Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betfair punters now put the chances of a 2019 Brexit referendu

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited November 30 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betfair punters now put the chances of a 2019 Brexit referendum at 40%

Inevitably much of the current UK political betting activity has been focused on Brexit and particularly whether or not we are going to see a second referendum before the end of next year. As can be seen sentiment has been changing and although the “won’t happen” option is still favourite it is getting tighter.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    First....
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,580
    FPT:


    I think the argument is beyond that

    My advice to brexiteers is bank the WDA and determine to take on the EU in the trade deal negotitions

    And to remainers accept the deal and look to rejoin in the future

    And to the rest us let's get on with our lives and let the government get on with governing

    And to think this is all possible by xmas ensuring we all enjoy Hogmanay to the full

    Lets not lose it now

    Seriously? Theresa would be proud of you.

    "Let the government get on with governing" - the classic condescending patting of our heads and telling us not to worry about things.

    If Theresa wants a quiet relaxing Christmas she can resign tomorrow and enjoy it with Philip in Maidenhead.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,257
    Sloppy seconds....
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,709
    edited November 30
    Second referendum?Less than a Third of voters support May's "deal"
  • Great article by Peston: https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-30/has-prime-minister-just-signed-her-own-warrant-of-execution/

    Big_G can I ask you a question? If May's deal is rejected and May says "OK we are exiting without a deal then" I would want to see her ousted and replaced by a new leader who instead seeks to renegotiate the deal without a backstop, like Peston describes here.

    Would you support May or join me in wanting her replaced in that scenario?

    The process is laid down in Nick chart. TM has a max of 21 days to return to parliament with a response duing which time the government cannot be vnoc as long as it complies with the speakers requests

    During that period the cabinet and party leaders will no doubt have intensive meetings to decide on the next process which could be return to EU to seek better terms, resubmit the deal, propose a second referendum or some other course of action.

    In practice I expect it to be only a few days before TM makes her intentions known and until then everyone will need patience
    The chart doesn't say TM has a max of 21 days, it says the government does. The government can change in the interim.

    Lets say though that yes TM her intentions known and says "there is no deal, we are exiting without a deal". I would want her replaced by a new leader who is prepared to go down the route of no deal as a last resort but who instead first tries to renegotiate to remove the backstop. As described here by Peston: https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-30/has-prime-minister-just-signed-her-own-warrant-of-execution/

    What would you prefer in that scenario? Get on with preparing for the upcoming no deal Brexit under May? Or get rid of May and install someone new to resume talks with the EU first?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    If May sticks around a referendum is hard to resist - what would her other plan be in the even of her deal failing? Either she says she is going to renegotiate after all, and she has to succeed at it, or she seeks a way to get her deal to the people, which has at least potential of getting other parties on board so long as remain is included.

    But as I cannot see her lasting until Xmas it will probably take longer for the second referendum acceptance to happen.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    Pulpstar said:

    Remainers on Twitter seem horrified by the roadmap.

    It's not what they would like, of course they are horrified.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 24,031
    FPT:...

    FF43 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    <
    Also, not all assets are created equally. If we lost €800bn of money market or French government bond business, I doubt we'd notice. On the other hand, that works probably represent the entire London private equity and venture capital space, and we'd definitely notice that.

    I suspect financial services will be clobbered under any Brexit scenario, because of regulation and not market access. The EU will discourage activity it doesn't have direct control over to avoid disrupting its systems. Meanwhile UK authorities won't accept rules made by others if they are on the hook for any liability. So activity will move from the smaller regulatory area to the bigger one. There's a reason why New York is a much more important financial centre than Toronto.

    Bad for me :-(
    Of course instead of banks moving to the continent, continental companies in need of funds might move their Treasuries to the UK.
    I have always thought that they would use their UK subsidiaries to do the deal in London that the Euro HQ wanted.
    Speaking as a former CFO of a multinational business, the main function of treasury is to make sure that all subsidiaries are able to meet payroll and other bills. This means that you need to shift money about between entities as easily as possible. This can be done in one of three ways:

    1. You will have a transfer pricing policy that allows services to be done, and paid for
    2. You will dividend profits up from subsidiaries to the parent
    3. You will have inter company balances as money is lent as necessary

    So, say you have a London based TopCo. Right now, because of the rules on no double taxation, and no withholding tax, you can have your German subsidiary lend your Spanish one money to make payroll. But those kind of remittances become very hard to do without protection against withholding taxes, and double taxation. If your German subsidiary transferred money out to another part of the group structure, that looks awfully like paying a dividend without the associated tax. And tax authorities hate that.

    (Addendum: In the old days, you'd have your Irish or Cayman Islands subsidiary as the holder of all the IP, which would then use transfer pricing to siphon profits off shore. You'd then loan the money from the tax haven to the parent, and pay dividends or buy back stock or whatever.)
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,709
    edited November 30
    Very clear and as straightforward as can be explanation of what May's "deal" is and isn't. Recommended reading

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    edited November 30
    justin124 said:

    Great article by Peston: https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-30/has-prime-minister-just-signed-her-own-warrant-of-execution/

    Big_G can I ask you a question? If May's deal is rejected and May says "OK we are exiting without a deal then" I would want to see her ousted and replaced by a new leader who instead seeks to renegotiate the deal without a backstop, like Peston describes here.

    Would you support May or join me in wanting her replaced in that scenario?

    The process is laid down in Nick chart. TM has a max of 21 days to return to parliament with a response duing which time the government cannot be vnoc as long as it complies with the speakers requests

    During that period the cabinet and party leaders will no doubt have intensive meetings to decide on the next process which could be return to EU to seek better terms, resubmit the deal, propose a second referendum or some other course of action.

    In practice I expect it to be only a few days before TM makes her intentions known and until then everyone will need patience
    I assume that the 21 days refers to 'sitting days' and would exclude the Xmas Recess period.
    It's curious, as section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act contains several subsections which explicitly make reference to 'Commons sitting days', but does not use that terminology in subsection 4 which sets out the 21 days part.

    (4)A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution, make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.

    (5)A statement under subsection (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.

    (6)A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for—

    (a)a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of the statement mentioned in subsection (4), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made, and


    I'm no lawyer, but if other parts make specific reference to sitting days, and the act defines what that means, then a reference in the same section which does not contain that specificity would surely only mean the ordinary meaning of the word 'day', most likely calendar day?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 3,159
    kle4 said:

    justin124 said:

    Great article by Peston: https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-30/has-prime-minister-just-signed-her-own-warrant-of-execution/

    Big_G can I ask you a question? If May's deal is rejected and May says "OK we are exiting without a deal then" I would want to see her ousted and replaced by a new leader who instead seeks to renegotiate the deal without a backstop, like Peston describes here.

    Would you support May or join me in wanting her replaced in that scenario?

    The process is laid down in Nick chart. TM has a max of 21 days to return to parliament with a response duing which time the government cannot be vnoc as long as it complies with the speakers requests

    During that period the cabinet and party leaders will no doubt have intensive meetings to decide on the next process which could be return to EU to seek better terms, resubmit the deal, propose a second referendum or some other course of action.

    In practice I expect it to be only a few days before TM makes her intentions known and until then everyone will need patience
    I assume that the 21 days refers to 'sitting days' and would exclude the Xmas Recess period.
    It's curious, as section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act contains several subsections which explicitly make reference to 'Commons sitting days', but does not use that terminology in subsection 4 which sets out the 21 days part.

    (4)A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution, make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.

    (5)A statement under subsection (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.

