Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the Article 50 exit date gets deferred it could raise doubt

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 11 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the Article 50 exit date gets deferred it could raise doubts about whether the UK ever leaves

Lots of talk today about the possibility of the March 29th Brexit deadline being deferred because the UK Parliament does not have the time left enact the required legislation.

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 8,545
    edited January 11
    First like the 'foot' who comes through your door just after midnight at New Year.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,760
    Second, thanks Sandy! :p
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,760
    Being stuck in limbo would be awful. Only knowing what was going to happen for, say, 6 months at a time.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 8,843
    Personally I think the 4.0 on us leaving on time is value. But then I thought that about the 3.1 available yesterday, so DYOR.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,711
    I'm rather curious that punters expect Mrs May to do something so bold as to ask the EU for an extension... can't see it myself.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,870

    Personally I think the 4.0 on us leaving on time is value. But then I thought that about the 3.1 available yesterday, so DYOR.

    How would you divide up the implied probability of better than 25% between The Deal and Crash-Out?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,040
    Mr. Price, you thought 1.7 on it was value too (to be fair, I agreed and followed your tip).

    Hmm.

    Hmm.

    If Remainers think they're in with a chance that harms May's deal's prospects from that side. Not sure switching Leavers would be enough to outweigh that.

    But then what? Revocation-referendum? Extension-referendum? Extension-faffing about-revocation-no-referendum-political class seem surprised by the 'inexplicable' rise of new parties?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 24,722
    edited January 11
    Sky just now.

    A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50

    I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 8,843

    Personally I think the 4.0 on us leaving on time is value. But then I thought that about the 3.1 available yesterday, so DYOR.

    How would you divide up the implied probability of better than 25% between The Deal and Crash-Out?
    2:1 in favour of Deal?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,309
    Can anyone comment on what would be required legislatively to bring around a referendum before 29th March, given that the existing organisational structure requires around six months between legislation and referendum?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,189

    Sky just now.

    A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50

    I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B

    Two years ago she wasn't going to have an election either.
  • Sandpit said:

    Can anyone comment on what would be required legislatively to bring around a referendum before 29th March, given that the existing organisational structure requires around six months between legislation and referendum?

    I would suggest it is impossible
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,040
    King Cole, and that's before one looks at the change from Lancaster House to Chequers.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,870
    edited January 11

    Personally I think the 4.0 on us leaving on time is value. But then I thought that about the 3.1 available yesterday, so DYOR.

    How would you divide up the implied probability of better than 25% between The Deal and Crash-Out?
    2:1 in favour of Deal?
    So at least a 16.7% chance of the deal (or a minor variant of it) being approved, and at least 8.3% of us crashing out, leaving up to 75% for an extension or conceivably Revoke before 29 Mar. The last of those must be a very, very low probability, though; if we do end up revoking Article 50 it will presumably be after an extension and possibly a referendum.

    Yes, I think you are right: 75% for an extension looks too high an implied probability.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 2,988

    Sky just now.

    A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50

    I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B

    I think it was ruled out this morning. The currency markets seem to have ignored it, after a brief pause.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 24,722
    edited January 11

    Sky just now.

    A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50

    I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B

    Two years ago she wasn't going to have an election either.
    TM knows she is the only person at present able to request A50 extension and why would she. She has been running down the clock and as we know the HOC by more than 500 mps will not allow no deal. This leaves ERG with deal or remain/revoke/ referendum
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,863
    TGOHF said:

    I'm rather curious that punters expect Mrs May to do something so bold as to ask the EU for an extension... can't see it myself.

    Besides that, firstly the European Parliament problem poses considerable difficulties, and secondly why would the EU27 want to keep granting the UK an endless series of extensions - even if, given said problem, this proves to be possible? They'd need a very good reason indeed to permit just the one.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,116
    Anyone else just feeling embarrassed at how clueless the UK looks?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,507

    Sky just now.

    A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50

    I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B

    Two years ago she wasn't going to have an election either.
    Interesting perhaps though that the vicar's daughter is better able to resist pressure than temptation. Calling the election was all about being tempted by the prospect of a huge majority. There was, at the time, no apparent downside other than being seen to have changed ones mind. All the various options being pushed at the moment are about withstanding pressure with obvious downsides for her if she succumbs.

  • ChrisChris Posts: 2,988
    edited January 11

    Personally I think the 4.0 on us leaving on time is value. But then I thought that about the 3.1 available yesterday, so DYOR.

    How would you divide up the implied probability of better than 25% between The Deal and Crash-Out?
    2:1 in favour of Deal?
    So at least a 16.7% chance of the deal (or a minor variant of it) being approved, and at least 8.3% of us crashing out, leaving up to 75% for an extension or conceivably Revoke before 29 Mar. The last of those must be a very, very low probability, though; if we do end up revoking Article 50 it will presumably be after an extension and possible a referendum.

    Yes, I think you are right: 75% for an extension looks too high an implied probability.
    But if there really weren't time for the legislation to pass to put the Deal into effect, then the choice would be between Extending, Revoking or No Deal. On that basis 75% wouldn't be too high.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,040
    edited January 11
    Betting Post

    You can lay a second referendum before the end of the year on Betfair at 2.6, and back it on Ladbrokes at 2.75 (without boost).
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 2,225

    Sky just now.

    A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50

    I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B

    Personally I getting more than a little fed up with May ruling out this or that like she is some sort of absolute monarch.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,507
    Sandpit said:

    Can anyone comment on what would be required legislatively to bring around a referendum before 29th March, given that the existing organisational structure requires around six months between legislation and referendum?

    In theory I think it could be done in a couple of days but that would be to invite criticism from the Electoral Commission, legal challenges up to the supreme court and claims the whole process was fixed and therefore illegitimate.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,116
    OllyT said:

    Sky just now.

    A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50

    I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B

    Personally I getting more than a little fed up with May ruling out this or that like she is some sort of absolute monarch.
    That would be the totally crap sort of absolute monarch.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,189
    edited January 11

    Sky just now.

    A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50

    I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B

    Two years ago she wasn't going to have an election either.
    Interesting perhaps though that the vicar's daughter is better able to resist pressure than temptation. Calling the election was all about being tempted by the prospect of a huge majority. There was, at the time, no apparent downside other than being seen to have changed ones mind. All the various options being pushed at the moment are about withstanding pressure with obvious downsides for her if she succumbs.

    Interesting line of thought. Like it. She is, after all, known to be stubborn. (Aka 'bloody difficult')
  • Anyone else just feeling embarrassed at how clueless the UK looks?

    I have been concerned for some time about how we look internationally and that is not going to change soon.

    And if we remain, I cannot imagine how embarrasing it will be and EU flags flying from UK town halls will cause absolute chaos
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,870
    edited January 11

    Anyone else just feeling embarrassed at how clueless the UK looks?

    Well, at least we have a government, are not being held to ransom by rioters in yellow vests, are still paying civil servants' salaries, and have a PM who isn't making an idiot of herself on Twitter every morning.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 1,730

    Sky just now.

    A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50

    I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B

    Two years ago she wasn't going to have an election either.
    I seem to remember that a delay to the meaningful vote was also ruled out until it wasn't.
  • Betting Post

    You can lay a second referendum before the end of the year on Betfair at 2.6, and back it on Ladbrokes at 2.75 (without boost).

    I had that new year moment. I regressed to thinking it was 2018
  • ChrisChris Posts: 2,988

    Sandpit said:

    Can anyone comment on what would be required legislatively to bring around a referendum before 29th March, given that the existing organisational structure requires around six months between legislation and referendum?

