Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s now down to an evens chance in the betting that the UK wi

2456

Comments

  • tlg86 said:

    Macron under attack from his predecessor Francois Hollande. Surpisingly Hollande is encouraging fuel price protestors to up the ante and pursue the protests even harder.


    http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/le-scan/citations/2018/11/30/25002-20181130ARTFIG00058-depuis-l-argentine-la-violente-charge-de-macron-contre-hollande.php

    Macron might have been ousted by the time he gets home.
    The Euro elections will be intresting next year, its not hard to see Macron beiing wiped out in a wave of discontent,
    It would be hard for Macron to be "wiped out" in the euro-elections given that Republique En Marche did not exist in 2014, and therefore elected no MEPs.
    He'll still probably do better than he did last time, though.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    FPT:

    I notice the Leavers seem to be terrified of having "Remain" on any second referendum - presumably in case it wins.

    I am a Remainer. I am quite prepared to go for No-Deal / Remain on a ballot. If No-Deal wins then so be it and we Brexit.

    What Leavers fail to grasp when they warn me about the risk of losing is that now we have a clear picture of what "No Deal" means. So, if the country decides that it still wants to Leave then even I will not argue against the result.

    Perhaps, but Remainers are also being dishonest about how they’d behave if it looked like Leave would win a 2nd vote (they’d demand the decision would be made by Parliament instead) and, if a further Leave vote was carried, they’d either challenge it or only stay quiet(ish) until they sensed they had another chance of winning via another political route.
    I cannot speak for all Remainers, only for myself and I stand by what I said above.

    To me, the difference between another referendum and the 2016 one is that this one is much clearer about outcomes. The other one offered the status quo and some nebulous, undefined, sunnily lit paradise.

    That gives a second referendum more authority.
    really ?

    can you outline the consequences of staying in over the next 10 years ?
    No. No one can do that. Predicting the short term is much easier.

    Remain: things continue as they are, business and services are not disrupted.

    No-Deal: business and service disruption, probably significant.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 23,471

    And let's not forget just how much all this fascinating political spectacle is costing us.



    I was in Frankfurt a couple of months ago.....no "forest" there - there's much more building going on in the City.
    It should also be noted that, according to a friend and limited personal experience - that the Germans love fixed tower cranes. Go down a German road that is being worked on, and you will see fixed cranes, whereas we would use mobile cranes.

    A German friend thinks our approach is madness ...
  • XenonXenon Posts: 471
    edited November 2018
    kinabalu said:

    The 2016 referendum result mandated neither a hard nor a soft Brexit. It was an instruction to the government to take the UK out of the EU on the best terms that could in practice be negotiated. This was the clear and obvious real world meaning of the referendum and every politician who subsequently voted for article 50 to be invoked bought in to it implicitly. No other interpretation makes sense. The mandated destination was for us to leave under the terms agreed on a best efforts basis between the UK government and the EU27. Hard Brexit, soft Brexit, 2nd referendum, Canada, Norway, etc etc, this is all just special pleading and essentially irrelevant.

    The government has duly negotiated the best exit deal that it could. Absent fatuous conspiracy theories, that is by definition a true statement, since if it could have done a better one it would have done so. This then is the logical end of the democratic process that was started by the referendum vote of the public and ratified by the article 50 vote of the politicians.

    The deal should therefore be passed by parliament. No ifs no buts, we should leave on the due date under this withdrawal agreement. And ‘Honourable Members’ need only live up to their moniker for this to happen, because the only MPs who can with integrity vote against the deal are the small minority who opposed the triggering of article 50.

    How is a hard Brexit not mandated? After being given apocalyptic predictions if we left the EU, the majority still voted to leave.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,340
    kinabalu said:

    The 2016 referendum result mandated neither a hard nor a soft Brexit. It was an instruction to the government to take the UK out of the EU on the best terms that could in practice be negotiated. This was the clear and obvious real world meaning of the referendum and every politician who subsequently voted for article 50 to be invoked bought in to it implicitly. No other interpretation makes sense. The mandated destination was for us to leave under the terms agreed on a best efforts basis between the UK government and the EU27. Hard Brexit, soft Brexit, 2nd referendum, Canada, Norway, etc etc, this is all just special pleading and essentially irrelevant.

    The government has duly negotiated the best exit deal that it could. Absent fatuous conspiracy theories, that is by definition a true statement, since if it could have done a better one it would have done so. This then is the logical end of the democratic process that was started by the referendum vote of the public and ratified by the article 50 vote of the politicians.

    The deal should therefore be passed by parliament. No ifs no buts, we should leave on the due date under this withdrawal agreement. And ‘Honourable Members’ need only live up to their moniker for this to happen, because the only MPs who can with integrity vote against the deal are the small minority who opposed the triggering of article 50.

    And at least one of them is voting for it.

    I wish more Mps thought like you though.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Is crane-counting the new ‘word cloud’ on PB? I know Leavers don’t trust experts and data but still...
  • kinabalu said:

    The 2016 referendum result mandated neither a hard nor a soft Brexit. It was an instruction to the government to take the UK out of the EU on the best terms that could in practice be negotiated. This was the clear and obvious real world meaning of the referendum and every politician who subsequently voted for article 50 to be invoked bought in to it implicitly. No other interpretation makes sense. The mandated destination was for us to leave under the terms agreed on a best efforts basis between the UK government and the EU27. Hard Brexit, soft Brexit, 2nd referendum, Canada, Norway, etc etc, this is all just special pleading and essentially irrelevant.

    The government has duly negotiated the best exit deal that it could. Absent fatuous conspiracy theories, that is by definition a true statement, since if it could have done a better one it would have done so. This then is the logical end of the democratic process that was started by the referendum vote of the public and ratified by the article 50 vote of the politicians.

    The deal should therefore be passed by parliament. No ifs no buts, we should leave on the due date under this withdrawal agreement. And ‘Honourable Members’ need only live up to their moniker for this to happen, because the only MPs who can with integrity vote against the deal are the small minority who opposed the triggering of article 50.

    No, it was an unequivocal instruction to the government to take the UK out of the EU on the best terms that could in practice be secured (which still allows for the absence of a negotiated trade deal). As things stand, to leave and then seek to negotiate a trade deal later from a position of strength amounts to better terms than what has been offered. Remaining on current arrangements also amounts to better terms than the vassalage on offer, although remaining clearly contravenes the referendum result.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,221

    FPT:

    I notice the Leavers seem to be terrified of having "Remain" on any second referendum - presumably in case it wins.

    I am a Remainer. I am quite prepared to go for No-Deal / Remain on a ballot. If No-Deal wins then so be it and we Brexit.

    What Leavers fail to grasp when they warn me about the risk of losing is that now we have a clear picture of what "No Deal" means. So, if the country decides that it still wants to Leave then even I will not argue against the result.

    Perhaps, but Remainers are also being dishonest about how they’d behave if it looked like Leave would win a 2nd vote (they’d demand the decision would be made by Parliament instead) and, if a further Leave vote was carried, they’d either challenge it or only stay quiet(ish) until they sensed they had another chance of winning via another political route.
    I cannot speak for all Remainers, only for myself and I stand by what I said above.

    To me, the difference between another referendum and the 2016 one is that this one is much clearer about outcomes. The other one offered the status quo and some nebulous, undefined, sunnily lit paradise.

    That gives a second referendum more authority.
    really ?

    can you outline the consequences of staying in over the next 10 years ?
    No. No one can do that. Predicting the short term is much easier.

    Remain: things continue as they are, business and services are not disrupted.

    No-Deal: business and service disruption, probably significant.
    Very unlikely things will remain as they are. On the EU side we may have to give up the rebate and pay more. We will probably have to pay for the exercise we have undertaken for the last 2 years. Will the medicines agency come back? What about the EIB?

    On the domestic side all hell would break loose. It would be the biggest challenge to democracy in this country since universal suffrage. You really think that level of disillusionment will not come with a price?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,051
    Anazina said:

    Is crane-counting the new ‘word cloud’ on PB? I know Leavers don’t trust experts and data but still...

    Except it is leavers that are quoting actual statistics. It was a remainer who was indulging in crane-counting.
  • Anazina said:

    Is crane-counting the new ‘word cloud’ on PB? I know Leavers don’t trust experts and data but still...

    It's a thing, apparently:

    https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/real-estate/articles/crane-survey.html
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 19,376

    FPT:

    I notice the Leavers seem to be terrified of having "Remain" on any second referendum - presumably in case it wins.

    I am a Remainer. I am quite prepared to go for No-Deal / Remain on a ballot. If No-Deal wins then so be it and we Brexit.

    What Leavers fail to grasp when they warn me about the risk of losing is that now we have a clear picture of what "No Deal" means. So, if the country decides that it still wants to Leave then even I will not argue against the result.

    Perhaps, but Remainers are also being dishonest about how they’d behave if it looked like Leave would win a 2nd vote (they’d demand the decision would be made by Parliament instead) and, if a further Leave vote was carried, they’d either challenge it or only stay quiet(ish) until they sensed they had another chance of winning via another political route.
    I cannot speak for all Remainers, only for myself and I stand by what I said above.

    To me, the difference between another referendum and the 2016 one is that this one is much clearer about outcomes. The other one offered the status quo and some nebulous, undefined, sunnily lit paradise.

    That gives a second referendum more authority.
    really ?

    can you outline the consequences of staying in over the next 10 years ?
    No. No one can do that. Predicting the short term is much easier.

    Remain: things continue as they are, business and services are not disrupted.

    No-Deal: business and service disruption, probably significant.
    but thats just the economics there more to life than money

    other short term possibilities include Remain but with all protections gone - Euro, Schengen rebates, EU army etc, Frankly no one knows what the terms of staying in actually are or what the cost.

    I have no particular problem with ever closer union if thats what the voters decide they want, but I do have a problem with politicians going in that direcvtion without a mandate.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,486
    DavidL said:

    And let's not forget just how much all this fascinating political spectacle is costing us.



    It's certainly not €800bn - that's assets under management etc, not wealth.
    That would be the German economy that shrank by 0.2% in the last quarter compared with an increase of 0.6% here? That's the one having a construction boom?