    (6)A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for—

    (a)a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of the statement mentioned in subsection (4), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made, and


    I'm no lawyer, but if other parts make specific reference to sitting days, and the act defines what that means, then a reference in the same section which does not contain that specificity would surely only mean the ordinary meaning of the word 'day', most likely calendar day?
    So now we are in the ludicrous situation of a Parliamentary rumble about the definition of a "day."
    We badly need root and branch constitutional reform whether in or out, or under Corbyn, May or AN Other Tory.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    edited November 30
    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    justin124 said:

    Great article by Peston: https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-30/has-prime-minister-just-signed-her-own-warrant-of-execution/

    Big_G can I ask you a question? If May's deal is rejected and May says "OK we are exiting without a deal then" I would want to see her ousted and replaced by a new leader who instead seeks to renegotiate the deal without a backstop, like Peston describes here.

    Would you support May or join me in wanting her replaced in that scenario?

    The process is laid down in Nick chart. TM has a max of 21 days to return to parliament with a response duing which time the government cannot be vnoc as long as it complies with the speakers requests

    During that period the cabinet and party leaders will no doubt have intensive meetings to decide on the next process which could be return to EU to seek better terms, resubmit the deal, propose a second referendum or some other course of action.

    In practice I expect it to be only a few days before TM makes her intentions known and until then everyone will need patience
    I assume that the 21 days refers to 'sitting days' and would exclude the Xmas Recess period.
    It's cur

    (5)A statement under subsection (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.

    (6)A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for—

    (a)a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of the statement mentioned in subsection (4), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made, and


    I'm no lawyer, but if other parts make specific reference to sitting days, and the act defines what that means, then a reference in the same section which does not contain that specificity would surely only mean the ordinary meaning of the word 'day', most likely calendar day?
    So now we are in the ludicrous situation of a Parliamentary rumble about the definition of a "day."
    We badly need root and branch constitutional reform whether in or out, or under Corbyn, May or AN Other Tory.
    I don't think root and branch reform would solve the issue of what is meant by a day if people draft unclearly - I thought most legislation would lay that out in a definitions section.

    Though just from my own line of work you have to be precise on if it is a 'clear' working day or not for example.

    Not actually that relatedly, but I would be curious if the actual Root and Branch Bill was, itself, particularly clearly written.
  • The absence of sitting days there means its 21 calendar days. But the inclusion of sitting days on the next one explains what happens next.

    Under the terms of the FTPA if say there is a VONC held immediately after the lost meaningful vote, the government loses it and 14 days later there's an early election then Parliament is dissolved. The clock is still ticking though and until the government is replaced the responsible Minister of the Crown is still a Minister of the Crown. Thus 21 days after the original vote, 7 days into the General Election campaign, the Minister must make their statement in writing.

    Once the statement is made, there are no more sitting days yet so the clock stops ticking. We have the election, 7 sitting days later the motion is put.

    I am not a lawyer but that would be my understanding.
  • kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    So now we are in the ludicrous situation of a Parliamentary rumble about the definition of a "day."
    We badly need root and branch constitutional reform whether in or out, or under Corbyn, May or AN Other Tory.

    I don't think root and branch reform would solve the issue of what is meant by a day if people draft unclearly - I thought most legislation would lay that out in a definitions section.

    Though just from my own line of work you have to be precise on if it is a 'clear' working day or not for example.

    Not actually that relatedly, but I would be curious if the actual Root and Branch Bill was, itself, particularly clearly written.
    I think it is clear. It is 21 calendar days. The image in the flowchart says that too.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855

    kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    So now we are in the ludicrous situation of a Parliamentary rumble about the definition of a "day."
    We badly need root and branch constitutional reform whether in or out, or under Corbyn, May or AN Other Tory.

    I don't think root and branch reform would solve the issue of what is meant by a day if people draft unclearly - I thought most legislation would lay that out in a definitions section.

    Though just from my own line of work you have to be precise on if it is a 'clear' working day or not for example.

    Not actually that relatedly, but I would be curious if the actual Root and Branch Bill was, itself, particularly clearly written.
    I think it is clear. It is 21 calendar days. The image in the flowchart says that too.
    And given the wording that would seem to suggest the flowchart is correct, I agree.

    But in fairness I don't think there's a big row about it.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 3,159
    @kle4. Cba with blockquote. Obviously this example is poor drafting. However, it is just one more example in a long list of cock-ups, stupidity, arrogance, mis-steps and downright incompetence on the part of our governing classes (of all Parties), which has been the story of Brexit.
    2015 onwards the curtain has been pulled back to reveal a not very pretty scene.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    dixiedean said:

    @kle4. Cba with blockquote. Obviously this example is poor drafting. However, it is just one more example in a long list of cock-ups, stupidity, arrogance, mis-steps and downright incompetence on the part of our governing classes (of all Parties), which has been the story of Brexit.
    2015 onwards the curtain has been pulled back to reveal a not very pretty scene.

    While I am skeptical of how effective it would prove, quite frankly there are a great many aspects of our constitutional and governance arrangements that seem ripe for review, and if we do end up leaving the EU then as tired as everyone will be of such matters, it would seem an apposite time to start.
  • Great article by Peston: https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-30/has-prime-minister-just-signed-her-own-warrant-of-execution/

    Big_G can I ask you a question? If May's deal is rejected and May says "OK we are exiting without a deal then" I would want to see her ousted and replaced by a new leader who instead seeks to renegotiate the deal without a backstop, like Peston describes here.

    Would you support May or join me in wanting her replaced in that scenario?

    The process is laid down in Nick chart. TM has a max of 21 days to return to parliament with a response duing which time the government cannot be vnoc as long as it complies with the speakers requests

    During that period the cabinet and party leaders will no doubt have intensive meetings to decide on the next process which could be return to EU to seek better terms, resubmit the deal, propose a second referendum or some other course of action.

    In practice I expect it to be only a few days before TM makes her intentions known and until then everyone will need patience
    The chart doesn't say TM has a max of 21 days, it says the government does. The government can change in the interim.

    Lets say though that yes TM her intentions known and says "there is no deal, we are exiting without a deal". I would want her replaced by a new leader who is prepared to go down the route of no deal as a last resort but who instead first tries to renegotiate to remove the backstop. As described here by Peston: https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-30/has-prime-minister-just-signed-her-own-warrant-of-execution/

    What would you prefer in that scenario? Get on with preparing for the upcoming no deal Brexit under May? Or get rid of May and install someone new to resume talks with the EU first?
    I have explained this the last time you asked and with respect I am not going over it again

    You and some others seem to be strugging with the max 21 days. The government will not change until TM makes her decision to parliament known in accordance with the road map nor will a vnoc be sustained as long as the government responds to the speakers requests during that period
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 223
    Cyclefree said:

    I do wonder if I will still be alive when the next non-Brexit thread happens...........

    Your grandchildren might be if they're lucky...
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 3,159
    This is all rather esoteric anyway. If the Deal falls we don't, in practice, have 21 days, let alone 21 sitting days, to fanny around while the Conservative Party debates what next. I fully expect Plan B to revealed immediately after the vote. A decision will have to be made then, even if it is merely to vote again.
    Of course, if there is no Plan B prepared, then that would be metaphorically criminal negligence.
    So, that is perhaps what will happen.
  • The absence of sitting days there means its 21 calendar days. But the inclusion of sitting days on the next one explains what happens next.

    Under the terms of the FTPA if say there is a VONC held immediately after the lost meaningful vote, the government loses it and 14 days later there's an early election then Parliament is dissolved. The clock is still ticking though and until the government is replaced the responsible Minister of the Crown is still a Minister of the Crown. Thus 21 days after the original vote, 7 days into the General Election campaign, the Minister must make their statement in writing.

