Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Brexit deal is being put to the Cabinet one by one

135

Comments

  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223

    We are in a cycle:

    1. Against the odds, Dave comes up with a rather good deal, better than could have been hoped for when Lisbon was ratified. It's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends, so becomes universally disliked by people who haven't read it.

    2. Dave gets ditched and the replacement is much worse.

    3. The replacement PM nonetheless does her best, and against the odds comes up with a deal. Admittedly it's much worse than what we had with Dave's deal, but, still, we could live with it without too much economic damage. However, it's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends - who this time make no bones about the fact that they haven't actually read it.

    Next stage: if the cycle continues, which seems likely, we are going to get an even worse PM that the present one, who will try to cobble together an even worse deal.

    The cycle will perhaps only be broken by a complete collapse into a Corbyn government, which will at least have the merit of making us all aware of what we have thrown away,

    If we have a Corbyn majority government, it’s time to take advantage of the Common Travel Area, and remove everything of value that isn’t bolted down.
  • HYUFD said:

    To be quite frank if May can't get her Deal through I would rather Corbyn PM in a minority government and forced to agree a virtually identical Deal himself than a Tory government with No Deal

    A Corbyn government would be an unmitigated disaster. If we're going to have an unmitigated disaster, one where Boris and Rees-Mogg come back tails between their legs admitting that they can't do as well as Theresa May would be a more entertaining option.
  • Danny565 said:

    May hoping to marshal public opinion to 'force' MPs to back it:

    LOL, I was thinking that this deal might actually get through, until this tweet brought home that it will rely on Mrs May's salesmanship.
    She hasn't got to sell it as being much good.. just good enough to keep car workers in jobs and stopping ferryloads of Romanians Stealing Our Women/Jobs/Hospital beds. A sharp upturn in shares and the pound will set the mood music.

    As I said a moment ago, though.. that does depend on the mood music not being set by three cabinet ministers walking :)
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 10,896
    Danny565 said:

    May hoping to marshal public opinion to 'force' MPs to back it:

    LOL, I was thinking that this deal might actually get through, until this tweet brought home that it will rely on Mrs May's salesmanship.
    Strong and stable leadership is what we need ......

    Oh shit
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,063

    HYUFD said:

    rpjs said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    So Mays defending a working majority of -9 without the DUP. Boris, DD and JRM are all part of that.

    As are Clarke, Johnson, Soubry, Grieve, Greening, Wollaston, Lee and no doubt quite a few other committed remainers I can't remember. And both remainers and leavers have committed themselves in such forthright terms they could not possibly back May without a complete loss of credibility.

    It really is almost impossible to see how this goes through Parliament.
    I can't see how the maths works. There is no chance unless we are all missing something incredible.
    Public opinion.
    Never mind the problems the Tories have got if Labour block the deal then they are finished.
    Why? Most of their seats now support remain, apparently. They believe voting down the deal will lead to that.
    Because it is risking a hard Brexit and there is not yet an appetite for another referendum. I suppose we shall see if British moderation and pragmatism is still strong enough to defeat the over-exited idealogues of the internet age! I think a majority will back the deal to avoid confrontation and risk. If Labour are seen as motivated primarily to force an election that will backfire on them big time.
    It'll be brinkmanship for sure, but if the deal is voted down, a general election is inevitable, either as a last ditch effort to force the issue or in the wake of a no deal economic crash. Unless Labour can get an election as the price of support, which I just don't see May offering, then if she can get the deal through the Tories will be safe until 2022.
    To be quite frank if May can't get her Deal through I would rather Corbyn PM in a minority government and forced to agree a virtually identical Deal himself than a Tory government with No Deal
    maybe we can make this a secret ballot so Jeremy can vote in favour (but tell everyone he voted Remain)
    He could get some of his backbenchers to if he wanted
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 16,352
    shiney2 said:

    Foxy said:

    shiney2 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    A few thoughts on the day:

    1. Anyone who has sounded off about the deal, and how they will vote to reject it without reading the document, has no place in our national life.

    2. From what I’ve read, the greatest motivator for voting Leave (ie free movement) is answered, the U.K. will have goods regulations very close to those of the Single Market, and we will be outside the CAP and the CFP. That sounds pretty good to me.

    3. If Parliament rejects the deal, May should take the initiative and put it to a referendum. It will keep Corbyn out of Downing Street, help Tory unity by taking the decision out of Westminster, and give popular sanction to the final result.

    Spot on. The deal honours the referendum outcome without screwing the economy. Well done Theresa - this will be seen as your finest hour.
    Her Last Hour more like.

    This is Betrayal of her every word on Brexit.

    The opinion leaders in her party are calling it so.

    The Tory party members are 84% Leave.

    Do you read your own graphs?
    Yes, but the Tories are the party of Appeasement, so it will pass.

    I cannot see it being popular though!
    Mr Chamberlain was very popular at his peak.

    Less so 2 years later.

    Theresa is 2.5y in and still waving her 500page surrender doc.



    Neville Chamberlain was very good indeed as CoE. It was after he became PM that he went off a bit.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 10,896
    Jonathan said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:
    It is obvious isn't it - but ERG do not have a clue, just hitting out as TM safeguards the economy and union
    So May starts -9 votes down. Assuming the DUP, the ERG leaders and a few others are voting against. Even with a strong whipping operation May is about 30 votes short.

    Where in the opposition will the votes come from? They will need more than good vibes to support May.
    I would expect labour mps will vote for it in sufficient numbers

    However, everything is speculation. This is a fast changing story and everything is up for grabs
    No it isn’t . A good number of votes in Mays party are definitely not up for grabs. When you start 9 votes down you can’t lose a single one.

    What tangible does Labour get out of it? May needs to offer something concrete, like a GE.
    I don't think she starts nine down.

    650 less 7 SF less Paisley (who is suspended) is 642, maj. 322; the Tories (including those without the whip ATM) are 317 I think.
    You’re correct.

    @Jonathan underestimates the number of Labour MPs who might vote in the national interest. I think 15-25 is entirely possible.

    Frankly, I think the cabinet is a harder sell than the commons. Remember, despite all the bluster, the Govt have lost one vote in the entire Brexit process. On a matter of process.
    Labour MPs always vote in the national interest. :-)
    Good one!
  • Paging Brenda....
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 16,352
    Foxy said:

    shiney2 said:

    Foxy said:

    shiney2 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    A few thoughts on the day:

    1. Anyone who has sounded off about the deal, and how they will vote to reject it without reading the document, has no place in our national life.

    2. From what I’ve read, the greatest motivator for voting Leave (ie free movement) is answered, the U.K. will have goods regulations very close to those of the Single Market, and we will be outside the CAP and the CFP. That sounds pretty good to me.

    3. If Parliament rejects the deal, May should take the initiative and put it to a referendum. It will keep Corbyn out of Downing Street, help Tory unity by taking the decision out of Westminster, and give popular sanction to the final result.

    Spot on. The deal honours the referendum outcome without screwing the economy. Well done Theresa - this will be seen as your finest hour.
    Her Last Hour more like.

    This is Betrayal of her every word on Brexit.

    The opinion leaders in her party are calling it so.

    The Tory party members are 84% Leave.

    Do you read your own graphs?
    Yes, but the Tories are the party of Appeasement, so it will pass.

    I cannot see it being popular though!
    Mr Chamberlain was very popular at his peak.

    Less so 2 years later.

    Theresa is 2.5y in and still waving her 500page surrender doc.



    Neville Chamberlain was very good indeed as CoE. It was after he became PM that he went off a bit.
    By and large, I am reasonably happy with the deal. I expect that the EU will be benevolent overlords as by and large their rules and regulations are better than those from Westminster.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,572
    kle4 said:



    I think this is the most realistic take tonight. An assumption there are oodles of Labour MPs heretofore unwilling to stick their necks out who will prop up the government, or that the public will someone magically sway behind a complicated, compromise deal when people on left and right are saying it is shit, and that this will convince ultra remainer and ultra leavers who are needed to get a deal through, well, it does not seem quite as realistic.

    Good night all. This deal will not get through the commons.

    I've got a piece on Labour List being published tomorrow (I think), assessing the number of Labour MPs who will defy (a) the leadership (b) the bulk of the membership (c) Tony Blair (d) Sadiq Khan and (e) most of their voters and, while they're at it, (f) save TM's government. My guess is the number is quite small - not more than 6. Note that, for instance, Kate Hoey is planning to oppose it. The number of members who dislike Corbyn AND Blair AND don't want to bring the government down is really, really, small, and I suspect that MPs who vote for the deal will be regarded as deselectable right across the party.

