Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The LDs to outperform the Tories in Thursday’s by-election is

135

Comments

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1006156833554358272

    Really? Tories are taking comfort from the polls? I thought it was more they are so terrified of losing to Corbyn that they will do virtually anything to avoid an early GE.

    I think the comfort is coming from the collapse in Corbyn’s ratings.
    Huge mistake. He is one campaign away from winning.

    As was mentioned this morning, quite likely it is housing (or lack of) that will sink Tories in the end.
    Plus there’s the unspoken belief that we can’t run a campaign as bad as last time.
    Although if May remains leader into the next election, that belief is based more on faith than evidence.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:
    Clear from Barnier's slides that he's not going to accept anything short of NI in both the CU and SM. In other words not accepting anything short of NI remaining in the EU in all but name.

    No, absolutely not. Time to walk away. Any East/West border like he's proposing is as much a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as a North/South one. If Barnier won't agree to a deal its time to walk and once the hard border is erected along the NI border we can start negotiations as equals.
    An East/West border as a result of NI staying in the SM/CU is not Barnier’s proposal but a consequence of Brexit. If that’s unacceptable you have a choice between vassal state Brexit and no Brexit.
    Nope. The other choice - and the one that will become increasingly attractive if the EU continues on this course is No deal. In which case the border will be between North and South and will be in whatever form each side chooses to impose.
    No UK govt will allow a border between North and South, as the EU no doubt it aware. It is an asymmetrical situation. They can threaten something they don't want and they have the power to impose, and the UK govt will acquiesce.

    That's just the reality. Not to say it is a reason we shouldn't have voted Leave, just to say it is a very real issue that perhaps was not given sufficient airtime prior to the vote.
    No UK govt will allow a border in the Irish Sea, either.

    It's an impasse. No Deal looms.
    1. Wholly electronic border
    2. CU/SM whole UK membership

    There can’t be a no deal for precisely the no hard border reason
    If there is no agreement then there will be a hard border. Saying it cannot happen is meaningless.
    Maybe so - but there would be no reason why the UK should help to build it. That burden would lie elsewhere.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In the event of NO DEAL, the UK would abide by its commitments, and would not erect infrastructure on the NI border.

    The onus would then fall on the EU (and specifically the Dublin government). Would they start building customs post on the Irish side of the frontier, would they be unrolling barbed wire across the roads of east Donegal and north Louth?

    No, of course they would not. It's a load of bluffing nonsense. Neither side would do anything, and this quasi-legal anomaly would be quietly accepted by everyone, as being superior in all ways to a hard frontier.

    The EU is understandably using the NI problem to exert maximum leverage, at this crucial moment of negotiation, but as we near the doomsday event itself, it would become clear it was and is a bluff.

    But it is going to work. The UK as mentioned cannot be in a position whereby one outcome of a negotiation would be a hard border.

    People say "let the EU put up a border on their side" as if the physical location were miles away and that it wouldn't be, er, a hard NI border. And thus what would the government's chances of survival be if they were to abnegate their responsibility (let's call it control) of the northern Irish border?
    You really can’t see the difference between a border imposed by the UK or a border imposed by the EU? I can, and i’m not nearly as sophisticated a political actor as those in Northern Ireland...
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:
    The right thing to do is to rescue and feed them, and then redeposit them on the coast of North Africa.
    Indeed. Do that two or three times and the boats stop and the human traffickers stop profiting.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    MaxPB said:

    blueblue said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    To be fair to the EU, Barnier has played an absolute blinder in the negotiations. No doubt he has had the stronger hand but fair he's played it to more or less maximum advantage.

    Part of that is down to the ineptitude of May and Hammond not getting our WTO ducks in a row. They've systematically undermined our negotiating position and strengthened our opponent's one. They are without a doubt the worst peace time leadership duo we've ever had. Worse than Brown or Blair IMO.
    What exactly would WTO ducks in a row have meant? How many billions would we have had to devote to do it properly?
    We estimated between £7bn in one off subsidies and around £3bn in recurring costs to deal with customs issues (a figure supported by the Swiss foreign minister, the French ports company and the Dutch ports company, but not HMRC who estimated a laughable £20bn facilitation cost) before the vote.

    Not exactly an earth shattering figure, one year's worth of net contributions if you want to put it into context.
    Well of course counter-factuals are fun but when would this have happened? Before or after the GE? And would the GE have been called? Because if so, then Lab would have had a field day with the £20bn however laughable it might have been.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1006156833554358272

    Really? Tories are taking comfort from the polls? I thought it was more they are so terrified of losing to Corbyn that they will do virtually anything to avoid an early GE.

    I think the comfort is coming from the collapse in Corbyn’s ratings.
    Huge mistake. He is one campaign away from winning.

    As was mentioned this morning, quite likely it is housing (or lack of) that will sink Tories in the end.
    Plus there’s the unspoken belief that we can’t run a campaign as bad as last time.
    Although if May remains leader into the next election, that belief is based more on faith than evidence.
    She might run a worse campaign than last time.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669
    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In the event of NO DEAL, the UK would abide by its commitments, and would not erect infrastructure on the NI border.

    The onus would then fall on the EU (and specifically the Dublin government). Would they start building customs post on the Irish side of the frontier, would they be unrolling barbed wire across the roads of east Donegal and north Louth?

    No, of course they would not. It's a load of bluffing nonsense. Neither side would do anything, and this quasi-legal anomaly would be quietly accepted by everyone, as being superior in all ways to a hard frontier.

    The EU is understandably using the NI problem to exert maximum leverage, at this crucial moment of negotiation, but as we near the doomsday event itself, it would become clear it was and is a bluff.

    There's 'free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour' (the 4 freedoms) between RoI and the rest of the EU.
    If there's no border between NI and RoI and no border between NI and Great Britain, could that not mean that we will still be subject to the EU's 4 freedoms - it would just be a little bit more awkward?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    blueblue said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    To be fair to the EU, Barnier has played an absolute blinder in the negotiations. No doubt he has had the stronger hand but fair he's played it to more or less maximum advantage.

    Part of that is down to the ineptitude of May and Hammond not getting our WTO ducks in a row. They've systematically undermined our negotiating position and strengthened our opponent's one. They are without a doubt the worst peace time leadership duo we've ever had. Worse than Brown or Blair IMO.
    What exactly would WTO ducks in a row have meant? How many billions would we have had to devote to do it properly?
    It's not too late to make preparations. Because without preparations, the threat to walk out is a pretty hollow one.

    So, what could you - and should you - do:

    1. Separate Customs & Excise from HMRC, and give it a heavyweight boss. (Maybe add border control too.)
    2. Announce plans to hire 5,000 new customs officers in the next 18 months.
    3. Compulsory purchase some land at Dover, and announce the construction of new border infrastructure, and maybe three or four sites on the major North/South roads in Northern Ireland.
    4. Copy, as much as possible, the Swiss electronic system for tracking imports.

    All those things should have been done two years ago, because they would have made it clear that Britain would choose No Deal over a Bad Deal. But we should at least start now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,715
    Barnesian said:

    Thick as pig shit...

    Emma Dent Coad does it again on the Daily Politics. Asked if she wants to remain in the single market, she said:

    “Absolutely, always have done, yes”

    And asked if she will back the EEA amendment against the Labour whip?

    “No, I won’t”

    She's right. The EEA amendment doesn't allow us to stay in the CU. The Labour amendment is for us to stay in the SM and the CU. That's why she backs the labour amendment and not the EEA one.
    Wrong the Labour amendment does NOT commit to membership of the EEA plus freedom of movement etc.

    It commits to a vague promise to get maximum access to the internal market which is not the same thing as full membership of the single market
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    The key point is that Solihull is going to be upgraded to make electric. The future is electric. Solihull gets the future, Eastern Europe gets the past.
    Nobody complains when BMW or Merc move production around the world. JLR do it and it's disaster.
    Idiot journalists need to get a grip.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044
    Sean_F said:

    https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1006156833554358272

    Really? Tories are taking comfort from the polls? I thought it was more they are so terrified of losing to Corbyn that they will do virtually anything to avoid an early GE.

    I think the comfort is coming from the collapse in Corbyn’s ratings.
    Huge mistake. He is one campaign away from winning.

    As was mentioned this morning, quite likely it is housing (or lack of) that will sink Tories in the end.
    Plus there’s the unspoken belief that we can’t run a campaign as bad as last time.
    Although if May remains leader into the next election, that belief is based more on faith than evidence.
    She might run a worse campaign than last time.
    Quite possible. She really could not duck out of the Leaders TV events, and these would probably be, how shall we put it, rather 'difficult' for her.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    edited June 2018
    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    blueblue said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    To be fair to the EU, Barnier has played an absolute blinder in the negotiations. No doubt he has had the stronger hand but fair he's played it to more or less maximum advantage.

    Part of that is down to the ineptitude of May and Hammond not getting our WTO ducks in a row. They've systematically undermined our negotiating position and strengthened our opponent's one. They are without a doubt the worst peace time leadership duo we've ever had. Worse than Brown or Blair IMO.
    What exactly would WTO ducks in a row have meant? How many billions would we have had to devote to do it properly?
    We estimated between £7bn in one off subsidies and around £3bn in recurring costs to deal with customs issues (a figure supported by the Swiss foreign minister, the French ports company and the Dutch ports company, but not HMRC who estimated a laughable £20bn facilitation cost) before the vote.

    Not exactly an earth shattering figure, one year's worth of net contributions if you want to put it into context.
    Well of course counter-factuals are fun but when would this have happened? Before or after the GE? And would the GE have been called? Because if so, then Lab would have had a field day with the £20bn however laughable it might have been.
    Tbh, if I were in charge I would have purged the civil service of the remainers on day zero keeping only a few in key positions to provide insight into what the EU would do in response to certain actions and plans. The HMRC figure is so utterly ridiculous that one can only question the motives of who wrote it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    rcs1000 said:

    blueblue said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    To be fair to the EU, Barnier has played an absolute blinder in the negotiations. No doubt he has had the stronger hand but fair he's played it to more or less maximum advantage.

    Part of that is down to the ineptitude of May and Hammond not getting our WTO ducks in a row. They've systematically undermined our negotiating position and strengthened our opponent's one. They are without a doubt the worst peace time leadership duo we've ever had. Worse than Brown or Blair IMO.
    What exactly would WTO ducks in a row have meant? How many billions would we have had to devote to do it properly?
    It's not too late to make preparations. Because without preparations, the threat to walk out is a pretty hollow one.

    So, what could you - and should you - do:

    1. Separate Customs & Excise from HMRC, and give it a heavyweight boss. (Maybe add border control too.)
    2. Announce plans to hire 5,000 new customs officers in the next 18 months.
    3. Compulsory purchase some land at Dover, and announce the construction of new border infrastructure, and maybe three or four sites on the major North/South roads in Northern Ireland.
    4. Copy, as much as possible, the Swiss electronic system for tracking imports.

    All those things should have been done two years ago, because they would have made it clear that Britain would choose No Deal over a Bad Deal. But we should at least start now.
    +1
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,715

    https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1006156833554358272

    Really? Tories are taking comfort from the polls? I thought it was more they are so terrified of losing to Corbyn that they will do virtually anything to avoid an early GE.

    I think the comfort is coming from the collapse in Corbyn’s ratings.
    Huge mistake. He is one campaign away from winning.

    As was mentioned this morning, quite likely it is housing (or lack of) that will sink Tories in the end.
    Plus there’s the unspoken belief that we can’t run a campaign as bad as last time.
    You mean the campaign where the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1983 and 318 seats, their second highest number of MPs in 25 years?

    For all the bad campaign there have been far worse results than that
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:
    The right thing to do is to rescue and feed them, and then redeposit them on the coast of North Africa.
    Indeed. Do that two or three times and the boats stop and the human traffickers stop profiting.
    Absolutely: if you pay a year's income, and have a 99% chance of getting to Europe, that's one thing. But if it's only a 50% chance, then suddenly the trade doesn't look anything like as attractive.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    rcs1000 said:

    blueblue said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    To be fair to the EU, Barnier has played an absolute blinder in the negotiations. No doubt he has had the stronger hand but fair he's played it to more or less maximum advantage.