    Once the statement is made, there are no more sitting days yet so the clock stops ticking. We have the election, 7 sitting days later the motion is put.

    I am not a lawyer but that would be my understanding.

    Wth respect you are incorrect
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,742
    dodrade said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I do wonder if I will still be alive when the next non-Brexit thread happens...........

    Your grandchildren might be if they're lucky...
    AV and lucky isn't a normal association!
  • dixiedean said:

    This is all rather esoteric anyway. If the Deal falls we don't, in practice, have 21 days, let alone 21 sitting days, to fanny around while the Conservative Party debates what next. I fully expect Plan B to revealed immediately after the vote. A decision will have to be made then, even if it is merely to vote again.
    Of course, if there is no Plan B prepared, then that would be metaphorically criminal negligence.
    So, that is perhaps what will happen.

    No 10 will be gaming this but on the deal falling she will first summon the cabinet and no doubt all leaders before coming to the HOC to announce the governments decision. While the statue provides 21 days I would expect it to be 24 - 48 unless concensus is achieved through cross party talks

    It is at that time many things could happen including TM resignation, consultation with the EU, a second referendum, vnoc in TM of the government. No one knows at this stage
  • dixiedean said:

    This is all rather esoteric anyway. If the Deal falls we don't, in practice, have 21 days, let alone 21 sitting days, to fanny around while the Conservative Party debates what next. I fully expect Plan B to revealed immediately after the vote. A decision will have to be made then, even if it is merely to vote again.
    Of course, if there is no Plan B prepared, then that would be metaphorically criminal negligence.
    So, that is perhaps what will happen.

    No 10 will be gaming this but on the deal falling she will first summon the cabinet and no doubt all leaders before coming to the HOC to announce the governments decision. While the statue provides 21 days I would expect it to be 24 - 48 unless concensus is achieved through cross party talks

    It is at that time many things could happen including TM resignation, consultation with the EU, a second referendum, vnoc in TM of the government. No one knows at this stage
  • The absence of sitting days there means its 21 calendar days. But the inclusion of sitting days on the next one explains what happens next.

    Under the terms of the FTPA if say there is a VONC held immediately after the lost meaningful vote, the government loses it and 14 days later there's an early election then Parliament is dissolved. The clock is still ticking though and until the government is replaced the responsible Minister of the Crown is still a Minister of the Crown. Thus 21 days after the original vote, 7 days into the General Election campaign, the Minister must make their statement in writing.

    Once the statement is made, there are no more sitting days yet so the clock stops ticking. We have the election, 7 sitting days later the motion is put.

    I am not a lawyer but that would be my understanding.

    Wth respect you are incorrect
    How? What part did I - legally - get wrong?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,755
    The Opposition can table a Vote of No Confidence at any time - and in no way does it have to be Brexit-related at all!
  • Great article by Peston: https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-30/has-prime-minister-just-signed-her-own-warrant-of-execution/

    Big_G can I ask you a question? If May's deal is rejected and May says "OK we are exiting without a deal then" I would want to see her ousted and replaced by a new leader who instead seeks to renegotiate the deal without a backstop, like Peston describes here.

    Would you support May or join me in wanting her replaced in that scenario?

    The process is laid down in Nick chart. TM has a max of 21 days to return to parliament with a response duing which time the government cannot be vnoc as long as it complies with the speakers requests

    During that period the cabinet and party leaders will no doubt have intensive meetings to decide on the next process which could be return to EU to seek better terms, resubmit the deal, propose a second referendum or some other course of action.

    In practice I expect it to be only a few days before TM makes her intentions known and until then everyone will need patience
    The chart doesn't say TM has a max of 21 days, it says the government does. The government can change in the interim.

    Lets say though that yes TM her intentions known and says "there is no deal, we are exiting without a deal". I would want her replaced by a new leader who is prepared to go down the route of no deal as a last resort but who instead first tries to renegotiate to remove the backstop. As described here by Peston: https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-30/has-prime-minister-just-signed-her-own-warrant-of-execution/

    What would you prefer in that scenario? Get on with preparing for the upcoming no deal Brexit under May? Or get rid of May and install someone new to resume talks with the EU first?
    I have explained this the last time you asked and with respect I am not going over it again

    You and some others seem to be strugging with the max 21 days. The government will not change until TM makes her decision to parliament known in accordance with the road map nor will a vnoc be sustained as long as the government responds to the speakers requests during that period
    What part of the statute overrides the FTPA? What part of the statute overrides the right to VONC the government?

    Just because the government is obliged to do something in the future does not change other laws. The FTPA still stands. If the HOC passes a VONC then it does so, regardless of what the roadmap says. The government has other obligations it needs to make by statute too - none of them are preventing a VONC either.
  • justin124 said:

    The Opposition can table a Vote of No Confidence at any time - and in no way does it have to be Brexit-related at all!

    Absolutely!
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,755

    Great article by Peston: https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-30/has-prime-minister-just-signed-her-own-warrant-of-execution/

    Big_G can I ask you a question? If May's deal is rejected and May says "OK we are exiting without a deal then" I would want to see her ousted and replaced by a new leader who instead seeks to renegotiate the deal without a backstop, like Peston describes here.

    Would you support May or join me in wanting her replaced in that scenario?

    The process is laid down in Nick chart. TM has a max of 21 days to return to parliament with a response duing which time the government cannot be vnoc as long as it complies with the speakers requests

    During that period the cabinet and party leaders will no doubt have intensive meetings to decide on the next process which could be return to EU to seek better terms, resubmit the deal, propose a second referendum or some other course of action.

    In practice I expect it to be only a few days before TM makes her intentions known and until then everyone will need patience
    The chart doesn't say TM has a max of 21 days, it says the government does. The government can change in the interim.

    /

    What would you prefer in that scenario? Get on with preparing for the upcoming no deal Brexit under May? Or get rid of May and install someone new to resume talks with the EU first?
    I have explained this the last time you asked and with respect I am not going over it again

    You and some others seem to be strugging with the max 21 days. The government will not change until TM makes her decision to parliament known in accordance with the road map nor will a vnoc be sustained as long as the government responds to the speakers requests during that period
    What part of the statute overrides the FTPA? What part of the statute overrides the right to VONC the government?

    Just because the government is obliged to do something in the future does not change other laws. The FTPA still stands. If the HOC passes a VONC then it does so, regardless of what the roadmap says. The government has other obligations it needs to make by statute too - none of them are preventing a VONC either.
    I agree totally. Labour can table a Vote of Confidence at a time of its own choosing in the same way that Thatcher tabled such motions on a quite regular basis against the Callaghan Government.
  • The absence of sitting days there means its 21 calendar days. But the inclusion of sitting days on the next one explains what happens next.

    Under the terms of the FTPA if say there is a VONC held immediately after the lost meaningful vote, the government loses it and 14 days later there's an early election then Parliament is dissolved. The clock is still ticking though and until the government is replaced the responsible Minister of the Crown is still a Minister of the Crown. Thus 21 days after the original vote, 7 days into the General Election campaign, the Minister must make their statement in writing.

    Once the statement is made, there are no more sitting days yet so the clock stops ticking. We have the election, 7 sitting days later the motion is put.

    I am not a lawyer but that would be my understanding.

    Wth respect you are incorrect
    How? What part did I - legally - get wrong?
    Confusing FPTP with the withdrawal bill
  • justin124 said:

    I agree totally. Labour can table a Vote of Confidence at a time of its own choosing in the same way that Thatcher tabled such motions on a quite regular basis against the Callaghan Government.

    Indeed. Big_G seems to be implying (I think) that the Speaker won't No Confidence the government as long as the roadmap is followed, but the Speaker doesn't determine No Confidence votes. They're tabled by the Leader of the Opposition whenever they choose to do so.

