Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Latest Brexit betting – Monday March 11th 1404GMT

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited March 11 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Latest Brexit betting – Monday March 11th 1404GMT

Betdata.io charts of movement on the Betfair exchange

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 632
    edited March 11
    So, given that the EU never starts negotiating properly until the absolute last possible minute: is that today, tomorrow, after tomorrow, or the week after next?

    Edit: oh, hey, first.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,028
    Second!
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,947
    What's the probability that Mrs May tables a Brady deal that passes. She then does not allow the no deal or delay motions as "her deal has passed". What then? Mass resignations from the government?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,610
    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,610
    FPT
    RobD Posts: 35,865
    2:12PM
    DavidL said:
    » show previous quotes
    The good ship May is now taking on water from so many different points that the pumps/whips are completely overwhelmed. Not waving but drowning.
    Isn’t it a sub? :p

    As Premierships go it is certainly sub par.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 7,178
    Endillion said:

    So, given that the EU never starts negotiating properly until the absolute last possible minute: is that today, tomorrow, after tomorrow, or the week after next?

    Edit: oh, hey, first.

    Rather a tricky one to count on!

    They have their red lines too.
    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    There is many a slip twixt cup and lip!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,610
    Scott_P said:
    As long as it is crystal clear that Letwin will not be a Conservative party candidate in that election.
  • DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 13,242
    Scott_P said:
    And while that's being sorted out the clock ticks down to 29th? :D
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,610

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,028

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    Balls deep hoping to pull out in time?



    I’ll get my coat.....
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 1,610
    edited March 11
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU 27 refuse to extend...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 48,038
    How soon until TIG becomes a party?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,610

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Because

    1) It is the law. We need primary legislation to stop us Leaving, not going to happen in the next few weeks.

    2) Corbyn's ambivalent on Brexit, it probably helps his chances of becoming PM if we Leave disorderly

    3) Our MPs aren't very good, they think they can stop No Deal by passing an amendment, see 1). Plus there's also enough thickie Leavers who think we still get a transition period with No Deal.

    4) The ERG wingnuts (horrible tautology I know) embrace No Deal because they think it will be awesome because we'll have left the EU.
  • franklynfranklyn Posts: 136
    Don't forget that there are politicians making the decisions, not normal members of the human race, so their capacity to cock things up knows no bounds.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,028

    How soon until TIG becomes a party?

    Maybe some issues with the word independent in their party name?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 26,014
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    There was never a No Deal Brexit that would have avoided genuine disruption. If you are creating a new environment in which a significant amount of existing business will no longer be viable, it will be disruptive no matter how well you prepare for it. The most that preparation can do is spread the disruption over a longer period.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 339
    OK, here’s a contrarian position: if Britain does leave the EU (and I still think we will) it will be the most extraordinary act of democratic, national self-determination in decades, by any major power.

    We will have done what every other EU nation has singularly failed to do: honoured a referendum, stood up to “the elite”, defied the EU Commission and the Bullies of Brussels. We will do this knowing it harms us, but we do it because we ARE a democracy, and this is how we voted. And WE DO NOT IGNORE THE VOTERS.

    In that light, Brexit is not a “national humiliation”, for all its farce and pain and tedium. It is a national vindication. It is an apotheosis. It is, potentially, and democratically, our Finest Hour. In the end, a country said NO, and that country was Britain. Of course.

    I have had one and a half martinis.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,610

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    There was never a No Deal Brexit that would have avoided genuine disruption. If you are creating a new environment in which a significant amount of existing business will no longer be viable, it will be disruptive no matter how well you prepare for it. The most that preparation can do is spread the disruption over a longer period.
    I disagree. It needed mini deals focused on various practical matters but was perfectly possible. If you had started 2 years ago.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 21,617
    edited March 11
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    There was never a No Deal Brexit that would have avoided genuine disruption. If you are creating a new environment in which a significant amount of existing business will no longer be viable, it will be disruptive no matter how well you prepare for it. The most that preparation can do is spread the disruption over a longer period.
    I disagree. It needed mini deals focused on various practical matters but was perfectly possible. If you had started 2 years ago.
    We've got a collection of mini-deals focused on various practical matters. It's called the 'Withdrawal Agreement'.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,610
    RobD said:

    How soon until TIG becomes a party?

    Maybe some issues with the word independent in their party name?
    I don't think the ERG have formally claimed the word "Gits". It is more of a general attribution.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 1,610
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    It has been the law for over two and a half years, why hasn't the government been preparing for it? Are the Conservatives merely incompetent or would they seriously rather that if we leave with no deal it should hurt far more than it has to? Why should such a party be allowed to govern?

    And do you seriously think the Conservative party will survive revoking article 50?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,610

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    There was never a No Deal Brexit that would have avoided genuine disruption. If you are creating a new environment in which a significant amount of existing business will no longer be viable, it will be disruptive no matter how well you prepare for it. The most that preparation can do is spread the disruption over a longer period.
    I disagree. It needed mini deals focused on various practical matters but was perfectly possible. If you had started 2 years ago.
    We've got a collection of mini-deals focused on various practical matters. It's called the 'Withdrawal Agreement'.
    Oh I agree Richard and it is immensely frustrating that it is not going to be approved. But them's the facts.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 7,633
    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    How soon until TIG becomes a party?

    Maybe some issues with the word independent in their party name?
    I don't think the ERG have formally claimed the word "Gits". It is more of a general attribution.
    "The Hatstand Party"
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,610

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    It has been the law for over two and a half years, why hasn't the government been preparing for it? Are the Conservatives merely incompetent or would they seriously rather that if we leave with no deal it should hurt far more than it has to? Why should such a party be allowed to govern?

    And do you seriously think the Conservative party will survive revoking article 50?
    Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. They are clearly not fit to govern.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 26,014
    edited March 11
    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    How soon until TIG becomes a party?

    Maybe some issues with the word independent in their party name?
    I don't think the ERG have formally claimed the word "Gits". It is more of a general attribution.
    I think the ERG should split and call the new party "Git Hub".
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,671
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    It has been the law for over two and a half years, why hasn't the government been preparing for it? Are the Conservatives merely incompetent or would they seriously rather that if we leave with no deal it should hurt far more than it has to? Why should such a party be allowed to govern?

    And do you seriously think the Conservative party will survive revoking article 50?
    Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. They are clearly not fit to govern.
    We have no parties fit to govern.

    Perhaps we could ask that nice Mr Barnier to do it, pro tem. He seems a damn sight more competent than any of our lot.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,610

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    How soon until TIG becomes a party?

    Maybe some issues with the word independent in their party name?
    I don't think the ERG have formally claimed the word "Gits". It is more of a general attribution.
    "The Hatstand Party"
    As in, "Wherever I lay my hat, that's my home?"

    Yep, its got to be a contender. One positive effect of a GE is that none of them will be in the next Parliament. But the rot goes deeper.
  • Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    It has been the law for over two and a half years, why hasn't the government been preparing for it? Are the Conservatives merely incompetent or would they seriously rather that if we leave with no deal it should hurt far more than it has to? Why should such a party be allowed to govern?

