Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Brexit. There’s everything to play for
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Brexit. There’s everything to play for
0
This discussion has been closed.
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Brexit. There’s everything to play for
Comments
I'm feeling a bit binary today.
The chance of the court saying that A50 is reversible is remote because it would void the whole point of the article - and even if it did it would be completely politically unacceptable for the same reasons.
If A50 is reversible there is nothing to stop the EU offering the most objectionable deal possible in order to force a reversal.
Conversely, and more importantly for the EU, there is equally nothing to stop the UK enacting Article 50, negotiating for two years, deciding it doesn't like the deal, and reversing Article 50. Then the next year enacting Article 50 again and having another go at getting a better deal.
A reversible A50 makes the two year deadline pointless as it lets the applying country chicken out as many times as it likes and then resubmit its application to leave until it gets the deal it likes.
Q1. It has been said by Professor Tristram Hunt that David Cameron "was totally responsible for the break up of the United Kingdom". Revisionist historian the late Boris Johnson in his book 'The Greatest Foreign Secretary Never To Have Become Prime Minister' said The real culprit was Theresa May 'who simply had no understanding of foreign affairs'. Were they both right?
I thought you said that bloke Smith Jones or whoever was going to be running Labour by now.
I cannot recall one mainstream economic forecaster that made a forecast after June 23rd 2016 who has not revised upwards their forecasts for 2017.
I saw lala land last week and it was excellent, but what do I know!
Assuming that A50 is not revocable (which is arguable and will no doubt end up at the CJEU but which to my mind seems contrary to any reasonable reading of the Treaty), then the only viable answers are:
1. Take the deal as on the table
2. Instruct the government to go back for more.
3. Leave without a deal.
Depending on the timing, option 2 may not be practical and even if there is time, it might not deliver anything. In which case the public would still be left with Leave Hard and Leave Harder as the options and pretending anything else would be a fraud.
Southern Observer said:
The interesting piece is surely the strong performance of the Eurozone, confirmed by the recent PMIs. With the UK's biggest export market performing more strongly than expected, lots of private borrowing and a beneficial exchange rate, no wonder the UK economy is performing above expectation.
I said:
I agree with this, indeed the strong EZ PMIs were one of the reasons that I was happy to take the bet on growth figures with Robert. The EZ has generally been a drag on our growth since 2010 and it has the capacity to disappoint again but at the moment it does look promising.
So did this: http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/economy/schauble-warns-against-punishing-britain-and-losing-out-on-the-city/ar-AAmDp4S?li=AA54rU&ocid=iehp
Schauble repeating his warning that restricting access to the skills and services of London would be bad for the EU economy and should be avoided if possible. The recognition that the skills available there simply don't exist on the continent is particularly telling.
I've recently had experiences with both public and private healthcare in the UK and find both are lacking.
On the private side, charging for every little thing becomes irritating as the bills never seem to end (thank God for insurance), even to the point of charging for physiotherapist time when showed how to use crutches (I already knew)
On the Public side, the interminable delays in getting access to treatment, although when provided it is excellent. A bit over the top in what was given even.
I can see a happy medium but that won't suit either side of the political debate.
https://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/828200628769939457
Which is imaginative, but what Single-Source Oakeshott forgets is that in fact Vote Leave published a Brexit framework (what you or I would call a manifesto) which unambiguously built in a bill for giving additional funding for the NHS:
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/a_framework_for_taking_back_control_and_establishing_a_new_uk_eu_deal_after_23_june.html
"Legislation to be introduced in subsequent sessions will include:
...
National Health Service (Funding Target) Bill. This would require that by the next general election, the NHS receives a £100 million per week real-terms cash transfusion over and above current plans. This will be paid for by savings from the UK’s contributions to the EU budget and other savings from leaving (e.g. we will not pay the billions that the ECJ is ordering us to pay to multinational companies trying to avoid UK taxes)."
Not much of a suggestion about that.
Attack Boris by all means. But holding people responsible for commitments they never made and assuming all Leavers had and have a single perspective is sillier than a mongoose wearing a fez.
Mr. Herdson, quite agree.
The fear of some Brexiteers (not mine) is that Labour, in league with the more fanatical Remainers will insist on amendments which may not be do-able. And then say it's our Brexit or no Brexit, hoping to reverse the referendum result.
Their cunning plan is to insist that whatever Mrs May negotiates is so unbearable that a new referendum must be introduced. Alternatively, they can delay things long enough for the economy to falter (for whatever reason) and blame on Brexit. Then ask for a rethink i.e. a referendum. We're democrats, you see.
That looks too transparent for me. I know they believe the Leavers are thickos, but really?
I think the idea is to complain endlessly about whatever is negotiated and try to claim political capital as a result. We'd have got a much better deal . You're sacrificed jobs and people because you're incompetent.
What's your view?
I'm not quite sure what Don is saying, but I think it is the case that Labour will be able to unite a bit more once the Article 50 principle is sorted out and the discussion focuses on what deal the government should seek, and that conversely divisions amongst Conservative MPs will become more prominent.
Having said that, the idea that MPs can have any meaningful input to a complex negotiation, which by definition is all about trading concessions and trying to find common interests, seems to me to be absurd. The more MPs interfere, the worse any deal is likely to be, as our EU friends will of course exploit divisions and try to set parliament against the government. The PM clearly understands this, which is why she has quite rightly tried to keep full control over the process. It is much to be regretted that this is being chipped away at, and very odd that some of those MPs who wanted us to Remain are the ones trying to sabotage a deal.