    If Jeremy Corbyn tables a VONC then the vote happens. Even if that messes with timetables as Leader of the Opposition that's Jeremy Corbyn's prerogative.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 6,364

    Sloppy seconds....

    Like remainers?
  • The absence of sitting days there means its 21 calendar days. But the inclusion of sitting days on the next one explains what happens next.

    Under the terms of the FTPA if say there is a VONC held immediately after the lost meaningful vote, the government loses it and 14 days later there's an early election then Parliament is dissolved. The clock is still ticking though and until the government is replaced the responsible Minister of the Crown is still a Minister of the Crown. Thus 21 days after the original vote, 7 days into the General Election campaign, the Minister must make their statement in writing.

    Once the statement is made, there are no more sitting days yet so the clock stops ticking. We have the election, 7 sitting days later the motion is put.

    I am not a lawyer but that would be my understanding.

    Wth respect you are incorrect
    How? What part did I - legally - get wrong?
    Confusing FPTP with the withdrawal bill
    VONC has nothing to do with the withdrawal bill. If Jeremy Corbyn calls for a vote of no confidence then the vote happens. The vote doesn't happen 21 days later.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,755

    justin124 said:

    I agree totally. Labour can table a Vote of Confidence at a time of its own choosing in the same way that Thatcher tabled such motions on a quite regular basis against the Callaghan Government.

    Indeed. Big_G seems to be implying (I think) that the Speaker won't No Confidence the government as long as the roadmap is followed, but the Speaker doesn't determine No Confidence votes. They're tabled by the Leader of the Opposition whenever they choose to do so.

    If Jeremy Corbyn tables a VONC then the vote happens. Even if that messes with timetables as Leader of the Opposition that's Jeremy Corbyn's prerogative.
    I totally agree with that.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,780
    48th *innocent face*
  • RobD said:

    48th *innocent face*

    Fake news. You are 47.99999999th
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,257
    dixiedean said:

    This is all rather esoteric anyway. If the Deal falls we don't, in practice, have 21 days, let alone 21 sitting days, to fanny around while the Conservative Party debates what next. I fully expect Plan B to revealed immediately after the vote. A decision will have to be made then, even if it is merely to vote again.
    Of course, if there is no Plan B prepared, then that would be metaphorically criminal negligence.
    So, that is perhaps what will happen.

    You have to hope that there might be a few "quiet word in your shell-like" going on at the G20. The last thing the world economies need is a pissing contest between UK and EU, which will impact all of them. "Sort it, guys....before Trump gets in the mix!"
  • justin124 said:

    I agree totally. Labour can table a Vote of Confidence at a time of its own choosing in the same way that Thatcher tabled such motions on a quite regular basis against the Callaghan Government.

    Indeed. Big_G seems to be implying (I think) that the Speaker won't No Confidence the government as long as the roadmap is followed, but the Speaker doesn't determine No Confidence votes. They're tabled by the Leader of the Opposition whenever they choose to do so.

    If Jeremy Corbyn tables a VONC then the vote happens. Even if that messes with timetables as Leader of the Opposition that's Jeremy Corbyn's prerogative.
    The speaker controls the businesss in the house and if the deal falls he controls the next process

    Much as you may hope the speaker will not allow the process you hope within the time scale set in the act
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,755

    justin124 said:

    I agree totally. Labour can table a Vote of Confidence at a time of its own choosing in the same way that Thatcher tabled such motions on a quite regular basis against the Callaghan Government.

    Indeed. Big_G seems to be implying (I think) that the Speaker won't No Confidence the government as long as the roadmap is followed, but the Speaker doesn't determine No Confidence votes. They're tabled by the Leader of the Opposition whenever they choose to do so.

    If Jeremy Corbyn tables a VONC then the vote happens. Even if that messes with timetables as Leader of the Opposition that's Jeremy Corbyn's prerogative.
    The speaker controls the businesss in the house and if the deal falls he controls the next process

    Much as you may hope the speaker will not allow the process you hope within the time scale set in the act
    I really don't believe there is any basis for that at all. Corbyn could have tabled a VONC every month since the 2017 election had he chosen to do so. Many would question the point of his doing that - but it would not be a matter for the Speaker.
  • justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    I agree totally. Labour can table a Vote of Confidence at a time of its own choosing in the same way that Thatcher tabled such motions on a quite regular basis against the Callaghan Government.

    Indeed. Big_G seems to be implying (I think) that the Speaker won't No Confidence the government as long as the roadmap is followed, but the Speaker doesn't determine No Confidence votes. They're tabled by the Leader of the Opposition whenever they choose to do so.

    If Jeremy Corbyn tables a VONC then the vote happens. Even if that messes with timetables as Leader of the Opposition that's Jeremy Corbyn's prerogative.
    The speaker controls the businesss in the house and if the deal falls he controls the next process

    Much as you may hope the speaker will not allow the process you hope within the time scale set in the act
    I really don't believe there is any basis for that at all. Corbyn could have tabled a VONC every month since the 2017 election had he chosen to do so. Many would question the point of his doing that - but it would not be a matter for the Speaker.
    You may not believe but we must respectfully disagree.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,755

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    I agree totally. Labour can table a Vote of Confidence at a time of its own choosing in the same way that Thatcher tabled such motions on a quite regular basis against the Callaghan Government.

    Indeed. Big_G seems to be implying (I think) that the Speaker won't No Confidence the government as long as the roadmap is followed, but the Speaker doesn't determine No Confidence votes. They're tabled by the Leader of the Opposition whenever they choose to do so.

    If Jeremy Corbyn tables a VONC then the vote happens. Even if that messes with timetables as Leader of the Opposition that's Jeremy Corbyn's prerogative.
    The speaker controls the businesss in the house and if the deal falls he controls the next process

    Much as you may hope the speaker will not allow the process you hope within the time scale set in the act
    I really don't believe there is any basis for that at all. Corbyn could have tabled a VONC every month since the 2017 election had he chosen to do so. Many would question the point of his doing that - but it would not be a matter for the Speaker.
    You may not believe but we must respectfully disagree.
    Brexit legislation in no way sets aside the right of the Opposition to table a VONC.Corbyn could justify so doing on the basis of a totally unrelated matter - eg the state of the NHS or a Foreign Policy issue.
  • justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    I agree totally. Labour can table a Vote of Confidence at a time of its own choosing in the same way that Thatcher tabled such motions on a quite regular basis against the Callaghan Government.

    Indeed. Big_G seems to be implying (I think) that the Speaker won't No Confidence the government as long as the roadmap is followed, but the Speaker doesn't determine No Confidence votes. They're tabled by the Leader of the Opposition whenever they choose to do so.

    If Jeremy Corbyn tables a VONC then the vote happens. Even if that messes with timetables as Leader of the Opposition that's Jeremy Corbyn's prerogative.
    The speaker controls the businesss in the house and if the deal falls he controls the next process

    Much as you may hope the speaker will not allow the process you hope within the time scale set in the act
    I really don't believe there is any basis for that at all. Corbyn could have tabled a VONC every month since the 2017 election had he chosen to do so. Many would question the point of his doing that - but it would not be a matter for the Speaker.
    You may not believe but we must respectfully disagree.
    Brexit legislation in no way sets aside the right of the Opposition to table a VONC.Corbyn could justify so doing on the basis of a totally unrelated matter - eg the state of the NHS or a Foreign Policy issue.
    Well that is another matter but he would not only look a complete plonker but he would lose all credibility as any kind of statesman at this most critical time
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 9,162
    edited November 30


    Kate Osamor and her entrepreneurial offspring.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,755

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    I agree totally. Labour can table a Vote of Confidence at a time of its own choosing in the same way that Thatcher tabled such motions on a quite regular basis against the Callaghan Government.

