Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Chancellor Hammond is right: extending the Article 50 deadline

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 25 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Chancellor Hammond is right: extending the Article 50 deadline won’t produce a Brexit compromise

Hammond this morning on Bloomberg says "there is clearly no majority in Parliament" for a 2nd referendum.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,118
    Morning all :)
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,450
    I can't see either the Ireland or the EU having any incentive to soften their demands on the Irish backstop.

    Ireland because to do so is to concede on their main requirement of a soft border. Even though No Deal achieves the same effect and comes with additional nasties. In that case you have the [very high probability] prospect of sorting things out later while keeping the backstop. Conceding now cements the bad result.

    Ireland psychologically and politically: No-one in Ireland voted for Brexit. No-one wants it. It is something imposed on them by a foreign government that apparently doesn't wish Ireland well. Will people in Ireland blame Varadakar for not giving in to British aggression, so they end up in No Deal? Unlikely.

    EU: If it concedes over the backstop it prioritises a non-member over a member.The EU won't survive as an institution if it does that.For that reason too, other member states will back Ireland,when push comes to shove.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,450
    edited January 25
    Do not adjust your perceptions. Reality is at fault.

    (Attractions of No Deal)
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 24,518
    There's clearly no majority for anything at present. Given the government is still pushing a deal that was defeated by a record-breaking margin, it's a bit rich to point to other ways forward as lacking a majority.

    I agree with Philip Hammond that an extension without a purpose for the extension is pointless. It's unlikely, however, that a decision made in a blind panic is going to be a good one.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 11,477
    Romantic twaddle is not an economic strategy.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,091
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Morning Mr S.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 14,323
    edited January 25
    FF43 said:

    Do not adjust your perceptions. Reality is at fault.

    (Attractions of No Deal)

    Would it not be easier
    In that case for the government
    To dissolve reality
    And construct another?

    (apols to BB)
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 11,477
    edited January 25

    There's clearly no majority for anything at present. Given the government is still pushing a deal that was defeated by a record-breaking margin, it's a bit rich to point to other ways forward as lacking a majority.

    I agree with Philip Hammond that an extension without a purpose for the extension is pointless. It's unlikely, however, that a decision made in a blind panic is going to be a good one.

    It is remarkable that despite everything they are still pushing the deal. My interpretation of current govt strategy is to shift the blame. Nothing more. The Brady amendment achieves nothing but to allow May to point the finger at the EU. This past week has been about pointing the finger at the Commons. It’s all politicking and spin. No serious attempt at compromise. In short, nothing has changed.

    We’re heading for no deal, the question the government is working on is who carries the can.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,118
    It's a fascinating article by Kibasi and it's hard not to agree with large parts of it. I'm forced to ask how we got to this place or these places.

    My mother always said it was when they got rid of the park keepers - she always said that was then civil behaviour began to deteriorate. I thought she was foolish but perhaps she had a point. I've worked for too many organisations (including my current one) where they understand the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

    Somewhere, and I'm going to try not to apportion blame to individuals or even to political parties, we lost our appreciation of the value of society, community, each other and possibly ourselves.

    It all became about self-enhancement via material acquisition, the measurement of a good life by the things you had and for those who didn't or couldn't have "the nice things" in life inevitably appeared darker, bleaker, less hopeful, less worth living.

    If you have a park, it always looks better when it's looked after but we would rather have our own money and buy the things we want than pay to have someone look after our park.

    I think Mum was right after all.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,118
    Jonathan said:

    Romantic twaddle is not an economic strategy.

    If the current "economic strategy" means you have to work long hours and can barely make ends meet while you see wealth all around you but always just out of your reach and people apparently with time to spare to enjoy your wealth, might you not think the current system doesn't work and upending it might not be a good thing?
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 5,143
    stodge said:

    It's a fascinating article by Kibasi and it's hard not to agree with large parts of it. I'm forced to ask how we got to this place or these places.

    My mother always said it was when they got rid of the park keepers - she always said that was then civil behaviour began to deteriorate. I thought she was foolish but perhaps she had a point. I've worked for too many organisations (including my current one) where they understand the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

    Somewhere, and I'm going to try not to apportion blame to individuals or even to political parties, we lost our appreciation of the value of society, community, each other and possibly ourselves.

    It all became about self-enhancement via material acquisition, the measurement of a good life by the things you had and for those who didn't or couldn't have "the nice things" in life inevitably appeared darker, bleaker, less hopeful, less worth living.

    If you have a park, it always looks better when it's looked after but we would rather have our own money and buy the things we want than pay to have someone look after our park.

    I think Mum was right after all.

    Very deep for a Friday morning
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 11,477
    stodge said:

    Jonathan said:

    Romantic twaddle is not an economic strategy.

    If the current "economic strategy" means you have to work long hours and can barely make ends meet while you see wealth all around you but always just out of your reach and people apparently with time to spare to enjoy your wealth, might you not think the current system doesn't work and upending it might not be a good thing?
    You might, but making everyone poorer isn’t going to help you. It will make your life worse.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 367
    edited January 25
    Nick Robinson's interview with the Chancellor this morning was extraordinary in that neither acknowledged in a long conversation that 'Taking no deal off the table' is not in the gift of the government. It is outside their power. 'No deal' is, on the contrary, the only outcome that is certainly within government's gift, poisoned chalice though it is. All other outcomes require the cooperation of either parliament, the EU or both.
  • Jonathan said:

    stodge said:

    Jonathan said:

    Romantic twaddle is not an economic strategy.

    If the current "economic strategy" means you have to work long hours and can barely make ends meet while you see wealth all around you but always just out of your reach and people apparently with time to spare to enjoy your wealth, might you not think the current system doesn't work and upending it might not be a good thing?
    You might, but making everyone poorer isn’t going to help you. It will make your life worse.
    That's not necessarily true. A more equitable society may be a happier society even if people are poorer on average. Not that I think Brexit is likely to achieve such an end!
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 14,323
    Has the phenomenon of the tv historian now been replaced by that of the tabloid historian? I'd have thought the latter would be an oxymoron, but these are the times we live in.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,118


    Very deep for a Friday morning

    I'm not sure where that came from in all honesty but it seemed to fir the mood of Kibasi's piece.

    Nothing wrong with thinking deeply - unless it's against site rules ??

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 53,496
    edited January 25
    Jonathan said:

    There's clearly no majority for anything at present. Given the government is still pushing a deal that was defeated by a record-breaking margin, it's a bit rich to point to other ways forward as lacking a majority.

    I agree with Philip Hammond that an extension without a purpose for the extension is pointless. It's unlikely, however, that a decision made in a blind panic is going to be a good one.

    It is remarkable that despite everything they are still pushing the deal. My interpretation of current govt strategy is to shift the blame. Nothing more. The Brady amendment achieves nothing but to allow May to point the finger at the EU. This past week has been about pointing the finger at the Commons. It’s all politicking and spin. No serious attempt at compromise. In short, nothing has changed.

    We’re heading for no deal, the question the government is working on is who carries the can.
    Parliament will likely vote for EUref2 Remain v Deal or single market and Customs Union BINO rather than accept No Deal. The Deal may even pass if No Dealers see that as more likely than No Deal.

    If we do go to No Deal and Corbyn has not backed EUref2 with a Remain option he will also be hit as Labour Remainers move to the LDs as polls suggest
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 11,477

    Jonathan said:

    stodge said:

    Jonathan said:

    Romantic twaddle is not an economic strategy.

    If the current "economic strategy" means you have to work long hours and can barely make ends meet while you see wealth all around you but always just out of your reach and people apparently with time to spare to enjoy your wealth, might you not think the current system doesn't work and upending it might not be a good thing?
    You might, but making everyone poorer isn’t going to help you. It will make your life worse.
    That's not necessarily true. A more equitable society may be a happier society even if people are poorer on average. Not that I think Brexit is likely to achieve such an end!
    I worry about where we will find the extra money to fund education and health.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,136

    There's clearly no majority for anything at present. Given the government is still pushing a deal that was defeated by a record-breaking margin, it's a bit rich to point to other ways forward as lacking a majority.

    I agree with Philip Hammond that an extension without a purpose for the extension is pointless. It's unlikely, however, that a decision made in a blind panic is going to be a good one.

    Whilst that is undeniable sometimes almost any decision is better than no decision. We've had more than 2 years of this. I really can't see sweetness, light, reason and sound judgment being found in 3 extra months.

