pause, respect the verdict of the British people and effectively shelve this debate until that point, which I hope is going to be as close to the 2020 election as possible.

    I think that’s the pragmatic, sensible approach. Then we can all get on with delivering the business of government ...

    I think the public would expect us to accept their verdict, but of course things change. I’m just realistic and I’d like people to acknowledge that whenever the Tory leadership election is, I think it’s obvious that it will be part of that.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/09/eu-referendum-live-wollaston-remain-vote-leave-sturgeon-johnson?page=with:block-57597df6e4b064f52e5f9967#block-57597df6e4b064f52e5f9967

    Once again you are deliberately misunderstanding/misapplying his comments

    There is a difference between applying the result of a referendum (in this case the Cameron deal) and after a few years arguing for a new vote and not applying the result of a referendum and arguing for a new vote.

    The best example is Scotland - I think it would be a mistake for the SNP to call a second referendum but the argument against it (“once in a generation”) is political rather than constitutional. If they went through the proper process and Westminster agreed then a referendum would be legitimate and democratic*.

    * I don’t know whether a second referendum was in the SNP manifesto or not but I think most people take Scottish independence as a core objective of theirs so that’s less of an issue in this case
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 887

    Pauly said:

    The Farage pot shot is in poor taste. Mr Meeks is still suffering with Brexcosis, even in the counterfactual.

    Poor taste? I think not. What is in poor taste is the fact that the media don't show him up for the nasty little fascist that he is
    Being a fascist and murdering 6 million jews are not even comparable - neither follows necessarily from the other. Not that I accept your premise, but even then it's definitely poor taste.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 23,576

    Charles said:

    JohnO said:

    Very classy stuff. Nigel Farage, My Struggle, chuckles...

    Disagree. I think it’s tasteless and unnecessary and diminishes the rest of a fun and interesting article.

    It’s arguably libellous.

    At a minimum I’m calling Godwin.
    Well the Board of Deputies have criticised Farage for repeating a well known anti Semitic trope that Hitler used.
    Sure. I think Farage is a contemptible and unpleasant man.

    But at best your argument is “you’re like Hitler you are” and I suspect the libel courts wouldn’t give much weight to “oh but X said he said something naughty”
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 8,602
    Brilliant header - great fun!

    Particularly loved the "My Struggle" line - scary though the thought is.
  • Charles said:

    JohnO said:

    Very classy stuff. Nigel Farage, My Struggle, chuckles...

    Disagree. I think it’s tasteless and unnecessary and diminishes the rest of a fun and interesting article.

    It’s arguably libellous.

    At a minimum I’m calling Godwin.
    I am not sure Mr Farage ever wants to go to court of whether he is or is not a racist or a fascist .Alan Sked clearly called out Farage as a racist in 2014 and said that he wanted to use ex National Front candidates as UKIP candidates. As far as I am aware, Farage has not sued.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/26/ukip-founder-alan-sked-party-become-frankensteins-monster
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,153
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    JohnO said:

    Very classy stuff. Nigel Farage, My Struggle, chuckles...

    Disagree. I think it’s tasteless and unnecessary and diminishes the rest of a fun and interesting article.

    It’s arguably libellous.

    At a minimum I’m calling Godwin.
    Well the Board of Deputies have criticised Farage for repeating a well known anti Semitic trope that Hitler used.
    Sure. I think Farage is a contemptible and unpleasant man.

    But at best your argument is “you’re like Hitler you are” and I suspect the libel courts wouldn’t give much weight to “oh but X said he said something naughty”
    I’m not convinced libel is possible in something clearly flagged as alternate reality fiction.
    Is there caselaw ?
  • Remain winning could have destroyed Labour.

    Oh Tory Leavers what have you done?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 28,775
    Charles said:

    There is a difference between applying the result of a referendum (in this case the Cameron deal) and after a few years arguing for a new vote and not applying the result of a referendum and arguing for a new vote.

    So, for example, Jeremy Corbyn could hold a referendum on leaving the capitalist system, and if 52% voted for it, it wouldn't be legitimate to question the proposition until full communism was achieved?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 8,602
    edited December 2018
    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    JohnO said:

    Very classy stuff. Nigel Farage, My Struggle, chuckles...

    Disagree. I think it’s tasteless and unnecessary and diminishes the rest of a fun and interesting article.

    It’s arguably libellous.

    At a minimum I’m calling Godwin.
    Well the Board of Deputies have criticised Farage for repeating a well known anti Semitic trope that Hitler used.
    Sure. I think Farage is a contemptible and unpleasant man.

    But at best your argument is “you’re like Hitler you are” and I suspect the libel courts wouldn’t give much weight to “oh but X said he said something naughty”
    I’m not convinced libel is possible in something clearly flagged as alternate reality fiction.
    Is there caselaw ?
    Chill everyone. Farage may wince but he'll probably laugh too. He's not without a sense of humour. Plus: he'll be aware of the Streisand effect.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,153
    2019 looks set to mark the start of a serious chip war between the China and the US/Japan/Taiwan/Korea...
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/China-tech/Exclusive-Foxconn-plans-9bn-China-chip-project-amid-trade-war
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    JohnO said:

    Very classy stuff. Nigel Farage, My Struggle, chuckles...

    Disagree. I think it’s tasteless and unnecessary and diminishes the rest of a fun and interesting article.

    It’s arguably libellous.

    At a minimum I’m calling Godwin.
    Well the Board of Deputies have criticised Farage for repeating a well known anti Semitic trope that Hitler used.
    Sure. I think Farage is a contemptible and unpleasant man.

    But at best your argument is “you’re like Hitler you are” and I suspect the libel courts wouldn’t give much weight to “oh but X said he said something naughty”
    I was accused by "The Jezziah" of being a Nazi the other day, even though I have been an anti-fascist and a centrist all my life, and (he wouldn't know this) being of mixed race. But then, the acolytes of the anti-Semitic misogynistic liar, Mr Corbyn don't seem to be blessed with a great deal of brains!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,153

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    JohnO said:

    Very classy stuff. Nigel Farage, My Struggle, chuckles...

    Disagree. I think it’s tasteless and unnecessary and diminishes the rest of a fun and interesting article.

    It’s arguably libellous.

    At a minimum I’m calling Godwin.
    Well the Board of Deputies have criticised Farage for repeating a well known anti Semitic trope that Hitler used.
    Sure. I think Farage is a contemptible and unpleasant man.