    And when have you ever not see cranes on the skyline in London?
    Nevertheless the €800 billion of assets that have moved to Frankfurt is presumably a hard fact. How many assets you are responsible for is a key indicator of your importance in a bank. You get measured on it all the time. The tax revenue is probably welcome in Germany and other countries as well.

    They used to be ours, but not any more thanks to Brexit. We might get more fish but don't hold breath
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,221
    Anazina said:

    Is crane-counting the new ‘word cloud’ on PB? I know Leavers don’t trust experts and data but still...

    The data indicates that the German economy is currently teetering on the brink of a recession, not booming.

    But these are very short term figures that show the story is simplistic nonsense. It doesn't mean that there will not be some drift over time.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 23,471

    FPT:

    I notice the Leavers seem to be terrified of having "Remain" on any second referendum - presumably in case it wins.

    I am a Remainer. I am quite prepared to go for No-Deal / Remain on a ballot. If No-Deal wins then so be it and we Brexit.

    What Leavers fail to grasp when they warn me about the risk of losing is that now we have a clear picture of what "No Deal" means. So, if the country decides that it still wants to Leave then even I will not argue against the result.

    Perhaps, but Remainers are also being dishonest about how they’d behave if it looked like Leave would win a 2nd vote (they’d demand the decision would be made by Parliament instead) and, if a further Leave vote was carried, they’d either challenge it or only stay quiet(ish) until they sensed they had another chance of winning via another political route.
    I cannot speak for all Remainers, only for myself and I stand by what I said above.

    To me, the difference between another referendum and the 2016 one is that this one is much clearer about outcomes. The other one offered the status quo and some nebulous, undefined, sunnily lit paradise.

    That gives a second referendum more authority.
    really ?

    can you outline the consequences of staying in over the next 10 years ?
    No. No one can do that. Predicting the short term is much easier.

    Remain: things continue as they are, business and services are not disrupted.

    No-Deal: business and service disruption, probably significant.
    but thats just the economics there more to life than money

    other short term possibilities include Remain but with all protections gone - Euro, Schengen rebates, EU army etc, Frankly no one knows what the terms of staying in actually are or what the cost.

    I have no particular problem with ever closer union if thats what the voters decide they want, but I do have a problem with politicians going in that direcvtion without a mandate.
    That argument is like saying: "I'll have my arm cut off, because I might get it trapped in a door later."

    Sadly, no individual form of Brexit has a mandate, either. So your last sentence also is true for hard brexit, no brexit, May's deal etc.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,362

    *If* there's a second referendum, and it's a three option referendum, then I think May's deal wins. Most voters are not bitter enders who would rather have nothing at all, than have to compromise, and it will be most voters' second choice.

    So, we can be sure that Remain MPs in the Commons would rule that out. Their best chance is to make it a binary option Remain/No Deal (and frighten the voters into Remain) or Remain/Deal, and hope that enough hard Brexiters sit on their hands.

    And, if Remain loses second time around, there's endless scope to demand further referenda in the future.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 19,376

    FPT:

    I notice the Leavers seem to be terrified of having "Remain" on any second referendum - presumably in case it wins.

    I am a Remainer. I am quite prepared to go for No-Deal / Remain on a ballot. If No-Deal wins then so be it and we Brexit.

    What Leavers fail to grasp when they warn me about the risk of losing is that now we have a clear picture of what "No Deal" means. So, if the country decides that it still wants to Leave then even I will not argue against the result.

    Perhaps, but Remainers are also being dishonest about how they’d behave if it looked like Leave would win a 2nd vote (they’d demand the decision would be made by Parliament instead) and, if a further Leave vote was carried, they’d either challenge it or only stay quiet(ish) until they sensed they had another chance of winning via another political route.
    I cannot speak for all Remainers, only for myself and I stand by what I said above.

    To me, the difference between another referendum and the 2016 one is that this one is much clearer about outcomes. The other one offered the status quo and some nebulous, undefined, sunnily lit paradise.

    That gives a second referendum more authority.
    really ?

    can you outline the consequences of staying in over the next 10 years ?
    No. No one can do that. Predicting the short term is much easier.

    Remain: things continue as they are, business and services are not disrupted.

    No-Deal: business and service disruption, probably significant.
    but thats just the economics there more to life than money

    other short term possibilities include Remain but with all protections gone - Euro, Schengen rebates, EU army etc, Frankly no one knows what the terms of staying in actually are or what the cost.

    I have no particular problem with ever closer union if thats what the voters decide they want, but I do have a problem with politicians going in that direcvtion without a mandate.
    That argument is like saying: "I'll have my arm cut off, because I might get it trapped in a door later."

    Sadly, no individual form of Brexit has a mandate, either. So your last sentence also is true for hard brexit, no brexit, May's deal etc.
    On the actual format there is of course no mandate, but there is a mandate to leave.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    FPT:

    I notice the Leavers seem to be terrified of having "Remain" on any second referendum - presumably in case it wins.

    I am a Remainer. I am quite prepared to go for No-Deal / Remain on a ballot. If No-Deal wins then so be it and we Brexit.

    What Leavers fail to grasp when they warn me about the risk of losing is that now we have a clear picture of what "No Deal" means. So, if the country decides that it still wants to Leave then even I will not argue against the result.

    Perhaps, but Remainers are also being dishonest about how they’d behave if it looked like Leave would win a 2nd vote (they’d demand the decision would be made by Parliament instead) and, if a further Leave vote was carried, they’d either challenge it or only stay quiet(ish) until they sensed they had another chance of winning via another political route.
    I cannot speak for all Remainers, only for myself and I stand by what I said above.

    To me, the difference between another referendum and the 2016 one is that this one is much clearer about outcomes. The other one offered the status quo and some nebulous, undefined, sunnily lit paradise.

    That gives a second referendum more authority.
    really ?

    can you outline the consequences of staying in over the next 10 years ?
    No. No one can do that. Predicting the short term is much easier.

    Remain: things continue as they are, business and services are not disrupted.

    No-Deal: business and service disruption, probably significant.
    but thats just the economics there more to life than money

    other short term possibilities include Remain but with all protections gone - Euro, Schengen rebates, EU army etc, Frankly no one knows what the terms of staying in actually are or what the cost.

    I have no particular problem with ever closer union if thats what the voters decide they want, but I do have a problem with politicians going in that direcvtion without a mandate.
    There is no perfect answer, but it is possible to determine which answer are less good than others.

    There is indeed more to life than economics and money, but economics and money are what enable most people to experience the other things.

    I cannot eat my sovereignty nor feed it to my kids, but keeping my salary flowing in and keeping other people in their jobs helps me and mine have a better life.

    "It's the economy, stupid" ;)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,221
    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    And let's not forget just how much all this fascinating political spectacle is costing us.



    It's certainly not €800bn - that's assets under management etc, not wealth.
    That would be the German economy that shrank by 0.2% in the last quarter compared with an increase of 0.6% here? That's the one having a construction boom?

    And when have you ever not see cranes on the skyline in London?
    Nevertheless the €800 billion of assets that have moved to Frankfurt is presumably a hard fact. How many assets you are responsible for is a key indicator of your importance in a bank. You get measured on it all the time. The tax revenue is probably welcome in Germany and other countries as well.

    They used to be ours, but not any more thanks to Brexit. We might get more fish but don't hold breath
    Its not a hard fact, it is a forecast by a lobby group: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-london-banks-frankfurt-germany-assets-economy-finance-lobby-group-a8659041.html

    They might be right of course, but its not a hard fact.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,340
    Sean_F said:


    *If* there's a second referendum, and it's a three option referendum, then I think May's deal wins. Most voters are not bitter enders who would rather have nothing at all, than have to compromise, and it will be most voters' second choice.

    So, we can be sure that Remain MPs in the Commons would rule that out. Their best chance is to make it a binary option Remain/No Deal (and frighten the voters into Remain) or Remain/Deal, and hope that enough hard Brexiters sit on their hands.

    And, if Remain loses second time around, there's endless scope to demand further referenda in the future.

    I don't think deal would win. Who would speak to defend it? After the Commons on left And right unite to condemn it?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,362
    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    *If* there's a second referendum, and it's a three option referendum, then I think May's deal wins. Most voters are not bitter enders who would rather have nothing at all, than have to compromise, and it will be most voters' second choice.

    So, we can be sure that Remain MPs in the Commons would rule that out. Their best chance is to make it a binary option Remain/No Deal (and frighten the voters into Remain) or Remain/Deal, and hope that enough hard Brexiters sit on their hands.

    And, if Remain loses second time around, there's endless scope to demand further referenda in the future.

    I don't think deal would win. Who would speak to defend it? After the Commons on left And right unite to condemn it?
    In aggregate, voters are wiser than MP's.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,221
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    *If* there's a second referendum, and it's a three option referendum, then I think May's deal wins. Most voters are not bitter enders who would rather have nothing at all, than have to compromise, and it will be most voters' second choice.

    So, we can be sure that Remain MPs in the Commons would rule that out. Their best chance is to make it a binary option Remain/No Deal (and frighten the voters into Remain) or Remain/Deal, and hope that enough hard Brexiters sit on their hands.

    And, if Remain loses second time around, there's endless scope to demand further referenda in the future.

    I don't think deal would win. Who would speak to defend it? After the Commons on left And right unite to condemn it?
    In aggregate, voters are wiser than MP's.
    God I hope so. Low bars come to mind.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    Is crane-counting the new ‘word cloud’ on PB? I know Leavers don’t trust experts and data but still...

    Except it is leavers that are quoting actual statistics. It was a remainer who was indulging in crane-counting.
    Fake news.

    Both Leavers and Remainers have been publicly crane counting! Check the thread!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,362

    Pulpstar said:

    The problem is it isn't the MPs that will be the victims of the chicken game. It is the public.