    In theory I think it could be done in a couple of days but that would be to invite criticism from the Electoral Commission, legal challenges up to the supreme court and claims the whole process was fixed and therefore illegitimate.
    Why wouldn't it require primary legislation?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,870
    Chris said:

    Personally I think the 4.0 on us leaving on time is value. But then I thought that about the 3.1 available yesterday, so DYOR.

    How would you divide up the implied probability of better than 25% between The Deal and Crash-Out?
    2:1 in favour of Deal?
    So at least a 16.7% chance of the deal (or a minor variant of it) being approved, and at least 8.3% of us crashing out, leaving up to 75% for an extension or conceivably Revoke before 29 Mar. The last of those must be a very, very low probability, though; if we do end up revoking Article 50 it will presumably be after an extension and possible a referendum.

    Yes, I think you are right: 75% for an extension looks too high an implied probability.
    But if there really weren't time for the legislation to pass to put the Deal into effect, then the choice would be between Extending, Revoking or No Deal. On that basis 75% wouldn't be too high.
    Maybe.
  • OllyT said:

    Sky just now.

    A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50

    I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B

    Personally I getting more than a little fed up with May ruling out this or that like she is some sort of absolute monarch.
    At present she has the power
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,863
    Chris said:

    Personally I think the 4.0 on us leaving on time is value. But then I thought that about the 3.1 available yesterday, so DYOR.

    How would you divide up the implied probability of better than 25% between The Deal and Crash-Out?
    2:1 in favour of Deal?
    So at least a 16.7% chance of the deal (or a minor variant of it) being approved, and at least 8.3% of us crashing out, leaving up to 75% for an extension or conceivably Revoke before 29 Mar. The last of those must be a very, very low probability, though; if we do end up revoking Article 50 it will presumably be after an extension and possible a referendum.

    Yes, I think you are right: 75% for an extension looks too high an implied probability.
    But if there really weren't time for the legislation to pass to put the Deal into effect, than the choice would be between Extending, Revoking or No Deal. On that basis 75% wouldn't be too high.
    Thought: if there's really insufficient time to get the Deal legislation on the statute books, if MPs frustrate the passage of the No Deal legislation, if there's no longer enough time for a referendum either, and the EU27 are either unable or unwilling to grant an extension, then what option remains?

    To paraphrase, if we eliminate all of the impossible options then what remains, however improbable, must occur. Is this all going to end with the fire exit that the ECJ so conveniently unblocked before Christmas being used?
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 1,675
    Polruan said:

    Sky just now.

    A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50

    I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B

    Two years ago she wasn't going to have an election either.
    I seem to remember that a delay to the meaningful vote was also ruled out until it wasn't.
    Tony Blair I seem to remember got compared to Pinocchio!

    I take anything May says with a pinch of salt.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 1,730
    Chris said:

    Sandpit said:

    Can anyone comment on what would be required legislatively to bring around a referendum before 29th March, given that the existing organisational structure requires around six months between legislation and referendum?

    In theory I think it could be done in a couple of days but that would be to invite criticism from the Electoral Commission, legal challenges up to the supreme court and claims the whole process was fixed and therefore illegitimate.
    Why wouldn't it require primary legislation?
    Pretty sure primary legislation can be passed in a day if there's no opposition to it (in theory it probably could be even with bare majority support, but there would be a lot more attempts to use Parliamentary procedure to cause trouble).
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,189

    Anyone else just feeling embarrassed at how clueless the UK looks?

    Well, at least we have a government, are not being held to ransom by rioters in yellow vests, are still paying civil servants' salaries, and have a PM who isn't making an idiot of herself on Twitter every morning.
    She's got ministers to do the last named for her!
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 7,496
    I think if there is an extension it will only be to do something definitive - either to tidy up the legislative paperwork after a successful vote in favour of the withdrawal agreement, or to hold a referendum/general election for the voters to decide whether to do so.

    So I can't see a scenario where this happens indefinitely.

    Extending the transition period, after withdrawing from the EU, could happen indefinitely, but not A50 extension.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 639

    TGOHF said:

    I'm rather curious that punters expect Mrs May to do something so bold as to ask the EU for an extension... can't see it myself.

    Besides that, firstly the European Parliament problem poses considerable difficulties, and secondly why would the EU27 want to keep granting the UK an endless series of extensions - even if, given said problem, this proves to be possible? They'd need a very good reason indeed to permit just the one.
    I've said for some time that the best way forward would be to suspend A50, lock up the brexiteers for three years and tell them to come back with a concrete proposal. Then have a vote, their proposal or remain.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,309

    Sandpit said:

    Can anyone comment on what would be required legislatively to bring around a referendum before 29th March, given that the existing organisational structure requires around six months between legislation and referendum?

    In theory I think it could be done in a couple of days but that would be to invite criticism from the Electoral Commission, legal challenges up to the supreme court and claims the whole process was fixed and therefore illegitimate.
    Yes, that was my line of thought too. I’d also imagine that it would be held up in the Lords for a while.

    Same problem with an election. There’s limited time to hold one before the end of March and no indication that both major parties wouldn’t be seriously split, and that result wouldn’t produce a Parliament more than a couple of dozen seats away from what we have now.

    Any extension of more than a few weeks brings us to the EU elections, for which the Parliament that has to pass the deal is dissolved on 23rd April, and would require reallocation of seats across the whole EU if we were to take part.

    Can’t see how it’s anything but deal (with Lab support) or no deal from here, in spite of what politicians and commentators with different hopes might wishfully suggest can happen.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,863
    edited January 11

    Sandpit said:

    Can anyone comment on what would be required legislatively to bring around a referendum before 29th March, given that the existing organisational structure requires around six months between legislation and referendum?

    In theory I think it could be done in a couple of days but that would be to invite criticism from the Electoral Commission, legal challenges up to the supreme court and claims the whole process was fixed and therefore illegitimate.
    I would've thought more like 2 or 3 weeks, simply because of the logistics - returning officers running around like headless chickens, millions of ballot papers to be printed - but other than that your points are valid. There's not enough time left to stage a referendum *properly* before March 29th, let alone to do everything necessary to give effect to any result other than a straightforward Remain decision.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,513
    edited January 11
    A deferral means Remain.

    Rather than take the blame for telling voters "Your views are irrelevant" which they are, Parliament wants to do it by farting around long enough for it to seem that it's been forced on them by circumstances. Once deferred, there'll suddenly be immense pressure to end the uncertainty.

    Guess what will happen then? Parliament forced to take control to end uncertainty and associated damage to economy by cancelling Brexit. I predicted this six months ago. I also expect associated damage to democracy will be ignored.

    Now where's my yellow vest?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,742
    An interesting economic experiment being undertaken in South Korea:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/business/south-korea-economy.html

    Of course with exports making up over 40% of GDP, they are not exactly your average economy.

  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 1,675

    Anyone else just feeling embarrassed at how clueless the UK looks?

    I have been concerned for some time about how we look internationally and that is not going to change soon.

    And if we remain, I cannot imagine how embarrasing it will be and EU flags flying from UK town halls will cause absolute chaos
    I don't think flying flags will cause any problem what so ever. Surely we want to be an open and welcoming society what ever happens in Brexit!

    Some hotels fly all sorts of flags outside themselves.

    If a democratically elected Council wants to fly flags or twin themselves with European or any other towns or places it is up to the local electors to change the make up of the council to change its policy on such matters.