    But at best your argument is “you’re like Hitler you are” and I suspect the libel courts wouldn’t give much weight to “oh but X said he said something naughty”
    I’m not convinced libel is possible in something clearly flagged as alternate reality fiction.
    Is there caselaw ?
    Chill everyone. Farage may wince but he'll probably laugh too. He's not without a sense of humour. Plus: he'll be aware of the Streisand effect.
    I’m entirely chilled.
    Just trying to cool Charles down - and curious about the technical point.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 8,602
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    JohnO said:

    Very classy stuff. Nigel Farage, My Struggle, chuckles...

    Disagree. I think it’s tasteless and unnecessary and diminishes the rest of a fun and interesting article.

    It’s arguably libellous.

    At a minimum I’m calling Godwin.
    Well the Board of Deputies have criticised Farage for repeating a well known anti Semitic trope that Hitler used.
    Sure. I think Farage is a contemptible and unpleasant man.

    But at best your argument is “you’re like Hitler you are” and I suspect the libel courts wouldn’t give much weight to “oh but X said he said something naughty”
    I’m not convinced libel is possible in something clearly flagged as alternate reality fiction.
    Is there caselaw ?
    Chill everyone. Farage may wince but he'll probably laugh too. He's not without a sense of humour. Plus: he'll be aware of the Streisand effect.
    I’m entirely chilled.
    Just trying to cool Charles down - and curious about the technical point.
    Fair enough :smile:
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 8,602

    Charles said:

    There is a difference between applying the result of a referendum (in this case the Cameron deal) and after a few years arguing for a new vote and not applying the result of a referendum and arguing for a new vote.

    So, for example, Jeremy Corbyn could hold a referendum on leaving the capitalist system, and if 52% voted for it, it wouldn't be legitimate to question the proposition until full communism was achieved?

    It's a great example of why constitutional change needs a 2/3rd majority threshold.
  • That's either incredibly libellous or incredibly serious.
  • Interesting counter-factual.

    Although, as others have said, we're heading for a crunch point in January, whatever happens then and immediately afterwards will only be the closing of scene, or perhaps an act. The play has a long way to go yet.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,526

    Charles said:

    There is a difference between applying the result of a referendum (in this case the Cameron deal) and after a few years arguing for a new vote and not applying the result of a referendum and arguing for a new vote.

    So, for example, Jeremy Corbyn could hold a referendum on leaving the capitalist system, and if 52% voted for it, it wouldn't be legitimate to question the proposition until full communism was achieved?

    It's a great example of why constitutional change needs a 2/3rd majority threshold.
    Really? Then you end up like the US where the nothing gets changed.
  • Charles said:

    There is a difference between applying the result of a referendum (in this case the Cameron deal) and after a few years arguing for a new vote and not applying the result of a referendum and arguing for a new vote.

    So, for example, Jeremy Corbyn could hold a referendum on leaving the capitalist system, and if 52% voted for it, it wouldn't be legitimate to question the proposition until full communism was achieved?

    It's a great example of why constitutional change needs a 2/3rd majority threshold.
    So if we had a PR referendum and PR beat FPTP by 65 to 35 we should keep FPTP?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 8,602

    Charles said:

    There is a difference between applying the result of a referendum (in this case the Cameron deal) and after a few years arguing for a new vote and not applying the result of a referendum and arguing for a new vote.

    So, for example, Jeremy Corbyn could hold a referendum on leaving the capitalist system, and if 52% voted for it, it wouldn't be legitimate to question the proposition until full communism was achieved?

    It's a great example of why constitutional change needs a 2/3rd majority threshold.
    So if we had a PR referendum and PR beat FPTP by 65 to 35 we should keep FPTP?
    Yes
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 8,602
    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    There is a difference between applying the result of a referendum (in this case the Cameron deal) and after a few years arguing for a new vote and not applying the result of a referendum and arguing for a new vote.

    So, for example, Jeremy Corbyn could hold a referendum on leaving the capitalist system, and if 52% voted for it, it wouldn't be legitimate to question the proposition until full communism was achieved?

    It's a great example of why constitutional change needs a 2/3rd majority threshold.
    Really? Then you end up like the US where the nothing gets changed.
    Not sure I agree that nothing changes in the US.

    There is also a discussion to be had about whether the threshold needs to reflect the degree of irreversibility of the proposed change.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,526

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    There is a difference between applying the result of a referendum (in this case the Cameron deal) and after a few years arguing for a new vote and not applying the result of a referendum and arguing for a new vote.

    So, for example, Jeremy Corbyn could hold a referendum on leaving the capitalist system, and if 52% voted for it, it wouldn't be legitimate to question the proposition until full communism was achieved?

    It's a great example of why constitutional change needs a 2/3rd majority threshold.
    Really? Then you end up like the US where the nothing gets changed.
    Not sure I agree that nothing changes in the US.

    There is also a discussion to be had about whether the threshold needs to reflect the degree of irreversibility of the proposed change.
    In terms of the constitution. See the second amendment. :p
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,526

    Charles said:

    There is a difference between applying the result of a referendum (in this case the Cameron deal) and after a few years arguing for a new vote and not applying the result of a referendum and arguing for a new vote.

    So, for example, Jeremy Corbyn could hold a referendum on leaving the capitalist system, and if 52% voted for it, it wouldn't be legitimate to question the proposition until full communism was achieved?

    It's a great example of why constitutional change needs a 2/3rd majority threshold.
    So if we had a PR referendum and PR beat FPTP by 65 to 35 we should keep FPTP?
    Thinking about it, I fully support this new threshold requirement. :D
  • Charles said:

    There is a difference between applying the result of a referendum (in this case the Cameron deal) and after a few years arguing for a new vote and not applying the result of a referendum and arguing for a new vote.

    So, for example, Jeremy Corbyn could hold a referendum on leaving the capitalist system, and if 52% voted for it, it wouldn't be legitimate to question the proposition until full communism was achieved?

    It's a great example of why constitutional change needs a 2/3rd majority threshold.
    So if we had a PR referendum and PR beat FPTP by 65 to 35 we should keep FPTP?
    Yes
    I'm sure that would go down well.
  • Brilliant header - great fun!

    Particularly loved the "My Struggle" line - scary though the thought is.

    Was it sold in Germany in translation?
  • That's either incredibly libellous or incredibly serious.
    Is it?

    It’s putting your money where your mouth is.

