Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The legacy from the coalition that ties Theresa May’s hands on
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The legacy from the coalition that ties Theresa May’s hands on an early general election
Back in May 2011 whwn Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were negotiating the Coalition deal one of the key yellow objectives was the fixed Term Parliament Act.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf
Wisconsin: Trump +1
Pennsylvania: Clinton +1
New Mexico: Clinton +3
Colorado: Clinton +1
Florida : Tie https://countyballotfiles.elections.myflorida.com/FVRSCountyBallotReports/AbsenteeEarlyVotingReports/PublicStats
Michigan : Tie http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/04/absentee-ballots/93284370/
Nevada: Trump +3 http://nvsos.gov/sos/elections/voters/election-turnout-statistics
Iowa: Trump +12
Ohio: Trump +6
Offsett by
North Carolina: Clinton +6
Trump's route seems to opening up in the rust belt.
In the 2032 election I'd guess Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota to be definitely republican, with Arizona, Texas Democrat.
The point about Article 50 is that once it's invoked, we are automatically out after two years. If parliament is offered a choice after the negotiations, the choice will be between accepting what's on offer and getting Hard Brexit anyway.
xD LOL
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/brexit-means-defending-laws-courts-brexiteers-accept/
That is deepest Detroit !
I'd certainly recommend anyone betting to put £2 on Mike Pence with Betfair to cover him heading into one of the most Democrat counties in the whole of the USA.
I fancy OGH was somewhat premature in presenting such positive vibes for her in the previous thread - this could still go horribly wrong for Camp Clinton.
That isn't necessarily true.
A50 only applies according to our constitutional arrangements - which in this case require approval of the final deal before parliament.
Therefore if we apply for A50, and the EU gives us a bad deal, and it is rejected by parliament. Then the original A50 notice can be deemed invalid, since it was not constitutional. The EU may not like this, but those are the treaty terms.
In practice another A50 would then have to be issued and an amended deal struck.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/794909591884746752
Also stuff going on under the surface perhaps in the Great Lakes that has been almost totally missed with the focus on North Carolina and Florida.
I suggest you learn something about how the EU treaties and the UK constitution works.
Even if it turns out to be the case that we cannot leave the EU without breaking the law, then the law has to be observed.
Until such time as Parliament sees fit to change it.
If Parliament (either House) then refuses to change the law so that we can leave the EU, well, the electors know where they stand, don't they?
Try again.
Both problems solved ?
Maybe the checks & balances need changing - perhaps acknowledging different criteria for majority/coalition governments - but repeal? Surely not.
It must be about what the government would need to put into an Article 50 bill. Perhaps a one line enabling bill won't serve the purpose.
We need to understand just what the government is so desperate about.
Presumably the situation can be forced: if the Government comes to the conclusion that it cannot continue without consulting the people in a General Election, then it doesn't need Parliament to vote it out. It can just resign.
If Tory holdouts then want to prevent an election, they would have to vote in a Labour-led Government, empowering the Far Left to run the country and putting their own party into Opposition in the process. And bear in mind that, given Brexit is the issue that will have brought matters to a head, there would have to be enough Conservative rebels ready to commit career suicide for the sake of the EU not only to overcome their own colleagues, but also the votes of the NI Unionists, Carswell and an unspecified number of Labour Brexit ultras as well. It's unthinkable.
If May wants an early election she will get one, even if she has to wait a fortnight for the ludicrous pantomime of Corbyn being given the chance to seek a majority to play itself out. The FPTA cannot be used to veto a dissolution under these circumstances.
(Repeal of the FPTA is, of course, an alternative, but there is no guarantee that Tory rebels might not oppose that as well, and it would almost certainly be held up for a year after a Lords' veto, necessitating the use of the Parliament Act.)
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf
That is, in effect, the whole point of the judgment. But I'm not going to waste any more time trying to engage in a dialogue with the deaf.
Yes you are correct, having re-read A50.
Hard Brexit it is then!
If there's an election first then the Tories might very well win by a landslide, but it seems unlikely that Labour will drop much below 180 seats even in the worst case scenario, and there's then the risk that it'll come to its senses and install a credible leader. It will be easier for the Government to cope with the fallout from any difficulties with Brexit (negotiation or outcome) if it doesn't have a reinvigorated Labour Party breathing down its neck.
Corbyn, on the other hand, is not effective and will never be electable. He's the Tories insurance policy against a difficult Brexit.
That's what free speech entitles. Without the right to attack the impartiality of the judiciary (with or without evidence) there is no free speech and no checks or balances on a dictatorial judiciary.
I still think it has suited Clinton's narrative to put this on the knife edge in the last week....
It could go any of these ways IMO
An Easy Clinton win
Clinton mops up all Obama's states except Ohio and Iowa and flips North Carolina/ and she even gets Ohio- and brings Georgia into play
A bum squeaker Clinton win
Clinton flips North Carolina/ keeps Florida but loses one or two of of Wisconsin/Michigan and Penn
A clear Trump pathway
Clinton doesn't flip any states/ loses Florida and two or even three of Mich/WI/Penn and maybe NH because the polls have underscored significantly the WWC's likelihood to vote/ and overplayed the minorities
I would not be surprised if any of those scenarios come to fruition on Tuesday. Thank god I'm not spread betting because the potential spread is huuuuuuuuuugggeeeeee....
As a conspiracy theorist (as everyone seems to be now)...perhaps it suits the Clinton campaign to have Trump front and centre touring the industrial belt in these last days. You never know.....
Where's JackW? I find his presence in these last days very reassuring....if he disappears for any length of time I start getting anxious....
I suspect you are just hoping no one will actually challenge the garbage you are spouting or go and actually look at the documents.
"Leavers should respect this outcome and not be trying to re-open the matter now. "
Havent remainers rather set the precedent that anything you dont like can be re-opened?
You cant accept the stated will of the people with any kind of grace.
13 December 2007 Signed
11 March 2008 EU (Amendment) Bill passed by Commons
18 June 2008 EU (Amendment) Bill passed by Lords
19 June 2008 EU (Amendment) Bill received Royal Assent
16 July 2008 Ratified by UK
1 December 2009 Came into force after ratification by all member states
I've added £50 to him anyway at this price.
Clinton 301 - 311
Trump 228 - 238
Hmm ..... not quite the way I'm reading things right now, but we'll see.
That said, I have low faith in US polling when it is all within the margin of error
Well done Murray....a massive achievement for British sport. I think he's likely to stay there until the tour finals 2017, when a certain Roger Federer re-claims it at the timely age of 36...
This really shouldn't be hard for you to understand.
If that analysis is correct then the decision is being left with the Commons. Theoretically, a PM who for whatever reason could not secure a majority for a dissolution could not have one. In those circumstances it would be for whoever could achieve that majority in the Commons to approach the Queen for appointment as PM.
She's not backing off Brexit
She's not boxing herself in to the cant criticise the judges trap
She's not pouring more oil on the fire
Calm under fire looks more like it.
Is that true? Does the full treaty still come into effect when one member has not ratified it?
PS Just saw the statement by Liz Truss. Attacking the competence of the judges in this case is part of the government spin operation I think
parliamentary procedures."
That's not clear to me.