    The biggest negative of Brexit is currently the uncertainty. People cannot plan and therefore either don't act or act on a potential worse case scenario which may not be necessary. One of my friends was in the Court of Session this week getting approval for the legal seat of a well known insurer to be transferred to Dublin. Whether that makes any real difference in their operations or employment here remains to be seen but I very much doubt it would have happened if people only knew what the outcome is going to be. We need this resolved. Now.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,118
    Jonathan said:

    stodge said:

    Jonathan said:

    Romantic twaddle is not an economic strategy.

    If the current "economic strategy" means you have to work long hours and can barely make ends meet while you see wealth all around you but always just out of your reach and people apparently with time to spare to enjoy your wealth, might you not think the current system doesn't work and upending it might not be a good thing?
    You might, but making everyone poorer isn’t going to help you. It will make your life worse.
    That's not how people see it. Their life is bad (in their eyes) already - a little worse isn't going to bother them. That isn't the problem - the problem is the sentiment that goes something like this - "I want the rich to understand the kind of life I have, to feel it, to experience it, to know it. If they knew how I lived, they would do something about it".

    I think that sentiment is very widely felt though rarely expressed. It's not revolutionary but de-evolutionary - it's the eradication of progress and advancement.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 3,877
    DavidL said:

    There's clearly no majority for anything at present. Given the government is still pushing a deal that was defeated by a record-breaking margin, it's a bit rich to point to other ways forward as lacking a majority.

    I agree with Philip Hammond that an extension without a purpose for the extension is pointless. It's unlikely, however, that a decision made in a blind panic is going to be a good one.

    Whilst that is undeniable sometimes almost any decision is better than no decision. We've had more than 2 years of this. I really can't see sweetness, light, reason and sound judgment being found in 3 extra months.

    The biggest negative of Brexit is currently the uncertainty. People cannot plan and therefore either don't act or act on a potential worse case scenario which may not be necessary. One of my friends was in the Court of Session this week getting approval for the legal seat of a well known insurer to be transferred to Dublin. Whether that makes any real difference in their operations or employment here remains to be seen but I very much doubt it would have happened if people only knew what the outcome is going to be. We need this resolved. Now.
    In my industry (consulting) I’m seeing various strategies being enacted by most clients. Obviously it starts with registration and perhaps one or two exec transfers. We know however that these things, over time, tend to result in significant functions being transferred.

    Brexit is a whimpering decline, not a bang.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 10,995
    dots said:

    Roger said:

    We need the hardest of hard Brexits. No deal. Factories have to close. Big businesses have to move and the service industries have to set up elsewhere. The Harlepudlians have to understand that foreigners were not the root of their problems.

    The ERGers must complete the takeover of the country and be allowed to quaff their champagne and gorge their canapes (little pastries with toppings*)- as planned on the 29th.

    Then when the political pendulum moves enlightened forces can take back control and the renaissance can start. On a wave of popular support we can rejoin the EU accepting the euro Shengen and a European army and the Faragists can slink back to from whence they came never to be seen again

    *For ERGers



    what happens if we do better out than in ?

    will you move to Hatlepool to acquire wisdom ?
    Where do they hang their hats in Hatlepool ?
    Here?

    http://www.hatads.org.uk/catalogue/record/871c3199-dfab-4e22-9197-4e805155b2f0
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 3,373
    I think we should have a pb.com meetup in Hartlepool.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 2,369

    DavidL said:

    There's clearly no majority for anything at present. Given the government is still pushing a deal that was defeated by a record-breaking margin, it's a bit rich to point to other ways forward as lacking a majority.

    I agree with Philip Hammond that an extension without a purpose for the extension is pointless. It's unlikely, however, that a decision made in a blind panic is going to be a good one.

    Whilst that is undeniable sometimes almost any decision is better than no decision. We've had more than 2 years of this. I really can't see sweetness, light, reason and sound judgment being found in 3 extra months.

    The biggest negative of Brexit is currently the uncertainty. People cannot plan and therefore either don't act or act on a potential worse case scenario which may not be necessary. One of my friends was in the Court of Session this week getting approval for the legal seat of a well known insurer to be transferred to Dublin. Whether that makes any real difference in their operations or employment here remains to be seen but I very much doubt it would have happened if people only knew what the outcome is going to be. We need this resolved. Now.
    In my industry (consulting) I’m seeing various strategies being enacted by most clients. Obviously it starts with registration and perhaps one or two exec transfers. We know however that these things, over time, tend to result in significant functions being transferred.

    Brexit is a whimpering decline, not a bang.
    It's not impossible that it could begin with a bang and end with a whimper.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,060
    FF43 said:



    Ireland psychologically and politically: No-one in Ireland voted for Brexit. No-one wants it. It is something imposed on them by a foreign government that apparently doesn't wish Ireland well. Will people in Ireland blame Varadakar for not giving in to British aggression, so they end up in No Deal? Unlikely.

    Ireland's problem is that it has failed to invest in ports to transport its goods directly to the EU.

    It has been living high on the hog in no small part to a cheap land bridge to the EU provided mostly by the Uk taxpayer (the French contributed to the tunnel too).

    The ROI has taken access to this for granted and is led by a small petty fool who was happy to curry favour at home by poking the Uk with a stick.

    This is a mess entirely of their own making.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 5,828
    A 3-tweet thread in which Bernie Sanders improbably manages to alienate both his ultra-liberal base and anyone to the right of him. Future president?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,136

    DavidL said:

    There's clearly no majority for anything at present. Given the government is still pushing a deal that was defeated by a record-breaking margin, it's a bit rich to point to other ways forward as lacking a majority.

    I agree with Philip Hammond that an extension without a purpose for the extension is pointless. It's unlikely, however, that a decision made in a blind panic is going to be a good one.

    Whilst that is undeniable sometimes almost any decision is better than no decision. We've had more than 2 years of this. I really can't see sweetness, light, reason and sound judgment being found in 3 extra months.

    The biggest negative of Brexit is currently the uncertainty. People cannot plan and therefore either don't act or act on a potential worse case scenario which may not be necessary. One of my friends was in the Court of Session this week getting approval for the legal seat of a well known insurer to be transferred to Dublin. Whether that makes any real difference in their operations or employment here remains to be seen but I very much doubt it would have happened if people only knew what the outcome is going to be. We need this resolved. Now.
    In my industry (consulting) I’m seeing various strategies being enacted by most clients. Obviously it starts with registration and perhaps one or two exec transfers. We know however that these things, over time, tend to result in significant functions being transferred.

    Brexit is a whimpering decline, not a bang.
    Or these safety net provisions may fade away into the irrelevancies they should be. It all depends on the deal(s). But the longer the uncertainty goes on the higher the price. Our politicians have talked this to death. Its time for them to decide what is the least worst option that can achieve a majority in the House. That should not require more time.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 2,369
    algarkirk said:

    Nick Robinson's interview with the Chancellor this morning was extraordinary in that neither acknowledged in a long conversation that 'Taking no deal off the table' is not in the gift of the government. It is outside their power. 'No deal' is, on the contrary, the only outcome that is certainly within government's gift, poisoned chalice though it is. All other outcomes require the cooperation of either parliament, the EU or both.

    It's not clear whether in legal terms the act of revocation requires the cooperation of parliament. But clearly in political terms it does.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 9,404
    IIRC he was tipped at 40/1, something like that, which remains about fair value.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 3,373
    I do note that the tories aren't beating Corbo over the head about Venezuela. I think they might have finally worked out nobody gives a fuck about that sort of thing.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,060
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    There's clearly no majority for anything at present. Given the government is still pushing a deal that was defeated by a record-breaking margin, it's a bit rich to point to other ways forward as lacking a majority.

    I agree with Philip Hammond that an extension without a purpose for the extension is pointless. It's unlikely, however, that a decision made in a blind panic is going to be a good one.

    Whilst that is undeniable sometimes almost any decision is better than no decision. We've had more than 2 years of this. I really can't see sweetness, light, reason and sound judgment being found in 3 extra months.

    The biggest negative of Brexit is currently the uncertainty. People cannot plan and therefore either don't act or act on a potential worse case scenario which may not be necessary. One of my friends was in the Court of Session this week getting approval for the legal seat of a well known insurer to be transferred to Dublin. Whether that makes any real difference in their operations or employment here remains to be seen but I very much doubt it would have happened if people only knew what the outcome is going to be. We need this resolved. Now.
    In my industry (consulting) I’m seeing various strategies being enacted by most clients. Obviously it starts with registration and perhaps one or two exec transfers. We know however that these things, over time, tend to result in significant functions being transferred.

