The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Dodgyknees]

2 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I'd agree.

Except rational thought left the building 2 years ago and has only kept running away since.

Hopefully some sense can be found but No Deal absolutely can happen and is more likely to happen than many might line to think.

So yes, thanks Brexiteers. I look forward to your tears, they might be the only thing keeping me going.

Tears? They won, we lost, that's what matters. 

[Chindie]

4 minutes ago, Dick said:

Tears? They won, we lost, that's what matters. 

What can I say? I'm a vindictive word removed.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

I'd agree.

Except rational thought left the building 2 years ago and has only kept running away since.

Hopefully some sense can be found but No Deal absolutely can happen and is more likely to happen than many might line to think.

So yes, thanks Brexiteers. I look forward to your tears, they might be the only thing keeping me going.

Rational thought hasn't left the building, it's just hiding in the cellar.

Basically all the MPs minus a handful of tory throbbers are dead against "no deal". It cannot pass Parliament. The "meaningful vote" on whatever mess May comes up with could chuck her version out (and just probably will), but will not replace it with "no deal" - there will be some instruction or other to go back and get a better one. May could call a GE if she loses, she could resign, she could be toppled at any point. But whatever both the EU and the UK would pause/revoke article 50, because it is in absolutely everyone's interests to do so. Ther could be a people's vote. There could be many things,  but "no deal" seems the least likely. I think even the people who claim to be in favour of it, or that it's not the end of the world, or "better than a bad deal" know that is bollex. There's probably a handful of true throbbers, the same handful there's always been, but other than that, there's some ambitionisits, bullshitters and idiots who will not actually follow through on their throbbing idiocy.

[HanoiVillan]

Some numbers on this:

Since the decision will of course be between Chequers and Hard Brexit, the question is how the other 336 MPs line up. 

[NurembergVillan]

14 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Some numbers on this:

Since the decision will of course be between Chequers and Hard Brexit, the question is how the other 336 MPs line up. 

LAB Policy is there in lieu of a "Don't Know" option.

[bickster]

30 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Some numbers on this:

Since the decision will of course be between Chequers and Hard Brexit, the question is how the other 336 MPs line up. 

The Peoples Vote option may well swell soon, it already has grown since that data, Jess Philips, Yardley MP came out for PV over the weekend, because she has recognised that her Leave voting constituents have changed their mind. She recognises it on the street and the polls back her up. My MP, however, seems massively out of touch. He'll come to eat that tweet from the weekend

[Chindie]

40 minutes ago, blandy said:

Rational thought hasn't left the building, it's just hiding in the cellar.

Basically all the MPs minus a handful of tory throbbers are dead against "no deal". It cannot pass Parliament. The "meaningful vote" on whatever mess May comes up with could chuck her version out (and just probably will), but will not replace it with "no deal" - there will be some instruction or other to go back and get a better one. May could call a GE if she loses, she could resign, she could be toppled at any point. But whatever both the EU and the UK would pause/revoke article 50, because it is in absolutely everyone's interests to do so. Ther could be a people's vote. There could be many things,  but "no deal" seems the least likely. I think even the people who claim to be in favour of it, or that it's not the end of the world, or "better than a bad deal" know that is bollex. There's probably a handful of true throbbers, the same handful there's always been, but other than that, there's some ambitionisits, bullshitters and idiots who will not actually follow through on their throbbing idiocy.

The meaningful vote is likely to be take it or leave it, the clerk of the HoC has confirmed that any attempt to use the vote to force the government to go renegotiate can be ignored. And of course a meaningful vote requires something to vote on - at the moment there isn't a deal to be made and there won't be without agreement on the Irish border.

There might not be officially much support for No Deal, but this parliament has shown itself to be particularly good at supporting bad options and doing whatever supports their own immediate self interest. If a situation arises where, for instance, it's No Deal or Corbyn, No Deal wins.

A People's Vote I remain unconvinced will happen, or really should happen in many ways. And even if it did, it's the same old story. I'd stake good money another referendum brings back another bad result.

No Deal isn't unlikely. It's the default.