    All this Brexit nonsense is perverting discourse and subjugating common sense.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,309
    edited January 11
    Chris said:

    Sandpit said:

    Can anyone comment on what would be required legislatively to bring around a referendum before 29th March, given that the existing organisational structure requires around six months between legislation and referendum?

    In theory I think it could be done in a couple of days but that would be to invite criticism from the Electoral Commission, legal challenges up to the supreme court and claims the whole process was fixed and therefore illegitimate.
    Why wouldn't it require primary legislation?
    Yes, and it would also require repeal of earlier Acts that specify the rules that lead to the current six month timetable. Things like committees to approve the question, appoint campaign groups, empower local authorities to participate in the mechanics of the ballot papers and count etc.

    It’s impossible to legally call a referendum by an amendment to some other piece of legislation, and the government can’t be compelled to bring forward legislation it doesn’t want to.

    Also note that, unlike for an election campaign, Parliament would continue to sit during a referendum campaign.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 8,843
    edited January 11

    Sky just now.

    A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50

    I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B

    Some MPs are folding. George Freeman, Trudy Harrison from the Con side; nearly Jim Fitzpatrick from Labour (see below), possibly Edward Leigh. Are they a trickle that presages a flood?

    https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/01/watch-labour-mp-im-talking-myself-into-supporting-the-prime-ministers-deal.html
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,507

    Anyone else just feeling embarrassed at how clueless the UK looks?

    Not really. No more than when Sweden or Germany or Belgium cannot form a government. Or when there is a stalemate between President and Congress in the US. Politics is messy. Why be embarrassed by it. It certainly beats the one party states where no one dare oppose the executive.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 19,211
    Yep
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 7,496

    Anyone else just feeling embarrassed at how clueless the UK looks?

    Well, at least we have a government, are not being held to ransom by rioters in yellow vests, are still paying civil servants' salaries, and have a PM who isn't making an idiot of herself on Twitter every morning.
    We also haven't forced a university to move to a neighbouring country, so there's definitely a lot of competition, but being better than Trump is not a high bar of achievement.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 1,730

    I think if there is an extension it will only be to do something definitive - either to tidy up the legislative paperwork after a successful vote in favour of the withdrawal agreement, or to hold a referendum/general election for the voters to decide whether to do so.

    So I can't see a scenario where this happens indefinitely.

    Extending the transition period, after withdrawing from the EU, could happen indefinitely, but not A50 extension.

    I tended to think the EU27 would agree to a short extension if the WA had been signed so that we could sort out the necessary legislation. The difficulty with that is that it's not clear that the Government can commit to a date by which it will be sorted out. There are volumes of policy decisions to be made, and the Government won't magically have a majority to force its business through. It could take years - do we ask for another extension each time we haven't finished? In the meantime, isn't there a risk that the ERG and friends will be agitating to amend the WA?

    Because of this, I'm increasingly sceptical that any extension would be granted for any reason other than taking steps which might change the Brexit outcome.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,341
    edited January 11
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Can anyone comment on what would be required legislatively to bring around a referendum before 29th March, given that the existing organisational structure requires around six months between legislation and referendum?

    In theory I think it could be done in a couple of days but that would be to invite criticism from the Electoral Commission, legal challenges up to the supreme court and claims the whole process was fixed and therefore illegitimate.
    Yes, that was my line of thought too. I’d also imagine that it would be held up in the Lords for a while.

    Same problem with an election. There’s limited time to hold one before the end of March and no indication that both major parties wouldn’t be seriously split, and that result wouldn’t produce a Parliament more than a couple of dozen seats away from what we have now.

    Any extension of more than a few weeks brings us to the EU elections, for which the Parliament that has to pass the deal is dissolved on 23rd April, and would require reallocation of seats across the whole EU if we were to take part.

    Can’t see how it’s anything but deal (with Lab support) or no deal from here, in spite of what politicians and commentators with different hopes might wishfully suggest can happen.
    Could still be revoke as well?

    It is clear that any suspension is only going to be allowed for a time limited to weeks (end of May), and for a specific purpose.

    No deal, Deal or Revoke are the three options in town.
    Is there time to agree, negotiate Norway (++ as required to taste)?
    If the legislation isn't completed by 29th March, then we leave without a deal or have a short suspension. The availability of a suspension may be dependent on the legislation we are trying to pass.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 8,843
    CD13 said:

    A deferral means Remain.

    Rather than take the blame for telling voters "Your views are irrelevant" which they are, Parliament wants to do it by farting around long enough for it to seem that it's been forced on them by circumstances. Once deferred, there'll suddenly be immense pressure to end the uncertainty.

    Guess what will happen then? Parliament forced to take control to end uncertainty and associated damage to economy by cancelling Brexit. I predicted this six months ago. I also expect associated damage to democracy will be ignored.

    Now where's my yellow vest?

    Bit in bold - the same goes for agreeing to the Deal, no?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 22,275

    Sky just now.

    A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50

    I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B

    must be WTO then and two fingers to Theresa and her chicanery.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,863
    Fenman said:

    TGOHF said:

    I'm rather curious that punters expect Mrs May to do something so bold as to ask the EU for an extension... can't see it myself.

    Besides that, firstly the European Parliament problem poses considerable difficulties, and secondly why would the EU27 want to keep granting the UK an endless series of extensions - even if, given said problem, this proves to be possible? They'd need a very good reason indeed to permit just the one.
    I've said for some time that the best way forward would be to suspend A50, lock up the brexiteers for three years and tell them to come back with a concrete proposal. Then have a vote, their proposal or remain.
    You can't "suspend" A50 notification. The Government (regardless of what party or parties it consists of by that point) would have to revoke, and I would expect that decision to be followed by a General Election in short order.

    If such an election were won outright by Leave-backing parties then they could learn from this experience, prepare thoroughly for 2 or 3 years and then have another tilt at Brexit. If, as seems more likely, it wasn't then the whole business would be put to bed for a while.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,507
    Chris said:

    Sandpit said:

    Can anyone comment on what would be required legislatively to bring around a referendum before 29th March, given that the existing organisational structure requires around six months between legislation and referendum?

    In theory I think it could be done in a couple of days but that would be to invite criticism from the Electoral Commission, legal challenges up to the supreme court and claims the whole process was fixed and therefore illegitimate.
    Why wouldn't it require primary legislation?
    Yes it would. But I was assuming from Sandpit's question that we were assuming there would be general support for it in Parliament (or at least enough to make the result of any division a foregone conclusion) so most of the votes would just be nodded through.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 22,275

    Polruan said:

    Sky just now.

    A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50

    I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B

    Two years ago she wasn't going to have an election either.
    I seem to remember that a delay to the meaningful vote was also ruled out until it wasn't.
    Tony Blair I seem to remember got compared to Pinocchio!

    I take anything May says with a pinch of salt.
    more like a bucket full
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234

    Sky just now.

    A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50

    I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B

    Some MPs are folding. George Freeman, Trudy Harrison from the Con side; nearly Jim Fitzpatrick from Labour (see below), possibly Edward Leigh. Are they a trickle that presages a flood?

    https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/01/watch-labour-mp-im-talking-myself-into-supporting-the-prime-ministers-deal.html
    Obviously not.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,507

    Chris said:

    Personally I think the 4.0 on us leaving on time is value. But then I thought that about the 3.1 available yesterday, so DYOR.