    Brexit is a whimpering decline, not a bang.
    Or these safety net provisions may fade away into the irrelevancies they should be. It all depends on the deal(s). But the longer the uncertainty goes on the higher the price. Our politicians have talked this to death. Its time for them to decide what is the least worst option that can achieve a majority in the House. That should not require more time.
    The reason the deal didn't pass is the Irish backstop couldn't be exited unilaterally which is wholly unacceptable.

    Shortest route to a deal is some adjustment to that. Relying on a large chunk of Labour or the SNP to support any deal is never happening.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 7,343
    I think Nick Ferrari's divorce analogy was more apt than even the point he was trying to make.

    Divorce makes you poorer. in economic terms, no one would get divorced as it makes both sides poorer. Yet we still do it, as it's better than being trapped in a marriage where no one is happy.

    Brexit might make us poorer, but economics is not the driving factor here, and maybe it shouldnt be.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 2,699
    algarkirk said:

    Nick Robinson's interview with the Chancellor this morning was extraordinary in that neither acknowledged in a long conversation that 'Taking no deal off the table' is not in the gift of the government. It is outside their power. 'No deal' is, on the contrary, the only outcome that is certainly within government's gift, poisoned chalice though it is. All other outcomes require the cooperation of either parliament, the EU or both.

    Realistically if the government supported taking no deal off the table, that would pass parliament easily. So in practical terms yes, they could do it. The fact they couldn't do it without parliament's support is academic. Not at all extraordinary that neither person in that interview thought it was worth bringing up.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 11,373
    edited January 25
    Anorak said:

    A 3-tweet thread in which Bernie Sanders improbably manages to alienate both his ultra-liberal base and anyone to the right of him. Future president?

    His 'ultra-liberal base' supports Maduro ?
    I think you might have them confused with the Jezziah and his disciples.

    And the idea that everyone to the right of Sanders would be offended by the suggestion of caution regarding intervention is pretty curious, too.

    There are better reasons to think he won't be president.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 3,877
    TGOHF said:

    FF43 said:



    Ireland psychologically and politically: No-one in Ireland voted for Brexit. No-one wants it. It is something imposed on them by a foreign government that apparently doesn't wish Ireland well. Will people in Ireland blame Varadakar for not giving in to British aggression, so they end up in No Deal? Unlikely.

    Ireland's problem is that it has failed to invest in ports to transport its goods directly to the EU.

    It has been living high on the hog in no small part to a cheap land bridge to the EU provided mostly by the Uk taxpayer (the French contributed to the tunnel too).

    The ROI has taken access to this for granted and is led by a small petty fool who was happy to curry favour at home by poking the Uk with a stick.

    This is a mess entirely of their own making.
    One of my “favourite” things about this board is the constant bile issued by PB Tories about Ireland, France, Germany.

    And yet we are solemnly told that xenophobia played no role in Brexit.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 14,323
    edited January 25
    Dura_Ace said:

    I do note that the tories aren't beating Corbo over the head about Venezuela. I think they might have finally worked out nobody gives a fuck about that sort of thing.

    Enlightenment still seems to be eluding them over the importance of where Jezza laid a wreath, mind.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 11,477
    edited January 25
    stodge said:

    Jonathan said:

    stodge said:

    Jonathan said:

    Romantic twaddle is not an economic strategy.

    If the current "economic strategy" means you have to work long hours and can barely make ends meet while you see wealth all around you but always just out of your reach and people apparently with time to spare to enjoy your wealth, might you not think the current system doesn't work and upending it might not be a good thing?
    You might, but making everyone poorer isn’t going to help you. It will make your life worse.
    That's not how people see it. Their life is bad (in their eyes) already - a little worse isn't going to bother them. That isn't the problem - the problem is the sentiment that goes something like this - "I want the rich to understand the kind of life I have, to feel it, to experience it, to know it. If they knew how I lived, they would do something about it".

    I think that sentiment is very widely felt though rarely expressed. It's not revolutionary but de-evolutionary - it's the eradication of progress and advancement.
    Who are 'they' exactly? Half the problems come when the world is viewed as 'them' and 'us'.

    From my point of view the world is more complicated than that. There are plenty of people with relatively low incomes that have lavish lifestyles and vice versa. There a poor people quite at ease with multiculturalism, there are rich people cowering behind gates. There is no them and us really, just people. Those who perpetuate that a view of them vs. us do a disservice to the people they intend to help.



  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 24,661
    stodge said:


    Very deep for a Friday morning

    I'm not sure where that came from in all honesty but it seemed to fir the mood of Kibasi's piece.

    Nothing wrong with thinking deeply - unless it's against site rules ??

    You can get away with it this once. Just don't expect the rest of us to join in, alright?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,091

    algarkirk said:

    Nick Robinson's interview with the Chancellor this morning was extraordinary in that neither acknowledged in a long conversation that 'Taking no deal off the table' is not in the gift of the government. It is outside their power. 'No deal' is, on the contrary, the only outcome that is certainly within government's gift, poisoned chalice though it is. All other outcomes require the cooperation of either parliament, the EU or both.

    Realistically if the government supported taking no deal off the table, that would pass parliament easily. So in practical terms yes, they could do it. The fact they couldn't do it without parliament's support is academic. Not at all extraordinary that neither person in that interview thought it was worth bringing up.
    Realistically it is garbage. No Deal cannot come off the table without something to replace it. As long as Parliament refuses to endorse and alternative leaving mechanism then No Deal is the default, not by choice but by elimination. You could have every single MP in Parliament opposed to No Deal and it would still happen if they do not agree another form of Leaving.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,459
    Mr Ace,

    "I do note that the tories aren't beating Corbo over the head about Venezuela."

    I suspect it's priced in. The enthusiasm of revolution often starts well with some good social measures but degenerates rapidly into dictatorship and repression. Even Cuba went along that path.

    Fidel Castro did help to defuse the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 though. At its height, he called upon Kruschev to start World War Three by nuking Washington for the sake of socialism, happy for Cuba to perish towards that aim. Mr K then realised Fidel was barmy, and made haste to remove the Russian missiles.

    World War Three averted.

    Anyway, true believers always believe it's Farmer Jones causing all the bad things. Orwell had it right, and the US is a convenient scapegoat.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 10,995

    I think Nick Ferrari's divorce analogy was more apt than even the point he was trying to make.

    Divorce makes you poorer. in economic terms, no one would get divorced as it makes both sides poorer. Yet we still do it, as it's better than being trapped in a marriage where no one is happy.

    Brexit might make us poorer, but economics is not the driving factor here, and maybe it shouldnt be.

    Most people who followed the Referendum campaign without homilies from Ferrari would already know that the Referendum wasn't about economics. It was about wanting to keep foreigners out.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 2,699
    Anorak said:

    A 3-tweet thread in which Bernie Sanders improbably manages to alienate both his ultra-liberal base and anyone to the right of him. Future president?

    Sanders's base isn't liberals.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 5,828
    Nigelb said:

    Anorak said:

    A 3-tweet thread in which Bernie Sanders improbably manages to alienate both his ultra-liberal base and anyone to the right of him. Future president?

    His 'ultra-liberal base' supports Maduro ?
    I think you might have them confused with the Jezziah and his disciples.

    And the idea that everyone to the right of Sanders would be offended by the suggestion of caution regarding intervention is pretty curious, too.

    There are better reasons to think he won't be president.
    I don't claim to know the mindset of the Sandernistas as well I know that of the Corynistas.

    HOWEVER, the tweets calling him out on that thread were split remarkably evenly between those calling him a peacenik pussy, and those insinuating he was a traitor to the cause.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 11,373
    Dura_Ace said:

    I do note that the tories aren't beating Corbo over the head about Venezuela. I think they might have finally worked out nobody gives a fuck about that sort of thing.

    I think they are rather consumed by Brexit monomania.

    (And FWIW there was a Times opinion piece only this morning beating Corbyn about the head over Venezuela.)
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,091

    TGOHF said:

    FF43 said:



    Ireland psychologically and politically: No-one in Ireland voted for Brexit. No-one wants it. It is something imposed on them by a foreign government that apparently doesn't wish Ireland well. Will people in Ireland blame Varadakar for not giving in to British aggression, so they end up in No Deal? Unlikely.

    Ireland's problem is that it has failed to invest in ports to transport its goods directly to the EU.

    It has been living high on the hog in no small part to a cheap land bridge to the EU provided mostly by the Uk taxpayer (the French contributed to the tunnel too).

    The ROI has taken access to this for granted and is led by a small petty fool who was happy to curry favour at home by poking the Uk with a stick.

    This is a mess entirely of their own making.
    One of my “favourite” things about this board is the constant bile issued by PB Tories about Ireland, France, Germany.