    And do you seriously think the Conservative party will survive revoking article 50?
    Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. They are clearly not fit to govern.
    We have no parties fit to govern.

    Perhaps we could ask that nice Mr Barnier to do it, pro tem. He seems a damn sight more competent than any of our lot.
    Install me as Dictator of the UK.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 339
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    It has been the law for over two and a half years, why hasn't the government been preparing for it? Are the Conservatives merely incompetent or would they seriously rather that if we leave with no deal it should hurt far more than it has to? Why should such a party be allowed to govern?

    And do you seriously think the Conservative party will survive revoking article 50?
    Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. They are clearly not fit to govern.
    We have no parties fit to govern.

    Perhaps we could ask that nice Mr Barnier to do it, pro tem. He seems a damn sight more competent than any of our lot.
    Except that he and Juncker are close to presiding over a No Deal Brexit. They will own it, on the EU’s side. It will be seen as a wholly avoidable and calamitous failure by Britain AND the EU, within the EU, and the member nations will not be happy about the ensuing economic pain. Blame will be duly apportioned. He will get some.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,610
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    It has been the law for over two and a half years, why hasn't the government been preparing for it? Are the Conservatives merely incompetent or would they seriously rather that if we leave with no deal it should hurt far more than it has to? Why should such a party be allowed to govern?

    And do you seriously think the Conservative party will survive revoking article 50?
    Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. They are clearly not fit to govern.
    We have no parties fit to govern.

    Perhaps we could ask that nice Mr Barnier to do it, pro tem. He seems a damn sight more competent than any of our lot.
    Nah, he's a useless buffoon as well. How could anyone who allowed any negotiation they were involved in to get to this pass be competent?
  • SeanT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    It has been the law for over two and a half years, why hasn't the government been preparing for it? Are the Conservatives merely incompetent or would they seriously rather that if we leave with no deal it should hurt far more than it has to? Why should such a party be allowed to govern?

    And do you seriously think the Conservative party will survive revoking article 50?
    Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. They are clearly not fit to govern.
    We have no parties fit to govern.

    Perhaps we could ask that nice Mr Barnier to do it, pro tem. He seems a damn sight more competent than any of our lot.
    Except that he and Juncker are close to presiding over a No Deal Brexit. They will own it, on the EU’s side. It will be seen as a wholly avoidable and calamitous failure by Britain AND the EU, within the EU, and the member nations will not be happy about the ensuing economic pain. Blame will be duly apportioned. He will get some.
    It will mostly go to those who said No Deal was Project Fear/That we hold all the cards.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 50,082
    Has anything changed ?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,610
    Pulpstar said:

    Has anything changed ?

    Only the clock.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 50,082
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Has anything changed ?

    Only the clock.
    True, time doesn't care about parliament or May.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 7,633
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    How soon until TIG becomes a party?

    Maybe some issues with the word independent in their party name?
    I don't think the ERG have formally claimed the word "Gits". It is more of a general attribution.
    "The Hatstand Party"
    As in, "Wherever I lay my hat, that's my home?"

    Yep, its got to be a contender. One positive effect of a GE is that none of them will be in the next Parliament. But the rot goes deeper.
    As in 'they are all completely hatstand'.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,671
    SeanT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    It has been the law for over two and a half years, why hasn't the government been preparing for it? Are the Conservatives merely incompetent or would they seriously rather that if we leave with no deal it should hurt far more than it has to? Why should such a party be allowed to govern?

    And do you seriously think the Conservative party will survive revoking article 50?
    Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. They are clearly not fit to govern.
    We have no parties fit to govern.

    Perhaps we could ask that nice Mr Barnier to do it, pro tem. He seems a damn sight more competent than any of our lot.
    Except that he and Juncker are close to presiding over a No Deal Brexit. They will own it, on the EU’s side. It will be seen as a wholly avoidable and calamitous failure by Britain AND the EU, within the EU, and the member nations will not be happy about the ensuing economic pain. Blame will be duly apportioned. He will get some.
    He was doing what the Member States wanted. Yes - he may get some blame. But I think the vast majority of the blame will be apportioned to Britain. Whatever the EU's failings, they have been united and clear. Britain has been neither. Perfidious Albion will be how the rest of Continental Europe will view us. And not just perfidious - but incompetent and clueless too.

    If an extension is granted, I expect it to be a lengthy one - not mainly to help us - but to give other Member States more time to get ready to entice even more of our companies and industries across to the EU.

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 236
    SeanT said:

    OK, here’s a contrarian position: if Britain does leave the EU (and I still think we will) it will be the most extraordinary act of democratic, national self-determination in decades, by any major power.

    We will have done what every other EU nation has singularly failed to do: honoured a referendum, stood up to “the elite”, defied the EU Commission and the Bullies of Brussels. We will do this knowing it harms us, but we do it because we ARE a democracy, and this is how we voted. And WE DO NOT IGNORE THE VOTERS.

    In that light, Brexit is not a “national humiliation”, for all its farce and pain and tedium. It is a national vindication. It is an apotheosis. It is, potentially, and democratically, our Finest Hour. In the end, a country said NO, and that country was Britain. Of course.

    I have had one and a half martinis.

    Tend to agree that this is quite possible actually, though it's going to take time to look that way.

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 6,545
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    The Commons has voted against an extension before, of course, so it's far from certain it would vote for one - especially if Someone Else can take the blame for no deal.

    If May's Deal were to pass I think a one-line Nothing Has Changed Act is possible, to allow us to exit on time and fill in the legislative details later. Parliament is no stranger to retrospective legislation.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 1,610
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    It has been the law for over two and a half years, why hasn't the government been preparing for it? Are the Conservatives merely incompetent or would they seriously rather that if we leave with no deal it should hurt far more than it has to? Why should such a party be allowed to govern?

    And do you seriously think the Conservative party will survive revoking article 50?
    Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. They are clearly not fit to govern.
    Fine, then say hello to prime minister Corbyn.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 632
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    It has been the law for over two and a half years, why hasn't the government been preparing for it? Are the Conservatives merely incompetent or would they seriously rather that if we leave with no deal it should hurt far more than it has to? Why should such a party be allowed to govern?

    And do you seriously think the Conservative party will survive revoking article 50?
    Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. They are clearly not fit to govern.
    We have no parties fit to govern.

    Perhaps we could ask that nice Mr Barnier to do it, pro tem. He seems a damn sight more competent than any of our lot.
    Why? He hasn't managed to negotiate a deal the other side can accept, either.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 339
    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    How soon until TIG becomes a party?

    Maybe some issues with the word independent in their party name?
    I don't think the ERG have formally claimed the word "Gits". It is more of a general attribution.
    I confess I had a sad epiphany about Jacob Rees Mogg the other day. He’s always come across, to me, as smart, articulate, and cleverly self deprecating, and oddly good at handling TV etc, despite his absurd and half-contrived persona. For me, as a reluctant Brexiteer, it was faintly reassuring to know that he was on my side.

