Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now all eyes are on the DUP – if they’re happy then a deal mor

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited March 11 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now all eyes are on the DUP – if they’re happy then a deal more likely

"In politics sometimes you get a second chance. It is what we do with this that counts, because there will be no third chance"

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 24
    First
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 24
    I’m feeling strangely positive about the news tonight
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 1,307
    Everyone needs to stop playing silly bu**ers now and just pass the dratted thing.

    Still got my concerns that the MV will fail again though, and where we go from there, who knows!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 50,861
    Mike Penning first switcher, Newsnight says he has said he will switch from voting against the Deal last time to for the Deal tomorrow
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 28,855
    Nothing has changed, but it’s this Deal or remain, so it’s this deal. Then the real fun begins.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,719
    Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 9,063
    HYUFD said:

    Mike Penning first switcher, Newsnight says he has said he will switch from voting against the Deal last time to for the Deal tomorrow

    Friend of IDS I believe
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,719
    HYUFD said:

    Mike Penning first switcher, Newsnight says he has said he will switch from voting against the Deal last time to for the Deal tomorrow

    Why? What reason did he give? What is this insanity.
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 24
    Alistair said:

    Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.

    That is not true. The WA itself may not have altered, but there are other instruments in play. I’m waiting for the AG’s review

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 18,538
    Alistair said:

    Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.

    Juncker said today's changes are "legally binding". That's a big change and that's coming from Juncker, not May.

    This is new, this is different. Its hilarious seeing Remain Ultras desperate to pretend nothing has changed now.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 28,855
    Alistair said:

    Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.

    They would be insane not to backdown. It’s this or remain. There are surely enough of them who do actually want to leave.

  • FloaterFloater Posts: 7,191
    So - do I need to do my presentation to clients tomorrow or not??????
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 25,763
    HYUFD said:

    Mike Penning first switcher, Newsnight says he has said he will switch from voting against the Deal last time to for the Deal tomorrow

    If he's switching, then I'm sure so would the others I mentioned in the last thread, as he's more hardline.
  • Bob__SykesBob__Sykes Posts: 1,029
    edited March 11
    Interesting stuff.

    Ultimately, I think if we want to exit the backstop in years to come it will still be on the basis of the UK deciding to rip up the WA and walk away. But tonight's developments mean we will have some legal document with treaty like force to wave about to justify our actions. Which we didn't have 3 hours ago.

    Coupled with it being "take it or leave it" time, I think this is going to pass.

    For the first time in the past 3 years I now think we are actually going to leave the EU.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 28,855
    Sweeney74 said:

    Alistair said:

    Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.

    That is not true. The WA itself may not have altered, but there are other instruments in play. I’m waiting for the AG’s review

    That’s not in doubt. This whole process has been designed to give Cox enough space to change his mind without there being any material change to the WA and backstop. Any Brexiteer rejecting this deal doesn’t want Brexit.

  • ChrisChris Posts: 2,188
    The people who said it would be instantly rejected by the DUP and ERG do seem to have misread the situation.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 7,191
    Jezza still wants to reject deal.....
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 632
    Reposting from previous thread:

    Sporting Index have a market up on the number of "ayes" on MV2 tomorrow, although market is currently suspended.

    I suspect it will be volatile, for a while, once it opens/resumes. The distribution of outcomes is non-trivial right now; I would suggest it is bi- and possibly multi-modal.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,825
    The DUP are know for their reasonableness, it'll be fine.

    I know there will be so much more aggravation to follow, years of it, but it is nice to think, for a moment, that whether one wants to remain or leave at least the question might be settled tomorrow. Thank you to the DUP for not killing it off right away, so I can take that thought with me as I go to rest.

    Night all.

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 11,136
    Floater said:

    Jezza still wants to reject deal.....

    Of course.

    It's a shit Tory BREXIT then.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,246
    Said it on previous thread, there is room in this for the DUP to back it. I'd be surprised though if they say anything before the morning and indeed might just stretch it to lunchtime....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,825
    Alistair said:

    Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.

