Being upbeat about Brexit.

[jakswan]

You said they voted for brexit - they didn't - you were wrong.

Not in the post you were replying to please try and be clearer. If I did say that (I think it was the headline of the Guardian page) let me be clearer, I think the recent Brexit vote on the timetable is an indicator of the outcome on a vote on article 50 should that be needed.

Voting on a timetable on something is 'entirely different' from voting on the thing that the timetable relates to.

Can't be arsed arguing semantics, tell yourself you won again if it helps.

I never said it was - my point was that were this actually an important vote, rather than a non binding one whose only purpose was political posturing, that you wouldn't have 100 MPs not even bothering to turn up.

So important votes are only the binding ones? I think what is important is largely subjective but since this made headlines across most media you would be in a minority to think its not important.

[jakswan]

It's possible, but whether it happens or not by the end of March is entirely dependent on the outcome of the Supreme Court - if they uphold the earlier decision then I think that timescale is totally out of the window.

Which once again confirms my earlier point that the non-binding vote last week is a sideshow, an irrelevance. The key is the outcome of the Supreme Court.

I think the Supreme court decision is irrelevant since Parliament will likely vote through a bill on triggering Article 50 anyway. Basing that view on what MP's have said in interviews and how they have voted recently.

[jakswan]

Seems I'm not alone. Charles Goerens
“Yesterday evening, the House of Commons decided by a majority of almost 400 to support Theresa Mays plan to trigger Article 50 by the end of March 2017. Hence the prospect that this Article 50 will be invoked has become very real indeed."

[L.A.]

I think the Supreme court decision is irrelevant since Parliament will likely vote through a bill on triggering Article 50 anyway. Basing that view on what MP's have said in interviews and how they have voted recently.

But the bill would likely get amended by the HofL, and if enough Tory Remain MP's felt strongly enough, the government could suffer a defeat.

Then things would really get interesting.

[ProfessorDavey]

But the bill would likely get amended by the HofL, and if enough Tory Remain MP's felt strongly enough, the government could suffer a defeat.

Then things would really get interesting.

Exactly - if the Supreme Court rule that parliament must not just trigger article 50 but also must have a significant say in the manner in which it is triggered, e.g. be required to approve, not approve amend the governments plan for the of brexit then all bets are off.

Will they - quite likely as if they rule that parliament must be trigger then parliament must be the ultimate arbiters of the government policy, as is the case for any government bill - which can only be enacted through approved via both houses.

And that point on both houses is important - this won't be a case where the government can you the Parliament Act to over-rule the Lords, as leaving the EU (and triggering article 50) wasn't a manifesto pledge of the government - the only manifesto pledge was to hold a referendum, and they've done that.

[jakswan]

But the bill would likely get amended by the HofL, and if enough Tory Remain MP's felt strongly enough, the government could suffer a defeat.

Then things would really get interesting.

Not a lot of evidence I know but Daily Politics this week a Lord suggested they would not vote it down.

All of this is conjecture maybe wishful thinking. The bookies are offering odds on by March, put your money where your mouth is!

[jeremyp]

Not in the post you were replying to please try and be clearer. If I did say that (I think it was the headline of the Guardian page) let me be clearer, I think the recent Brexit vote on the timetable is an indicator of the outcome on a vote on article 50 should that be needed.

In reply #152 you said unambiguously that the MPs voted for Brexit.

[ProfessorDavey]

In reply #152 you said unambiguously that the MPs voted for Brexit.

Indeed he did - and he was wrong.

[jakswan]

In reply #152 you said unambiguously that the MPs voted for Brexit.

Wrong but I'm not talking about your post above but another of yours.

Since clarified.

[ProfessorDavey]

Wrong but I'm not talking about your post above but another of yours.

Since clarified.

Nope - right.

The very quote, in all its glory:

'MPs just voted in a huge majority for brexit.'

They didn't - you were wrong - pure and simply, no clarification required, simply flat out wrong. MPs did not vote for brexit, indeed they didn't even vote on brexit.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Polls show an overwhelming support for a Brexit which costs them nothing.

[jakswan]

Nope - right.

The very quote, in all its glory:

'MPs just voted in a huge majority for brexit.'

They didn't - you were wrong - pure and simply, no clarification required, simply flat out wrong. MPs did not vote for brexit, indeed they didn't even vote on brexit.