    But a couple of days ago I saw an interview (from early 2016 I think) when he was discussing Brexit and he said “The Lords have just released a fascinating analysis, which shows that Article 50 is cleverly designed to reduce economic shocks to both parties, when a nation secedes from the EU”.

    You what? Cleverly designed to reduce economic shocks??!! The whole POINT of Article 50 is to make it has hard and painful as possible to quit the EU, so as to deter any such thing happening. Its British author, the vile and treacherous Lord Kerr, happily admits this. And that’s how it has worked out

    So how come I, a drunken thriller writer, knew this, and Jacob RM didn’t? I was cognisant of the dangers of A50 from the inception of Lisbon, and certainly hyper aware of it by early 2016. Yet Jacob RM was blissfully UNAWARE?

    Either he was lying then, or he was a fool then - and therefore is a fool now.

    We are governed by twats.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,610
    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    How soon until TIG becomes a party?

    Maybe some issues with the word independent in their party name?
    I don't think the ERG have formally claimed the word "Gits". It is more of a general attribution.
    I confess I had a sad epiphany about Jacob Rees Mogg the other day. He’s always come across, to me, as smart, articulate, and cleverly self deprecating, and oddly good at handling TV etc, despite his absurd and half-contrived persona. For me, as a reluctant Brexiteer, it was faintly reassuring to know that he was on my side.

    But a couple of days ago I saw an interview (from early 2016 I think) when he was discussing Brexit and he said “The Lords have just released a fascinating analysis, which shows that Article 50 is cleverly designed to reduce economic shocks to both parties, when a nation secedes from the EU”.

    You what? Cleverly designed to reduce economic shocks??!! The whole POINT of Article 50 is to make it has hard and painful as possible to quit the EU, so as to deter any such thing happening. Its British author, the vile and treacherous Lord Kerr, happily admits this. And that’s how it has worked out

    So how come I, a drunken thriller writer, knew this, and Jacob RM didn’t? I was cognisant of the dangers of A50 from the inception of Lisbon, and certainly hyper aware of it by early 2016. Yet Jacob RM was blissfully UNAWARE?

    Either he was lying then, or he was a fool then - and therefore is a fool now.

    We are governed by twats.

    I am not sure I see the need to choose. He is a foolish liar. And you are being a bit harsh on twats.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,671
    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    It has been the law for over two and a half years, why hasn't the government been preparing for it? Are the Conservatives merely incompetent or would they seriously rather that if we leave with no deal it should hurt far more than it has to? Why should such a party be allowed to govern?

    And do you seriously think the Conservative party will survive revoking article 50?
    Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. They are clearly not fit to govern.
    We have no parties fit to govern.

    Perhaps we could ask that nice Mr Barnier to do it, pro tem. He seems a damn sight more competent than any of our lot.
    Nah, he's a useless buffoon as well. How could anyone who allowed any negotiation they were involved in to get to this pass be competent?
    Hang on - the EU suggested a NI only backstop. The UK said no. We're one country; we can't have NI treated differently. So we got a UK-wide backstop to deal with the precious union with NI, at our request.

    Then the UK says no - we don't like what we asked for and go. Can you change it please.

    How do you negotiate with a country that behaves like that? The EU has very many faults. But Britain voted to leave. It was not - is not - unreasonable to expect the country deciding to leave to have some realistic idea of how to do it, taking into account the realities.

    Barnier has done exactly what his principals have asked him to do. Obtain a WA which meets the EU's and Britain's red lines. Only Britain's red lines seem to change depending on who has shouted at May last. And MPs are unwilling to do what they are paid to do - because they don't want to be blamed for not obeying the People's Will and also don't want to be blamed for doing something they don't think is a good idea.

    So over the waterfall we go.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 339

    SeanT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I je inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    It has been the law for over two and a half years, why hasn't the government been preparing for it? Are the Conservatives merely incompetent or would they seriously rather that if we leave with no deal it should hurt far more than it has to? Why should such a party be allowed to govern?

    And do you seriously think the Conservative party will survive revoking article 50?
    Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. They are clearly not fit to govern.
    We have no parties fit to govern.

    Perhaps we could ask that nice Mr Barnier to do it, pro tem. He seems a damn sight more competent than any of our lot.
    Except that he and Juncker are close to presiding over a No Deal Brexit. They will own it, on the EU’s side. It will be seen as a wholly avoidable and calamitous failure by Britain AND the EU, within the EU, and the member nations will not be happy about the ensuing economic pain. Blame will be duly apportioned. He will get some.
    It will mostly go to those who said No Deal was Project Fear/That we hold all the cards.
    Within the UK, sure. Of course. Brexiteers will get the blame. This will be unfair, I think, as Article 50 and the europhiles are ultimately responsible, but that’s politics.

    However the same rule will apply across the Channel. The Brits will be out and the EU nations, dealing with the horrible sequelae, will seek to scapegoat someone on their side too, for a perceived and dramatic failure. That’s gotta be Juncker (he’s going anyway, so an obvious choice) but Selmayr and Barnier will take the flak for having pushed too hard. Countries like Holland, Ireland, Poland, etc, will pile hate on Britain, but they will hate on Brussels as well.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 3,684
    Much heat and no light.

    However, I’m fully expecting May and Juncker to pull some fudge out of the back at 1am this morning.

    I still think it is *most* likely that we leave, with a May style agreement, though admittedly not by the end of March. I’d put this as high as 50%, and No Deal at no more than 10%.

    The rest is infinite variation of extend - extend for an election, a ref, a Parliament-dictated Norway plus, a Tory leadership contest, etc
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,671
    edited March 11
    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    How soon until TIG becomes a party?

    Maybe some issues with the word independent in their party name?
    I don't think the ERG have formally claimed the word "Gits". It is more of a general attribution.
    I confess I had a sad epiphany about Jacob Rees Mogg the other day. He’s always come across, to me, as smart, articulate, and cleverly self deprecating, and oddly good at handling TV etc, despite his absurd and half-contrived persona. For me, as a reluctant Brexiteer, it was faintly reassuring to know that he was on my side.

    But a couple of days ago I saw an interview (from early 2016 I think) when he was discussing Brexit and he said “The Lords have just released a fascinating analysis, which shows that Article 50 is cleverly designed to reduce economic shocks to both parties, when a nation secedes from the EU”.

    You what? Cleverly designed to reduce economic shocks??!! The whole POINT of Article 50 is to make it has hard and painful as possible to quit the EU, so as to deter any such thing happening. Its British author, the vile and treacherous Lord Kerr, happily admits this. And that’s how it has worked out

    So how come I, a drunken thriller writer, knew this, and Jacob RM didn’t? I was cognisant of the dangers of A50 from the inception of Lisbon, and certainly hyper aware of it by early 2016. Yet Jacob RM was blissfully UNAWARE?

    Either he was lying then, or he was a fool then - and therefore is a fool now.

    We are governed by twats.

    He has always been a fool. Just a very politely mannered and well-spoken one. Which has fooled a lot of people for far too long. The English have always paid far too much attention to a man's manners and far too little attention to the rubbish which comes out of his mouth. It explains - in part - the phenomenon of JRM and Corbyn being seen by some as kindly polite gentle souls and not the morons they really are.