    Except, perhaps, their attitude?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 2,188
    But judging by the reference to the unilateral declaration in tomorrow's motion, it is about the action the UK plans to take, rather than about the interpretation of the agreement.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 9,063
    It definitely is ADMISSIBLE (just of limited weight) under English law. But the UN guidance makes pretty clear that international law works differently, which makes sense. Far less precedent and less intrinsic sense of what the objective observer would think.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 20,005

    Everyone needs to stop playing silly bu**ers now and just pass the dratted thing.

    Still got my concerns that the MV will fail again though, and where we go from there, who knows!

    If it does not pass because the AG doesn't say it is legally enough, then May falls.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 1,374


    Still got my concerns that the MV will fail again though, and where we go from there, who knows!

    If it gets 300+ ............. short extension, extensive pressure and/or pork distribution to a number of MPs, MV3 passes.

    <300 ...... urrrgh. General election?


  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 9,063
    Dadge said:
    I wouldn't advise my clients to accept a best endeavours clause lightly. It's of uncertain effect, under English law (which is a bit of a proviso here - the assumption of English lawyers has always been continental systems have more room for it) but not of no effect.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 4,679
    Floater said:

    Jezza still wants to reject deal.....

    Without reading it - the man is pure class
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 21,617
    Dadge said:
    David Allen Green should address his point to Mr Juncker, who doesn't agree with him:

    "It is in this spirit that today the prime minister and I have agreed on a joint legally binding instrument relating to the withdrawal agreement. This instrument provides meaningful clarifications and legal guarantees on the nature of the backstop."
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 9,135

    Floater said:

    Jezza still wants to reject deal.....

    Of course.

    It's a shit Tory BREXIT then.
    Which is what he's wanted for the country all along....
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 20,005
    Well, all will be revealed tomorrow.

    I am imagining Nigel Dodds tucked up in his bed, laughing, as he has already decided what to do.

    But he'll make us wait.

    Night all.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,671
    What a stupid way to make such an important decision.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,214
    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Not a lawyer, but once you get past the waffle, the UK can raise a dispute (part 6, title 3) . It isn't a unilateral exit. Question is whether enough MPs want to believe it.
    The sleight of hand is in the phrase "measures that could ultimately lead to the disapplication". Yes, but the disapplication won't be unilateral. The text is careful never to say the UK does have a unilateral exit.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 28,855
    Chris said:

    But judging by the reference to the unilateral declaration in tomorrow's motion, it is about the action the UK plans to take, rather than about the interpretation of the agreement.

    The UK cannot leave unilaterally. It can instigate action that may lead to it being able to leave. That means going through an arbitration process. That will not be conducted under English law.

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,249
    Floater said:

    So - do I need to do my presentation to clients tomorrow or not??????

    I’m still interested to know if the spring statement will delay implementation of the VAT element of making tax digital.

    I wonder how many other small business owners are waiting to hear...
  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,096
    if deal passes and we leave, then if we are not happy with EU negotiation on the FTA can we still walk away and go WTO. how would the backstop affect this from tonights declarations?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 24,709
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 17,439

    Dadge said:
    David Allen Green should address his point to Mr Juncker, who doesn't agree with him:

    "It is in this spirit that today the prime minister and I have agreed on a joint legally binding instrument relating to the withdrawal agreement. This instrument provides meaningful clarifications and legal guarantees on the nature of the backstop."
    David Allen Green is a fanatical Remainer who would not support any form of Brexit even if every other single person in Britain and the EU thought it was a good deal. I am amazed anyone gives any credence to his electronic diarrhoea.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 50,861
  • noisywinternoisywinter Posts: 71
    the betfair market on the vote tomorow is quite thin- only £100k traded. Gives just under 25% chance on the deal passing FWIW
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 28,855
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Not a lawyer, but once you get past the waffle, the UK can raise a dispute (part 6, title 3) . It isn't a unilateral exit. Question is whether enough MPs want to believe it.
    The sleight of hand is in the phrase "measures that could ultimately lead to the disapplication". Yes, but the disapplication won't be unilateral. The text is careful never to say the UK does have a unilateral exit.

