If the stock market really thinks that No Deal is happening, the £130 billion wiped off the value of UK companies in the last 3 days will only be a foretaste of what's to come over the next 3 months and beyond. That's everyone's pensions screwed as well as the more affluent section of the population losing money. Fortunately the prospect of the ultra rich losing a fortune will make sure it doesn't happen. Hopefully.The voting populace did not vote for a 'no deal' brexit. That is a simple truth that is blithely overlooked. We now have a PM who is stating this morning that even if he loses a vote of no confidence, he will still ensure a no deal brexit. I don't remember any mention of that on the side of his bus.
I have absolute confidence in my capabilities in that regard - it is the prime reason I am employed to do what I doIt clearly isn't.
To anyone capable of objective analysis that is.
Spot-on - so long as it is one that is better than No-Deal - the current one is notIt didn’t so let’s leave with a deal hey?
Ok Walter.I have absolute confidence in my capabilities in that regard - it is the prime reason I am employed to do what I do
But I have no interest in your need to make sniping remarks - so carry on
I'd agree, but what chance is there of Johnson giving them the chance to back it.Correct.
But choosing remain as an option will also create the latter, which is why the narrative of remain must change to one backing the WA.
I thought you were employed to bombard this board with shite, trying to convince people that this government isn’t a fucking mess and won’t be responsible for fucking up the country for future generations?I have absolute confidence in my capabilities in that regard - it is the prime reason I am employed to do what I do
But I have no interest in your need to make sniping remarks - so carry on
What chance has Parliament? They voted against it three times.I'd agree, but what chance is there of Johnson giving them the chance to back it.
Correct.
But choosing remain as an option will also create the latter, which is why the narrative of remain must change to one backing the WA.
Spot-on - so long as it is one that is better than No-Deal - the current one is not
Absolutely incorrect - perhaps you should apologise for the aspersion?
The mandate arising from the referendum and following the campaigns was to Leave - that 'remains' the only valid mandate
AC is 100% correct to point out that May and so many others, when seeking to act on the implementation of the mandate sensibly emphasised that No-Deal is better than a bad deal.
The only question is the timing of the statement - it was a common view following the referendum - and that is the substantive point being made.
She was spot-on - rare for her - in that assessment and what has been brought forward is indeed a very bad deal for the UK and No-Deal would be less harmful
It is a simple truism
And will need the approval of all 27 for a deal (only need qualified majority now).It isn’t. When we go back to the EU following no deal, the same deal we have on the table now, will be on the table then. The difference being is we’ll have already trashed our economy and reputation with our neighbours.
A good case was made that the illegal actions by the Leave campaign did result in their win. That the case put to the High Court failed wasn't due to that argument. The case failed because 'The referendum was not legally binding, merely "advisory," according to a Supreme Court judgement, so it can't be ordered to be re-run by a court - any decision to have a fresh referendum would have to be made by the government and Parliament would have to pass a referendum act.'
It was proven by research that Leaves digital campaign reached ten's of millions of voters in the days after its spending limits had been breached and that a significant proportion of those voters made up their mind to vote leave after the breach. In the case presented to the high court, the findings were presented by Professor P Howard of Oxford University:
Professor Philip Howard, director of the Oxford Internet Institute, at the university, said: “My professional opinion is that it is very likely that the excessive spending by Vote Leave altered the result of the referendum.
“A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure victory for Remain.
“Given the scale of the online advertising achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of the campaign as a result of the overspend.”
Estimates and modelling of course but the only method available to 'prove' the outcome was not sound.
No, because it isn't actually what Barnier said.Glad to see you supporting my assertions with regard the competence of Robbins and May
Apparently the financial markets are assuming a 38% possibility of no dealIf the stock market really thinks that No Deal is happening, the £130 billion wiped off the value of UK companies in the last 3 days will only be a foretaste of what's to come over the next 3 months and beyond. That's everyone's pensions screwed as well as the more affluent section of the population losing money. Fortunately the prospect of the ultra rich losing a fortune will make sure it doesn't happen. Hopefully.
absolutely correct. But we could still spend £19bn on the NHS couldn't we? How I do miss the sunny uplands.
The flaw in that it insults the intelligence to think that the Russians would spend all that money not to influence the vote.I think you need to read this again because I stopped when I read the quote contained "My professional opinion is that". When you read it you realize that the conclusions are solely based upon moronic and prejudiced assumptions.
Let's face facts, there wasn't a pre-vote, there was only one vote and so one total measure of peoples voting intentions. It is therefore flawed or totally impossible to ascertain how people were going to vote prior to the referendum.
I can say that 70% were going to vote leave but then bottled it on the day. Even this Oxford professor couldn't prove me wrong because he has no second data set of pre-referendum voting intentions that says otherwise.
With this in mind, no-one can prove that even 1 vote was influenced by these ads because there is no like for like comparison. The only way to make that comparison is to assume, IE, make it up and in science that is where prejudice is allowed in and credibility collapses.
Only an idiot couldn't see the flaws and this kind of stuff just insults peoples intelligence.
No matter how many models you make, you still cannot assume that 2+2 might equal 5.
What? Not a million to one against? Don't they believe our new oh so trustworthy PM?Apparently the financial markets are assuming a 38% possibility of no deal
Seems not. Although I don’t think that the financial markets have a better idea than anyone else. It seems to me that you need to be a constitutional expert specialising in parliamentary procedure to make any sense of it. And I don’t think many of them work in the CityWhat? Not a million to one against? Don't they believe our new oh so trustworthy PM?