    How would you divide up the implied probability of better than 25% between The Deal and Crash-Out?
    2:1 in favour of Deal?
    So at least a 16.7% chance of the deal (or a minor variant of it) being approved, and at least 8.3% of us crashing out, leaving up to 75% for an extension or conceivably Revoke before 29 Mar. The last of those must be a very, very low probability, though; if we do end up revoking Article 50 it will presumably be after an extension and possible a referendum.

    Yes, I think you are right: 75% for an extension looks too high an implied probability.
    But if there really weren't time for the legislation to pass to put the Deal into effect, than the choice would be between Extending, Revoking or No Deal. On that basis 75% wouldn't be too high.
    Thought: if there's really insufficient time to get the Deal legislation on the statute books, if MPs frustrate the passage of the No Deal legislation, if there's no longer enough time for a referendum either, and the EU27 are either unable or unwilling to grant an extension, then what option remains?

    To paraphrase, if we eliminate all of the impossible options then what remains, however improbable, must occur. Is this all going to end with the fire exit that the ECJ so conveniently unblocked before Christmas being used?
    If we reach March 29th and no alternative is in place then we will have No Deal whether the necessary legislation is passed or not. For No Deal to happen all that has to occur is that nothing else is agreed.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 7,496
    Polruan said:

    I think if there is an extension it will only be to do something definitive - either to tidy up the legislative paperwork after a successful vote in favour of the withdrawal agreement, or to hold a referendum/general election for the voters to decide whether to do so.

    So I can't see a scenario where this happens indefinitely.

    Extending the transition period, after withdrawing from the EU, could happen indefinitely, but not A50 extension.

    I tended to think the EU27 would agree to a short extension if the WA had been signed so that we could sort out the necessary legislation. The difficulty with that is that it's not clear that the Government can commit to a date by which it will be sorted out. There are volumes of policy decisions to be made, and the Government won't magically have a majority to force its business through. It could take years - do we ask for another extension each time we haven't finished? In the meantime, isn't there a risk that the ERG and friends will be agitating to amend the WA?

    Because of this, I'm increasingly sceptical that any extension would be granted for any reason other than taking steps which might change the Brexit outcome.
    If a majority in the Commons has voted for the Deal the main reason for many of them will be to avoid chaos and uncertainty. I don't see why they won't accept that then means they have to see that through for the subsequent votes on Primary legislation. Potentially a modest extension that doesn't go beyond the European Parliament elections would be sufficient.

    There's no point in voting for the Deal to avoid chaos if you then allow chaos to happen because you won't vote to implement it. Surely our MPs are not that dim?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,805

    Sky just now.

    A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50

    I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B

    Some MPs are folding. George Freeman, Trudy Harrison from the Con side; nearly Jim Fitzpatrick from Labour (see below), possibly Edward Leigh. Are they a trickle that presages a flood?

    https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/01/watch-labour-mp-im-talking-myself-into-supporting-the-prime-ministers-deal.html
    There will probably be quite a few switchers, quite a few abstainers, but I can't see enough of them.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,309
    edited January 11
    philiph said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Can anyone comment on what would be required legislatively to bring around a referendum before 29th March, given that the existing organisational structure requires around six months between legislation and referendum?

    In theory I think it could be done in a couple of days but that would be to invite criticism from the Electoral Commission, legal challenges up to the supreme court and claims the whole process was fixed and therefore illegitimate.
    Yes, that was my line of thought too. I’d also imagine that it would be held up in the Lords for a while.

    Same problem with an election. There’s limited time to hold one before the end of March and no indication that both major parties wouldn’t be seriously split, and that result wouldn’t produce a Parliament more than a couple of dozen seats away from what we have now.

    Any extension of more than a few weeks brings us to the EU elections, for which the Parliament that has to pass the deal is dissolved on 23rd April, and would require reallocation of seats across the whole EU if we were to take part.

    Can’t see how it’s anything but deal (with Lab support) or no deal from here, in spite of what politicians and commentators with different hopes might wishfully suggest can happen.
    Could still be revoke as well?

    It is clear that any suspension is only going to be allowed for a time limited to weeks (end of May), and for a specific purpose.

    No deal, Deal or Revoke are the three options in town.
    Is there time to agree, negotiate Norway (++ as required to taste)?
    If the legislation isn't completed by 29th March, then we leave without a deal or have a short suspension. The availability of a suspension may be dependent on the legislation we are trying to pass.
    But what are the mechanics of Revoke?

    There’s a good argument that it requires primary legislation*, and Mrs May will have most of her cabinet resign the moment she tries to propose it. Conservatives could well cross the floor to vote against the government in a vote of confidence.

    Any VoNC in the government likely results in either an election or a replacement Conservative PM, who’s likely to be more inclined to no-deal than to remain.

    *in practice the Supreme Court are going to have to rule on this, as they did with the original A50 invocation. Again this takes time.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 12,559

    Anyone else just feeling embarrassed at how clueless the UK looks?

    Not really. No more than when Sweden or Germany or Belgium cannot form a government. Or when there is a stalemate between President and Congress in the US. Politics is messy. Why be embarrassed by it. It certainly beats the one party states where no one dare oppose the executive.
    Well, yes, but that's a low bar. I do think it's embarrassing that virtually everyone on all sides of the argument is trying to use "oh, we're running out of time, you'd better do what I reluctantly think is the least bad option" as a serious argument.

    We actually need a "Follow me!" leader like Blair in this situation, whereas we needed a cautious Theresa May-like leader in deciding whether to get involved in Iraq - an issue where it would in retrospect have been preferable to have spent years pondering the options.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,513
    Mr Price,

    "Bit in bold - the same goes for agreeing to the Deal, no?"

    Indeed. I am generally cynical about politicians but I find it's easier to predict their actions that way. They're generally in politics to ensure their views take precedence. The voters are there to be manipulated.

    They are seldom honourable or honest. I can accept the first but even in my dotage, I l dislike the second
  • ChrisChris Posts: 2,988

    Chris said:

    Sandpit said:

    Can anyone comment on what would be required legislatively to bring around a referendum before 29th March, given that the existing organisational structure requires around six months between legislation and referendum?

    In theory I think it could be done in a couple of days but that would be to invite criticism from the Electoral Commission, legal challenges up to the supreme court and claims the whole process was fixed and therefore illegitimate.
    Why wouldn't it require primary legislation?
    Yes it would. But I was assuming from Sandpit's question that we were assuming there would be general support for it in Parliament (or at least enough to make the result of any division a foregone conclusion) so most of the votes would just be nodded through.
    Oh, I see now that Sandpit was asking not how long it would take but what would need to be done.

    As Sandpit has pointed out, it would need the existing legislation governing referendums to be amended. It's obviously not going to happen.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,341
    Sandpit said:

    philiph said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Can anyone comment on what would be required legislatively to bring around a referendum before 29th March, given that the existing organisational structure requires around six months between legislation and referendum?

    In theory I think it could be done in a couple of days but that would be to invite criticism from the Electoral Commission, legal challenges up to the supreme court and claims the whole process was fixed and therefore illegitimate.
    Yes, that was my line of thought too. I’d also imagine that it would be held up in the Lords for a while.

    Same problem with an election. There’s limited time to hold one before the end of March and no indication that both major parties wouldn’t be seriously split, and that result wouldn’t produce a Parliament more than a couple of dozen seats away from what we have now.

    Any extension of more than a few weeks brings us to the EU elections, for which the Parliament that has to pass the deal is dissolved on 23rd April, and would require reallocation of seats across the whole EU if we were to take part.