    It’ll be enough. It’s this or Remain.

  • notme2notme2 Posts: 663
    HYUFD said:
    What do these people want? It’s like some kind of puritanical religious zealotry. I wonder if they self flagellate in private.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 26,014

    Dadge said:
    David Allen Green should address his point to Mr Juncker, who doesn't agree with him:

    "It is in this spirit that today the prime minister and I have agreed on a joint legally binding instrument relating to the withdrawal agreement. This instrument provides meaningful clarifications and legal guarantees on the nature of the backstop."
    David Allen Green is a fanatical Remainer who would not support any form of Brexit even if every other single person in Britain and the EU thought it was a good deal. I am amazed anyone gives any credence to his electronic diarrhoea.
    What an ignorant comment. He’s a Eurosceptic who was opposed to the Maastricht Treaty.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 7,191

    Floater said:

    Jezza still wants to reject deal.....

    Without reading it - the man is pure class
    I have lots of words for him - class is not one of them
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 17,439

    Dadge said:
    I wouldn't advise my clients to accept a best endeavours clause lightly. It's of uncertain effect, under English law (which is a bit of a proviso here - the assumption of English lawyers has always been continental systems have more room for it) but not of no effect.
    In the oil industry when we are writing programmes for agreement by joint venture partners we are always advised we should use the term 'reasonable endeavours' not 'best endeavours'. Oil companies have been sued by partners for not effectively pursuing any and all means to achieve an objective almost irrespective of the cost when they had claimed they would use 'best endeavours'. With rig rates of half a million pounds a day it can prove extremely costly.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 2,188
    edited March 11

    Chris said:

    But judging by the reference to the unilateral declaration in tomorrow's motion, it is about the action the UK plans to take, rather than about the interpretation of the agreement.

    The UK cannot leave unilaterally. It can instigate action that may lead to it being able to leave. That means going through an arbitration process. That will not be conducted under English law.

    I hadn't seen the text of the declaration previously. It's strange. Given the hype, I thought that was going to be the basis of Cox changing his advice, but what's in it that could change his mind?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,214
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Not a lawyer, but once you get past the waffle, the UK can raise a dispute (part 6, title 3) . It isn't a unilateral exit. Question is whether enough MPs want to believe it.
    The sleight of hand is in the phrase "measures that could ultimately lead to the disapplication". Yes, but the disapplication won't be unilateral. The text is careful never to say the UK does have a unilateral exit.
    Most legal documents aim for definition, so if the other party steps out of line, you can sue their ass off. This isn't that kind of document. The authors don't care whether it has any legal effect. It just has to hold up for two days without too much challenge, so MPs feel comfortable about voting for May's Deal.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,033
    Godwilling the Commons will pass the deal tomorrow. It will be cathartic, and hopefully a majority of the nation will breathe a sigh of relief.

    On a more quotidian note, it will also improve the re-election prospects of the more than 5,000 Tory councillors up for election in May.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 17,439

    Dadge said:
    David Allen Green should address his point to Mr Juncker, who doesn't agree with him:

    "It is in this spirit that today the prime minister and I have agreed on a joint legally binding instrument relating to the withdrawal agreement. This instrument provides meaningful clarifications and legal guarantees on the nature of the backstop."
    David Allen Green is a fanatical Remainer who would not support any form of Brexit even if every other single person in Britain and the EU thought it was a good deal. I am amazed anyone gives any credence to his electronic diarrhoea.
    What an ignorant comment. He’s a Eurosceptic who was opposed to the Maastricht Treaty.
    Not these days.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 28,855
    This does look like good news for Nigel Farage. He’ll get his betrayal.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 25,763
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Not a lawyer, but once you get past the waffle, the UK can raise a dispute (part 6, title 3) . It isn't a unilateral exit. Question is whether enough MPs want to believe it.
    The sleight of hand is in the phrase "measures that could ultimately lead to the disapplication". Yes, but the disapplication won't be unilateral. The text is careful never to say the UK does have a unilateral exit.
    Most legal documents aim for definition, so if the other party steps out of line, you can sue their ass off. This isn't that kind of document. The authors don't care whether it has any legal effect. It just has to hold up for two days without too much challenge, so MPs feel comfortable about voting for May's Deal.
    Sometimes parties to agreements can find a certain lack of clarity to be useful.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 13,242
    Looks like Theresa's done it!
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 1,153
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Not a lawyer, but once you get past the waffle, the UK can raise a dispute (part 6, title 3) . It isn't a unilateral exit. Question is whether enough MPs want to believe it.
    The sleight of hand is in the phrase "measures that could ultimately lead to the disapplication". Yes, but the disapplication won't be unilateral. The text is careful never to say the UK does have a unilateral exit.
    Because that would also give the EU a unilateral exit.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,246

    Well, all will be revealed tomorrow.

    I am imagining Nigel Dodds tucked up in his bed, laughing, as he has already decided what to do.

    But he'll make us wait.

    Night all.

    Doddsy been perfectly positioning himself whenever he thinks the camera is on him in the chamber looking like suitably thoughtful yet sharp legal eagle. No forgetting though, he may understand his law but he is a political operator first and foremost.

    I don't think there is a hard Brexiteer amongst the DUP Westminster team in the mould of the ideologues within the Conservatives PP. .
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 10,428

    Alistair said:

    Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.

    They would be insane not to backdown. It’s this or remain. There are surely enough of them who do actually want to leave.

    Thing is you don't need many of them to be insane to block the thing
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 17,439

    Alistair said:

    Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.

    They would be insane not to backdown. It’s this or remain. There are surely enough of them who do actually want to leave.

    Thing is you don't need many of them to be insane to block the thing
    I suppose that depends on how many Labour will risk upsetting their constituents.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 25,763

    Dadge said:
    I wouldn't advise my clients to accept a best endeavours clause lightly. It's of uncertain effect, under English law (which is a bit of a proviso here - the assumption of English lawyers has always been continental systems have more room for it) but not of no effect.
    In the oil industry when we are writing programmes for agreement by joint venture partners we are always advised we should use the term 'reasonable endeavours' not 'best endeavours'. Oil companies have been sued by partners for not effectively pursuing any and all means to achieve an objective almost irrespective of the cost when they had claimed they would use 'best endeavours'. With rig rates of half a million pounds a day it can prove extremely costly.
    I would agree that in contract law, an undertaking to use "best endeavours" is not to be given lightly.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 17,439
    Sean_F said:

    Dadge said:
    I wouldn't advise my clients to accept a best endeavours clause lightly. It's of uncertain effect, under English law (which is a bit of a proviso here - the assumption of English lawyers has always been continental systems have more room for it) but not of no effect.
    In the oil industry when we are writing programmes for agreement by joint venture partners we are always advised we should use the term 'reasonable endeavours' not 'best endeavours'. Oil companies have been sued by partners for not effectively pursuing any and all means to achieve an objective almost irrespective of the cost when they had claimed they would use 'best endeavours'. With rig rates of half a million pounds a day it can prove extremely costly.
    I would agree that in contract law, an undertaking to use "best endeavours" is not to be given lightly.
    I am certainly not a lawyer so until this was pointed out to me I had no idea there was a legal difference between the two. I just make sure that these days we never ever say we will use best endeavours.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 10,428

    Alistair said:

    Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.

    They would be insane not to backdown. It’s this or remain. There are surely enough of them who do actually want to leave.

    Thing is you don't need many of them to be insane to block the thing
    I suppose that depends on how many Labour will risk upsetting their constituents.
    I don't see why that would change from last time.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 10,599

    Interesting stuff.

    Ultimately, I think if we want to exit the backstop in years to come it will still be on the basis of the UK deciding to rip up the WA and walk away. But tonight's developments mean we will have some legal document with treaty like force to wave about to justify our actions. Which we didn't have 3 hours ago...