    And yet we are solemnly told that xenophobia played no role in Brexit.
    Criticism of the actions of a Government is not criticism of the people. Are you a xenophobe if you attack the Italian or Hungarian 'populist' Governments?

    Ireland can rightly be criticised for trying to play games over Brexit and for not being prepared for the consequences when their games failed. That is not xenophobic, just politics.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,118
    DavidL said:


    Whilst that is undeniable sometimes almost any decision is better than no decision. We've had more than 2 years of this. I really can't see sweetness, light, reason and sound judgment being found in 3 extra months.

    The biggest negative of Brexit is currently the uncertainty. People cannot plan and therefore either don't act or act on a potential worse case scenario which may not be necessary. One of my friends was in the Court of Session this week getting approval for the legal seat of a well known insurer to be transferred to Dublin. Whether that makes any real difference in their operations or employment here remains to be seen but I very much doubt it would have happened if people only knew what the outcome is going to be. We need this resolved. Now.

    I'm sure there are plenty on here who say we could have all the resolution we wanted if we passed the WDA today. The problem is for many the short-term advantages are outweighed by the long-term disadvantageous (as they see it) aspects of the WDA which render it unacceptable even if it is the only game in town.

    I'm afraid the more I see this, the more I'm inclined to blame David Cameron. The fault wasn't calling the Referendum in the first place - I understand the political rationale behind it - but how it was structured. As he had no improved terms, we could (and this could have been explained) have gone through a two-stage process:

    Referendum 1: Either REMAIN in the EU or current terms or agree to allow the Government to seek terms under Article 50 to leave the European Union within 36 months (24 months for A50 and up to 12 months for preparation) of this vote.

    Referendum 2: (within 36 months of referendum 1): Accept the Government and the EU's agreed Withdrawal Treaty or Reject and Leave the European Union immediately without a Deal.

    I would have been happy with that. Unfortunately, control of the process was handed over to May and the Government and had it not been for Gina Miller Parliament would likely have been by-passed as well.

    The trade off becomes certainty vs accountability. In a democracy, the latter always wins though I completely understand the uncertainty is mote than likely going to be economically difficult for many individuals and businesses not just in the UK but in the EU and possible elsewhere.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 2,699

    algarkirk said:

    Nick Robinson's interview with the Chancellor this morning was extraordinary in that neither acknowledged in a long conversation that 'Taking no deal off the table' is not in the gift of the government. It is outside their power. 'No deal' is, on the contrary, the only outcome that is certainly within government's gift, poisoned chalice though it is. All other outcomes require the cooperation of either parliament, the EU or both.

    Realistically if the government supported taking no deal off the table, that would pass parliament easily. So in practical terms yes, they could do it. The fact they couldn't do it without parliament's support is academic. Not at all extraordinary that neither person in that interview thought it was worth bringing up.
    Realistically it is garbage. No Deal cannot come off the table without something to replace it. As long as Parliament refuses to endorse and alternative leaving mechanism then No Deal is the default, not by choice but by elimination. You could have every single MP in Parliament opposed to No Deal and it would still happen if they do not agree another form of Leaving.
    You could pass a motion saying that we'll revoke A50 on March 28th unless something else is passed. Doesn't require choosing another specific option, but takes no deal off the table. Simple.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,091

    algarkirk said:

    Nick Robinson's interview with the Chancellor this morning was extraordinary in that neither acknowledged in a long conversation that 'Taking no deal off the table' is not in the gift of the government. It is outside their power. 'No deal' is, on the contrary, the only outcome that is certainly within government's gift, poisoned chalice though it is. All other outcomes require the cooperation of either parliament, the EU or both.

    Realistically if the government supported taking no deal off the table, that would pass parliament easily. So in practical terms yes, they could do it. The fact they couldn't do it without parliament's support is academic. Not at all extraordinary that neither person in that interview thought it was worth bringing up.
    Realistically it is garbage. No Deal cannot come off the table without something to replace it. As long as Parliament refuses to endorse and alternative leaving mechanism then No Deal is the default, not by choice but by elimination. You could have every single MP in Parliament opposed to No Deal and it would still happen if they do not agree another form of Leaving.
    You could pass a motion saying that we'll revoke A50 on March 28th unless something else is passed. Doesn't require choosing another specific option, but takes no deal off the table. Simple.
    So your answer to No Deal is to automatically Remain.

    And you wonder why no one takes these suggestions seriously.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 10,957
    Nigelb said:
    That's a good piece. It's framed as "he wouldn't win" but I think a lot of it makes more sense as "he's not running". Not much social media presence? Not much grass-roots organization? He can raise money, he could have paid someone to do that stuff for him.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,450
    DavidL said:

    There's clearly no majority for anything at present. Given the government is still pushing a deal that was defeated by a record-breaking margin, it's a bit rich to point to other ways forward as lacking a majority.

    I agree with Philip Hammond that an extension without a purpose for the extension is pointless. It's unlikely, however, that a decision made in a blind panic is going to be a good one.

    Whilst that is undeniable sometimes almost any decision is better than no decision. We've had more than 2 years of this. I really can't see sweetness, light, reason and sound judgment being found in 3 extra months.

    The biggest negative of Brexit is currently the uncertainty. People cannot plan and therefore either don't act or act on a potential worse case scenario which may not be necessary. One of my friends was in the Court of Session this week getting approval for the legal seat of a well known insurer to be transferred to Dublin. Whether that makes any real difference in their operations or employment here remains to be seen but I very much doubt it would have happened if people only knew what the outcome is going to be. We need this resolved. Now.
    The problem is Brexit is all downside. No-one invests in the UK because of Brexit. Lots of people consciously invest away from the UK because of Brexit. May's Deal is only the starting point for years more negotiation and uncertainty. While I am sure we don't want the consequences of No Deal, the issue applies to any form of Brexit. The damage can be somewhat limited or it can be aggravated.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,091
    stodge said:

    DavidL said:


    Whilst that is undeniable sometimes almost any decision is better than no decision. We've had more than 2 years of this. I really can't see sweetness, light, reason and sound judgment being found in 3 extra months.

    The biggest negative of Brexit is currently the uncertainty. People cannot plan and therefore either don't act or act on a potential worse case scenario which may not be necessary. One of my friends was in the Court of Session this week getting approval for the legal seat of a well known insurer to be transferred to Dublin. Whether that makes any real difference in their operations or employment here remains to be seen but I very much doubt it would have happened if people only knew what the outcome is going to be. We need this resolved. Now.

    I'm sure there are plenty on here who say we could have all the resolution we wanted if we passed the WDA today. The problem is for many the short-term advantages are outweighed by the long-term disadvantageous (as they see it) aspects of the WDA which render it unacceptable even if it is the only game in town.

    I'm afraid the more I see this, the more I'm inclined to blame David Cameron. The fault wasn't calling the Referendum in the first place - I understand the political rationale behind it - but how it was structured. As he had no improved terms, we could (and this could have been explained) have gone through a two-stage process:

    Referendum 1: Either REMAIN in the EU or current terms or agree to allow the Government to seek terms under Article 50 to leave the European Union within 36 months (24 months for A50 and up to 12 months for preparation) of this vote.

    Referendum 2: (within 36 months of referendum 1): Accept the Government and the EU's agreed Withdrawal Treaty or Reject and Leave the European Union immediately without a Deal.

    I would have been happy with that. Unfortunately, control of the process was handed over to May and the Government and had it not been for Gina Miller Parliament would likely have been by-passed as well.

    The trade off becomes certainty vs accountability. In a democracy, the latter always wins though I completely understand the uncertainty is mote than likely going to be economically difficult for many individuals and businesses not just in the UK but in the EU and possible elsewhere.
    You could still do that of course if the political will was there in Parliament.

    Hold a second referendum without the option to Remain (as that question has already been asked and answered). Deal or No Deal.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,450
    Dura_Ace said:

    I do note that the tories aren't beating Corbo over the head about Venezuela. I think they might have finally worked out nobody gives a fuck about that sort of thing.

    I am feeling very nostalgic for chaos with Ed Miliband.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 11,477

    TGOHF said:

    FF43 said:



    Ireland psychologically and politically: No-one in Ireland voted for Brexit. No-one wants it. It is something imposed on them by a foreign government that apparently doesn't wish Ireland well. Will people in Ireland blame Varadakar for not giving in to British aggression, so they end up in No Deal? Unlikely.

    Ireland's problem is that it has failed to invest in ports to transport its goods directly to the EU.

    It has been living high on the hog in no small part to a cheap land bridge to the EU provided mostly by the Uk taxpayer (the French contributed to the tunnel too).