    Can’t see how it’s anything but deal (with Lab support) or no deal from here, in spite of what politicians and commentators with different hopes might wishfully suggest can happen.
    Could still be revoke as well?

    It is clear that any suspension is only going to be allowed for a time limited to weeks (end of May), and for a specific purpose.

    No deal, Deal or Revoke are the three options in town.
    Is there time to agree, negotiate Norway (++ as required to taste)?
    If the legislation isn't completed by 29th March, then we leave without a deal or have a short suspension. The availability of a suspension may be dependent on the legislation we are trying to pass.
    But what are the mechanics of Revoke?

    There’s a good argument that it requires primary legislation, and Mrs May will have most of her cabinet resign the moment she tries to propose it. Conservatives could well cross the floor to vote against the government in a vote of confidence.

    Any VoNC in the government likely results in either an election or a replacement Conservative PM, who’s likely to be more inclined to no-deal than to remain.
    The only route is if it can command a majority in HOC.
    As you say, government and ministers may be thin on the ground. I'm sure Bercow will find an arcane way to function where all else falls apart.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,309

    Chris said:

    Personally I think the 4.0 on us leaving on time is value. But then I thought that about the 3.1 available yesterday, so DYOR.

    How would you divide up the implied probability of better than 25% between The Deal and Crash-Out?
    2:1 in favour of Deal?
    So at least a 16.7% chance of the deal (or a minor variant of it) being approved, and at least 8.3% of us crashing out, leaving up to 75% for an extension or conceivably Revoke before 29 Mar. The last of those must be a very, very low probability, though; if we do end up revoking Article 50 it will presumably be after an extension and possible a referendum.

    Yes, I think you are right: 75% for an extension looks too high an implied probability.
    But if there really weren't time for the legislation to pass to put the Deal into effect, than the choice would be between Extending, Revoking or No Deal. On that basis 75% wouldn't be too high.
    Thought: if there's really insufficient time to get the Deal legislation on the statute books, if MPs frustrate the passage of the No Deal legislation, if there's no longer enough time for a referendum either, and the EU27 are either unable or unwilling to grant an extension, then what option remains?

    To paraphrase, if we eliminate all of the impossible options then what remains, however improbable, must occur. Is this all going to end with the fire exit that the ECJ so conveniently unblocked before Christmas being used?
    If we reach March 29th and no alternative is in place then we will have No Deal whether the necessary legislation is passed or not. For No Deal to happen all that has to occur is that nothing else is agreed.
    Someone needs to print this out on a banner and hang it in Parliament Square. :)
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 1,730

    Polruan said:

    I think if there is an extension it will only be to do something definitive - either to tidy up the legislative paperwork after a successful vote in favour of the withdrawal agreement, or to hold a referendum/general election for the voters to decide whether to do so.

    So I can't see a scenario where this happens indefinitely.

    Extending the transition period, after withdrawing from the EU, could happen indefinitely, but not A50 extension.

    I tended to think the EU27 would agree to a short extension if the WA had been signed so that we could sort out the necessary legislation. The difficulty with that is that it's not clear that the Government can commit to a date by which it will be sorted out. There are volumes of policy decisions to be made, and the Government won't magically have a majority to force its business through. It could take years - do we ask for another extension each time we haven't finished? In the meantime, isn't there a risk that the ERG and friends will be agitating to amend the WA?

    Because of this, I'm increasingly sceptical that any extension would be granted for any reason other than taking steps which might change the Brexit outcome.
    If a majority in the Commons has voted for the Deal the main reason for many of them will be to avoid chaos and uncertainty. I don't see why they won't accept that then means they have to see that through for the subsequent votes on Primary legislation. Potentially a modest extension that doesn't go beyond the European Parliament elections would be sufficient.

    There's no point in voting for the Deal to avoid chaos if you then allow chaos to happen because you won't vote to implement it. Surely our MPs are not that dim?
    That sounds great in principle but as soon as it comes up against the specifics, such as a piece of law that looks like a power grab by the executive (allowing further law to be down by SI etc etc) the consensus will break down. The Lords is currently looking at agreeing 1000s of pages of SIs each day, all covering important subjects. They aren't suddenly going to suspend proper scrutiny just because Theresa sabotaged the timetable.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,870

    Anyone else just feeling embarrassed at how clueless the UK looks?

    Not really. No more than when Sweden or Germany or Belgium cannot form a government. Or when there is a stalemate between President and Congress in the US. Politics is messy. Why be embarrassed by it. It certainly beats the one party states where no one dare oppose the executive.
    Well, yes, but that's a low bar. I do think it's embarrassing that virtually everyone on all sides of the argument is trying to use "oh, we're running out of time, you'd better do what I reluctantly think is the least bad option" as a serious argument.

    We actually need a "Follow me!" leader like Blair in this situation, whereas we needed a cautious Theresa May-like leader in deciding whether to get involved in Iraq - an issue where it would in retrospect have been preferable to have spent years pondering the options.
    Pretty easy to be a "Follow me!" leader when you've got a majority of 167.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    Sean_F said:

    Sky just now.

    A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50

    I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B

    Some MPs are folding. George Freeman, Trudy Harrison from the Con side; nearly Jim Fitzpatrick from Labour (see below), possibly Edward Leigh. Are they a trickle that presages a flood?

    https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/01/watch-labour-mp-im-talking-myself-into-supporting-the-prime-ministers-deal.html
    There will probably be quite a few switchers, quite a few abstainers, but I can't see enough of them.
    The over-under is a no majority of 150-200. The only interesting question really is whether May will break the record for greatest Parliamentary defeat for a government in Westminster history (previous record holder, 166, Ramsay McDonald in 1924)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,742

    Anyone else just feeling embarrassed at how clueless the UK looks?

    Well, at least we have a government, are not being held to ransom by rioters in yellow vests, are still paying civil servants' salaries, and have a PM who isn't making an idiot of herself on Twitter every morning.
    We also haven't forced a university to move to a neighbouring country, so there's definitely a lot of competition, but being better than Trump is not a high bar of achievement.
    Team Trump continues to try to make us look good in comparison:
    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/424871-exclusive-trump-team-should-be-allowed-to-correct-final-mueller
  • ChrisChris Posts: 2,988
    Sandpit said:

    philiph said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Can anyone comment on what would be required legislatively to bring around a referendum before 29th March, given that the existing organisational structure requires around six months between legislation and referendum?

    In theory I think it could be done in a couple of days but that would be to invite criticism from the Electoral Commission, legal challenges up to the supreme court and claims the whole process was fixed and therefore illegitimate.
    Yes, that was my line of thought too. I’d also imagine that it would be held up in the Lords for a while.

    Same problem with an election. There’s limited time to hold one before the end of March and no indication that both major parties wouldn’t be seriously split, and that result wouldn’t produce a Parliament more than a couple of dozen seats away from what we have now.

    Any extension of more than a few weeks brings us to the EU elections, for which the Parliament that has to pass the deal is dissolved on 23rd April, and would require reallocation of seats across the whole EU if we were to take part.

    Can’t see how it’s anything but deal (with Lab support) or no deal from here, in spite of what politicians and commentators with different hopes might wishfully suggest can happen.
    Could still be revoke as well?

    It is clear that any suspension is only going to be allowed for a time limited to weeks (end of May), and for a specific purpose.