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/09/03/the-dangers-of-polite-demagogues/
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 26,014
    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    How soon until TIG becomes a party?

    Maybe some issues with the word independent in their party name?
    I don't think the ERG have formally claimed the word "Gits". It is more of a general attribution.
    I confess I had a sad epiphany about Jacob Rees Mogg the other day. He’s always come across, to me, as smart, articulate, and cleverly self deprecating, and oddly good at handling TV etc, despite his absurd and half-contrived persona. For me, as a reluctant Brexiteer, it was faintly reassuring to know that he was on my side.

    But a couple of days ago I saw an interview (from early 2016 I think) when he was discussing Brexit and he said “The Lords have just released a fascinating analysis, which shows that Article 50 is cleverly designed to reduce economic shocks to both parties, when a nation secedes from the EU”.

    You what? Cleverly designed to reduce economic shocks??!! The whole POINT of Article 50 is to make it has hard and painful as possible to quit the EU, so as to deter any such thing happening. Its British author, the vile and treacherous Lord Kerr, happily admits this. And that’s how it has worked out

    So how come I, a drunken thriller writer, knew this, and Jacob RM didn’t? I was cognisant of the dangers of A50 from the inception of Lisbon, and certainly hyper aware of it by early 2016. Yet Jacob RM was blissfully UNAWARE?

    Either he was lying then, or he was a fool then - and therefore is a fool now.

    We are governed by twats.

    There was also Rees-Mogg talking about having inspections "like during the Troubles" to stop Northern Ireland being a backdoor into the UK for migrants.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 17,439
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    No one in their right minds would take the job just to revoke. It is political suicide. Nor would they get elected by the Tory party to do so.

    I don't know what is going to happen but I do know that is simply not realistic.
  • ExiledInScotlandExiledInScotland Posts: 665
    edited March 11
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    Insufficient preparations were made by government because No10 and No11 did not believe them necessary. The PM believed her advisors that a minimum impact pragmatic deal would be struck. The Brexiteers were given the FO (no EU involvement) and Brexit (Crayoning) department where they thought they were doing Important Things but were actually isolated from No 10. The PM and Hammond own this and in time they will bear the blame
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,610
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:
    Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. They are clearly not fit to govern.
    We have no parties fit to govern.

    Perhaps we could ask that nice Mr Barnier to do it, pro tem. He seems a damn sight more competent than any of our lot.
    Nah, he's a useless buffoon as well. How could anyone who allowed any negotiation they were involved in to get to this pass be competent?
    Hang on - the EU suggested a NI only backstop. The UK said no. We're one country; we can't have NI treated differently. So we got a UK-wide backstop to deal with the precious union with NI, at our request.

    Then the UK says no - we don't like what we asked for and go. Can you change it please.

    How do you negotiate with a country that behaves like that? The EU has very many faults. But Britain voted to leave. It was not - is not - unreasonable to expect the country deciding to leave to have some realistic idea of how to do it, taking into account the realities.

    Barnier has done exactly what his principals have asked him to do. Obtain a WA which meets the EU's and Britain's red lines. Only Britain's red lines seem to change depending on who has shouted at May last. And MPs are unwilling to do what they are paid to do - because they don't want to be blamed for not obeying the People's Will and also don't want to be blamed for doing something they don't think is a good idea.

    So over the waterfall we go.
    We have a situation where Italy is already in recession, Germany has avoided it so far by the smallest technicality, France is struggling and one of their largest export markets is in danger of severe disruption and even bloody tariffs applying. The way the UK has conducted itself is indeed closer to the irrational than the incompetent but that is not a result. Not by a long shot.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 48,038
    Miss Cyclefree, the EU faces the same problem as the UK.

    May is incompetent to a staggering degree.

    One could argue she was unlucky if she'd lost the vote narrowly. She lost by a historic margin. And that was after a pointless delay to try and persuade MPs to change their minds.

    That said, a lot of MPs are cowards or fools, who refuse to back anything*. The options are what they've always been (remain, leave with a deal, leave with no deal). Voting to not leave with no deal resolves nothing.


    *Bit harsh? I can't decide.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 22,237
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    It has been the law for over two and a half years, why hasn't the government been preparing for it? Are the Conservatives merely incompetent or would they seriously rather that if we leave with no deal it should hurt far more than it has to? Why should such a party be allowed to govern?

    And do you seriously think the Conservative party will survive revoking article 50?
    Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. They are clearly not fit to govern.
    We have no parties fit to govern.

    Perhaps we could ask that nice Mr Barnier to do it, pro tem. He seems a damn sight more competent than any of our lot.
    Nah, he's a useless buffoon as well. How could anyone who allowed any negotiation they were involved in to get to this pass be competent?
    Hang on - the EU suggested a NI only backstop. The UK said no. We're one country; we can't have NI treated differently. So we got a UK-wide backstop to deal with the precious union with NI, at our request.

    Then the UK says no - we don't like what we asked for and go. Can you change it please.

    How do you negotiate with a country that behaves like that? The EU has very many faults. But Britain voted to leave. It was not - is not - unreasonable to expect the country deciding to leave to have some realistic idea of how to do it, taking into account the realities.

    Barnier has done exactly what his principals have asked him to do. Obtain a WA which meets the EU's and Britain's red lines. Only Britain's red lines seem to change depending on who has shouted at May last. And MPs are unwilling to do what they are paid to do - because they don't want to be blamed for not obeying the People's Will and also don't want to be blamed for doing something they don't think is a good idea.

    So over the waterfall we go.
    I think you are being unfair to May

    Ultimately if parliament won’t approve the deal then she has to seek changes. She may think the current deal is objectively the best possible but if it can’t be ratified then it isn’t acceptable.

    The entirety of the responsibility here falls on Parliament
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,671

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    Insufficient preparations were made by government because No10 and No11 did not believe them necessary. The PM believed her advisors that a minimum impact pragmatic deal would be struck. The Brexiteers were given the FO (no EU involvement) and Brexit (Crayoning) department where they thought they were doing Important Things but were actually isolated from No 10. The PM and Hammond own this and in time they will bear the blame
    Why does Hammond own this? He seems to have been kept out of the loop as much as anyone. And has not had the confidence or courage to assert himself as any self-respecting Chancellor should. May has trusted no-one but herself. And when anyone has tried to assert themselves she has undermined them.

    She is not up to the job.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,671

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    No one in their right minds would take the job just to revoke. It is political suicide. Nor would they get elected by the Tory party to do so.

    I don't know what is going to happen but I do know that is simply not realistic.
    While I agree that the Tory party is unlikely to elect someone to do this, there is one Tory politician who would do it and wouldn't care about it being political suicide. Ken Clarke.
  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,096
    When are we getting the written statement?
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 339
    Cyclefree said:

    SeanT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way thay's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    It has been the law for over two and a half years, why hasn't the government been preparing for it? Are the Conservatives merely incompetent or would they seriously rather that if we leave with no deal it should hurt far more than it has to? Why should such a party be allowed to govern?