    I’d guess Damian lost money on the 2015 general election but that’s not a sexy story?
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,408

    Charles said:

    There is a difference between applying the result of a referendum (in this case the Cameron deal) and after a few years arguing for a new vote and not applying the result of a referendum and arguing for a new vote.

    So, for example, Jeremy Corbyn could hold a referendum on leaving the capitalist system, and if 52% voted for it, it wouldn't be legitimate to question the proposition until full communism was achieved?

    It's a great example of why constitutional change needs a 2/3rd majority threshold.
    Better dissolve the Welsh Assembly then.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 8,602

    Charles said:

    There is a difference between applying the result of a referendum (in this case the Cameron deal) and after a few years arguing for a new vote and not applying the result of a referendum and arguing for a new vote.

    So, for example, Jeremy Corbyn could hold a referendum on leaving the capitalist system, and if 52% voted for it, it wouldn't be legitimate to question the proposition until full communism was achieved?

    It's a great example of why constitutional change needs a 2/3rd majority threshold.
    So if we had a PR referendum and PR beat FPTP by 65 to 35 we should keep FPTP?
    Yes
    I'm sure that would go down well.
    Tbf you make a good point.

    New proposal: changes that I support - simple majority required; changes I don't support - 90% majority required. :wink:
  • eekeek Posts: 3,890

    That's either incredibly libellous or incredibly serious.
    Is it?

    It’s putting your money where your mouth is.

    I’d guess Damian lost money on the 2015 general election but that’s not a sexy story?
    It depends - if he uses Betfair and bet based on the survey prior to it being published then he would have an unfair advantage compared to other bettors.
  • That's either incredibly libellous or incredibly serious.
    Is it?

    It’s putting your money where your mouth is.

    I’d guess Damian lost money on the 2015 general election but that’s not a sexy story?
    The implication is:
    - Damian is incentivised to carry out polling he wouldn't necessarily carry out
    - Damian is incentivised to produce polling one way or another to support his betting position
    - Damian might bet on the results of unreleased polls or ahead of such information becoming public.

    None of which means that Survation has acted improperly. But it is sufficient to raise the question.

    On the final point for example we have previously discussed how it wouldn't be a great idea for you or Mike to bet on embargoed polls, even though it isn't seemingly illegal.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 3,074

    So, for example, Jeremy Corbyn could hold a referendum on leaving the capitalist system, and if 52% voted for it, it wouldn't be legitimate to question the proposition until full communism was achieved?

    Correct. It would not be.

    But with the important caveat that the government led by him had negotiated a watertight Withdrawal Treaty with said Capitalist System, with the CS192 to be precise, which allowed for a smooth and orderly transition to full communism over a multi-year period.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,749
    edited December 2018
    A great piece by Alastair.

    Unfortunately, just as a narrow Remain win wouldn't have closed down the issue, it looks very much as though we'll be stuck with agonising over the EU in any of the future scenarios. I was particularly struck by Sir Ivan Rogers' prognosis of how the trade negotiations over the next two or three years are likely to go:

    This may be the first Anglo-Irish negotiation in history where the greater leverage is not on London’s side of the table. And the vituperation aimed at Dublin politicians tells one just how well that has gone down with politicians and apparatchiks who had not bothered to work out that this was no longer a bilateral business, and are now appalled to find they are cornered.

    Well, just wait till the trade negotiations. The solidarity of the remaining Member States will be with the major fishing Member States, not with the U.K. The solidarity will be with Spain, not the U.K., when Madrid makes Gibraltar-related demands in the trade negotiation endgame. The solidarity will be with Cyprus when it says it wants to avoid precedents which might be applied to Turkey.

    I could go on. And on… The Free Trade Agreement talks will be tougher than anything we have seen to date.
    .....
    We already see in the Withdrawal Agreement the clear signs that, having succeeded with its negotiating plans in this phase, the EU will repeat the clock and cliff edge pressures in the run up the next U.K. election, knowing it can and will exact concessions as the deadline looms. But walking away to a “no deal” outcome, managed or not, does not escape that pressure..


    Not an attractive prospect!

    https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    A great piece by Alastair.

    Unfortunately, just as a narrow Remain win wouldn't have closed down the issue, it looks very much as though we'll be stuck with agonising over the EU in any of the future scenarios. I was particularly struck by Sir Ivan Rogers' prognosis of how the trade negotiations over the next two or three years are likely to go:

    This may be the first Anglo-Irish negotiation in history where the greater leverage is not on London’s side of the table. And the vituperation aimed at Dublin politicians tells one just how well that has gone down with politicians and apparatchiks who had not bothered to work out that this was no longer a bilateral business, and are now appalled to find they are cornered.

    Well, just wait till the trade negotiations. The solidarity of the remaining Member States will be with the major fishing Member States, not with the U.K. The solidarity will be with Spain, not the U.K., when Madrid makes Gibraltar-related demands in the trade negotiation endgame. The solidarity will be with Cyprus when it says it wants to avoid precedents which might be applied to Turkey.

    I could go on. And on… The Free Trade Agreement talks will be tougher than anything we have seen to date.
    .....
    We already see in the Withdrawal Agreement the clear signs that, having succeeded with its negotiating plans in this phase, the EU will repeat the clock and cliff edge pressures in the run up the next U.K. election, knowing it can and will exact concessions as the deadline looms. But walking away to a “no deal” outcome, managed or not, does not escape that pressure..


    Not an attractive prospect!

    https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/

    And yet you claim that the backstop isn't intended to be permanent!
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,749
    edited December 2018
    Donny43 said:

    A great piece by Alastair.

    Unfortunately, just as a narrow Remain win wouldn't have closed down the issue, it looks very much as though we'll be stuck with agonising over the EU in any of the future scenarios. I was particularly struck by Sir Ivan Rogers' prognosis of how the trade negotiations over the next two or three years are likely to go:

    This may be the first Anglo-Irish negotiation in history where the greater leverage is not on London’s side of the table. And the vituperation aimed at Dublin politicians tells one just how well that has gone down with politicians and apparatchiks who had not bothered to work out that this was no longer a bilateral business, and are now appalled to find they are cornered.

    Well, just wait till the trade negotiations. The solidarity of the remaining Member States will be with the major fishing Member States, not with the U.K. The solidarity will be with Spain, not the U.K., when Madrid makes Gibraltar-related demands in the trade negotiation endgame. The solidarity will be with Cyprus when it says it wants to avoid precedents which might be applied to Turkey.

