A very big shift among Leave supporters in favour of the Deal, but probably too late.
May's deal is a pretty good compromise that gives leavers and remainers a lot of what they want. When the prospects of cancelling Brexit altogether looked non-existent I was in favour of it.
I wonder if leavers who have realised it isn't happening are coming behind the deal as being better than nothing. It is going to be hard to go through all this for the prize to be taken away at the last minute.
Anyway, I have also just discovered that Philip Davies voted FOR the deal last night. What is the point of having a wing-nut Tory MP as my elected representative if he fails to do damage to the government at every opportunity?
(Interestingly, his other half voted against - was he on the sofa last night?)
Au contraire. Having a foot in each camp is the art of becoming a power couple.
A very big shift among Leave supporters in favour of the Deal, but probably too late.
Splits by sex on these surveys are very often striking. It rather makes a mockery of those who claim men and women think similarly. The empirical evidence frequently suggests the opposite.
There are big differences by sex on quite a lot of topics. Women are (in general) more likely to believe in God than men, more tolerant of homosexuality, less tolerant of pornography, more likely to oppose the use of force in international affairs, more opposed to abortion, more moderately Eurosceptic (as opposed to being strongly pro or anti- the EU) and tend to produce larger numbers of undecided voters than men. In party-political terms, these differences tend to cancel each other out.
Somebody put us all out of our misery. She needs to go.
It would not put us out of our misery. If people wanted to get rid of May, they should have done so in 2017 or 2018. Changing PM now is pointless.
We need an experienced cabinet minister, preferably a lawyer, and someone committed to us leaving the EU as Prime Minister to navigate us through this mess.
There's only one man for the job, Ken Clarke.
As I said yesterday, it's a funny world in which Ken Clarke is doing more to achieve Brexit than people like Bill Cash, JRM, and John Redwood.
Clarke’s also put his name to an amendment to revoke Article 50.
Somebody put us all out of our misery. She needs to go.
It would not put us out of our misery. If people wanted to get rid of May, they should have done so in 2017 or 2018. Changing PM now is pointless.
We need an experienced cabinet minister, preferably a lawyer, and someone committed to us leaving the EU as Prime Minister to navigate us through this mess.
Mr. T's idea of a two-stage referendum (May's deal yes/no, then if no wins, leave with no deal or remain) might be the least bad credible option.
That's not the least bad credible option, it's an incredibly terrible option, because the weird bit of conditionality ("if no wins...") encourages Remainers to vote tactically for No Deal. Keep it simple and delete the "if no wins" and it's definitely plausible, although I'd be surprised if the government wanted to try Cameron's "ask the voters if they want to try something bad with poorly-defined implications" trick again.
I don’t think you understand the proposal (which wasn’t mine originally, by the way, it was someone else on here - apologies but I have forgotten who)
Hardcore Leavers are understandably going to be mightily pissed off at voting again, so to satisfy them (if that’s possible) the first stage should just be a choice of Brexits. However we can’t ignore the fact that 48% of voters wanted Remain and all polls show Remain is now in the lead, so Remain has to be a choice at some stage.
Ergo
Stage 1. The vote is on May’s deal - Yes or No. If Yes, we take the deal, if No, we move on to
Stage 2. No deal (the only alternative Brexit to May’s deal), versus Remain - a simple choice
It’s not perfect, but it’s the most democratic way out of this mess, I reckon. And FWIW I think May’s deal would have a pretty good chance of passing at Stage 1. So in that case we Brexit, sans chaos
It basically guarantees a Remain win even if the majority of people want some form of Brexit.
I wonder what proportion of the country are effectively Thompsonites – they would much rather Remain than take any of the versions of Brexit that are on offer? I dare say such a grouping might command 10-15% of the population.
Essentially, you could split the UK by PB ethos
Recidivists – revokers Thompsonites – reluctant Remainers Smithsonians – second referenders Tyndallites – EFTA/EEAers Eaglistas – punishment No Dealers Anazinans – pragmatic Dealers SeanTeeshirts – all of the above, varying wildly within any given 24-hour period
A very big shift among Leave supporters in favour of the Deal, but probably too late.
May's deal is a pretty good compromise that gives leavers and remainers a lot of what they want. When the prospects of cancelling Brexit altogether looked non-existent I was in favour of it.
I wonder if leavers who have realised it isn't happening are coming behind the deal as being better than nothing. It is going to be hard to go through all this for the prize to be taken away at the last minute.
It's the conclusion that I, and people like Richard Tyndall, David L, Casino Royale came to about four months ago.
A very big shift among Leave supporters in favour of the Deal, but probably too late.
Splits by sex on these surveys are very often striking. It rather makes a mockery of those who claim men and women think similarly. The empirical evidence frequently suggests the opposite.
There are big differences by sex on quite a lot of topics. Women are (in general) more likely to believe in God than men, more tolerant of homosexuality, less tolerant of pornography, more likely to oppose the use of force in international affairs, more opposed to abortion, more moderately Eurosceptic (as opposed to being strongly pro or anti- the EU) and tend to produce larger numbers of undecided voters than men. In party-political terms, these differences tend to cancel each other out.