    And do you seriously think the Conservative party will survive revoking article 50?
    Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. They are clearly not fit to govern.
    We have no parties fit to govern.

    Perhaps we could ask that nice Mr Barnier to do it, pro tem. He seems a damn sight more competent than any of our lot.
    Excepbe duly apportioned. He will get some.
    He wasstries across to the EU.

    This is just pathetic defeatism. Sorry. Show a bit of backbone.

    Brussels chose to leverage the Irish issue to get maximum concessions from the UK. We were inept and we folded, sure, but we folded because they chose to sequence it this way, knowing it would fuck us up.

    So it fucked us up. Trouble is it fucked us up so bad we are blindly stumbling towards a No Deal Brexit, as a better option, democratically.

    I honestly think the EU is not used to dealing with a country that will actually honour referendums. They expect every nation to yield in the end, and revote, or ignore a vote. And why not? Even France yielded, and Holland, Ireland, Denmark, Greece, etc etc etc

    The EU’s game-plan all along was, as Barnier admitted, to engineer a deal so bad Britain would prefer to stay. But what if ornery Britain says Fuck You, and Leaves anyway? I don’t think that was their masterplan.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,610

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    No one in their right minds would take the job just to revoke. It is political suicide. Nor would they get elected by the Tory party to do so.

    I don't know what is going to happen but I do know that is simply not realistic.
    It may not be a Tory. This government is falling.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,671
    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:
    Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. They are clearly not fit to govern.
    We have no parties fit to govern.

    Perhaps we could ask that nice Mr Barnier to do it, pro tem. He seems a damn sight more competent than any of our lot.
    Nah, he's a useless buffoon as well. How could anyone who allowed any negotiation they were involved in to get to this pass be competent?
    Hang on - the EU suggested a NI only backstop. The UK said no. We're one country; we can't have NI treated differently. So we got a UK-wide backstop to deal with the precious union with NI, at our request.

    Then the UK says no - we don't like what we asked for and go. Can you change it please.

    How do you negotiate with a country that behaves like that? The EU has very many faults. But Britain voted to leave. It was not - is not - unreasonable to expect the country deciding to leave to have some realistic idea of how to do it, taking into account the realities.

    Barnier has done exactly what his principals have asked him to do. Obtain a WA which meets the EU's and Britain's red lines. Only Britain's red lines seem to change depending on who has shouted at May last. And MPs are unwilling to do what they are paid to do - because they don't want to be blamed for not obeying the People's Will and also don't want to be blamed for doing something they don't think is a good idea.

    So over the waterfall we go.
    We have a situation where Italy is already in recession, Germany has avoided it so far by the smallest technicality, France is struggling and one of their largest export markets is in danger of severe disruption and even bloody tariffs applying. The way the UK has conducted itself is indeed closer to the irrational than the incompetent but that is not a result. Not by a long shot.
    It is not a result. True. But we're into two people escaping a bear territory here, aren't we? Barnier is running faster than us.
  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 504
    What worries me (as I think was articulated in that John Rentoul piece someone posted this morning) is that too many MPs - like this one - are sitting there gawping at the crash and enjoying the spectacle without realising they're the ones who could/should be pulling bodies from the wreckage.

    Too many decades where backbenchers have sat there with their tongues out waiting for the chief whip to lob them a biscuit. They have actually forgotten that it's their job to shape the governance of the country.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 10,599
    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    How soon until TIG becomes a party?

    Maybe some issues with the word independent in their party name?
    I don't think the ERG have formally claimed the word "Gits". It is more of a general attribution.
    I confess I had a sad epiphany about Jacob Rees Mogg the other day. He’s always come across, to me, as smart, articulate, and cleverly self deprecating, and oddly good at handling TV etc, despite his absurd and half-contrived persona. For me, as a reluctant Brexiteer, it was faintly reassuring to know that he was on my side.

    But a couple of days ago I saw an interview (from early 2016 I think) when he was discussing Brexit and he said “The Lords have just released a fascinating analysis, which shows that Article 50 is cleverly designed to reduce economic shocks to both parties, when a nation secedes from the EU”.

    You what? Cleverly designed to reduce economic shocks??!! The whole POINT of Article 50 is to make it has hard and painful as possible to quit the EU, so as to deter any such thing happening. Its British author, the vile and treacherous Lord Kerr, happily admits this. And that’s how it has worked out

    So how come I, a drunken thriller writer, knew this, and Jacob RM didn’t? I was cognisant of the dangers of A50 from the inception of Lisbon, and certainly hyper aware of it by early 2016. Yet Jacob RM was blissfully UNAWARE?

    Either he was lying then, or he was a fool then - and therefore is a fool now...

    And either way, you were fooled by him.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,610

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    Insufficient preparations were made by government because No10 and No11 did not believe them necessary. The PM believed her advisors that a minimum impact pragmatic deal would be struck. The Brexiteers were given the FO (no EU involvement) and Brexit (Crayoning) department where they thought they were doing Important Things but were actually isolated from No 10. The PM and Hammond own this and in time they will bear the blame
    I agree but I am more concerned with consequence than blame.
  • Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    Insufficient preparations were made by government because No10 and No11 did not believe them necessary. The PM believed her advisors that a minimum impact pragmatic deal would be struck. The Brexiteers were given the FO (no EU involvement) and Brexit (Crayoning) department where they thought they were doing Important Things but were actually isolated from No 10. The PM and Hammond own this and in time they will bear the blame
    Why does Hammond own this? He seems to have been kept out of the loop as much as anyone. And has not had the confidence or courage to assert himself as any self-respecting Chancellor should. May has trusted no-one but herself. And when anyone has tried to assert themselves she has undermined them.

    She is not up to the job.
    Didn’t it come out a few months ago that No11 had not actually let departments spend their Brexit prep money?

    Btw I really enjoy your thread headers. Keep them coming!
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 339
    Nigelb said:

    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    How soon until TIG becomes a party?

    Maybe some issues with the word independent in their party name?
    I don't think the ERG have formally claimed the word "Gits". It is more of a general attribution.
    I confess I had a sad epiphany about Jacob Rees Mogg the other day. He’s always come across, to me, as smart, articulate, and cleverly self deprecating, and oddly good at handling TV etc, despite his absurd and half-contrived persona. For me, as a reluctant Brexiteer, it was faintly reassuring to know that he was on my side.

    But a couple of days ago I saw an interview (from early 2016 I think) when he was discussing Brexit and he said “The Lords have just released a fascinating analysis, which shows that Article 50 is cleverly designed to reduce economic shocks to both parties, when a nation secedes from the EU”.

    You what? Cleverly designed to reduce economic shocks??!! The whole POINT of Article 50 is to make it has hard and painful as possible to quit the EU, so as to deter any such thing happening. Its British author, the vile and treacherous Lord Kerr, happily admits this. And that’s how it has worked out

    So how come I, a drunken thriller writer, knew this, and Jacob RM didn’t? I was cognisant of the dangers of A50 from the inception of Lisbon, and certainly hyper aware of it by early 2016. Yet Jacob RM was blissfully UNAWARE?