    Part of that is down to the ineptitude of May and Hammond not getting our WTO ducks in a row. They've systematically undermined our negotiating position and strengthened our opponent's one. They are without a doubt the worst peace time leadership duo we've ever had. Worse than Brown or Blair IMO.
    What exactly would WTO ducks in a row have meant? How many billions would we have had to devote to do it properly?
    It's not too late to make preparations. Because without preparations, the threat to walk out is a pretty hollow one.

    So, what could you - and should you - do:

    1. Separate Customs & Excise from HMRC, and give it a heavyweight boss. (Maybe add border control too.)
    2. Announce plans to hire 5,000 new customs officers in the next 18 months.
    3. Compulsory purchase some land at Dover, and announce the construction of new border infrastructure, and maybe three or four sites on the major North/South roads in Northern Ireland.
    4. Copy, as much as possible, the Swiss electronic system for tracking imports.

    All those things should have been done two years ago, because they would have made it clear that Britain would choose No Deal over a Bad Deal. But we should at least start now.
    Same question to you - two years ago + GE = gift to Lab.

    So a lot of shoulda, woulda, coulda.

    I'm no expert on land acquisition, etc but my gut is that nine months time is a very short time for the things you list.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    rcs1000 said:

    blueblue said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    To be fair to the EU, Barnier has played an absolute blinder in the negotiations. No doubt he has had the stronger hand but fair he's played it to more or less maximum advantage.

    Part of that is down to the ineptitude of May and Hammond not getting our WTO ducks in a row. They've systematically undermined our negotiating position and strengthened our opponent's one. They are without a doubt the worst peace time leadership duo we've ever had. Worse than Brown or Blair IMO.
    What exactly would WTO ducks in a row have meant? How many billions would we have had to devote to do it properly?
    It's not too late to make preparations. Because without preparations, the threat to walk out is a pretty hollow one.

    So, what could you - and should you - do:

    1. Separate Customs & Excise from HMRC, and give it a heavyweight boss. (Maybe add border control too.)
    2. Announce plans to hire 5,000 new customs officers in the next 18 months.
    3. Compulsory purchase some land at Dover, and announce the construction of new border infrastructure, and maybe three or four sites on the major North/South roads in Northern Ireland.
    4. Copy, as much as possible, the Swiss electronic system for tracking imports.

    All those things should have been done two years ago, because they would have made it clear that Britain would choose No Deal over a Bad Deal. But we should at least start now.
    Our report said pretty much this as well and we expected the government to do that. May and Hammond have not turned out to be rational actors though, moderate Tory MPs will start to realise this soon and I think they will remove the leadership duo.
  • blueblueblueblue Posts: 875
    Sean_F said:

    https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1006156833554358272

    Really? Tories are taking comfort from the polls? I thought it was more they are so terrified of losing to Corbyn that they will do virtually anything to avoid an early GE.

    I think the comfort is coming from the collapse in Corbyn’s ratings.
    Huge mistake. He is one campaign away from winning.

    As was mentioned this morning, quite likely it is housing (or lack of) that will sink Tories in the end.
    Plus there’s the unspoken belief that we can’t run a campaign as bad as last time.
    Although if May remains leader into the next election, that belief is based more on faith than evidence.
    She might run a worse campaign than last time.
    I picked my username out of pure depression in the middle of that disastrous campaign and even I don't think she could do worse next time. Or at least I bloody well hope not!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,545
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:
    The right thing to do is to rescue and feed them, and then redeposit them on the coast of North Africa.
    Pretty much agree with that.

    However, I'd also add that the UN should make people trafficking an 'international' crime. Anyone involved with trafficking people, and especially those making the money from it, will, if caught, be tried by the UN under an international law.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    Now changed to
    Tories 8/13,
    LibDems 6/5

    Now it's
    Tories 4/6
    LibDems 11/10

    ... the power of PoliticalBetting.
    Perhaps somebody has seen the postal votes!?
    Curious timing. Would have thought a PB thread moving the markets be far more likely.
    Quite a few scrutineers will have seen the postal votes being verified over the last week. On a low turnout such votes will represent a high proportion of the total votes cast.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Sean_F said:

    https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1006156833554358272

    Really? Tories are taking comfort from the polls? I thought it was more they are so terrified of losing to Corbyn that they will do virtually anything to avoid an early GE.

    I think the comfort is coming from the collapse in Corbyn’s ratings.
    Huge mistake. He is one campaign away from winning.

    As was mentioned this morning, quite likely it is housing (or lack of) that will sink Tories in the end.
    Plus there’s the unspoken belief that we can’t run a campaign as bad as last time.
    Although if May remains leader into the next election, that belief is based more on faith than evidence.
    She might run a worse campaign than last time.
    Quite possible. She really could not duck out of the Leaders TV events, and these would probably be, how shall we put it, rather 'difficult' for her.
    TBH, I think turning up and doing badly is preferable to not turning up.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Anazina said:

    Mortimer said:

    Anazina said:

    I sometimes wonder whether the rump Brexiteers on here actually have jobs or whether they are, by and large, childless, rich and retired?

    I suspect there are more self-employed/contractors/company directors amongst PB leavers than employees.

    People used to ploughing their own furrow, understanding the true impact and costs of business decisions and risks.
    I realise that applies to you (you are an independent bookseller aren't you?) but I get the impression many of your brexiteer and neobrexiteer colleagues pontificate from rather different circumstances.
    If they do so what - would you take their voting rights away? You continually go on about PB this and PB that - most contributors are individuals following their own beliefs and views neither more nor less misguided than you.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    blueblue said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    To be fair to the EU, Barnier has played an absolute blinder in the negotiations. No doubt he has had the stronger hand but fair he's played it to more or less maximum advantage.

    Part of that is down to the ineptitude of May and Hammond not getting our WTO ducks in a row. They've systematically undermined our negotiating position and strengthened our opponent's one. They are without a doubt the worst peace time leadership duo we've ever had. Worse than Brown or Blair IMO.
    What exactly would WTO ducks in a row have meant? How many billions would we have had to devote to do it properly?
    We estimated between £7bn in one off subsidies and around £3bn in recurring costs to deal with customs issues (a figure supported by the Swiss foreign minister, the French ports company and the Dutch ports company, but not HMRC who estimated a laughable £20bn facilitation cost) before the vote.

    Not exactly an earth shattering figure, one year's worth of net contributions if you want to put it into context.
    Well of course counter-factuals are fun but when would this have happened? Before or after the GE? And would the GE have been called? Because if so, then Lab would have had a field day with the £20bn however laughable it might have been.
    Tbh, if I were in charge I would have purged the civil service of the remainers on day zero keeping only a few in key positions to provide insight into what the EU would do in response to certain actions and plans. The HMRC figure is so utterly ridiculous that one can only question the motives of who wrote it.
    Well we would each of us have had a much better last two years if we had been in charge.

    As for purging the HMRC this was the thrust of Daniel Hannan's article in the Telegraph yesterday. I mean will there be any time that Leavers blame Leavers for the situation we are currently in rather than Remainer MPs, Remainer civil servants, Remainer dogs, Remainer homework...?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    blueblue said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    To be fair to the EU, Barnier has played an absolute blinder in the negotiations. No doubt he has had the stronger hand but fair he's played it to more or less maximum advantage.

    Part of that is down to the ineptitude of May and Hammond not getting our WTO ducks in a row. They've systematically undermined our negotiating position and strengthened our opponent's one. They are without a doubt the worst peace time leadership duo we've ever had. Worse than Brown or Blair IMO.
    What exactly would WTO ducks in a row have meant? How many billions would we have had to devote to do it properly?
    We estimated between £7bn in one off subsidies and around £3bn in recurring costs to deal with customs issues (a figure supported by the Swiss foreign minister, the French ports company and the Dutch ports company, but not HMRC who estimated a laughable £20bn facilitation cost) before the vote.

    Not exactly an earth shattering figure, one year's worth of net contributions if you want to put it into context.
    Well of course counter-factuals are fun but when would this have happened? Before or after the GE? And would the GE have been called? Because if so, then Lab would have had a field day with the £20bn however laughable it might have been.
    Tbh, if I were in charge I would have purged the civil service of the remainers on day zero keeping only a few in key positions to provide insight into what the EU would do in response to certain actions and plans. The HMRC figure is so utterly ridiculous that one can only question the motives of who wrote it.
    I would have taken all but token competence away from the FO with regards to Europe on day 1. Yet again their approach re our position in the world had failed, just as in the early 80s and late 30s
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:
    The right thing to do is to rescue and feed them, and then redeposit them on the coast of North Africa.
    Pretty much agree with that.

    However, I'd also add that the UN should make people trafficking an 'international' crime. Anyone involved with trafficking people, and especially those making the money from it, will, if caught, be tried by the UN under an international law.
    As if the UN care about that, they are encouraging these people to make the trip to Europe. I think the charities who help them should be prosecuted for aiding people trafficking.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    justin124 said:

    RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    Now changed to
    Tories 8/13,
    LibDems 6/5

    Now it's
    Tories 4/6
    LibDems 11/10

    ... the power of PoliticalBetting.
    Perhaps somebody has seen the postal votes!?
    Curious timing. Would have thought a PB thread moving the markets be far more likely.
    Quite a few scrutineers will have seen the postal votes being verified over the last week. On a low turnout such votes will represent a high proportion of the total votes cast.
    Yet the odds changed over the course of this thread being up, rather than over the last week.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    blueblue said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    To be fair to the EU, Barnier has played an absolute blinder in the negotiations. No doubt he has had the stronger hand but fair he's played it to more or less maximum advantage.

    Part of that is down to the ineptitude of May and Hammond not getting our WTO ducks in a row. They've systematically undermined our negotiating position and strengthened our opponent's one. They are without a doubt the worst peace time leadership duo we've ever had. Worse than Brown or Blair IMO.
    What exactly would WTO ducks in a row have meant? How many billions would we have had to devote to do it properly?
    It's not too late to make preparations. Because without preparations, the threat to walk out is a pretty hollow one.

    So, what could you - and should you - do:

    1. Separate Customs & Excise from HMRC, and give it a heavyweight boss. (Maybe add border control too.)
    2. Announce plans to hire 5,000 new customs officers in the next 18 months.
    3. Compulsory purchase some land at Dover, and announce the construction of new border infrastructure, and maybe three or four sites on the major North/South roads in Northern Ireland.
    4. Copy, as much as possible, the Swiss electronic system for tracking imports.

    All those things should have been done two years ago, because they would have made it clear that Britain would choose No Deal over a Bad Deal. But we should at least start now.
    Same question to you - two years ago + GE = gift to Lab.

    So a lot of shoulda, woulda, coulda.

    I'm no expert on land acquisition, etc but my gut is that nine months time is a very short time for the things you list.
    You know what, it's probably too late to do it properly. But that's no excuse for not starting.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    TOPPING said:

    Remainer dogs

    They're a real menace.
    image
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,973
    edited June 2018
    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1006156833554358272

    Really? Tories are taking comfort from the polls? I thought it was more they are so terrified of losing to Corbyn that they will do virtually anything to avoid an early GE.

    I think the comfort is coming from the collapse in Corbyn’s ratings.
    Huge mistake. He is one campaign away from winning.

    As was mentioned this morning, quite likely it is housing (or lack of) that will sink Tories in the end.
    Plus there’s the unspoken belief that we can’t run a campaign as bad as last time.
    You mean the campaign where the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1983 and 318 seats, their second highest number of MPs in 25 years?

    For all the bad campaign there have been far worse results than that
    Aka the campaign that saw Mrs May lose the Tory majority against the IRA supporting Trot.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    blueblue said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    To be fair to the EU, Barnier has played an absolute blinder in the negotiations. No doubt he has had the stronger hand but fair he's played it to more or less maximum advantage.