    I could go on. And on… The Free Trade Agreement talks will be tougher than anything we have seen to date.
    .....
    We already see in the Withdrawal Agreement the clear signs that, having succeeded with its negotiating plans in this phase, the EU will repeat the clock and cliff edge pressures in the run up the next U.K. election, knowing it can and will exact concessions as the deadline looms. But walking away to a “no deal” outcome, managed or not, does not escape that pressure..


    Not an attractive prospect!

    https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/

    And yet you claim that the backstop isn't intended to be permanent!
    Of course it isn't. That doesn't negate the point that Sir Ivan makes - actually it supports it, because there will be a de facto hard deadline for concluding the trade deal, and we've seen how well that worked out with the Article 50 deadline.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 1,463
    Charles said:



    Once again you are deliberately misunderstanding/misapplying his comments

    There is a difference between applying the result of a referendum (in this case the Cameron deal) and after a few years arguing for a new vote and not applying the result of a referendum and arguing for a new vote.

    The best example is Scotland - I think it would be a mistake for the SNP to call a second referendum but the argument against it (“once in a generation”) is political rather than constitutional. If they went through the proper process and Westminster agreed then a referendum would be legitimate and democratic*.

    * I don’t know whether a second referendum was in the SNP manifesto or not but I think most people take Scottish independence as a core objective of theirs so that’s less of an issue in this case

    Would you care to talk us through what "enact" means under both answers, and how well equivalent they are?

    How quickly could we have enacted "Remain" in comparison to "Leave"? We know that "Leave" requires close to three years to even get to a transition period.
    Would we need a transition period?
    How disadvantaged would "Leave" be when putting the question again after such enactment?

    The questions come across as facetious, solely because the equivalence is so strained. Whenever you get responses from the pro-Leave side (whether they or on said "side" from believing in Leave or believing that failure to fully deliver would hamper the Conservative Party) on the validity of voting again after fully Leaving, they always say they'd fully accept such a thing, but tend to find it irresistible to gloat that the extra hurdles placed by having left (opt-outs, Euro membership, loss of rebate) would make winning Rejoin so difficult as to be unimaginable to them. One can't help wonder whether such a devotion to democracy in this scenario is made easier by their belief that this one would be one they couldn't win - and that a vote before those hurdles were in place would be one they'd very likely lose.

    But of course it would be unfair and insulting to them to even suspect such a thing.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 3,074
    "The Conservatives continued to struggle intellectually."

    Now that took precious little imagination.

    But putting such minor quibbles aside, a terrific piece that was fun to read. Thank you.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 7,728
    edited December 2018
    kinabalu said:

    "The Conservatives continued to struggle intellectually."

    Now that took precious little imagination.

    But putting such minor quibbles aside, a terrific piece that was fun to read. Thank you.

    This. Really enjoyed reading it.
  • Hands up who is surprised... Minister for truth has been missing his own limelight...

  • That's either incredibly libellous or incredibly serious.
    Is it?

    It’s putting your money where your mouth is.

    I’d guess Damian lost money on the 2015 general election but that’s not a sexy story?
    My reading of it was that it was equivalent to an allegation of insider trading.

    I suppose it depends when he placed the bets. Doing it before the information is in the public domain shouldn't be ethical if not legal.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 3,521
    Can anybody come up with a reason why Farage won't stand as an independent in Peterboghorror?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,141
    edited December 2018
    Excellent piece, really fun read!



    My favourite bit of this is Sam Gyimah's face after she said it.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    Can anybody come up with a reason why Farage won't stand as an independent in Peterboghorror?

    I can think of two reasons:

    1. He might lose.
    2. He might win.
  • Excellent piece, really fun read!



    My favourite bit of this is Sam Gyimah's face as after she said it.

    She's 100% right and it works. Dogs do help prevent smuggling contraband into prisons via drones. It helps the guards be alert to the smuggling.

    Are you that ignorant the point goes over your head? How does it feel to not be as smart as Liz Truss?
  • Excellent piece, really fun read!



    My favourite bit of this is Sam Gyimah's face as after she said it.

    She's 100% right and it works. Dogs do help prevent smuggling contraband into prisons via drones. It helps the guards be alert to the smuggling.

    Are you that ignorant the point goes over your head? How does it feel to not be as smart as Liz Truss?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 28,775

    Dura_Ace said:

    Can anybody come up with a reason why Farage won't stand as an independent in Peterboghorror?

    I can think of two reasons:

    1. He might lose.
    2. He might win.
    :lol:
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 11,111
    Charles said:

    Once

    Not just Farage, that numpty Raab too, from early June 2016.


    Tory MPs may push for second referendum after 2020 if Remain win, says Vote Leave minister

    Conservative MPs may push for a second referendum on EU membership with a few years if Remain win, Dominic Raab, the justice minister, has said.

    Raab, who is a senior figure in Vote Leave, made the revelation in an interview with the House magazine. He said that he would expect MPs to respect the verdict of the people but also that it was inevitable that the prospect of a second referendum would be an issue in the next leadership contest, which he said he hoped would be near the 2020 general election.

    This was particularly the case if Leave lost narrowly, he said.

    His comment implies candidates in the next leadership contest may be under pressure to offer a second referendum after the 2020 election.

    Raab told the magazine:

    You would be naïve to suggest that [a second referendum] wouldn’t become a factor and one element in that [the next leadership contest.]

    I think the sensible thing, if it’s very close – within a couple of points – would be to take pause, respect the verdict of the British people and effectively shelve this debate until that point, which I hope is going to be as close to the 2020 election as possible.

    I think that’s the pragmatic, sensible approach. Then we can all get on with delivering the business of government ...

    I think the public would expect us to accept their verdict, but of course things change. I’m just realistic and I’d like people to acknowledge that whenever the Tory leadership election is, I think it’s obvious that it will be part of that.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/09/eu-referendum-live-wollaston-remain-vote-leave-sturgeon-johnson?page=with:block-57597df6e4b064f52e5f9967#block-57597df6e4b064f52e5f9967

    Once again you are deliberately misunderstanding/misapplying his comments

    There is a difference between applying the result of a referendum (in this case the Cameron deal) and after a few years arguing for a new vote and not applying the result of a referendum and arguing for a new vote.

    The best example is Scotland - I think it would be a mistake for the SNP to call a second referendum but the argument against it (“once in a generation”) is political rather than constitutional. If they went through the proper process and Westminster agreed then a referendum would be legitimate and democratic*.

