wish I could afford one

Rather than some flippant comment at best or insult at worst how about you do a better job of explaining how we find ourselves in a situation where everybody thinks something different is what was voted for? My hypothesis is the question was and still is poorly worded. A poor specification.

I don't know. If UKIP did their job well by gradually heading more and more to the left while keeping their extreme right wingers they might have eventually made the conservatives insignificant. That sounds like a really tough job but at that point they wouldn't have needed a referendum and could have explained the Brexit they wanted in a manifesto then chanced their arm. As it turns out they went the other way and have disappeared into obscurity.

Exactly, as I said he was worried about the conservative party becoming insignificant or needing to be in coalitions forever more. It was never about the people.

Apologies, I'll try again. Let's think of Brexit being on a scale of 1 to 100. 1 is what the ERG want - a hard Brexit, say 30 is what Boris is trying to head towards, 50 is what Theresa May tried for, 70 is what Labour want, 80 is what the Lib Dems want - Remain and 81 to 100 was never even on the table as it was maybe promised but not deliverable. The referendum then gave us a choice. Would you like 1 to 100 minus 80 or would you like 80. 52% said they wanted 1 to 100 minus 80. 48% said they want 80. Right, now that 52% has to be implemented and it's of course impossible. It's not hard enough for some and it's too hard for others. Instead if the question was do you want a 30 or an 80 everyone else has to decide which is the best compromise for them. If it wasn't desired to be so clear cut initially and we wanted more 'will of the people' then run a series of referendum to settle on the type of Brexit before putting it up against the 80. Re EU agree a deal. Do you really think that a few grown-ups really didn't know what was possible? The EU has many positives and negatives but what we know they are is procedural. There is plenty of precedent to show what works and the UK had a pick'n'mix selection so nobody was being held hostage.

80 seats is still a long way from the 300 odd needed to pass any legislation. So what happens? Maybe a coalition which would maybe see things moderated. The system would almost work. Cameron was not doing what was right for the country when he called the election. He was trying to save his political party which is a very different thing.

No, there are many who simply don't want a hard Brexit at any price and would vote against it in principle. The ERG LibDems are an outlier in their view that we should leave with no WA A50 should be revoked in flagrant disregard of the 2016 referendum. It works both ways. Back to my point about the initial question being the root cause of the problem. I would guess that if the WA and PD was heading us into a LPF/EEA/EFTA arrangement a lot of labour and maybe some others would vote for it. The ERG of course wouldn't but I think they would get a majority of that. Again poor clarification of what was being voted for on day 0. The question was Brexit unicorn or remain. It should have been this is the Brexit we as a political class propose vs remain.

Are you really saying that what he did was what a true statesman would do? This is the guy that is supposed to be leading us as a country. Sign the letter and keep going with the plan would have achieved the same goal but maybe built some trust. All he's done is make everyone more sceptical so we'll see more Benn and Letwin amendments going forwards. The first rule any leader should practice is if you want success you first build trust.

Sorry, I don't agree with that. How about I reword your previous post to demonstrate - The blame rests on Parliament generally for not rising to the occasion. The LibDems presumably came to the conclusion that TM's deal was too much of a compromise and so voted against. However, there are many other MPs who simply want to have a hard Brexit and would vote against any soft deal on principle (but without disclosing that principle).

Nothing at all IMHO. It's many Brexiteers that seem to have a problem with it. In my life and all the successful businesses I've worked in decisions are made with hard facts. If new information comes to light which requires a different direction for a better/the right outcome then change direction. I just don't get the ERG. They are a minority who want their version of perfection at all costs. If they're not careful they'll end up with an EEA style Brexit. Sometimes you need to accept better rather than perfect.

Given last nights letter behaviour I'd say Letwin and those that voted for it were right to buy some insurance.

I'm not saying it's right for one second. I'm just saying that when a decision in life is made it's usually quite useful to put all the pro's and con's on the table prior to making the decision. Instead we've run off with some half baked promised dream and then seem surprised when reality doesn't meet the dream.

The DUP are a have cake and eat it party. They want Brexit in unicorn theory but have now realised that practically they can't have it without a compromise (not necessarily the border down the sea either) which they don't seem to want to accept.

That's a symptom I think. The problem is the original question was vague and indeterminate.

Yes, I read all three letters. What would a grown up do who wants to pass the deal and build/keep some trust: Sign the letter and send it. The intention of parliament was pretty clear to be untrained eye and it certainly wasn't sending three letters. Put the WA bill in front of parliament and get it voted on. If he has the numbers then there is no problem - he gets his Brexit. If he doesn't then we want to know now rather than in 11 days time.

No the problem is that Brexit was not specified and 99.9% of the imagined Brexit scenarios are impossible to deliver. Somebody on here, I think, laid it out quite simply with a 2D matrix. On one axis you have CU and on the other you have SM. Now pick one and remember that some of them result in NI problems.

His letters behaviour also just reinforces that parliament were right to pass the Letwin amendment today.

The EU has nothing to do with this at all from what I can see. The UK chose to leave the EU not the other way around. On day 1 from a pick'n'mix selection they were asked what type of, if any, relationship they'd like to have going forwards. The UK parliament haven't yet been able to answer them. Problem stems from the referendum question itself IMHO. It's what always happens when your initial specification is ambiguous.

We are being led by a child. Yet more Brexit dividend to be spent on court costs.

I must admit that I'm getting sick and tired of the whole charade. Why can't they just pick one of the options Barnier kindly laid out for them on day 1. Oh, I know why. Because there isn't a majority for any Brexit variety except the infinite number of unicorns Brexit version. A unique unicorn for every voter and politician. Just imagine the Brexit you desire and it shall be delivered. It's just getting wearisome.

I think Arlene has just said she disagrees with that statement...

It's taking back control... Why are we leaving again?

Survivorship bias is a critical issue when deciding on active vs passive. This will be an active dog that with time falls away from the statistics making those that remain look more shiny compared to passive.

Agreed re money to last a lifetime. Have never met him so can't comment on ego. What this whole mess has reinforced to me is that I'm happy with my passive approach to investing. This active lark seems to work right up until it doesn't. Anthony Bolton was another poster boy who fell from grace. Given I'm probably going to be investing for another 40-50 years I have no confidence I can find a superstar for that period. I know I don't have it.

Where is the humble pie being eaten? The fund has received handsome fees for the entire time it's been open which were not based on fund performance but rather a percentage of assets under management which grew quickly right up until the point they didn't. I'm sure Mr Woodford isn't eating any.

That my friend is a combined tap and hand dryer. Those two 'wings' are 'air blades' with the centre post being the tap.