    Part of that is down to the ineptitude of May and Hammond not getting our WTO ducks in a row. They've systematically undermined our negotiating position and strengthened our opponent's one. They are without a doubt the worst peace time leadership duo we've ever had. Worse than Brown or Blair IMO.
    What exactly would WTO ducks in a row have meant? How many billions would we have had to devote to do it properly?
    We estimated between £7bn in one off subsidies and around £3bn in recurring costs to deal with customs issues (a figure supported by the Swiss foreign minister, the French ports company and the Dutch ports company, but not HMRC who estimated a laughable £20bn facilitation cost) before the vote.

    Not exactly an earth shattering figure, one year's worth of net contributions if you want to put it into context.
    Well of course counter-factuals are fun but when would this have happened? Before or after the GE? And would the GE have been called? Because if so, then Lab would have had a field day with the £20bn however laughable it might have been.
    Tbh, if I were in charge I would have purged the civil service of the remainers on day zero keeping only a few in key positions to provide insight into what the EU would do in response to certain actions and plans. The HMRC figure is so utterly ridiculous that one can only question the motives of who wrote it.
    Well we would each of us have had a much better last two years if we had been in charge.

    As for purging the HMRC this was the thrust of Daniel Hannan's article in the Telegraph yesterday. I mean will there be any time that Leavers blame Leavers for the situation we are currently in rather than Remainer MPs, Remainer civil servants, Remainer dogs, Remainer homework...?
    Your side controls No 10, No 11, the Home Office and all of the major government agencies. Your side is also making a complete ballsup of Brexit either by design or by incompetence. I don't think that can be disputed.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    justin124 said:

    RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    Now changed to
    Tories 8/13,
    LibDems 6/5

    Now it's
    Tories 4/6
    LibDems 11/10

    ... the power of PoliticalBetting.
    Perhaps somebody has seen the postal votes!?
    Curious timing. Would have thought a PB thread moving the markets be far more likely.
    Quite a few scrutineers will have seen the postal votes being verified over the last week. On a low turnout such votes will represent a high proportion of the total votes cast.
    Yes, but you need to be careful - all the evidence from twitter pointed to very poor postals for Labour at GE17, and they probably were.. (I saw one specific subsequently deleted tweet about Penistone & Stocksbridge being bad for instance)
    But the "on the day" turnout was much better for Corbyn I think.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In the event of NO DEAL, the UK would abide by its commitments, and would not erect infrastructure on the NI border.

    The onus would then fall on the EU (and specifically the Dublin government). Would they start building customs post on the Irish side of the frontier, would they be unrolling barbed wire across the roads of east Donegal and north Louth?

    No, of course they would not. It's a load of bluffing nonsense. Neither side would do anything, and this quasi-legal anomaly would be quietly accepted by everyone, as being superior in all ways to a hard frontier.

    The EU is understandably using the NI problem to exert maximum leverage, at this crucial moment of negotiation, but as we near the doomsday event itself, it would become clear it was and is a bluff.

    But it is going to work. The UK as mentioned cannot be in a position whereby one outcome of a negotiation would be a hard border.

    People say "let the EU put up a border on their side" as if the physical location were miles away and that it wouldn't be, er, a hard NI border. And thus what would the government's chances of survival be if they were to abnegate their responsibility (let's call it control) of the northern Irish border?
    Yawn. You know I am right. If there was NO DEAL, neither side would erect a border.

    You might however be right that TMay will fold, but even that I doubt, or rather, I'm not sure it matters. No UK PM (even Corbyn) could accept a border down the Irish Sea. Folding therefore means the UK entire staying, for an indefinite period, in the SM and CU and accepting FoM. If she agrees to that there is a VERY strong chance she will be deposed as leader.

    What would he or she do? Dunno. By that point the economic pain would be making itself felt across northwest Europe. Perhaps the EU will see sense and compromise.
    NPXMPX2 told us yesterday that there could easily be a border in the Irish Sea if Lab were in power. Get with the plan, and Nick has been a Maoist Momentumer for 20 years so he should know.

    Also, I said you *could* be right. But the EU isn't as sensible as you or me. They would roll up to the negotiations, quote EU Lex 1200543T/PRO/UKNI/03/HBORDER and May would quiche. Instantly.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Mortimer said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    blueblue said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    To be fair to the EU, Barnier has played an absolute blinder in the negotiations. No doubt he has had the stronger hand but fair he's played it to more or less maximum advantage.

    Part of that is down to the ineptitude of May and Hammond not getting our WTO ducks in a row. They've systematically undermined our negotiating position and strengthened our opponent's one. They are without a doubt the worst peace time leadership duo we've ever had. Worse than Brown or Blair IMO.
    What exactly would WTO ducks in a row have meant? How many billions would we have had to devote to do it properly?
    We estimated between £7bn in one off subsidies and around £3bn in recurring costs to deal with customs issues (a figure supported by the Swiss foreign minister, the French ports company and the Dutch ports company, but not HMRC who estimated a laughable £20bn facilitation cost) before the vote.

    Not exactly an earth shattering figure, one year's worth of net contributions if you want to put it into context.
    Well of course counter-factuals are fun but when would this have happened? Before or after the GE? And would the GE have been called? Because if so, then Lab would have had a field day with the £20bn however laughable it might have been.
    Tbh, if I were in charge I would have purged the civil service of the remainers on day zero keeping only a few in key positions to provide insight into what the EU would do in response to certain actions and plans. The HMRC figure is so utterly ridiculous that one can only question the motives of who wrote it.
    I would have taken all but token competence away from the FO with regards to Europe on day 1. Yet again their approach re our position in the world had failed, just as in the early 80s and late 30s
    Good plan. Perhaps set up a whole new department. Under a Leaver. Someone who would brook no nonsense, a hard hitting, common sense kind of guy. Perhaps with some military service as well to underline his credentials.

    We could have called the new department...oh...er...hmm...Department for...Department for Exit...oh I give up.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:
    The right thing to do is to rescue and feed them, and then redeposit them on the coast of North Africa.
    Pretty much agree with that.

    However, I'd also add that the UN should make people trafficking an 'international' crime. Anyone involved with trafficking people, and especially those making the money from it, will, if caught, be tried by the UN under an international law.
    I don't think you can get international law to work like that :)

    But what you could do is pass laws in Italy, Greece, Spain, Malta, Cyprus, etc., that make people trafficking a criminal offence. And arrest and prosecute the captains and crew of ships who bring people over (as well as confiscating their ships).
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    edited June 2018
    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In the event of NO DEAL, the UK would abide by its commitments, and would not erect infrastructure on the NI border.

    The onus would then fall on the EU (and specifically the Dublin government). Would they start building customs post on the Irish side of the frontier, would they be unrolling barbed wire across the roads of east Donegal and north Louth?

    No, of course they would not. It's a load of bluffing nonsense. Neither side would do anything, and this quasi-legal anomaly would be quietly accepted by everyone, as being superior in all ways to a hard frontier.

    The EU is understandably using the NI problem to exert maximum leverage, at this crucial moment of negotiation, but as we near the doomsday event itself, it would become clear it was and is a bluff.

    But it is going to work. The UK as mentioned cannot be in a position whereby one outcome of a negotiation would be a hard border.

    People say "let the EU put up a border on their side" as if the physical location were miles away and that it wouldn't be, er, a hard NI border. And thus what would the government's chances of survival be if they were to abnegate their responsibility (let's call it control) of the northern Irish border?
    Yawn. You know I am right. If there was NO DEAL, neither side would erect a border.

    You might however be right that TMay will fold, but even that I doubt, or rather, I'm not sure it matters. No UK PM (even Corbyn) could accept a border down the Irish Sea. Folding therefore means the UK entire staying, for an indefinite period, in the SM and CU and accepting FoM. If she agrees to that there is a VERY strong chance she will be deposed as leader.

    What would he or she do? Dunno. By that point the economic pain would be making itself felt across northwest Europe. Perhaps the EU will see sense and compromise.
    NPXMPX2 told us yesterday that there could easily be a border in the Irish Sea if Lab were in power. Get with the plan, and Nick has been a Maoist Momentumer for 20 years so he should know.

    Also, I said you *could* be right. But the EU isn't as sensible as you or me. They would roll up to the negotiations, quote EU Lex 1200543T/PRO/UKNI/03/HBORDER and May would quiche. Instantly.
    Then let them put up a border which prevents Irish people in NI from going to Ireland. In fact if I were Theresa I would double dare them. Alas, I am not.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,545
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:
    The right thing to do is to rescue and feed them, and then redeposit them on the coast of North Africa.
    Pretty much agree with that.

    However, I'd also add that the UN should make people trafficking an 'international' crime. Anyone involved with trafficking people, and especially those making the money from it, will, if caught, be tried by the UN under an international law.
    As if the UN care about that, they are encouraging these people to make the trip to Europe. I think the charities who help them should be prosecuted for aiding people trafficking.
    I think your last sentence is a little stupid: the charities are acting to plug a need that national and international law leaves behind.

    In fact, I'd argue it's utterly stupid.

    And I said it is what the UN *should* do. They won't, but perhaps not for the tinfoil-hat reason you espouse.
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 1,112
    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1006156833554358272

    Really? Tories are taking comfort from the polls? I thought it was more they are so terrified of losing to Corbyn that they will do virtually anything to avoid an early GE.

    I think the comfort is coming from the collapse in Corbyn’s ratings.
    Huge mistake. He is one campaign away from winning.

    As was mentioned this morning, quite likely it is housing (or lack of) that will sink Tories in the end.
    Plus there’s the unspoken belief that we can’t run a campaign as bad as last time.
    You mean the campaign where the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1983 and 318 seats, their second highest number of MPs in 25 years?

    For all the bad campaign there have been far worse results than that
    Losing seats to an opposition led by Corbyn takes some beating regardless of voteshare and number of seats
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:
    The right thing to do is to rescue and feed them, and then redeposit them on the coast of North Africa.
    Pretty much agree with that.

    However, I'd also add that the UN should make people trafficking an 'international' crime. Anyone involved with trafficking people, and especially those making the money from it, will, if caught, be tried by the UN under an international law.
    As if the UN care about that, they are encouraging these people to make the trip to Europe. I think the charities who help them should be prosecuted for aiding people trafficking.
    I don't think the UN is a cohesive body that is capable of having motive.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,715
    midwinter said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1006156833554358272

    Really? Tories are taking comfort from the polls? I thought it was more they are so terrified of losing to Corbyn that they will do virtually anything to avoid an early GE.

    I think the comfort is coming from the collapse in Corbyn’s ratings.
    Huge mistake. He is one campaign away from winning.

    As was mentioned this morning, quite likely it is housing (or lack of) that will sink Tories in the end.
    Plus there’s the unspoken belief that we can’t run a campaign as bad as last time.
    You mean the campaign where the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1983 and 318 seats, their second highest number of MPs in 25 years?

    For all the bad campaign there have been far worse results than that
    Losing seats to an opposition led by Corbyn takes some beating regardless of voteshare and number of seats
    No it does not, Michael Howard gained more seats than Corbyn did which was also the third consecutive general election where the governing party won most seats
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:
    The right thing to do is to rescue and feed them, and then redeposit them on the coast of North Africa.
    Pretty much agree with that.

    However, I'd also add that the UN should make people trafficking an 'international' crime. Anyone involved with trafficking people, and especially those making the money from it, will, if caught, be tried by the UN under an international law.
    As if the UN care about that, they are encouraging these people to make the trip to Europe. I think the charities who help them should be prosecuted for aiding people trafficking.
    I think your last sentence is a little stupid: the charities are acting to plug a need that national and international law leaves behind.

    In fact, I'd argue it's utterly stupid.

    And I said it is what the UN *should* do. They won't, but perhaps not for the tinfoil-hat reason you espouse.
    The charities are aiding people trafficking whenever they "rescue" a dinghy that has been sunk on purpose. They all need to be prosecuted on that basis.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    blueblue said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    To be fair to the EU, Barnier has played an absolute blinder in the negotiations. No doubt he has had the stronger hand but fair he's played it to more or less maximum advantage.