This was always the case and was pointed out by some (ie me) on here. The idiot Clegg (who otherwise I have some degree of respect for) and others want another referendum on Tezza's deal.
But there would quite obviously not be time for anything else plus why on earth would the EU agree to renegotiate.
So all another referendum would be doing would be handing the fruitcakes an opportunity to vote for WTO, or as you put it, harder Brexit.
Are you pulling my leg to be a tinker, or genuinely so grumpy that the Great Unwashed disagreed with the serried ranks of the political Establishment?
Both sides in a binary choice were inevitably a coalition with a wide range of views and opinions and I find trying to hold all leavers responsible for some of the irresponsible things said as wearisome as trying to tar all remainers with Osborne's emergency budget nonsense but I have little doubt that there is a very substantial majority in favour of leaving with as little disruption and change as possible. At the moment I think May and Hammond are aiming in that direction and it would be helpful if a consensus was to develop behind them that gave the strength to resist the zealots if the need arises (in fairness I have been pleasantly surprised by David Davis to date).
How many bits make a byte in your world?
Whatever happened to duodecimals?
"Are you pulling my leg to be a tinker, or genuinely so grumpy that the Great Unwashed disagreed with the serried ranks of the political Establishment?"
I suspect it's both.
If it was a dreadful deal then it depends on how up on the Ultimatum Game the electorate is.
Sorry about the cut’n paste, but according to the Guardian "British tourists will have to pay mobile phone operators’ roaming charges when they travel in the EU after Brexit, according to the European parliament committee that helped pioneer the legislation.”
Ought to get some more muesli, but it’s a cold morning for going out wearing sandals!
Such terms as the Tory negotiators, all anti-EU, achieve will be indistinguishable from the WTO fallback. Rejoining wouldbe blocked by at least one EU member, and would in the best case require accepting the Euro and the remnants of Schengen. A second referendum would not address any substantive question (and therefore would not happen).
And if, somehow, the Commons were to postpone Article 50, there would be demonstrations at a level to trigger the Civil Contingencies Act. In fact the Prime could make all votes matters of Confidence, and have a General Election which would give a Tory (and Leave) majority of at least 200.
I voted Remain. I was outvoted. Get on with it.
My vantage point a couple of thousand metres up in the French Alps
What I would say is that although the other member states will most likely allow a retraction, they aren't going to want to get dicked around if the UK really hasn't made up its mind whether it wants to retract or not. In practice I think this means you need some kind of democratic mandate, preferably a new referendum, before it can be done. Domestic considerations point in the same direction: Basically you need a new referendum. In theory this is possible if the British government will allow it, but the timetables are tight and the sequencing is quite tricky.
And obviously all this is premised on British voters actually coming around to the view that Brexit is a stupid idea, and at this point there's no evidence that they will.
Mr. Evershed, it's Hexadecimal you need to be worried about (Reboot inside joke for anyone else who watched that...)
I have however started counting my age in hexidecimal.
Kate Hoey seems a possible candidate to be first as she is already acting in a flaky manner, most recently suggesting that Brexit negotiations should take place in a neutral country so that we aren't in a 'hostile' environment.
However, a PM would have to be quite bold to let the voters play with matches in this way.
In any case, being seen to be forcing a soft Brexit through a Remain parliament in advance of a General Election in which Tory leavers think they'll win a thumping majority would not do much for Tory unity.
BrExit willy waving and toy throwing again, with a definite subtext of Boohoohoo.
Later guys.
"Kate Hoey seems a possible candidate to be first as she is already acting in a flaky manner,"
You obviously didn't see her response to the vote result on Article 50. She almost leapt in the air with glee.
Since then there has been inflation with 24 in 1982 and 32 in 1998.
FIFA now propose 48 in 2026.
Fancy Quadraginta octo decimal or quarantotto decimal anyone?
The £100m was a more worked through proposal and one that the Vote Leave people can be held accountable for. Not the government, mind, because VL isn't the government, but it would be reasonable to challenge anyone who signed up to the manifesto on the point. I doubt it would have much effect anyway.
So neither of them are fantasy figures, and both of them are capable of defence. I'll concede your point that they were both promoted by Vote Leave though
We had a 2016 full of them so why should 2017 be any different?
We should respect minority views.
And laugh at them...
How much tax you should pay, what health services you get, who gets them, who provides them, hows it all paid for... These are fundamentally political questions.
Proposing x billion extra? We already have plenty of independent think tanks and experts who make estimates.
We must therefore take assertive and spectacular steps that would change the collective emotions and revive the aspiration to raise European integration to the next level. In order to do this, we must restore the sense of external and internal security as well as socio-economic welfare for European citizens. This requires a definitive reinforcement of the EU external borders; improved cooperation of services responsible for combating terrorism and protecting order and peace within the border-free area; an increase in defence spending; strengthening the foreign policy of the EU as a whole as well as better coordinating individual member states' foreign policies; and last but not least fostering investment, social inclusion, growth, employment, reaping the benefits of technological change and convergence in both the euro area and the whole of Europe.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/01/31-tusk-letter-future-europe/
1) Persuade the hard-liners that she's on their side and they'll totally get their hard Brexit later, honest
2) Make the change to the "final" outcome look very dramatic and disruptive, so nobody could argue that it didn't need a transition.
And the expectation that a second referendum would be conduced more on facts than lies (when to both sides, your 'fact' is my 'lie'), is a triumph of hope over experience.
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/828555916677095424
From which he has made the following observation:
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/828574327293489152
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/828574499029319680