Yes if you quote my post and say it is wrong, if you quote something else then claim its wrong then you are wrong.

So to recap

Me "So the vote means nothing but the Supreme Court is most important show in town.

If the Supreme Court says that Article 50 needs a bill in which case the vote was relevant since its an indicator of that Bill getting through. Also some Labour politicians when asked if they don't get their caveats will they still vote for article 50 say, essentially, yes."

You "wrong".

Now what is wrong "the vote was relevant since its an indicator of that Bill getting through" (which I can't see how it could be wrong since its my opinion), or "Also some Labour politicians when asked if they don't get their caveats will they still vote for article 50 say, essentially, yes." (which could indeed be wrong).

Neither apparently, Davey, despite quoting me and replying wrong was actually talking about another post a few pages back.

The actual post you quoted was in fact technically wrong but suggest semantics especially as these are quotes from, what I would consider reputable news sites:-

Guardian "Brexit: Keir Starmer presses for 'detailed' plan as MPs vote to trigger article 50"

Independent "MPs have voted to trigger Article 50 by the end of March next year"

Huffington Post "A Commons vote saw Theresa May’s amendment to a Labour motion - agreeing that the Government must trigger Article 50 by the end of March next year - sail through by 461 votes to 89."

Telegraph "The result saw 461 MPs side with the Prime Minister and vote to commit the Government to triggering Article 50 by the end of March next year."

BBC "Technically MPs have only backed the government's plan to start the process of leaving by the end of March next year. Nonetheless it is a statement of Parliament's intent."

indeed they didn't even vote on brexit.

They voted on the Brexit issue and your side lost.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes if you quote my post and say it is wrong, if you quote something else then claim its wrong then you are wrong.

So to recap

Me "So the vote means nothing but the Supreme Court is most important show in town.

If the Supreme Court says that Article 50 needs a bill in which case the vote was relevant since its an indicator of that Bill getting through. Also some Labour politicians when asked if they don't get their caveats will they still vote for article 50 say, essentially, yes."

You "wrong".

Now what is wrong "the vote was relevant since its an indicator of that Bill getting through" (which I can't see how it could be wrong since its my opinion), or "Also some Labour politicians when asked if they don't get their caveats will they still vote for article 50 say, essentially, yes." (which could indeed be wrong).

Neither apparently, Davey, despite quoting me and replying wrong was actually talking about another post a few pages back.

The actual post you quoted was in fact technically wrong but suggest semantics especially as these are quotes from, what I would consider reputable news sites:-

Guardian "Brexit: Keir Starmer presses for 'detailed' plan as MPs vote to trigger article 50"

Independent "MPs have voted to trigger Article 50 by the end of March next year"

Huffington Post "A Commons vote saw Theresa May’s amendment to a Labour motion - agreeing that the Government must trigger Article 50 by the end of March next year - sail through by 461 votes to 89."

Telegraph "The result saw 461 MPs side with the Prime Minister and vote to commit the Government to triggering Article 50 by the end of March next year."

BBC "Technically MPs have only backed the government's plan to start the process of leaving by the end of March next year. Nonetheless it is a statement of Parliament's intent."

Epic quote mining Jakswan.

Let's not forget that newspapers are in the business of selling newspapers, and therefore need a 'killer headline' even if the truth is rather less impressive.

So let's actually cut to the truth - last week the commons (note just the commons, not both houses of parliament) voted in a non binding vote, driven by the opposition. Those kinds of vote are largely irrelevant, except for political posturing as the vote achieves exactly nothing. So what did they vote one:

1. They voted that the government should produce a detailed plan on its brexit strategy prior to the triggering of article 50. Does that mean the government has to produce a plan - nope cos it is non binding. If they want to the government can simply refuse to provide a plan.

2. They agreed to respect the government's timeline to trigger article 50 by end March (due to a government amendment to the opposition motion) - Does that require them to ensure article 50 by end March if they are involve - nope, cos it's non binding. If they want to parliament (which will of course include the Lords who didn't even vote last Wednesday) can block, delay, prevaricate, amend, etc to their hearts content.

They voted on the Brexit issue and your side lost.

Nope - no-one lost or won - it was the equivalent of the posturing at the weigh-in in a boxing match - entertaining, but irrelevant in terms of who loses or wins the actual boxing match.

[jakswan]

Epic quote mining Jakswan.

No in many cases those were the headlines.