    I think TM's best chance is to play it slowly. A poll may come along showing popular support on the "Oh, let's get it over with" basis, and Tory opposition may then crumble, or she could call an election...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,063
    edited November 2018

    HYUFD said:

    To be quite frank if May can't get her Deal through I would rather Corbyn PM in a minority government and forced to agree a virtually identical Deal himself than a Tory government with No Deal

    A Corbyn government would be an unmitigated disaster. If we're going to have an unmitigated disaster, one where Boris and Rees-Mogg come back tails between their legs admitting that they can't do as well as Theresa May would be a more entertaining option.
    Boris and Rees Mogg would go for No Deal in those circumstances.

    Better to have a Corbyn minority government constrained by the minor parties and let him take the can for a Deal he could have let May take the can for had he not opposed it
  • TheoTheo Posts: 325
    edited November 2018

    We are in a cycle:

    1. Against the odds, Dave comes up with a rather good deal, better than could have been hoped for when Lisbon was ratified. It's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends, so becomes universally disliked by people who haven't read it.

    2. Dave gets ditched and the replacement is much worse.

    3. The replacement PM nonetheless does her best, and against the odds comes up with a deal. Admittedly it's much worse than what we had with Dave's deal, but, still, we could live with it without too much economic damage. However, it's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends - who this time make no bones about the fact that they haven't actually read it.

    Next stage: if the cycle continues, which seems likely, we are going to get an even worse PM that the present one, who will try to cobble together an even worse deal.

    The cycle will perhaps only be broken by a complete collapse into a Corbyn government, which will at least have the merit of making us all aware of what we have thrown away,

    Theresa May's deal is a much better one for the UK, if reports are to be believed. She has won the control of immigration, ability to sign our own trade deals, exit from CAP and CFP, full control over services and (against expectations) control over goods for GB. She also has maintained smooth customs flow for the manufacturing sector and no border checks for Ireland.

    Oh, and at a fraction of the membership fee too.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 10,896
    shiney2 said:

    Floater said:
    Collective ownership of land will be quite popular in Labour heartlands.

    Maybe *very* popular when/if shoved to the top of the Labour agenda.
    That type of socialism always but always ends in disaster.

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,572
    edited November 2018
    Mortimer said:

    Can you imagine if the gov't won because Paisley can't vote??

    That would be quite a squeak.
    Is he suspended? According to Wikipedia, it was for one month starting Sept 4.
  • TheoTheo Posts: 325
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    shiney2 said:

    Foxy said:

    shiney2 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    A few thoughts on the day:

    1. Anyone who has sounded off about the deal, and how they will vote to reject it without reading the document, has no place in our national life.

    2. From what I’ve read, the greatest motivator for voting Leave (ie free movement) is answered, the U.K. will have goods regulations very close to those of the Single Market, and we will be outside the CAP and the CFP. That sounds pretty good to me.

    3. If Parliament rejects the deal, May should take the initiative and put it to a referendum. It will keep Corbyn out of Downing Street, help Tory unity by taking the decision out of Westminster, and give popular sanction to the final result.

    Spot on. The deal honours the referendum outcome without screwing the economy. Well done Theresa - this will be seen as your finest hour.
    Her Last Hour more like.

    This is Betrayal of her every word on Brexit.

    The opinion leaders in her party are calling it so.

    The Tory party members are 84% Leave.

    Do you read your own graphs?
    Yes, but the Tories are the party of Appeasement, so it will pass.

    I cannot see it being popular though!
    Mr Chamberlain was very popular at his peak.

    Less so 2 years later.

    Theresa is 2.5y in and still waving her 500page surrender doc.



    Neville Chamberlain was very good indeed as CoE. It was after he became PM that he went off a bit.
    By and large, I am reasonably happy with the deal. I expect that the EU will be benevolent overlords as by and large their rules and regulations are better than those from Westminster.
    95% of the rules and regulations will now be made in the UK.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 2,644
    HYUFD said:
    So if the UK+EU+neutral arbitration panel is just for ending the CU arrangement, who gets to rule on compliance with the arrangement? The ECJ?
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,023

    kle4 said:



    I think this is the most realistic take tonight. An assumption there are oodles of Labour MPs heretofore unwilling to stick their necks out who will prop up the government, or that the public will someone magically sway behind a complicated, compromise deal when people on left and right are saying it is shit, and that this will convince ultra remainer and ultra leavers who are needed to get a deal through, well, it does not seem quite as realistic.

    Good night all. This deal will not get through the commons.

    I've got a piece on Labour List being published tomorrow (I think), assessing the number of Labour MPs who will defy (a) the leadership (b) the bulk of the membership (c) Tony Blair (d) Sadiq Khan and (e) most of their voters and, while they're at it, (f) save TM's government. My guess is the number is quite small - not more than 6. Note that, for instance, Kate Hoey is planning to oppose it. The number of members who dislike Corbyn AND Blair AND don't want to bring the government down is really, really, small, and I suspect that MPs who vote for the deal will be regarded as deselectable right across the party.

    I think TM's best chance is to play it slowly. A poll may come along showing popular support on the "Oh, let's get it over with" basis, and Tory opposition may then crumble, or she could call an election...
    I think die-hard anti-Corbynites will be the most likely. Voices like Blair and Khan came in a little late on this front, and their attitudes may have already hardened. I think this faction is potentially bigger than people here credit- there's a lot of Labour MPs who despise him, and a subset of those are ambitious and know their star will never rise while Corbyn and co are in control

    Still, you may be right, I don't have too much of a sense of how many will actually rebel. There might be a fair few abstainers as a pathetic middle-ground.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 16,352
    Theo said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    shiney2 said:

    Foxy said:

    shiney2 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    A few thoughts on the day:

    1. Anyone who has sounded off about the deal, and how they will vote to reject it without reading the document, has no place in our national life.

    2. From what I’ve read, the greatest motivator for voting Leave (ie free movement) is answered, the U.K. will have goods regulations very close to those of the Single Market, and we will be outside the CAP and the CFP. That sounds pretty good to me.

    3. If Parliament rejects the deal, May should take the initiative and put it to a referendum. It will keep Corbyn out of Downing Street, help Tory unity by taking the decision out of Westminster, and give popular sanction to the final result.

    Spot on. The deal honours the referendum outcome without screwing the economy. Well done Theresa - this will be seen as your finest hour.
    Her Last Hour more like.

    This is Betrayal of her every word on Brexit.

    The opinion leaders in her party are calling it so.

    The Tory party members are 84% Leave.

    Do you read your own graphs?
    Yes, but the Tories are the party of Appeasement, so it will pass.

    I cannot see it being popular though!
    Mr Chamberlain was very popular at his peak.

    Less so 2 years later.

    Theresa is 2.5y in and still waving her 500page surrender doc.



    Neville Chamberlain was very good indeed as CoE. It was after he became PM that he went off a bit.
    By and large, I am reasonably happy with the deal. I expect that the EU will be benevolent overlords as by and large their rules and regulations are better than those from Westminster.
    95% of the rules and regulations will now be made in the UK.
    I don't expect so. Ayt best they will be photocopies of EU originals.

    It matters more whether they are fit for purpose, fortunately the EU ones usually are.

    Night all :)
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,918

    Mortimer said:

    Can you imagine if the gov't won because Paisley can't vote??

    That would be quite a squeak.
    Is he suspended? According to Wikipedia, it was for one month starting Sept 4.
    Good point. 30 sitting days I think, but even so, that must be over by now.
  • I think TM's best chance is to play it slowly. A poll may come along showing popular support on the "Oh, let's get it over with" basis, and Tory opposition may then crumble, or she could call an election...

    Yep, very sage advice. What she really needs is for there to be a general acceptance that the deal will save British jobs. If she can get that, MPs will find it much harder to vote against.

    The trouble is that she's useless at selling her own policies even when she's right.
  • TheoTheo Posts: 325
    Foxy said:

    Theo said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    shiney2 said:

    Foxy said:

    shiney2 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    A few thoughts on the day:

    1. Anyone who has sounded off about the deal, and how they will vote to reject it without reading the document, has no place in our national life.

    2. From what I’ve read, the greatest motivator for voting Leave (ie free movement) is answered, the U.K. will have goods regulations very close to those of the Single Market, and we will be outside the CAP and the CFP. That sounds pretty good to me.

    3. If Parliament rejects the deal, May should take the initiative and put it to a referendum. It will keep Corbyn out of Downing Street, help Tory unity by taking the decision out of Westminster, and give popular sanction to the final result.

    Spot on. The deal honours the referendum outcome without screwing the economy. Well done Theresa - this will be seen as your finest hour.
    Her Last Hour more like.

    This is Betrayal of her every word on Brexit.

    The opinion leaders in her party are calling it so.

    The Tory party members are 84% Leave.

    Do you read your own graphs?
    Yes, but the Tories are the party of Appeasement, so it will pass.

    I cannot see it being popular though!
    Mr Chamberlain was very popular at his peak.

    Less so 2 years later.

    Theresa is 2.5y in and still waving her 500page surrender doc.