    I might write to my MP and ask him to support the deal. He's Labour but potentially amenable I suspect (John Mann)

    My wife & I wrote to our MP a couple of weeks ago (she's a whip, so not going to vote against unless she resigns, but we felt it important to make the point.) Copy to constituency chair. This is what we said:

    Dear Nus,

    We are extremely concerned at the destructive and irresponsible response from some Conservatives to the Prime Minister’s draft Withdrawal Agreement from the EU. The PM has done a remarkable job, in incredibly difficult circumstances, in agreeing an outline deal with the EU which fully implements Brexit and respects the result of the referendum. As you know, under the deal we would leave the CAP and CFP, free movement of EU workers would end, and after the end of the transition period we will no longer subject to ECJ interference in our domestic affairs. At the same time, the outline future relationship would give us very good access to the EU markets, without the burdensome obligations. It is impressive that she has managed to get the EU to agree to this, and very clear that they won’t make further concessions.

    What is less impressive is the response of the ERG and some other people in the party who seem hell-bent on destructive tactics which will either lead to Brexit being cancelled in chaos after another divisive referendum, or even worse to a cliff-edge crash-out which would be massively damaging to the economy and to ordinary people, and probably leave the Conservative Party out of power for a generation – and deservedly so. Even worse, it won’t be a moderate centre-left party which will take power in that scenario, but Jeremy Corbyn’s extreme hard-left party.

    We know that you will be getting lots of messages from people saying that Mrs May’s deal is ‘betrayal’ or ‘not really Brexit’, but this is utter nonsense, and in many cases actively dishonest, in that it confuses the transition period with the end point.

    We hope therefore that you will join other sensible, pragmatic Conservative MPs in supporting the PM in trying to get this deal agreed.
    A good letter.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 19,376

    FPT:

    I notice the Leavers seem to be terrified of having "Remain" on any second referendum - presumably in case it wins.

    I am a Remainer. I am quite prepared to go for No-Deal / Remain on a ballot. If No-Deal wins then so be it and we Brexit.

    What Leavers fail to grasp when they warn me about the risk of losing is that now we have a clear picture of what "No Deal" means. So, if the country decides that it still wants to Leave then even I will not argue against the result.

    Perhaps, but Remainers are also being dishonest another political route.
    I cannot speak for all Remainers, only for myself and I stand by what I said above.

    To me, the difference between another referendum and the 2016 one is that this one is much clearer about outcomes. The other one offered the status quo and some nebulous, undefined, sunnily lit paradise.

    That gives a second referendum more authority.
    really ?

    can you outline the consequences of staying in over the next 10 years ?
    No. No one can do that. Predicting the short term is much easier.

    Remain: things continue as they are, business and services are not disrupted.

    No-Deal: business and service disruption, probably significant.
    but thats just then without a mandate.
    There is no perfect answer, but it is possible to determine which answer are less good than others.

    There is indeed more to life than economics and money, but economics and money are what enable most people to experience the other things.

    I cannot eat my sovereignty nor feed it to my kids, but keeping my salary flowing in and keeping other people in their jobs helps me and mine have a better life.

    "It's the economy, stupid" ;)
    except of course you have no more idea of the cost of Brexit than I have and given there are numerous things which can impact an economy most predictions are simply guesses. Unhealthy guesses Id say as the issue is so politicised - obectivity is dead on both sides of the fence.

    As for you having a better life I sincerely hope you do, but you may wish to note that a lot of people about 52% of them think the current system doenst work for them and their families and they took their chance to kick the powers that be out of their complacency. The breaking of that complacency will imo be the major long term gain from the EUref.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,051
    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    Is crane-counting the new ‘word cloud’ on PB? I know Leavers don’t trust experts and data but still...

    Except it is leavers that are quoting actual statistics. It was a remainer who was indulging in crane-counting.
    Fake news.

    Both Leavers and Remainers have been publicly crane counting! Check the thread!
    My bad, but at least leavers were also posting actual statistics :p
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 51,500
    edited November 2018
    @Sean_F I've sent a similiar one to John Mann.
  • Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.

    It assumes that:

    - There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and
    - That she will lose it, and
    - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.

    There's no way that's a 25% chance.

    On the 'meaningful vote', this is a curious game of three-way chicken. For it to fail, those who above all want to avoid the disaster of a crash-out, and/or would prefer Remain, have to ally themselves with those who prefer the disaster of a crash-out, and who have been working for decades for us to Leave. At the moment a lot of MPs say they subscribe to that alliance, but it's a logical nonsense unless both sides are simply miscalculating badly. Maybe they are.

    The calculation is that the Dec 11 vote isn't the end of the process. That calculation is undoubtedly correct. The question is how the groups with contrary objectives act when there isn't the opportunity to shake the dice again.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 2,419
    @ Xenon

    "How is a hard Brexit not mandated? After being given apocalyptic predictions if we left the EU, the majority still voted to leave."

    *

    There is no doubt that many of the 17m voted for that. But many did not. And of those that did there were different views on what it might mean. Ditto amongst those that didn't. Several different priorities were in play. Trade deals? EU budget contribution? Immigration? ECJ? EU food regulation? Worker rights? Consumer rights? Tax rates? State Aid rules? Fisheries? Passports? Etc etc etc. It is therefore not supportable to interpret the referendum beyond what was on the ballot (so the UK must leave the EU) and what was not on the ballot but was made clear to all and by all (under the best exit deal that the government could in practice achieve). Which by definition is this one.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,362

    From the thread: "But a huge operation is taking place to try to win Tory MP dissidents round to the PM’s assertion that this is just about the best deal that’s possible. Day by day, it seems, another senior Tory cabinet minister makes their views known that they are backing her."

    I read the trend very differently. What is happening day by day is that the numbers of Tory MPs publically pledged to vote against May's deal is steadily growing. It reached 90 or so a couple of days back and today it's reached the 100 mark. Today's i also reports that a number of PPSs are set to join the revolt, so the payroll vote is looking flaky too.

    A considerable number of those listed have actually been more ambiguous than Buzzfeed believes.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    Is crane-counting the new ‘word cloud’ on PB? I know Leavers don’t trust experts and data but still...

    Except it is leavers that are quoting actual statistics. It was a remainer who was indulging in crane-counting.
    Fake news.

    Both Leavers and Remainers have been publicly crane counting! Check the thread!
    My bad, but at least leavers were also posting actual statistics :p
    True! I’ll give you that one :smiley:
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,340
    Sean_F said:

    From the thread: "But a huge operation is taking place to try to win Tory MP dissidents round to the PM’s assertion that this is just about the best deal that’s possible. Day by day, it seems, another senior Tory cabinet minister makes their views known that they are backing her."

    I read the trend very differently. What is happening day by day is that the numbers of Tory MPs publically pledged to vote against May's deal is steadily growing. It reached 90 or so a couple of days back and today it's reached the 100 mark. Today's i also reports that a number of PPSs are set to join the revolt, so the payroll vote is looking flaky too.

    A considerable number of those listed have actually been more ambiguous than Buzzfeed believes.
    Given how many are needed to sink it I hope it's 80+ which are more ambiguous!
  • Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.

    It assumes that:

    - There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and
    - That she will lose it, and
    - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.

    There's no way that's a 25% chance.

    You also have to include the possibility that the government loses a VoNC on Dec 12, in which case I think May would be an 80%+ shot to go before Xmas. Add that in and you get a lot closer to a 25% chance.

    Everything there rests on what the DUP do. While I expect that they would back the govt in a VoNC if the Deal goes down (though not necessarily if the deal goes through), it can't be relied upon.
  • DavidL said:

    We will probably have to pay for the exercise we have undertaken for the last 2 years.

    Yes.
    DavidL said:

    Will the medicines agency come back?

    No.
    DavidL said:

    What about the EIB?

    No.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,362

    Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.

    It assumes that:

    - There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and
    - That she will lose it, and
    - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.

    There's no way that's a 25% chance.

    You also have to include the possibility that the government loses a VoNC on Dec 12, in which case I think May would be an 80%+ shot to go before Xmas. Add that in and you get a lot closer to a 25% chance.

    Everything there rests on what the DUP do. While I expect that they would back the govt in a VoNC if the Deal goes down (though not necessarily if the deal goes through), it can't be relied upon.
    Do you think any Conservative MPs would refuse to support the government on a VONC?
  • Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    *If* there's a second referendum, and it's a three option referendum, then I think May's deal wins. Most voters are not bitter enders who would rather have nothing at all, than have to compromise, and it will be most voters' second choice.

    So, we can be sure that Remain MPs in the Commons would rule that out. Their best chance is to make it a binary option Remain/No Deal (and frighten the voters into Remain) or Remain/Deal, and hope that enough hard Brexiters sit on their hands.

    And, if Remain loses second time around, there's endless scope to demand further referenda in the future.

    I don't think deal would win. Who would speak to defend it? After the Commons on left And right unite to condemn it?
    In aggregate, voters are wiser than MP's.
    Voters need guidance and inspiration from campaigning. In a referendum, all the noise, heat and light would come from Remain and No Deal, who would criticise the deal (and each other) loudly. By contrast, the Dealers would be the PM and some loyal ministers and MPs, trying to sell a compromise that's at most second best to an awful lot. They'd be drowned out. In a three-way referendum, Deal goes down first.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,486
    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    And let's not forget just how much all this fascinating political spectacle is costing us.



    It's certainly not €800bn - that's assets under management etc, not wealth.
    That would be the German economy that shrank by 0.2% in the last quarter compared with an increase of 0.6% here? That's the one having a construction boom?

    And when have you ever not see cranes on the skyline in London?
    Nevertheless the €800 billion of assets that have moved to Frankfurt is presumably a hard fact. How many assets you are responsible for is a key indicator of your importance in a bank. You get measured on it all the time. The tax revenue is probably welcome in Germany and other countries as well.

    They used to be ours, but not any more thanks to Brexit. We might get more fish but don't hold breath
    Its not a hard fact, it is a forecast by a lobby group: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-london-banks-frankfurt-germany-assets-economy-finance-lobby-group-a8659041.html

    They might be right of course, but its not a hard fact.
    Fair enough but a bit better than a forecast. They expect the bulk of these assets to transfer in the next few months. The exact amount is still TBD.

    Incidentally you were a bit naughty with your irrelevant to the topic GDP growth comparisons. Germany is doing as well as the UK year on year. Or perhaps as badly. It was expecting to do better.
  • Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    Is crane-counting the new ‘word cloud’ on PB? I know Leavers don’t trust experts and data but still...