    Indeed. Big_G seems to be implying (I think) that the Speaker won't No Confidence the government as long as the roadmap is followed, but the Speaker doesn't determine No Confidence votes. They're tabled by the Leader of the Opposition whenever they choose to do so.

    If Jeremy Corbyn tables a VONC then the vote happens. Even if that messes with timetables as Leader of the Opposition that's Jeremy Corbyn's prerogative.
    The speaker controls the businesss in the house and if the deal falls he controls the next process

    Much as you may hope the speaker will not allow the process you hope within the time scale set in the act
    I really don't believe there is any basis for that at all. Corbyn could have tabled a VONC every month since the 2017 election had he chosen to do so. Many would question the point of his doing that - but it would not be a matter for the Speaker.
    You may not believe but we must respectfully disagree.
    Brexit legislation in no way sets aside the right of the Opposition to table a VONC.Corbyn could justify so doing on the basis of a totally unrelated matter - eg the state of the NHS or a Foreign Policy issue.
    Well that is another matter but he would not only look a complete plonker but he would lose all credibility as any kind of statesman at this most critical time
    But that is a judgement he would have to make.
  • justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    I agree totally. Labour can table a Vote of Confidence at a time of its own choosing in the same way that Thatcher tabled such motions on a quite regular basis against the Callaghan Government.

    Indeed. Big_G seems to be implying (I think) that the Speaker won't No Confidence the government as long as the roadmap is followed, but the Speaker doesn't determine No Confidence votes. They're tabled by the Leader of the Opposition whenever they choose to do so.

    If Jeremy Corbyn tables a VONC then the vote happens. Even if that messes with timetables as Leader of the Opposition that's Jeremy Corbyn's prerogative.
    The speaker controls the businesss in the house and if the deal falls he controls the next process

    Much as you may hope the speaker will not allow the process you hope within the time scale set in the act
    I really don't believe there is any basis for that at all. Corbyn could have tabled a VONC every month since the 2017 election had he chosen to do so. Many would question the point of his doing that - but it would not be a matter for the Speaker.
    You may not believe but we must respectfully disagree.
    Brexit legislation in no way sets aside the right of the Opposition to table a VONC.Corbyn could justify so doing on the basis of a totally unrelated matter - eg the state of the NHS or a Foreign Policy issue.
    Well that is another matter but he would not only look a complete plonker but he would lose all credibility as any kind of statesman at this most critical time
    But that is a judgement he would have to make.
    Corbyn and judgement, but of course

    Looks like he has more to worry about on the front of the times than playing games
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 3,159
    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    I agree totally. Labour can table a Vote of Confidence at a time of its own choosing in the same way that Thatcher tabled such motions on a quite regular basis against the Callaghan Government.

    Indeed. Big_G seems to be implying (I think) that the Speaker won't No Confidence the government as long as the roadmap is followed, but the Speaker doesn't determine No Confidence votes. They're tabled by the Leader of the Opposition whenever they choose to do so.

    If Jeremy Corbyn tables a VONC then the vote happens. Even if that messes with timetables as Leader of the Opposition that's Jeremy Corbyn's prerogative.
    The speaker controls the businesss in the house and if the deal falls he controls the next process

    Much as you may hope the speaker will not allow the process you hope within the time scale set in the act
    I really don't believe there is any basis for that at all. Corbyn could have tabled a VONC every month since the 2017 election had he chosen to do so. Many would question the point of his doing that - but it would not be a matter for the Speaker.
    You may not believe but we must respectfully disagree.
    Brexit legislation in no way sets aside the right of the Opposition to table a VONC.Corbyn could justify so doing on the basis of a totally unrelated matter - eg the state of the NHS or a Foreign Policy issue.
    Well that is another matter but he would not only look a complete plonker but he would lose all credibility as any kind of statesman at this most critical time
    But that is a judgement he would have to make.
    Quite frankly, if May insists nothing has changed, after the defeat of this, Corbyn would be obliged to call a VONC. To not do so would be a total abrogation of duty. Not least because the DUP need to be put on the spot.
    And, no, the Speaker could not block it. To do so would be a Constitutional outrage, defying all precedent.
    Would be different if she were to resign, obviously, call a GE, referendum, or even liaise with opposition Parties.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 2,068
    “I should have come down here with a bat and smashed your face on”

    Kate Osamor shows the Donald how to deal with a troublesome journalist.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,580
    Evening all :)

    Without the usual patronising nonsense from the usual suspect, there's no obvious route to the end of the Conservative Government which, for all its travails, is ahead in the polls and has 315 seats in Parliament.

    It would need the latter number to be reduced by defections to change the balance in Parliament but does anyone seriously believe 30 Conservative MPs will break from the Party and choose to sit as Independent Conservatives or whatever - seriously?

    Even if that happens, we then have to imagine the defectors and others offering sufficient support to a minority Labour Government - seriously?

    Notions of a "collapse" of the Government fall against that truth - there are 315 Conservative MPs and as long as that group remains united (if not coherent) they remain in Government whoever leads them (May, Hunt, Hammond, JRM).

    I suppose they could voluntarily go into Opposition and simply abstain on all legislation put forward by an alternative Government - seriously?

    So, whether we like it or not, some form of Conservative administration is going to remain in office if not necessarily power. How a new Government is constituted if/when May goes is really only for the Conservatives to work out.

    Voting for or against May's Deal changes that not one iota - in essence, the Deal isn't really that important unless it creates a schism within the Conservative Party - seriously, fetch me some popcorn?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 9,162
    Which police station took the call? I hope the MP hasn't been wasting police time.
  • dixiedean said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    I agree totally. Labour can table a Vote of Confidence at a time of its own choosing in the same way that Thatcher tabled such motions on a quite regular basis against the Callaghan Government.

    Indeed. Big_G seems to be implying (I think) that the Speaker won't No Confidence the government as long as the roadmap is followed, but the Speaker doesn't determine No Confidence votes. They're tabled by the Leader of the Opposition whenever they choose to do so.

    If Jeremy Corbyn tables a VONC then the vote happens. Even if that messes with timetables as Leader of the Opposition that's Jeremy Corbyn's prerogative.
    The speaker controls the businesss in the house and if the deal falls he controls the next process

    Much as you may hope the speaker will not allow the process you hope within the time scale set in the act
    I really don't believe there is any basis for that at all. Corbyn could have tabled a VONC every month since the 2017 election had he chosen to do so. Many would question the point of his doing that - but it would not be a matter for the Speaker.
    You may not believe but we must respectfully disagree.
    Brexit legislation in no way sets aside the right of the Opposition to table a VONC.Corbyn could justify so doing on the basis of a totally unrelated matter - eg the state of the NHS or a Foreign Policy issue.
    Well that is another matter but he would not only look a complete plonker but he would lose all credibility as any kind of statesman at this most critical time
    But that is a judgement he would have to make.
    Quite frankly, if May insists nothing has changed, after the defeat of this, Corbyn would be obliged to call a VONC. To not do so would be a total abrogation of duty. Not least because the DUP need to be put on the spot.
    And, no, the Speaker could not block it. To do so would be a Constitutional outrage, defying all precedent.
    Would be different if she were to resign, obviously, call a GE, referendum, or even liaise with opposition Parties.
    I agree with you and if she returns to the HOC and says that, her party would vnoc her

    The only role the speaker has is to follow the procedures laid out requiring the PM to return to the HOC with her intentions. The speaker does control that period but at that point Corbyn can vnoc the government
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 3,799

    dixiedean said:

    This is all rather esoteric anyway. If the Deal falls we don't, in practice, have 21 days, let alone 21 sitting days, to fanny around while the Conservative Party debates what next. I fully expect Plan B to revealed immediately after the vote. A decision will have to be made then, even if it is merely to vote again.
    Of course, if there is no Plan B prepared, then that would be metaphorically criminal negligence.
    So, that is perhaps what will happen.

