UK Politics: The Malice in the Chalice held by the Pfeffel with the Piffle is the Brexit that is true.

[Chaircat Meow]

6 minutes ago, ants said:

I think I interpreted his “I agree “ below as meaning he did. 

This position reasonably asserts that Brexit is not ‘just the economy, stupid’, but also a governance, indeed a constitutional, issue.

I agree. And patently, so do lots of people who voted primarily on non-economic grounds. And perfectly reasonably so.

 

It doesn't mean that at all. He's just agreeing that it is valid to view the European issue primarily through a constitutional lens, not just an economic one. He's not saying he agrees so viewing matters means you end up a Brexiter.

The key argument people like Farage have is that EU membership puts the UK on a course to becoming part of a United States of Europe, reduced to the status of a New York state to the USA as a whole, and that this wrecks British democracy and nation/statehood. Rogers probably thinks there is at least something in this, even if the idea is rather exaggerated by many Brexit supporters. 

[Werthead]

Quote

 

Cultural question. Is it typical for PMs to resign and still stay in parliament? I had just assumed she resigned completely, but that isn't the case.

 

A Prime Minister is still an MP and still needs to represent their constituents. Theoretically, it'd be possible for a sitting PM's party to win an election and for them to lose their seat, although I don't believe that's come close to happening for many decades. It also means their seat counts to their party's majority. If they quit as an MP that triggers a by-election and in times of a tight majority that might trigger their successor's downfall, which is a bit rude.

As a result, unless the majority is overwhelming, a former PM would generally remain on the backbenches until the following election and then quit, but that is convention, not a hard rule.

Leaders of the Opposition are certainly less likely to resign outright, hence we still somehow have Ian Duncan Smith (who was Tory leader in 2001-03) still in the Commons, despite having no discernible political talents and suffering the quite considerable humiliation of being thrown out of office by his own party on the grounds he was so shit they didn't trust him to lead them into the 2005 election (being the first Tory leader since fricking Chamberlain not to contest a general election, and Chamberlain kind of had massively mitigating circumstances going on, like France being overrun by Nazis). William Hague (Tory leader in 1997-2001) only left the Commons four years ago and Ed Miliband (Labour leader in 2010-15) is still chilling on the backbenches.

[Werthead]

Quote

 

The key argument people like Farage have is that EU membership puts the UK on a course to becoming part of a United States of Europe, reduced to the status of a New York state to the USA as a whole, and that this wrecks British democracy and nation/statehood. Rogers probably thinks there is at least something in this, even if the idea is rather exaggerated by many Brexit supporters.

 

The idea is ludicrous because Britain has a veto on further EU integration and expansion. In the past Britain has been reluctant to trigger such vetoes, but there is no reason why that should continue to be the case. The EU cannot become a federal state without the agreement of its member states, and the appetite of EU citizens for further integration in many member state countries (including core members like France and Germany) is lukewarm at best.

Ironically, the UK withdrawing from the EU and taking its veto with it, not to mention the total shitstorm that has followed serving as a disincentive to other member states to leave, has made the development of a USE rather more likely.

[Chaircat Meow]

6 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The idea is ludicrous because Britain has a veto on further EU integration and expansion. In the past Britain has been reluctant to trigger such vetoes, but there is no reason why that should continue to be the case. The EU cannot become a federal state without the agreement of its member states, and the appetite of EU citizens for further integration in many member state countries (including core members like France and Germany) is lukewarm at best.

Ironically, the UK withdrawing from the EU and taking its veto with it, not to mention the total shitstorm that has followed serving as a disincentive to other member states to leave, has made the development of a USE rather more likely.

I'm not propounding this argument myself, just saying what it is in case ants didn't know. 

[Zorral]

9 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

It doesn't mean that at all. He's just agreeing that it is valid to view the European issue primarily through a constitutional lens, not just an economic one. He's not saying he agrees so viewing matters means you end up a Brexiter.

The key argument people like Farage have is that EU membership puts the UK on a course to becoming part of a United States of Europe, reduced to the status of a New York state to the USA as a whole, and that this wrecks British democracy and nation/statehood. Rogers probably thinks there is at least something in this, even if the idea is rather exaggerated by many Brexit supporters. 

Yes.  The point is that the UK with BREXIT etc. is set up then to be stripped for parts by the US hyenas.  Also to be the dumping ground of every other toxic thing the Skeksi-in-chief can think of.

In point of fact, at this point, being NY state in relationship to the USA,  as it always has been, is pretty damned good place to be.

 

[Werthead]

4 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I'm not propounding this argument myself, just saying what it is in case ants didn't know. 

Yeah, that was meant to come across are more of an agreement with what you were saying.