    Except it is leavers that are quoting actual statistics. It was a remainer who was indulging in crane-counting.
    Fake news.

    Both Leavers and Remainers have been publicly crane counting! Check the thread!
    It was started by a post from the Economist's Charlemagne Correspondent (one might have hoped an expert, but evidently not) and some of the replies were responses to his foolishness.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    DavidL said:

    We will probably have to pay for the exercise we have undertaken for the last 2 years.

    Yes.
    DavidL said:

    Will the medicines agency come back?

    No.
    DavidL said:

    What about the EIB?

    No.
    And if we Remain, it will be a long while before any new EU agencies are daft enough to locate here.

    The damage caused by Brexit is considerable.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,051
    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    And let's not forget just how much all this fascinating political spectacle is costing us.



    It's certainly not €800bn - that's assets under management etc, not wealth.
    That would be the German economy that shrank by 0.2% in the last quarter compared with an increase of 0.6% here? That's the one having a construction boom?

    And when have you ever not see cranes on the skyline in London?
    Nevertheless the €800 billion of assets that have moved to Frankfurt is presumably a hard fact. How many assets you are responsible for is a key indicator of your importance in a bank. You get measured on it all the time. The tax revenue is probably welcome in Germany and other countries as well.

    They used to be ours, but not any more thanks to Brexit. We might get more fish but don't hold breath
    Its not a hard fact, it is a forecast by a lobby group: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-london-banks-frankfurt-germany-assets-economy-finance-lobby-group-a8659041.html

    They might be right of course, but its not a hard fact.
    Fair enough but a bit better than a forecast. They expect the bulk of these assets to transfer in the next few months. The exact amount is still TBD.

    Incidentally you were a bit naughty with your irrelevant to the topic GDP growth comparisons. Germany is doing as well as the UK year on year. Or perhaps as badly. It was expecting to do better.
    How is a forecast a bit better than a forecast?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,051

    DavidL said:

    We will probably have to pay for the exercise we have undertaken for the last 2 years.

    Yes.
    DavidL said:

    Will the medicines agency come back?

    No.
    DavidL said:

    What about the EIB?

    No.
    And if we Remain, it will be a long while before any new EU agencies are daft enough to locate here.

    The damage caused by Brexit is considerable.
    Less incentive to remain. Similarly, could you ever imagine a Briton as commission president?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 11,547
    Pulpstar said:

    @Sean_F I've sent a similiar one to John Mann.

    Dud you tell him you have never and will never vote for him anyway?
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    ... they took their chance to kick the powers that be out of their complacency. The breaking of that complacency will imo be the major long term gain from the EUref.

    *shrugs*

    What use is that to everyone? It will not keep you warm, clothed, fed or healthy. And what is "Long Term"? Does that mean we have to wait for my Grandkids to benefit? Or their kids?
  • Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    *If* there's a second referendum, and it's a three option referendum, then I think May's deal wins. Most voters are not bitter enders who would rather have nothing at all, than have to compromise, and it will be most voters' second choice.

    So, we can be sure that Remain MPs in the Commons would rule that out. Their best chance is to make it a binary option Remain/No Deal (and frighten the voters into Remain) or Remain/Deal, and hope that enough hard Brexiters sit on their hands.

    And, if Remain loses second time around, there's endless scope to demand further referenda in the future.

    I don't think deal would win. Who would speak to defend it? After the Commons on left And right unite to condemn it?
    In aggregate, voters are wiser than MP's.
    In a three-way referendum, Deal goes down first.
    Today it would win.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 19,376

    ... they took their chance to kick the powers that be out of their complacency. The breaking of that complacency will imo be the major long term gain from the EUref.

    *shrugs*

    What use is that to everyone? It will not keep you warm, clothed, fed or healthy. And what is "Long Term"? Does that mean we have to wait for my Grandkids to benefit? Or their kids?
    You have a system that works for you but doesnt work for lots of other people, why wouldnt they vote for a change ? And what is wrong with them doing so ?

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,486
    edited November 2018
    RobD said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    It's certainly not €800bn - t skyline in London?
    Nevertheless the €800 billion of assets that have moved to Frankfurt is presumably a hard fact. How many assets you are responsible for is a key indicator of your importance in a bank. You get measured on it all the time. The tax revenue is probably welcome in Germany and other countries as well.

    They used to be ours, but not any more thanks to Brexit. We might get more fish but don't hold breath
    Its not a hard fact, it is a forecast by a lobby group: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-london-banks-frankfurt-germany-assets-economy-finance-lobby-group-a8659041.html

    They might be right of course, but its not a hard fact.
    Fair enough but a bit better than a forecast. They expect the bulk of these assets to transfer in the next few months. The exact amount is still TBD.

    Incidentally you were a bit naughty with your irrelevant to the topic GDP growth comparisons. Germany is doing as well as the UK year on year. Or perhaps as badly. It was expecting to do better.
    How is a forecast a bit better than a forecast?
    The transfer of hundreds of billions of assets from UK to Germany is not a forecast. It's happening. Whether it is exactly €800 billion rather than, say, €700 billion is a forecast.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    ... they took their chance to kick the powers that be out of their complacency. The breaking of that complacency will imo be the major long term gain from the EUref.

    *shrugs*

    What use is that to everyone? It will not keep you warm, clothed, fed or healthy. And what is "Long Term"? Does that mean we have to wait for my Grandkids to benefit? Or their kids?
    Which flavour of Brexit has stolen your clothes, turned off your heating, starved you and made you poorly? You aren't an MEP or summat are you?
  • XenonXenon Posts: 471
    kinabalu said:

    @ Xenon

    "How is a hard Brexit not mandated? After being given apocalyptic predictions if we left the EU, the majority still voted to leave."

    *

    There is no doubt that many of the 17m voted for that. But many did not. And of those that did there were different views on what it might mean. Ditto amongst those that didn't. Several different priorities were in play. Trade deals? EU budget contribution? Immigration? ECJ? EU food regulation? Worker rights? Consumer rights? Tax rates? State Aid rules? Fisheries? Passports? Etc etc etc. It is therefore not supportable to interpret the referendum beyond what was on the ballot (so the UK must leave the EU) and what was not on the ballot but was made clear to all and by all (under the best exit deal that the government could in practice achieve). Which by definition is this one.

    You could use the exact same logic to say there is no mandate for the deal. 17m didn't vote for this terrible solution either.

    So you can't rule one out and promote the other on that basis.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 51,500
    edited November 2018

    Pulpstar said:

    @Sean_F I've sent a similiar one to John Mann.

    Did you tell him you have never and will never vote for him anyway?
    It's completely irrelevant which way you might vote when writing a letter to your local MP. I'd have written a similiar one to Rowley, though his mind seems made up.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,221
    kinabalu said:

    @ Xenon

    "How is a hard Brexit not mandated? After being given apocalyptic predictions if we left the EU, the majority still voted to leave."

    *

    There is no doubt that many of the 17m voted for that. But many did not. And of those that did there were different views on what it might mean. Ditto amongst those that didn't. Several different priorities were in play. Trade deals? EU budget contribution? Immigration? ECJ? EU food regulation? Worker rights? Consumer rights? Tax rates? State Aid rules? Fisheries? Passports? Etc etc etc. It is therefore not supportable to interpret the referendum beyond what was on the ballot (so the UK must leave the EU) and what was not on the ballot but was made clear to all and by all (under the best exit deal that the government could in practice achieve). Which by definition is this one.

    A disappointing but unarguable truth. This is it. All those who wanted to Leave should back this deal. As should the democrats on the remain side.
  • So in all likelihood the Tories are going to lose yet another leader over the issue of Europe. Will it be the last? Presumably, when we finally see the 'Boris Deal' everyone will just wave it through out of sheer exhaustion.
  • ... they took their chance to kick the powers that be out of their complacency. The breaking of that complacency will imo be the major long term gain from the EUref.

    *shrugs*

    What use is that to everyone? It will not keep you warm, clothed, fed or healthy. And what is "Long Term"? Does that mean we have to wait for my Grandkids to benefit? Or their kids?
    You have a system that works for you but doesnt work for lots of other people, why wouldnt they vote for a change ? And what is wrong with them doing so ?

    Long term means enough time to change or refresh your economy. Germany and Japan did this from 1945-1960. I would suggest 15-20 years - so a generation.

    Of course in that timescale we will have the real arrival of AI, robotics, GM and increased demographic change. Our economy will change dramatically over that timescale anyway. It could be that being geographically near the EU but able to evolve our own rules for taxes, science and farming could be really good news. If our political class make sensible decisions which may be too much to ask.
  • DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    @ Xenon

    "How is a hard Brexit not mandated? After being given apocalyptic predictions if we left the EU, the majority still voted to leave."

    *

    There is no doubt that many of the 17m voted for that. But many did not. And of those that did there were different views on what it might mean. Ditto amongst those that didn't. Several different priorities were in play. Trade deals? EU budget contribution? Immigration? ECJ? EU food regulation? Worker rights? Consumer rights? Tax rates? State Aid rules? Fisheries? Passports? Etc etc etc. It is therefore not supportable to interpret the referendum beyond what was on the ballot (so the UK must leave the EU) and what was not on the ballot but was made clear to all and by all (under the best exit deal that the government could in practice achieve). Which by definition is this one.

    A disappointing but unarguable truth. This is it. All those who wanted to Leave should back this deal. As should the democrats on the remain side.
    Even if most people think that remaining is better than this deal, including some prominent Leavers?
  • FF43 said:

    RobD said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    It's certainly not €800bn - t skyline in London?
    Nevertheless the €800 billion of assets that have moved to Frankfurt is presumably a hard fact. How many assets you are responsible for is a key indicator of your importance in a bank. You get measured on it all the time. The tax revenue is probably welcome in Germany and other countries as well.

    They used to be ours, but not any more thanks to Brexit. We might get more fish but don't hold breath
    Its not a hard fact, it is a forecast by a lobby group: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-london-banks-frankfurt-germany-assets-economy-finance-lobby-group-a8659041.html

    They might be right of course, but its not a hard fact.
    Fair enough but a bit better than a forecast. They expect the bulk of these assets to transfer in the next few months. The exact amount is still TBD.