    Neville Chamberlain was very good indeed as CoE. It was after he became PM that he went off a bit.
    By and large, I am reasonably happy with the deal. I expect that the EU will be benevolent overlords as by and large their rules and regulations are better than those from Westminster.
    95% of the rules and regulations will now be made in the UK.
    I don't expect so. Ayt best they will be photocopies of EU originals.

    It matters more whether they are fit for purpose, fortunately the EU ones usually are.

    Night all :)
    Simply not what is in the agreement.
  • Theo said:

    We are in a cycle:

    1. Against the odds, Dave comes up with a rather good deal, better than could have been hoped for when Lisbon was ratified. It's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends, so becomes universally disliked by people who haven't read it.

    2. Dave gets ditched and the replacement is much worse.

    3. The replacement PM nonetheless does her best, and against the odds comes up with a deal. Admittedly it's much worse than what we had with Dave's deal, but, still, we could live with it without too much economic damage. However, it's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends - who this time make no bones about the fact that they haven't actually read it.

    Next stage: if the cycle continues, which seems likely, we are going to get an even worse PM that the present one, who will try to cobble together an even worse deal.

    The cycle will perhaps only be broken by a complete collapse into a Corbyn government, which will at least have the merit of making us all aware of what we have thrown away,

    Theresa May's deal is a much better one for the UK, if reports are to be believed. She has won the control of immigration, ability to sign our own trade deals, exit from CAP and CFP, full control over services and (against expectations) control over goods for GB. She also has maintained smooth customs flow for the manufacturing sector and no border checks for Ireland.

    Oh, and at a fraction of the membership fee too.
    Arguably, yes. But against that, some damage to the City, zero defence against Eurozone hegemony, no say in regulations, reduced influence, and probably net damage to the fishing industry.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    kle4 said:



    I think this is the most realistic take tonight. An assumption there are oodles of Labour MPs heretofore unwilling to stick their necks out who will prop up the government, or that the public will someone magically sway behind a complicated, compromise deal when people on left and right are saying it is shit, and that this will convince ultra remainer and ultra leavers who are needed to get a deal through, well, it does not seem quite as realistic.

    Good night all. This deal will not get through the commons.

    I've got a piece on Labour List being published tomorrow (I think), assessing the number of Labour MPs who will defy (a) the leadership (b) the bulk of the membership (c) Tony Blair (d) Sadiq Khan and (e) most of their voters and, while they're at it, (f) save TM's government. My guess is the number is quite small - not more than 6. Note that, for instance, Kate Hoey is planning to oppose it. The number of members who dislike Corbyn AND Blair AND don't want to bring the government down is really, really, small, and I suspect that MPs who vote for the deal will be regarded as deselectable right across the party.

    I think TM's best chance is to play it slowly. A poll may come along showing popular support on the "Oh, let's get it over with" basis, and Tory opposition may then crumble, or she could call an election...
    I think Caroline Flint is highly likely to vote for the deal. Beyond her though, I'm really struggling to see where the Labour votes will come from...
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 17,597

    May hoping to marshal public opinion to 'force' MPs to back it:

    Yeah right... This woman couldn't "sell" ice to eskimo's.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,063
    Danny565 said:

    kle4 said:



    I think this is the most realistic take tonight. An assumption there are oodles of Labour MPs heretofore unwilling to stick their necks out who will prop up the government, or that the public will someone magically sway behind a complicated, compromise deal when people on left and right are saying it is shit, and that this will convince ultra remainer and ultra leavers who are needed to get a deal through, well, it does not seem quite as realistic.

    Good night all. This deal will not get through the commons.

    I've got a piece on Labour List being published tomorrow (I think), assessing the number of Labour MPs who will defy (a) the leadership (b) the bulk of the membership (c) Tony Blair (d) Sadiq Khan and (e) most of their voters and, while they're at it, (f) save TM's government. My guess is the number is quite small - not more than 6. Note that, for instance, Kate Hoey is planning to oppose it. The number of members who dislike Corbyn AND Blair AND don't want to bring the government down is really, really, small, and I suspect that MPs who vote for the deal will be regarded as deselectable right across the party.

    I think TM's best chance is to play it slowly. A poll may come along showing popular support on the "Oh, let's get it over with" basis, and Tory opposition may then crumble, or she could call an election...
    I think Caroline Flint is highly likely to vote for the deal. Beyond her though, I'm really struggling to see where the Labour votes will come from...
    Nandy, Snell ie Labour moderates in Leave seats
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672
    Floater said:

    shiney2 said:

    Floater said:
    Collective ownership of land will be quite popular in Labour heartlands.

    Maybe *very* popular when/if shoved to the top of the Labour agenda.
    That type of socialism always but always ends in disaster.

    Those with little, often gain. Proper Socialism has its adherents for a reason.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,063
    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:
    So if the UK+EU+neutral arbitration panel is just for ending the CU arrangement, who gets to rule on compliance with the arrangement? The ECJ?
    Yes, plus the ECJ will be still overseeing the transition period
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    kle4 said:



    I think this is the most realistic take tonight. An assumption there are oodles of Labour MPs heretofore unwilling to stick their necks out who will prop up the government, or that the public will someone magically sway behind a complicated, compromise deal when people on left and right are saying it is shit, and that this will convince ultra remainer and ultra leavers who are needed to get a deal through, well, it does not seem quite as realistic.

    Good night all. This deal will not get through the commons.

    I've got a piece on Labour List being published tomorrow (I think), assessing the number of Labour MPs who will defy (a) the leadership (b) the bulk of the membership (c) Tony Blair (d) Sadiq Khan and (e) most of their voters and, while they're at it, (f) save TM's government. My guess is the number is quite small - not more than 6. Note that, for instance, Kate Hoey is planning to oppose it. The number of members who dislike Corbyn AND Blair AND don't want to bring the government down is really, really, small, and I suspect that MPs who vote for the deal will be regarded as deselectable right across the party.

    I think TM's best chance is to play it slowly. A poll may come along showing popular support on the "Oh, let's get it over with" basis, and Tory opposition may then crumble, or she could call an election...
    I think Caroline Flint is highly likely to vote for the deal. Beyond her though, I'm really struggling to see where the Labour votes will come from...
    Nandy, Snell ie Labour moderates in Leave seats
    I don't think Lisa Nandy will, she's too much of a Labour "loyalist" when all is said and done I reckon.

    I don't know enough about Gareth Snell to tell.
  • TheoTheo Posts: 325

    Theo said:

    We are in a cycle:

    1. Against the odds, Dave comes up with a rather good deal, better than could have been hoped for when Lisbon was ratified. It's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends, so becomes universally disliked by people who haven't read it.

    2. Dave gets ditched and the replacement is much worse.

    3. The replacement PM nonetheless does her best, and against the odds comes up with a deal. Admittedly it's much worse than what we had with Dave's deal, but, still, we could live with it without too much economic damage. However, it's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends - who this time make no bones about the fact that they haven't actually read it.

    Next stage: if the cycle continues, which seems likely, we are going to get an even worse PM that the present one, who will try to cobble together an even worse deal.

    The cycle will perhaps only be broken by a complete collapse into a Corbyn government, which will at least have the merit of making us all aware of what we have thrown away,

    Theresa May's deal is a much better one for the UK, if reports are to be believed. She has won the control of immigration, ability to sign our own trade deals, exit from CAP and CFP, full control over services and (against expectations) control over goods for GB. She also has maintained smooth customs flow for the manufacturing sector and no border checks for Ireland.

    Oh, and at a fraction of the membership fee too.
    Arguably, yes. But against that, some damage to the City, zero defence against Eurozone hegemony, no say in regulations, reduced influence, and probably net damage to the fishing industry.
    Any damage to the City will be minor and replacable via trade deals elsewhere. Eurozone hegemony would have been worse under Cameron's deal, where we were roped into single rulebook and often hostile Commission interpretation of it. We had next to no influence to lose in the EU and actually have more of a voice in global institutions outside. Fishing all depends on detail of the deal.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Theo said:

    Theo said:

    We are in a cycle:

    1. Against the odds, Dave comes up with a rather good deal, better than could have been hoped for when Lisbon was ratified. It's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends, so becomes universally disliked by people who haven't read it.

    2. Dave gets ditched and the replacement is much worse.

    3. The replacement PM nonetheless does her best, and against the odds comes up with a deal. Admittedly it's much worse than what we had with Dave's deal, but, still, we could live with it without too much economic damage. However, it's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends - who this time make no bones about the fact that they haven't actually read it.

    Next stage: if the cycle continues, which seems likely, we are going to get an even worse PM that the present one, who will try to cobble together an even worse deal.

    The cycle will perhaps only be broken by a complete collapse into a Corbyn government, which will at least have the merit of making us all aware of what we have thrown away,

    Theresa May's deal is a much better one for the UK, if reports are to be believed. She has won the control of immigration, ability to sign our own trade deals, exit from CAP and CFP, full control over services and (against expectations) control over goods for GB. She also has maintained smooth customs flow for the manufacturing sector and no border checks for Ireland.