[Zorral]

And the Moog, is well-positioned however it works out to make millions with his shorting of the pound.

No wonder his posh self is so relaxed on the front bench.  He wins, no matter what.

[Chaircat Meow]

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

And the Moog, is well-positioned however it works out to make millions with his shorting of the pound.

No wonder his posh self is so relaxed on the front bench.  He wins, no matter what.

Mogg is shorting the pound? Where did you read that. I think that is Odey. 

[Zorral]

Isn't it obvious that the leave poshies are all about voting against the pound?

That's what the markets here see . . . .

[Chaircat Meow]

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Isn't it obvious that the leave poshies are all about voting against the pound?

That's what the markets here see . . . .

So that's a no. Not sure you know what shorting a currency means.

[The Anti-Targ]

I'm pretty sure when you short something you don't win no matter what. I would think that if sanity prevails and no deal is permanently taken off the table that would not be viewed as a good thing for someone who's taken a short position on the pound.

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I'm pretty sure when you short something you don't win no matter what. I would think that if sanity prevails and no deal is permanently taken off the table that would not be viewed as a good thing for someone who's taken a short position on the pound.

Shorting can be incredibly profitable (in the short-run), but also incredibly risky. Unless it's the New Zealand dollar in July 1984, and Rob's refusing to devalue... 

[Jen'ari]

9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I can understand that, but I would just say that at this point in time if you still oppose same sex marriage, you're most likely an irredeemable jacka**.

 

That is something we can wholeheartedly agree on! .

[mormont]

9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Also, for the life of me, I will never be able to wrap my head around how May got the gig considering she didn't support Brexit. Did literally no one other than your clown want to be PM?

At the time, the thinking was that the way to reflect the closeness of the result was to elect someone as leader who was a former (but not very enthusiastic) Remainer who had now converted to Leave. The idea being that such a person had more chance of bringing other former Remainers with them than a die-hard Leaver. That, certainly, was May's pitch. May had theoretically been a Remainer but had been next to invisible during the referendum campaign (much to Cameron's frustration, reportedly), so the Leave faction had no special grudges against her and neither, of course, did the Remainers. 

[Jeor]

4 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Shorting can be incredibly profitable (in the short-run), but also incredibly risky.

Shorting's incredibly risky because losses can very quickly pile up and become unmanageable. In most investments where you're betting their value to go up, your losses are capped at losing your initial investment (if the stock becomes zero) but your profits are potentially limitless (the stock could go up forever). Whereas if you're shorting and playing the opposite side of the game, your profits are capped (when the stock becomes zero) but your losses are theoretically limitless (if the stock keeps on going up).

That's why it takes balls to short anything, because your losses could keep on multiplying without end and you can't just hang around forever - there's much more pressure to close off losing positions before they destroy you.

I would suggest anyone shorting the pound right now would be playing with fire, because there's just as much chance it will bounce back with an extension or any favourable (i.e. non-minority government) election result. If there's even any daylight that Brexit might not happen, the pound will shoot up. If I were shorting the pound I would have closed the position by now, there's so much risk and unknown that you are basically being a pure gambler.

 

[Jen'ari]

9 hours ago, Zorral said:

And the Moog, is well-positioned however it works out to make millions with his shorting of the pound.

No wonder his posh self is so relaxed on the front bench.  He wins, no matter what.

The Mogg please , synthesisers don’t short currencies or lounge half asleep in the House of Commons.

[Chaircat Meow]

Wow, Jo Johnson, Boris's brother has announced he is quitting, citing conflict between family and national interest. Honourable decision. Luciana Berger has also joined the Liberals. 

[The Anti-Targ]

There's only conflict between family and national interest if Jo and some of the other Johnsons are remainers, or at least anti no deal. Am I reading that right?

[Pebble thats Stubby]

21 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

There's only conflict between family and national interest if Jo and some of the other Johnsons are remainers, or at least anti no deal. Am I reading that right?

Jo Jo has quit his government job last year to campaign on a 2nd ref.

 

more details on his current quitting here  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jo-johnson-resigns-boris-mp-conservative-party-protest-brexit-no-deal-parliament-family-latest-a9092751.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&fbclid=IwAR1zlWSIIKS1qC8TYfq6uggS9P_jTSmoDvP22YgACwZPsVOjDW1GlYJ3KkQ#Echobox=1567679298

 

 

[Chaircat Meow]

40 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

There's only conflict between family and national interest if Jo and some of the other Johnsons are remainers, or at least anti no deal. Am I reading that right?

He is saying Boris is not serving the national interest so he is going, despite Boris being his brother and family loyalty, etc. And yes, both Boris's brother and sister are remainers.