Mr. T's idea of a two-stage referendum (May's deal yes/no, then if no wins, leave with no deal or remain) might be the least bad credible option.
That's not the least bad credible option, it's an incredibly terrible option, because the weird bit of conditionality ("if no wins...") encourages Remainers to vote tactically for No Deal. Keep it simple and delete the "if no wins" and it's definitely plausible, although I'd be surprised if the government wanted to try Cameron's "ask the voters if they want to try something bad with poorly-defined implications" trick again.
I don’t think you understand the proposal (which wasn’t mine originally, by the way, it was someone else on here - apologies but I have forgotten who)
Hardcore Leavers are understandably going to be mightily pissed off at voting again, so to satisfy them (if that’s possible) the first stage should just be a choice of Brexits. However we can’t ignore the fact that 48% of voters wanted Remain and all polls show Remain is now in the lead, so Remain has to be a choice at some stage.
Ergo
Stage 1. The vote is on May’s deal - Yes or No. If Yes, we take the deal, if No, we move on to
Stage 2. No deal (the only alternative Brexit to May’s deal), versus Remain - a simple choice
It’s not perfect, but it’s the most democratic way out of this mess, I reckon. And FWIW I think May’s deal would have a pretty good chance of passing at Stage 1. So in that case we Brexit, sans chaos
Hmm, very flawed.
It gives Remainers a huge perverse incentive to vote to No to May in Stage 1, so they have a chance to vote Remain at Stage 2.
Why not simply have May vs Remain?
If you are going to do this then far better to do it as AV and have May/No Deal/Remain as the three options. That way each option is treated equally.
A very big shift among Leave supporters in favour of the Deal, but probably too late.
Splits by sex on these surveys are very often striking. It rather makes a mockery of those who claim men and women think similarly. The empirical evidence frequently suggests the opposite.
Rejecting May's deal whether you're in favour of leaving or remaining is a gamble, and men are more likely to gamble than women.
I wonder what proportion of the country are effectively Thompsonites – they would much rather Remain than take any of the versions of Brexit that are on offer? I dare say such a grouping might command 10-15% of the population.
Essentially, you could split the UK by PB ethos
Recidivists – revokers Thompsonites – reluctant Remainers Smithsonians – second referenders Tyndallites – EFTA/EEAers Eaglistas – punishment No Dealers Anazinans – pragmatic Dealers SeanTeeshirts – all of the above, varying wildly within any given 24-hour period
I'd much rather 'remain' and I'm not at all reluctant about it!
I'd be mildly annoyed at Clarke becoming PM, as I decided against backing him at some hundreds to one a few months ago (precisely on this sort of chain of events occurring).
Anyway, I must be off into the strangely sunny gales of Yorkshire.
Somebody put us all out of our misery. She needs to go.
It would not put us out of our misery. If people wanted to get rid of May, they should have done so in 2017 or 2018. Changing PM now is pointless.
We need an experienced cabinet minister, preferably a lawyer, and someone committed to us leaving the EU as Prime Minister to navigate us through this mess.
There's only one man for the job, Ken Clarke.
As I said yesterday, it's a funny world in which Ken Clarke is doing more to achieve Brexit than people like Bill Cash, JRM, and John Redwood.
Clarke’s also put his name to an amendment to revoke Article 50.
Which just goes to show how absurd the position of Cash, Redwood, JRM is.
And why won't the DUP think this the best think they could ever have introduced to NI? Retail bonanza.....
I better book my Stranraer to Larne ferry tickets now - before they sell out along with car dealers in NI.
Cairnryan to Larne, surely (?)
Yes - you are correct but Stranraer is the nearest major town and rail station to Cairnryan so my geography isn't that far off!
I spent a number of days in Glasgow back in September and October, but I couldn't do Ayr to Stranraer because of the closure due to that "unstable" hotel next to Ayr station!
Last time I went to Stranraer was on the Euston - Stranraer overnight, piloted by a Class 20 forward from Ayr...
Lines from Glasgow to Ayr are stopped at Irvine today due to weather bringing down power lines
"There is no ECJ jurisdiction over EFTA members. And EFAT members are not in the Customs Union. So the only sticking point on her red lines would be Freedom of Movement."
The most obvious solution to addressing free movement in an EFTA model is to reform our non contributory welfare system so that EU migrants whether in work or not are ineligible for tax credits, housing benefit until they have paid in for a number of years etc etc. Problem is you would have to apply that to Brits - i.e. young people - as well. The concepts of tax credits and housing benefit just don't exist in central and eastern Europe bar one or two exceptions.
That is of course a key cause of Brexit in more ways than one - so many people (Brits and EU migrants) can't make ends meet without taxpayer handouts due to the crazy cost of housing etc.
But reforming our welfare system to move it back to a contributory model would make Brexit seem simple!
And those reforms could easily have been carried out while remaining a member.
No they couldn't for the very reason Brendan mentions in his last sentence.
If a version of the deal does go through in the next few weeks then the ERG have done well and it fully justifies their position. They've pushed for the cleanest Brexit possible but at the same time have an acceptable version of it. If they had supported May's deal first time round there would be less leverage and no doubt she would make concessions more to the centre ground and Labour in order to get the deal passed.