    Incidentally you were a bit naughty with your irrelevant to the topic GDP growth comparisons. Germany is doing as well as the UK year on year. Or perhaps as badly. It was expecting to do better.
    How is a forecast a bit better than a forecast?
    The transfer of hundreds of billions of assets from UK to Germany is not a forecast. It's happening. Whether it is exactly €800 billion rather than, say, €700 billion is a forecast.
    Its a forecast by a lobby group for the City of Frankfurt.......
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,221
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Sean_F I've sent a similiar one to John Mann.

    Did you tell him you have never and will never vote for him anyway?
    It's completely irrelevant which way you might vote when writing a letter to your local MP.
    It's pretty relevant how they vote though. I have Chris Law in Dundee West. Never rebelled against the SNP. Almost always voted for greater EU integration. Opposed the referendum at every step. I am a little reluctant to waste the pixels.
    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25270/chris_law/dundee_west
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 12,259

    I am just wondering, if I were a Tory MP unhappy with the deal, I can't see any upside to announcing that I am not going to vote for it in advance in public. I'd wait until the day itself. After all, you never know what is going to happen. So why get yourself on the naughty list?

    Or am I missing something?

    It's a good point. I strongly suspect the "100 committed" Tory MPs will be whittled down to abstention or even changed minds, though probably not by enough. The same applies to any Labour MPs who are wavering. There is zero reason to hint it in advance and get yourself nagged to death.

    My best guess is that May will keep the loss to high two digits (80-90?) but no get close to winning. I certainly don't think she'll resign - neither she nor Corbyn are quitters, as they have demonstrated to breaking point. Rather, we'll have weeks of agonising, followed by a statement, followed by some more agonising.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,362
    FF43 said:

    RobD said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    It's certainly not €800bn - t skyline in London?
    Nevertheless the €800 billion of assets that have moved to Frankfurt is presumably a hard fact. How many assets you are responsible for is a key indicator of your importance in a bank. You get measured on it all the time. The tax revenue is probably welcome in Germany and other countries as well.

    They used to be ours, but not any more thanks to Brexit. We might get more fish but don't hold breath
    Its not a hard fact, it is a forecast by a lobby group: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-london-banks-frankfurt-germany-assets-economy-finance-lobby-group-a8659041.html

    They might be right of course, but its not a hard fact.
    Fair enough but a bit better than a forecast. They expect the bulk of these assets to transfer in the next few months. The exact amount is still TBD.

    Incidentally you were a bit naughty with your irrelevant to the topic GDP growth comparisons. Germany is doing as well as the UK year on year. Or perhaps as badly. It was expecting to do better.
    How is a forecast a bit better than a forecast?
    The transfer of hundreds of billions of assets from UK to Germany is not a forecast. It's happening. Whether it is exactly €800 billion rather than, say, €700 billion is a forecast.
    In all likelihood, assets move in the other direction, as well.

    Has the City lost revenue and jobs *overall* since June 2016?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,051
    edited November 2018

    FF43 said:

    RobD said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    It's certainly not €800bn - t skyline in London?
    Nevertheless the €800 billion of assets that have moved to Frankfurt is presumably a hard fact. How many assets you are responsible for is a key indicator of your importance in a bank. You get measured on it all the time. The tax revenue is probably welcome in Germany and other countries as well.

    They used to be ours, but not any more thanks to Brexit. We might get more fish but don't hold breath
    Its not a hard fact, it is a forecast by a lobby group: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-london-banks-frankfurt-germany-assets-economy-finance-lobby-group-a8659041.html

    They might be right of course, but its not a hard fact.
    Fair enough but a bit better than a forecast. They expect the bulk of these assets to transfer in the next few months. The exact amount is still TBD.

    Incidentally you were a bit naughty with your irrelevant to the topic GDP growth comparisons. Germany is doing as well as the UK year on year. Or perhaps as badly. It was expecting to do better.
    How is a forecast a bit better than a forecast?
    The transfer of hundreds of billions of assets from UK to Germany is not a forecast. It's happening. Whether it is exactly €800 billion rather than, say, €700 billion is a forecast.
    Its a forecast by a lobby group for the City of Frankfurt.......
    Maybe it’s a bit worse than a forecast....
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    @ Xenon

    "How is a hard Brexit not mandated? After being given apocalyptic predictions if we left the EU, the majority still voted to leave."

    *

    There is no doubt that many of the 17m voted for that. But many did not. And of those that did there were different views on what it might mean. Ditto amongst those that didn't. Several different priorities were in play. Trade deals? EU budget contribution? Immigration? ECJ? EU food regulation? Worker rights? Consumer rights? Tax rates? State Aid rules? Fisheries? Passports? Etc etc etc. It is therefore not supportable to interpret the referendum beyond what was on the ballot (so the UK must leave the EU) and what was not on the ballot but was made clear to all and by all (under the best exit deal that the government could in practice achieve). Which by definition is this one.

    A disappointing but unarguable truth. This is it. All those who wanted to Leave should back this deal. As should the democrats on the remain side.
    Even if most people think that remaining is better than this deal, including some prominent Leavers?
    Best get working on the second referendum then. Maybe we should plan for two more, just in case we need it to be best-of-three.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 19,376

    ... they took their chance to kick the powers that be out of their complacency. The breaking of that complacency will imo be the major long term gain from the EUref.

    *shrugs*

    What use is that to everyone? It will not keep you warm, clothed, fed or healthy. And what is "Long Term"? Does that mean we have to wait for my Grandkids to benefit? Or their kids?
    You have a system that works for you but doesnt work for lots of other people, why wouldnt they vote for a change ? And what is wrong with them doing so ?

    Long term means enough time to change or refresh your economy. Germany and Japan did this from 1945-1960. I would suggest 15-20 years - so a generation.

    Of course in that timescale we will have the real arrival of AI, robotics, GM and increased demographic change. Our economy will change dramatically over that timescale anyway. It could be that being geographically near the EU but able to evolve our own rules for taxes, science and farming could be really good news. If our political class make sensible decisions which may be too much to ask.
    Quite, the potential technological changes will have a much larger impact than Brexit. Hoiwver I think we will have to ditch this generation of politicans as they appear incapable of greaspi9ng what lies ahead and how to profit from it.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 2,419
    @ Wulfrun Phil

    Whether the Withdrawal Agreement is 'good' or 'bad' is a matter of personal opinion and as such is irrelevant to the point I'm making. MPs in triggering article 50 in accordance with the referendum result mandated that the UK leave the EU on 29 March next year under the best exit terms that the UK government could in practice manage to negotiate with the EU27. The government has now done that (by definition they have) and ergo those self same MPs are honour bound to ratify not frustrate.
  • DavidL said:

    We will probably have to pay for the exercise we have undertaken for the last 2 years.

    Yes.
    DavidL said:

    Will the medicines agency come back?

    No.
    DavidL said:

    What about the EIB?

    No.
    And if we Remain, it will be a long while before any new EU agencies are daft enough to locate here.

    The damage caused by Brexit is considerable.
    Consider it a heart transplant. We have already removed the old heart and now the Remainiacs want us to stop before the new one has been put in.

    It is a truly dumb idea supported only by those who would rather see the patient die than carry on and complete the operation.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 51,500
    edited November 2018
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Sean_F I've sent a similiar one to John Mann.

    Did you tell him you have never and will never vote for him anyway?
    It's completely irrelevant which way you might vote when writing a letter to your local MP.
    It's pretty relevant how they vote though. I have Chris Law in Dundee West. Never rebelled against the SNP. Almost always voted for greater EU integration. Opposed the referendum at every step. I am a little reluctant to waste the pixels.
    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25270/chris_law/dundee_west
    Sure, but Mann (Or Hopkins in Sean_F ) case are clearly not unthinking Labour party hacks and might vote through the deal.
  • kinabalu said:

    The 2016 referendum result mandated neither a hard nor a soft Brexit. It was an instruction to the government to take the UK out of the EU on the best terms that could in practice be negotiated. This was the clear and obvious real world meaning of the referendum and every politician who subsequently voted for article 50 to be invoked bought in to it implicitly. No other interpretation makes sense. The mandated destination was for us to leave under the terms agreed on a best efforts basis between the UK government and the EU27. Hard Brexit, soft Brexit, 2nd referendum, Canada, Norway, etc etc, this is all just special pleading and essentially irrelevant.

    The government has duly negotiated the best exit deal that it could. Absent fatuous conspiracy theories, that is by definition a true statement, since if it could have done a better one it would have done so. This then is the logical end of the democratic process that was started by the referendum vote of the public and ratified by the article 50 vote of the politicians.

    The deal should therefore be passed by parliament. No ifs no buts, we should leave on the due date under this withdrawal agreement. And ‘Honourable Members’ need only live up to their moniker for this to happen, because the only MPs who can with integrity vote against the deal are the small minority who opposed the triggering of article 50.

    No, it was an unequivocal instruction to the government to take the UK out of the EU on the best terms that could in practice be secured (which still allows for the absence of a negotiated trade deal). As things stand, to leave and then seek to negotiate a trade deal later from a position of strength amounts to better terms than what has been offered. Remaining on current arrangements also amounts to better terms than the vassalage on offer, although remaining clearly contravenes the referendum result.
    "unequivocal"?
    52:48 looks pretty equivocal to me.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 11,547
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Sean_F I've sent a similiar one to John Mann.

    Did you tell him you have never and will never vote for him anyway?
    It's completely irrelevant which way you might vote when writing a letter to your local MP. I'd have written a similiar one to Rowley, though his mind seems made up.
    If I were JM I would be more concerned with what potential and confirmed Labour voters think.

    Mind you if he votes for the deal he will in all likely hood never have to be concerned with that either as IMO he will be deselected
  • Sean_F said:

    Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.

    It assumes that:

    - There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and
    - That she will lose it, and
    - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.

    There's no way that's a 25% chance.

    You also have to include the possibility that the government loses a VoNC on Dec 12, in which case I think May would be an 80%+ shot to go before Xmas. Add that in and you get a lot closer to a 25% chance.

    Everything there rests on what the DUP do. While I expect that they would back the govt in a VoNC if the Deal goes down (though not necessarily if the deal goes through), it can't be relied upon.
    Do you think any Conservative MPs would refuse to support the government on a VONC?
    The question, I suppose is whether any *current* Con MPs would do so - they'd surely have to resign the whip or defect first if they planned on it.