    * I don’t know whether a second referendum was in the SNP manifesto or not but I think most people take Scottish independence as a core objective of theirs so that’s less of an issue in this case
    It was in the manifesto, specifically if Scotland voted to remain in the EU and the UK as a whole voted to leave.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,690
    Very good piece.

    We would indeed still be deeply divided, our relationship with the EU would be problematic and it would be crystal clear that any further steps in the project towards ever closer union were going to be impossible for a UK government to agree to. Not at all sure how our EU friends would feel about that. Those who have given it much thought will rue the decision of the CJEU giving the UK the right to unilaterally revoke the Article 50 notice. We would be a serious impediment to deeper EU integration based around the Euro. They will be counting down the days until 29th March.
  • Excellent piece, really fun read!



    My favourite bit of this is Sam Gyimah's face as after she said it.

    She's 100% right and it works. Dogs do help prevent smuggling contraband into prisons via drones. It helps the guards be alert to the smuggling.

    Are you that ignorant the point goes over your head? How does it feel to not be as smart as Liz Truss?
    On a few occasions I’ve visited a friend in prison, I always attract the attention of the sniffer dogs.

    One of the officers observed it wasn’t a racist dog but their training.

    They’ve been taught that people use spices to confuse the dogs to hide something more serious, and given my heritage I’m coming from a house that uses a lot of spices in food.
  • DavidL said:

    .... it would be crystal clear that any further steps in the project towards ever closer union were going to be impossible for a UK government to agree to. Not at all sure how our EU friends would feel about that. ....

    Since they'd already agreed in writing that they were happy with it, and specifically pledged not to favour the Eurozone over non-Eurozone members, we don't need to speculate on that point.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,141

    Excellent piece, really fun read!



    My favourite bit of this is Sam Gyimah's face as after she said it.

    She's 100% right and it works. Dogs do help prevent smuggling contraband into prisons via drones. It helps the guards be alert to the smuggling.

    Are you that ignorant the point goes over your head? How does it feel to not be as smart as Liz Truss?
    Yes I'm sure the barking deters the drones themselves...

    Gee, I wish I was as smart as you.

    MP says something stupid isn't a new headline it happens plenty to Labour MPs and other parties as well, Imagine it was Diane Abbott if it helps you take it less personally.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,667
    No Deal planning: get ready for starvation.



    Leaving aside the question of whether it is likely to happen, how many Leavers think this kind of contingency is an acceptable price to pay for Brexit? Unlike the Remain campaign, this really is Project Fear.
  • Excellent piece, really fun read!



    My favourite bit of this is Sam Gyimah's face as after she said it.

    She's 100% right and it works. Dogs do help prevent smuggling contraband into prisons via drones. It helps the guards be alert to the smuggling.

    Are you that ignorant the point goes over your head? How does it feel to not be as smart as Liz Truss?
    Yes I'm sure the barking deters the drones themselves...

    Gee, I wish I was as smart as you.

    MP says something stupid isn't a new headline it happens plenty to Labour MPs and other parties as well, Imagine it was Diane Abbott if it helps you take it less personally.
    The barking alerts POs who then take action.
  • Excellent piece, really fun read!



    My favourite bit of this is Sam Gyimah's face as after she said it.

    She's 100% right and it works. Dogs do help prevent smuggling contraband into prisons via drones. It helps the guards be alert to the smuggling.

    Are you that ignorant the point goes over your head? How does it feel to not be as smart as Liz Truss?
    Yes I'm sure the barking deters the drones themselves...

    Gee, I wish I was as smart as you.

    MP says something stupid isn't a new headline it happens plenty to Labour MPs and other parties as well, Imagine it was Diane Abbott if it helps you take it less personally.
    Indeed it does deter drones. A drone plus the contraband it contains is worth thousands of pounds. If dogs result in the drone being captured by guards then smugglers won't be as quick to use drones. QED drones are deterred.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,445
    edited December 2018

    A great piece by Alastair.

    Unfortunately, just as a narrow Remain win wouldn't have closed down the issue, it looks very much as though we'll be stuck with agonising over the EU in any of the future scenarios. I was particularly struck by Sir Ivan Rogers' prognosis of how the trade negotiations over the next two or three years are likely to go:

    This may be the first Anglo-Irish negotiation in history where the greater leverage is not on London’s side of the table. And the vituperation aimed at Dublin politicians tells one just how well that has gone down with politicians and apparatchiks who had not bothered to work out that this was no longer a bilateral business, and are now appalled to find they are cornered.

    Well, just wait till the trade negotiations. The solidarity of the remaining Member States will be with the major fishing Member States, not with the U.K. The solidarity will be with Spain, not the U.K., when Madrid makes Gibraltar-related demands in the trade negotiation endgame. The solidarity will be with Cyprus when it says it wants to avoid precedents which might be applied to Turkey.

    I could go on. And on… The Free Trade Agreement talks will be tougher than anything we have seen to date.
    .....
    We already see in the Withdrawal Agreement the clear signs that, having succeeded with its negotiating plans in this phase, the EU will repeat the clock and cliff edge pressures in the run up the next U.K. election, knowing it can and will exact concessions as the deadline looms. But walking away to a “no deal” outcome, managed or not, does not escape that pressure..


    Not an attractive prospect!

    https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/

    All very good reasons that no deal is now the optimum course. Free trade agreements, if they take place at all, should be about trade. Dragging Gibraltar and Cyprus is totally counterproductive and willingness to give up fishing just shows how out London based positions don’t care for either wealth creation in the rest of the country which is one of the reasons Leave won in the first place. Fishing is the only way to revitalise many of our coastal communities. It’s importance to the EU also shows how vacuous Remain arguments are that the UK has nothing of value for the EU and is doomed to be the beggar at the feast in any negotiations.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,153

    Hands up who is surprised... Minister for truth has been missing his own limelight...

    He looks remarkably like the older Terence Stamp, but with slightly less hair...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,526
    FF43 said:

    No Deal planning: get ready for starvation.

    twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1076046215949795328

    Leaving aside the question of whether it is likely to happen, how many Leavers think this kind of contingency is an acceptable price to pay for Brexit? Unlike the Remain campaign, this really is Project Fear.

    Starvation? Not sure that's what this is implying.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,526

    Excellent piece, really fun read!



    My favourite bit of this is Sam Gyimah's face as after she said it.

    She's 100% right and it works. Dogs do help prevent smuggling contraband into prisons via drones. It helps the guards be alert to the smuggling.