[blandy]

17 minutes ago, Chindie said:

The meaningful vote is likely to be take it or leave it, the clerk of the HoC has confirmed that any attempt to use the vote to force the government to go renegotiate can be ignored. And of course a meaningful vote requires something to vote on - at the moment there isn't a deal to be made and there won't be without agreement on the Irish border.

There might not be officially much support for No Deal, but this parliament has shown itself to be particularly good at supporting bad options and doing whatever supports their own immediate self interest. If a situation arises where, for instance, it's No Deal or Corbyn, No Deal wins.

A People's Vote I remain unconvinced will happen, or really should happen in many ways. And even if it did, it's the same old story. I'd stake good money another referendum brings back another bad result.

No Deal isn't unlikely. It's the default.

Well, yes. I do understand what you're arguing. Yet I see it differently.

If May gets nowhere then there's no deal to vote on, but I don't see complete failure to get to any agreement as likely to lead to Hard Brexit. I think if they get to nothing agreed by the last practical cut off date then it'll get pushed back (the date). The EU and the Gov't will do what politicians always do and kick the ball  down the road. Then there will be a number of options, or events that might happen - May quits or is hoofed out by the tories. Which means leadership election, which means nothing can happen till they've got that over with. Or she could call an election (that's maybe why there was all this budget give-away, as a ground prepping, de-risking (from her viewpoint) exercise. Or there could be a new referendum, or there could be crisis talks and a placeholder "leave but go into the Norway style EEA thing" which solves the border problem and many others. I still think Hard Brexit just will not happen, because it is in absolutely no-one's interests.

Hanoi's graph is of current estimated intent, and even then is wrong - there's some who are clearly still "retainers" who are not shown. When or if the pressure is on higher, and any imminent catastro-pork is looming, it'll change much more towards either EEA or election or referendum - kicking the can down the road. I guess the difficulty would be on EU elections which are due next year, so that might push towards an EEA situation.

I know Labour and the tories are a complete shambles, with inadequate leaders, but even MP self interest mitigates against hard Brexit. Labour's position and Chequers are both completely untenable - the MPs saying that's their choice are just picking out of party loyalty, not genuine belief that that is the best option  - neither is possible, for a start.

Like I say, sanity will come out of hiding in the cellar at some point, but I have to admit the current lot of politicians, as a collective, are the worst lot ever, which is saying something.

[Chindie]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

Well, yes. I do understand what you're arguing. Yet I see it differently.

If May gets nowhere then there's no deal to vote on, but I don't see complete failure to get to any agreement as likely to lead to Hard Brexit. I think if they get to nothing agreed by the last practical cut off date then it'll get pushed back (the date). The EU and the Gov't will do what politicians always do and kick the ball  down the road. Then there will be a number of options, or events that might happen - May quits or is hoofed out by the tories. Which means leadership election, which means nothing can happen till they've got that over with. Or she could call an election (that's maybe why there was all this budget give-away, as a ground prepping, de-risking (from her viewpoint) exercise. Or there could be a new referendum, or there could be crisis talks and a placeholder "leave but go into the Norway style EEA thing" which solves the border problem and many others. I still think Hard Brexit just will not happen, because it is in absolutely no-one's interests.

Hanoi's graph is of current estimated intent, and even then is wrong - there's some who are clearly still "retainers" who are not shown. When or if the pressure is on higher, and any imminent catastro-pork is looming, it'll change much more towards either EEA or election or referendum - kicking the can down the road. I guess the difficulty would be on EU elections which are due next year, so that might push towards an EEA situation.

I know Labour and the tories are a complete shambles, with inadequate leaders, but even MP self interest mitigates against hard Brexit. Labour's position and Chequers are both completely untenable - the MPs saying that's their choice are just picking out of party loyalty, not genuine belief that that is the best option  - neither is possible, for a start.

Like I say, sanity will come out of hiding in the cellar at some point, but I have to admit the current lot of politicians, as a collective, are the worst lot ever, which is saying something.

Well yes. I understand where you're coming from as well.

I just disagree. Sure collectively it's in no-ones interest, but there's other stuff in play and this parliament is a joke.

I'm pessimistic.

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, Chindie said:

here's other stuff in play and this parliament is a joke.