    You have to hope that there might be a few "quiet word in your shell-like" going on at the G20. The last thing the world economies need is a pissing contest between UK and EU, which will impact all of them. "Sort it, guys....before Trump gets in the mix!"
    I think you may have answered your own point. Who, other than the President of the United States, has the gravitas to state such a thing? And what could we reasonably expect from the current President.
  • How is that a secret. That has been knowledge for some time
  • DanSmithDanSmith Posts: 1,127
    So we know there are minimum 75 Labour MPs who would support this.

    Lets add the SNP + Lib Dems, that gets you ~120 MPs. Question then is, are there 200 Tory MPs who would back Norway?
  • DanSmith said:

    So we know there are minimum 75 Labour MPs who would support this.

    Lets add the SNP + Lib Dems, that gets you ~120 MPs. Question then is, are there 200 Tory MPs who would back Norway?
    Probably and maybe even more labour to get a majority
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 16,249
    edited November 30

    justin124 said:

    I agree totally. Labour can table a Vote of Confidence at a time of its own choosing in the same way that Thatcher tabled such motions on a quite regular basis against the Callaghan Government.

    Indeed. Big_G seems to be implying (I think) that the Speaker won't No Confidence the government as long as the roadmap is followed, but the Speaker doesn't determine No Confidence votes. They're tabled by the Leader of the Opposition whenever they choose to do so.

    If Jeremy Corbyn tables a VONC then the vote happens. Even if that messes with timetables as Leader of the Opposition that's Jeremy Corbyn's prerogative.
    The speaker controls the businesss in the house and if the deal falls he controls the next process

    Much as you may hope the speaker will not allow the process you hope within the time scale set in the act
    I have no such hope, I am saying the Speaker has no right to deny the Leader of the Opposition his right to call a Vote of No Confidence.

    The process will still continue regardless, they could run in parallel. But calling a Vote of No Confidence is the perogative of the Leader of the Opposition and the Speaker can't just ignore that for three weeks.

    This isn't wishful thinking: Corbyn winning a VONC and potentially becoming PM is the very last thing I want.
  • DanSmithDanSmith Posts: 1,127
    edited November 30

    DanSmith said:

    So we know there are minimum 75 Labour MPs who would support this.

    Lets add the SNP + Lib Dems, that gets you ~120 MPs. Question then is, are there 200 Tory MPs who would back Norway?
    Probably and maybe even more labour to get a majority
    Yeah I was thinking 75 Labour MPs who would be prepared to rebel against the leadership to push this through, if the Labour leadership support it or even just take a neutral stance you are going to have loads more.
  • I agree with you and if she returns to the HOC and says that, her party would vnoc her

    The only role the speaker has is to follow the procedures laid out requiring the PM to return to the HOC with her intentions. The speaker does control that period but at that point Corbyn can vnoc the government

    He can call the vote during that period. There's nothing in statute or Parliamentary procedures or orders denying him that right.
  • I agree with you and if she returns to the HOC and says that, her party would vnoc her

    The only role the speaker has is to follow the procedures laid out requiring the PM to return to the HOC with her intentions. The speaker does control that period but at that point Corbyn can vnoc the government

    He can call the vote during that period. There's nothing in statute or Parliamentary procedures or orders denying him that right.
    I give up
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 3,159
    DanSmith said:

    DanSmith said:

    So we know there are minimum 75 Labour MPs who would support this.

    Lets add the SNP + Lib Dems, that gets you ~120 MPs. Question then is, are there 200 Tory MPs who would back Norway?
    Probably and maybe even more labour to get a majority
    Yeah I was thinking 75 Labour MPs who would be prepared to rebel against the leadership to push this through, if the Labour leadership support it or even just take a neutral stance you are going to have loads more.
    If it were proposed, it would pass. Either May would have to do it, or be replaced by someone who would. How we get there is difficult to see.
    But if we did, Corbyn would either fall into line, or see Labour discipline fall apart.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 2,068

    Corby can try for a VONC, but -- unless he knows the DUP will support it -- it does seem pointless posturing.

    As far as I know, the DUP may hate May, they may hate May and Corbyn, they may hate everyone on the planet.

    But they -- for sure -- know that a new election will change the electoral arithmetic and they won’t be in the golden position they are now, which is a small party’s dream come true.

    So, I don’t see any way they will support a VONC.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855


    Corby can try for a VONC, but -- unless he knows the DUP will support it -- it does seem pointless posturing.

    Seems like it would be worth chancing, even if just to test the DUP.
  • DanSmithDanSmith Posts: 1,127
    dixiedean said:

    DanSmith said:

    DanSmith said:

    So we know there are minimum 75 Labour MPs who would support this.

    Lets add the SNP + Lib Dems, that gets you ~120 MPs. Question then is, are there 200 Tory MPs who would back Norway?
    Probably and maybe even more labour to get a majority
    Yeah I was thinking 75 Labour MPs who would be prepared to rebel against the leadership to push this through, if the Labour leadership support it or even just take a neutral stance you are going to have loads more.
    If it were proposed, it would pass. Either May would have to do it, or be replaced by someone who would. How we get there is difficult to see.
    But if we did, Corbyn would either fall into line, or see Labour discipline fall apart.
    Ultimately the Tory party no confidence mechanism means May has to adopt the position the majority of her party want her to, or off she goes.
  • dixiedean said:

    DanSmith said:

    DanSmith said:

    So we know there are minimum 75 Labour MPs who would support this.

    Lets add the SNP + Lib Dems, that gets you ~120 MPs. Question then is, are there 200 Tory MPs who would back Norway?
    Probably and maybe even more labour to get a majority
    Yeah I was thinking 75 Labour MPs who would be prepared to rebel against the leadership to push this through, if the Labour leadership support it or even just take a neutral stance you are going to have loads more.
    If it were proposed, it would pass. Either May would have to do it, or be replaced by someone who would. How we get there is difficult to see.
    But if we did, Corbyn would either fall into line, or see Labour discipline fall apart.
    This is when TM either swivels to Norway or resigns. It is interesting the cabinet are coming together on this and of course all this will take place in the immediate aftermath of the deal falling, if it does

    TM will be given the time to deal with cabinet and other party leaders as laid out in the procedures and it will be high politics when she comes to the dispatch box with her decision
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,755
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Without the usual patronising nonsense from the usual suspect, there's no obvious route to the end of the Conservative Government which, for all its travails, is ahead in the polls and has 315 seats in Parliament.

    It would need the latter number to be reduced by defections to change the balance in Parliament but does anyone seriously believe 30 Conservative MPs will break from the Party and choose to sit as Independent Conservatives or whatever - seriously?

    Even if that happens, we then have to imagine the defectors and others offering sufficient support to a minority Labour Government - seriously?

    Notions of a "collapse" of the Government fall against that truth - there are 315 Conservative MPs and as long as that group remains united (if not coherent) they remain in Government whoever leads them (May, Hunt, Hammond, JRM).

    I suppose they could voluntarily go into Opposition and simply abstain on all legislation put forward by an alternative Government - seriously?

    So, whether we like it or not, some form of Conservative administration is going to remain in office if not necessarily power. How a new Government is constituted if/when May goes is really only for the Conservatives to work out.