    Part of that is down to the ineptitude of May and Hammond not getting our WTO ducks in a row. They've systematically undermined our negotiating position and strengthened our opponent's one. They are without a doubt the worst peace time leadership duo we've ever had. Worse than Brown or Blair IMO.
    What exactly would WTO ducks in a row have meant? How many billions would we have had to devote to do it properly?
    We estimated between £7bn in one off subsidies and around £3bn in recurring costs to deal with customs issues (a figure supported by the Swiss foreign minister, the French ports company and the Dutch ports company, but not HMRC who estimated a laughable £20bn facilitation cost) before the vote.

    Not exactly an earth shattering figure, one year's worth of net contributions if you want to put it into context.
    Well of course counter-factuals are fun but when would this have happened? Before or after the GE? And would the GE have been called? Because if so, then Lab would have had a field day with the £20bn however laughable it might have been.
    Tbh, if I were in charge I would have purged the civil service of the remainers on day zero keeping only a few in key positions to provide insight into what the EU would do in response to certain actions and plans. The HMRC figure is so utterly ridiculous that one can only question the motives of who wrote it.
    Well we would each of us have had a much better last two years if we had been in charge.

    As for purging the HMRC this was the thrust of Daniel Hannan's article in the Telegraph yesterday. I mean will there be any time that Leavers blame Leavers for the situation we are currently in rather than Remainer MPs, Remainer civil servants, Remainer dogs, Remainer homework...?
    Your side controls No 10, No 11, the Home Office and all of the major government agencies. Your side is also making a complete ballsup of Brexit either by design or by incompetence. I don't think that can be disputed.
    Yes agree. Brexit. Just like communism under Mao, Gheorghiu-Dej, the Khmer Rouge: great idea just the wrong people in charge.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In the event of NO DEAL, the UK would abide by its commitments, and would not erect infrastructure on the NI border.

    The onus would then fall on the EU (and specifically the Dublin government). Would they start building customs post on the Irish side of the frontier, would they be unrolling barbed wire across the roads of east Donegal and north Louth?

    No, of course they would not. It's a load of bluffing nonsense. Neither side would do anything, and this quasi-legal anomaly would be quietly accepted by everyone, as being superior in all ways to a hard frontier.

    The EU is understandably using the NI problem to exert maximum leverage, at this crucial moment of negotiation, but as we near the doomsday event itself, it would become clear it was and is a bluff.

    But it is going to work. The UK as mentioned cannot be in a position whereby one outcome of a negotiation would be a hard border.

    People say "let the EU put up a border on their side" as if the physical location were miles away and that it wouldn't be, er, a hard NI border. And thus what would the government's chances of survival be if they were to abnegate their responsibility (let's call it control) of the northern Irish border?
    Yawn. You know I am right. If there was NO DEAL, neither side would erect a border.

    You might however be right that TMay will fold, but even that I doubt, or rather, I'm not sure it matters. No UK PM (even Corbyn) could accept a border down the Irish Sea. Folding therefore means the UK entire staying, for an indefinite period, in the SM and CU and accepting FoM. If she agrees to that there is a VERY strong chance she will be deposed as leader.

    What would he or she do? Dunno. By that point the economic pain would be making itself felt across northwest Europe. Perhaps the EU will see sense and compromise.
    NPXMPX2 told us yesterday that there could easily be a border in the Irish Sea if Lab were in power. Get with the plan, and Nick has been a Maoist Momentumer for 20 years so he should know.

    Also, I said you *could* be right. But the EU isn't as sensible as you or me. They would roll up to the negotiations, quote EU Lex 1200543T/PRO/UKNI/03/HBORDER and May would quiche. Instantly.
    Then let them put up a border which prevents Irish people in NI from going to Ireland. In fact if I were Theresa I would double dare them. Alas, I am not.
    is why you're not a politician.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In the event of NO DEAL, the UK would abide by its commitments, and would not erect infrastructure on the NI border.

    The onus would then fall on the EU (and specifically the Dublin government). Would they start building customs post on the Irish side of the frontier, would they be unrolling barbed wire across the roads of east Donegal and north Louth?

    No, of course they would not. It's a load of bluffing nonsense. Neither side would do anything, and this quasi-legal anomaly would be quietly accepted by everyone, as being superior in all ways to a hard frontier.

    The EU is understandably using the NI problem to exert maximum leverage, at this crucial moment of negotiation, but as we near the doomsday event itself, it would become clear it was and is a bluff.

    But it is going to work. The UK as mentioned cannot be in a position whereby one outcome of a negotiation would be a hard border.

    People say "let the EU put up a border on their side" as if the physical location were miles away and that it wouldn't be, er, a hard NI border. And thus what would the government's chances of survival be if they were to abnegate their responsibility (let's call it control) of the northern Irish border?
    Yawn. You know I am right. If there was NO DEAL, neither side would erect a border.

    You might however be right that TMay will fold, but even that I doubt, or rather, I'm not sure it matters. No UK PM (even Corbyn) could accept a border down the Irish Sea. Folding therefore means the UK entire staying, for an indefinite period, in the SM and CU and accepting FoM. If she agrees to that there is a VERY strong chance she will be deposed as leader.

    What would he or she do? Dunno. By that point the economic pain would be making itself felt across northwest Europe. Perhaps the EU will see sense and compromise.
    NPXMPX2 told us yesterday that there could easily be a border in the Irish Sea if Lab were in power. Get with the plan, and Nick has been a Maoist Momentumer for 20 years so he should know.

    Also, I said you *could* be right. But the EU isn't as sensible as you or me. They would roll up to the negotiations, quote EU Lex 1200543T/PRO/UKNI/03/HBORDER and May would quiche. Instantly.
    And then TMay would be deposed, and a new leader would be requested to show some balls, and tell the EU to shove it.

    Then what?
    Lab govt.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    edited June 2018
    TOPPING said:

    Yes agree. Brexit. Just like communism under Mao, Gheorghiu-Dej, the Khmer Rouge: great idea just the wrong people in charge.

    Sort of like the EU then I guess. A solid idea but absolutely atrocious in practice. Though I think Brexit would be fine in the hands of pragmatic leavers and remainers, not the ideological remainers we have in charge now. Nothing can save the EU.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In the event of NO DEAL, the UK would abide by its commitments, and would not erect infrastructure on the NI border.

    The onus would then fall on the EU (and specifically the Dublin government). Would they start building customs post on the Irish side of the frontier, would they be unrolling barbed wire across the roads of east Donegal and north Louth?

    No, of course they would not. It's a load of bluffing nonsense. Neither side would do anything, and this quasi-legal anomaly would be quietly accepted by everyone, as being superior in all ways to a hard frontier.

    The EU is understandably using the NI problem to exert maximum leverage, at this crucial moment of negotiation, but as we near the doomsday event itself, it would become clear it was and is a bluff.

    But it is going to work. The UK as mentioned cannot be in a position whereby one outcome of a negotiation would be a hard border.

    People say "let the EU put up a border on their side" as if the physical location were miles away and that it wouldn't be, er, a hard NI border. And thus what would the government's chances of survival be if they were to abnegate their responsibility (let's call it control) of the northern Irish border?
    The government would have a good chance of survival. If checks are put in [by the Irish government] on the Irish side of the border then why should the British government fall over it?

    It is the Irish government that is hysterically trying to get lack of border posts guaranteed by threatening border posts.

    This is like a game of Russian Roulette where the Irish have taken a loaded weapon, grabbed us in a headlock and aimed the gun at both of our heads and said "make a deal I want or I fire". The Irish aren't going to fire and we know it but May and Robbins wants the deal so badly the bluff is working.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    blueblue said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    To be fair to the EU, Barnier has played an absolute blinder in the negotiations. No doubt he has had the stronger hand but fair he's played it to more or less maximum advantage.

    Part of that is down to the ineptitude of May and Hammond not getting our WTO ducks in a row. They've systematically undermined our negotiating position and strengthened our opponent's one. They are without a doubt the worst peace time leadership duo we've ever had. Worse than Brown or Blair IMO.
    What exactly would WTO ducks in a row have meant? How many billions would we have had to devote to do it properly?
    We estimated between £7bn in one off subsidies and around £3bn in recurring costs to deal with customs issues (a figure supported by the Swiss foreign minister, the French ports company and the Dutch ports company, but not HMRC who estimated a laughable £20bn facilitation cost) before the vote.

    Not exactly an earth shattering figure, one year's worth of net contributions if you want to put it into context.
    Well of course counter-factuals are fun but when would this have happened? Before or after the GE? And would the GE have been called? Because if so, then Lab would have had a field day with the £20bn however laughable it might have been.
    Tbh, if I were in charge I would have purged the civil service of the remainers on day zero keeping only a few in key positions to provide insight into what the EU would do in response to certain actions and plans. The HMRC figure is so utterly ridiculous that one can only question the motives of who wrote it.
    Well we would each of us have had a much better last two years if we had been in charge.

    As for purging the HMRC this was the thrust of Daniel Hannan's article in the Telegraph yesterday. I mean will there be any time that Leavers blame Leavers for the situation we are currently in rather than Remainer MPs, Remainer civil servants, Remainer dogs, Remainer homework...?
    Your side controls No 10, No 11, the Home Office and all of the major government agencies. Your side is also making a complete ballsup of Brexit either by design or by incompetence. I don't think that can be disputed.
    Not my side, Mr Max. It is the Tories who are in charge of everything. I don`t think there is any dispute about the incompetent mess they (that is you, IIRC) are making of everything.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    Now changed to
    Tories 8/13,
    LibDems 6/5

    Now it's
    Tories 4/6
    LibDems 11/10

    ... the power of PoliticalBetting.
    Perhaps somebody has seen the postal votes!?
    Curious timing. Would have thought a PB thread moving the markets be far more likely.
    Quite a few scrutineers will have seen the postal votes being verified over the last week. On a low turnout such votes will represent a high proportion of the total votes cast.
    Yet the odds changed over the course of this thread being up, rather than over the last week.
    Thr article was also cited elsewhere several hours ago. How accurate or genuine the LibDem canvassing returns are is another matter - very different to an independent opinion poll. It could be an attempt to squeeze the Tory vote on tactical grounds - but the poential for that is likely to be limited at this stage because so many votes have already been cast by post.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,715
    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In theme clear it was and is a bluff.

    But it is going to work. The UK as mentioned cannot be in a position whereby one outcome of a negotiation would be a hard border.

    People say "let the EU put up a border on their side" as if the physical location were miles away and that it wouldn't be, er, a hard NI border. And thus what would the government's chances of survival be if they were to abnegate their responsibility (let's call it control) of the northern Irish border?
    Yawn. You know I am right. If there was NO DEAL, neither side would erect a border.

    You might however be right that TMay will fold, but even that I doubt, or rather, I'm not sure it matters. No UK PM (even Corbyn) could accept a border down the Irish Sea. Folding therefore means the entire UK staying, for an indefinite period, in the SM and CU and accepting FoM. If she agrees to that there is a VERY strong chance she will be deposed as leader.

    What would the new leader do? Dunno. By that point the economic pain would be making itself felt across northwest Europe. Perhaps the EU will see sense and compromise, mildly, on FoM.

    That really is all it takes for this whole fuck up to be unfucked. The EU just has to budge a few inches on FoM and the UK would happily sign a deal tomorrow. It's not like FoM is this sacred thing never before sullied by irregularities: for many years there was no FoM between eastern Europe and most of the rest of the EU. The UK, Ireland and Sweden were, ironically, the only rich EU countries which allowed FoM with the new Accession countries, from the off.

    The EU really is a ludicrous organisation.
    Yes and in Sweden the anti immigration Swedish Democrats took a shock lead in a poll last week
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited June 2018
    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    blueblue said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    To be fair to the EU, Barnier has played an absolute blinder in the negotiations. No doubt he has had the stronger hand but fair he's played it to more or less maximum advantage.

    Part of that is down to the ineptitude of May and Hammond not getting our WTO ducks in a row. They've systematically undermined our negotiating position and strengthened our opponent's one. They are without a doubt the worst peace time leadership duo we've ever had. Worse than Brown or Blair IMO.
    What exactly would WTO ducks in a row have meant? How many billions would we have had to devote to do it properly?
    We estimated between £7bn in one ore the vote.