    The ROI has taken access to this for granted and is led by a small petty fool who was happy to curry favour at home by poking the Uk with a stick.

    This is a mess entirely of their own making.
    One of my “favourite” things about this board is the constant bile issued by PB Tories about Ireland, France, Germany.

    And yet we are solemnly told that xenophobia played no role in Brexit.
    Xenophobia clearly had and has a role in Brexit. That is not in dispute. You simply can't attribute xenophobia to everyone that voted for it.

    That said, xenophobia might account for the winning margin, that 2%.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 24,661
    Chris said:

    DavidL said:

    There's clearly no majority for anything at present. Given the government is still pushing a deal that was defeated by a record-breaking margin, it's a bit rich to point to other ways forward as lacking a majority.

    I agree with Philip Hammond that an extension without a purpose for the extension is pointless. It's unlikely, however, that a decision made in a blind panic is going to be a good one.

    Whilst that is undeniable sometimes almost any decision is better than no decision. We've had more than 2 years of this. I really can't see sweetness, light, reason and sound judgment being found in 3 extra months.

    The biggest negative of Brexit is currently the uncertainty. People cannot plan and therefore either don't act or act on a potential worse case scenario which may not be necessary. One of my friends was in the Court of Session this week getting approval for the legal seat of a well known insurer to be transferred to Dublin. Whether that makes any real difference in their operations or employment here remains to be seen but I very much doubt it would have happened if people only knew what the outcome is going to be. We need this resolved. Now.
    In my industry (consulting) I’m seeing various strategies being enacted by most clients. Obviously it starts with registration and perhaps one or two exec transfers. We know however that these things, over time, tend to result in significant functions being transferred.

    Brexit is a whimpering decline, not a bang.
    It's not impossible that it could begin with a bang and end with a whimper.
    When we Brexit, it will for sure end with Remainers whimpering.....
  • _Anazina__Anazina_ Posts: 1,397
    algarkirk said:

    Nick Robinson's interview with the Chancellor this morning was extraordinary in that neither acknowledged in a long conversation that 'Taking no deal off the table' is not in the gift of the government. It is outside their power. 'No deal' is, on the contrary, the only outcome that is certainly within government's gift, poisoned chalice though it is. All other outcomes require the cooperation of either parliament, the EU or both.

    Nope. They could unilaterally revoke A50.

    That might not be palatable to you or them, but to say it is not within their gift is untrue.
  • _Anazina__Anazina_ Posts: 1,397

    TGOHF said:

    FF43 said:



    Ireland psychologically and politically: No-one in Ireland voted for Brexit. No-one wants it. It is something imposed on them by a foreign government that apparently doesn't wish Ireland well. Will people in Ireland blame Varadakar for not giving in to British aggression, so they end up in No Deal? Unlikely.

    Ireland's problem is that it has failed to invest in ports to transport its goods directly to the EU.

    It has been living high on the hog in no small part to a cheap land bridge to the EU provided mostly by the Uk taxpayer (the French contributed to the tunnel too).

    The ROI has taken access to this for granted and is led by a small petty fool who was happy to curry favour at home by poking the Uk with a stick.

    This is a mess entirely of their own making.
    One of my “favourite” things about this board is the constant bile issued by PB Tories about Ireland, France, Germany.

    And yet we are solemnly told that xenophobia played no role in Brexit.
    Agreed. The Francophobia and Hibernophobia on here are sickening at times.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 17,267
    That plonker doing the Take on last night's TW was a classic. His motivation for wanting no deal was solely a vague but strongly held hatred of May's deal; when presented with the practical issues by AN and his guests, he couldn't answer a single point, pretty much said he didn't care, and ended up conceding that he had no idea.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 5,828
    FF43 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I do note that the tories aren't beating Corbo over the head about Venezuela. I think they might have finally worked out nobody gives a fuck about that sort of thing.

    I am feeling very nostalgic for chaos with Ed Miliband.
    Chaos, you call that chaos? Ed Miliband in a clown suit is a rank amateur compared to the heady mix of the ERG and the DUP.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 2,369

    algarkirk said:

    Nick Robinson's interview with the Chancellor this morning was extraordinary in that neither acknowledged in a long conversation that 'Taking no deal off the table' is not in the gift of the government. It is outside their power. 'No deal' is, on the contrary, the only outcome that is certainly within government's gift, poisoned chalice though it is. All other outcomes require the cooperation of either parliament, the EU or both.

    Realistically if the government supported taking no deal off the table, that would pass parliament easily. So in practical terms yes, they could do it. The fact they couldn't do it without parliament's support is academic. Not at all extraordinary that neither person in that interview thought it was worth bringing up.
    Realistically it is garbage. No Deal cannot come off the table without something to replace it. As long as Parliament refuses to endorse and alternative leaving mechanism then No Deal is the default, not by choice but by elimination. You could have every single MP in Parliament opposed to No Deal and it would still happen if they do not agree another form of Leaving.
    You could pass a motion saying that we'll revoke A50 on March 28th unless something else is passed. Doesn't require choosing another specific option, but takes no deal off the table. Simple.
    The fact that they won't do that now makes me think they may not make a hard decision to avoid it in March.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,118


    So your answer to No Deal is to automatically Remain.

    And you wonder why no one takes these suggestions seriously.

    Oh, I don't know. What's the worst that could happen if May stood up and said the Government was voluntarily revoking A50 and choosing to remain in the EU on current terms?

    The Conservative Party would fragment, its poll share would collapse and we might see by the time of the local elections two sets of Conservative candidates on every ballot paper - very little downside there as far as I can see and think of how many extra members and supporters UKIP would get? How we'd all chortle.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 5,828
    _Anazina_ said:

    TGOHF said:

    FF43 said:



    Ireland psychologically and politically: No-one in Ireland voted for Brexit. No-one wants it. It is something imposed on them by a foreign government that apparently doesn't wish Ireland well. Will people in Ireland blame Varadakar for not giving in to British aggression, so they end up in No Deal? Unlikely.

    Ireland's problem is that it has failed to invest in ports to transport its goods directly to the EU.

    It has been living high on the hog in no small part to a cheap land bridge to the EU provided mostly by the Uk taxpayer (the French contributed to the tunnel too).

    The ROI has taken access to this for granted and is led by a small petty fool who was happy to curry favour at home by poking the Uk with a stick.

    This is a mess entirely of their own making.
    One of my “favourite” things about this board is the constant bile issued by PB Tories about Ireland, France, Germany.

    And yet we are solemnly told that xenophobia played no role in Brexit.
    Agreed. The Francophobia and Hibernophobia on here are sickening at times.
    Agreed. It was much easier when I were a lad. Everyone just whaled on the Argies.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 17,267

    Nigelb said:
    That's a good piece. It's framed as "he wouldn't win" but I think a lot of it makes more sense as "he's not running". Not much social media presence? Not much grass-roots organization? He can raise money, he could have paid someone to do that stuff for him.
    And the MeToo concerns are pretty much a killer for any Dem primary candidate now anyway. As a bet it's a clear lay.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 10,759
    _Anazina_ said:

    algarkirk said:

    Nick Robinson's interview with the Chancellor this morning was extraordinary in that neither acknowledged in a long conversation that 'Taking no deal off the table' is not in the gift of the government. It is outside their power. 'No deal' is, on the contrary, the only outcome that is certainly within government's gift, poisoned chalice though it is. All other outcomes require the cooperation of either parliament, the EU or both.

    Nope. They could unilaterally revoke A50.

    That might not be palatable to you or them, but to say it is not within their gift is untrue.
    They could also make revocation the backstop, which might concentrate a few minds in SW1.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 2,908
    Nigelb said:

    Anorak said:

    A 3-tweet thread in which Bernie Sanders improbably manages to alienate both his ultra-liberal base and anyone to the right of him. Future president?

    His 'ultra-liberal base' supports Maduro ?
    I think you might have them confused with the Jezziah and his disciples.

    And the idea that everyone to the right of Sanders would be offended by the suggestion of caution regarding intervention is pretty curious, too.

    There are better reasons to think he won't be president.
    I realise the reference is Corbyn here rather than me but as my name was specifically mentioned...

    I'd largely agree with what Sanders wrote, I don't imagine Corbyn would disagree with it much but anything he wrote would be pulled apart though and why draw any focus to it. He supported Chavez but his support of Maduro seems to have extended to congratulating him on becoming president which was before he actually did anything. Happy to be corrected but I'm not sure he said much positive about his actual time in power.
  • Jonathan said:

    TGOHF said:

    FF43 said:



    Ireland psychologically and politically: No-one in Ireland voted for Brexit. No-one wants it. It is something imposed on them by a foreign government that apparently doesn't wish Ireland well. Will people in Ireland blame Varadakar for not giving in to British aggression, so they end up in No Deal? Unlikely.