Mr. T's idea of a two-stage referendum (May's deal yes/no, then if no wins, leave with no deal or remain) might be the least bad credible option.
That's not the least bad credible option, it's an incredibly terrible option, because the weird bit of conditionality ("if no wins...") encourages Remainers to vote tactically for No Deal. Keep it simple and delete the "if no wins" and it's definitely plausible, although I'd be surprised if the government wanted to try Cameron's "ask the voters if they want to try something bad with poorly-defined implications" trick again.
I don’t think you understand the proposal (which wasn’t mine originally, by the way, it was someone else on here - apologies but I have forgotten who)
Hardcore Leavers are understandably going to be mightily pissed off at voting again, so to satisfy them (if that’s possible) the first stage should just be a choice of Brexits. However we can’t ignore the fact that 48% of voters wanted Remain and all polls show Remain is now in the lead, so Remain has to be a choice at some stage.
Ergo
Stage 1. The vote is on May’s deal - Yes or No. If Yes, we take the deal, if No, we move on to
Stage 2. No deal (the only alternative Brexit to May’s deal), versus Remain - a simple choice
It’s not perfect, but it’s the most democratic way out of this mess, I reckon. And FWIW I think May’s deal would have a pretty good chance of passing at Stage 1. So in that case we Brexit, sans chaos
It basically guarantees a Remain win even if the majority of people want some form of Brexit.
The problem with all 2 question approaches is that the resultant answer is the sane option is question 2.
The only exception to that is
1) Do you want to leave the EU without a deal? 2) Do you want to remain in the EU or leave with May's Deal?
Where I wouldn't want to bet on the result of Question 2 but Question 1 has a clue cut answer...
Mr. T's idea of a two-stage referendum (May's deal yes/no, then if no wins, leave with no deal or remain) might be the least bad credible option.
That's not the least bad credible option, it's an incredibly terrible option, because the weird bit of conditionality ("if no wins...") encourages Remainers to vote tactically for No Deal. Keep it simple and delete the "if no wins" and it's definitely plausible, although I'd be surprised if the government wanted to try Cameron's "ask the voters if they want to try something bad with poorly-defined implications" trick again.
I don’t think you understand the proposal (which wasn’t mine originally, by the way, it was someone else on here - apologies but I have forgotten who)
Hardcore Leavers are understandably going to be mightily pissed off at voting again, so to satisfy them (if that’s possible) the first stage should just be a choice of Brexits. However we can’t ignore the fact that 48% of voters wanted Remain and all polls show Remain is now in the lead, so Remain has to be a choice at some stage.
Ergo
Stage 1. The vote is on May’s deal - Yes or No. If Yes, we take the deal, if No, we move on to
Stage 2. No deal (the only alternative Brexit to May’s deal), versus Remain - a simple choice
It’s not perfect, but it’s the most democratic way out of this mess, I reckon. And FWIW I think May’s deal would have a pretty good chance of passing at Stage 1. So in that case we Brexit, sans chaos
Hmm, very flawed.
It gives Remainers a huge perverse incentive to vote to No to May in Stage 1, so they have a chance to vote Remain at Stage 2.
Why not simply have May vs Remain?
If you are going to do this then far better to do it as AV and have May/No Deal/Remain as the three options. That way each option is treated equally.
Eliminate no deal on the basis that no sensible government or politician could afford to pass control over something so risky and damaging, and we are back to the deal v Remain referendum which we all know is the only one ever likely to be agreed. The only question is whether the deal is May's deal or some alternative soft Brexit EEA/CU deal yet to be agreed.
Mr. T's idea of a two-stage referendum (May's deal yes/no, then if no wins, leave with no deal or remain) might be the least bad credible option.
That's not the least bad credible option, it's an incredibly terrible option, because the weird bit of conditionality ("if no wins...") encourages Remainers to vote tactically for No Deal. Keep it simple and delete the "if no wins" and it's definitely plausible, although I'd be surprised if the government wanted to try Cameron's "ask the voters if they want to try something bad with poorly-defined implications" trick again.
I don’t think you understand the proposal (which wasn’t mine originally, by the way, it was someone else on here - apologies but I have forgotten who)
Hardcore Leavers are understandably going to be mightily pissed off at voting again, so to satisfy them (if that’s possible) the first stage should just be a choice of Brexits. However we can’t ignore the fact that 48% of voters wanted Remain and all polls show Remain is now in the lead, so Remain has to be a choice at some stage.
Ergo
Stage 1. The vote is on May’s deal - Yes or No. If Yes, we take the deal, if No, we move on to
Stage 2. No deal (the only alternative Brexit to May’s deal), versus Remain - a simple choice
It’s not perfect, but it’s the most democratic way out of this mess, I reckon. And FWIW I think May’s deal would have a pretty good chance of passing at Stage 1. So in that case we Brexit, sans chaos
Hmm, very flawed.
It gives Remainers a huge perverse incentive to vote to No to May in Stage 1, so they have a chance to vote Remain at Stage 2.
Why not simply have May vs Remain?
If you are going to do this then far better to do it as AV and have May/No Deal/Remain as the three options. That way each option is treated equally.
