Poor Boris

There is nothing conditional about this, I assure you. Leaving without a deal will have devastating consequences for some people. There is no doubt at all about that.

I suggest reading the government's own reports. Sheep farmers (though farming and farmers in general) are really genuinely going to struggle, for example. Farmers already have exceptionally high suicide rates. On the plus side, lamb will become really really cheap really quickly.

This is not project fear. This is not Twitter. I don't care what you feel or believe. I'm not trying to score points or convert you. I will likely be a-ok after no deal. But leaving without any kind of deal is a very bad idea.

Incidentally on the whole "will of the people" issue - Q: Does the authority of a representative parliament supersede that of a referendum, in legal terms?
A: Yes.

Q2: Were there to be a referendum held now with No Deal and Remain in the EU as the options, which would win?
A: ....

In an earlier thread, I asked those advocating that we leave without a deal to name one of its tangible benefits (particularly for predominantly working class communities, such as Barnsley). No one did because no one could because there are none.

 

I think that is why they are doing it. Lords apparently can't pick which to review, they have to look at them all. With the rebels saying they are going to force a vote on all 92 which would take an eternity.

Surprised the news channels aren't all over this yet.

 

So, clarity. The Lords are today debating the business motion, which will ultimately limit time for debate on the Benn Bill. There are 86 amendments tabled to the business motion, which the Lords will work through today so that there is a clear passage when the substantive Benn Bill is debated tomorrow. The filibustering can be countered by moving a closure motion when the filibustering peers attempt to play for time. In theory they have to move a closure motion for each of the amendments, so a potential 172 votes today in the Lords! This tactic was attempted when the Cooper/Letwin bill was presented in the Lords but the government was eventually seen off (I think a compromise was eventually reached).

 

Possibly interesting development that could prove your assessment to be correct....a number of Labour MP's looking to ( I assume) pass the deal.....it would need more to stymie the ERG though.

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...l-version-theresa-may-s-brexit-deal-1-9974735

 

There'll be less Brown People. And Mooslims too. They'll be gone.

 

It would be hard to see the government compromising this time after the exchanges in the commons yesterday.

 

The entire problem is that is was oversold. We are not going to get:

Better Trade deals
All the benefits with none of the costs
A quick and easy deal
The German car industry begging for a deal
Lower immigration
Richer
etc etc

If you want to reverse a generational change, you need to take a generation to do it - without causing serious problems along the way. If "the will of the people" is to want to Leave within an unrealistically short time-scale, then there are consequences. These consequences (from YellowHammer leaks) are likely to be major job losses and avoidable deaths.

If people are happy to leave in a hurry, then they have to face responsibility for those consequences and live with them

If you want to avoid the consequences, you have to be realistic about the time it will take to leave (10-20 years).

Leavers really need to pick their poison.

 

It has a LOT to do with Remainers, but to borrow a legal term 'Proximate cause', perhaps there are so many entrenched remainers is down to , as you rightly say, can be attributed largely to the sheer incompetence displayed over 3 years by those negotiating Brexit (the root cause being Maybot who was not really committed to leaving and just paying lip-service ). So in that I, in the main, agree with you it comes down to sheer mismanagement of the whole debacle that we are in the mess we are in..

 

Since when does economic forecasting work that far into the future? It didn't take anywhere near that period of time for most countries to recover from the devastation and economic ruin of WWII". Britain was bankrupt, London and major industrial centres in ruins and we had to borrow heavily whilst rationing continued for a further 9 years after the war. However, in spite of that the UK was booming by the late 50s. Are you really suggesting Brexit is more harmful than a full on World War that lasted for 6 years?
Yellowhammer is assumption based on worst case scenarios and a risk assessment document . Due diligence always looks at the worst case in order to mitigate during the planning phase.

 

No, BlackSwan is the worst case. Yellowhammer is the current expectations and mitigation is only good if the program management (and Brexit is a big sod-off program) activates *all* the mitigation plans.

The program I'm working on now has a 2+ year time scale and is only a fraction the size of Brexit program.

 

On a lighter note

 

I'm voting for a party that's had policies formed in consultation with its membership and which put money and investment into the services which most people in this country deserve but have seen decimated and sold off by years of Tory government.

And the wealth of the very rich has gone up, massively, despite everyone else's earning having essentially fallen. I got my first above 1% pay rise in 11 years this year.

 

Arrrgh....things you can't unsee

 

what we looking at - lass on rt adjusting her dentures, guy behind playing with himself, Ken Clarke's gut or Rees Moggs' little fetish??

 

The decision is your depending on your viewpoint

 

think I'll go for RM - the double br****** suit clinched it!

 

Yes - I think Theresa May had already conceded the point on that occasion so they found it easy to compromise on the progression in the Lords. I suppose the only situation given the present scenario would be if Boris saw it as likely to facilitate Labour's agreement to call an election whereby he thought he could win that election and instantly repeal the Benn legislation (if it so becomes) thus allowing him to pursue his aim of a no-deal Brexit, which is now fully exposed as his true intent.

 

What's so wrong with not wanting to pay the Brussels bureaucrats billions of pounds?

 

I suppose the answer to that would depend upon your view as to the benefits of membership of the European Union. If membership has ceased, then I suppose it would depend upon your view as to whether we have previously agreed to and continue to have ongoing financial commitments arising from our period of membership, including such things as pension payments, including to our own citizens who have served the EU and it's members in an administrative capacity