    That, I think, is the point.
    We’ve always had the power to abrogate an international treaty; as has often been pointed out, it’s the fact that there are very big costs involved in doing so rather than ‘international law’ itself that prevent it happening.
    Exiting unilaterally a treaty which we’ve warned we might leave before signing it - and had that warning acknowledged by the other party - could not possibly impact in our international credibility in the same way.

    It might be legal flim flam, but it does seem effectively to deal with the ‘indefinitely trapped’ objection.

  • nico67nico67 Posts: 591
    So much weight has been placed on the AG advice . If he changes this then the ERG and DUP will look like they are holding the country hostage if they don’t vote for the deal .

    If they vote against then the chances of a second EU vote go up especially if the public start warming to the deal.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 17,439

    Alistair said:

    Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.

    They would be insane not to backdown. It’s this or remain. There are surely enough of them who do actually want to leave.

    Thing is you don't need many of them to be insane to block the thing
    I suppose that depends on how many Labour will risk upsetting their constituents.
    I don't see why that would change from last time.
    I suppose because this time it really would mean they were effectively ending Brexit. Not sure how many of them would want to be tarred with that brush after all this time trying to avoid it.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,214
    edited March 11
    Sean_F said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Not a lawyer, but once you get past the waffle, the UK can raise a dispute (part 6, title 3) . It isn't a unilateral exit. Question is whether enough MPs want to believe it.
    The sleight of hand is in the phrase "measures that could ultimately lead to the disapplication". Yes, but the disapplication won't be unilateral. The text is careful never to say the UK does have a unilateral exit.
    Most legal documents aim for definition, so if the other party steps out of line, you can sue their ass off. This isn't that kind of document. The authors don't care whether it has any legal effect. It just has to hold up for two days without too much challenge, so MPs feel comfortable about voting for May's Deal.
    Sometimes parties to agreements can find a certain lack of clarity to be useful.
    Indeed. It suits the EU that the UK agrees to its permanent backstop. It suits the UK to pretend it's temporary. Win/win.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 632

    Alistair said:

    Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.

    They would be insane not to backdown. It’s this or remain. There are surely enough of them who do actually want to leave.

    Thing is you don't need many of them to be insane to block the thing
    I suppose that depends on how many Labour will risk upsetting their constituents.
    I don't see why that would change from last time.
    Because now there's a chance it might pass without them. They're quite happy voting against if they win, but they dare not be on the wrong side of the one passes.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 26,014
    Y0kel said:

    Well, all will be revealed tomorrow.

    I am imagining Nigel Dodds tucked up in his bed, laughing, as he has already decided what to do.

    But he'll make us wait.

    Night all.

    Doddsy been perfectly positioning himself whenever he thinks the camera is on him in the chamber looking like suitably thoughtful yet sharp legal eagle. No forgetting though, he may understand his law but he is a political operator first and foremost.

    I don't think there is a hard Brexiteer amongst the DUP Westminster team in the mould of the ideologues within the Conservatives PP. .
    Which is why they’ll be happy to take a hard line against the withdrawal agreement in the knowledge it will lead to no Brexit.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 11,875
    I think the DUP would have rejected it swiftly if they were going to - no point in letting expectation build up overnight and then swatting it. My guess is that it will pass by 25 votes or so.

    And no, I don't think it's significantly different from before, but a lot of Tory opponents didn't necessarily hate the deal, they just hated agreeing without having some apparent new element to embrace.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 17,439
    Endillion said:

    Alistair said:

    Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.

    They would be insane not to backdown. It’s this or remain. There are surely enough of them who do actually want to leave.