    Oh, and at a fraction of the membership fee too.
    Arguably, yes. But against that, some damage to the City, zero defence against Eurozone hegemony, no say in regulations, reduced influence, and probably net damage to the fishing industry.
    Any damage to the City will be minor and replacable via trade deals elsewhere. Eurozone hegemony would have been worse under Cameron's deal, where we were roped into single rulebook and often hostile Commission interpretation of it. We had next to no influence to lose in the EU and actually have more of a voice in global institutions outside. Fishing all depends on detail of the deal.
    I thought being in a/the Customs Union indefinitely (which, apparently, is what May has agreed) barred us from making our own trade deals?
  • TheoTheo Posts: 325
    Danny565 said:

    kle4 said:



    I think this is the most realistic take tonight. An assumption there are oodles of Labour MPs heretofore unwilling to stick their necks out who will prop up the government, or that the public will someone magically sway behind a complicated, compromise deal when people on left and right are saying it is shit, and that this will convince ultra remainer and ultra leavers who are needed to get a deal through, well, it does not seem quite as realistic.

    Good night all. This deal will not get through the commons.

    I've got a piece on Labour List being published tomorrow (I think), assessing the number of Labour MPs who will defy (a) the leadership (b) the bulk of the membership (c) Tony Blair (d) Sadiq Khan and (e) most of their voters and, while they're at it, (f) save TM's government. My guess is the number is quite small - not more than 6. Note that, for instance, Kate Hoey is planning to oppose it. The number of members who dislike Corbyn AND Blair AND don't want to bring the government down is really, really, small, and I suspect that MPs who vote for the deal will be regarded as deselectable right across the party.

    I think TM's best chance is to play it slowly. A poll may come along showing popular support on the "Oh, let's get it over with" basis, and Tory opposition may then crumble, or she could call an election...
    I think Caroline Flint is highly likely to vote for the deal. Beyond her though, I'm really struggling to see where the Labour votes will come from...
    Labour MPs sadly put their own political agendas above the wellbeing of the working class.
  • TheoTheo Posts: 325
    Danny565 said:

    Theo said:

    Theo said:

    We are in a cycle:

    1. Against the odds, Dave comes up with a rather good deal, better than could have been hoped for when Lisbon was ratified. It's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends, so becomes universally disliked by people who haven't read it.

    2. Dave gets ditched and the replacement is much worse.

    3. The replacement PM nonetheless does her best, and against the odds comes up with a deal. Admittedly it's much worse than what we had with Dave's deal, but, still, we could live with it without too much economic damage. However, it's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends - who this time make no bones about the fact that they haven't actually read it.

    Next stage: if the cycle continues, which seems likely, we are going to get an even worse PM that the present one, who will try to cobble together an even worse deal.

    The cycle will perhaps only be broken by a complete collapse into a Corbyn government, which will at least have the merit of making us all aware of what we have thrown away,

    Theresa May's deal is a much better one for the UK, if reports are to be believed. She has won the control of immigration, ability to sign our own trade deals, exit from CAP and CFP, full control over services and (against expectations) control over goods for GB. She also has maintained smooth customs flow for the manufacturing sector and no border checks for Ireland.

    Oh, and at a fraction of the membership fee too.
    Arguably, yes. But against that, some damage to the City, zero defence against Eurozone hegemony, no say in regulations, reduced influence, and probably net damage to the fishing industry.
    Any damage to the City will be minor and replacable via trade deals elsewhere. Eurozone hegemony would have been worse under Cameron's deal, where we were roped into single rulebook and often hostile Commission interpretation of it. We had next to no influence to lose in the EU and actually have more of a voice in global institutions outside. Fishing all depends on detail of the deal.
    I thought being in a/the Customs Union indefinitely (which, apparently, is what May has agreed) barred us from making our own trade deals?
    Doesn't affect services (79% of our economy and growing).
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,918
    Danny565 said:

    Theo said:

    Theo said:

    We are in a cycle:

    1. Against the odds, Dave comes up with a rather good deal, better than could have been hoped for when Lisbon was ratified. It's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends, so becomes universally disliked by people who haven't read it.

    2. Dave gets ditched and the replacement is much worse.

    3. The replacement PM nonetheless does her best, and against the odds comes up with a deal. Admittedly it's much worse than what we had with Dave's deal, but, still, we could live with it without too much economic damage. However, it's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends - who this time make no bones about the fact that they haven't actually read it.

    Next stage: if the cycle continues, which seems likely, we are going to get an even worse PM that the present one, who will try to cobble together an even worse deal.

    The cycle will perhaps only be broken by a complete collapse into a Corbyn government, which will at least have the merit of making us all aware of what we have thrown away,

    Theresa May's deal is a much better one for the UK, if reports are to be believed. She has won the control of immigration, ability to sign our own trade deals, exit from CAP and CFP, full control over services and (against expectations) control over goods for GB. She also has maintained smooth customs flow for the manufacturing sector and no border checks for Ireland.

    Oh, and at a fraction of the membership fee too.
    Arguably, yes. But against that, some damage to the City, zero defence against Eurozone hegemony, no say in regulations, reduced influence, and probably net damage to the fishing industry.
    Any damage to the City will be minor and replacable via trade deals elsewhere. Eurozone hegemony would have been worse under Cameron's deal, where we were roped into single rulebook and often hostile Commission interpretation of it. We had next to no influence to lose in the EU and actually have more of a voice in global institutions outside. Fishing all depends on detail of the deal.
    I thought being in a/the Customs Union indefinitely (which, apparently, is what May has agreed) barred us from making our own trade deals?
    Fundamental misunderstanding of the deal, it seems.

    Not indefinitely. Just until trade deal is signed with the EU.

  • I think TM's best chance is to play it slowly. A poll may come along showing popular support on the "Oh, let's get it over with" basis, and Tory opposition may then crumble, or she could call an election...

    Uncertainty aside, is there a practical deadline for this or does everything work as long as the UK Parliament (and EP etc) sign off on it by the exit date?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 17,597
    Mortimer said:

    Danny565 said:

    Theo said:

    Theo said:

    We are in a cycle:

    1. Against the odds, Dave comes up with a rather good deal, better than could have been hoped for when Lisbon was ratified. It's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends, so becomes universally disliked by people who haven't read it.

    2. Dave gets ditched and the replacement is much worse.

    3. The replacement PM nonetheless does her best, and against the odds comes up with a deal. Admittedly it's much worse than what we had with Dave's deal, but, still, we could live with it without too much economic damage. However, it's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends - who this time make no bones about the fact that they haven't actually read it.

    Next stage: if the cycle continues, which seems likely, we are going to get an even worse PM that the present one, who will try to cobble together an even worse deal.

    The cycle will perhaps only be broken by a complete collapse into a Corbyn government, which will at least have the merit of making us all aware of what we have thrown away,

    Theresa May's deal is a much better one for the UK, if reports are to be believed. She has won the control of immigration, ability to sign our own trade deals, exit from CAP and CFP, full control over services and (against expectations) control over goods for GB. She also has maintained smooth customs flow for the manufacturing sector and no border checks for Ireland.

    Oh, and at a fraction of the membership fee too.
    Arguably, yes. But against that, some damage to the City, zero defence against Eurozone hegemony, no say in regulations, reduced influence, and probably net damage to the fishing industry.
    Any damage to the City will be minor and replacable via trade deals elsewhere. Eurozone hegemony would have been worse under Cameron's deal, where we were roped into single rulebook and often hostile Commission interpretation of it. We had next to no influence to lose in the EU and actually have more of a voice in global institutions outside. Fishing all depends on detail of the deal.
    I thought being in a/the Customs Union indefinitely (which, apparently, is what May has agreed) barred us from making our own trade deals?
    Fundamental misunderstanding of the deal, it seems.

    Not indefinitely. Just until trade deal is signed with the EU.
    Which of course as there's no end date a trade deal never will be signed...
  • Theo said:

    Theo said:

    We are in a cycle:

    1. Against the odds, Dave comes up with a rather good deal, better than could have been hoped for when Lisbon was ratified. It's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends, so becomes universally disliked by people who haven't read it.

    2. Dave gets ditched and the replacement is much worse.

    3. The replacement PM nonetheless does her best, and against the odds comes up with a deal. Admittedly it's much worse than what we had with Dave's deal, but, still, we could live with it without too much economic damage. However, it's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends - who this time make no bones about the fact that they haven't actually read it.

    Next stage: if the cycle continues, which seems likely, we are going to get an even worse PM that the present one, who will try to cobble together an even worse deal.

    The cycle will perhaps only be broken by a complete collapse into a Corbyn government, which will at least have the merit of making us all aware of what we have thrown away,

    Theresa May's deal is a much better one for the UK, if reports are to be believed. She has won the control of immigration, ability to sign our own trade deals, exit from CAP and CFP, full control over services and (against expectations) control over goods for GB. She also has maintained smooth customs flow for the manufacturing sector and no border checks for Ireland.