    No deal, Deal or Revoke are the three options in town.
    Is there time to agree, negotiate Norway (++ as required to taste)?
    If the legislation isn't completed by 29th March, then we leave without a deal or have a short suspension. The availability of a suspension may be dependent on the legislation we are trying to pass.
    But what are the mechanics of Revoke?

    There’s a good argument that it requires primary legislation*, and Mrs May will have most of her cabinet resign the moment she tries to propose it. Conservatives could well cross the floor to vote against the government in a vote of confidence.

    Any VoNC in the government likely results in either an election or a replacement Conservative PM, who’s likely to be more inclined to no-deal than to remain.

    *in practice the Supreme Court are going to have to rule on this, as they did with the original A50 invocation. Again this takes time.
    The more discussion there is, the less that 75% probability of an extension looks excessive.
  • BromBrom Posts: 1,509
    Even with a 3 month extension it's looking increasingly likely to be a bastardised version of May's deal or No deal. 2nd Referendum has effectively ran out of time and steam since Christmas. There does remain a small chance of A50 being revoked but that would take some very brave/foolish decision making.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,513
    edited January 11
    I've no problem with Remain voters (I'm happily married to one). They can see they'll get their own way because Parliament is on their side. A 'get out of jail free' card. But it will come at a cost - trust in politicians. I start from a low base anyway, so will be reasonably unaffected.

    As long as the protests stay reasonably peaceful, it may bring realism back to British politics.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 19,211

    Chris said:

    Personally I think the 4.0 on us leaving on time is value. But then I thought that about the 3.1 available yesterday, so DYOR.

    How would you divide up the implied probability of better than 25% between The Deal and Crash-Out?
    2:1 in favour of Deal?
    So at least a 16.7% chance of the deal (or a minor variant of it) being approved, and at least 8.3% of us crashing out, leaving up to 75% for an extension or conceivably Revoke before 29 Mar. The last of those must be a very, very low probability, though; if we do end up revoking Article 50 it will presumably be after an extension and possible a referendum.

    Yes, I think you are right: 75% for an extension looks too high an implied probability.
    But if there really weren't time for the legislation to pass to put the Deal into effect, than the choice would be between Extending, Revoking or No Deal. On that basis 75% wouldn't be too high.
    Thought: if there's really insufficient time to get the Deal legislation on the statute books, if MPs frustrate the passage of the No Deal legislation, if there's no longer enough time for a referendum either, and the EU27 are either unable or unwilling to grant an extension, then what option remains?

    To paraphrase, if we eliminate all of the impossible options then what remains, however improbable, must occur. Is this all going to end with the fire exit that the ECJ so conveniently unblocked before Christmas being used?
    If we reach March 29th and no alternative is in place then we will have No Deal whether the necessary legislation is passed or not. For No Deal to happen all that has to occur is that nothing else is agreed.
    But May herself won't allow that to happen. Just as she promised big business right back at the beginning. The Revocation Bill is already drafted and would be put and pushed through in a day or two, if all other options other than no deal were to be closed off.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,040
    Mr. CD13, remaining, with no second referendum, would be manna from heaven for the far right.

    That's the actual far right, not the Corbynite definition of Blairites and everyone rightwards of them.

    Teaching the electorate their opinion can be ignored when it is contrary to the political class is an intensely stupid, and dangerous, thing to do.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,507
    edited January 11

    Anyone else just feeling embarrassed at how clueless the UK looks?

    Not really. No more than when Sweden or Germany or Belgium cannot form a government. Or when there is a stalemate between President and Congress in the US. Politics is messy. Why be embarrassed by it. It certainly beats the one party states where no one dare oppose the executive.
    Well, yes, but that's a low bar. I do think it's embarrassing that virtually everyone on all sides of the argument is trying to use "oh, we're running out of time, you'd better do what I reluctantly think is the least bad option" as a serious argument.

    We actually need a "Follow me!" leader like Blair in this situation, whereas we needed a cautious Theresa May-like leader in deciding whether to get involved in Iraq - an issue where it would in retrospect have been preferable to have spent years pondering the options.
    For all my dislike of May, I don't see any leader, and certainly not someone like Blair, solving this. Parliament refuses to enact the results of the referendum (for whatever reasons on both sides) and no one has the constitutional power to make them. So May's actions, whilst rather underhand, do seem to be the only option available.

    Edit: And on your point about it being a low bar for comparison, I disagree. Mature democracies do often get into situations where there are fundamental differences between factions. Embarrassing is when it is solved by bloodshed. Constitutional stalemate is not something to be embarrassed by at all.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,507
    IanB2 said:

    Chris said:

    Personally I think the 4.0 on us leaving on time is value. But then I thought that about the 3.1 available yesterday, so DYOR.

    How would you divide up the implied probability of better than 25% between The Deal and Crash-Out?
    2:1 in favour of Deal?
    So at least a 16.7% chance of the deal (or a minor variant of it) being approved, and at least 8.3% of us crashing out, leaving up to 75% for an extension or conceivably Revoke before 29 Mar. The last of those must be a very, very low probability, though; if we do end up revoking Article 50 it will presumably be after an extension and possible a referendum.

    Yes, I think you are right: 75% for an extension looks too high an implied probability.
    But if there really weren't time for the legislation to pass to put the Deal into effect, than the choice would be between Extending, Revoking or No Deal. On that basis 75% wouldn't be too high.
    Thought: if there's really insufficient time to get the Deal legislation on the statute books, if MPs frustrate the passage of the No Deal legislation, if there's no longer enough time for a referendum either, and the EU27 are either unable or unwilling to grant an extension, then what option remains?

    To paraphrase, if we eliminate all of the impossible options then what remains, however improbable, must occur. Is this all going to end with the fire exit that the ECJ so conveniently unblocked before Christmas being used?
    If we reach March 29th and no alternative is in place then we will have No Deal whether the necessary legislation is passed or not. For No Deal to happen all that has to occur is that nothing else is agreed.
    But May herself won't allow that to happen. Just as she promised big business right back at the beginning. The Revocation Bill is already drafted and would be put and pushed through in a day or two, if all other options other than no deal were to be closed off.
    I think that is just wishful thinking on your part Ian. There is no evidence for any of your assertions.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,116

    Sean_F said:

    Sky just now.

    A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50

    I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B

    Some MPs are folding. George Freeman, Trudy Harrison from the Con side; nearly Jim Fitzpatrick from Labour (see below), possibly Edward Leigh. Are they a trickle that presages a flood?

    https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/01/watch-labour-mp-im-talking-myself-into-supporting-the-prime-ministers-deal.html
    There will probably be quite a few switchers, quite a few abstainers, but I can't see enough of them.
    The over-under is a no majority of 150-200. The only interesting question really is whether May will break the record for greatest Parliamentary defeat for a government in Westminster history (previous record holder, 166, Ramsay McDonald in 1924)
    That's an interesting factoid.

    I assume that the Wilson/Callaghan government has the record for the most number of defeats. I seem to remember it got the stage where it was news when they won one. Which shows just how much punishment an executive can take without actually falling.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,309
    edited January 11

    Sean_F said:

    Sky just now.

    A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50

    I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B

    Some MPs are folding. George Freeman, Trudy Harrison from the Con side; nearly Jim Fitzpatrick from Labour (see below), possibly Edward Leigh. Are they a trickle that presages a flood?

    https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/01/watch-labour-mp-im-talking-myself-into-supporting-the-prime-ministers-deal.html
    There will probably be quite a few switchers, quite a few abstainers, but I can't see enough of them.
    The over-under is a no majority of 150-200. The only interesting question really is whether May will break the record for greatest Parliamentary defeat for a government in Westminster history (previous record holder, 166, Ramsay McDonald in 1924)
    That's an interesting factoid.