Which form of AV counting mechanism would you use though? That could well influence the result in unexpected ways...
"Rejecting May's deal whether you're in favour of leaving or remaining is a gamble, and men are more likely to gamble than women"
Didn't polling suggest women voted remain - by a small margin 51 to 49 - in 2016 and it was men who delivered the leave majority (55 to 45 in favour of leave)?
Of course like the vast majority of things in the world men also invented the EU!
If a version of the deal does go through in the next few weeks then the ERG have done well and it fully justifies their position. They've pushed for the cleanest Brexit possible but at the same time have an acceptable version of it. If they had supported May's deal first time round there would be less leverage and no doubt she would make concessions more to the centre ground and Labour in order to get the deal passed.
I think they were right to oppose the first time (as I myself did) but they should have banked the deal yesterday.
They have overplayed their hand, got drunk on their own publicity and put the entire Brexit project at risk...
I'd be mildly annoyed at Clarke becoming PM, as I decided against backing him at some hundreds to one a few months ago (precisely on this sort of chain of events occurring).
Anyway, I must be off into the strangely sunny gales of Yorkshire.
If Clarke were to put himself forward on the basis of committing to enacting the result of the 2016 referendum but as he saw fit then I would support him like a shot. I may be heading for a fall with it but I trust him more than any other MP to keep his word for the sake for the democratic process.
Mr. T's idea of a two-stage referendum (May's deal yes/no, then if no wins, leave with no deal or remain) might be the least bad credible option.
That's not the least bad credible option, it's an incredibly terrible option, because the weird bit of conditionality ("if no wins...") encourages Remainers to vote tactically for No Deal. Keep it simple and delete the "if no wins" and it's definitely plausible, although I'd be surprised if the government wanted to try Cameron's "ask the voters if they want to try something bad with poorly-defined implications" trick again.
I don’t think you understand the proposal (which wasn’t mine originally, by the way, it was someone else on here - apologies but I have forgotten who)
Hardcore Leavers are understandably going to be mightily pissed off at voting again, so to satisfy them (if that’s possible) the first stage should just be a choice of Brexits. However we can’t ignore the fact that 48% of voters wanted Remain and all polls show Remain is now in the lead, so Remain has to be a choice at some stage.
Ergo
Stage 1. The vote is on May’s deal - Yes or No. If Yes, we take the deal, if No, we move on to
Stage 2. No deal (the only alternative Brexit to May’s deal), versus Remain - a simple choice
It’s not perfect, but it’s the most democratic way out of this mess, I reckon. And FWIW I think May’s deal would have a pretty good chance of passing at Stage 1. So in that case we Brexit, sans chaos
Hmm, very flawed.
It gives Remainers a huge perverse incentive to vote to No to May in Stage 1, so they have a chance to vote Remain at Stage 2.
Why not simply have May vs Remain?
If you are going to do this then far better to do it as AV and have May/No Deal/Remain as the three options. That way each option is treated equally.
Eliminate no deal on the basis that no sensible government or politician could afford to pass control over something so risky and damaging, and we are back to the deal v Remain referendum which we all know is the only one ever likely to be agreed. The only question is whether the deal is May's deal or some alternative soft Brexit EEA/CU deal yet to be agreed.
You cannot eliminate it. As it stands something like a third of the population say they support it.
Mr. T's idea of a two-stage referendum (May's deal yes/no, then if no wins, leave with no deal or remain) might be the least bad credible option.
That's not the least bad credible option, it's an incredibly terrible option, because the weird bit of conditionality ("if no wins...") encourages Remainers to vote tactically for No Deal. Keep it simple and delete the "if no wins" and it's definitely plausible, although I'd be surprised if the government wanted to try Cameron's "ask the voters if they want to try something bad with poorly-defined implications" trick again.
I don’t think you understand the proposal (which wasn’t mine originally, by the way, it was someone else on here - apologies but I have forgotten who)
Hardcore Leavers are understandably going to be mightily pissed off at voting again, so to satisfy them (if that’s possible) the first stage should just be a choice of Brexits. However we can’t ignore the fact that 48% of voters wanted Remain and all polls show Remain is now in the lead, so Remain has to be a choice at some stage.
Ergo
Stage 1. The vote is on May’s deal - Yes or No. If Yes, we take the deal, if No, we move on to
Stage 2. No deal (the only alternative Brexit to May’s deal), versus Remain - a simple choice
It’s not perfect, but it’s the most democratic way out of this mess, I reckon. And FWIW I think May’s deal would have a pretty good chance of passing at Stage 1. So in that case we Brexit, sans chaos
Hmm, very flawed.
It gives Remainers a huge perverse incentive to vote to No to May in Stage 1, so they have a chance to vote Remain at Stage 2.
Why not simply have May vs Remain?
If you are going to do this then far better to do it as AV and have May/No Deal/Remain as the three options. That way each option is treated equally.
Which form of AV counting mechanism would you use though? That could well influence the result in unexpected ways...
I am not enough of an expert on it to say. TSE is your man for that.
Mr. T's idea of a two-stage referendum (May's deal yes/no, then if no wins, leave with no deal or remain) might be the least bad credible option.