    Are you that ignorant the point goes over your head? How does it feel to not be as smart as Liz Truss?
    Yes I'm sure the barking deters the drones themselves...

    Gee, I wish I was as smart as you.

    MP says something stupid isn't a new headline it happens plenty to Labour MPs and other parties as well, Imagine it was Diane Abbott if it helps you take it less personally.
    It helps deter the use of drones if the guards are made aware of their usage.
  • FF43 said:

    No Deal planning: get ready for starvation.



    Leaving aside the question of whether it is likely to happen, how many Leavers think this kind of contingency is an acceptable price to pay for Brexit? Unlike the Remain campaign, this really is Project Fear.

    Theres a paywall so can't read more than first couple of paragraphs but I don't see the word starvation in any of it. In fact it specifies there won't be an overall shortage of food.

    Project Lies more than Project Fear.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,690

    DavidL said:

    .... it would be crystal clear that any further steps in the project towards ever closer union were going to be impossible for a UK government to agree to. Not at all sure how our EU friends would feel about that. ....

    Since they'd already agreed in writing that they were happy with it, and specifically pledged not to favour the Eurozone over non-Eurozone members, we don't need to speculate on that point.
    Yeah, right. I'm sure that would have gone well. What happened to our attempts to stop them using EU institutions for the Euro again?
  • Very entertaining. Of course it doesn’t do anything to point a way forward but such was not it’s purpose. If a narrow win either way would get us similar paralysis, maybe politicians need to broaden their policy horizons. The Tories have forgotten how to run a free market economy for the benefit of the many rather than the few and have become just another tax and spend party. They better discover their capitalist credentials quickly if they want to keep Corbyn out of Downing St.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,690
    FF43 said:

    No Deal planning: get ready for starvation.



    Leaving aside the question of whether it is likely to happen, how many Leavers think this kind of contingency is an acceptable price to pay for Brexit? Unlike the Remain campaign, this really is Project Fear.

    It really is getting to the point that I almost wish no deal happened just so we can all see what totally hysterical nonsense this is.

    But as a grown up I still back May's deal.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,200
    edited December 2018
    DavidL said:

    Very good piece.

    We would indeed still be deeply divided, our relationship with the EU would be problematic and it would be crystal clear that any further steps in the project towards ever closer union were going to be impossible for a UK government to agree to. Not at all sure how our EU friends would feel about that. Those who have given it much thought will rue the decision of the CJEU giving the UK the right to unilaterally revoke the Article 50 notice. We would be a serious impediment to deeper EU integration based around the Euro. They will be counting down the days until 29th March.

    The UK can't stop the Eurozone integrating if they want to. They gave up on influencing the Eurozone when they decided not to join the Euro. There's a formal structure for subsets of the EU to do stuff in the shape of Enhanced Cooperation, but if there wasn't they could just make their own treaty officially outside the EU, as the Schengen countries originally did.

    In one of his previous grandstanding exhibitions Cameron previously made a big thing about stopping the Eurozone from using EU institutions, but the whole thing was entirely pointless, which is why he quietly dropped his opposition once the media had moved on.
  • A great piece by Alastair.

    Unfortunately, just as a narrow Remain win wouldn't have closed down the issue, it looks very much as though we'll be stuck with agonising over the EU in any of the future scenarios. I was particularly struck by Sir Ivan Rogers' prognosis of how the trade negotiations over the next two or three years are likely to go:

    This may be the first Anglo-Irish negotiation in history where the greater leverage is not on London’s side of the table. And the vituperation aimed at Dublin politicians tells one just how well that has gone down with politicians and apparatchiks who had not bothered to work out that this was no longer a bilateral business, and are now appalled to find they are cornered.

    Well, just wait till the trade negotiations. The solidarity of the remaining Member States will be with the major fishing Member States, not with the U.K. The solidarity will be with Spain, not the U.K., when Madrid makes Gibraltar-related demands in the trade negotiation endgame. The solidarity will be with Cyprus when it says it wants to avoid precedents which might be applied to Turkey.

    I could go on. And on… The Free Trade Agreement talks will be tougher than anything we have seen to date.
    .....
    We already see in the Withdrawal Agreement the clear signs that, having succeeded with its negotiating plans in this phase, the EU will repeat the clock and cliff edge pressures in the run up the next U.K. election, knowing it can and will exact concessions as the deadline looms. But walking away to a “no deal” outcome, managed or not, does not escape that pressure..


    Not an attractive prospect!

    https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/

    All very good reasons that no deal is now the optimum course. Free trade agreements, if they take place, if they take place at all, should be about trade. Dragging Gibraltar and Cyprus is totally counterproductive and willingness to give up fishing just shows how out London based positions don’t care for either wealth creation in the rest of the country which is one of the reasons Leave won in the first place. Fishing is the only way to revitalise many of our coastal communities. It’s importance to the EU also shows how vacuous Remain arguments are that the UK has nothing of value for the EU and is doomed to be the beggar at the feast in any negotiations.
    Err, no. The way to absolutely guarantee a totally disastrous negotiation with the EU is to crash out and then have to come running back to them in panic to rescue us from the chaos. That really would be the worst of all possible worlds.
  • Many leavers voted for good reasons that they felt the Government needed to address I believe but very few of them have been addressed since. I would put them as follows.

    1. Financially we seem to pay higher membership fees to EU than others.
    2. Our healthcare and social security system is based solely on need and not on long term contributions. This leads to our system been exploited when we are part of a wider association with other countries whose systems are contribution based.
    3. Our education system is failing which leaves our population struggling competing for jobs in a pan European jobs market
    4. Our taxation, public sector and financial system acts against long term investment making people feel insecure about their finances.

    I doubt almost anyone voted leave because they wanted to change our custom duties system or felt that we should stop selling to Holland and sell more to China. Whether we stay or leave until the issues above are being addressed the population will be rightly unhappy.


    As I sit here pondering my budget for next year I have almost no idea where the UK economy is going. I have the best team of staff ever but that has come about from hiring globally and not locally. Unlike almost all my competitors we have remained independent and not sold out to a global MNC. My staff, customers and suppliers all appreciate the stability that this has provided and business has never been better. Yet Government has completely ignored us this year and the abiding sound bite was BJ saying f**k business. Do I feel I got value for money from the £250k+ of taxes I paid this year. (excludes VAT and employees NI ). Hard to say this year I got value for money from our politicians.

  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,141

    Excellent piece, really fun read!



    My favourite bit of this is Sam Gyimah's face as after she said it.