    Thing is you don't need many of them to be insane to block the thing
    I suppose that depends on how many Labour will risk upsetting their constituents.
    I don't see why that would change from last time.
    Because now there's a chance it might pass without them. They're quite happy voting against if they win, but they dare not be on the wrong side of the one passes.
    LOL. Apologies. Not laughing at what you say exactly. I just find it funny that you and I think the same thing but apparently for almost exactly opposite reasons. :)
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 28,855
    The way I see it, everyone understands that the UK will never leave the backstop, but some people needed to be able to claim the UK could if it wanted. There is now a process for the UK to initiate a process which could, in theory, lead us to leaving. It would not be our choice, an arbitration panel would decide, but Cox can change his advice on the basis that we would not instigate the process unless we were going to win. Sleight of hand stuff, but enough.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,028
    GIN1138 said:

    Looks like Theresa's done it!

    The good ship May sailing serenely on?
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 962
    I'm surprised how many here feel that May has achieved enough to carry the day tomorrow. The betting has moved a bit in her direction but still suggests she won't get the vote through. I hope that most of you are right, that I'm wrong and the betting markets too.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 28,855
    Where does this one sit in the swivel-eyes stakes?

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 10,428
    Endillion said:

    Alistair said:

    Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.

    They would be insane not to backdown. It’s this or remain. There are surely enough of them who do actually want to leave.

    Thing is you don't need many of them to be insane to block the thing
    I suppose that depends on how many Labour will risk upsetting their constituents.
    I don't see why that would change from last time.
    Because now there's a chance it might pass without them. They're quite happy voting against if they win, but they dare not be on the wrong side of the one passes.
    I don't see the problem, generally the opposition want to oppose things, so that they can say I Told You So when they go wrong. It's not like they're voting down brexit, they're voting down TMay's deal, which is beloved by nobody.

    If there's an argument for letting it through, I guess it's that they'd rather not have to take the subsequent votes on the next step, which is where it gets harder to sit on the fence. But then it's better if other people vote it through, not you.
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 962

    I think the DUP would have rejected it swiftly if they were going to - no point in letting expectation build up overnight and then swatting it. My guess is that it will pass by 25 votes or so.

    And no, I don't think it's significantly different from before, but a lot of Tory opponents didn't necessarily hate the deal, they just hated agreeing without having some apparent new element to embrace.

    So Nick, do you think we will Brexit before end March 2019?
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,246
    stjohn said:

    I'm surprised how many here feel that May has achieved enough to carry the day tomorrow. The betting has moved a bit in her direction but still suggests she won't get the vote through. I hope that most of you are right, that I'm wrong and the betting markets too.

    Your point is fair.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 25,763

    Where does this one sit in the swivel-eyes stakes?

    Former Remainer, now zealous convert to Leave.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 24,709
    edited March 12
    You can still get 5.1 with Betfair Exchange if you think Brexit will happen on 29th March.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/competition/10393583
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 632

    Endillion said:

    Alistair said:

    Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.

    They would be insane not to backdown. It’s this or remain. There are surely enough of them who do actually want to leave.

    Thing is you don't need many of them to be insane to block the thing
    I suppose that depends on how many Labour will risk upsetting their constituents.
    I don't see why that would change from last time.
    Because now there's a chance it might pass without them. They're quite happy voting against if they win, but they dare not be on the wrong side of the one passes.
    LOL. Apologies. Not laughing at what you say exactly. I just find it funny that you and I think the same thing but apparently for almost exactly opposite reasons. :)
    Ha! Indeed.

    Shall we just agree that we're talking about two different hypothetical groupings of Labour MPs, both of who will find different reasons to back the Deal later today?

    I'm thinking Hoey/Stringer/Field etc, plus possibly Flint/Mann et al.
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 962
    AndyJS said:

    You can still get 5.1 with Betfair Exchange if you think Brexit will happen on 29th March.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/competition/10393583

    What's your call AndyJS?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,214

    The way I see it, everyone understands that the UK will never leave the backstop, but some people needed to be able to claim the UK could if it wanted. There is now a process for the UK to initiate a process which could, in theory, lead us to leaving. It would not be our choice, an arbitration panel would decide, but Cox can change his advice on the basis that we would not instigate the process unless we were going to win. Sleight of hand stuff, but enough.