    Voting for or against May's Deal changes that not one iota - in essence, the Deal isn't really that important unless it creates a schism within the Conservative Party - seriously, fetch me some popcorn?

    But that is all dependant on the the behaviour of the DUP. No other Opposition party would be likely to prop them up.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,257

    dixiedean said:

    This is all rather esoteric anyway. If the Deal falls we don't, in practice, have 21 days, let alone 21 sitting days, to fanny around while the Conservative Party debates what next. I fully expect Plan B to revealed immediately after the vote. A decision will have to be made then, even if it is merely to vote again.
    Of course, if there is no Plan B prepared, then that would be metaphorically criminal negligence.
    So, that is perhaps what will happen.

    You have to hope that there might be a few "quiet word in your shell-like" going on at the G20. The last thing the world economies need is a pissing contest between UK and EU, which will impact all of them. "Sort it, guys....before Trump gets in the mix!"
    I think you may have answered your own point. Who, other than the President of the United States, has the gravitas to state such a thing? And what could we reasonably expect from the current President.
    China? Japan? India?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,257

    dixiedean said:

    DanSmith said:

    DanSmith said:

    So we know there are minimum 75 Labour MPs who would support this.

    Lets add the SNP + Lib Dems, that gets you ~120 MPs. Question then is, are there 200 Tory MPs who would back Norway?
    Probably and maybe even more labour to get a majority
    Yeah I was thinking 75 Labour MPs who would be prepared to rebel against the leadership to push this through, if the Labour leadership support it or even just take a neutral stance you are going to have loads more.
    If it were proposed, it would pass. Either May would have to do it, or be replaced by someone who would. How we get there is difficult to see.
    But if we did, Corbyn would either fall into line, or see Labour discipline fall apart.
    This is when TM either swivels to Norway or resigns. It is interesting the cabinet are coming together on this and of course all this will take place in the immediate aftermath of the deal falling, if it does

    TM will be given the time to deal with cabinet and other party leaders as laid out in the procedures and it will be high politics when she comes to the dispatch box with her decision
    And how much does Norway cost us per annum? As I understand it, if the Norway fees are grossed up for UK population, we end up paying about what we pay today as EU members. Can't see that going down well.....with Freedom of Movement added for extra grief.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 48,635
    Norway is outside the customs union ! How on earth can we pivot to Norway with the backstop ?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    Pulpstar said:

    Norway is outside the customs union ! How on earth can we pivot to Norway with the backstop ?

    I don't think anything really matters anymore, they're just winging it on a hope and a prayer. Here's hoping one of those prayers comes through.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 9,162
    edited November 30
    Sam Gyimah not much news on him on Twitter other than that tweet from The Sun.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    Putting more effort in than some, I'll give him that.
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 940
    Pulpstar said:

    Norway is outside the customs union ! How on earth can we pivot to Norway with the backstop ?

    Let alone that the PM has got to go to the EU and say well Cameron told you he would win the referendum, May told you she could get this deal through parliament, but trust me this deal will get through.

    After the laughter the EU may well say when you and Corbyn turn up and tell us you both support this deal, we will believe you.
  • dixiedean said:

    DanSmith said:

    DanSmith said:

    So we know there are minimum 75 Labour MPs who would support this.

    Lets add the SNP + Lib Dems, that gets you ~120 MPs. Question then is, are there 200 Tory MPs who would back Norway?
    Probably and maybe even more labour to get a majority
    Yeah I was thinking 75 Labour MPs who would be prepared to rebel against the leadership to push this through, if the Labour leadership support it or even just take a neutral stance you are going to have loads more.
    If it were proposed, it would pass. Either May would have to do it, or be replaced by someone who would. How we get there is difficult to see.
    But if we did, Corbyn would either fall into line, or see Labour discipline fall apart.
    This is when TM either swivels to Norway or resigns. It is interesting the cabinet are coming together on this and of course all this will take place in the immediate aftermath of the deal falling, if it does

    TM will be given the time to deal with cabinet and other party leaders as laid out in the procedures and it will be high politics when she comes to the dispatch box with her decision
    And how much does Norway cost us per annum? As I understand it, if the Norway fees are grossed up for UK population, we end up paying about what we pay today as EU members. Can't see that going down well.....with Freedom of Movement added for extra grief.
    ERG are losing Brexit for BINO
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 12,492
    So for all the sound and fury in the end all roads lead to Brexit:

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 12,492
    Have been out the loop today. Was any agreement reached on the Tezza/Jezza show? :D
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 21,057
    dr_spyn said:



    Kate Osamor and her entrepreneurial offspring.

    Why isn’t the headline “Top Labour MP threatens journalist” that’s much more serious
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 9,162
    A future PM...Telegraph claims that others might go this weekend,

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/30/tory-minister-sam-gyimah-resigns-protest-theresa-mays-withdrawal/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

    It might shift a few copies, but will they have the balls to follow him out of the door?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,257

    dixiedean said:

    DanSmith said:

    DanSmith said:

    So we know there are minimum 75 Labour MPs who would support this.

    Lets add the SNP + Lib Dems, that gets you ~120 MPs. Question then is, are there 200 Tory MPs who would back Norway?
    Probably and maybe even more labour to get a majority
    Yeah I was thinking 75 Labour MPs who would be prepared to rebel against the leadership to push this through, if the Labour leadership support it or even just take a neutral stance you are going to have loads more.
    If it were proposed, it would pass. Either May would have to do it, or be replaced by someone who would. How we get there is difficult to see.
    But if we did, Corbyn would either fall into line, or see Labour discipline fall apart.
    This is when TM either swivels to Norway or resigns. It is interesting the cabinet are coming together on this and of course all this will take place in the immediate aftermath of the deal falling, if it does

    TM will be given the time to deal with cabinet and other party leaders as laid out in the procedures and it will be high politics when she comes to the dispatch box with her decision
    And how much does Norway cost us per annum? As I understand it, if the Norway fees are grossed up for UK population, we end up paying about what we pay today as EU members. Can't see that going down well.....with Freedom of Movement added for extra grief.
    ERG are losing Brexit for BINO
    This is nothing to do with ERG. May's deal is dead in the water anyway, as there are more than enough non-ERG Tory MPs saying they will vote against May's deal. And if Norway is supported by a fair few Tory leadership candidates and their followers, then it will be Norway if Labour/SNP/LibDems come round to it. In that situation, ERG is an irrelevence. Mr. Rees-Mogg can huff and puff all he likes, but he can't stop it.
  • GIN1138 said:

    So for all the sound and fury in the end all roads lead to Brexit:

    Everyone needs to keep this for reference,. This is the procedure the HOC will follow managed by Bercow
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 48,635
    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Norway is outside the customs union ! How on earth can we pivot to Norway with the backstop ?

    I don't think anything really matters anymore, they're just winging it on a hope and a prayer. Here's hoping one of those prayers comes through.
    Has Macron agreed to us having agricultural tarriffs ?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    dr_spyn said:

    A future PM...Telegraph claims that others might go this weekend,

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/30/tory-minister-sam-gyimah-resigns-protest-theresa-mays-withdrawal/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

    It might shift a few copies, but will they have the balls to follow him out of the door?

    I just don't understand people not having left before but are leaving now unless it's trying to make May's position untenable and to get the vote pulled, which would be a terrible outcome.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 48,635
    Pulpstar said:

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Norway is outside the customs union ! How on earth can we pivot to Norway with the backstop ?

    I don't think anything really matters anymore, they're just winging it on a hope and a prayer. Here's hoping one of those prayers comes through.
    Has Macron agreed to us having agricultural tarriffs ?
    Blimey, are we joining Schengen ?
  • dixiedean said:

    DanSmith said:

    DanSmith said:

    So we know there are minimum 75 Labour MPs who would support this.