    Oh, and at a fraction of the membership fee too.
    Arguably, yes. But against that, some damage to the City, zero defence against Eurozone hegemony, no say in regulations, reduced influence, and probably net damage to the fishing industry.
    Any damage to the City will be minor and replacable via trade deals elsewhere. Eurozone hegemony would have been worse under Cameron's deal, where we were roped into single rulebook and often hostile Commission interpretation of it. We had next to no influence to lose in the EU and actually have more of a voice in global institutions outside. Fishing all depends on detail of the deal.
    I suspect this deal will lose the Tories their electoral gains in Scotland. Fisheries not reverting to UK control will be a touchstone issue - the treasury may not care but I guess Ruth D will. And that's before the customs checks between NI and the rest of the UK with it's implications for Scotland.

    If the details of this deal are correct then TM is bonkers.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,023
    GIN1138 said:


    Which of course as there's no end date a trade deal never will be signed...

    No no, don't worry, there's some magic independent third party who's going to be totally above all petty politics and will rule fairly, wisely and impartially on the matter. We're so confident of that that we're totally willing to put the future of the UK's economy into their hands indefinitely.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Mortimer said:

    Danny565 said:

    Theo said:

    Theo said:

    We are in a cycle:

    1. Against the odds, Dave comes up with a rather good deal, better than could have been hoped for when Lisbon was ratified. It's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends, so becomes universally disliked by people who haven't read it.

    2. Dave gets ditched and the replacement is much worse.

    3. The replacement PM nonetheless does her best, and against the odds comes up with a deal. Admittedly it's much worse than what we had with Dave's deal, but, still, we could live with it without too much economic damage. However, it's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends - who this time make no bones about the fact that they haven't actually read it.

    Next stage: if the cycle continues, which seems likely, we are going to get an even worse PM that the present one, who will try to cobble together an even worse deal.

    The cycle will perhaps only be broken by a complete collapse into a Corbyn government, which will at least have the merit of making us all aware of what we have thrown away,

    Theresa May's deal is a much better one for the UK, if reports are to be believed. She has won the control of immigration, ability to sign our own trade deals, exit from CAP and CFP, full control over services and (against expectations) control over goods for GB. She also has maintained smooth customs flow for the manufacturing sector and no border checks for Ireland.

    Oh, and at a fraction of the membership fee too.
    Arguably, yes. But against that, some damage to the City, zero defence against Eurozone hegemony, no say in regulations, reduced influence, and probably net damage to the fishing industry.
    Any damage to the City will be minor and replacable via trade deals elsewhere. Eurozone hegemony would have been worse under Cameron's deal, where we were roped into single rulebook and often hostile Commission interpretation of it. We had next to no influence to lose in the EU and actually have more of a voice in global institutions outside. Fishing all depends on detail of the deal.
    I thought being in a/the Customs Union indefinitely (which, apparently, is what May has agreed) barred us from making our own trade deals?
    Fundamental misunderstanding of the deal, it seems.

    Not indefinitely. Just until trade deal is signed with the EU.
    A trade deal on which the EU, again, will demand a Northern Ireland exclusion, which would trigger a repeat of the whole saga of the last few months, no?
  • TheoTheo Posts: 325

    Theo said:

    Theo said:

    We are in a cycle:

    1. Against the odds, Dave comes up with a rather good deal, better than could have been hoped for when Lisbon was ratified. It's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends, so becomes universally disliked by people who haven't read it.

    2. Dave gets ditched and the replacement is much worse.

    3. The replacement PM nonetheless does her best, and against the odds comes up with a deal. Admittedly it's much worse than what we had with Dave's deal, but, still, we could live with it without too much economic damage. However, it's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends - who this time make no bones about the fact that they haven't actually read it.

    Next stage: if the cycle continues, which seems likely, we are going to get an even worse PM that the present one, who will try to cobble together an even worse deal.

    The cycle will perhaps only be broken by a complete collapse into a Corbyn government, which will at least have the merit of making us all aware of what we have thrown away,

    Theresa May's deal is a much better one for the UK, if reports are to be believed. She has won the control of immigration, ability to sign our own trade deals, exit from CAP and CFP, full control over services and (against expectations) control over goods for GB. She also has maintained smooth customs flow for the manufacturing sector and no border checks for Ireland.

    Oh, and at a fraction of the membership fee too.
    Arguably, yes. But against that, some damage to the City, zero defence against Eurozone hegemony, no say in regulations, reduced influence, and probably net damage to the fishing industry.
    Any damage to the City will be minor and replacable via trade deals elsewhere. Eurozone hegemony would have been worse under Cameron's deal, where we were roped into single rulebook and often hostile Commission interpretation of it. We had next to no influence to lose in the EU and actually have more of a voice in global institutions outside. Fishing all depends on detail of the deal.
    I suspect this deal will lose the Tories their electoral gains in Scotland. Fisheries not reverting to UK control will be a touchstone issue - the treasury may not care but I guess Ruth D will. And that's before the customs checks between NI and the rest of the UK with it's implications for Scotland.

    If the details of this deal are correct then TM is bonkers.
    We don't even know what has been agreed on fisheries.
  • HYUFD said:
    Theresa May pleads with MPs to act "in the national interest". Great. No doubt whatever any individual MP does, they will consider themselves acting in the national interest
  • TheoTheo Posts: 325

    GIN1138 said:


    Which of course as there's no end date a trade deal never will be signed...

    No no, don't worry, there's some magic independent third party who's going to be totally above all petty politics and will rule fairly, wisely and impartially on the matter. We're so confident of that that we're totally willing to put the future of the UK's economy into their hands indefinitely.
    There are plenty of international arbitration panels that do exactly this. Of course it will never be enough for those that always see themselves as the hard done by victim.
  • Sounds like a great job by Barnier, is there still time for him to run for EPP spitzenkandidat?
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672
    Theo said:

    We are in a cycle:

    1. Against the odds, Dave comes up with a rather good deal, better than could have been hoped for when Lisbon was ratified. It's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends, so becomes universally disliked by people who haven't read it.

    2. Dave gets ditched and the replacement is much worse.

    3. The replacement PM nonetheless does her best, and against the odds comes up with a deal. Admittedly it's much worse than what we had with Dave's deal, but, still, we could live with it without too much economic damage. However, it's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends - who this time make no bones about the fact that they haven't actually read it.

    Next stage: if the cycle continues, which seems likely, we are going to get an even worse PM that the present one, who will try to cobble together an even worse deal.

    The cycle will perhaps only be broken by a complete collapse into a Corbyn government, which will at least have the merit of making us all aware of what we have thrown away,

    Theresa May's deal is a much better one for the UK, if reports are to be believed. She has won the control of immigration, ability to sign our own trade deals, exit from CAP and CFP, full control over services and (against expectations) control over goods for GB. She also has maintained smooth customs flow for the manufacturing sector and no border checks for Ireland.

    Oh, and at a fraction of the membership fee too.
    You seem to mixing up the Withdrawl agreement (A Treaty commitment)
    (we pay £40B, UK takes orders on goods&regulation until the EU agrees otherwise)

    and the Politcal document (father xmas)
    (control of immigration, ability to sign our own trade deals, exit from CAP and CFP, full control over services and control over goods for GB. She also has maintained smooth customs flow for the manufacturing sector and no border checks for Ireland.).

    I guess that's ok for some Remainers.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 9,917

    Can you imagine if the gov't won because Paisley can't vote??

    Can you imagine if the gov't won because Paisley can't vote??

    Paisley's suspension ends in circa ten days.
  • TheoTheo Posts: 325
    GIN1138 said:

    Mortimer said:

    Danny565 said:

    Theo said:

    Theo said:

    We are in a cycle:

    1. Against the odds, Dave comes up with a rather good deal, better than could have been hoped for when Lisbon was ratified. It's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends, so becomes universally disliked by people who haven't read it.

    2. Dave gets ditched and the replacement is much worse.

    3. The replacement PM nonetheless does her best, and against the odds comes up with a deal. Admittedly it's much worse than what we had with Dave's deal, but, still, we could live with it without too much economic damage. However, it's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends - who this time make no bones about the fact that they haven't actually read it.

    Next stage: if the cycle continues, which seems likely, we are going to get an even worse PM that the present one, who will try to cobble together an even worse deal.

    The cycle will perhaps only be broken by a complete collapse into a Corbyn government, which will at least have the merit of making us all aware of what we have thrown away,

    Theresa May's deal is a much better one for the UK, if reports are to be believed. She has won the control of immigration, ability to sign our own trade deals, exit from CAP and CFP, full control over services and (against expectations) control over goods for GB. She also has maintained smooth customs flow for the manufacturing sector and no border checks for Ireland.