    She's 100% right and it works. Dogs do help prevent smuggling contraband into prisons via drones. It helps the guards be alert to the smuggling.

    Are you that ignorant the point goes over your head? How does it feel to not be as smart as Liz Truss?
    Yes I'm sure the barking deters the drones themselves...

    Gee, I wish I was as smart as you.

    MP says something stupid isn't a new headline it happens plenty to Labour MPs and other parties as well, Imagine it was Diane Abbott if it helps you take it less personally.
    Indeed it does deter drones. A drone plus the contraband it contains is worth thousands of pounds. If dogs result in the drone being captured by guards then smugglers won't be as quick to use drones. QED drones are deterred.
    No it doesn't, it can deter people who can control drones but drones themselves are mostly unbothered by barking...

    Just imagine it was Diane Abbott or another Black Labour MP then you just laugh at them messing up.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,749
    edited December 2018
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    .... it would be crystal clear that any further steps in the project towards ever closer union were going to be impossible for a UK government to agree to. Not at all sure how our EU friends would feel about that. ....

    Since they'd already agreed in writing that they were happy with it, and specifically pledged not to favour the Eurozone over non-Eurozone members, we don't need to speculate on that point.
    Yeah, right. I'm sure that would have gone well. What happened to our attempts to stop them using EU institutions for the Euro again?
    It would have worked out very well, for the very good reason that (as we see every day in the negotiations) the EU has to work within the confines of the Treaties - which is why George Osborne won this crucial case:

    https://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/uk-secures-important-victory-ecj-preserve-single-market/

    Of course we are in the process of throwing away that particular protection.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,690

    Very entertaining. Of course it doesn’t do anything to point a way forward but such was not it’s purpose. If a narrow win either way would get us similar paralysis, maybe politicians need to broaden their policy horizons. The Tories have forgotten how to run a free market economy for the benefit of the many rather than the few and have become just another tax and spend party. They better discover their capitalist credentials quickly if they want to keep Corbyn out of Downing St.

    Tax and spend is (apparently) what the people want. The general view seems to be that there is almost no problem that more government spending cannot fix. Ronald Reagan's view as set out in the most dangerous sentence in the English language is deeply out of favour.

    The public think we have had a decade of austerity despite the ever rising total of government expenditure. It's such a widely held view the Tories have to give cognisance to it.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,141

    Excellent piece, really fun read!



    My favourite bit of this is Sam Gyimah's face as after she said it.

    She's 100% right and it works. Dogs do help prevent smuggling contraband into prisons via drones. It helps the guards be alert to the smuggling.

    Are you that ignorant the point goes over your head? How does it feel to not be as smart as Liz Truss?
    Yes I'm sure the barking deters the drones themselves...

    Gee, I wish I was as smart as you.

    MP says something stupid isn't a new headline it happens plenty to Labour MPs and other parties as well, Imagine it was Diane Abbott if it helps you take it less personally.
    The barking alerts POs who then take action.
    Yeah that it what Liz Truss was trying to get across... the reason it is a funny video is because she sorta failed...

    I mean people on the internet might be laughing at it because we are all incredibly ignorant and don't understand English on the higher level of people like Liz Truss and Philip Thompson....

    Or it might be because she messed up.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,690

    DavidL said:

    Very good piece.

    We would indeed still be deeply divided, our relationship with the EU would be problematic and it would be crystal clear that any further steps in the project towards ever closer union were going to be impossible for a UK government to agree to. Not at all sure how our EU friends would feel about that. Those who have given it much thought will rue the decision of the CJEU giving the UK the right to unilaterally revoke the Article 50 notice. We would be a serious impediment to deeper EU integration based around the Euro. They will be counting down the days until 29th March.

    The UK can't stop the Eurozone integrating if they want to. They gave up on influencing the Eurozone when they decided not to join the Euro. There's a formal structure for subsets of the EU to do stuff in the shape of Enhanced Cooperation, but if there wasn't they could just make their own treaty officially outside the EU, as the Schengen countries originally did.

    In one of his previous grandstanding exhibitions Cameron previously made a big thing about stopping the Eurozone from using EU institutions, but the whole thing was entirely pointless, which is why he quietly dropped his opposition once the media had moved on.
    I don't disagree and I also think much deeper EU integration is absolutely necessary if the EZ is to thrive but there is a strong desire on the continent to recognise that this is not a matter merely for enhanced cooperation between countries but a matter for the Commission, for example, to focus on. I have little doubt that will change in fairly short order if we do indeed leave.
  • A great piece by Alastair.

    Unfortunately, just as a narrow Remain win wouldn't have closed down the issue, it looks very much as though we'll be stuck with agonising over the EU in any of the future scenarios. I was particularly struck by Sir Ivan Rogers' prognosis of how the trade negotiations over the next two or three years are likely to go:

    This may be the first Anglo-Irish negotiation in history where the greater leverage is not on London’s side of the table. And the vituperation aimed at Dublin politicians tells one just how well that has gone down with politicians and apparatchiks who had not bothered to work out that this was no longer a bilateral business, and are now appalled to find they are cornered.

    I could go on. And on… The Free Trade Agreement talks will be tougher than anything we have seen to date.
    .....
    We already see in the Withdrawal Agreement the clear signs that, having succeeded with its negotiating plans in this phase, the EU will repeat the clock and cliff edge pressures in the run up the next U.K. election, knowing it can and will exact concessions as the deadline looms. But walking away to a “no deal” outcome, managed or not, does not escape that pressure..


    Not an attractive prospect!

    https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/

    All very good reasons that no deal is now the optimum course. Free trade agreements, if they take place, if they take place at all, should be about trade. Dragging Gibraltar and Cyprus is totally counterproductive and willingness to give up fishing just shows how out London based positions don’t care for either wealth creation in the rest of the country which is one of the reasons Leave won in the first place. Fishing is the only way to revitalise many of our coastal communities. It’s importance to the EU also shows how vacuous Remain arguments are that the UK has nothing of value for the EU and is doomed to be the beggar at the feast in any negotiations.
    Err, no. The way to absolutely guarantee a totally disastrous negotiation with the EU is to crash out and then have to come running back to them in panic to rescue us from the chaos. That really would be the worst of all possible worlds.
    Hardly. Trade will flow if it’s the interests of the buyer and seller. It might become more costly and time consuming but if the EU don’t want access to our markets and won’t allow access to UK companies to theirs then we made the right decision to Leave. Being held to political ransom for a trade agreement as worthless as the withdrawal agreement is not worth spending time on frankly. We had 40 years of being in the EU and it didn’t work for far too many parts of the country.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    Excellent piece, really fun read!



