What I find extraordinary is that all those vehemently opposed to no deal think that it is an ace negotiating stance to declare that desire.

Talk about one arm tied behind your back. Why do the smug bureaucrats in Brussels see no need to compromise? Because they don't see a need to with the defeatist idiots making their stance and therefore the country's stance a running joke.

Not sure where to start with that, other than I hope it isn't an attempt to even slightly pin the blame for any no deal Brexit on 31st Oct on "defeatists" or "remoaners".... TBH don't think that the shambles of anti-no deal campaign is having much if any impact with "Brussels" or are undermining Mr Johnson's (or Mr Cummings') negotiating position.

As a general point I'd doubt many here would sit silently by they perceived that a catastrophe was about to happen and they felt there still might be a small chance of changing the course of events?

I do accept others will see no-deal as a glorious victory.....

The Gov't ( euphemism for junta ) clearly shares your sense of humour......no doubt the nation will be convulsed with laughter once we leave and these projections become apparent .

However, Boris is off to do his prep school impression by telling the EU it's my ball and you can only play with it if I say so. There again, this dogmatic approach will be greeted with warm applause from those from a similar institutionalised background ignoring the fact they are not representative of the UK population

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49385263

So, a majority for a Corbyn led government then? Well, if "almost half" of the electorate favour the opposite, then more than half must hold the opposite view?

Forgot to include this........here's Javid harvesting the prolific money tree...must have been due to all the rain we've had this year...and generously donating a few more £m to a worthy cause........Boris.

With regard to the ST article mentioned in the BBC link, possibly ORAC could kindly supply the full article please ?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...cture-spending

YouGov used to be one of the most respected political poling organisations; in recent times their objectivity has been questioned on several occasions, as incidentally were ComRes last week. At the risk of repeating myself, it all depends on who commissioned the poll, and how the questions were presented. In far too many cases the piper (client) is found calling the tune. In the detailed report linked from the YouGov website I can see when fieldwork was done, and how many respondents were questioned, but couldn't readily put my finger on the commissioner of the poll. I would suggest it was a right wing, leave leaning person or body.

If a remain leaning body were to commission such a poll I can pretty well guarantee the result would be somewhat different.

Political polling is sadly discredited, and has been well before 2016.

ATN

Agree about YouGov..and I may be mistaken ( as usual) but I think you have to be selected to partake in a YouGov on-line poll...so no potential problem with objectivity there then.

Funny that (unless I missed it) it doesn't look like any of our usual "cut and paste a link" fans have yet to point us in the direction of today's Sunday Times article on Government preparations for a no deal.

Has the ST fallen off the approved publications list?

I don't know about being selected to take part in YouGov polls, but it is normal practise in the industry to ask respondents of most surveys (both market and social research) if they would be willing to take part in future studies of unspecified nature, dependent upon their demographic, and I suppose on answers given. A less than ethical agency could select people who are of particular socio-economic classes, or who say they use particular media, to skew the result of a poll in favour of the client's desired outcome. I'd very much hope that doesn't happen, but I wouldn't be confident. Money talks.

The Cabinet Office report in the Sunday Times is of course one of either "fake news", "scare mongering" or "good old "project fear". The fact that it leaked at all suggests that the civil service close to the top of government isn't totally on board with the Cummins / Johnson no deal policy. The documents don't leak themselves. Doubtless a leak inquiry will ensue, and nobody will be found wanting.

Turning back again to polls, if you put a question to respondents something along the lines of "would you support a no deal brexit were it to involves consequences such as..." then list individual potential outcomes as as food shortages, medicine shortages, power cuts all with "yes / no" options I would be pretty confident the result would be radically different to the outcomes from that YouGov effort. Obviously the client didn't want those kinds of questions included.

Quoted at length by the BBC...

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49385263

It seems to be sinking in, even to Boris, that we actually need the EU.

Thank you ORAC...so in essence, the ST headlines were nothing new, just a timely regurgitation ......with a bit about Mountbatten chucked in for good measure.

Fancy the ST resorting to such enticements !

I agree that for a number of years polls have on the whole been a bit far off the mark and no matter how skewed the question, or the demographic of those questioned, those who commissioned the respective polls must be happy if their expected result is realised, even if their desired outcome does not actually become a reality, though it would appear that polls supporting remain are given more credence than polls supporting leave/default exit.

As for any article in the ST, reference no deal preparations, why does anyone need to link to it as it has been mentioned now and over the last couple of years the link to the government pages for exiting the EU has been provided and from comments repeated every so often that the government has done nothing, it would appear the links have been ignored, so why bother.

I do think that Brexit could be BJ's Falklands moment and we know that there was a fine line between triumphant victory and catastrophic defeat in 1982, it could have gone either way almost on the flip of a coin and this country and probably the world would be a totally different place if Britain had lost.

Many here will be able to equate the two as they were intimately involved in the events that took place in the South Atlantic. I often wonder if we had had the internet at that time whether the defeatists would have held sway in print to talk-down the prospect of success and try to undermine the country for their own political ends.

If we soar out of the EU later this year with no (rubbish) deal, like Thatcher, it could put Boris in No 10 for a decade.

If we do you're right, odds are very heavily stacked against it though. I think that businesses, particularly those involved with logistics probably know better than many just how difficult a no deal Brexit will be. If it is half as bad as is being suggested I think Johnson may struggle, even with Corbyn as his opposition.

Incidentally, what has the UK materially gained as a result of the Falklands campaign? I can't recall masses of oil and gas being located yet, despite it being 50-odd years since we took the Islands back. I would imagine that the Islands and it's sheep and small population are probably still a net drain on government koffers. If they're not I'll stand corrected.

Interesting, yet again we we are back to "war" analogies and grumbles that the valiant leave campaign is being undermined by "defeatists"...

We'll never know, but the internet cuts both ways - you could also make the argument that maybe if we had internet/Social Media in 82 the Foreign Office and the PM might have been more aware and have paid more attention to what was going on in Argentina and also the general population might have been more aware some of the antics that went on in the South Atlantic prior to the 82 invasions... and if they had known that history could indeed have been very different.

http://www.nids.mod.go.jp/english/ev...df/2013/09.pdf

"what has the UK materially gained as a result of the Falklands campaign? I can't recall masses of oil and gas being located yet,"

Wrong - quite a lot has been found - see https://www.economist.com/americas-v...easure-islands

Rockhopper Exploration found Sea Lion in the 2010-2013 period - it's estimated to have at least 520 million barrels recoverable oil, They sold a portion, and the operatorship, to Premier Oil just as the oil price collapsed. Premier have a truck load of debt and put Sea Lion on the back burner.

Now they've reduced their debt and the oil price is up there is talk of project approval next year. (hope so - I have stock in these companies..) Falkland Islands | Premier Oil

main problem is that not many oil companies want to risk upsetting South America and so the number of big boys interested is low - although a few US companies have been involved. Industry opinion is that once Sea Lion is on stream there is a lot more oil to be found.