    Oh, and at a fraction of the membership fee too.
    Arguably, yes. But against that, some damage to the City, zero defence against Eurozone hegemony, no say in regulations, reduced influence, and probably net damage to the fishing industry.
    Any damage to the City will be minor and replacable via trade deals elsewhere. Eurozone hegemony would have been worse under Cameron's deal, where we were roped into single rulebook and often hostile Commission interpretation of it. We had next to no influence to lose in the EU and actually have more of a voice in global institutions outside. Fishing all depends on detail of the deal.
    I thought being in a/the Customs Union indefinitely (which, apparently, is what May has agreed) barred us from making our own trade deals?
    Fundamental misunderstanding of the deal, it seems.

    Not indefinitely. Just until trade deal is signed with the EU.
    Which of course as there's no end date a trade deal never will be signed...
    The deal requires the EU to negotiate in good faith for a trade deal and holds them to independent arbitration if they don't.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Theo said:



    We don't even know what has been agreed on fisheries.

    Nothing has been agreed on fisheries at all, has it?

    I thought the only things being agreed at this point were the transition period (in which absolutely everything will stay the same, fisheries included), and to some extent the Customs arrangements post-transition. Everything else is still to come in the many years of further negotiations ahead of us.
  • ExiledInScotlandExiledInScotland Posts: 1,103
    edited November 2018
    Theo said:

    Theo said:

    Theo said:


    Theresa May's deal is a much better one for the UK, if reports are to be believed. She has won the control of immigration, ability to sign our own trade deals, exit from CAP and CFP, full control over services and (against expectations) control over goods for GB. She also has maintained smooth customs flow for the manufacturing sector and no border checks for Ireland.

    Oh, and at a fraction of the membership fee too.

    Arguably, yes. But against that, some damage to the City, zero defence against Eurozone hegemony, no say in regulations, reduced influence, and probably net damage to the fishing industry.
    Any damage to the City will be minor and replacable via trade deals elsewhere. Eurozone hegemony would have been worse under Cameron's deal, where we were roped into single rulebook and often hostile Commission interpretation of it. We had next to no influence to lose in the EU and actually have more of a voice in global institutions outside. Fishing all depends on detail of the deal.
    I suspect this deal will lose the Tories their electoral gains in Scotland. Fisheries not reverting to UK control will be a touchstone issue - the treasury may not care but I guess Ruth D will. And that's before the customs checks between NI and the rest of the UK with it's implications for Scotland.

    If the details of this deal are correct then TM is bonkers.
    We don't even know what has been agreed on fisheries.
    I know. And I have in the past said that we don't know what's being negotiated and shouldn't jump to conclusions. Its just that everything we thought was going to happen through leaks has generally been true. In which case the EU retains access to our fisheries. Hence my post.

    But I may be wrong.

    [Apologies for starting a sentence with but]
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 447

    Can you imagine if the gov't won because Paisley can't vote??

    He's back next week I believe.
  • TheoTheo Posts: 325
    shiney2 said:

    Theo said:

    We are in a cycle:

    1. Against the odds, Dave comes up with a rather good deal, better than could have been hoped for when Lisbon was ratified. It's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends, so becomes universally disliked by people who haven't read it.

    2. Dave gets ditched and the replacement is much worse.

    3. The replacement PM nonetheless does her best, and against the odds comes up with a deal. Admittedly it's much worse than what we had with Dave's deal, but, still, we could live with it without too much economic damage. However, it's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends - who this time make no bones about the fact that they haven't actually read it.

    Next stage: if the cycle continues, which seems likely, we are going to get an even worse PM that the present one, who will try to cobble together an even worse deal.

    The cycle will perhaps only be broken by a complete collapse into a Corbyn government, which will at least have the merit of making us all aware of what we have thrown away,

    Theresa May's deal is a much better one for the UK, if reports are to be believed. She has won the control of immigration, ability to sign our own trade deals, exit from CAP and CFP, full control over services and (against expectations) control over goods for GB. She also has maintained smooth customs flow for the manufacturing sector and no border checks for Ireland.

    Oh, and at a fraction of the membership fee too.
    You seem to mixing up the Withdrawl agreement (A Treaty commitment)
    (we pay £40B, UK takes orders on goods&regulation until the EU agrees otherwise)

    and the Politcal document (father xmas)
    (control of immigration, ability to sign our own trade deals, exit from CAP and CFP, full control over services and control over goods for GB. She also has maintained smooth customs flow for the manufacturing sector and no border checks for Ireland.).

    I guess that's ok for some Remainers.
    I voted for Brexit.

    I'm 90% sure you are wrong and are confusing the transition period agreement with the withdrawal agreement backstop. We are not committed to service regulation in the backstop, for example. Happy to be proven wrong.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,063

    Theo said:

    Theo said:

    We are in a cycle:

    1. Against the odds, Dave comes up with a rather good deal, better than could have been hoped for when Lisbon was ratified. It's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends, so becomes universally disliked by people who haven't read it.

    2. Dave gets ditched and the replacement is much worse.

    3. The replacement PM nonetheless does her best, and against the odds comes up with a deal. Admittedly it's much worse than what we had with Dave's deal, but, still, we could live with it without too much economic damage. However, it's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends - who this time make no bones about the fact that they haven't actually read it.

    Next stage: if the cycle continues, which seems likely, we are going to get an even worse PM that the present one, who will try to cobble together an even worse deal.

    The cycle will perhaps only be broken by a complete collapse into a Corbyn government, which will at least have the merit of making us all aware of what we have thrown away,

    Theresa May's deal is a much better one for the UK, if reports are to be believed. She has won the control of immigration, ability to sign our own trade deals, exit from CAP and CFP, full control over services and (against expectations) control over goods for GB. She also has maintained smooth customs flow for the manufacturing sector and no border checks for Ireland.

    Oh, and at a fraction of the membership fee too.
    Arguably, yes. But against that, some damage to the City, zero defence against Eurozone hegemony, no say in regulations, reduced influence, and probably net damage to the fishing industry.
    Any damage to the City will be minor and replacable via trade deals elsewhere. Eurozone hegemony would have been worse under Cameron's deal, where we were roped into single rulebook and often hostile Commission interpretation of it. We had next to no influence to lose in the EU and actually have more of a voice in global institutions outside. Fishing all depends on detail of the deal.
    I suspect this deal will lose the Tories their electoral gains in Scotland. Fisheries not reverting to UK control will be a touchstone issue - the treasury may not care but I guess Ruth D will. And that's before the customs checks between NI and the rest of the UK with it's implications for Scotland.

    If the details of this deal are correct then TM is bonkers.
    Well we know No Deal is the only way Yes gets a lead in independence polls and the SNP can hardly say to Scottish fishermen they will take a harder line on Brexit than the Government
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,063
    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    kle4 said:



    I think this is the most realistic take tonight. An assumption there are oodles of Labour MPs heretofore unwilling to stick their necks out who will prop up the government, or that the public will someone magically sway behind a complicated, compromise deal when people on left and right are saying it is shit, and that this will convince ultra remainer and ultra leavers who are needed to get a deal through, well, it does not seem quite as realistic.

    Good night all. This deal will not get through the commons.

    I've got a piece on Labour List being published tomorrow (I think), assessing the number of Labour MPs who will defy (a) the leadership (b) the bulk of the membership (c) Tony Blair (d) Sadiq Khan and (e) most of their voters and, while they're at it, (f) save TM's government. My guess is the number is quite small - not more than 6. Note that, for instance, Kate Hoey is planning to oppose it. The number of members who dislike Corbyn AND Blair AND don't want to bring the government down is really, really, small, and I suspect that MPs who vote for the deal will be regarded as deselectable right across the party.

    I think TM's best chance is to play it slowly. A poll may come along showing popular support on the "Oh, let's get it over with" basis, and Tory opposition may then crumble, or she could call an election...
    I think Caroline Flint is highly likely to vote for the deal. Beyond her though, I'm really struggling to see where the Labour votes will come from...
    Nandy, Snell ie Labour moderates in Leave seats
    I don't think Lisa Nandy will, she's too much of a Labour "loyalist" when all is said and done I reckon.

    I don't know enough about Gareth Snell to tell.
    Nandy said she would vote for May's Deal with a Customs Union as it looks like on Question Time just a few weeks ago
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 547
    justin124 said:

    Can you imagine if the gov't won because Paisley can't vote??

    Can you imagine if the gov't won because Paisley can't vote??

    Paisley's suspension ends in circa ten days.
    Would make sense as Parliament has had a lot of time off since September, including I think three weeks for conference season.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 9,917
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Can you imagine if the gov't won because Paisley can't vote??

    That would be quite a squeak.
    Is he suspended? According to Wikipedia, it was for one month starting Sept 4.
    Good point. 30 sitting days I think, but even so, that must be over by now.
    Not so - Parliament has been in recess for most of the intervening period!
  • BRENNNNNDDDAAAAAAAAAAAAAA....
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Brent crude down by 6.6%.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/energy
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 10,896
    Theo said:

    Danny565 said:

    kle4 said:



    I think this is the most realistic take tonight. An assumption there are oodles of Labour MPs heretofore unwilling to stick their necks out who will prop up the government, or that the public will someone magically sway behind a complicated, compromise deal when people on left and right are saying it is shit, and that this will convince ultra remainer and ultra leavers who are needed to get a deal through, well, it does not seem quite as realistic.