That's not the least bad credible option, it's an incredibly terrible option, because the weird bit of conditionality ("if no wins...") encourages Remainers to vote tactically for No Deal. Keep it simple and delete the "if no wins" and it's definitely plausible, although I'd be surprised if the government wanted to try Cameron's "ask the voters if they want to try something bad with poorly-defined implications" trick again.
I don’t think you understand the proposal (which wasn’t mine originally, by the way, it was someone else on here - apologies but I have forgotten who)
Hardcore Leavers are understandably going to be mightily pissed off at voting again, so to satisfy them (if that’s possible) the first stage should just be a choice of Brexits. However we can’t ignore the fact that 48% of voters wanted Remain and all polls show Remain is now in the lead, so Remain has to be a choice at some stage.
Ergo
Stage 1. The vote is on May’s deal - Yes or No. If Yes, we take the deal, if No, we move on to
Stage 2. No deal (the only alternative Brexit to May’s deal), versus Remain - a simple choice
It’s not perfect, but it’s the most democratic way out of this mess, I reckon. And FWIW I think May’s deal would have a pretty good chance of passing at Stage 1. So in that case we Brexit, sans chaos
Hmm, very flawed.
It gives Remainers a huge perverse incentive to vote to No to May in Stage 1, so they have a chance to vote Remain at Stage 2.
Why not simply have May vs Remain?
If you are going to do this then far better to do it as AV and have May/No Deal/Remain as the three options. That way each option is treated equally.
Which form of AV counting mechanism would you use though? That could well influence the result in unexpected ways...
Mr. T's idea of a two-stage referendum (May's deal yes/no, then if no wins, leave with no deal or remain) might be the least bad credible option.
That's not the least bad credible option, it's an incredibly terrible option, because the weird bit of conditionality ("if no wins...") encourages Remainers to vote tactically for No Deal. Keep it simple and delete the "if no wins" and it's definitely plausible, although I'd be surprised if the government wanted to try Cameron's "ask the voters if they want to try something bad with poorly-defined implications" trick again.
I don’t think you understand the proposal (which wasn’t mine originally, by the way, it was someone else on here - apologies but I have forgotten who)
Hardcore Leavers are understandably going to be mightily pissed off at voting again, so to satisfy them (if that’s possible) the first stage should just be a choice of Brexits. However we can’t ignore the fact that 48% of voters wanted Remain and all polls show Remain is now in the lead, so Remain has to be a choice at some stage.
Ergo
Stage 1. The vote is on May’s deal - Yes or No. If Yes, we take the deal, if No, we move on to
Stage 2. No deal (the only alternative Brexit to May’s deal), versus Remain - a simple choice
It’s not perfect, but it’s the most democratic way out of this mess, I reckon. And FWIW I think May’s deal would have a pretty good chance of passing at Stage 1. So in that case we Brexit, sans chaos
Hmm, very flawed.
It gives Remainers a huge perverse incentive to vote to No to May in Stage 1, so they have a chance to vote Remain at Stage 2.
Why not simply have May vs Remain?
If you are going to do this then far better to do it as AV and have May/No Deal/Remain as the three options. That way each option is treated equally.
Eliminate no deal on the basis that no sensible government or politician could afford to pass control over something so risky and damaging, and we are back to the deal v Remain referendum which we all know is the only one ever likely to be agreed. The only question is whether the deal is May's deal or some alternative soft Brexit EEA/CU deal yet to be agreed.
You cannot eliminate it. As it stands something like a third of the population say they support it.
It would be Parliament's decision, and they can and would eliminate it. After tonight's vote it will be easy and obvious.
If a version of the deal does go through in the next few weeks then the ERG have done well and it fully justifies their position. They've pushed for the cleanest Brexit possible but at the same time have an acceptable version of it. If they had supported May's deal first time round there would be less leverage and no doubt she would make concessions more to the centre ground and Labour in order to get the deal passed.
I think they were right to oppose the first time (as I myself did) but they should have banked the deal yesterday.
They have overplayed their hand, got drunk on their own publicity and put the entire Brexit project at risk...
Broadly I agree but I think it is highly likely there will be a 3rd vote. After Cox's advice yesterday that little has changed it would be hard to get on board without looking desperate. May's task is to get something minor that allows everyone to save face to jump on board with her deal - it shouldn't be as big a challenge as she is making it. Since the 1st vote 20-30 Labour MPs have shifted towards supporting May's deal under the right circumstances - if the ERG had backed May before these Labour leavers had then I suspect the 2nd and the 3rd versions of the deal would be softened knowing she had the ERG where she wanted them.
Previously I thought May's deal would pass 3rd time of asking. Now I reckon she'll squeeze it through 4th time lucky.
Government has announce a move to more liberal import tariffs following a no-deal brexit. 82% of goods from EU would be zero rated (down from 100% obvs) ROW would go to 92% zero rated (up from 56%) That would have the overall effect of going from the current 80% of imports zero rated, to 87%.
They love being treated differently when it suits them. Screw the DUP.
Does this mean they can import from EU cheaper than UK and so be able to then export it to UK and undercut mainland business.