    Not exactly an earth shattering figure, one year's worth of net contributions if you want to put it into context.
    Well of course counter-factuals are fun but when would this have happened? Before or after the GE? And would the GE have been called? Because if so, then Lab would have had a field day with the £20bn however laughable it might have been.
    Tbh, if I were in charge I would have purged the civil service of the remainers on day zero keeping only a few in key positions to provide insight into what the EU would do in response to certain actions and plans. The HMRC figure is so utterly ridiculous that one can only question the motives of who wrote it.
    Well we would each of us have had a much better last two years if we had been in charge.

    As for purging the HMRC this was the thrust of Daniel Hannan's article in the Telegraph yesterday. I mean will there be any time that Leavers blame Leavers for the situation we are currently in rather than Remainer MPs, Remainer civil servants, Remainer dogs, Remainer homework...?
    Your side controls No 10, No 11, the Home Office and all of the major government agencies. Your side is also making a complete ballsup of Brexit either by design or by incompetence. I don't think that can be disputed.
    Yes agree. Brexit. Just like communism under Mao, Gheorghiu-Dej, the Khmer Rouge: great idea just the wrong people in charge.
    Sort of like the EU then I guess. A solid idea but absolutely atrocious in practice. Though I think Brexit would be fine in the hands of pragmatic leavers and remainers, not the ideological remainers we have in charge now.
    At least you accept that the EU is a great idea.

    Communism and Brexit are shit.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    edited June 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    justin124 said:

    RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    Now changed to
    Tories 8/13,
    LibDems 6/5

    Now it's
    Tories 4/6
    LibDems 11/10

    ... the power of PoliticalBetting.
    Perhaps somebody has seen the postal votes!?
    Curious timing. Would have thought a PB thread moving the markets be far more likely.
    Quite a few scrutineers will have seen the postal votes being verified over the last week. On a low turnout such votes will represent a high proportion of the total votes cast.
    Yes, but you need to be careful - all the evidence from twitter pointed to very poor postals for Labour at GE17, and they probably were.. (I saw one specific subsequently deleted tweet about Penistone & Stocksbridge being bad for instance)
    But the "on the day" turnout was much better for Corbyn I think.
    The Tory lead fell steadily, so the early postals probably would have looked better than proved to be the case.

    From polling, it looked as if Labour's support had peaked at c.36% a week before polling day, but in reality, it was increasing.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In the event of NO DEAL, the UK would abide by its commitments, and would not erect infrastructure on the NI border.

    The onus would then fall on the EU (and specifically the Dublin government). Would they start building customs post on the Irish side of the frontier, would they be unrolling barbed wire across the roads of east Donegal and north Louth?

    No, of course they would not. It's a load of bluffing nonsense. Neither side would do anything, and this quasi-legal anomaly would be quietly accepted by everyone, as being superior in all ways to a hard frontier.

    The EU is understandably using the NI problem to exert maximum leverage, at this crucial moment of negotiation, but as we near the doomsday event itself, it would become clear it was and is a bluff.

    But it is going to work. The UK as mentioned cannot be in a position whereby one outcome of a negotiation would be a hard border.

    People say "let the EU put up a border on their side" as if the physical location were miles away and that it wouldn't be, er, a hard NI border. And thus what would the government's chances of survival be if they were to abnegate their responsibility (let's call it control) of the northern Irish border?
    Yawn. You know I am right. If there was NO DEAL, neither side would erect a border.

    You might however be right that TMay will fold, but even that I doubt, or rather, I'm not sure it matters. No UK PM (even Corbyn) could accept a border down the Irish Sea. Folding therefore means the UK entire staying, for an indefinite period, in the SM and CU and accepting FoM. If she agrees to that there is a VERY strong chance she will be deposed as leader.

    What would he or she do? Dunno. By that point the economic pain would be making itself felt across northwest Europe. Perhaps the EU will see sense and compromise.
    NPXMPX2 told us yesterday that there could easily be a border in the Irish Sea if Lab were in power. Get with the plan, and Nick has been a Maoist Momentumer for 20 years so he should know.

    Also, I said you *could* be right. But the EU isn't as sensible as you or me. They would roll up to the negotiations, quote EU Lex 1200543T/PRO/UKNI/03/HBORDER and May would quiche. Instantly.
    And then TMay would be deposed, and a new leader would be requested to show some balls, and tell the EU to shove it.

    Then what?
    Lab govt.

    Getting rid of TMay doesn't force a GE.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In the event of NO DEAL, the UK would abide by its commitments, and would not erect infrastructure on the NI border.

    The onus would then fall on the EU (and specifically the Dublin government). Would they start building customs post on the Irish side of the frontier, would they be unrolling barbed wire across the roads of east Donegal and north Louth?

    No, of course they would not. It's a load of bluffing nonsense. Neither side would do anything, and this quasi-legal anomaly would be quietly accepted by everyone, as being superior in all ways to a hard frontier.

    The EU is understandably using the NI problem to exert maximum leverage, at this crucial moment of negotiation, but as we near the doomsday event itself, it would become clear it was and is a bluff.

    But it is going to work. The UK as mentioned cannot be in a position whereby one outcome of a negotiation would be a hard border.

    People say "let the EU put up a border on their side" as if the physical location were miles away and that it wouldn't be, er, a hard NI border. And thus what would the government's chances of survival be if they were to abnegate their responsibility (let's call it control) of the northern Irish border?
    Yawn. You know I am right. If there was NO DEAL, neither side would erect a border.

    You might however be right that TMay will fold, but even that I doubt, or rather, I'm not sure it matters. No UK PM (even Corbyn) could accept a border down the Irish Sea. Folding therefore means the UK entire staying, for an indefinite period, in the SM and CU and accepting FoM. If she agrees to that there is a VERY strong chance she will be deposed as leader.

    What would he or she do? Dunno. By that point the economic pain would be making itself felt across northwest Europe. Perhaps the EU will see sense and compromise.
    NPXMPX2 told us yesterday that there could easily be a border in the Irish Sea if Lab were in power. Get with the plan, and Nick has been a Maoist Momentumer for 20 years so he should know.

    Also, I said you *could* be right. But the EU isn't as sensible as you or me. They would roll up to the negotiations, quote EU Lex 1200543T/PRO/UKNI/03/HBORDER and May would quiche. Instantly.
    And then TMay would be deposed, and a new leader would be requested to show some balls, and tell the EU to shove it.

    Then what?
    Lab govt.

    Getting rid of TMay doesn't force a GE.

    Getting rid of TMay and replacing her with someone who tells the EU to shove it probably would.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    justin124 said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:
    Clear from Barnier's slides that he's not going to accept anything short of NI in both the CU and SM. In other words not accepting anything short of NI remaining in the EU in all but name.

    No, absolutely not. Time to walk away. Any East/West border like he's proposing is as much a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as a North/South one. If Barnier won't agree to a deal its time to walk and once the hard border is erected along the NI border we can start negotiations as equals.
    An East/West border as a result of NI staying in the SM/CU is not Barnier’s proposal but a consequence of Brexit. If that’s unacceptable you have a choice between vassal state Brexit and no Brexit.
    Nope. The other choice - and the one that will become increasingly attractive if the EU continues on this course is No deal. In which case the border will be between North and South and will be in whatever form each side chooses to impose.
    No UK govt will allow a border between North and South, as the EU no doubt it aware. It is an asymmetrical situation. They can threaten something they don't want and they have the power to impose, and the UK govt will acquiesce.

    That's just the reality. Not to say it is a reason we shouldn't have voted Leave, just to say it is a very real issue that perhaps was not given sufficient airtime prior to the vote.
    No UK govt will allow a border in the Irish Sea, either.

    It's an impasse. No Deal looms.
    1. Wholly electronic border
    2. CU/SM whole UK membership

    There can’t be a no deal for precisely the no hard border reason
    If there is no agreement then there will be a hard border. Saying it cannot happen is meaningless.
    Maybe so - but there would be no reason why the UK should help to build it. That burden would lie elsewhere.
    Oh I agree. I was just replying to the rather strange suggestion that a deal has to be done because if the border. The border is a consequence of the outcome of the talent a determining factor.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Pulpstar said:

    justin124 said:

    RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    Now changed to
    Tories 8/13,
    LibDems 6/5

    Now it's
    Tories 4/6
    LibDems 11/10

    ... the power of PoliticalBetting.
    Perhaps somebody has seen the postal votes!?
    Curious timing. Would have thought a PB thread moving the markets be far more likely.
    Quite a few scrutineers will have seen the postal votes being verified over the last week. On a low turnout such votes will represent a high proportion of the total votes cast.
    Yes, but you need to be careful - all the evidence from twitter pointed to very poor postals for Labour at GE17, and they probably were.. (I saw one specific subsequently deleted tweet about Penistone & Stocksbridge being bad for instance)
    But the "on the day" turnout was much better for Corbyn I think.
    Labour did perform poorly in the Penistone seat!
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 1,755
    SeanT said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    We can’t.

    It would be the ultimate resignation of control (remember that?) for us to commit to no hard border, which we have done, and then allow a foreign power to erect one.

    That's their choice, if they want to put up a border to block people/goods in NI from crossing into RoI it really isn't anything to do with us. We can choose not to police the border coming into NI (or the UK in general) and most people will live with that. I find it very, very difficult to believe that the Shinners would allow the EU to erect any kind of border between RoI and NI, especially if the UK government chose not to. A one way border which makes it more difficult for Northern Irish to go to the Republic. Think about how that would go down in the Republic, the EU would literally be cleaving NI from the South and we don't have the power to compel the EU to act in any other direction. One wonders whether the likes of Junker would need to fear IRA bombs.
    In reality, I think neither side would erect a border. The unpoliced, unmonitored NI/Eire frontier would just become some massive EU anomaly that everyone would choose to ignore, for fear of something worse. Probably there would be more random customs checks elsewhere, in both NI and RoI, but it would all be subtle and discreet.

    Entire states, devoid of logic, have been created for similar reasons, cf Belgium.
    Such an 'anomaly' could exist or be tolerated as long as it didn't provide a back door into the EU for high tariff goods. Currently, most of these are agricultural products and probably quite bulky - perhaps an informal monitoring by EU officials of volumes of goods at point of arrival in NI/Eire?
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    Brexit is a bag of bollocks!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In the event of NO DEAL, the UK would abide by its commitments, and would not erect infrastructure on the NI border.

    The onus would then fall on the EU (and specifically the Dublin government). Would they start building customs post on the Irish side of the frontier, would they be unrolling barbed wire across the roads of east Donegal and north Louth?

    No, of course they would not. It's a load of bluffing nonsense. Neither side would do anything, and this quasi-legal anomaly would be quietly accepted by everyone, as being superior in all ways to a hard frontier.

    The EU is understandably using the NI problem to exert maximum leverage, at this crucial moment of negotiation, but as we near the doomsday event itself, it would become clear it was and is a bluff.

    But it is going to work. The UK as mentioned cannot be in a position whereby one outcome of a negotiation would be a hard border.

    People say "let the EU put up a border on their side" as if the physical location were miles away and that it wouldn't be, er, a hard NI border. And thus what would the government's chances of survival be if they were to abnegate their responsibility (let's call it control) of the northern Irish border?
    The government would have a good chance of survival. If checks are put in [by the Irish government] on the Irish side of the border then why should the British government fall over it?

    It is the Irish government that is hysterically trying to get lack of border posts guaranteed by threatening border posts.

    This is like a game of Russian Roulette where the Irish have taken a loaded weapon, grabbed us in a headlock and aimed the gun at both of our heads and said "make a deal I want or I fire". The Irish aren't going to fire and we know it but May and Robbins wants the deal so badly the bluff is working.
    IMHO, what the Irish really want is to keep us in the Customs Union and Single Market. The Border issue is a means to that end.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    blueblue said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    To be fair to the EU, Barnier has played an absolute blinder in the negotiations. No doubt he has had the stronger hand but fair he's played it to more or less maximum advantage.

