Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If there was a spread-betting market on how many months Toxic
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If there was a spread-betting market on how many months Toxic Theresa could carry on I’d be a buyer
For a party that has a reputation for knifing failed leaders the Tories have been pretty pathetic so far with Theresa May.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
A bit like Jeremy.
The academic theory behind Brexit was taking back control. If you leave the EU out of it for a moment (!), then we are ceding control to someone that is not us. How is that sovereignty-enhancing?
A new leader will be in place by Autumn 2019 and we may have a general election in 2020.
Ultimately, it is in the interests of both sides to come to an agreement. Nevertheless, the impact of "no deal" will almost certainly be greater, in the short term, for us. Why?
1. We would lose not just the relationship with the EU, but all the agreements the EU has built up over the last 60 odd yeas. So that's FTAs with South Korea, Canada, the EFTA state, Israel, the Mercosur states, and a bunch of others. Worse, we would fall out of the negotiated treaties with the US and others on mutual recognition of standards. Now: the question is not can these be replaced, or even improved upon? It is simply important to recognise that the EU does not lose these arrangements if we leave, so its ex-EU trade is unaffected.
2. Our economy is dangerously unbalanced. The UK household savings rate is at a fifty year low. Recessions and booms are largely a consequence of rising or falling savings rates. If people save more every month, consumer spending falls, and a recession occurs. If people are confident and save less every month, consumer spending rises, and with it economic growth. The Eurozone has elevated household savings rates, we do not. They can compensate for weaker external demand with domestic demand in a way we cannot.
3. Finally, the EU is a bigger export destination for us, than we are for the rest of the EU.
Oct 2017 at Conference (unlikely, now, because it's too disruptive and she has a stable 2 year Government)
Oct 2019 at Conference (far more likely, just after A50 has elapsed and a renewal of the DUP agreement is needed)
Or.. she might hang on until Oct 2021, just before GE2022.
She will not lead the Party into GE2022.
I would price the market at a buy of 24 months and a sell of 20 months.
She'll have higher ratings then than now, of course - the events of the last three weeks are exceptional, and her critics are (as always) overplaying things, which will provoke a reaction from the public in her favour. She is, after all, transparently a decent, hard-working and talented woman doing her best for the country, even if she does make unforced errors in the process and even if she does lack political agility.
All the same, it's all but unthinkable that the party would go into another election under her leadership. 2019 or 2020 would be ideal for a leadership contest, allowing her successor to present a new image in contrast to what will quite probably be by then a jaded Corbyn.
Of course, events may intervene to torpedo this game-plan. We shall see.
The academic theory behind Brexit was taking back control. If you leave the EU out of it for a moment (!), then we are ceding control to someone that is not us. How is that sovereignty-enhancing?
Your "(!)" is a giveaway - you can't leave the EU out of it.
But she's had the last laugh because Alex has destroyed himself with his game-playing and Nicola can now set about molding the SNP in her image.
Another Remain myth bites the dust.
@Torcuil: Och, Patrick Harvie's feeling all betrayed
What exactly is the point of the SNP now ?
The Greens WILL run next time, perhaps on an explicit Indy2 platform...
Looks like curtains for the SNP to me, SNP Hold Dundee East - that will be about it.
You might think the widespread public impression of May, and the fact it has fallen so far and so fast is unfair, and she's actually jolly nice. Perhaps you're right. But you can't seriously demand that people pretend it isn't happening on a betting website.
This is one reason Con won't want to keep May hanging around like a bad smell beyond spring/summer 2019.
A50 clock is counting down not just to the UK leaving the EU but to May leaving Maggie's Den.
Who will benefit more SLAB or SCON?
Still the biggest party thanks to residual support left from their glory days, but strategically all at sea, playing very defensively, too concerned with dealing with their negatives (and reasons why certain people don't want to vote for them) but forgetting that it's not enough to just take negative reasons to not vote for them off the table, you still need a positive raison d'etre to actually draw voters towards you.
Personally I think the request is totally unacceptable by the EU, and Davis should walk away if the point is not ceeded.
FPT - They are looking for a way where the EU doesn't have to change its behaviour in any way and will remain subject to EU law and the ECJ case law for everything that pertains to the relationship with the UK, while not formally subjecting the UK side of that relationship to a court that has no jurisdiction in the UK. Jurisdiction and sovereignty are big issues that can't be wished away. Nevertheless the circle has to squared. We need to find a way of implementing ECJ without being subject to it formally.