Yes, there is and it is. My feeling is that there will be a big crack, a rupture that will change everything completely. Maybe even more than one rupture.

[LondonLax]

Doesn’t ‘kicking the can down the road’ on No Deal require unanimous agreement from every member state? 

That makes it risky that one country decides to just get it over with and denies the request. 

[peterms]

On 04/11/2018 at 18:21, bickster said:

Andrew Neil thinks he's hard

To be fair, anyone whose hair is made of Brillo pads must qualify as at least a bit hard.

[peterms]

On 03/11/2018 at 18:19, blandy said:

A good interviewer would expose that lying. There was a thing on open democracy.org internet a few months ago, which detailed very clearly where the [consults lawyer] "problems" with Banks's "wealth" and funding come from.

Insurance, apparently.  Which makes me think of a comedy villain saying "Nice place you've got here.  I hope it's...insured..."

[peterms]

7 hours ago, blandy said:

Back to Labour's timidity and difficulties. The context has changed

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-final-say-referendum-labour-leave-eu-jess-phillips-a8615011.html

 

I have been saying that the context needs to change in order to make it politically possible for politicians to change their position.  You call that timidity.  I see it as a recognition that at times, people want to be led, at other times, they absolutely don't.

I believe most MPs have seen Brexit as an issue on which people expect to be listened to, not dictated to.  Obviously there is no clear view from "the people", but many individuals will think their is, and that it accords with their view.

Hence the need for a demonstrable shift in opinion to give political cover for changing positions.

Some people see that as indecisiveness, or even cowardice.  I see it as basic political reality.

[chrisp65]

C4's big Brexit programme has just shown their poll of 20,000 across the UK and it suggests remain win 54 / 46.

Of course, you can't trust a poll of 20,000 versus a poll of 33,000,000.

You also can't trust Channel 4 who's 'representatives of the UK' for the show were an english UKIP, an english Green, and english* Labour and an english conservative. Interesting that a Green gets the airtime not SNP.

*MP for Brent North born in scotland

[StefanAVFC]

Apparently 5000 is all that's needed for an accurate poll so 20000 is more than enough for an accurate representation 

[peterms]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

C4's big Brexit programme has just shown their poll of 20,000 across the UK and it suggests remain win 54 / 46. 

But what was the point made by Curtice?  I only partly caught it.  Something like 1% of leavers have changed their minds, the rest of the figures are based on presumed/claimed future differential turnout?

Which would be quite at odds with the general tone of the programme, which was on the lines of "the country has changed its mind".

[chrisp65]

6 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Apparently 5000 is all that's needed for an accurate poll so 20000 is more than enough for an accurate representation 

last general election says hi!

there is no way 5,000 could accurately represent a vote that is so close, perhaps if it showed 70 / 30 it would be a fair indicator, but 5,000 couldn't possibly show how 30,000,000 would vote when its so close to 50/50

 

[chrisp65]

Just now, peterms said:

But what was the point made by Curtice?  I only partly caught it.  Something like 1% of leavers have changed their minds, the rest of the figures are based on presumed/claimed future differential turnout?

Which would be quite at odds with the general tone of the programme, which was on the lines of "the country has changed its mind".

The tone of the programme was odd, it looked like an opportunity to chee rlead for pro remain.

I can't remember his words back now, but the feel of it was to try and put some perspective and caution on small samples and polls. There  was some spoken small print about removing and extrapolating respondents that wanted to pick 'don't know' or refused to vote on that question.

They also showed it graphically as constituencies changing from blue to yellow, like in a GE, when that's actually pretty irrelevant.

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

The tone of the programme was odd, it looked like an opportunity to chee rlead for pro remain.

I can't remember his words back now, but the feel of it was to try and put some perspective and caution on small samples and polls. There  was some spoken small print about removing and extrapolating respondents that wanted to pick 'don't know' or refused to vote on that question.

They also showed it graphically as constituencies changing from blue to yellow, like in a GE, when that's actually pretty irrelevant.

Yes, it was on in the background with the missus watching it, I recall seeing some dramatic graphics of half the country changing its view, Krishnan going on about how  NI, Scotland, and now Wales and even England were now Remain, and then Curtice drily undermining that completely.