Legally? No. In practice? Yes. And given there are several organisations in NI with smuggling experience in living memory (and possibly present memory), I assume they will be able to do so relatively quickly
Gun crime in GB (as opposed to NI) is so circumscribed criminals are reduced to passing individual guns from person to person. You can actually track an individual pistol between crimes. If border security falls away it's only a matter of time before somebody starts gun smuggling. So if gun crime expands over the next year or two, you know why.
They love being treated differently when it suits them. Screw the DUP.
Does this mean they can import from EU cheaper than UK and so be able to then export it to UK and undercut mainland business.
Legally? No. In practice? Yes. And given there are several organisations in NI with smuggling experience in living memory (and possibly present memory), I assume they will be able to do so relatively quickly
Gun crime in GB (as opposed to NI) is so circumscribed criminals are reduced to passing individual guns from person to person. You can actually track an individual pistol between crimes. If border security falls away it's only a matter of time before somebody starts gun smuggling. So if gun crime expands over the next year or two, you know why.
I find the Guido Fawkes position and tone on all this rather interesting. Very dismissive of no deal fears, but seems to be far more amenable on some Brexit at least rather than risk no Brexit.
Mr. T's idea of a two-stage referendum (May's deal yes/no, then if no wins, leave with no deal or remain) might be the least bad credible option.
That's not the least bad credible option, it's an incredibly terrible option, because the weird bit of conditionality ("if no wins...") encourages Remainers to vote tactically for No Deal. Keep it simple and delete the "if no wins" and it's definitely plausible, although I'd be surprised if the government wanted to try Cameron's "ask the voters if they want to try something bad with poorly-defined implications" trick again.
I don’t think you understand the proposal (which wasn’t mine originally, by the way, it was someone else on here - apologies but I have forgotten who)
Hardcore Leavers are understandably going to be mightily pissed off at voting again, so to satisfy them (if that’s possible) the first stage should just be a choice of Brexits. However we can’t ignore the fact that 48% of voters wanted Remain and all polls show Remain is now in the lead, so Remain has to be a choice at some stage.
Ergo
Stage 1. The vote is on May’s deal - Yes or No. If Yes, we take the deal, if No, we move on to
Stage 2. No deal (the only alternative Brexit to May’s deal), versus Remain - a simple choice
It’s not perfect, but it’s the most democratic way out of this mess, I reckon. And FWIW I think May’s deal would have a pretty good chance of passing at Stage 1. So in that case we Brexit, sans chaos
Hmm, very flawed.
It gives Remainers a huge perverse incentive to vote to No to May in Stage 1, so they have a chance to vote Remain at Stage 2.
It would be Parliament's decision, and they can and would eliminate it. After tonight's vote it will be easy and obvious.
And therefore renders the whole process invalid - well of course it would already be invalid so I suppose if you are going to nobble the democratic process you might as well go all the way and make it thoroughly illegitimate.
Mr. T's idea of a two-stage referendum (May's deal yes/no, then if no wins, leave with no deal or remain) might be the least bad credible option.
That's not the least bad credible option, it's an incredibly terrible option, because the weird bit of conditionality ("if no wins...") encourages Remainers to vote tactically for No Deal. Keep it simple and delete the "if no wins" and it's definitely plausible, although I'd be surprised if the government wanted to try Cameron's "ask the voters if they want to try something bad with poorly-defined implications" trick again.
I don’t think you understand the proposal (which wasn’t mine originally, by the way, it was someone else on here - apologies but I have forgotten who)
Hardcore Leavers are understandably going to be mightily pissed off at voting again, so to satisfy them (if that’s possible) the first stage should just be a choice of Brexits. However we can’t ignore the fact that 48% of voters wanted Remain and all polls show Remain is now in the lead, so Remain has to be a choice at some stage.
Ergo
Stage 1. The vote is on May’s deal - Yes or No. If Yes, we take the deal, if No, we move on to
Stage 2. No deal (the only alternative Brexit to May’s deal), versus Remain - a simple choice
It’s not perfect, but it’s the most democratic way out of this mess, I reckon. And FWIW I think May’s deal would have a pretty good chance of passing at Stage 1. So in that case we Brexit, sans chaos
Hmm, very flawed.
It gives Remainers a huge perverse incentive to vote to No to May in Stage 1, so they have a chance to vote Remain at Stage 2.
Why not simply have May vs Remain?
If you are going to do this then far better to do it as AV and have May/No Deal/Remain as the three options. That way each option is treated equally.
Which form of AV counting mechanism would you use though? That could well influence the result in unexpected ways...
Mr. T's idea of a two-stage referendum (May's deal yes/no, then if no wins, leave with no deal or remain) might be the least bad credible option.
That's not the least bad credible option, it's an incredibly terrible option, because the weird bit of conditionality ("if no wins...") encourages Remainers to vote tactically for No Deal. Keep it simple and delete the "if no wins" and it's definitely plausible, although I'd be surprised if the government wanted to try Cameron's "ask the voters if they want to try something bad with poorly-defined implications" trick again.