    Ireland's problem is that it has failed to invest in ports to transport its goods directly to the EU.

    It has been living high on the hog in no small part to a cheap land bridge to the EU provided mostly by the Uk taxpayer (the French contributed to the tunnel too).

    The ROI has taken access to this for granted and is led by a small petty fool who was happy to curry favour at home by poking the Uk with a stick.

    This is a mess entirely of their own making.
    One of my “favourite” things about this board is the constant bile issued by PB Tories about Ireland, France, Germany.

    And yet we are solemnly told that xenophobia played no role in Brexit.
    Xenophobia clearly had and has a role in Brexit. That is not in dispute. You simply can't attribute xenophobia to everyone that voted for it.

    That said, xenophobia might account for the winning margin, that 2%.
    Of course since the backstop is proving to be a major hurdle and that Germany and France seem to be actively trying to prevent Brexit and have been seen as prime instigateors of "The European Project", it is probably a natural opposition to the policies those countries have adopted rather than the general Frenchman, Irishman or German.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,060

    TGOHF said:

    FF43 said:



    Ireland psychologically and politically: No-one in Ireland voted for Brexit. No-one wants it. It is something imposed on them by a foreign government that apparently doesn't wish Ireland well. Will people in Ireland blame Varadakar for not giving in to British aggression, so they end up in No Deal? Unlikely.

    Ireland's problem is that it has failed to invest in ports to transport its goods directly to the EU.

    It has been living high on the hog in no small part to a cheap land bridge to the EU provided mostly by the Uk taxpayer (the French contributed to the tunnel too).

    The ROI has taken access to this for granted and is led by a small petty fool who was happy to curry favour at home by poking the Uk with a stick.

    This is a mess entirely of their own making.
    One of my “favourite” things about this board is the constant bile issued by PB Tories about Ireland, France, Germany.

    And yet we are solemnly told that xenophobia played no role in Brexit.
    You were spouting bile about British "aggression" in democratically voting to leave a trading cartel.

    Nobody whined that that was anti British Xenophobia...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 17,267
    stodge said:


    So your answer to No Deal is to automatically Remain.

    And you wonder why no one takes these suggestions seriously.

    Oh, I don't know. What's the worst that could happen if May stood up and said the Government was voluntarily revoking A50 and choosing to remain in the EU on current terms?

    The Conservative Party would fragment, its poll share would collapse and we might see by the time of the local elections two sets of Conservative candidates on every ballot paper - very little downside there as far as I can see and think of how many extra members and supporters UKIP would get? How we'd all chortle.
    Certainly it would be what they deserve for inflicting this whole fiasco on us.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,118
    Jonathan said:

    <
    Who are 'they' exactly? Half the problems come when the world is viewed as 'them' and 'us'.

    From my point of view the world is more complicated than that. There are plenty of people with relatively low incomes that have lavish lifestyles and vice versa. There a poor people quite at ease with multiculturalism, there are rich people cowering behind gates. There is no them and us really, just people. Those who perpetuate that a view of them vs. us do a disservice to the people they intend to help.

    Of course it would be much easier and yes at the end of the day we are all just people trying to do the best for ourselves, our families and our communities but to imagine these divisions don't exist is naïve.

    Anyone can cite an exception for a generalised statement but that doesn't make the statement wholly invalid. We are a divided society and arguably always have been - the divisions are complex and not always evident but they do exist.

    Is there resentment out there? Unquestionably, yes. Does everybody feel resentment toward someone else? Unquestionably, no but that doesn't obviate the existence of resentment per se.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 17,626

    I think Nick Ferrari's divorce analogy was more apt than even the point he was trying to make.

    Divorce makes you poorer. in economic terms, no one would get divorced as it makes both sides poorer. Yet we still do it, as it's better than being trapped in a marriage where no one is happy.

    Brexit might make us poorer, but economics is not the driving factor here, and maybe it shouldnt be.

    Which is all well and good but then Leavers must stop believing that the EU will also be primarily driven by economics. No more of the "it will hurt them more than it will hurt us*"

    *it won't
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 4,195
    Be honest now. Who doesn't think Brexit has turned out to be utterly ghastly?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 10,995
    stodge said:

    DavidL said:


    Whilst that is undeniable sometimes almost any decision is better than no decision. We've had more than 2 years of this. I really can't see sweetness, light, reason and sound judgment being found in 3 extra months.

    The biggest negative of Brexit is currently the uncertainty. People cannot plan and therefore either don't act or act on a potential worse case scenario which may not be necessary. One of my friends was in the Court of Session this week getting approval for the legal seat of a well known insurer to be transferred to Dublin. Whether that makes any real difference in their operations or employment here remains to be seen but I very much doubt it would have happened if people only knew what the outcome is going to be. We need this resolved. Now.

    I'm sure there are plenty on here who say we could have all the resolution we wanted if we passed the WDA today. The problem is for many the short-term advantages are outweighed by the long-term disadvantageous (as they see it) aspects of the WDA which render it unacceptable even if it is the only game in town.

    I'm afraid the more I see this, the more I'm inclined to blame David Cameron. The fault wasn't calling the Referendum in the first place - I understand the political rationale behind it - but how it was structured. As he had no improved terms, we could (and this could have been explained) have gone through a two-stage process:

    Referendum 1: Either REMAIN in the EU or current terms or agree to allow the Government to seek terms under Article 50 to leave the European Union within 36 months (24 months for A50 and up to 12 months for preparation) of this vote.

    Referendum 2: (within 36 months of referendum 1): Accept the Government and the EU's agreed Withdrawal Treaty or Reject and Leave the European Union immediately without a Deal.

    I would have been happy with that. Unfortunately, control of the process was handed over to May and the Government and had it not been for Gina Miller Parliament would likely have been by-passed as well.

    The trade off becomes certainty vs accountability. In a democracy, the latter always wins though I completely understand the uncertainty is mote than likely going to be economically difficult for many individuals and businesses not just in the UK but in the EU and possible elsewhere.
    How can someone who voted Leave blame David Cameron? All he did was your bidding. If you couldn't see the chaos your choices were making why should he?

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 17,626
    edited January 25
    IanB2 said:

    That plonker doing the Take on last night's TW was a classic. His motivation for wanting no deal was solely a vague but strongly held hatred of May's deal; when presented with the practical issues by AN and his guests, he couldn't answer a single point, pretty much said he didn't care, and ended up conceding that he had no idea.

    It must have been dispiriting to have people openly laughing at him in his face.
  • FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    There's clearly no majority for anything at present. Given the government is still pushing a deal that was defeated by a record-breaking margin, it's a bit rich to point to other ways forward as lacking a majority.

    I agree with Philip Hammond that an extension without a purpose for the extension is pointless. It's unlikely, however, that a decision made in a blind panic is going to be a good one.

    Whilst that is undeniable sometimes almost any decision is better than no decision. We've had more than 2 years of this. I really can't see sweetness, light, reason and sound judgment being found in 3 extra months.

    The biggest negative of Brexit is currently the uncertainty. People cannot plan and therefore either don't act or act on a potential worse case scenario which may not be necessary. One of my friends was in the Court of Session this week getting approval for the legal seat of a well known insurer to be transferred to Dublin. Whether that makes any real difference in their operations or employment here remains to be seen but I very much doubt it would have happened if people only knew what the outcome is going to be. We need this resolved. Now.
    The problem is Brexit is all downside. No-one invests in the UK because of Brexit. Lots of people consciously invest away from the UK because of Brexit. May's Deal is only the starting point for years more negotiation and uncertainty. While I am sure we don't want the consequences of No Deal, the issue applies to any form of Brexit. The damage can be somewhat limited or it can be aggravated.
    Well the investment figures in the UK are available here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/bulletins/businessinvestment/julytoseptember2018revisedresults and don't seem that bad.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,060
    _Anazina_ said:

    TGOHF said:

    FF43 said:



    Ireland psychologically and politically: No-one in Ireland voted for Brexit. No-one wants it. It is something imposed on them by a foreign government that apparently doesn't wish Ireland well. Will people in Ireland blame Varadakar for not giving in to British aggression, so they end up in No Deal? Unlikely.

    Ireland's problem is that it has failed to invest in ports to transport its goods directly to the EU.

    It has been living high on the hog in no small part to a cheap land bridge to the EU provided mostly by the Uk taxpayer (the French contributed to the tunnel too).