    Simple answer is that I don't know. This is an issue that raises high emotions and there've been enough cases in the past to suggest we shouldn't discount the possibility. My guess is that there won't be but it's not something I'll be staking anything on. If a Con MP does vote against the govt on a VoNC, they're almost certainly committing career suicide as they'd be expelled from the Party and their chances of winning at a subsequent election - as early as January - would be low.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,221
    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Sean_F I've sent a similiar one to John Mann.

    Did you tell him you have never and will never vote for him anyway?
    It's completely irrelevant which way you might vote when writing a letter to your local MP.
    It's pretty relevant how they vote though. I have Chris Law in Dundee West. Never rebelled against the SNP. Almost always voted for greater EU integration. Opposed the referendum at every step. I am a little reluctant to waste the pixels.
    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25270/chris_law/dundee_west
    Sure, but Mann (Or Hopkins in Sean_F ) case are clearly not unthinking Labour party hacks and might vote through the deal.
    Oh I accept that there may well be some in the HoC capable of independent thought. Nothing to lose.
  • Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    *If* there's a second referendum, and it's a three option referendum, then I think May's deal wins. Most voters are not bitter enders who would rather have nothing at all, than have to compromise, and it will be most voters' second choice.

    So, we can be sure that Remain MPs in the Commons would rule that out. Their best chance is to make it a binary option Remain/No Deal (and frighten the voters into Remain) or Remain/Deal, and hope that enough hard Brexiters sit on their hands.

    And, if Remain loses second time around, there's endless scope to demand further referenda in the future.

    I don't think deal would win. Who would speak to defend it? After the Commons on left And right unite to condemn it?
    In aggregate, voters are wiser than MP's.
    In a three-way referendum, Deal goes down first.
    Today it would win.
    I think every poll (certainly, the majority of them), which have polled deal / no deal / remain, have found 'deal' to have least support. In a campaign, it would likely only be squeezed further.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 19,376

    Sean_F said:

    Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.

    It assumes that:

    - There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and
    - That she will lose it, and
    - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.

    There's no way that's a 25% chance.

    You also have to include the possibility that the government loses a VoNC on Dec 12, in which case I think May would be an 80%+ shot to go before Xmas. Add that in and you get a lot closer to a 25% chance.

    Everything there rests on what the DUP do. While I expect that they would back the govt in a VoNC if the Deal goes down (though not necessarily if the deal goes through), it can't be relied upon.
    Do you think any Conservative MPs would refuse to support the government on a VONC?
    The question, I suppose is whether any *current* Con MPs would do so - they'd surely have to resign the whip or defect first if they planned on it.

    Simple answer is that I don't know. This is an issue that raises high emotions and there've been enough cases in the past to suggest we shouldn't discount the possibility. My guess is that there won't be but it's not something I'll be staking anything on. If a Con MP does vote against the govt on a VoNC, they're almost certainly committing career suicide as they'd be expelled from the Party and their chances of winning at a subsequent election - as early as January - would be low.
    would abstentions be viewed the same way ?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,340

    Sean_F said:

    Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.

    It assumes that:

    - There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and
    - That she will lose it, and
    - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.

    There's no way that's a 25% chance.

    You also have to include the possibility that the government loses a VoNC on Dec 12, in which case I think May would be an 80%+ shot to go before Xmas. Add that in and you get a lot closer to a 25% chance.

    Everything there rests on what the DUP do. While I expect that they would back the govt in a VoNC if the Deal goes down (though not necessarily if the deal goes through), it can't be relied upon.
    Do you think any Conservative MPs would refuse to support the government on a VONC?
    The question, I suppose is whether any *current* Con MPs would do so - they'd surely have to resign the whip or defect first if they planned on it.

    Simple answer is that I don't know. This is an issue that raises high emotions and there've been enough cases in the past to suggest we shouldn't discount the possibility. My guess is that there won't be but it's not something I'll be staking anything on. If a Con MP does vote against the govt on a VoNC, they're almost certainly committing career suicide as they'd be expelled from the Party and their chances of winning at a subsequent election - as early as January - would be low.
    If they believe this deal is a near traitorous capitulation leading to vassalage, and somehow it does get through, then they should vote down the government even at that cost. How could someone support a government which dud such a thing?
  • I am just wondering, if I were a Tory MP unhappy with the deal, I can't see any upside to announcing that I am not going to vote for it in advance in public. I'd wait until the day itself. After all, you never know what is going to happen. So why get yourself on the naughty list?

    Or am I missing something?

    It's a good point. I strongly suspect the "100 committed" Tory MPs will be whittled down to abstention or even changed minds, though probably not by enough. The same applies to any Labour MPs who are wavering. There is zero reason to hint it in advance and get yourself nagged to death.

    My best guess is that May will keep the loss to high two digits (80-90?) but no get close to winning. I certainly don't think she'll resign - neither she nor Corbyn are quitters, as they have demonstrated to breaking point. Rather, we'll have weeks of agonising, followed by a statement, followed by some more agonising.
    Agreed. But there does come a point where either a decision has to be made or else time makes one for us. In fact, it's 17 weeks today.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 1,408
    Xenon said:

    kinabalu said:

    @ Xenon

    "How is a hard Brexit not mandated? After being given apocalyptic predictions if we left the EU, the majority still voted to leave."

    *

    There is no doubt that many of the 17m voted for that. But many did not. And of those that did there were different views on what it might mean. Ditto amongst those that didn't. Several different priorities were in play. Trade deals? EU budget contribution? Immigration? ECJ? EU food regulation? Worker rights? Consumer rights? Tax rates? State Aid rules? Fisheries? Passports? Etc etc etc. It is therefore not supportable to interpret the referendum beyond what was on the ballot (so the UK must leave the EU) and what was not on the ballot but was made clear to all and by all (under the best exit deal that the government could in practice achieve). Which by definition is this one.

    You could use the exact same logic to say there is no mandate for the deal. 17m didn't vote for this terrible solution either.
    They did. They voted to Leave the EU. There was no specific solution on offer, merely vapid promises and handwaving.

    I may not like her much, but May has doggedly stuck to her mandate and obtained possibly the best compromise on offer, given her priors and need to assuage the Conservative voters and MPs.

    - She's obtained a deal which does not involve massive disruption
    - She's obtained a deal which does not cause issues over the Northern Ireland Border
    - She's obtained a deal which takes us out of the EU

    Those who seem to hate the Deal seem to be glossing over the fact that it's a transition. It does not preclude a WTO outcome, a CETA-style outcome, an EEA-style outcome, or anything between these. The EU isn't going to force us into the backstop for ever - not only do they not want to give us what they view as preferential treatment, but we could abrogate it if necessary.

    For me, the big selling point of a Remain/Deal referendum over a Remain/No Deal referendum is that the Deal doesn't preclude a transition to a "No Deal" scenario (effectively a series of only micro-deals), but the No Deal scenario precludes a Deal outcome.

  • kinabalu said:

    @ Wulfrun Phil

    Whether the Withdrawal Agreement is 'good' or 'bad' is a matter of personal opinion and as such is irrelevant to the point I'm making. MPs in triggering article 50 in accordance with the referendum result mandated that the UK leave the EU on 29 March next year under the best exit terms that the UK government could in practice manage to negotiate with the EU27. The government has now done that (by definition they have) and ergo those self same MPs are honour bound to ratify not frustrate.

    Yep. I think it is fair to be critical of the deal and say others could have done better - I know that is certainly my view - but the Government was given a task by the voters and they have carried that out. I don't think anyone could reasonably claim that this is not leaving the EU and if the backstop is not eventually needed it probably goes further than many had expected.

    I would not claim to be ecstatic about the deal but then I suspect I was never going to be. It is a reasonable compromise and does fulfil the mandate from the Referendum.
  • Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    *If* there's a second referendum, and it's a three option referendum, then I think May's deal wins. Most voters are not bitter enders who would rather have nothing at all, than have to compromise, and it will be most voters' second choice.

    So, we can be sure that Remain MPs in the Commons would rule that out. Their best chance is to make it a binary option Remain/No Deal (and frighten the voters into Remain) or Remain/Deal, and hope that enough hard Brexiters sit on their hands.

    And, if Remain loses second time around, there's endless scope to demand further referenda in the future.

    I don't think deal would win. Who would speak to defend it? After the Commons on left And right unite to condemn it?
    In aggregate, voters are wiser than MP's.
    In a three-way referendum, Deal goes down first.
    Today it would win.
    I think every poll (certainly, the majority of them), which have polled deal / no deal / remain, have found 'deal' to have least support. In a campaign, it would likely only be squeezed further.
    Even though No Deal is the least popular option on first preferences, it would beat Remain 52:48 in a two-way competition according to the preference orderings above. This is because Deal supporters prefer No Deal to Remain by a large margin.

    As well as beating Remain in a two-way comparison, the May Agreement would also beat No Deal in a straight contest by a large margin, 58 to 42. The modest first-preference lead for the Deal would be strengthened because Remainers strongly prefer the Deal to No Deal.

    So constructing a series of two-way contests from the preference orderings means that there is a majority for the Deal over No Deal and for the Deal over Remain. This means that May’s Agreement is what political scientists call the Condorcet winner


    http://www.deltapoll.co.uk/steve-fisher-condorcet
  • kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Very nice. Had dinner with a Cons MP (voted Remain) last night who showed me some of their emails. Typical: You ******** traitor. Make sure you ******* vote against the **** ****** deal you Remoaner c***.

    As I said something about the mindset of Leave vs Remain supporters.

    I think Alastair Burt was right that the attacks on the deal from Leavers will tend to make former Remain MPs feel that they are no longer obliged to respect the referendum result.
    It certainly provides cover to any of them.
    It's more than cover - if Leavers have decided that they now don't like the Brexit they campaigned for and voted for, then why on earth should Remainer MPs who think Brexit is a mistake, but were deferring to the democratic decision, continue to defer to it?
    Because Brexit isn't the mistake. Remainer May's fake Brexit is the mistake.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,340

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Sean_F I've sent a similiar one to John Mann.