    Part of that is down to the ineptitude of May and Hammond not getting our WTO ducks in a row. They've systematically undermined our negotiating position and strengthened our opponent's one. They are without a doubt the worst peace time leadership duo we've ever had. Worse than Brown or Blair IMO.
    What exactly would WTO ducks in a row have meant? How many billions would we have had to devote to do it properly?
    We estimated between £7bn in one off subsidies and around £3bn in recurring costs to deal with customs issues (a figure supported by the Swiss foreign minister, the French ports company and the Dutch ports company, but not HMRC who estimated a laughable £20bn facilitation cost) before the vote.

    Not exactly an earth shattering figure, one year's worth of net contributions if you want to put it into context.
    Well of course counter-factuals are fun but when would this have happened? Before or after the GE? And would the GE have been called? Because if so, then Lab would have had a field day with the £20bn however laughable it might have been.
    Tbh, if I were in charge I would have purged the civil service of the remainers on day zero keeping only a few in key positions to provide insight into what the EU would do in response to certain actions and plans. The HMRC figure is so utterly ridiculous that one can only question the motives of who wrote it.
    Well we would each of us have had a much better last two years if we had been in charge.

    As for purging the HMRC this was the thrust of Daniel Hannan's article in the Telegraph yesterday. I mean will there be any time that Leavers blame Leavers for the situation we are currently in rather than Remainer MPs, Remainer civil servants, Remainer dogs, Remainer homework...?
    Your side controls No 10, No 11, the Home Office and all of the major government agencies. Your side is also making a complete ballsup of Brexit either by design or by incompetence. I don't think that can be disputed.
    Yes agree. Brexit. Just like communism under Mao, Gheorghiu-Dej, the Khmer Rouge: great idea just the wrong people in charge.
    Actually the reality is that the EU is a bad idea no matter who is in charge.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Even the normally vaguely sensible PB brexiteers have gone full on crackerjack-mad-bonkers today.

    Must be the high-UV sunshine or some other form of atmospheric quirk.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In the event of NO DEAL, the UK would abide by its commitments, and would not erect infrastructure on the NI border.

    The onus would then fall on the EU (and specifically the Dublin government). Would they start building customs post on the Irish side of the frontier, would they be unrolling barbed wire across the roads of east Donegal and north Louth?

    No, of course they would not. It's a load of bluffing nonsense. Neither side would do anything, and this quasi-legal anomaly would be quietly accepted by everyone, as being superior in all ways to a hard frontier.

    The EU is understandably using the NI problem to exert maximum leverage, at this crucial moment of negotiation, but as we near the doomsday event itself, it would become clear it was and is a bluff.

    But it is going to work. The UK as mentioned cannot be in a position whereby one outcome of a negotiation would be a hard border.

    People say "let the EU put up a border on their side" as if the physical location were miles away and that it wouldn't be, er, a hard NI border. And thus what would the government's chances of survival be if they were to abnegate their responsibility (let's call it control) of the northern Irish border?
    Yawn. You know I am right. If there was NO DEAL, neither side would erect a border.

    You might however be right that TMay will fold, but even that I doubt, or rather, I'm not sure it matters. No UK PM (even Corbyn) could accept a border down the Irish Sea. Folding therefore means the UK entire staying, for an indefinite period, in the SM and CU and accepting FoM. If she agrees to that there is a VERY strong chance she will be deposed as leader.

    What would he or she do? Dunno. By that point the economic pain would be making itself felt across northwest Europe. Perhaps the EU will see sense and compromise.
    NPXMPX2 told us yesterday that there could easily be a border in the Irish Sea if Lab were in power. Get with the plan, and Nick has been a Maoist Momentumer for 20 years so he should know.

    Also, I said you *could* be right. But the EU isn't as sensible as you or me. They would roll up to the negotiations, quote EU Lex 1200543T/PRO/UKNI/03/HBORDER and May would quiche. Instantly.
    And then TMay would be deposed, and a new leader would be requested to show some balls, and tell the EU to shove it.

    Then what?
    The EU would have to start talking as they don't actually want what they're threatening.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,715
    edited June 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:
    The right thing to do is to rescue and feed them, and then redeposit them on the coast of North Africa.
    Indeed, if today's welcome by the new PSOE Spanish PM for the migrant ship leads to an open door to North African migrants in Spain the PP will see a quicker revival than Lazarus
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In the event of NO DEAL, the UK would abide by its commitments, and would not erect infrastructure on the NI border.

    The onus would then fall on the EU (and specifically the Dublin government). Would they start building customs post on the Irish side of the frontier, would they be unrolling barbed wire across the roads of east Donegal and north Louth?

    No, of course they would not. It's a load of bluffing nonsense. Neither side would do anything, and this quasi-legal anomaly would be quietly accepted by everyone, as being superior in all ways to a hard frontier.

    The EU is understandably using the NI problem to exert maximum leverage, at this crucial moment of negotiation, but as we near the doomsday event itself, it would become clear it was and is a bluff.

    But it is going to work. The UK as mentioned cannot be in a position whereby one outcome of a negotiation would be a hard border.

    People say "let the EU put up a border on their side" as if the physical location were miles away and that it wouldn't be, er, a hard NI border. And thus what would the government's chances of survival be if they were to abnegate their responsibility (let's call it control) of the northern Irish border?
    The government would have a good chance of survival. If checks are put in [by the Irish government] on the Irish side of the border then why should the British government fall over it?

    It is the Irish government that is hysterically trying to get lack of border posts guaranteed by threatening border posts.

    This is like a game of Russian Roulette where the Irish have taken a loaded weapon, grabbed us in a headlock and aimed the gun at both of our heads and said "make a deal I want or I fire". The Irish aren't going to fire and we know it but May and Robbins wants the deal so badly the bluff is working.
    IMHO, what the Irish really want is to keep us in the Customs Union and Single Market. The Border issue is a means to that end.
    Completely agreed. They don't want us to leave the EU and are seeking to use the border issue to turn Brexit into BINO.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,545
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:
    The right thing to do is to rescue and feed them, and then redeposit them on the coast of North Africa.
    Pretty much agree with that.

    However, I'd also add that the UN should make people trafficking an 'international' crime. Anyone involved with trafficking people, and especially those making the money from it, will, if caught, be tried by the UN under an international law.
    As if the UN care about that, they are encouraging these people to make the trip to Europe. I think the charities who help them should be prosecuted for aiding people trafficking.
    I think your last sentence is a little stupid: the charities are acting to plug a need that national and international law leaves behind.

    In fact, I'd argue it's utterly stupid.

    And I said it is what the UN *should* do. They won't, but perhaps not for the tinfoil-hat reason you espouse.
    The charities are aiding people trafficking whenever they "rescue" a dinghy that has been sunk on purpose. They all need to be prosecuted on that basis.
    LOL. In fact, not 'LOL'. What you have just said is sick.

    I await you extending that to the RNLI or coastguard rescuing people off ships off our shores. How much training would a winchman need to check passports from the people they are rescuing?

    Not for the first time, you are being a froth-brained ass.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    justin124 said:

    RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    Now changed to
    Tories 8/13,
    LibDems 6/5

    Now it's
    Tories 4/6
    LibDems 11/10

    ... the power of PoliticalBetting.
    Perhaps somebody has seen the postal votes!?
    Curious timing. Would have thought a PB thread moving the markets be far more likely.
    Quite a few scrutineers will have seen the postal votes being verified over the last week. On a low turnout such votes will represent a high proportion of the total votes cast.
    Yet the odds changed over the course of this thread being up, rather than over the last week.
    Thr article was also cited elsewhere several hours ago. How accurate or genuine the LibDem canvassing returns are is another matter - very different to an independent opinion poll. It could be an attempt to squeeze the Tory vote on tactical grounds - but the poential for that is likely to be limited at this stage because so many votes have already been cast by post.
    As logical_song said, the power of PB.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In the event of NO DEAL, the UK would abide by its commitments, and would not erect infrastructure on the NI border.

    The onus would then fall on the EU (and specifically the Dublin government). Would they start building customs post on the Irish side of the frontier, would they be unrolling barbed wire across the roads of east Donegal and north Louth?

    No, of course they would not. It's a load of bluffing nonsense. Neither side would do anything, and this quasi-legal anomaly would be quietly accepted by everyone, as being superior in all ways to a hard frontier.

    The EU is understandably using the NI problem to exert maximum leverage, at this crucial moment of negotiation, but as we near the doomsday event itself, it would become clear it was and is a bluff.

    But it is going to work. The UK as mentioned cannot be in a position whereby one outcome of a negotiation would be a hard border.

    People say "let the EU put up a border on their side" as if the physical location were miles away and that it wouldn't be, er, a hard NI border. And thus what would the government's chances of survival be if they were to abnegate their responsibility (let's call it control) of the northern Irish border?
    Yawn. You know I am right. If there was NO DEAL, neither side would erect a border.

    You might however be right that TMay will fold, but even that I doubt, or rather, I'm not sure it matters. No UK PM (even Corbyn) could accept a border down the Irish Sea. Folding therefore means the UK entire staying, for an indefinite period, in the SM and CU and accepting FoM. If she agrees to that there is a VERY strong chance she will be deposed as leader.

    What would he or she do? Dunno. By that point the economic pain would be making itself felt across northwest Europe. Perhaps the EU will see sense and compromise.
    .
    And then TMay would be deposed, and a new leader would be requested to show some balls, and tell the EU to shove it.

    Then what?
    Lab govt.

    Getting rid of TMay doesn't force a GE.

    Getting rid of TMay and replacing her with someone who tells the EU to shove it probably would.
    There would still be no way that Tory MPs would support a Vote of No Confidence tabled in the Commons however chaotic things become.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    justin124 said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In the event of NO DEAL, the UK would abide by its commitments, and would not erect infrastructure on the NI border.

    The onus would then fall on the EU (and specifically the Dublin government). Would they start building customs post on the Irish side of the frontier, would they be unrolling barbed wire across the roads of east Donegal and north Louth?

    No, of course they would not. It's a load of bluffing nonsense. Neither side would do anything, and this quasi-legal anomaly would be quietly accepted by everyone, as being superior in all ways to a hard frontier.

    The EU is understandably using the NI problem to exert maximum leverage, at this crucial moment of negotiation, but as we near the doomsday event itself, it would become clear it was and is a bluff.

    But it is going to work. The UK as mentioned cannot be in a position whereby one outcome of a negotiation would be a hard border.

    People say "let the EU put up a border on their side" as if the physical location were miles away and that it wouldn't be, er, a hard NI border. And thus what would the government's chances of survival be if they were to abnegate their responsibility (let's call it control) of the northern Irish border?
    Yawn. You know I am right. If there was NO DEAL, neither side would erect a border.

    You might however be right that TMay will fold, but even that I doubt, or rather, I'm not sure it matters. No UK PM (even Corbyn) could accept a border down the Irish Sea. Folding therefore means the UK entire staying, for an indefinite period, in the SM and CU and accepting FoM. If she agrees to that there is a VERY strong chance she will be deposed as leader.

    What would he or she do? Dunno. By that point the economic pain would be making itself felt across northwest Europe. Perhaps the EU will see sense and compromise.
    .
    And then TMay would be deposed, and a new leader would be requested to show some balls, and tell the EU to shove it.

    Then what?
    Lab govt.

    Getting rid of TMay doesn't force a GE.

    Getting rid of TMay and replacing her with someone who tells the EU to shove it probably would.
    There would still be no way that Tory MPs would support a Vote of No Confidence tabled in the Commons however chaotic things become.
    True, but didn’t you say the same thing about Labour MPs and the FTPA? :p
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    Elliot said:

    Anazina said:


    Chortle. I am certainly not a supporter of Corbyn. Just your average centrist Joe.


    ing.
    Re Anazina, disliking Blairites (although I haven’t seen her hate on them much at all) and Tories doesn’t equal = Corbynista. My dad hates both of those groups and he’s certainly not a Corbyn supporter.