    The ROI has taken access to this for granted and is led by a small petty fool who was happy to curry favour at home by poking the Uk with a stick.

    This is a mess entirely of their own making.
    One of my “favourite” things about this board is the constant bile issued by PB Tories about Ireland, France, Germany.

    And yet we are solemnly told that xenophobia played no role in Brexit.
    Agreed. The Francophobia and Hibernophobia on here are sickening at times.
    Ah the perfidious Albion should lie there and take the kicks approach...

    Merkel to her credit hasn't resorted to bashing the Brits like Macron and Leo - perhaps she isn't as desperate as they are to cling to power.

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 2,405
    Yes, No Deal Nation, indeed Brexit on the whole, is heart over head and its allure is all the more powerful for that. What would you rather gaze at, a spreadsheet or a sunset? OK, for me it's the spreadsheet every time, love them, but I recognize I'm in the minority.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 17,267
    stodge said:

    It's a fascinating article by Kibasi and it's hard not to agree with large parts of it. I'm forced to ask how we got to this place or these places.

    My mother always said it was when they got rid of the park keepers - she always said that was then civil behaviour began to deteriorate. I thought she was foolish but perhaps she had a point. I've worked for too many organisations (including my current one) where they understand the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

    Somewhere, and I'm going to try not to apportion blame to individuals or even to political parties, we lost our appreciation of the value of society, community, each other and possibly ourselves.

    It all became about self-enhancement via material acquisition, the measurement of a good life by the things you had and for those who didn't or couldn't have "the nice things" in life inevitably appeared darker, bleaker, less hopeful, less worth living.

    If you have a park, it always looks better when it's looked after but we would rather have our own money and buy the things we want than pay to have someone look after our park.

    I think Mum was right after all.

    The legacy of the first female PM
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 367
    _Anazina_ said:

    algarkirk said:

    Nick Robinson's interview with the Chancellor this morning was extraordinary in that neither acknowledged in a long conversation that 'Taking no deal off the table' is not in the gift of the government. It is outside their power. 'No deal' is, on the contrary, the only outcome that is certainly within government's gift, poisoned chalice though it is. All other outcomes require the cooperation of either parliament, the EU or both.

    Nope. They could unilaterally revoke A50.

    That might not be palatable to you or them, but to say it is not within their gift is untrue.
    How sure can we be that the government can revoke Article 50 without parliament's approval? I for one am not as certain as you, given that parliament's approval was legally required to invoke it.

  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Anorak said:

    _Anazina_ said:

    TGOHF said:

    FF43 said:



    Ireland psychologically and politically: No-one in Ireland voted for Brexit. No-one wants it. It is something imposed on them by a foreign government that apparently doesn't wish Ireland well. Will people in Ireland blame Varadakar for not giving in to British aggression, so they end up in No Deal? Unlikely.

    Ireland's problem is that it has failed to invest in ports to transport its goods directly to the EU.

    It has been living high on the hog in no small part to a cheap land bridge to the EU provided mostly by the Uk taxpayer (the French contributed to the tunnel too).

    The ROI has taken access to this for granted and is led by a small petty fool who was happy to curry favour at home by poking the Uk with a stick.

    This is a mess entirely of their own making.
    One of my “favourite” things about this board is the constant bile issued by PB Tories about Ireland, France, Germany.

    And yet we are solemnly told that xenophobia played no role in Brexit.
    Agreed. The Francophobia and Hibernophobia on here are sickening at times.
    Agreed. It was much easier when I were a lad. Everyone just whaled on the Argies.
    Now the people of Hartlepool get the stick from lefty well off remainers,sickening isn't it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 17,267
    TOPPING said:

    IanB2 said:

    That plonker doing the Take on last night's TW was a classic. His motivation for wanting no deal was solely a vague but strongly held hatred of May's deal; when presented with the practical issues by AN and his guests, he couldn't answer a single point, pretty much said he didn't care, and ended up conceding that he had no idea.

    It must have been dispiriting to have people openly laughing at him in his face.
    He was going on national TV and didn't seem to have thought about it at all. If he is a representative no deal opinion leader it is quite frightening
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 11,477
    stodge said:

    Jonathan said:

    <
    Who are 'they' exactly? Half the problems come when the world is viewed as 'them' and 'us'.

    From my point of view the world is more complicated than that. There are plenty of people with relatively low incomes that have lavish lifestyles and vice versa. There a poor people quite at ease with multiculturalism, there are rich people cowering behind gates. There is no them and us really, just people. Those who perpetuate that a view of them vs. us do a disservice to the people they intend to help.

    Of course it would be much easier and yes at the end of the day we are all just people trying to do the best for ourselves, our families and our communities but to imagine these divisions don't exist is naïve.

    Anyone can cite an exception for a generalised statement but that doesn't make the statement wholly invalid. We are a divided society and arguably always have been - the divisions are complex and not always evident but they do exist.

    Is there resentment out there? Unquestionably, yes. Does everybody feel resentment toward someone else? Unquestionably, no but that doesn't obviate the existence of resentment per se.
    Sure. But the model of a simple them vs. us is not helpful to anyone. It increases resentment without getting us anywhere nearer a solution.
  • algarkirk said:

    Nick Robinson's interview with the Chancellor this morning was extraordinary in that neither acknowledged in a long conversation that 'Taking no deal off the table' is not in the gift of the government. It is outside their power. 'No deal' is, on the contrary, the only outcome that is certainly within government's gift, poisoned chalice though it is. All other outcomes require the cooperation of either parliament, the EU or both.

    Realistically if the government supported taking no deal off the table, that would pass parliament easily. So in practical terms yes, they could do it. The fact they couldn't do it without parliament's support is academic. Not at all extraordinary that neither person in that interview thought it was worth bringing up.
    Realistically it is garbage. No Deal cannot come off the table without something to replace it. As long as Parliament refuses to endorse and alternative leaving mechanism then No Deal is the default, not by choice but by elimination. You could have every single MP in Parliament opposed to No Deal and it would still happen if they do not agree another form of Leaving.
    You could pass a motion saying that we'll revoke A50 on March 28th unless something else is passed. Doesn't require choosing another specific option, but takes no deal off the table. Simple.
    You could - it would of course be political suicide. The pragmatic approach is to leave with No Deal and then work like beavers to get as many agreements as possible as quickly as possible on specific aspects of interactions between UK and rEU. So far British negotiations have been on a par with the English cricket team.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 17,267
    algarkirk said:

    _Anazina_ said:

    algarkirk said:

    Nick Robinson's interview with the Chancellor this morning was extraordinary in that neither acknowledged in a long conversation that 'Taking no deal off the table' is not in the gift of the government. It is outside their power. 'No deal' is, on the contrary, the only outcome that is certainly within government's gift, poisoned chalice though it is. All other outcomes require the cooperation of either parliament, the EU or both.

    Nope. They could unilaterally revoke A50.

    That might not be palatable to you or them, but to say it is not within their gift is untrue.
    How sure can we be that the government can revoke Article 50 without parliament's approval? I for one am not as certain as you, given that parliament's approval was legally required to invoke it.

    If government proposes it I doubt parliament will be a problem.

    There is a growing view that we don't have enough time now to be ready by end March for any type of leave even if agreed today.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,060
    This should help build a bridge to Corbyn over Brexit..


  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 17,626
    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    IanB2 said:

    That plonker doing the Take on last night's TW was a classic. His motivation for wanting no deal was solely a vague but strongly held hatred of May's deal; when presented with the practical issues by AN and his guests, he couldn't answer a single point, pretty much said he didn't care, and ended up conceding that he had no idea.

    It must have been dispiriting to have people openly laughing at him in his face.
    He was going on national TV and didn't seem to have thought about it at all. If he is a representative no deal opinion leader it is quite frightening
    Channelling Mr Micawber. But as you say on national television. And he is quite an aware bloke, from what I remember.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 2,369
    algarkirk said:

    _Anazina_ said:

    algarkirk said:

    Nick Robinson's interview with the Chancellor this morning was extraordinary in that neither acknowledged in a long conversation that 'Taking no deal off the table' is not in the gift of the government. It is outside their power. 'No deal' is, on the contrary, the only outcome that is certainly within government's gift, poisoned chalice though it is. All other outcomes require the cooperation of either parliament, the EU or both.

    Nope. They could unilaterally revoke A50.

    That might not be palatable to you or them, but to say it is not within their gift is untrue.
    How sure can we be that the government can revoke Article 50 without parliament's approval? I for one am not as certain as you, given that parliament's approval was legally required to invoke it.