    Good night all. This deal will not get through the commons.

    I've got a piece on Labour List being published tomorrow (I think), assessing the number of Labour MPs who will defy (a) the leadership (b) the bulk of the membership (c) Tony Blair (d) Sadiq Khan and (e) most of their voters and, while they're at it, (f) save TM's government. My guess is the number is quite small - not more than 6. Note that, for instance, Kate Hoey is planning to oppose it. The number of members who dislike Corbyn AND Blair AND don't want to bring the government down is really, really, small, and I suspect that MPs who vote for the deal will be regarded as deselectable right across the party.

    I think TM's best chance is to play it slowly. A poll may come along showing popular support on the "Oh, let's get it over with" basis, and Tory opposition may then crumble, or she could call an election...
    I think Caroline Flint is highly likely to vote for the deal. Beyond her though, I'm really struggling to see where the Labour votes will come from...
    Labour MPs sadly put their own political agendas above the wellbeing of the working class.
    It was always thus
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 2,590
    I feel obliged to break lurk mode to point out that someone mentioned "net damage to the fishing industry", and no one noticed.
  • Fish kicked into the Future Relationship but exempt from the Customs Backstop. So tariffs kick in if no deal of EU fleet access to UK waters. That'll further chill capital investment in the processing industry and long term sourcing contracts.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 46,935
    edited November 2018
    Endillion said:

    I feel obliged to break lurk mode to point out that someone mentioned "net damage to the fishing industry", and no one noticed.

    image
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,063
    The one thing we know really threatens the Union is No Deal
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,079
    edited November 2018
    Endillion said:

    I feel obliged to break lurk mode to point out that someone mentioned "net damage to the fishing industry", and no one noticed.

    This site is for serious discussion, silly puns like that are completely out of plaice
  • Looks like there is +1 year Transition extension mechanism in the WA. So another psycho drama in the middle of this parliament and votes on whether to extend vassalage by a year as no one sane thinks End State will be ready or not. On the one hand I'm glad it's there. On the other it's a shoddy way of doing it. Maximises uncertainty.
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672
    HYUFD said:

    The one thing we know really threatens the Union is No Deal
    In your mind perhaps. Elsewhere, leaving as a single UK maintains the UK.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 2,590

    Endillion said:

    I feel obliged to break lurk mode to point out that someone mentioned "net damage to the fishing industry", and no one noticed.

    This site is for serious discussion, silly puns like that are completely out of plaice
    My mistake. I'lI go trawl some less serious sites.
  • Informed briefing on Twitter is the " Level playing field " provisions in the Customs Backstop are fairly deep and dynamic . The Vassal charge is going to stick until End State at least.
  • So the outline is #1 Status quo Transition until December 2021 #2 Backstop kicks in. We leave the SM,CFP and CAP 6 months before the GE with associated immigration restrictions as a pre election stunt. #3 Economic hit minimised as CU still in place #4 GE22 fought 6 months later as a Brexit election as no FTA signed yet and core issues unresolved.
  • It's Methadone Brexit and a high dose one at that with some Benzos thrown in. Arguably that's the only sane way to do Brexit if you are insane enough to do Brexit. But it's not what was sold to voters and ensures we've years if this still to come.
  • So the outline is #1 Status quo Transition until December 2021 #2 Backstop kicks in. We leave the SM,CFP and CAP 6 months before the GE with associated immigration restrictions as a pre election stunt. #3 Economic hit minimised as CU still in place #4 GE22 fought 6 months later as a Brexit election as no FTA signed yet and core issues unresolved.

    In fairness to TMay the basic outline of no FoM, CFP or CAP and as little change as possible to anything else seems like pretty much where most British voters are at. It may not be a great outcome for the Globalism In One Country faction of Tory MPs but there aren't many of them, and their message isn't the one the voters were hearing when they voted.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,063
    shiney2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The one thing we know really threatens the Union is No Deal
    In your mind perhaps. Elsewhere, leaving as a single UK maintains the UK.
    No in polling reality
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/no-deal-brexit-pushes-scots-to-break-from-the-uk-shows-poll-5kkpfb2dv
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Oil price drops amid fears over demand"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46203175
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672
    HYUFD said:

    shiney2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The one thing we know really threatens the Union is No Deal
    In your mind perhaps. Elsewhere, leaving as a single UK maintains the UK.
    No in polling reality
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/no-deal-brexit-pushes-scots-to-break-from-the-uk-shows-poll-5kkpfb2dv
    Polling is Reality?
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672

    It's Methadone Brexit and a high dose one at that with some Benzos thrown in. Arguably that's the only sane way to do Brexit if you are insane enough to do Brexit. But it's not what was sold to voters and ensures we've years if this still to come.

    So:

    As of 1/4/19 we haven't actually left anything (except the EUelection/ political/admin representation ).

    In 12/2021 GB may, if the EU agrees, leaves the SM.

    Is that it?

  • I'm also seeing credible people citing the Divorce Bill now at £47bn not £39bn. They may be assuming the extra year of Transition or perhaps something has changed in the WA documents themselves.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,009
    Jonathan said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:
    It is obvious isn't it - but ERG do not have a clue, just hitting out as TM safeguards the economy and union
    So May starts -9 votes down. Assuming the DUP, the ERG leaders and a few others are voting against. Even with a strong whipping operation May is about 30 votes short.

    Where in the opposition will the votes come from? They will need more than good vibes to support May.
    I would expect labour mps will vote for it in sufficient numbers

    However, everything is speculation. This is a fast changing story and everything is up for grabs
    No it isn’t . A good number of votes in Mays party are definitely not up for grabs. When you start 9 votes down you can’t lose a single one.

    What tangible does Labour get out of it? May needs to offer something concrete, like a GE.
    I don't think she starts nine down.

    650 less 7 SF less Paisley (who is suspended) is 642, maj. 322; the Tories (including those without the whip ATM) are 317 I think.
    You’re correct.

    @Jonathan underestimates the number of Labour MPs who might vote in the national interest. I think 15-25 is entirely possible.

    Frankly, I think the cabinet is a harder sell than the commons. Remember, despite all the bluster, the Govt have lost one vote in the entire Brexit process. On a matter of process.
    Labour MPs always vote in the national interest. :-)
    Does that include when they decided to let Corbyn run for leader?
  • Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:
    It is obvious isn't it - but ERG do not have a clue, just hitting out as TM safeguards the economy and union
    So May starts -9 votes down. Assuming the DUP, the ERG leaders and a few others are voting against. Even with a strong whipping operation May is about 30 votes short.

    Where in the opposition will the votes come from? They will need more than good vibes to support May.
    I would expect labour mps will vote for it in sufficient numbers

    However, everything is speculation. This is a fast changing story and everything is up for grabs
    No it isn’t . A good number of votes in Mays party are definitely not up for grabs. When you start 9 votes down you can’t lose a single one.

    What tangible does Labour get out of it? May needs to offer something concrete, like a GE.
    I don't think she starts nine down.

    650 less 7 SF less Paisley (who is suspended) is 642, maj. 322; the Tories (including those without the whip ATM) are 317 I think.
    You’re correct.

    @Jonathan underestimates the number of Labour MPs who might vote in the national interest. I think 15-25 is entirely possible.

    Frankly, I think the cabinet is a harder sell than the commons. Remember, despite all the bluster, the Govt have lost one vote in the entire Brexit process. On a matter of process.
    Labour MPs always vote in the national interest. :-)
    Does that include when they decided to let Corbyn run for leader?
    I think they were ticking the “diversity” box.

    No good deed goes unpunished.
  • So the outline is #1 Status quo Transition until December 2021 #2 Backstop kicks in. We leave the SM,CFP and CAP 6 months before the GE with associated immigration restrictions as a pre election stunt. #3 Economic hit minimised as CU still in place #4 GE22 fought 6 months later as a Brexit election as no FTA signed yet and core issues unresolved.

    In fairness to TMay the basic outline of no FoM, CFP or CAP and as little change as possible to anything else seems like pretty much where most British voters are at. It may not be a great outcome for the Globalism In One Country faction of Tory MPs but there aren't many of them, and their message isn't the one the voters were hearing when they voted.

    While none of us have seen the deal if it does deliver that I suspect most voters won’t be that fussed and it will be a relief to get (this part) over. The hardcore Remainers and Brexiteers will be upset - which is as good a sign as any that May has got the balance about right.
  • TheoTheo Posts: 325

    So the outline is #1 Status quo Transition until December 2021 #2 Backstop kicks in. We leave the SM,CFP and CAP 6 months before the GE with associated immigration restrictions as a pre election stunt. #3 Economic hit minimised as CU still in place #4 GE22 fought 6 months later as a Brexit election as no FTA signed yet and core issues unresolved.