    Either he was lying then, or he was a fool then - and therefore is a fool now...

    And either way, you were fooled by him.

    Indeed. Tho I wasn’t fooled by the europhiles who tried to sell me Lisbon as a “tidying up exercise”.

    How I despise them. From Blair to Brown to Clegg to Cameron. A whole generation of traitors.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 26,014
    SeanT said:

    Nigelb said:

    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    How soon until TIG becomes a party?

    Maybe some issues with the word independent in their party name?
    I don't think the ERG have formally claimed the word "Gits". It is more of a general attribution.
    I confess I had a sad epiphany about Jacob Rees Mogg the other day. He’s always come across, to me, as smart, articulate, and cleverly self deprecating, and oddly good at handling TV etc, despite his absurd and half-contrived persona. For me, as a reluctant Brexiteer, it was faintly reassuring to know that he was on my side.

    But a couple of days ago I saw an interview (from early 2016 I think) when he was discussing Brexit and he said “The Lords have just released a fascinating analysis, which shows that Article 50 is cleverly designed to reduce economic shocks to both parties, when a nation secedes from the EU”.

    You what? Cleverly designed to reduce economic shocks??!! The whole POINT of Article 50 is to make it has hard and painful as possible to quit the EU, so as to deter any such thing happening. Its British author, the vile and treacherous Lord Kerr, happily admits this. And that’s how it has worked out

    So how come I, a drunken thriller writer, knew this, and Jacob RM didn’t? I was cognisant of the dangers of A50 from the inception of Lisbon, and certainly hyper aware of it by early 2016. Yet Jacob RM was blissfully UNAWARE?

    Either he was lying then, or he was a fool then - and therefore is a fool now...

    And either way, you were fooled by him.

    Indeed. Tho I wasn’t fooled by the europhiles who tried to sell me Lisbon as a “tidying up exercise”.

    How I despise them. From Blair to Brown to Clegg to Cameron. A whole generation of traitors.
    What about Maggie Thatcher?

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,671
    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:
    Nah, he's a useless buffoon as well. How could anyone who allowed any negotiation they were involved in to get to this pass be competent?
    Hang on - the EU suggested a NI only backstop. The UK said no. We're one country; we can't have NI treated differently. So we got a UK-wide backstop to deal with the precious union with NI, at our request.

    Then the UK says no - we don't like what we asked for and go. Can you change it please.

    How do you negotiate with a country that behaves like that? The EU has very many faults. But Britain voted to leave. It was not - is not - unreasonable to expect the country deciding to leave to have some realistic idea of how to do it, taking into account the realities.

    Barnier has done exactly what his principals have asked him to do. Obtain a WA which meets the EU's and Britain's red lines. Only Britain's red lines seem to change depending on who has shouted at May last. And MPs are unwilling to do what they are paid to do - because they don't want to be blamed for not obeying the People's Will and also don't want to be blamed for doing something they don't think is a good idea.

    So over the waterfall we go.
    I think you are being unfair to May

    Ultimately if parliament won’t approve the deal then she has to seek changes. She may think the current deal is objectively the best possible but if it can’t be ratified then it isn’t acceptable.

    The entirety of the responsibility here falls on Parliament
    It was obvious months and months and months ago that what she was seeking would face difficulties at home. So she needed to involve more here in the negotiations, prepare the ground, sell etc. She did none of these things. Just did her homework in private, presented it and expected everyone else to agree that it was worthy of an A*.

    Part of the reason Parliament won't approve is because so many in her own party - let alone in other parties - have felt - and have been - utterly ignored throughout the whole process. So they have reacted by saying "Shan't". Childish? Yes. Predictable? Yes. But a politician with any nous would have planned for this in advance.

    This was always going to be difficult. But May's own failings have made it much much worse than it could have been.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 48,038
    Mr. Glenn, did Thatcher not come to regret being pro-EU?

    Mr. P, that's an interesting tweet.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 16,983

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    No one in their right minds would take the job just to revoke. It is political suicide. Nor would they get elected by the Tory party to do so.

    I don't know what is going to happen but I do know that is simply not realistic.
    The. Deal.
  • Nigelb said:

    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    How soon until TIG becomes a party?

    Maybe some issues with the word independent in their party name?
    I don't think the ERG have formally claimed the word "Gits". It is more of a general attribution.
    I confess I had a sad epiphany about Jacob Rees Mogg the other day. He’s always come across, to me, as smart, articulate, and cleverly self deprecating, and oddly good at handling TV etc, despite his absurd and half-contrived persona. For me, as a reluctant Brexiteer, it was faintly reassuring to know that he was on my side.

    But a couple of days ago I saw an interview (from early 2016 I think) when he was discussing Brexit and he said “The Lords have just released a fascinating analysis, which shows that Article 50 is cleverly designed to reduce economic shocks to both parties, when a nation secedes from the EU”.

    You what? Cleverly designed to reduce economic shocks??!! The whole POINT of Article 50 is to make it has hard and painful as possible to quit the EU, so as to deter any such thing happening. Its British author, the vile and treacherous Lord Kerr, happily admits this. And that’s how it has worked out

    So how come I, a drunken thriller writer, knew this, and Jacob RM didn’t? I was cognisant of the dangers of A50 from the inception of Lisbon, and certainly hyper aware of it by early 2016. Yet Jacob RM was blissfully UNAWARE?

    Either he was lying then, or he was a fool then - and therefore is a fool now...

    And either way, you were fooled by him.

    I think most MPs believe their positions reflect the national interest on Brexit. However they also think they know better than the plebs, not recognising that - in this instance - they have an instruction from management.

    In a business you often get told to do things by execs that are stupid. You can convince them to change track sometimes if you come up with a better plan - but also the end of the day they can fire you. We will see what management do this time.
  • hamiltonacehamiltonace Posts: 463
    Was listening to a short history of Ireland at the weekend to undrerstand why my grandmother left in 1930 or so. The reason was a WTO style plan by Ireland after independence. This devastated the economy and led to a massive brain drain. In the 1980s Ireland became one of the most open markets in the world and is now richer per head than the UK.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,671
    edited March 11

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Surely betting against us leaving on 29th March is now free money?

    I'm balls deep on us leaving at the end of the month.
    I just don't see how that is possible now. Even if by some miracle May's deal passed there is no way that the relevant legislation could be passed in time. A short delay to allow the government to reconstitute their homework from the family hound will be inevitable. As May's deal is not going to pass an extension with further confusion, economic damage and uncertainty seems certain, whether for Referendum II, an election or a change of PM or any combination thereof.
    Unless the EU refuse to extend...
    Then May goes and whoever replaces has to revoke. A no deal Brexit would have been quite manageable if we had been seriously preparing for it over the last 2 years. But we haven't even got into the starting gates. From here it would be genuinely disruptive.
    Insufficient preparations were made by government because No10 and No11 did not believe them necessary. The PM believed her advisors that a minimum impact pragmatic deal would be struck. The Brexiteers were given the FO (no EU involvement) and Brexit (Crayoning) department where they thought they were doing Important Things but were actually isolated from No 10. The PM and Hammond own this and in time they will bear the blame
    Why does Hammond own this? He seems to have been kept out of the loop as much as anyone. And has not had the confidence or courage to assert himself as any self-respecting Chancellor should. May has trusted no-one but herself. And when anyone has tried to assert themselves she has undermined them.