    I don't think it's even as strong as that. If it passes, it will be because people who initially hated the permanent backstop have accepted it psychologically. I can see the ERG types going along with it, as they are little Englanders and don't care about Northern Ireland fundamentally. The DUP I'm surprised by. It cuts across what they stand for.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 8,427
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 24,709
    stjohn said:

    AndyJS said:

    You can still get 5.1 with Betfair Exchange if you think Brexit will happen on 29th March.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/competition/10393583

    What's your call AndyJS?
    The odds seem about right to me, so no value in betting at the moment.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,246
    FF43 said:

    The way I see it, everyone understands that the UK will never leave the backstop, but some people needed to be able to claim the UK could if it wanted. There is now a process for the UK to initiate a process which could, in theory, lead us to leaving. It would not be our choice, an arbitration panel would decide, but Cox can change his advice on the basis that we would not instigate the process unless we were going to win. Sleight of hand stuff, but enough.

    I don't think it's even as strong as that. If it passes, it will be because people who initially hated the permanent backstop have accepted it psychologically. I can see the ERG types going along with it, as they are little Englanders and don't care about Northern Ireland fundamentally. The DUP I'm surprised by. It cuts across what they stand for.
    Its only cutting across what they stand for if they don't think it will give them a result.
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 962
    John Craig on Sky News feels the DUP will vote against and that May will lose the vote.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,804
    The question is, how many who voted for the Brady Amendment STILL don't think there has been enough movement. This from Steve Baker, the ERG deputy, at the time of Brady:

    "A vote for the Brady amendment is a vote to see if the PM can land a deal that will work. If not then we are not committed."

    Is it a deal that will work?

    I believe enough on the Tory benches will think it is now adequate to stop buggering about, get on with Brexiting by the only route possible - and lean on Spreadsheet Phil to open his post-Brexit warchest.

    FWIW, I also think enough on the Labour benches will realise that "Corbyn's Brexit" will be shown to be a dead unicorn. The EU would offer PM Corbyn nothing more than is in the WA. So what is the point of get in the way of it passing? Abstaining will do the job.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,246

    I think the DUP would have rejected it swiftly if they were going to - no point in letting expectation build up overnight and then swatting it. My guess is that it will pass by 25 votes or so.

    And no, I don't think it's significantly different from before, but a lot of Tory opponents didn't necessarily hate the deal, they just hated agreeing without having some apparent new element to embrace.

    I genuinely don't think the DUP have called on it yet.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 241

    Dadge said:
    I wouldn't advise my clients to accept a best endeavours clause lightly. It's of uncertain effect, under English law (which is a bit of a proviso here - the assumption of English lawyers has always been continental systems have more room for it) but not of no effect.
    In the oil industry when we are writing programmes for agreement by joint venture partners we are always advised we should use the term 'reasonable endeavours' not 'best endeavours'. Oil companies have been sued by partners for not effectively pursuing any and all means to achieve an objective almost irrespective of the cost when they had claimed they would use 'best endeavours'. With rig rates of half a million pounds a day it can prove extremely costly.
    Short version of the tl;dr of the layman's version of this: 'reasonable endeavours' means you have to try one or two things to make it work. 'All reasonable endeavours' means you have to keep trying anything sensible. 'Best endeavours' includes trying a couple of non-sensible things too.

    The interpretative document allows the UK to use the WA arbitration mechanism if it considers the EU to be stringing the backstop out indefinitely (para 12). If the arbitration is available on a mere consideration, then perhaps so would suspension under A60 of the Vienna Treaty. Ballsy move by the AG if he calls it that way.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 591
    The EU need to hammer home the messsge that’s it . No more negotiations with the current government .

    Still hard to see what happens but I think May could be gone by the end of the week and any extension will be for a new leader to reset the negotiations . Would the EU agree to that and have to put up with more Tory infighting .




