I don't believe them to be either evil or geniuses
@nooneinparticular Said
If these evil geniuses were actually capable of the amount of duplicity you accuse them of, then this 'plan' that you've attributed to them certainly does not show it. How does delaying until the EU gets fed up and stops extending deadlines a roadmap to get the UK not to leave the EU?
I have NEVER said that the remoaners plan was to keep delaying until the EU get fed up and stop extending. NEVER said nor implied that at all. I dont know if you are deliberately misrepresenting what I have said, if you didnt really read what I said, or if you didnt understand what I said.
The remaoners plan has been pretty simple. Parliament doesnt want the UK to leave and neither does the EU. So basically the EU give Parliament a deal they know the majority will reject. After 2 years the UK asks for an extension which of course the EU give. Parliament and the EU continue making everything to do with Brexit as difficult as possible. This gives remoaners more time to stoke 'project fear' and to show everyone that leaving is just too difficult. The hope is the constant delays and constant 'project fear' propaganda will eventually wear people down. Meanwhile the EU is happy to keep extending as long as they believe that doing so will result in the UK NOT leaving. Now as a part of this plan the idea initially was to have a 2nd in/out referendum. However polls were showing that such a referendum could well result in the same outcome as the first. So remoaners then planned to present to the people a referendum that offered not an in/out option, but rather remain or leave with May's hated deal. A deal Parliament have rejected three times. A deal they know that Brexiteers will never support. Indeed this is the current position of Labour.
Now the above approach was working well until BJ came along. Now you had a PM and a cabinet who were genuinely determined to honour the expressed wishes of the people. This has meant that remainers have had to change tact to make sure BJ can't take the UK out of the EU (deal or no deal). To this end the speaker has broken all conventions in trying to help the remain cause. The Supreme Court has broken all convention to try and help the remain cause. Meanwhile Parliament has forced through the extraordinary Benn Surrender Act that reduces the executive to mere puppets of the Rebel Alliance. Under UK law only the executive can negotiate with foreign powers and sign treaties etc, and yet we now have a case of the Rebel Alliance seeking to legally force the PM to do what a foreign power tells him to (and yes the EU27 is in effect a foreign power).
Now at the moment, as previously mentioned, Labour want a referendum where people arent given the choice of genuinely leaving the EU followed by an election. The Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid Cymru are saying, "fine, we will support your claytons referendum but if we have the power after the election that follows we will simply revoke article 50 regardless of the result of the claytons election. The Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid Cymru would like to simply revoke Article 50 right now but Labour wont support them. More on that later.
Up until recently most opponents of Brexit in Parliament would publicly say they were committed to respecting the will of the people whilst acting against it. Under BJ they have been forced from the shadows and have been exposed as people determined to stopping the UK from leaving at all costs...as they know better than the people what is best for the people. Gotta love the arrogance.
So anyway, the remoaners plan is certainly NOT to keep extending until the EU "gets fed up and stops extending deadlines". That clearly wouldnt stop the UK from leaving and I have never suggested therefore that this has been their plan. Far from it. Indeed it has become extremely clear over the past month that remonaer MP's are working closely with the EU. Hell, you even have Jo Swinson writing to the EU telling them not to accept any deal presented by the government! There are even rumours that members of the EU were consulted over the drafting and use of the Benn Surrender Act. Now these are simply rumours at this time and so I dont believe them unless they are proven to be true..but it would hardly come as a surprise if there was some truth to the rumours.
@nooneinparticular Said
Why would these duplicitous MP's you accuse of ignoring 'the will of the people' give two figs about the will of the people enough to not just rescind article 50 in the first place?
Well the official position of the Lib Dems, the SNP and Plaid Cymru is to do exactly that, to revoke Article 50 at the first available opportunity. The reason why they havent done so already is because Labour wont support them. Many Labour supporters voted to leave and so the party knows they cant simply come out and say 'we will revoke Article 50' like the other parties. Instead they are hoping to be more subtle by presenting a new referendum where people would only be able to choose to either remain, or to Leave under May's awful deal. May's deal of course isnt Brexit and so the choice is btw remaining in the EU with at least some say in some matters, or remain with no say in any matters.
@nooneinparticular Said
Ridiculous. That's like saying just because the Conservatives sided with the DUP and Brexit aligned parties that they are all committed to delivering Brexit at the end of the month. Just because they have a shared objective does not mean that their end goals are aligned.
News flash. The Conservative Party, the DUP, UKIP and the Brexit Party are ALL committed to the UK leaving at the end of the month. The only difference is that the latter two only want the UK to leave with a clean break whilst the two former parties would prefer a deal but are prepared to leave without one.
End goal: something you want
Objective: something that you plan to do or achieve
@nooneinparticular Said
So I assume by that long wall of text, you have compiled a thorough meta-analysis of all the data institutions you disparage as being wrong 'time and time again' and can say what their actual success rates are for predictions and by how much they were off? And that you can do the same for the ones you trust?
Fair dinkum, i really dont know if you are being serious or just trying to wind me up.
First up I am very skeptical of pretty much ANY one who claims to know what the future will hold, and that most definitely includes economists and politicians. I don't disparage universally recognised data institutions when they present data on things that HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED. I do however become very skeptical when they claim to know what WILL HAPPEN esp when talking about scenarios that havent been previously experienced. And yet this is what they do re Brexit. They don't say that based on this data we think there is the chance that this might be the outcome. With project Fear 'experts' they say that 'this is what WILL happen'. And yet time and time again they are proven wrong, and often by their OWN data. For example, a number of the figures I quoted were published by HM Treasury. The same HM Treasury who have actually stoked the fires of 'Project fear'. So it is amusing to see their own figures showing how wrong they have been.
To me though it just seems like you don't differentiate btw Government sources publishing data pertaining to something that HAS HAPPENED vs 'experts' telling people WHAT WILL HAPPEN. One is a report and one is a bloody prediction presented as fact. Stating what has already happened is NOT the bloody same as saying what WILL happen. Past vs future. Surely you can see the difference? So do I trust Government figures (corroborated by industry figures) on things that HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED such as employment growth and wage growth? Yes I do. Do I trust these same sources (and other 'experts'
when they claim to know what will happen in the future? 'Experts' who havent been right about one thing yet. The answer is no. But if you seriously cant see the difference btw accepting universally recognised reports concerning things that HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED and statements by the same sources (or other 'experts'
re WHAT WILL HAPPEN then so be it.