    Lets add the SNP + Lib Dems, that gets you ~120 MPs. Question then is, are there 200 Tory MPs who would back Norway?
    Probably and maybe even more labour to get a majority
    Yeah I was thinking 75 Labour MPs who would be prepared to rebel against the leadership to push this through, if the Labour leadership support it or even just take a neutral stance you are going to have loads more.
    If it were proposed, it would pass. Either May would have to do it, or be replaced by someone who would. How we get there is difficult to see.
    But if we did, Corbyn would either fall into line, or see Labour discipline fall apart.
    This is when TM either swivels to Norway or resigns. It is interesting the cabinet are coming together on this and of course all this will take place in the immediate aftermath of the deal falling, if it does

    TM will be given the time to deal with cabinet and other party leaders as laid out in the procedures and it will be high politics when she comes to the dispatch box with her decision
    And how much does Norway cost us per annum? As I understand it, if the Norway fees are grossed up for UK population, we end up paying about what we pay today as EU members. Can't see that going down well.....with Freedom of Movement added for extra grief.
    ERG are losing Brexit for BINO
    This is nothing to do with ERG. May's deal is dead in the water anyway, as there are more than enough non-ERG Tory MPs saying they will vote against May's deal. And if Norway is supported by a fair few Tory leadership candidates and their followers, then it will be Norway if Labour/SNP/LibDems come round to it. In that situation, ERG is an irrelevence. Mr. Rees-Mogg can huff and puff all he likes, but he can't stop it.
    Had they rowed in behind the deal it would have passed
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,257
    edited November 30
    GIN1138 said:

    Have been out the loop today. Was any agreement reached on the Tezza/Jezza show? :D

    Not that I've seen. Corbyn's feet getting so cold he now risks frostbite....
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 22,120
    Matt gave us a big hint earlier. We should have noticed.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,257

    How is that a secret. That has been knowledge for some time
    Exclusive: "Exclusives" aren't what they were....
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 12,492

    GIN1138 said:

    So for all the sound and fury in the end all roads lead to Brexit:

    Everyone needs to keep this for reference,. This is the procedure the HOC will follow managed by Bercow
    Certainly no time for faffing about with "this and that" deal or trying to get a second referendum together.

    As I've been saying, basically by January times up so if nothing is in place by then we leave with No Deal.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 9,162
    kle4 said:

    dr_spyn said:

    A future PM...Telegraph claims that others might go this weekend,

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/30/tory-minister-sam-gyimah-resigns-protest-theresa-mays-withdrawal/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

    It might shift a few copies, but will they have the balls to follow him out of the door?

    I just don't understand people not having left before but are leaving now unless it's trying to make May's position untenable and to get the vote pulled, which would be a terrible outcome.
    Its not as if the departing or departed Ministers have a clear successor to May lined up, or a viable way of cutting Brexit's Gordian knot.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,257
    edited November 30

    dixiedean said:

    DanSmith said:

    DanSmith said:

    So we know there are minimum 75 Labour MPs who would support this.

    Lets add the SNP + Lib Dems, that gets you ~120 MPs. Question then is, are there 200 Tory MPs who would back Norway?
    Probably and maybe even more labour to get a majority
    Yeah I was thinking 75 Labour MPs who would be prepared to rebel against the leadership to push this through, if the Labour leadership support it or even just take a neutral stance you are going to have loads more.
    If it were proposed, it would pass. Either May would have to do it, or be replaced by someone who would. How we get there is difficult to see.
    But if we did, Corbyn would either fall into line, or see Labour discipline fall apart.
    This is when TM either swivels to Norway or resigns. It is interesting the cabinet are coming together on this and of course all this will take place in the immediate aftermath of the deal falling, if it does

    TM will be given the time to deal with cabinet and other party leaders as laid out in the procedures and it will be high politics when she comes to the dispatch box with her decision
    And how much does Norway cost us per annum? As I understand it, if the Norway fees are grossed up for UK population, we end up paying about what we pay today as EU members. Can't see that going down well.....with Freedom of Movement added for extra grief.
    ERG are losing Brexit for BINO
    This is nothing to do with ERG. May's deal is dead in the water anyway, as there are more than enough non-ERG Tory MPs saying they will vote against May's deal. And if Norway is supported by a fair few Tory leadership candidates and their followers, then it will be Norway if Labour/SNP/LibDems come round to it. In that situation, ERG is an irrelevence. Mr. Rees-Mogg can huff and puff all he likes, but he can't stop it.
    Had they rowed in behind the deal it would have passed
    No, it really wouldn't.....

    EDIT: If the ERG had said "that will do us....", then Soubry and Grieve and Wollaston and others would have rejected because the ERG accepted it.

    And that's without the DUP still saying "NOOOOO!!!"
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 5,973
    FF43 said:

    Very clear and as straightforward as can be explanation of what May's "deal" is and isn't. Recommended reading

    Thanks. I found that really helpful.

    As a result of reading it, though, I am finding it harder to see why majority of MPs are not supporting May's deal tbh.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    edited November 30
    Sam Gyimah, the universities and science minister, has resigned in protest at the Government’s “naive” Brexit plan, saying that any deal we strike with Brussels will be “EU first”

    Er, hold on, 'any deal'? Ok, seriously, why would he not have resigned well before now then if he thinks any deal would be unacceptable?

    Seems like in his comments he's doing it so we can Remain. Which is a point of view one can hold, but given his comments that any deal would in essence be unacceptable I don't see why the latest comments on Gallileo were the tipping point for him.

    Any estimates the deal, if it even gets voted on, could lose by even more than 200? The payroll vote and super loyalists are getting thinner on the ground every day.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 23,582
    kle4 said:

    Sam Gyimah, the universities and science minister, has resigned in protest at the Government’s “naive” Brexit plan, saying that any deal we strike with Brussels will be “EU first”

    Er, hold on, 'any deal'? Ok, seriously, why would he not have resigned well before now then if he thinks any deal would be unacceptable?

    Seems like in his comments he's doing it so we can Remain. Which is a point of view one can hold, but given his comments that any deal would in essence be unacceptable I don't see why the latest comments on Gallileo were the tipping point for him.

    He means any deal on the future relationship.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 12,492
    kle4 said:

    Sam Gyimah, the universities and science minister, has resigned in protest at the Government’s “naive” Brexit plan, saying that any deal we strike with Brussels will be “EU first”

    Er, hold on, 'any deal'? Ok, seriously, why would he not have resigned well before now then if he thinks any deal would be unacceptable?

    Seems like in his comments he's doing it so we can Remain. Which is a point of view one can hold, but given his comments that any deal would in essence be unacceptable I don't see why the latest comments on Gallileo were the tipping point for him.

    He was on Question Time not that long ago defending Mrs May and Brexit... You do have to wonder about most of our politicians don't you? ;)
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 5,853
    kle4 said:

    Sam Gyimah, the universities and science minister, has resigned in protest at the Government’s “naive” Brexit plan, saying that any deal we strike with Brussels will be “EU first”

    Er, hold on, 'any deal'? Ok, seriously, why would he not have resigned well before now then if he thinks any deal would be unacceptable?

    Seems like in his comments he's doing it so we can Remain. Which is a point of view one can hold, but given his comments that any deal would in essence be unacceptable I don't see why the latest comments on Gallileo were the tipping point for him.

    Any estimates the deal, if it even gets voted on, could lose by eve more than 200? The payroll vote and super loyalists are getting thinner on the ground every day.

    Any deal given what he knows now. He may previously had hopes that experience has dashed.
This discussion has been closed.