  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 24,624
    edited March 12
    Drutt said:

    Dadge said:
    I wouldn't advise my clients to accept a best endeavours clause lightly. It's of uncertain effect, under English law (which is a bit of a proviso here - the assumption of English lawyers has always been continental systems have more room for it) but not of no effect.
    In the oil industry when we are writing programmes for agreement by joint venture partners we are always advised we should use the term 'reasonable endeavours' not 'best endeavours'. Oil companies have been sued by partners for not effectively pursuing any and all means to achieve an objective almost irrespective of the cost when they had claimed they would use 'best endeavours'. With rig rates of half a million pounds a day it can prove extremely costly.
    Short version of the tl;dr of the layman's version of this: 'reasonable endeavours' means you have to try one or two things to make it work. 'All reasonable endeavours' means you have to keep trying anything sensible. 'Best endeavours' includes trying a couple of non-sensible things too.

    The interpretative document allows the UK to use the WA arbitration mechanism if it considers the EU to be stringing the backstop out indefinitely (para 12). If the arbitration is available on a mere consideration, then perhaps so would suspension under A60 of the Vienna Treaty. Ballsy move by the AG if he calls it that way.
    The EU is not bound by the Vienna treaty/convention, as it is neither a signatory, nor could it be.

    The purpose of this arbitration mechanism is to ensure that, if the EU is not sincerely attempting to implement the technical measures in the WA, then we can bring it to the attention of an independent body.

    It is largely what I suggested a month ago. (Albeit I called it an independent body writing an annual report on progress.)

    Now, there are sensible objections, and non-sensible ones.

    The principle sensible objection is that it's not technical solutions - or lack thereof - that will keep NI in the backstop. It is that it will end up politically expedient. If 65% of the population in the province want to remain in the backstop, then in all probability Westminster will be unable to enforce it.

    And the unsensible one: the independent body will shit on us.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,804
    If I were in the ERG, I'd still be leveraging their bloc of votes as supporting the deal, contingent on May announcing she will step down pronto.....
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 663
    RoyalBlue said:

    Godwilling the Commons will pass the deal tomorrow. It will be cathartic, and hopefully a majority of the nation will breathe a sigh of relief.

    On a more quotidian note, it will also improve the re-election prospects of the more than 5,000 Tory councillors up for election in May.

    And that is most important thing on my mind at the moment. No, it really is!

  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 962
    Seeing as the AG has, AIUI, been our key negotiator with the EU for most of the last week or so, I would be surprised if tonight's "deal" doesn't pass his "good enough" test.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 2,745
    I'm surprised at the confidence (that is some rather than overwhelming) from some at the idea of MV2 passing tomorrow TBH, I didn't think these changes would be substantial enough to recover the deficit from last time.

    Although maybe that is me misreading some in the ERG rather than a mistake, unlike last time where I was sure it would go down I'm not hugely confident of saying it will happen again.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 632

    Endillion said:

    Alistair said:

    Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.

    They would be insane not to backdown. It’s this or remain. There are surely enough of them who do actually want to leave.

    Thing is you don't need many of them to be insane to block the thing
    I suppose that depends on how many Labour will risk upsetting their constituents.
    I don't see why that would change from last time.
    Because now there's a chance it might pass without them. They're quite happy voting against if they win, but they dare not be on the wrong side of the one passes.
    I don't see the problem, generally the opposition want to oppose things, so that they can say I Told You So when they go wrong. It's not like they're voting down brexit, they're voting down TMay's deal, which is beloved by nobody.

    If there's an argument for letting it through, I guess it's that they'd rather not have to take the subsequent votes on the next step, which is where it gets harder to sit on the fence. But then it's better if other people vote it through, not you.
    Maybe, but they're all going to have to stand for re-election at some point. I was guessing they'd rather not have to try to explain the (by then) somewhat nuanced difference of voting against Brexit and voting against May's Brexit.

    If the Deal passes, there's unlikely to be a GE for a while, whereas one becomes likely in 2019 if it gets voted down again. So they can crash Brexit and the Government, or neither, but not one without the other. In that situation I think I'd be inclined to crash neither, but obviously I'm very far from being an opposition MP.
This discussion has been closed.