Quote mining Definition
The practice of quoting out of context

So lets start with you backing up that with evidence, what quote is given out of context?

[Sassy]

I am not really clear on how this Supreme Court decision works.
But I do believe in honestly that we will still Brexit Europe and the Courts will uphold the democratic vote of the nation to do so.

We cannot lose our identity as a nation, and I believe the EU would have eventually cost us our monarchy and the treatment of our poorest is why we are out of the EU.

Our Country was failing it's own people and I believe committing treason in a democratic way.
Our Government was not acting in the best interest of the Queen or the Nation as people.
We are no the USA and we do not want their rules, their laws or their oppression of the poorest people in our society.

How can any nation stand when divided by lies setting one against another. The rich verses the poor. Of course the rich removing even the little the poor have to ensure they are crushed.

The EU exit vote shows the people are fed up of being told what they want and how anyone poor, disabled or sick are just scroungers.  This Government thought they could turn people against people and then walk into Europe and anyone who could not work can die on the street whilst someone took their home and their place who was not a British citizen.

As human beings we have a duty to home the homeless, treat the sick, help the disabled and look after our poorest in society and maintaining there welfare. Not treat them like lepers and kick them to the kerb.

Make no bones about it... Comfortable as you may be now... if these things above had happened to you in the scheme of things then you would would have found yourself in the same position without help or hope of receiving proper help and care.

[Harrowby Hall]

I am not really clear on how this Supreme Court decision works.

And judging from the content of the rest of the post, you are not clear on anything else.

[L.A.]

And judging from the content of the rest of the post, you are not clear on anything else.

But ten out of ten for entertainment content

[jakswan]

No in many cases those were the headlines.

Quote mining Definition
The practice of quoting out of context

So lets start with you backing up that with evidence, what quote is given out of context?

I shall assume Davey is withdrawing his accusation.

[ProfessorDavey]

I shall assume Davey is withdrawing his accusation.

Not at all.

Quote mining is taking quotes out of context to bolster one's own point when they actually do the opposite when placed in context. Your post was classic quote mining.

Now let's actually remember the argument between us. You stated that 'MPs just voted in a huge majority for brexit'. I argued that you were wrong as firstly they didn't actual vote on brexit, merely on a potential timetable for triggering article 50 which initiates negotiations, and also on the need for a plan from the government. I also made the point that the vote was non binding they they haven't actually voted on anything that requires anyone to do anything.

So let's look at the evidence of quote mining shall we. Firstly I'd argue that quoting a headline, without the full article or a link to the full article is by definition 'quote mining' as it takes a single statement out of the context of the full article. And, of course in many cases a newspaper headline is sensationalised and doesn't fully stack up with the reality of what was in the article.

So let's look at your examples one by one, on whether they support:

1. You - i.e. 'MPs just voted in a huge majority for brexit' or

2. Me - MPs voted in non binding votes on timetable for brexit and on requesting government provides plans for brexit.

So:

1. Guardian "Brexit: Keir Starmer presses for 'detailed' plan as MPs vote to trigger article 50"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/07/keir-starmer-calls-for-detailed-brexit-plan-after-mps-vote-to-trigger-article-50

In the actual article we have: 'The Commons passed Labour’s motion calling for 'the prime minister to commit to publishing the government’s plan for leaving the EU before article 50 is invoked' and 'The vote is non-binding but was a highly symbolic moment as it marked the first time MPs had endorsed the government’s Brexit timetable'

2. Independent "MPs have voted to trigger Article 50 by the end of March next year"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-article-50-vote-labour-motion-parliament-theresa-may-plan-a7462546.html

In the actual article we have: 'MPs have voted to trigger Article 50 by the end of March next year as Labour attempts to force Theresa May to reveal her plan for Brexit.' and 'The vote was part of an Opposition day debate meaning it was not binding but it has been viewed as a symbolic victory for those who believe the Government should be more transparent about their plans for Brexit.'

3. Huffington Post "A Commons vote saw Theresa May’s amendment to a Labour motion - agreeing that the Government must trigger Article 50 by the end of March next year - sail through by 461 votes to 89."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-vote-89-mps-government-wins-article-50_uk_58485e1be4b07fd553cf1c56

In the actual article we have: 'A second vote, on a Labour motion calling on the Government to set out a Brexit “plan” before triggering Article 50, won by 448 votes to 75. While non-binding ...'