    Did you tell him you have never and will never vote for him anyway?
    It's completely irrelevant which way you might vote when writing a letter to your local MP. I'd have written a similiar one to Rowley, though his mind seems made up.
    If I were JM I would be more concerned with what potential and confirmed Labour voters think.

    Mind you if he votes for the deal he will in all likely hood never have to be concerned with that either as IMO he will be deselected
    He should be most concerned with what us best for his constituents. He probably thinks the deal us not best for them. And I know all mps will think in terms of what their voters think, but if ever there was an issue to take a stand for what they think is right it is this one, so if he does think this is best he should accept the cost. As should Tory mps who don't back their own government.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,362

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    *If* there's a second referendum, and it's a three option referendum, then I think May's deal wins. Most voters are not bitter enders who would rather have nothing at all, than have to compromise, and it will be most voters' second choice.

    So, we can be sure that Remain MPs in the Commons would rule that out. Their best chance is to make it a binary option Remain/No Deal (and frighten the voters into Remain) or Remain/Deal, and hope that enough hard Brexiters sit on their hands.

    And, if Remain loses second time around, there's endless scope to demand further referenda in the future.

    I don't think deal would win. Who would speak to defend it? After the Commons on left And right unite to condemn it?
    In aggregate, voters are wiser than MP's.
    In a three-way referendum, Deal goes down first.
    Today it would win.
    I think every poll (certainly, the majority of them), which have polled deal / no deal / remain, have found 'deal' to have least support. In a campaign, it would likely only be squeezed further.
    Deltapoll put Deal second, but that's the only one so far.
  • Good afternoon, my fellow Myrmidons.

    If May loses the 11 December vote, will she be immediately defenestrated by the Conservative Party?
  • Xenon said:

    kinabalu said:

    @ Xenon

    "How is a hard Brexit not mandated? After being given apocalyptic predictions if we left the EU, the majority still voted to leave."

    *

    There is no doubt that many of the 17m voted for that. But many did not. And of those that did there were different views on what it might mean. Ditto amongst those that didn't. Several different priorities were in play. Trade deals? EU budget contribution? Immigration? ECJ? EU food regulation? Worker rights? Consumer rights? Tax rates? State Aid rules? Fisheries? Passports? Etc etc etc. It is therefore not supportable to interpret the referendum beyond what was on the ballot (so the UK must leave the EU) and what was not on the ballot but was made clear to all and by all (under the best exit deal that the government could in practice achieve). Which by definition is this one.

    You could use the exact same logic to say there is no mandate for the deal. 17m didn't vote for this terrible solution either.
    They did. They voted to Leave the EU. There was no specific solution on offer, merely vapid promises and handwaving.

    I may not like her much, but May has doggedly stuck to her mandate and obtained possibly the best compromise on offer, given her priors and need to assuage the Conservative voters and MPs.

    - She's obtained a deal which does not involve massive disruption
    - She's obtained a deal which does not cause issues over the Northern Ireland Border
    - She's obtained a deal which takes us out of the EU

    Those who seem to hate the Deal seem to be glossing over the fact that it's a transition. It does not preclude a WTO outcome, a CETA-style outcome, an EEA-style outcome, or anything between these. The EU isn't going to force us into the backstop for ever - not only do they not want to give us what they view as preferential treatment, but we could abrogate it if necessary.

    For me, the big selling point of a Remain/Deal referendum over a Remain/No Deal referendum is that the Deal doesn't preclude a transition to a "No Deal" scenario (effectively a series of only micro-deals), but the No Deal scenario precludes a Deal outcome.

    +1
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 2,419
    @ DavidL

    Yes I can't say I'm ecstatic about it but this is the democratic and logical outcome of a referendum that IMO should not have been held, but was held and must now be honoured.

    The only MPs who can vote against the deal and still look themselves in the mirror with a steady gaze and shoulders back are those who voted against Article 50.

    That's not many.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,340

    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Very nice. Had dinner with a Cons MP (voted Remain) last night who showed me some of their emails. Typical: You ******** traitor. Make sure you ******* vote against the **** ****** deal you Remoaner c***.

    As I said something about the mindset of Leave vs Remain supporters.

    I think Alastair Burt was right that the attacks on the deal from Leavers will tend to make former Remain MPs feel that they are no longer obliged to respect the referendum result.
    It certainly provides cover to any of them.
    It's more than cover - if Leavers have decided that they now don't like the Brexit they campaigned for and voted for, then why on earth should Remainer MPs who think Brexit is a mistake, but were deferring to the democratic decision, continue to defer to it?
    Because Brexit isn't the mistake. Remainer May's fake Brexit is the mistake.
    Well hopefully you're right there will be a chance for proper brexit. But if not what then? Mps may have to face that choice.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,486
    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    @ Xenon

    "How is a hard Brexit not mandated? After being given apocalyptic predictions if we left the EU, the majority still voted to leave."

    *

    There is no doubt that many of the 17m voted for that. But many did not. And of those that did there were different views on what it might mean. Ditto amongst those that didn't. Several different priorities were in play. Trade deals? EU budget contribution? Immigration? ECJ? EU food regulation? Worker rights? Consumer rights? Tax rates? State Aid rules? Fisheries? Passports? Etc etc etc. It is therefore not supportable to interpret the referendum beyond what was on the ballot (so the UK must leave the EU) and what was not on the ballot but was made clear to all and by all (under the best exit deal that the government could in practice achieve). Which by definition is this one.

    A disappointing but unarguable truth. This is it. All those who wanted to Leave should back this deal. As should the democrats on the remain side.
    I am going to argue with it on the following principles:

    Firstly on the assumption that there is no alteration possible in any aspect on a deal presented to parliament on a take it or leave it basis. The EU is constrained/inflexible, but that really isn't the case, in particular on the political statement part.

    Secondly and related, that parliament has no right to revision on a deal that it has had no part in formulating.

    Thirdly that parliament has no discretion or sovereignty in principle. That it cannot under any circumstances reject a deal, no matter how catastrophic it might turn out to be. Parliament is bound by the previous decision and not guided by it.
  • Good graphing here from YouGov with the different thicknesses for each voter-type.

    Given the trend, and the forthcoming debate, it's possible that polling will show the public supporting the deal prior to the HoC vote. Will that make any difference?

    image
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,340

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    *If* there's a second referendum, and it's a three option referendum, then I think May's deal wins. Most voters are not bitter enders who would rather have nothing at all, than have to compromise, and it will be most voters' second choice.

    So, we can be sure that Remain MPs in the Commons would rule that out. Their best chance is to make it a binary option Remain/No Deal (and frighten the voters into Remain) or Remain/Deal, and hope that enough hard Brexiters sit on their hands.

    And, if Remain loses second time around, there's endless scope to demand further referenda in the future.

    I don't think deal would win. Who would speak to defend it? After the Commons on left And right unite to condemn it?
    In aggregate, voters are wiser than MP's.
    In a three-way referendum, Deal goes down first.
    Today it would win.
    I think every poll (certainly, the majority of them), which have polled deal / no deal / remain, have found 'deal' to have least support. In a campaign, it would likely only be squeezed further.
    It should not be included. Parliament is unclear what it wants but if it votes as expected it will be clear they do not want the deal. There's no point giving voters that choice.
  • XenonXenon Posts: 471

    Xenon said:

    kinabalu said:

    @ Xenon

    "How is a hard Brexit not mandated? After being given apocalyptic predictions if we left the EU, the majority still voted to leave."

    *

    There is no doubt that many of the 17m voted for that. But many did not. And of those that did there were different views on what it might mean. Ditto amongst those that didn't. Several different priorities were in play. Trade deals? EU budget contribution? Immigration? ECJ? EU food regulation? Worker rights? Consumer rights? Tax rates? State Aid rules? Fisheries? Passports? Etc etc etc. It is therefore not supportable to interpret the referendum beyond what was on the ballot (so the UK must leave the EU) and what was not on the ballot but was made clear to all and by all (under the best exit deal that the government could in practice achieve). Which by definition is this one.

    You could use the exact same logic to say there is no mandate for the deal. 17m didn't vote for this terrible solution either.
    They did. They voted to Leave the EU. There was no specific solution on offer, merely vapid promises and handwaving.
    You can't say there's a mandate for the deal because the way of leaving wasn't specified and then say the same doesn't apply to no deal.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,340

    Good afternoon, my fellow Myrmidons.

    If May loses the 11 December vote, will she be immediately defenestrated by the Conservative Party?

    If she doesn't quit, yes.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    Sean_F said:

    Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.

    It assumes that:

    - There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and
    - That she will lose it, and
    - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.

    There's no way that's a 25% chance.

    You also have to include the possibility that the government loses a VoNC on Dec 12, in which case I think May would be an 80%+ shot to go before Xmas. Add that in and you get a lot closer to a 25% chance.

    Everything there rests on what the DUP do. While I expect that they would back the govt in a VoNC if the Deal goes down (though not necessarily if the deal goes through), it can't be relied upon.
    Do you think any Conservative MPs would refuse to support the government on a VONC?
    The question, I suppose is whether any *current* Con MPs would do so - they'd surely have to resign the whip or defect first if they planned on it.

    Simple answer is that I don't know. This is an issue that raises high emotions and there've been enough cases in the past to suggest we shouldn't discount the possibility. My guess is that there won't be but it's not something I'll be staking anything on. If a Con MP does vote against the govt on a VoNC, they're almost certainly committing career suicide as they'd be expelled from the Party and their chances of winning at a subsequent election - as early as January - would be low.
    would abstentions be viewed the same way ?
    I can't believe that the vote wouldn't have a three-line whip.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,221

    Xenon said:

    kinabalu said:

    @ Xenon

    "How is a hard Brexit not mandated? After being given apocalyptic predictions if we left the EU, the majority still voted to leave."

    *

    There is no doubt that many of the 17m voted for that. But many did not. And of those that did there were different views on what it might mean. Ditto amongst those that didn't. Several different priorities were in play. Trade deals? EU budget contribution? Immigration? ECJ? EU food regulation? Worker rights? Consumer rights? Tax rates? State Aid rules? Fisheries? Passports? Etc etc etc. It is therefore not supportable to interpret the referendum beyond what was on the ballot (so the UK must leave the EU) and what was not on the ballot but was made clear to all and by all (under the best exit deal that the government could in practice achieve). Which by definition is this one.