I don’t think you understand the proposal (which wasn’t mine originally, by the way, it was someone else on here - apologies but I have forgotten who)
Hardcore Leavers are understandably going to be mightily pissed off at voting again, so to satisfy them (if that’s possible) the first stage should just be a choice of Brexits. However we can’t ignore the fact that 48% of voters wanted Remain and all polls show Remain is now in the lead, so Remain has to be a choice at some stage.
Ergo
Stage 1. The vote is on May’s deal - Yes or No. If Yes, we take the deal, if No, we move on to
Stage 2. No deal (the only alternative Brexit to May’s deal), versus Remain - a simple choice
It’s not perfect, but it’s the most democratic way out of this mess, I reckon. And FWIW I think May’s deal would have a pretty good chance of passing at Stage 1. So in that case we Brexit, sans chaos
Hmm, very flawed.
It gives Remainers a huge perverse incentive to vote to No to May in Stage 1, so they have a chance to vote Remain at Stage 2.
Why not simply have May vs Remain?
If you are going to do this then far better to do it as AV and have May/No Deal/Remain as the three options. That way each option is treated equally.
Which form of AV counting mechanism would you use though? That could well influence the result in unexpected ways...
Somebody put us all out of our misery. She needs to go.
It would not put us out of our misery. If people wanted to get rid of May, they should have done so in 2017 or 2018. Changing PM now is pointless.
We need an experienced cabinet minister, preferably a lawyer, and someone committed to us leaving the EU as Prime Minister to navigate us through this mess.
There's only one man for the job, Ken Clarke.
As I said yesterday, it's a funny world in which Ken Clarke is doing more to achieve Brexit than people like Bill Cash, JRM, and John Redwood.
Clarke’s also put his name to an amendment to revoke Article 50.
But he has at least attempted to Brexit first, despite his own core beliefs
They love being treated differently when it suits them. Screw the DUP.
Does this mean they can import from EU cheaper than UK and so be able to then export it to UK and undercut mainland business.
Legally? No. In practice? Yes. And given there are several organisations in NI with smuggling experience in living memory (and possibly present memory), I assume they will be able to do so relatively quickly
Gun crime in GB (as opposed to NI) is so circumscribed criminals are reduced to passing individual guns from person to person. You can actually track an individual pistol between crimes. If border security falls away it's only a matter of time before somebody starts gun smuggling. So if gun crime expands over the next year or two, you know why.
Eh? There's no border security at the moment.
I have to go back to my desk so I can't pursue this, but I'll leave you with this. You may be correct but you raise an interesting question. Namely "if I had a contraband article - guns, drugs, JRM's trust fund passcode, whatever - and I wanted to move it from Cork to Belfast to Liverpool to London, at what point would it be stopped?" It's a genuine question, I'm not trying to be clever.
I have to go back to my desk so I can't pursue this, but I'll leave you with this. You may be correct but you raise an interesting question. Namely "if I had a contraband article - guns, drugs, JRM's trust fund passcode, whatever - and I wanted to move it from Cork to Belfast to Liverpool to London, at what point would it be stopped?" It's a genuine question, I'm not trying to be clever.
You wouldn't be stopped routinely, but HMRC and the police try to catch you and might stop you anywhere, based on intelligence.
Hammond being more on Brexit than economics directly here....
He’s not got an incredibly easy job tbh: “go in there and waffle on a bit about the economy. Oh and remember there’s a massive train coming down the tracks in a fortnight but we genuinely don’t know how the hell we’re going to get out of the way in time, or whether we’ll be able to delay its arrival, so just do your best to make some genuine positive sounds about how everything’s going, ok? Oh and mention the massive train a few times because it might scare a few more into getting out of the way.”
Mr. T's idea of a two-stage referendum (May's deal yes/no, then if no wins, leave with no deal or remain) might be the least bad credible option.
That's not the least bad credible option, it's an incredibly terrible option, because the weird bit of conditionality ("if no wins...") encourages Remainers to vote tactically for No Deal. Keep it simple and delete the "if no wins" and it's definitely plausible, although I'd be surprised if the government wanted to try Cameron's "ask the voters if they want to try something bad with poorly-defined implications" trick again.
I don’t think you understand the proposal (which wasn’t mine originally, by the way, it was someone else on here - apologies but I have forgotten who)
Hardcore Leavers are understandably going to be mightily pissed off at voting again, so to satisfy them (if that’s possible) the first stage should just be a choice of Brexits. However we can’t ignore the fact that 48% of voters wanted Remain and all polls show Remain is now in the lead, so Remain has to be a choice at some stage.
Ergo
Stage 1. The vote is on May’s deal - Yes or No. If Yes, we take the deal, if No, we move on to
Stage 2. No deal (the only alternative Brexit to May’s deal), versus Remain - a simple choice
It’s not perfect, but it’s the most democratic way out of this mess, I reckon. And FWIW I think May’s deal would have a pretty good chance of passing at Stage 1. So in that case we Brexit, sans chaos
It basically guarantees a Remain win even if the majority of people want some form of Brexit.
But unless there is a specific form of Brexit that a majority support then remaining is the logical outcome. Personally I would be happy to see EFTA on the ballot paper
Mr. T's idea of a two-stage referendum (May's deal yes/no, then if no wins, leave with no deal or remain) might be the least bad credible option.
