shurlock

Interesting fact Les: the pound has devalued by more than 20% versus the euro since the latter’s inception twenty years ago.

Because May and her allies hope by running down the clock, more MPs will get behind her deal in the face of a disastrous no deal. Because the swivels in the ERG know by running down the clock, they’re closer to crashing out without a deal which is the default legal position. And because for some Tory MPs, party unity is everything, however short-term and illusory.

Why is that? May’s already pledged to allow MPs to vote on another amendable parliamentary motion in mid-Feb (like we saw yesterday) if her deal doesn’t pass. For now many MPs decided to hold fire -not ideal as it’s simply to indulge the headbangers fantasy that the backstop can be fundamentally renegotiated and more time will have passed, increasing the risk of leaving without agreement by “accident”. But they believe they’ll get another bite of the cherry.

You’re trying too hard. Less is more pal.

S**t pen.

CIB kicking in - short the pound lads

He means Trump and Putin.

Les - the UK is already the laughing stock of the world. Brexit alone has ensured that.

Frankly you’d expect all the morons and wannabe alan sugars who think the withdrawal agreement is worse than no deal (leaving aside the fact that the EU has had to compromise on the backstop) to welcome an extension. After all it would buy them additional time to prepare (insofar as it’s remotely possible) for a no deal and give their risible threats a bit more credibility at the margin. Of course, whether the EU would accept an extension to Article 50 without a good reason or plan is another matter - something that Cooper, Boles et al. have not fully considered either.

Lack of helping us through this? Next you’ll be claiming that the EU is bullying the UK. The EU is simply applying the rules that the UK helped co-design.

You revert to the status quo right? No deal, no change.

You sound flustered pal.

Les - what usually happens when you walk away from a negotiation?

Precisely hence why the Malthouse Compromise is likely to be DOA (among many reasons). Give it a break pal - you've embarrassed yourself enough. Even Les -to his credit- acknowledges Article XXIV is a red herring.

What do you think of Article 24 big man?

Thanks C̶a̶b̶b̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶F̶a̶c̶e̶, Guan for the update.

He looks like a troy deeney mini-me, doesn’t he pal?

Go back to your Salter chemistry set and stop making a fool of yourself.

Dear god, GM has discovered Article XXIV (and once again been led up the garden path by chancers and charlatans who actively despise him and his ilk) #thickerthanabutchersturd

In addition to Verbal’s comments, you’re happy to turn a blind eye to GM’s threats of violence against other posters in posts to you -all while getting wound up by a bit of namecalling. No wonder you have zero credibility or standing on the issue.

The perception is that we can only buy players insofar as we generate enough sales - other clubs don’t appear to operate to the same extent under such a constraint.

Game of monopoly should do the trick.

We’ve spent money only insofar as we’ve been forced to replace players. In recent years, we’ve done it badly. The perception is that other clubs have spent money in addition to what they’ve received in transfer fees where they’ve spotted a need. We have plenty of needs but appear unwilling to invest in the same way. The result is that we’ve been dependent on a business model -buying players with an eye on their resale value- that is fundamentally difficult to sustain and risks burdening the squad with a lot of fools gold.

Not anymore.