    I assume that the Wilson/Callaghan government has the record for the most number of defeats. I seem to remember it got the stage where it was news when they won one. Which shows just how much punishment an executive can take without actually falling.
    And now we have the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, so the next election is in May 2022 unless there’s an explicit vote of confidence that holds for two weeks - or 433 MPs agree to dissolve.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 2,988
    Sandpit said:

    philiph said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Can anyone comment on what would be required legislatively to bring around a referendum before 29th March, given that the existing organisational structure requires around six months between legislation and referendum?

    In theory I think it could be done in a couple of days but that would be to invite criticism from the Electoral Commission, legal challenges up to the supreme court and claims the whole process was fixed and therefore illegitimate.
    Yes, that was my line of thought too. I’d also imagine that it would be held up in the Lords for a while.

    Same problem with an election. There’s limited time to hold one before the end of March and no indication that both major parties wouldn’t be seriously split, and that result wouldn’t produce a Parliament more than a couple of dozen seats away from what we have now.

    Any extension of more than a few weeks brings us to the EU elections, for which the Parliament that has to pass the deal is dissolved on 23rd April, and would require reallocation of seats across the whole EU if we were to take part.

    Can’t see how it’s anything but deal (with Lab support) or no deal from here, in spite of what politicians and commentators with different hopes might wishfully suggest can happen.
    Could still be revoke as well?

    It is clear that any suspension is only going to be allowed for a time limited to weeks (end of May), and for a specific purpose.

    No deal, Deal or Revoke are the three options in town.
    Is there time to agree, negotiate Norway (++ as required to taste)?
    If the legislation isn't completed by 29th March, then we leave without a deal or have a short suspension. The availability of a suspension may be dependent on the legislation we are trying to pass.
    But what are the mechanics of Revoke?

    There’s a good argument that it requires primary legislation*, and Mrs May will have most of her cabinet resign the moment she tries to propose it. Conservatives could well cross the floor to vote against the government in a vote of confidence.

    Any VoNC in the government likely results in either an election or a replacement Conservative PM, who’s likely to be more inclined to no-deal than to remain.

    *in practice the Supreme Court are going to have to rule on this, as they did with the original A50 invocation. Again this takes time.
    Yes. It doesn't seem obvious that the previous Supreme Court judgment implies that revocation requires primary legislation. The principle was that the government couldn't abolish rights granted by parliament without getting the authority of parliament to do so. Would revocation involve people losing rights granted by parliament?
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 1,730
    Brom said:

    Even with a 3 month extension it's looking increasingly likely to be a bastardised version of May's deal or No deal. 2nd Referendum has effectively ran out of time and steam since Christmas. There does remain a small chance of A50 being revoked but that would take some very brave/foolish decision making.

    I'd look at it the other way round. Parliament won't let no deal happen. Until this week there was a small chance that the government could abuse procedure to prevent Parliament expressing its will, but it now seems clear that the Speaker will stop that happening.

    So the question becomes "which unpalatable option will Parliament vote for at the last minute to stop no deal?"

    Withdrawal agreement? Unlikely, it's rubbish, and too many Tories actively prefer no deal.
    Revocation? It's possible as an emergency measure but nobody would want to own it. If it was proposed by the government, enough Labour rebels would back it, but neither party's leadership will propose it because of the electoral advantage it would give to the other party.
    So that leaves a referendum as the safest option, because it means that all parties can say that they didn't stop Brexit, they just allowed the people to think about it. And it'll be Remain vs WA, because that's the only non-bonkers option that will persuade the EU27 to extend.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,863
    Sandpit said:

    But what are the mechanics of Revoke?

    There’s a good argument that it requires primary legislation*, and Mrs May will have most of her cabinet resign the moment she tries to propose it. Conservatives could well cross the floor to vote against the government in a vote of confidence.

    Any VoNC in the government likely results in either an election or a replacement Conservative PM, who’s likely to be more inclined to no-deal than to remain.

    *in practice the Supreme Court are going to have to rule on this, as they did with the original A50 invocation. Again this takes time.

    How complex this is depends on the mechanics of the Brexit legislation, which others would doubtless be better prepared to comment on than I. If it only comes into force on the date stipulated in the Withdrawal Act then that's easily dealt with: the Prime Minister submits a letter to the European Council withdrawing A50 notiification, and then amends the Brexit date in the Withdrawal Act to 1 January 4000 - shelving everything until the legislation can be formally repealed. Failing that, if a majority in the Commons exists then I'm sure that enabling legislation could be guillotined through Parliament regardless: their Lordships are heavily pro-Remain and unlikely to make any trouble.

    It's perfectly possible to envisage revocation under the following circumstances:

    1. Mrs May has no time to organise anything else and elects to throw in the towel rather than proceed with a disorganised No Deal with half the required legislation still not on the statute book. For the purposes of this argument it doesn't matter whether or not she is overthrown or the Conservative Party itself disintegrates afterwards: the deed would already have been done.
    2. Mrs May refuses point blank to countenance revocation, but it overthrown by an alliance of convenience in the Commons - possibly a National Unity coalition of centrists, possibly by Labour with the assistance of a certain number of Tory rebels. The new Prime Minister then revokes.
  • Forgive my cynicism but all this talk of A50 being extended is very conveniently timed re Tuesday's vote. It smacks of the Tory whips to panic Brexiter deal refusniks that there will be no Brexit at all.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,760

    Forgive my cynicism but all this talk of A50 being extended is very conveniently timed re Tuesday's vote. It smacks of the Tory whips to panic Brexiter deal refusniks that there will be no Brexit at all.

    If the deal is not agreed it is very likely there won’t be a Brexit.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 25,453

    Forgive my cynicism but all this talk of A50 being extended is very conveniently timed re Tuesday's vote. It smacks of the Tory whips to panic Brexiter deal refusniks that there will be no Brexit at all.

    I understand your thought process but there are simply too many hardliners for this to be a viable route to victory. I can supply a list of the Brexiter rebels for consideration if that would be of any interest.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,507
    Polruan said:

    Brom said:

    Even with a 3 month extension it's looking increasingly likely to be a bastardised version of May's deal or No deal. 2nd Referendum has effectively ran out of time and steam since Christmas. There does remain a small chance of A50 being revoked but that would take some very brave/foolish decision making.

    I'd look at it the other way round. Parliament won't let no deal happen. Until this week there was a small chance that the government could abuse procedure to prevent Parliament expressing its will, but it now seems clear that the Speaker will stop that happening.

    So the question becomes "which unpalatable option will Parliament vote for at the last minute to stop no deal?"

    Withdrawal agreement? Unlikely, it's rubbish, and too many Tories actively prefer no deal.
    Revocation? It's possible as an emergency measure but nobody would want to own it. If it was proposed by the government, enough Labour rebels would back it, but neither party's leadership will propose it because of the electoral advantage it would give to the other party.
    So that leaves a referendum as the safest option, because it means that all parties can say that they didn't stop Brexit, they just allowed the people to think about it. And it'll be Remain vs WA, because that's the only non-bonkers option that will persuade the EU27 to extend.
    What you describe is a recipe for utter chaos. For a start it would be subject to challenge through the courts and it requires MPs to actually stand up and vote to reject the referendum result. I jus don't think they are brave or stupid enough to do that.