    We can't be sure, but the Supreme Court's ruling was based on the principle that rights conferred by parliament can't be removed without parliament's agreement. For the same argument to apply to revocation, it would need to be argued that parliament's authorisation of the Article 50 notification - or some of the associated legislation - conferred a right which would be removed by revocation. I've never seen it suggested what that right would be.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 2,369
    IanB2 said:

    algarkirk said:

    _Anazina_ said:

    algarkirk said:

    Nick Robinson's interview with the Chancellor this morning was extraordinary in that neither acknowledged in a long conversation that 'Taking no deal off the table' is not in the gift of the government. It is outside their power. 'No deal' is, on the contrary, the only outcome that is certainly within government's gift, poisoned chalice though it is. All other outcomes require the cooperation of either parliament, the EU or both.

    Nope. They could unilaterally revoke A50.

    That might not be palatable to you or them, but to say it is not within their gift is untrue.
    How sure can we be that the government can revoke Article 50 without parliament's approval? I for one am not as certain as you, given that parliament's approval was legally required to invoke it.

    If government proposes it I doubt parliament will be a problem.

    There is a growing view that we don't have enough time now to be ready by end March for any type of leave even if agreed today.
    I think it comes down to Deal (with a short extension for the necessary legislation, provided there's a clear parliamentary consensus by March), or No Deal, or revocation.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 17,626
    Our options now are:

    1. deal; or
    2. extension and referendum.

    Same as weeks if not months ago. And my money is on 1.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 45,087
    algarkirk said:

    How sure can we be that the government can revoke Article 50 without parliament's approval? I for one am not as certain as you, given that parliament's approval was legally required to invoke it.

    The Miller case explicitly assumed that it could not be revoked.

    Now we know that is not true, the Miller case itself is in question, and in any case does not apply to revocation.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 2,405
    I remain of the view that the deal will prevail. Theresa May, this Prime Minster of ours, this unflashy and painfully shy daughter of a vicar, is a fighter.

    She reminds me of Muhammad Ali. Not any old version, but the one on display in October 1974, Zaire, the greatest single adversarial event in all of human history, Ali versus George Foreman with the heavyweight championship of the world on the line. The Rumble in the Jungle. What a fight that was. For seven rounds George pummelled Ali, who gloved up on the ropes, rarely hitting back, just soaking up the punishment. What became known, admiringly, as ‘rope a dope’ looked at the time like hapless floundering. And then came the 8th … In the middle of that round, Ali sensed that his opponent was all punched out and with exquisite timing he sprang to life and knocked Foreman’s block off. Ten seconds that shook the world!

    Relevance to goings on in Westminster? Obvious, surely. The PM has been rope-a-doping Parliament for months now, allowing her critics to spout and shout, moan and groan, rail mightily against her intention to ensure a smooth and orderly exit from the European Union in accordance with the 2016 referendum. All to no avail, the protests, yet MPs have kept at it and I believe that they, like Foreman, are tumbling into a trap and we will soon see the equivalent in the House of Commons of that famous 8th round. MPs will finally tire and the PM, seizing her chance, will jump on them, pin them to the floor, and ram her negotiated exit from the EU right down their throats. As it were. I cannot predict the exact timing of this but it will come to pass. Mrs May is going to confound expectations and blow our socks off - just like Ali did all those years ago.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 24,661
    TOPPING said:

    Our options now are:

    1. deal; or
    2. extension and referendum.

    Same as weeks if not months ago. And my money is on 1.

    What is the length of extension required to get a deal and agree the terms of a referendum to end the Brexit saga? Nobody can answer that.

    It's Re-animator May's Dead as a Dodo Bugger Me It's Alive Again!! Deal
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,118
    Roger said:


    How can someone who voted Leave blame David Cameron? All he did was your bidding. If you couldn't see the chaos your choices were making why should he?

    I was blaming him for the uncertainty not for the Referendum itself. As for "not being able to see the chaos" I have me and the Internet - Cameron had the entire Civil Service machinery to advise and guide him. Perhaps if you'd had a word it would have helped.

    The point is for whatever reason inadequate planning for the possibility of a LEAVE win was carried out and little thought, it seems, since then, on the possibilities of leaving without a Deal?

    Thinking counter-intuitively can be very helpful - imagine the most unlikely thing that could happen, plan for it and work your way toward the more likely and probable options.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,118
    IanB2 said:


    The legacy of the first female PM

    No, actually, of her predecessor as Conservative PM.

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,066
    TOPPING said:

    Our options now are:

    1. deal; or
    2. extension and referendum.

    Same as weeks if not months ago. And my money is on 1.

    I think extension and general election is more likely than 2. It's probably a better option for Theresa May.

    If the Tories win a majority, May doesn't need the DUP and can screw over Northern Ireland to get her deal through.

    If Labour win, they'll negotiate a softer deal with a customs union. Then they'll probably need to offer a people's vote on that deal to get it passed through the Commons.

    If it's a hung parliament then... er... Not sure. Probably deadlock continues.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 24,518
    The evidence that the deal has any momentum is skimpy, to say the least. We had the same nonsense over Christmas. It wasn't true then and it doesn't look as though it is true now either.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 45,087
    edited January 25
    stodge said:

    The point is for whatever reason inadequate planning for the possibility of a LEAVE win was carried out and little thought, it seems, since then, on the possibilities of leaving without a Deal?

    Thinking counter-intuitively can be very helpful - imagine the most unlikely thing that could happen, plan for it and work your way toward the more likely and probable options.

    That's not entirely true either.

    The forecast for leaving was that business and investment would flee the UK, so he campaigned against it.

    And now business and investment is fleeing the UK.

    QED
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 24,661
    stodge said:

    Roger said:


    How can someone who voted Leave blame David Cameron? All he did was your bidding. If you couldn't see the chaos your choices were making why should he?

    I was blaming him for the uncertainty not for the Referendum itself. As for "not being able to see the chaos" I have me and the Internet - Cameron had the entire Civil Service machinery to advise and guide him. Perhaps if you'd had a word it would have helped.

    The point is for whatever reason inadequate planning for the possibility of a LEAVE win was carried out and little thought, it seems, since then, on the possibilities of leaving without a Deal?

    Thinking counter-intuitively can be very helpful - imagine the most unlikely thing that could happen, plan for it and work your way toward the more likely and probable options.
    If No Deal really is the shit show we are told, then early and detailed planning would have enabled that case to be made, with great authority. OK, some would still have pooh-poohed it as Establishment scaremongering. But a hell of a lot fewer than are doing so today, on the back of a fag packet, "It will be bad. Very bad" assessment.

    Almost every aspect of our interaction with the EEC-->EU has shown up our politicians and civil service to be a clown troupe.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 24,661
    kinabalu said:

    I remain of the view that the deal will prevail. Theresa May, this Prime Minster of ours, this unflashy and painfully shy daughter of a vicar, is a fighter.

    She reminds me of Muhammad Ali. Not any old version, but the one on display in October 1974, Zaire, the greatest single adversarial event in all of human history, Ali versus George Foreman with the heavyweight championship of the world on the line. The Rumble in the Jungle. What a fight that was. For seven rounds George pummelled Ali, who gloved up on the ropes, rarely hitting back, just soaking up the punishment. What became known, admiringly, as ‘rope a dope’ looked at the time like hapless floundering. And then came the 8th … In the middle of that round, Ali sensed that his opponent was all punched out and with exquisite timing he sprang to life and knocked Foreman’s block off. Ten seconds that shook the world!

    Relevance to goings on in Westminster? Obvious, surely. The PM has been rope-a-doping Parliament for months now, allowing her critics to spout and shout, moan and groan, rail mightily against her intention to ensure a smooth and orderly exit from the European Union in accordance with the 2016 referendum. All to no avail, the protests, yet MPs have kept at it and I believe that they, like Foreman, are tumbling into a trap and we will soon see the equivalent in the House of Commons of that famous 8th round. MPs will finally tire and the PM, seizing her chance, will jump on them, pin them to the floor, and ram her negotiated exit from the EU right down their throats. As it were. I cannot predict the exact timing of this but it will come to pass. Mrs May is going to confound expectations and blow our socks off - just like Ali did all those years ago.

    The risk is that May has indeed been playing "rope-a-dope". Without the rope....
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 45,087

    If No Deal really is the shit show we are told, then early and detailed planning would have enabled that case to be made, with great authority.

    It was

    "We have had enough of experts"

    That a member of the Government had the audacity to say that on live TV remains astonishing, but explains a great deal of why we are so fucked right now
This discussion has been closed.