Another reason why I think I win my bets so consistently: I take seriously the old proverb, “There’s many a slip ‘twixt cup and lip.”  When I bet that “X won’t officially happen by date Y,” I’m not merely thinking, “X is far-fetched.”  I’m also thinking:

1. “Even if X looks like it’s going to happen, it’s going to hit a bunch stumbling blocks – any one of which could derail X.”


2. “Even if X does happen, it will probably be delayed, and delayed again.”

I could still lose my EU bet with Mark Steyn and David Henderson, but it ain’t over ’til it’s over.

Case in point: See how the Swiss immigration referendum is working out.  If this is the inexorable backlash against immigration, I’m not sweating it:

Back in February 2014 the Swiss people narrowly voted in favour of
bringing in some form of limits on immigration from EU countries, a move
that would have countered the EU’s free movement principle and
jeopardised Switzerland’s many other bilaterals with the bloc.

The new rules agreed on Monday diverge hugely from the
constitutionally-binding referendum, after the Swiss parliament decided –
to outcry from some – that it was not willing to sacrifice its
relationship with the EU.

Rather than imposing strict limits on EU immigration, parliament has
agreed new rules on unemployment which should limit the impact of
foreign workers on the domestic job market.

Employers will be obliged to advertise vacant positions to job centres
and invite selected Swiss job seekers for interview. If they don’t, they
will risk a 40,000 franc fine.

This obligation will only apply in professions, job sectors or regions where unemployment is above average.

However employers will not – as was suggested by the Council of States
during the development of this new law – be obliged to justify why they
refuse a Swiss candidate.

You’ve heard the saying, “That’s a loophole you could drive a truck through.”  One reason I win my bets is that there’s enough debris on the road to stop a truck.