    I’m also a person of colour, and while I know quite few people of colour with small c Conservative views here and there, this doesn’t tend to be the case on the matter of immigration. In fact, Blue Labour seems to be designed less to appeal to BME groups and much more about WWC voters (although it should be said Corbyn actually did pretty decent with young WWC voters, it’s the older ones where it does terribly).

    It was Gordon Brown who called Gillian Duffy a bigot in 2010. In 2015, Ed Miliband was producing tough on immigration mugs and promising this:
    Labour pledges to "control" immigration by hiring an extra 1,000 border staff, increasing the powers of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and banning the recruitment of only overseas workers. Migrants will not be able to claim benefits for two years, or send child benefit overseas. People working in public facing roles in the public sector will be required to speak English.
    ....
    How it compares to the Tories
    David Cameron has pledged to end benefits for migrants for four years, and remove them from Britain if they have no found work after six months. Beggars and fraudsters removed from Britain face longer re-entry bans.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11532277/manifesto-2015-summary.html

    And he still lost the last election. The left will always be the ‘imitation’ even with policies like this, because the right will always be able to out do the Left on this issue.
    I was talking more about views on things like gang crime, respect for teachers etc. On immigration, I find it depends a lot on the minority group. I certainly know a fair few Indian and Chinese professionals who wonder why we would let in uneducated Romanians and Somalis.

    Thanks for clarifying my confusion on elections. Still, Miliband's efforts seemed fake because he wasn't - and repeatedly refused to - actually committing to get numbers down. As I said before, it is not even promises that matter, but actually reducing the numbers changing working class neigbourhoods.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:
    The right thing to do is to rescue and feed them, and then redeposit them on the coast of North Africa.
    Pretty much agree with that.

    However, I'd also add that the UN should make people trafficking an 'international' crime. Anyone involved with trafficking people, and especially those making the money from it, will, if caught, be tried by the UN under an international law.
    As if the UN care about that, they are encouraging these people to make the trip to Europe. I think the charities who help them should be prosecuted for aiding people trafficking.
    I think your last sentence is a little stupid: the charities are acting to plug a need that national and international law leaves behind.

    In fact, I'd argue it's utterly stupid.

    And I said it is what the UN *should* do. They won't, but perhaps not for the tinfoil-hat reason you espouse.
    The charities are aiding people trafficking whenever they "rescue" a dinghy that has been sunk on purpose. They all need to be prosecuted on that basis.
    LOL. In fact, not 'LOL'. What you have just said is sick.

    I await you extending that to the RNLI or coastguard rescuing people off ships off our shores. How much training would a winchman need to check passports from the people they are rescuing?

    Not for the first time, you are being a froth-brained ass.
    Not least because 400 of the 600 on this particular boat were apparently picked up by Italian naval vessels and then transferred to the charity ship. Is Max accusing the Italian Navy of people trafficking?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In the event of NO DEAL, the UK would abide by its commitments, and would not erect infrastructure on the NI border.

    The onus would then fall on the EU (and specifically the Dublin government). Would they start building customs post on the Irish side of the frontier, would they be unrolling barbed wire across the roads of east Donegal and north Louth?

    No, of course they would not. It's a load of bluffing nonsense. Neither side would do anything, and this quasi-legal anomaly would be quietly accepted by everyone, as being superior in all ways to a hard frontier.

    The EU is understandably using the NI problem to exert maximum leverage, at this crucial moment of negotiation, but as we near the doomsday event itself, it would become clear it was and is a bluff.

    But it is going to work. The UK as mentioned cannot be in a position whereby one outcome of a negotiation would be a hard border.

    People say "let the EU put up a border on their side" as if the physical location were miles away and that it wouldn't be, er, a hard NI border. And thus what would the government's chances of survival be if they were to abnegate their responsibility (let's call it control) of the northern Irish border?
    The government would have a good chance of survival. If checks are put in [by the Irish government] on the Irish side of the border then why should the British government fall over it?

    It is the Irish government that is hysterically trying to get lack of border posts guaranteed by threatening border posts.

    This is like a game of Russian Roulette where the Irish have taken a loaded weapon, grabbed us in a headlock and aimed the gun at both of our heads and said "make a deal I want or I fire". The Irish aren't going to fire and we know it but May and Robbins wants the deal so badly the bluff is working.
    IMHO, what the Irish really want is to keep us in the Customs Union and Single Market. The Border issue is a means to that end.
    Completely agreed. They don't want us to leave the EU and are seeking to use the border issue to turn Brexit into BINO.
    I think there are two things that really upset the Irish:-

    1. The prospect of disruption to East-West trade (North-South trade is small by comparison)

    2. Brexit will remove a country that has been willing to defend their very favourable corporation tax regime from other member States.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:
    The right thing to do is to rescue and feed them, and then redeposit them on the coast of North Africa.
    Agree.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    The key point is that Solihull is going to be upgraded to make electric. The future is electric. Solihull gets the future, Eastern Europe gets the past.
    Nobody complains when BMW or Merc move production around the world. JLR do it and it's disaster.
    Idiot journalists need to get a grip.

    Here is what JLR said

    At a Number 10 meeting in July, Jaguar Land Rover boss Ralph Speth is understood to have directed a "heated" monologue on the impact of no deal and no transition on the car industry towards the PM.

    Top JLR boss Andy Goss told Sky News that its investment in a car plant in Slovakia should now be seen as a "hedge" against uncertainty around the post-Brexit trading environment.

    "It's become a hedge by default - we will assess everything in the cold light of day - we don't expect to do it, but if we have to we will," he told me.


    https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-forensics-why-car-industry-is-getting-worried-11041671
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Anazina said:

    Even the normally vaguely sensible PB brexiteers have gone full on crackerjack-mad-bonkers today.

    Must be the high-UV sunshine or some other form of atmospheric quirk.

    If by crackerjack-mad-bonkers you mean you're shocked to realise that some Brexiteers actually think we should Leave the EU and not remain-in-all-but-name then yes.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In the event of NO DEAL, the UK would abide by its commitments, and would not erect infrastructure on the NI border.

    The onus would then fall on the EU (and specifically the Dublin government). Would they start building customs post on the Irish side of the frontier, would they be unrolling barbed wire across the roads of east Donegal and north Louth?

    No, of course they would not. It's a load of bluffing nonsense. Neither side would do anything, and this quasi-legal anomaly would be quietly accepted by everyone, as being superior in all ways to a hard frontier.

    The EU is understandably using the NI problem to exert maximum leverage, at this crucial moment of negotiation, but as we near the doomsday event itself, it would become clear it was and is a bluff.

    But it is going to work. The UK as mentioned cannot be in a position whereby one outcome of a negotiation would be a hard border.

    People say "let the EU put up a border on their side" as if the physical location were miles away and that it wouldn't be, er, a hard NI border. And thus what would the government's chances of survival be if they were to abnegate their responsibility (let's call it control) of the northern Irish border?
    .
    And then TMay would be deposed, and a new leader would be requested to show some balls, and tell the EU to shove it.

    Then what?
    Lab govt.

    Getting rid of TMay doesn't force a GE.

    Getting rid of TMay and replacing her with someone who tells the EU to shove it probably would.
    There would still be no way that Tory MPs would support a Vote of No Confidence tabled in the Commons however chaotic things become.
    True, but didn’t you say the same thing about Labour MPs and the FTPA? :p
    Not quite sure what your point is - though I did suggest before last year's election was called that if the Labour leadership had tried to block it by relying on the FTPA that no Labour MP would have rebelled. Any Labour MP who had done that would have faced loss of the Whip and deselection. In the event, it did not arise because Corbyn went along with May's plans.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Sean_F said:

    I think there are two things that really upset the Irish:-

    1. The prospect of disruption to East-West trade (North-South trade is small by comparison)

    2. Brexit will remove a country that has been willing to defend their very favourable corporation tax regime from other member States.

    Indeed.

    Which is why our move now should be to have a quiet word with the Taoiseach that the UK including Northern Ireland really are leaving the EU and if we can't reach a mutually-respectful deal soon then the alternative is to go to WTO and to abolish corporation tax altogether if necessary.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In the event of NO DEAL, the UK would abide by its commitments, and would not erect infrastructure on the NI border.

    The onus would then fall on the EU (and specifically the Dublin government). Would they start building customs post on the Irish side of the frontier, would they be unrolling barbed wire across the roads of east Donegal and north Louth?

    No, of course they would not. It's a load of bluffing nonsense. Neither side would do anything, and this quasi-legal anomaly would be quietly accepted by everyone, as being superior in all ways to a hard frontier.

    The EU is understandably using the NI problem to exert maximum leverage, at this crucial moment of negotiation, but as we near the doomsday event itself, it would become clear it was and is a bluff.

    But it is going to work. The UK as mentioned cannot be in a position whereby one outcome of a negotiation would be a hard border.

    People say "let the EU put up a border on their side" as if the physical location were miles away and that it wouldn't be, er, a hard NI border. And thus what would the government's chances of survival be if they were to abnegate their responsibility (let's call it control) of the northern Irish border?
    The government would have a good chance of survival. If checks are put in [by the Irish government] on the Irish side of the border then why should the British government fall over it?

    It is the Irish government that is hysterically trying to get lack of border posts guaranteed by threatening border posts.

    This is like a game of Russian Roulette where the Irish have taken a loaded weapon, grabbed us in a headlock and aimed the gun at both of our heads and said "make a deal I want or I fire". The Irish aren't going to fire and we know it but May and Robbins wants the deal so badly the bluff is working.
    IMHO, what the Irish really want is to keep us in the Customs Union and Single Market. The Border issue is a means to that end.
    Completely agreed. They don't want us to leave the EU and are seeking to use the border issue to turn Brexit into BINO.
    And who can blame them when it’s firmly ij their national interest. It isn’t the Irish problem that Brexit was promised to be easy.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    SeanT said:

    Scott_P said:
    lol. Oh God. I remember predicting that this would come down to some absurd semantic fudge.
    Next Up: UK to remain part of the “Simple Market”?
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    SeanT said:

    Scott_P said:
    lol. Oh God. I remember predicting that this would come down to some absurd semantic fudge.

    Brexit means Brexit Union Partnership Arrangement.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    justin124 said:

    Not quite sure what your point is - though I did suggest before last year's election was called that if the Labour leadership had tried to block it by relying on the FTPA that no Labour MP would have rebelled. Any Labour MP who had done that would have faced loss of the Whip and deselection. In the event, it did not arise because Corbyn went along with May's plans.

    Voting against the continued existance of your own government is a deselection matter.

    Voting against the continued existance of the opposition's government is not.

    Imagine the FTPA had existed in John Major's day and Tony Blair had ordered a three line whip against Major calling an early vote. Skinner and Corbyn would have ignored that whip and voted against the Tories in their eyes and not been deselected for it.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    justin124 said:

    RobD said:

    justin124 said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In the event of NO DEAL, the UK would abide by its commitments, and would not erect infrastructure on the NI border.

    The onus would then fall on the EU (and specifically the Dublin government). Would they start building customs post on the Irish side of the frontier, would they be unrolling barbed wire across the roads of east Donegal and north Louth?

    No, of course they would not. It's a load of bluffing nonsense. Neither side would do anything, and this quasi-legal anomaly would be quietly accepted by everyone, as being superior in all ways to a hard frontier.

    The EU is understandably using the NI problem to exert maximum leverage, at this crucial moment of negotiation, but as we near the doomsday event itself, it would become clear it was and is a bluff.

    But it is going to work. The UK as mentioned cannot be in a position whereby one outcome of a negotiation would be a hard border.

    People say "let the EU put up a border on their side" as if the physical location were miles away and that it wouldn't be, er, a hard NI border. And thus what would the government's chances of survival be if they were to abnegate their responsibility (let's call it control) of the northern Irish border?
    .
    And then TMay would be deposed, and a new leader would be requested to show some balls, and tell the EU to shove it.

    Then what?
    Lab govt.

    Getting rid of TMay doesn't force a GE.