    In fairness to TMay the basic outline of no FoM, CFP or CAP and as little change as possible to anything else seems like pretty much where most British voters are at. It may not be a great outcome for the Globalism In One Country faction of Tory MPs but there aren't many of them, and their message isn't the one the voters were hearing when they voted.

    While none of us have seen the deal if it does deliver that I suspect most voters won’t be that fussed and it will be a relief to get (this part) over. The hardcore Remainers and Brexiteers will be upset - which is as good a sign as any that May has got the balance about right.
    If Labour plan to vote against it May should just accuse them of wanting to keep open doors EU migration. That will get the public onboard.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,009

    Theo said:

    We are in a cycle:

    1. Against the odds, Dave comes up with a rather good deal, better than could have been hoped for when Lisbon was ratified. It's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends, so becomes universally disliked by people who haven't read it.

    2. Dave gets ditched and the replacement is much worse.

    3. The replacement PM nonetheless does her best, and against the odds comes up with a deal. Admittedly it's much worse than what we had with Dave's deal, but, still, we could live with it without too much economic damage. However, it's very effectively pre-rubbished by Steve Baker and heavy friends - who this time make no bones about the fact that they haven't actually read it.

    Next stage: if the cycle continues, which seems likely, we are going to get an even worse PM that the present one, who will try to cobble together an even worse deal.

    The cycle will perhaps only be broken by a complete collapse into a Corbyn government, which will at least have the merit of making us all aware of what we have thrown away,

    Theresa May's deal is a much better one for the UK, if reports are to be believed. She has won the control of immigration, ability to sign our own trade deals, exit from CAP and CFP, full control over services and (against expectations) control over goods for GB. She also has maintained smooth customs flow for the manufacturing sector and no border checks for Ireland.

    Oh, and at a fraction of the membership fee too.
    Arguably, yes. But against that, some damage to the City, zero defence against Eurozone hegemony, no say in regulations, reduced influence, and probably net damage to the fishing industry.
    Net damage? Or net net?

    You’re swallowing it hook, line and sinker. There’s a plaice for people like you - you’ll just thrash and flounder
  • TheoTheo Posts: 325

    I'm also seeing credible people citing the Divorce Bill now at £47bn not £39bn. They may be assuming the extra year of Transition or perhaps something has changed in the WA documents themselves.

    Well down from the expected 60-100 that was claimed.
  • TheoTheo Posts: 325
    shiney2 said:

    It's Methadone Brexit and a high dose one at that with some Benzos thrown in. Arguably that's the only sane way to do Brexit if you are insane enough to do Brexit. But it's not what was sold to voters and ensures we've years if this still to come.

    So:

    As of 1/4/19 we haven't actually left anything (except the EUelection/ political/admin representation ).

    In 12/2021 GB may, if the EU agrees, leaves the SM.

    Is that it?

    We leave the single market under the backstop. You are confused.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    edited November 2018

    Surely better for dissenters to argue their case at this afternoon's Cabinet meeting.
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672
    edited November 2018
    Arlene&Sammy making it clear:

    1)DUP S&C is with Tory party not MrsMay.
    2)This EUDeal is dead

    Could she survive 48letters with Arlene saying that the 150+Tory MPs who vote 'Confidence' are also voting themselves out of a job (Minority Gov @ best, GE at worst?

    Maybe the DUP will name a PM they could support?

    I reckon MrsMay has to square them to survive..


  • So the outline is #1 Status quo Transition until December 2021 #2 Backstop kicks in. We leave the SM,CFP and CAP 6 months before the GE with associated immigration restrictions as a pre election stunt. #3 Economic hit minimised as CU still in place #4 GE22 fought 6 months later as a Brexit election as no FTA signed yet and core issues unresolved.

    Best explanation I have seen all year Ringo.
  • Has Ruth Davidson issued her orders yet?
  • HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    kle4 said:



    I think this is the most realistic take tonight. An assumption there are oodles of Labour MPs heretofore unwilling to stick their necks out who will prop up the government, or that the public will someone magically sway behind a complicated, compromise deal when people on left and right are saying it is shit, and that this will convince ultra remainer and ultra leavers who are needed to get a deal through, well, it does not seem quite as realistic.

    Good night all. This deal will not get through the commons.

    I've got a piece on Labour List being published tomorrow (I think), assessing the number of Labour MPs who will defy (a) the leadership (b) the bulk of the membership (c) Tony Blair (d) Sadiq Khan and (e) most of their voters and, while they're at it, (f) save TM's government. My guess is the number is quite small - not more than 6. Note that, for instance, Kate Hoey is planning to oppose it. The number of members who dislike Corbyn AND Blair AND don't want to bring the government down is really, really, small, and I suspect that MPs who vote for the deal will be regarded as deselectable right across the party.

    I think TM's best chance is to play it slowly. A poll may come along showing popular support on the "Oh, let's get it over with" basis, and Tory opposition may then crumble, or she could call an election...
    I think Caroline Flint is highly likely to vote for the deal. Beyond her though, I'm really struggling to see where the Labour votes will come from...
    Nandy, Snell ie Labour moderates in Leave seats
    I don't think Lisa Nandy will, she's too much of a Labour "loyalist" when all is said and done I reckon.

    I don't know enough about Gareth Snell to tell.
    Nandy said she would vote for May's Deal with a Customs Union as it looks like on Question Time just a few weeks ago
    Nandy seems to be a softly spoken rebel - not to be underestimated.
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672
    edited November 2018
    Theo said:

    shiney2 said:

    It's Methadone Brexit and a high dose one at that with some Benzos thrown in. Arguably that's the only sane way to do Brexit if you are insane enough to do Brexit. But it's not what was sold to voters and ensures we've years if this still to come.

    So:

    As of 1/4/19 we haven't actually left anything (except the EUelection/ political/admin representation ).

    In 12/2021 GB may, if the EU agrees, leaves the SM.

    Is that it?

    We leave the single market under the backstop. You are confused.
    1)You seem remarkably certain: You've seen the final 500page document?
    2) Leaving the backstop is under the control of the EU and so, hence, is leaving the SM.
  • HYUFD said:
    Theresa May pleads with MPs to act "in the national interest". Great. No doubt whatever any individual MP does, they will consider themselves acting in the national interest
    Even if most of the Cabinet agree, Conservative backbenchers have the power to call an election for a new leader in order to change the policy.

  • Surely better for dissenters to argue their case at this afternoon's Cabinet meeting.
    True. You’d think Boris would know that.....
  • Theo said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    shiney2 said:

    Foxy said:

    shiney2 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    A few thoughts on the day:

    1. Anyone who has sounded off about the deal, and how they will vote to reject it without reading the document, has no place in our national life.

    2. From what I’ve read, the greatest motivator for voting Leave (ie free movement) is answered, the U.K. will have goods regulations very close to those of the Single Market, and we will be outside the CAP and the CFP. That sounds pretty good to me.

    3. If Parliament rejects the deal, May should take the initiative and put it to a referendum. It will keep Corbyn out of Downing Street, help Tory unity by taking the decision out of Westminster, and give popular sanction to the final result.

    Spot on. The deal honours the referendum outcome without screwing the economy. Well done Theresa - this will be seen as your finest hour.
    Her Last Hour more like.

    This is Betrayal of her every word on Brexit.

    The opinion leaders in her party are calling it so.

    The Tory party members are 84% Leave.

    Do you read your own graphs?
    Yes, but the Tories are the party of Appeasement, so it will pass.

    I cannot see it being popular though!
    Mr Chamberlain was very popular at his peak.

    Less so 2 years later.

    Theresa is 2.5y in and still waving her 500page surrender doc.



    Neville Chamberlain was very good indeed as CoE. It was after he became PM that he went off a bit.
    By and large, I am reasonably happy with the deal. I expect that the EU will be benevolent overlords as by and large their rules and regulations are better than those from Westminster.
    95% of the rules and regulations will now be made in the UK.
    They already are according to Cameron and Clegg.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,009
    shiney2 said:

    Theo said:

    shiney2 said:

    It's Methadone Brexit and a high dose one at that with some Benzos thrown in. Arguably that's the only sane way to do Brexit if you are insane enough to do Brexit. But it's not what was sold to voters and ensures we've years if this still to come.

    So:

    As of 1/4/19 we haven't actually left anything (except the EUelection/ political/admin representation ).

    In 12/2021 GB may, if the EU agrees, leaves the SM.

    Is that it?

    We leave the single market under the backstop. You are confused.
    1)You seem remarkably certain: You've seen the final 500page document?
    2) Leaving the backstop is under the control of the EU and so, hence, is leaving the SM.
    If we get to be in the SM without FoM then May has pulled off the deal of the century.

    I think it’s more likely you’ve misunderstood...
This discussion has been closed.