4. Telegraph "The result saw 461 MPs side with the Prime Minister and vote to commit the Government to triggering Article 50 by the end of March next year."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/07/brexit-article-50-mps-vote-supreme-court-pmqs-live/

Sadly the actual article seems to be behind a pay-wall, but link to the related article on 'what the vote means and you get: 'Theresa May tabled an amendment which forced a non-binding Commons vote on whether Parliament agrees that the Government must trigger Article 50, which begins formal Brexit talks, by the end of March next year.'

5. BBC "Technically MPs have only backed the government's plan to start the process of leaving by the end of March next year. Nonetheless it is a statement of Parliament's intent."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38243500

In the actual article we have: 'The House of Commons' decisions are not binding on ministers.'

So in fact every one of the articles (when you consider the whole article in context and not just the headline) supports my view and not yours.

Not one of the articles, when considered in full and in context supports your view that 'MPs just voted in a huge majority for brexit'. Every one of them, when considered in full and in context supports my view that there were non binding votes and that MPs didn't vote for brexit, indeed they didn't even vote on brexit, they merely voted on a potential timetable to initiate negotiation and on the view that the government should bring forward their plans for brexit prior to triggering article 50.

So there we go - classic quote mining from Jakswan on the basis that the quotes you have taken out of context do not support your view when seen in context but support mine.

And before you accuse me of the same for only quoting small sections of the articles - that's partly because otherwise the post would be far too long, might infringe copyright, but there is no attempt by me to conceal the full context as I have linked to all the articles where anyone reading this can, if they so wish, go and read the full articles (except perhaps the Telegraph one as it is behind a pay wall, but I can't really do anything about that.

[jakswan]

Not at all.

Quote mining is taking quotes out of context to bolster one's own point when they actually do the opposite when placed in context. Your post was classic quote mining.

Yes agreed and I quoted from a range of news articles.

Now let's actually remember the argument between us. You stated that 'MPs just voted in a huge majority for brexit'. I argued that you were wrong as firstly they didn't actual vote on brexit, merely on a potential timetable for triggering article 50 which initiates negotiations, and also on the need for a plan from the government.

Yes agreed i was wrong and clarified my position for you. The argument is was this vote significant in that it would indicate the likely way the house would vote on Brexit. 

I also made the point that the vote was non binding they they haven't actually voted on anything that requires anyone to do anything.

I don't disagree.

So let's look at the evidence of quote mining shall we. Firstly I'd argue that quoting a headline, without the full article or a link to the full article is by definition 'quote mining' as it takes a single statement out of the context of the full article. And, of course in many cases a newspaper headline is sensationalised and doesn't fully stack up with the reality of what was in the article.

I think it depends on the headline and the article.

So let's look at your examples one by one, on whether they support:

1. You - i.e. 'MPs just voted in a huge majority for brexit' or

2. Me - MPs voted in non binding votes on timetable for brexit and on requesting government provides plans for brexit.

Eh? Don't see how that is relevant, I agree with you that is not the disagreement.

So:

1. Guardian "Brexit: Keir Starmer presses for 'detailed' plan as MPs vote to trigger article 50"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/07/keir-starmer-calls-for-detailed-brexit-plan-after-mps-vote-to-trigger-article-50

In the actual article we have: 'The Commons passed Labour’s motion calling for 'the prime minister to commit to publishing the government’s plan for leaving the EU before article 50 is invoked' and 'The vote is non-binding but was a highly symbolic moment as it marked the first time MPs had endorsed the government’s Brexit timetable'

2. Independent "MPs have voted to trigger Article 50 by the end of March next year"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-article-50-vote-labour-motion-parliament-theresa-may-plan-a7462546.html

In the actual article we have: 'MPs have voted to trigger Article 50 by the end of March next year as Labour attempts to force Theresa May to reveal her plan for Brexit.' and 'The vote was part of an Opposition day debate meaning it was not binding but it has been viewed as a symbolic victory for those who believe the Government should be more transparent about their plans for Brexit.'

3. Huffington Post "A Commons vote saw Theresa May’s amendment to a Labour motion - agreeing that the Government must trigger Article 50 by the end of March next year - sail through by 461 votes to 89."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-vote-89-mps-government-wins-article-50_uk_58485e1be4b07fd553cf1c56

In the actual article we have: 'A second vote, on a Labour motion calling on the Government to set out a Brexit “plan” before triggering Article 50, won by 448 votes to 75. While non-binding ...'