The key point is that the EFTA Court interprets according to ECJ case law as it pertains to the international agreement. As an example, say the agreement covers product regulation. If the ECJ has already ruled a certain product is non-compliant, the EFTA Court will apply the same ruling explicitly by referring to ECJ case law. That original ruling may have been based on legislation brought in by the EU since the start of the agreement, which the other country may not have had any say over, and which it hasn't enacted into domestic law
From a technical perspective, being a member of the ITU is just like being a member of the EU.
However, only a total fruitcake would say the two were equivalent*. The ITU exists to ensure that phone systems can interoperate. The remit of the ITU tribunal is narrow. So, parliament cannot pass a law requiring all UK phone numbers contained seven digits and three letters, without being breach of treaty obligations and therefore being levied with a fine.
It's all about degrees. They EU removes a lot (and an ever expanding) amount of sovereignty.
* And only a total, total fruitcake would say that we should never ever join an international body that tied our hands and could over-rule UK laws. Nigel Farage, I'm looking at you.
Secondly, I think the original point by Three Quidder was that the ECJ is highly politicised, and what I took from that is that it would strongly tend to favour the legal interpretation preferred by the Commission and/or dominant states within the EU over those preferred by more fringe ones (or indeed by individuals/companies). But I just don't see the systematic evidence for that. And pointing to decisions that the Daily Mail tells you not to like isn't evidence - it's anecdote, and highly skewed at that.
I'm open to an argument about the quality of decision making at ECJ level compared with our own Supreme Court. They are less well written in my view, but then they are written for translation and the legal traditions lend themselves less well to attractive language. Not sure which are "better" in terms of quality of analysis though. But I'm not buying the "infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me" stuff.
I'd like UK courts to adjudicate in the UK on EU citizens and the ECJ (if that's what the other 27 want) in the EU on UK citizens. However, I can see some form of "third Hague style court" compromise might be needed, for both sides to have an out from their positions. Clearly both sides view each other with suspicion.
However, I'm still not at all certain the EU are looking beyond the immediate deal as to what kind of relationship they'd like with us post Brexit in the decades to come. The ECJ having jurisdiction, in a lop sided way as they want, has all the potential to stoke resentment against the EU and all that sail in it for decades. D Mail editors to come will have ammunition a plenty and that's not going to do us, the EU, or their citizens any good in the long term.
(Incidentally are the EU proposing that at the same time the ECJ held sway over EU citizens here it also would also sway over UK citizens in the EU? Hardly reciprocal. How does all that square with UK citizens in Ireland under the 1949 Act and subsequent practice between the UK and Ireland?)
And it alliterates.
My money would be on her leading the Conservatives into the next election. And, unless they fail to learn from the idiocy of their last campaign, there's an interesting punt to be had on them winning outright.
And, yes, toxic is a very silly choice of word.
My issue is that we are talking about degrees of sovereignty. Both @ThreeQuidder and @rcs1000 point out that we are reclaiming some degree of sovereignty but that some will reside, pooled, in a supranational institution.
The essence of Brexit for those not obsessed by immigration, was the sovereignty issue. Taking back control and not being "governed" by the CJEU. And yet this agreement, should it be signed, cedes sovereignty. How much? Less than if we were EU members, but it cedes it nevertheless. But we are the ones agreeing these terms voluntarily. And yet it seems vaguely absurd that following the whole take back control thing, we say we are happy giving some of it back again.
Of course you might say - "well it's less than it was before" and you'd be right. But then it is a matter of degree. Either we are sovereign or we are not, was the Brexit argument. I am surprised, therefore, that so many are happy with these developments.
... just who is living in No. 10 Downing St anyway?
I doubt she does.
Edit:
1. JennyFreeman
2.
3.
4.
5.
1. A level playing field. A UK party can sue an EU party in each other's courts on an equal basis.
2. The EU is not going to change the way it does anything to accommodate UK interests.
3. There cannot be an unacceptable extra-territorial judicial reach of the EU court into a jurisdiction that isn't a member of it.
The circle has to be squared and it's not easy.
The Tories even with the DUP have a tiny majority. I can't see them getting much done before the next GE apart from Brexit, which they have to do, and the chances of that going wrong are not negligeable.