    She is not up to the job.
    Didn’t it come out a few months ago that No11 had not actually let departments spend their Brexit prep money?

    Btw I really enjoy your thread headers. Keep them coming!
    Thank you. I will. I am trying to find subjects other than Brexit to write about.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,610
    Scott_P said:
    Cox has been crystal clear that he will not change his legal advice unless there is a change of substance. Without his support May's prospects fall from close to zero to why bother?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 10,599
    SeanT said:

    Nigelb said:

    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    How soon until TIG becomes a party?

    Maybe some issues with the word independent in their party name?
    I don't think the ERG have formally claimed the word "Gits". It is more of a general attribution.
    I confess I had a sad epiphany about Jacob Rees Mogg the other day. He’s always come across, to me, as smart, articulate, and cleverly self deprecating, and oddly good at handling TV etc, despite his absurd and half-contrived persona. For me, as a reluctant Brexiteer, it was faintly reassuring to know that he was on my side.

    But a couple of days ago I saw an interview (from early 2016 I think) when he was discussing Brexit and he said “The Lords have just released a fascinating analysis, which shows that Article 50 is cleverly designed to reduce economic shocks to both parties, when a nation secedes from the EU”.

    You what? Cleverly designed to reduce economic shocks??!! The whole POINT of Article 50 is to make it has hard and painful as possible to quit the EU, so as to deter any such thing happening. Its British author, the vile and treacherous Lord Kerr, happily admits this. And that’s how it has worked out

    So how come I, a drunken thriller writer, knew this, and Jacob RM didn’t? I was cognisant of the dangers of A50 from the inception of Lisbon, and certainly hyper aware of it by early 2016. Yet Jacob RM was blissfully UNAWARE?

    Either he was lying then, or he was a fool then - and therefore is a fool now...

    And either way, you were fooled by him.

    Indeed. Tho I wasn’t fooled by the europhiles who tried to sell me Lisbon as a “tidying up exercise”.

    How I despise them. From Blair to Brown to Clegg to Cameron. A whole generation of traitors.
    You have a point about Lisbon - as is recognised by a proportion of remainers probably larger that the percentage of leavers who would be happy with Norway.
    Brexit is not much of a solution to that, though.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,671
    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:
    Cox has been crystal clear that he will not change his legal advice unless there is a change of substance. Without his support May's prospects fall from close to zero to why bother?
    Presumably Cox doesn't want to be seen as the Lord Goldsmith of Brexit.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 48,038
    Mr. P, Article 50 exists because Brown signed us up to Lisbon in contravention of his own manifesto commitment to hold a referendum, (which almost certainly would've seen a sceptic victory and been a great way to try and find a path that was more distant from the EU without leaving entirely).

    He's akin to a man who planted a minefield and is now complaining we're in dangerous territory.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,610
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:
    Cox has been crystal clear that he will not change his legal advice unless there is a change of substance. Without his support May's prospects fall from close to zero to why bother?
    Presumably Cox doesn't want to be seen as the Lord Goldsmith of Brexit.
    Yes but it also gives him some credibility if he says that there has been a change. That might prove important. Unlikely but possible.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 13,570
    All you lads now bewailing the fact that the result you wanted from a referendum for which you wished is being enacted by a party & pm for which you voted, do any of you feel complicit in the 'Mega clusterfuck of historic proportions'?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 22,237
    Cyclefree said:

    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:
    Hang on - the EU suggested a NI only backstop. The UK said no. We're one country; we can't have NI treated differently. So we got a UK-wide backstop to deal with the precious union with NI, at our request.

    Then the UK says no - we don't like what we asked for and go. Can you change it please.

    How do you negotiate with a country that behaves like that? The EU has very many faults. But Britain voted to leave. It was not - is not - unreasonable to expect the country deciding to leave to have some realistic idea of how to do it, taking into account the realities.

    Barnier has done exactly what his principals have asked him to do. Obtain a WA which meets the EU's and Britain's red lines. Only Britain's red lines seem to change depending on who has shouted at May last. And MPs are unwilling to do what they are paid to do - because they don't want to be blamed for not obeying the People's Will and also don't want to be blamed for doing something they don't think is a good idea.

    So over the waterfall we go.
    I think you are being unfair to May

    Ultimately if parliament won’t approve the deal then she has to seek changes. She may think the current deal is objectively the best possible but if it can’t be ratified then it isn’t acceptable.

    The entirety of the responsibility here falls on Parliament
    It was obvious months and months and months ago that what she was seeking would face difficulties at home. So she needed to involve more here in the negotiations, prepare the ground, sell etc. She did none of these things. Just did her homework in private, presented it and expected everyone else to agree that it was worthy of an A*.

    Part of the reason Parliament won't approve is because so many in her own party - let alone in other parties - have felt - and have been - utterly ignored throughout the whole process. So they have reacted by saying "Shan't". Childish? Yes. Predictable? Yes. But a politician with any nous would have planned for this in advance.

    This was always going to be difficult. But May's own failings have made it much much worse than it could have been.
    Agree with that. But it’s different to your original position
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 26,014

    Mr. P, Article 50 exists because Brown signed us up to Lisbon in contravention of his own manifesto commitment to hold a referendum, (which almost certainly would've seen a sceptic victory and been a great way to try and find a path that was more distant from the EU without leaving entirely).

    If "a path that was more distant from the EU without leaving entirely" would satisfy people, why do they reject May's deal on the basis that it leaves us tied to the EU?
  • Mr. P, Article 50 exists because Brown signed us up to Lisbon in contravention of his own manifesto commitment to hold a referendum, (which almost certainly would've seen a sceptic victory and been a great way to try and find a path that was more distant from the EU without leaving entirely).

    He's akin to a man who planted a minefield and is now complaining we're in dangerous territory.

    Spot. On.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 6,545
    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Hang on - the EU suggested a NI only backstop. The UK said no. We're one country; we can't have NI treated differently. So we got a UK-wide backstop to deal with the precious union with NI, at our request.

    Then the UK says no - we don't like what we asked for and go. Can you change it please.

    How do you negotiate with a country that behaves like that? The EU has very many faults. But Britain voted to leave. It was not - is not - unreasonable to expect the country deciding to leave to have some realistic idea of how to do it, taking into account the realities.

    Barnier has done exactly what his principals have asked him to do. Obtain a WA which meets the EU's and Britain's red lines. Only Britain's red lines seem to change depending on who has shouted at May last. And MPs are unwilling to do what they are paid to do - because they don't want to be blamed for not obeying the People's Will and also don't want to be blamed for doing something they don't think is a good idea.

    So over the waterfall we go.

    I think you are being unfair to May

    Ultimately if parliament won’t approve the deal then she has to seek changes. She may think the current deal is objectively the best possible but if it can’t be ratified then it isn’t acceptable.