4. Telegraph "The result saw 461 MPs side with the Prime Minister and vote to commit the Government to triggering Article 50 by the end of March next year."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/07/brexit-article-50-mps-vote-supreme-court-pmqs-live/

Sadly the actual article seems to be behind a pay-wall, but link to the related article on 'what the vote means and you get: 'Theresa May tabled an amendment which forced a non-binding Commons vote on whether Parliament agrees that the Government must trigger Article 50, which begins formal Brexit talks, by the end of March next year.'

5. BBC "Technically MPs have only backed the government's plan to start the process of leaving by the end of March next year. Nonetheless it is a statement of Parliament's intent."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38243500

In the actual article we have: 'The House of Commons' decisions are not binding on ministers.'

So in fact every one of the articles (when you consider the whole article in context and not just the headline) supports my view and not yours.

That might be true you accused me of quote mining, so for me to guilty of this I would be quoting someone and taking the quote out of context.

In order for your accusation to be true you would have to show where I have done that.

So a classic would be "No Vote for Brexit" and me quoting "Vote for Brexit".

All you have done is taken a position and then found bits that have agreed with you, that isn't quote mining its just quoting.

Not one of the articles, when considered in full and in context supports your view that 'MPs just voted in a huge majority for brexit'.

Its possible that the articles thought it was non-binding, was a vote for Brexit, and was significant, these are not mutually exclusive claims.

At no point did I "quote mine".

Every one of them, when considered in full and in context supports my view that there were non binding votes

Agreed.

and that MPs didn't vote for brexit,

The would need to explicitly state that if it were true, they don't.

indeed they didn't even vote on brexit, they merely voted on a potential timetable to initiate negotiation and on the view that the government should bring forward their plans for brexit prior to triggering article 50.

If them voting on a motion with an amendment on it that says “call on the government to invoke article 50 by 31 March 2017” isn't a vote at least about Brexit I don't know what is.

So there we go - classic quote mining from Jakswan on the basis that the quotes you have taken out of context do not support your view when seen in context but support mine.

Nope classic Davey delusion.

And before you accuse me of the same for only quoting small sections of the articles - that's partly because otherwise the post would be far too long, might infringe copyright, but there is no attempt by me to conceal the full context as I have linked to all the articles where anyone reading this can, if they so wish, go and read the full articles (except perhaps the Telegraph one as it is behind a pay wall, but I can't really do anything about that.

I don't think even understand what quote mining is.

[ProfessorDavey]

And Jakswan, if you really want context, perhaps go straight to the horse's mouth. In this case the actual record of the debate in Hansard:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-12-07/debates/CA09D9B2-9634-41C8-8979-8B9CD82DBB8F/TheGovernmentSPlanForBrexit

Jakswan claims that because MPs voted on the government amendment in this non binding debate, that it suggests they would do so in a real debate on triggering article 50 if one arises. Now Keir Starmer, whose debate it was (as Shadow Secretary of State for brexit, this being an opposition day debate), was asked that very question by Julian Lewis, a conservative MP. He asked:

'Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that, if the Opposition support, or at least do not oppose, the Government’s amendment, it would be completely unacceptable and ​totally inconsistent for them to do anything in the new year to delay the triggering of article 50 beyond 31 March?'

Starmer replied: 'I have made it absolutely clear that nothing in today’s motion precludes any party, including my own, from tabling an amendment to proposed legislation, if there is proposed legislation, and voting on it. I am astonished that some Members are willing to pass up the opportunity to have a vote in the first place and to restrict our ability to debate amendments.'

Which translates to 'no, chum, this debate means nothing - we can (and will if we see fit) vote for changes, amendments, vote against etc, delay triggering article 50 etc etc.' Nothing in this debate has any effect whatsoever on those later decisions (if we get them in a parliamentary debate and vote on triggering article 50).

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes agreed i was wrong and clarified my position for you. The argument is was this vote significant in that it would indicate the likely way the house would vote on Brexit.

Not according to Keir Starmer, whose debate it was (see post above)

If them voting on a motion with an amendment on it that says “call on the government to invoke article 50 by 31 March 2017” isn't a vote at least about Brexit I don't know what is.

