and did you or anyone else pretending there's a "democratic deficit" ever give it credit for being more democratic? nope, never.

for no reason at all we've had juncker be a personal embarrassment, selmyar embarrass the institution for his own gain, dodged martin schulz who turned out to be pretty useless and we might now get this weber guy who seems terrible.

instead of just having the heads of government appoint some boring type who's fine with everyone.

honestly juncker is harmless enough, but him being a total clown might have moved a couple of percentage points in the brexit vote too

Don't read the Daily Mail but Fraser Nelson was just on newsnight saying that the new editor has shifted the content very significantly away from the hard line brexit camp.

A quick google suggests that's correct.

Yeah, refuse to link the DM but the Guardian ran with this yesterday:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...e-mps-traitors

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-45543609

More evidence if any was needed that the brexit deal hangs on a power struggle among lying tory bastards.

No idea how that is acceptable to anyone nevermind half a country going to bat for it.

All this ink spilled and endless waffle about the chequers plan. Are BJs criticisms of chequers valid or is he a babbling imbecile? (the latter) Has May done enough to sell chequers to the nation? (no) Does my way or nothing count as a meaningful vote in parliament? (lol)

It's all completely pointless because the EU has already totally rejected chequers out of hand. It's like debating with your mates about what you should wear and where you should go on your first date when you asked the girl out last week and she emphatically said no. Madness.

May doesn't want to sell the Chequers plan because it's a Brexit Lite plan that pisses everyone off (EU, Brexiters, and people with working brains.) It's worse than the status quo in every way.

The problem is May is slowly coming to terms with the fact she has no leverage (that she's offering up financial services is a pretty big sign of this.) She probably knew this was gonna happen all along.

The EU would much prefer an agreement that penalises the UK for leaving to a hard Brexit, and would probably accommodate most of the Chequers plan if it weren't for the sticking point of the border with Eire.

Unless May adopts its border proposals or shifts her position completely, it's hard to see how this ends in anything other than rejection in the House followed by a hard Brexit or the cliff edge...but the Maybot's algorithm can only process "The people have spoken".

We're gonna need a bigger vote. On the final deal. With a Remain option because even Johnson admits any deal will be worse than Remain. The Irish border issue is unfixable and the economic multi-megadeath meltdown is unfixable. So... we're gonna need a bigger vote.

Either another referendum (which May has categorically ruled out, not that that ever stops politicians) or a mutually agreed extension to the Article 50 deadline, allowing both sides to "see if they can reach a more mutually beneficial agreement", aka kicking it into the long grass until such time as its more politically acceptable to hold another referendum, a few more old Brexiters have snuffed it and others have finally woken up to what Brexit would really mean for them.

And, incidentally:-

And maybe even the Daily Mail one day, now its new editor is pushing a more pro-EU line?

Is this a common Brit expression? I like it

IMF Predictions for UK if no deal reached:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45546785


And here's the IMF predictions made in 2016 about 2017 if brexit vote indicated Leave, so you get an idea of how good the IMF are at predictions:

https://www.theguardian.com/business...-eu-referendum


These guys really earn their money imo.

Those predictions can still be correct because Britain hasn't left yet. Even now a lot of companies are not pulling the trigger yet on relocation hoping the UK will come to their senses.

Did you read the predictions in the first article? Do you think what the IMF said in that article should have a bearing of how accurate you think the second set are likely to be?

Yes and yes. Still doesn't change the fact it could still happen. The full IMF report clearly talked about the economic impact after leaving and expected the Brexit negotiations to be much quicker than they ended up to be.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...d-science-data



There's really not much point discussing an unreliable economic forecast for a relatively small variance as though it is important news, when the real issue at hand is the large strategic problem of the risk of giving such a large central-planning management job to such a small unqualified, unrepresentative, unaccountable clique.

You must have given up poker forever after your first bad beat.

^ If you got 148 bad beats out of 150 in a live game, would you conclude that they were still just bad beats or that there was something wrong somewhere?

Also as Alex says, part of the problem the forecasts aren't presented as "well it's the right side of a coinflip like 99 vs AKo that X is going to happen but of course it might run out the other way" they are presented as scientifically determined predictions and that one is a fool to say that the emperor has no clothes.

Why wasn't that modelled? The pre-referendum models had unemployment peaking at 6% in summer 2018, it's actually fallen since then. That's obv. due to evil businessmen and central bankers not behaving how the economists modelled them to behave though....

Anyway you're wrong. Here's yet another one pulling the trigger:

Kopparberg beginning production in the UK after Brexit.
https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/new...rexit-jitters/

Are people ITT still predicting an increased net trade deficit with the EU after Brexit?

"could"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...e_iOSApp_Other

That's so overstated. Of the many outcomes, some deal* in the current negotiations is the most likely outcome. If that happens then it's got a fair chance of getting through parliament because the most likely alternative is no deal.

The talk are absolutely vital because somehow we need parliament to assert itself and insist on a 2nd referendum despite May is trying to force the choice on them of 'my deal or no deal'.

*sure it wont be exactly the same as chequers but no-one expects it to be.

It's starting to look like a deal of some sort will be made.

I'm liking the statement that EU citizens will not get special treatment. I never did like the inherent racism of EU citizens being given special privileges over non-EU citizens. Entry by merit (or need), not by some granted privilege.

I don't think many Remainers would argue with that - after all, the EU is a club designed to best serve the interests of its members and give them easy access to each others markets and job markets, not people outside it.

If we leave we should apply non-discriminatory immigration rules to people from across the world.

Has been for a while. May has her critics but she has played the hard line brexiters superbly. And she has made use of her only strong card with the EU extremely well - that strong card being how weak she is.

Will she stumble across the finish line? - long way to go but onward she, so magnificently, staggers. What a pity it's all for something so ****ing stupid.

That is inherently a good thing and the treatment of people from the commonwealth has been disgraceful. But that wasn't actually required by being a member of the EU and unfortunately it's looking far more like a leveling down than a leveling up. Still it is one of the few things with a good aspect.