    Plus in terms of mechanics it requires the Government to actually give them time for such a vote. Nothing that has happened this week allows the Speaker to force through Primary legislation against the wishes of the Government.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 23,800

    Forgive my cynicism but all this talk of A50 being extended is very conveniently timed re Tuesday's vote. It smacks of the Tory whips to panic Brexiter deal refusniks that there will be no Brexit at all.

    Probably true.

    Wont work. They will die in the ditches for their unicorns.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 9,358

    Forgive my cynicism but all this talk of A50 being extended is very conveniently timed re Tuesday's vote. It smacks of the Tory whips to panic Brexiter deal refusniks that there will be no Brexit at all.

    Likely to decrease the Lab numbers willing to back the deal though, for the opposite reason.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,151
    From a close Merkel ally in the German government:

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 8,996
    Sandpit said:

    Can anyone comment on what would be required legislatively to bring around a referendum before 29th March, given that the existing organisational structure requires around six months between legislation and referendum?

    I went thru this the other day. The relevant legislation (ppera 2000) lays down the timescales to allow bodies to register pro and con and present their arguments to the country. From memory, that's around eight weeks. The referendum itself has(?) to be initiated by an act, and to pass an act itself takes time. So we're pretty much at the threshold now.

    Now, you can pass an act that specifies a shorter period and the ppera allows this. But I imagine it would be judicial reviewed within seconds in the unlikely event it gets passed.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 3,381
    It is now 10/1 that the deal wins on Tuesday. It was 25/1 yesterday. If I'm at Sandown Park and a runner in the next comes shooting in from 25s to 10s in short order, I take a very serious look at it, both its form and how it's behaving in the paddock.

    I appreciate, of course, that a parliamentary vote of MPs on whether we leave the European Union in an orderly fashion is not be compared to a horse race but, still, are we sure about all this? I mean really sure. This nag has no chance?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,040
    Grieve calls for a delay to departure (ahem, very subtle), should the deal not pass Parliament:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46840589
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 19,211

    IanB2 said:

    Chris said:

    Personally I think the 4.0 on us leaving on time is value. But then I thought that about the 3.1 available yesterday, so DYOR.

    How would you divide up the implied probability of better than 25% between The Deal and Crash-Out?
    2:1 in favour of Deal?
    So at least a 16.7% chance of the deal (or a minor variant of it) being approved, and at least 8.3% of us crashing out, leaving up to 75% for an extension or conceivably Revoke before 29 Mar. The last of those must be a very, very low probability, though; if we do end up revoking Article 50 it will presumably be after an extension and possible a referendum.

    Yes, I think you are right: 75% for an extension looks too high an implied probability.
    But if there really weren't time for the legislation to pass to put the Deal into effect, than the choice would be between Extending, Revoking or No Deal. On that basis 75% wouldn't be too high.
    Thought: if there's really insufficient time to get the Deal legislation on the statute books, if MPs frustrate the passage of the No Deal legislation, if there's no longer enough time for a referendum either, and the EU27 are either unable or unwilling to grant an extension, then what option remains?

    To paraphrase, if we eliminate all of the impossible options then what remains, however improbable, must occur. Is this all going to end with the fire exit that the ECJ so conveniently unblocked before Christmas being used?
    If we reach March 29th and no alternative is in place then we will have No Deal whether the necessary legislation is passed or not. For No Deal to happen all that has to occur is that nothing else is agreed.
    But May herself won't allow that to happen. Just as she promised big business right back at the beginning. The Revocation Bill is already drafted and would be put and pushed through in a day or two, if all other options other than no deal were to be closed off.
    I think that is just wishful thinking on your part Ian. There is no evidence for any of your assertions.
    There's plenty that points toward May having promised Nissan et al that there won't be a no deal exit. The rest is supposition, for sure. But, knowing how government works, I am pretty confident a Bill is already drafted, even if only by a senior civil servant who hasn't yet been asked to do so, but has it ready locked in his drawer.

    My instinct is that May is a rare politician who will try harder than most to keep her promises.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,374
    RobD said:

    Forgive my cynicism but all this talk of A50 being extended is very conveniently timed re Tuesday's vote. It smacks of the Tory whips to panic Brexiter deal refusniks that there will be no Brexit at all.

    If the deal is not agreed it is very likely there won’t be a Brexit.
    In the event of her deal being defeated, I think Mrs May will throw in the towel and say it is up to parliament to decide and enable, as government, whatever the majority of MPs decide. I think there would be a large majority supporting her deal or remain and could agree to her Deal subject to a Deal/Remain referendum. The EU would agree to an extension for that.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,863
    kinabalu said:

    It is now 10/1 that the deal wins on Tuesday. It was 25/1 yesterday. If I'm at Sandown Park and a runner in the next comes shooting in from 25s to 10s in short order, I take a very serious look at it, both its form and how it's behaving in the paddock.

    I appreciate, of course, that a parliamentary vote of MPs on whether we leave the European Union in an orderly fashion is not be compared to a horse race but, still, are we sure about all this? I mean really sure. This nag has no chance?

    Possible but unlikely. It would require both a mass capitulation by the ERG and forbearance from Labour: both through voting for or abstaining on the WA, and then refusing the temptation to trigger a VoNC that would be facilitated by the DUP until the WA had made it safely onto the statute book.

    Given that Corbyn's stated strategy is 1. General Election, followed by 2. Unicorn Renegotiation, this seems somewhat improbable.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 9,358
    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Can anyone comment on what would be required legislatively to bring around a referendum before 29th March, given that the existing organisational structure requires around six months between legislation and referendum?

    I went thru this the other day. The relevant legislation (ppera 2000) lays down the timescales to allow bodies to register pro and con and present their arguments to the country. From memory, that's around eight weeks. The referendum itself has(?) to be initiated by an act, and to pass an act itself takes time. So we're pretty much at the threshold now.

    Now, you can pass an act that specifies a shorter period and the ppera allows this. But I imagine it would be judicial reviewed within seconds in the unlikely event it gets passed.
    A #peoplesvote and A50 extension/revocation come as a pair.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,760
    Barnesian said:

    RobD said:

    Forgive my cynicism but all this talk of A50 being extended is very conveniently timed re Tuesday's vote. It smacks of the Tory whips to panic Brexiter deal refusniks that there will be no Brexit at all.

    If the deal is not agreed it is very likely there won’t be a Brexit.
    In the event of her deal being defeated, I think Mrs May will throw in the towel and say it is up to parliament to decide and enable, as government, whatever the majority of MPs decide. I think there would be a large majority supporting her deal or remain and could agree to her Deal subject to a Deal/Remain referendum. The EU would agree to an extension for that.
    Ah, the old EU gambit. Keep them voting until you get the right answer.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,711

    Anyone else just feeling embarrassed at how clueless the UK looks?

    No - that's utterly irrelevant.

    Too much of this throughout the process - who cares what the frogs etc think.
  • Grieve calls for a delay to departure (ahem, very subtle), should the deal not pass Parliament:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46840589

    Ironic that Grieve seems to have more influence than all of ERG
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,760
    IanB2 said:



    There's plenty that points toward May having promised Nissan et al that there won't be a no deal exit. The rest is supposition, for sure. But, knowing how government works, I am pretty confident a Bill is already drafted, even if only by a senior civil servant who hasn't yet been asked to do so, but has it ready locked in his drawer.

    My instinct is that May is a rare politician who will try harder than most to keep her promises.

    Who knows what May promised Nissan or other industry leaders.
This discussion has been closed.