    You could use the exact same logic to say there is no mandate for the deal. 17m didn't vote for this terrible solution either.
    They did. They voted to Leave the EU. There was no specific solution on offer, merely vapid promises and handwaving.

    I may not like her much, but May has doggedly stuck to her mandate and obtained possibly the best compromise on offer, given her priors and need to assuage the Conservative voters and MPs.

    - She's obtained a deal which does not involve massive disruption
    - She's obtained a deal which does not cause issues over the Northern Ireland Border
    - She's obtained a deal which takes us out of the EU

    Those who seem to hate the Deal seem to be glossing over the fact that it's a transition. It does not preclude a WTO outcome, a CETA-style outcome, an EEA-style outcome, or anything between these. The EU isn't going to force us into the backstop for ever - not only do they not want to give us what they view as preferential treatment, but we could abrogate it if necessary.

    For me, the big selling point of a Remain/Deal referendum over a Remain/No Deal referendum is that the Deal doesn't preclude a transition to a "No Deal" scenario (effectively a series of only micro-deals), but the No Deal scenario precludes a Deal outcome.

    Realists on the Leave side have no choice but to support this deal but I do think that some of the concerns about how it is going to tilt the playing field against us once again after the transition are legitimate. We are where we are as an inveterate liar once said.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,362

    Good graphing here from YouGov with the different thicknesses for each voter-type.

    Given the trend, and the forthcoming debate, it's possible that polling will show the public supporting the deal prior to the HoC vote. Will that make any difference?

    image

    Conservative voters' support will likely be higher by 11th December.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 2,419
    @ Richard Tyndall

    There we go. You're a right leaning leaver and I'm a left leaning remainer but we are at one on this. Viva la deal. Uniting the nation.
  • FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    @ Xenon

    "How is a hard Brexit not mandated? After being given apocalyptic predictions if we left the EU, the majority still voted to leave."

    *

    There is no doubt that many of the 17m voted for that. But many did not. And of those that did there were different views on what it might mean. Ditto amongst those that didn't. Several different priorities were in play. Trade deals? EU budget contribution? Immigration? ECJ? EU food regulation? Worker rights? Consumer rights? Tax rates? State Aid rules? Fisheries? Passports? Etc etc etc. It is therefore not supportable to interpret the referendum beyond what was on the ballot (so the UK must leave the EU) and what was not on the ballot but was made clear to all and by all (under the best exit deal that the government could in practice achieve). Which by definition is this one.

    A disappointing but unarguable truth. This is it. All those who wanted to Leave should back this deal. As should the democrats on the remain side.
    I am going to argue with it on the following principles:

    Firstly on the assumption that there is no alteration possible in any aspect on a deal presented to parliament on a take it or leave it basis. The EU is constrained/inflexible, but that really isn't the case, in particular on the political statement part.

    Secondly and related, that parliament has no right to revision on a deal that it has had no part in formulating.

    Thirdly that parliament has no discretion or sovereignty in principle. That it cannot under any circumstances reject a deal, no matter how catastrophic it might turn out to be. Parliament is bound by the previous decision and not guided by it.
    The first is obviously open to debate but I see no signs that the EU will move.

    The second is simply a fact. Parliament has no legal right to amend or modify a treaty that is placed before it. Under the 2010 act it can either pass it or reject it. It cannot amend it.

    The third is of course open to debate as well. But given that Parliament should have known it is not allowed to amend deals and that a deal once approved by the EU would be almost impossible to renegotiate, if they didn't want to Brexit then they should not have voted for Article 50.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,362
    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.

    It assumes that:

    - There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and
    - That she will lose it, and
    - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.

    There's no way that's a 25% chance.

    You also have to include the possibility that the government loses a VoNC on Dec 12, in which case I think May would be an 80%+ shot to go before Xmas. Add that in and you get a lot closer to a 25% chance.

    Everything there rests on what the DUP do. While I expect that they would back the govt in a VoNC if the Deal goes down (though not necessarily if the deal goes through), it can't be relied upon.
    Do you think any Conservative MPs would refuse to support the government on a VONC?
    The question, I suppose is whether any *current* Con MPs would do so - they'd surely have to resign the whip or defect first if they planned on it.

    Simple answer is that I don't know. This is an issue that raises high emotions and there've been enough cases in the past to suggest we shouldn't discount the possibility. My guess is that there won't be but it's not something I'll be staking anything on. If a Con MP does vote against the govt on a VoNC, they're almost certainly committing career suicide as they'd be expelled from the Party and their chances of winning at a subsequent election - as early as January - would be low.
    If they believe this deal is a near traitorous capitulation leading to vassalage, and somehow it does get through, then they should vote down the government even at that cost. How could someone support a government which dud such a thing?
    Some people on Facebook really do think that Thresa May is a worse traitor than Kim Philby or William Joyce.
  • Good afternoon, my fellow Myrmidons.

    If May loses the 11 December vote, will she be immediately defenestrated by the Conservative Party?

    Not likely - she has 21 days to provide a response but in practice that should come fairly quickly

    In her interview with Faisal Islam on Sky from the G20 she was asked what happens if her deal falls

    She gave him that well known stare and said

    'Faisal, we are leaving the European Union on the 29th March 2019'

    No hesitation at all so she seems determined it will be her deal or no deal
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,221
    WTI futures below $50. Winter is coming.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    kinabalu said:

    @ Richard Tyndall

    There we go. You're a right leaning leaver and I'm a left leaning remainer but we are at one on this. Viva la deal. Uniting the nation.

    You will have access to the class-A turnip store.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 21,649
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Sean_F I've sent a similiar one to John Mann.

    Did you tell him you have never and will never vote for him anyway?
    It's completely irrelevant which way you might vote when writing a letter to your local MP.
    It's pretty relevant how they vote though. I have Chris Law in Dundee West. Never rebelled against the SNP. Almost always voted for greater EU integration. Opposed the referendum at every step. I am a little reluctant to waste the pixels.
    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25270/chris_law/dundee_west
    Could be worse David , you could have on of those unprincipled 13 lying toerags that have more faces than the town clock. They make Lib Dems seem principled and honest. Now that would be a waste of breath.
  • Good afternoon, my fellow Myrmidons.

    If May loses the 11 December vote, will she be immediately defenestrated by the Conservative Party?

    Not likely - she has 21 days to provide a response but in practice that should come fairly quickly

    In her interview with Faisal Islam on Sky from the G20 she was asked what happens if her deal falls

    She gave him that well known stare and said

    'Faisal, we are leaving the European Union on the 29th March 2019'

    No hesitation at all so she seems determined it will be her deal or no deal
    It'd be her very own Nero Decree.

    Chopping off the head to spite the face.
  • Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.

    It assumes that:

    - There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and
    - That she will lose it, and
    - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.

    There's no way that's a 25% chance.

    You also have to include the possibility that the government loses a VoNC on Dec 12, in which case I think May would be an 80%+ shot to go before Xmas. Add that in and you get a lot closer to a 25% chance.

    Everything there rests on what the DUP do. While I expect that they would back the govt in a VoNC if the Deal goes down (though not necessarily if the deal goes through), it can't be relied upon.
    Do you think any Conservative MPs would refuse to support the government on a VONC?
    The question, I suppose is whether any *current* Con MPs would do so - they'd surely have to resign the whip or defect first if they planned on it.

    Simple answer is that I don't know. This is an issue that raises high emotions and there've been enough cases in the past to suggest we shouldn't discount the possibility. My guess is that there won't be but it's not something I'll be staking anything on. If a Con MP does vote against the govt on a VoNC, they're almost certainly committing career suicide as they'd be expelled from the Party and their chances of winning at a subsequent election - as early as January - would be low.
    If they believe this deal is a near traitorous capitulation leading to vassalage, and somehow it does get through, then they should vote down the government even at that cost. How could someone support a government which dud such a thing?
    Some people on Facebook really do think that Thresa May is a worse traitor than Kim Philby or William Joyce.
    You must follow som pretty odd people on Facebook
  • Good afternoon, my fellow Myrmidons.

    If May loses the 11 December vote, will she be immediately defenestrated by the Conservative Party?

    Not likely - she has 21 days to provide a response but in practice that should come fairly quickly

    In her interview with Faisal Islam on Sky from the G20 she was asked what happens if her deal falls

    She gave him that well known stare and said

    'Faisal, we are leaving the European Union on the 29th March 2019'

    No hesitation at all so she seems determined it will be her deal or no deal
    It'd be her very own Nero Decree.

    Chopping off the head to spite the face.
    You seem to miss the nuance.

    She is ruling out a second referendum or moving A50 in that statement
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,221

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.

    It assumes that:

    - There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and
    - That she will lose it, and
    - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.

    There's no way that's a 25% chance.

    You also have to include the possibility that the government loses a VoNC on Dec 12, in which case I think May would be an 80%+ shot to go before Xmas. Add that in and you get a lot closer to a 25% chance.

    Everything there rests on what the DUP do. While I expect that they would back the govt in a VoNC if the Deal goes down (though not necessarily if the deal goes through), it can't be relied upon.
    Do you think any Conservative MPs would refuse to support the government on a VONC?
    The question, I suppose is whether any *current* Con MPs would do so - they'd surely have to resign the whip or defect first if they planned on it.

    Simple answer is that I don't know. This is an issue that raises high emotions and there've been enough cases in the past to suggest we shouldn't discount the possibility. My guess is that there won't be but it's not something I'll be staking anything on. If a Con MP does vote against the govt on a VoNC, they're almost certainly committing career suicide as they'd be expelled from the Party and their chances of winning at a subsequent election - as early as January - would be low.
    If they believe this deal is a near traitorous capitulation leading to vassalage, and somehow it does get through, then they should vote down the government even at that cost. How could someone support a government which dud such a thing?
    Some people on Facebook really do think that Thresa May is a worse traitor than Kim Philby or William Joyce.
    You must follow som pretty odd people on Facebook
    Other lawyers are available!
This discussion has been closed.