    My favourite bit of this is Sam Gyimah's face as after she said it.

    She's 100% right and it works. Dogs do help prevent smuggling contraband into prisons via drones. It helps the guards be alert to the smuggling.

    Are you that ignorant the point goes over your head? How does it feel to not be as smart as Liz Truss?
    Yes I'm sure the barking deters the drones themselves...

    Gee, I wish I was as smart as you.

    MP says something stupid isn't a new headline it happens plenty to Labour MPs and other parties as well, Imagine it was Diane Abbott if it helps you take it less personally.
    Indeed it does deter drones. A drone plus the contraband it contains is worth thousands of pounds. If dogs result in the drone being captured by guards then smugglers won't be as quick to use drones. QED drones are deterred.
    No it doesn't, it can deter people who can control drones but drones themselves are mostly unbothered by barking...

    Just imagine it was Diane Abbott or another Black Labour MP then you just laugh at them messing up.
    What does "black" have to do with anything?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 28,775

    We had 40 years of being in the EU and it didn’t work for far too many parts of the country.

    What was the UK government doing for the last 40 years?
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 1,508
    I don't always see eye to eye with Alastair Meeks, but I must salute him for a brilliantly written post. Best piece of speculative fiction since the man in the high castle. And I laughed out loud at the title of Farage's book.

    FWIW, I've debated at length with some posters on whether or not an angry/disappointed group of leave voters going Ukip (or Nukip) would affect Labour or the Tories most.

    I suspect you're right that Labour would be tussling with Ukip for second place, but the alternative scenario is that working class leave voters flock to a firebrand Corbyn promising sweeping societal changes, end to austerity, the housing crisis, free owls for all, etc. Meanwhile Ukip are able to take the blue rinse brigade, splitting the Tories and leaving Corbyn eagerly preparing to measure up the curtains in Number 10.

    A great post. Thanks Alastair.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,690

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    .... it would be crystal clear that any further steps in the project towards ever closer union were going to be impossible for a UK government to agree to. Not at all sure how our EU friends would feel about that. ....

    Since they'd already agreed in writing that they were happy with it, and specifically pledged not to favour the Eurozone over non-Eurozone members, we don't need to speculate on that point.
    Yeah, right. I'm sure that would have gone well. What happened to our attempts to stop them using EU institutions for the Euro again?
    It would have worked out very well, for the very good reason that (as we see every day in the negotiations) the EU has to work within the confines of the Treaties - which is why George Osborne won this crucial case:

    https://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/uk-secures-important-victory-ecj-preserve-single-market/

    Of course we are in the process of throwing away that particular protection.
    We are not throwing it away, we are getting out of the road. Which is everyone's interests.
  • I had a lot of fun writing this. Others have been thinking about this as well, eg:

    http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.com/2018/12/be-careful-what-you-wish-for.html

    (isam, formerly of this parish)
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 1,969
    I know Sean T was saying that Oxford St was quieter than it should be at this time of year however Newcastle city centre is absolutely packed today. All the council car parks were pretty much full by about 9am.
  • We had 40 years of being in the EU and it didn’t work for far too many parts of the country.

    What was the UK government doing for the last 40 years?
    Wasting time and achieving little trying to be at the heart of Europe.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,141
    Donny43 said:

    Excellent piece, really fun read!



    My favourite bit of this is Sam Gyimah's face as after she said it.

    She's 100% right and it works. Dogs do help prevent smuggling contraband into prisons via drones. It helps the guards be alert to the smuggling.

    Are you that ignorant the point goes over your head? How does it feel to not be as smart as Liz Truss?
    Yes I'm sure the barking deters the drones themselves...

    Gee, I wish I was as smart as you.

    MP says something stupid isn't a new headline it happens plenty to Labour MPs and other parties as well, Imagine it was Diane Abbott if it helps you take it less personally.
    Indeed it does deter drones. A drone plus the contraband it contains is worth thousands of pounds. If dogs result in the drone being captured by guards then smugglers won't be as quick to use drones. QED drones are deterred.
    No it doesn't, it can deter people who can control drones but drones themselves are mostly unbothered by barking...

    Just imagine it was Diane Abbott or another Black Labour MP then you just laugh at them messing up.
    What does "black" have to do with anything?
    I can't imagine such offence to people laughing being taken by the same people if Diane had made the mistake.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 19,456
    edited December 2018
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,690

    I know Sean T was saying that Oxford St was quieter than it should be at this time of year however Newcastle city centre is absolutely packed today. All the council car parks were pretty much full by about 9am.

    Last weekend the Metro Centre was the quietest I have ever seen it in November/December. But as @anotherRichard pointed out yesterday the overall sales figures for November were quite healthy. I think that there are big regional differences below the overall figures.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 28,775

    We had 40 years of being in the EU and it didn’t work for far too many parts of the country.

    What was the UK government doing for the last 40 years?
    Wasting time and achieving little trying to be at the heart of Europe.
    So the reason the government hasn't addressed the UK's problems properly is that it was too busy negotiating with Europe? Not sure if Brexit is helping on that score...
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    Donny43 said:

    Excellent piece, really fun read!



    My favourite bit of this is Sam Gyimah's face as after she said it.

    She's 100% right and it works. Dogs do help prevent smuggling contraband into prisons via drones. It helps the guards be alert to the smuggling.

    Are you that ignorant the point goes over your head? How does it feel to not be as smart as Liz Truss?
    Yes I'm sure the barking deters the drones themselves...

    Gee, I wish I was as smart as you.

    MP says something stupid isn't a new headline it happens plenty to Labour MPs and other parties as well, Imagine it was Diane Abbott if it helps you take it less personally.
    Indeed it does deter drones. A drone plus the contraband it contains is worth thousands of pounds. If dogs result in the drone being captured by guards then smugglers won't be as quick to use drones. QED drones are deterred.
    No it doesn't, it can deter people who can control drones but drones themselves are mostly unbothered by barking...

    Just imagine it was Diane Abbott or another Black Labour MP then you just laugh at them messing up.
    What does "black" have to do with anything?
    I can't imagine such offence to people laughing being taken by the same people if Diane had made the mistake.
    That's because Abbott has form for saying incredibly stupid things. Not because of her skin colour.
This discussion has been closed.