Just what it was - a non binding opposition day vote on their request for government to publish its plans and on an government amendment on the timetable for triggering article 50. And as Starmer has clearly indicated were the house to be asked to actually vote on triggering article 50 in a binding vote (which would really be about the timetable) then there is no guarantee that the opposition would vote in a similar manner, nor that they might table amendments that might result in delays etc.

The rest of your response is, frankly, flannel. Jakswan - a tip for you, when in a hole best to stop digging.

I actually don't think you understand parliamentary procedure and, in particular, opposition day motions. These are nothing more than political posturing. Usually the opposition tables a motion critical of government, and then the government tables an amendment saying how great they are (or suggesting their agenda). In plenty of cases (as in this one on plans) the opposition wins, but it binds the government to nothing. Often the government amendment is also carried, but it provide the government with no parliamentary mandate to do anything.

[jakswan]

And Jakswan, if you really want context, perhaps go straight to the horse's mouth. In this case the actual record of the debate in Hansard:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-12-07/debates/CA09D9B2-9634-41C8-8979-8B9CD82DBB8F/TheGovernmentSPlanForBrexit

Jakswan claims that because MPs voted on the government amendment in this non binding debate, that it suggests they would do so in a real debate on triggering article 50 if one arises. Now Keir Starmer, whose debate it was (as Shadow Secretary of State for brexit, this being an opposition day debate), was asked that very question by Julian Lewis, a conservative MP. He asked:

Its an indicator, I think its likely to happen an opinion. You are free to disagree I would suggest you once again go and put your money where your mouth is:-

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.125398889

How much are you betting?

[jakswan]

Not according to Keir Starmer, whose debate it was (see post above)

He is not precluding changing his vote in future.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/06/labour-will-block-article-50-unless-theresa-may-agrees-to-jeremy/
A source close to Mr Corbyn told the Telegraph: "We won't be seeking to block Article 50, only amend or influence the government's negotiating terms if they do not meet our red lines.

"Our support for invoking article 50 is unconditional, but we would seek to amend or influence the government's negotiating terms."

Just what it was - a non binding opposition day vote on their request for government to publish its plans and on an government amendment on the timetable for triggering article 50. And as Starmer has clearly indicated were the house to be asked to actually vote on triggering article 50 in a binding vote (which would really be about the timetable) then there is no guarantee that the opposition would vote in a similar manner, nor that they might table amendments that might result in delays etc.

Never claimed there was a guarantee, refer you to Corbyn source above.

The rest of your response is, frankly, flannel. Jakswan - a tip for you, when in a hole best to stop digging.

You accused me of something and when unable to substantiate the accusation now resort to rhetoric.

I actually don't think you understand parliamentary procedure and, in particular, opposition day motions. These are nothing more than political posturing. Usually the opposition tables a motion critical of government, and then the government tables an amendment saying how great they are (or suggesting their agenda). In plenty of cases (as in this one on plans) the opposition wins, but it binds the government to nothing. Often the government amendment is also carried, but it provide the government with no parliamentary mandate to do anything.

You don't think I understand something then go on to explain something I have already with. What I strongly suggest you do is pay attention to what where we are disagreeing about and not what you think we are disagreeing about.

I'd also advise you to not make spurious accusations, undermines your position quite considerably.

[ProfessorDavey]

Its an indicator, I think its likely to happen an opinion. You are free to disagree I would suggest you once again go and put your where your mouth is:-

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.125398889

How much are you betting?

I'm not a betting man.

But you keep changing your line.

First it was MPs voted for brexit (they didn't).

Then MPs voted on brexit (they didn't)

Then MPs voted on a brexit issue (perhaps so, but what on earth does that mean)

The that the vote was hugely significant (it wasn't, as Starmer makes absolutely clear)

Now finally all you are left with is that it might happen, perhaps more likely than not. And here again all you are doing is moving your position to agree with me - way back I said that the March timetable might be met, but the most significant factor in whether it is or not is the Supreme Court ruling. So while we are on betting - do you not think that the Supreme Court ruling will move the odds significantly one way or another depending on its outcome? Worth noting that since the vote last week the odds have drifted back toward a later trigger date.

Also your betting odds don't actually align with the government plan (which is by end March), but your odds are for either Jan-Jun 2016 or from July 2017. So if article 50 is triggered in April, May or June that would be a delay against the government plan.

So thanks very much for agreeing with me.