    Getting rid of TMay and replacing her with someone who tells the EU to shove it probably would.
    There would still be no way that Tory MPs would support a Vote of No Confidence tabled in the Commons however chaotic things become.
    True, but didn’t you say the same thing about Labour MPs and the FTPA? :p
    Not quite sure what your point is - though I did suggest before last year's election was called that if the Labour leadership had tried to block it by relying on the FTPA that no Labour MP would have rebelled. Any Labour MP who had done that would have faced loss of the Whip and deselection. In the event, it did not arise because Corbyn went along with May's plans.
    I recall you being more forceful in saying they’d never vote for an early dissolution.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Scott_P said:
    Is it the Customs Arrangement or a customs arrangement? We demand clarity!!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In the event of NO DEAL, the UK would abide by its commitments, and would not erect infrastructure on the NI border.

    The onus would then fall on the EU (and specifically the Dublin government). Would they start building customs post on the Irish side of the frontier, would they be unrolling barbed wire across the roads of east Donegal and north Louth?

    No, of course they would not. It's a load of bluffing nonsense. Neither side would do anything, and this quasi-legal anomaly would be quietly accepted by everyone, as being superior in all ways to a hard frontier.

    The EU is understandably using the NI problem to exert maximum leverage, at this crucial moment of negotiation, but as we near the doomsday event itself, it would become clear it was and is a bluff.

    But it is going to work. The UK as mentioned cannot be in a position whereby one outcome of a negotiation would be a hard border.

    People say "let the EU put up a border on their side" as if the physical location were miles away and that it wouldn't be, er, a hard NI border. And thus what would the government's chances of survival be if they were to abnegate their responsibility (let's call it control) of the northern Irish border?
    The government would have a good chance of survival. If checks are put in [by the Irish government] on the Irish side of the border then why should the British government fall over it?

    It is the Irish government that is hysterically trying to get lack of border posts guaranteed by threatening border posts.

    This is like a game of Russian Roulette where the Irish have taken a loaded weapon, grabbed us in a headlock and aimed the gun at both of our heads and said "make a deal I want or I fire". The Irish aren't going to fire and we know it but May and Robbins wants the deal so badly the bluff is working.
    IMHO, what the Irish really want is to keep us in the Customs Union and Single Market. The Border issue is a means to that end.
    Completely agreed. They don't want us to leave the EU and are seeking to use the border issue to turn Brexit into BINO.
    And who can blame them when it’s firmly ij their national interest. It isn’t the Irish problem that Brexit was promised to be easy.
    It is easy, we just need people in charge who actually intend to Brexit. We don't.

    Which of May, Hammond and Robbins voted for Brexit in your eyes?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited June 2018
    Owen Jones has apparently started a Twitter storm with comments about Merkel's government:

    https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1005920434179772417
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Anazina said:

    Even the normally vaguely sensible PB brexiteers have gone full on crackerjack-mad-bonkers today.

    Must be the high-UV sunshine or some other form of atmospheric quirk.

    If by crackerjack-mad-bonkers you mean you're shocked to realise that some Brexiteers actually think we should Leave the EU and not remain-in-all-but-name then yes.
    I give you insisting charities are prosecuted for rescuing drowning people, and willingly plunging tens of thousands of householders into negative equity...

  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    In unrelated news, I've been re-reading Eiji Yoshikawa's Musashi recently (about a third of the way through). Really well-written book, set in early 17th century Japan (Hideyoshi's dead and Ieyasu has 'retired'), following the eponymous swordsman in his earliest days of trying to master the sword, and himself.

    Very intriguing storyline, which draws together and disperses the characters in a way that seems natural but drives the plot and personal conflict really well.

    Read it the first time some years ago and couldn't remember much beyond liking it. In the interim, it seems another book by the same author, Taiko, has come out in the West, telling the story of Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, and Ieyasu. Could be rather good.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In the event of NO DEAL, the UK would abide by its commitments, and would not erect infrastructure on the NI border.

    The onus would then fall on the EU (and specifically the Dublin government). Would they start building customs post on the Irish side of the frontier, would they be unrolling barbed wire across the roads of east Donegal and north Louth?

    No, of course they would not. It's a load of bluffing nonsense. Neither side would do anything, and this quasi-legal anomaly would be quietly accepted by everyone, as being superior in all ways to a hard frontier.

    The EU is understandably using the NI problem to exert maximum leverage, at this crucial moment of negotiation, but as we near the doomsday event itself, it would become clear it was and is a bluff.

    But it is going to work. The UK as mentioned cannot be in a position whereby one outcome of a negotiation would be a hard border.

    People say "let the EU put up a border on their side" as if the physical location were miles away and that it wouldn't be, er, a hard NI border. And thus what would the government's chances of survival be if they were to abnegate their responsibility (let's call it control) of the northern Irish border?
    The government would have a good chance of survival. If checks are put in [by the Irish government] on the Irish side of the border then why should the British government fall over it?

    It is the Irish government that is hysterically trying to get lack of border posts guaranteed by threatening border posts.

    This is like a game of Russian Roulette where the Irish have taken a loaded weapon, grabbed us in a headlock and aimed the gun at both of our heads and said "make a deal I want or I fire". The Irish aren't going to fire and we know it but May and Robbins wants the deal so badly the bluff is working.
    IMHO, what the Irish really want is to keep us in the Customs Union and Single Market. The Border issue is a means to that end.
    Completely agreed. They don't want us to leave the EU and are seeking to use the border issue to turn Brexit into BINO.
    And who can blame them when it’s firmly ij their national interest. It isn’t the Irish problem that Brexit was promised to be easy.
    It is easy, we just need people in charge who actually intend to Brexit. We don't.

    Which of May, Hammond and Robbins voted for Brexit in your eyes?
    We (thankfully) have people in charge who understand the harsh realities of Brexit and are doing their best to minimise the damage it will cause.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    RobD said:
    These midterm polls are a waste of pixels. You might as well consult Mystic Meg.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    AndyJS said:

    Owen Jones has apparently started a Twitter storm with comments about Merkel's government:

    "Owen Jones


    “Ed Balls
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,715
    edited June 2018
    Scott_P said:
    What about Labour Remain rebels on the EEA like Chris Leslie or Chuka Umunna or Labour Leave rebels on a Customs Union like Frank Field and Kate Hoey and John Mann?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,545

    Not least because 400 of the 600 on this particular boat were apparently picked up by Italian naval vessels and then transferred to the charity ship. Is Max accusing the Italian Navy of people trafficking?

    Depositing them back on the short they left (or nearby) is, IMV, a reasonable idea (it would have to be done with arrangement, and probable payment, of the relevant country).

    But that is only one side of the story. The people making the journey will be doing so for a whole host of reasons, but going out to sea in some of these 'boats' (and I use the term loosely) smacks of desperation. And there will always be desperate people for the unscrupulous to take advantage of.

    So as well as returning them, we need to tackle the people making billions out of this trade; whether it is migrants wanting a better life, refugees escaping horror or young girls trafficked for the advantage of sick men. Where countries do not have strict laws against people trafficking, the UN should take charge.

    Yes, other unscrupulous people will take over. But the rewards for doing so should be less, and the dangers greater.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited June 2018
    Anazina said:

    RobD said:
    These midterm polls are a waste of pixels. You might as well consult Mystic Meg.
    You must be new around here. This is PB, where even the slightest hint of an opinion poll makes us go a bit batty. :p
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In the event of NO DEAL, the UK would abide by its commitments, and would not erect infrastructure on the NI border.

    The onus would then fall on the EU (and specifically the Dublin government). Would they start building customs post on the Irish side of the frontier, would they be unrolling barbed wire across the roads of east Donegal and north Louth?

    No, of course they would not. It's a load of bluffing nonsense. Neither side would do anything, and this quasi-legal anomaly would be quietly accepted by everyone, as being superior in all ways to a hard frontier.

    The EU is understandably using the NI problem to exert maximum leverage, at this crucial moment of negotiation, but as we near the doomsday event itself, it would become clear it was and is a bluff.

    But it is going to work. The UK as mentioned cannot be in a position whereby one outcome of a negotiation would be a hard border.

    People say "let the EU put up a border on their side" as if the physical location were miles away and that it wouldn't be, er, a hard NI border. And thus what would the government's chances of survival be if they were to abnegate their responsibility (let's call it control) of the northern Irish border?
    The government would have a good chance of survival. If checks are put in [by the Irish government] on the Irish side of the border then why should the British government fall over it?

    It is the Irish government that is hysterically trying to get lack of border posts guaranteed by threatening border posts.

    This is like a game of Russian Roulette where the Irish have taken a loaded weapon, grabbed us in a headlock and aimed the gun at both of our heads and said "make a deal I want or I fire". The Irish aren't going to fire and we know it but May and Robbins wants the deal so badly the bluff is working.
    IMHO, what the Irish really want is to keep us in the Customs Union and Single Market. The Border issue is a means to that end.
    Completely agreed. They don't want us to leave the EU and are seeking to use the border issue to turn Brexit into BINO.
    And who can blame them when it’s firmly ij their national interest. It isn’t the Irish problem that Brexit was promised to be easy.
    I don't blame them. Governments are amoral.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    And who can blame them when it’s firmly ij their national interest. It isn’t the Irish problem that Brexit was promised to be easy.

    It is easy, we just need people in charge who actually intend to Brexit. We don't.

    Which of May, Hammond and Robbins voted for Brexit in your eyes?
    We (thankfully) have people in charge who understand the harsh realities of Brexit and are doing their best to minimise the damage it will cause.
    You mean that we have people in charge who believe the project fear nonsense despite it not coming true and are ignoring the referendum results to ensure Brexit does not mean Brexit?

    Why bother asking the people what they think when our ministerial 'betters' know better than us?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Does this need repeating?

    In the event of NO DEAL, the UK would abide by its commitments, and would not erect infrastructure on the NI border.

    The onus would then fall on the EU (and specifically the Dublin government). Would they start building customs post on the Irish side of the frontier, would they be unrolling barbed wire across the roads of east Donegal and north Louth?

    No, of course they would not. It's a load of bluffing nonsense. Neither side would do anything, and this quasi-legal anomaly would be quietly accepted by everyone, as being superior in all ways to a hard frontier.

    The EU is understandably using the NI problem to exert maximum leverage, at this crucial moment of negotiation, but as we near the doomsday event itself, it would become clear it was and is a bluff.

    But it is going to work. The UK as mentioned cannot be in a position whereby one outcome of a negotiation would be a hard border.

    People say "let the EU put up a border on their side" as if the physical location were miles away and that it wouldn't be, er, a hard NI border. And thus what would the government's chances of survival be if they were to abnegate their responsibility (let's call it control) of the northern Irish border?
    The government would have a good chance of survival. If checks are put in [by the Irish government] on the Irish side of the border then why should the British government fall over it?

    It is the Irish government that is hysterically trying to get lack of border posts guaranteed by threatening border posts.

    This is like a game of Russian Roulette where the Irish have taken a loaded weapon, grabbed us in a headlock and aimed the gun at both of our heads and said "make a deal I want or I fire". The Irish aren't going to fire and we know it but May and Robbins wants the deal so badly the bluff is working.
    IMHO, what the Irish really want is to keep us in the Customs Union and Single Market. The Border issue is a means to that end.
    Completely agreed. They don't want us to leave the EU and are seeking to use the border issue to turn Brexit into BINO.
    And who can blame them when it’s firmly ij their national interest. It isn’t the Irish problem that Brexit was promised to be easy.
    I don't blame them. Governments are amoral.
    I don't blame them. I do blame May, Robbins etc for not telling them where to stick it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    SeanT said:

    Just realised Brexit is likely to dominate British political debate for the next three-to-five years. Maybe ten years.

    Oh god.

    Ireland dominated British political debate between 1880 and 1922. Brexit may be the same.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:
    These midterm polls are a waste of pixels. You might as well consult Mystic Meg.
    You must be new around here. This is PB, where even the slightest hint of an opinion poll makes us go a bit batty. :p
    :D
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,545
    SeanT said:

    Just realised Brexit is likely to dominate British political debate for the next three-to-five years. Maybe ten years.

    Oh god.

    I remember predicting that. ;)
This discussion has been closed.