That's not the least bad credible option, it's an incredibly terrible option, because the weird bit of conditionality ("if no wins...") encourages Remainers to vote tactically for No Deal. Keep it simple and delete the "if no wins" and it's definitely plausible, although I'd be surprised if the government wanted to try Cameron's "ask the voters if they want to try something bad with poorly-defined implications" trick again.
I don’t think you understand the proposal (which wasn’t mine originally, by the way, it was someone else on here - apologies but I have forgotten who)
Hardcore Leavers are understandably going to be mightily pissed off at voting again, so to satisfy them (if that’s possible) the first stage should just be a choice of Brexits. However we can’t ignore the fact that 48% of voters wanted Remain and all polls show Remain is now in the lead, so Remain has to be a choice at some stage.
Ergo
Stage 1. The vote is on May’s deal - Yes or No. If Yes, we take the deal, if No, we move on to
Stage 2. No deal (the only alternative Brexit to May’s deal), versus Remain - a simple choice
It’s not perfect, but it’s the most democratic way out of this mess, I reckon. And FWIW I think May’s deal would have a pretty good chance of passing at Stage 1. So in that case we Brexit, sans chaos
Hmm, very flawed.
It gives Remainers a huge perverse incentive to vote to No to May in Stage 1, so they have a chance to vote Remain at Stage 2.
Why not simply have May vs Remain?
Because we’ve already voted to leave
Indeed, but I dare say Deal is more likely to win under my One Stage proposal, and Remain more likely to win under the Two Stage proposal. So, you pays your money, you takes your choice.
Cast's Walk Away just turned up on my random play. It's a sign I tell yer....
If you've heard all they got to say You looked but turned away Walkaway, walkaway If you've said all you got to say And now the words just slip away Just walkaway, walkaway, walkaway That's what they say, what they say, what they say You gotta walkaway
Amusing, but isn't it more likely it's just that volume of cheddar is as much as all other types combined? Just a guess.
More about protectionism, I'd guess - we're not bothered by imports of camembert or emmental, but producers of tasteless cheddar don't want competition from rival producers of tasteless cheese.
I have to go back to my desk so I can't pursue this, but I'll leave you with this. You may be correct but you raise an interesting question. Namely "if I had a contraband article - guns, drugs, JRM's trust fund passcode, whatever - and I wanted to move it from Cork to Belfast to Liverpool to London, at what point would it be stopped?" It's a genuine question, I'm not trying to be clever.
You wouldn't be stopped routinely, but HMRC and the police try to catch you and might stop you anywhere, based on intelligence.
At the moment (and a friend saw this when a staff member was arrested for being AWOL) the most likely place is as you cross between Belfast and Liverpool / Stranraer as that is the easiest place to identify you (usually when you land)..
Comments
I wonder if leavers who have realised it isn't happening are coming behind the deal as being better than nothing. It is going to be hard to go through all this for the prize to be taken away at the last minute.
What a toodo.
Essentially, you could split the UK by PB ethos
Recidivists – revokers
Thompsonites – reluctant Remainers
Smithsonians – second referenders
Tyndallites – EFTA/EEAers
Eaglistas – punishment No Dealers
Anazinans – pragmatic Dealers
SeanTeeshirts – all of the above, varying wildly within any given 24-hour period
Anyway, I must be off into the strangely sunny gales of Yorkshire.
The only exception to that is
1) Do you want to leave the EU without a deal?
2) Do you want to remain in the EU or leave with May's Deal?
Where I wouldn't want to bet on the result of Question 2 but Question 1 has a clue cut answer...
Didn't polling suggest women voted remain - by a small margin 51 to 49 - in 2016 and it was men who delivered the leave majority (55 to 45 in favour of leave)?
Of course like the vast majority of things in the world men also invented the EU!
They have overplayed their hand, got drunk on their own publicity and put the entire Brexit project at risk...
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/03/a-second-referendum-conducted-under-av-maybe-the-only-way-to-end-the-brexit-impasse/
Previously I thought May's deal would pass 3rd time of asking. Now I reckon she'll squeeze it through 4th time lucky.
The wrinkled sea beneath him crawls;
He watches from his mountain walls,
And like a thunderbolt he falls.
(Tennyson)
https://twitter.com/shehabkhan/status/1105802046807199744?s=21
82% of goods from EU would be zero rated (down from 100% obvs)
ROW would go to 92% zero rated (up from 56%)
That would have the overall effect of going from the current 80% of imports zero rated, to 87%.
Gun crime in GB (as opposed to NI) is so circumscribed criminals are reduced to passing individual guns from person to person. You can actually track an individual pistol between crimes. If border security falls away it's only a matter of time before somebody starts gun smuggling. So if gun crime expands over the next year or two, you know why.
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/7411/nancy-pelosi-says-trump-shouldn-t-be-impeached-other-us-developments#latest
No2AV 68%
Yes2AV 32%
If you've heard all they got to say
You looked but turned away
Walkaway, walkaway
If you've said all you got to say
And now the words just slip away
Just walkaway, walkaway, walkaway
That's what they say, what they say,
what they say
You gotta walkaway