    The entirety of the responsibility here falls on Parliament
    This is why May was wrong to keep the negotiations all to herself before springing a completed deal onto the Commons. It was a waste of time for her to negotiate a deal that didn't have support in the Commons or the country. She had to open up a debate before negotiations started so that we could agree what we would negotiate.

    I seem to recall that option being dismissed as giving away our negotiating position to the other side. But it turns out that the biggest obstacle to a deal was creating a compromise at home.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 22,237

    Was listening to a short history of Ireland at the weekend to undrerstand why my grandmother left in 1930 or so. The reason was a WTO style plan by Ireland after independence. This devastated the economy and led to a massive brain drain. In the 1980s Ireland became one of the most open markets in the world and is now richer per head than the UK.

    Then that was a poor history you listened to

    Burning the houses of the people with the capital in the 20s didn’t encourage long term investment
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,671
    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:
    I think you are being unfair to May

    Ultimately if parliament won’t approve the deal then she has to seek changes. She may think the current deal is objectively the best possible but if it can’t be ratified then it isn’t acceptable.

    The entirety of the responsibility here falls on Parliament
    It was obvious months and months and months ago that what she was seeking would face difficulties at home. So she needed to involve more here in the negotiations, prepare the ground, sell etc. She did none of these things. Just did her homework in private, presented it and expected everyone else to agree that it was worthy of an A*.

    Part of the reason Parliament won't approve is because so many in her own party - let alone in other parties - have felt - and have been - utterly ignored throughout the whole process. So they have reacted by saying "Shan't". Childish? Yes. Predictable? Yes. But a politician with any nous would have planned for this in advance.

    This was always going to be difficult. But May's own failings have made it much much worse than it could have been.
    Agree with that. But it’s different to your original position
    Not sure it is. But you may be right. I have thought for a long time now that May has gone about this in the worst possible way, having originally hoped that she might have been boringly competent - if not inspirational. She has been spectacularly incompetent - and I now loathe her with a passion. I was prepared to give Brexit a chance - but the way it has been handled has changed my mind. And I am not, as anyone who has read my posts or headers will have worked out, the EU's greatest fan, by a very long way.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 27
    Two Good CPG Grey videos on Brexit:
    plus the footnote:
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 48,038
    Mr. Glenn, because such a change wouldn't've happened according to the deliberately short timetable afforded by Article 50. Because the EU would've, perhaps, been more intent on trying to accommodate us to prevent us leaving rather than being unhelpful to try and encourage others to remain.

    Because staying in the EU but with a looser relationship is wildly different to leaving with no deal, or leaving with a bad deal, or maybe leaving but nobody knows even though it's meant to happen in 18 days.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 20,922
    FPT for SEANT

    DavidL said:

    » show previous quotes
    I think you will find that Malcolm II was not King of all Scotland and that there was a King of Strathclyde in those days who probably ruled Malcolm’s patch.

    I was digging up my turnips there till I saw David's post.
  • Charles said:

    Was listening to a short history of Ireland at the weekend to undrerstand why my grandmother left in 1930 or so. The reason was a WTO style plan by Ireland after independence. This devastated the economy and led to a massive brain drain. In the 1980s Ireland became one of the most open markets in the world and is now richer per head than the UK.

    Then that was a poor history you listened to

    Burning the houses of the people with the capital in the 20s didn’t encourage long term investment
    Neither did chasing out the Protestants post-Independence (and I say that as someone from an Irish Catholic background).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 10,599

    Nigelb said:

    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    How soon until TIG becomes a party?

    Maybe some issues with the word independent in their party name?
    I don't think the ERG have formally claimed the word "Gits". It is more of a general attribution.
    I confess I had a sad epiphany about Jacob Rees Mogg the other day. He’s always come across, to me, as smart, articulate, and cleverly self deprecating, and oddly good at handling TV etc, despite his absurd and half-contrived persona. For me, as a reluctant Brexiteer, it was faintly reassuring to know that he was on my side.

    But a couple of days ago I saw an interview (from early 2016 I think) when he was discussing Brexit and he said “The Lords have just released a fascinating analysis, which shows that Article 50 is cleverly designed to reduce economic shocks to both parties, when a nation secedes from the EU”.

    You what? Cleverly designed to reduce economic shocks??!! The whole POINT of Article 50 is to make it has hard and painful as possible to quit the EU, so as to deter any such thing happening. Its British author, the vile and treacherous Lord Kerr, happily admits this. And that’s how it has worked out

    So how come I, a drunken thriller writer, knew this, and Jacob RM didn’t? I was cognisant of the dangers of A50 from the inception of Lisbon, and certainly hyper aware of it by early 2016. Yet Jacob RM was blissfully UNAWARE?

    Either he was lying then, or he was a fool then - and therefore is a fool now...

    And either way, you were fooled by him.

    I think most MPs believe their positions reflect the national interest on Brexit. However they also think they know better than the plebs, not recognising that - in this instance - they have an instruction from management.

    In a business you often get told to do things by execs that are stupid. You can convince them to change track sometimes if you come up with a better plan - but also the end of the day they can fire you. We will see what management do this time.
    If we’re making a foray into unconvincing analogy land, a slightly more persuasive one might be the electorate as shareholders, and parliament a board they have appointed to carry out an ill defined task which they have ensured the board is deeply divided on.

    We shall see what happens to the value of their investment.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 10,599
    Charles said:

    Was listening to a short history of Ireland at the weekend to undrerstand why my grandmother left in 1930 or so. The reason was a WTO style plan by Ireland after independence. This devastated the economy and led to a massive brain drain. In the 1980s Ireland became one of the most open markets in the world and is now richer per head than the UK.

    Then that was a poor history you listened to

    Burning the houses of the people with the capital in the 20s didn’t encourage long term investment
    Surely not still bearing a grudge, Charles ?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,671
    Charles said:

    Was listening to a short history of Ireland at the weekend to undrerstand why my grandmother left in 1930 or so. The reason was a WTO style plan by Ireland after independence. This devastated the economy and led to a massive brain drain. In the 1980s Ireland became one of the most open markets in the world and is now richer per head than the UK.

    Then that was a poor history you listened to

    Burning the houses of the people with the capital in the 20s didn’t encourage long term investment
    Irish history, eh?! Almost as much fun as Brexit. :)

    I'm not at all sure that many Irish thought that those people with houses and capital had invested in the country for the benefit of the natives. Your family may have done.

    But there were plenty who thought of Ireland as a country to be exploited and viewed its Catholic population with contempt and loathing. As you sow etc ......

    My own farming family were no fans of De Valera, BTW.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 10,599

    Mr. P, Article 50 exists because Brown signed us up to Lisbon in contravention of his own manifesto commitment to hold a referendum, (which almost certainly would've seen a sceptic victory and been a great way to try and find a path that was more distant from the EU without leaving entirely).

    He's akin to a man who planted a minefield and is now complaining we're in dangerous territory.

    For once, MD, you seem to have rendered an opinion on Brexit which a majority can assent to.
This discussion has been closed.