Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betfair punters now put the chances of a 2019 Brexit referendu
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betfair punters now put the chances of a 2019 Brexit referendum at 40%
Inevitably much of the current UK political betting activity has been focused on Brexit and particularly whether or not we are going to see a second referendum before the end of next year. As can be seen sentiment has been changing and although the “won’t happen” option is still favourite it is getting tighter.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
"Let the government get on with governing" - the classic condescending patting of our heads and telling us not to worry about things.
If Theresa wants a quiet relaxing Christmas she can resign tomorrow and enjoy it with Philip in Maidenhead.
Second referendum?Less than a Third of voters support May's "deal"Lets say though that yes TM her intentions known and says "there is no deal, we are exiting without a deal". I would want her replaced by a new leader who is prepared to go down the route of no deal as a last resort but who instead first tries to renegotiate to remove the backstop. As described here by Peston: https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-30/has-prime-minister-just-signed-her-own-warrant-of-execution/
What would you prefer in that scenario? Get on with preparing for the upcoming no deal Brexit under May? Or get rid of May and install someone new to resume talks with the EU first?
But as I cannot see her lasting until Xmas it will probably take longer for the second referendum acceptance to happen.
1. You will have a transfer pricing policy that allows services to be done, and paid for
2. You will dividend profits up from subsidiaries to the parent
3. You will have inter company balances as money is lent as necessary
So, say you have a London based TopCo. Right now, because of the rules on no double taxation, and no withholding tax, you can have your German subsidiary lend your Spanish one money to make payroll. But those kind of remittances become very hard to do without protection against withholding taxes, and double taxation. If your German subsidiary transferred money out to another part of the group structure, that looks awfully like paying a dividend without the associated tax. And tax authorities hate that.
(Addendum: In the old days, you'd have your Irish or Cayman Islands subsidiary as the holder of all the IP, which would then use transfer pricing to siphon profits off shore. You'd then loan the money from the tax haven to the parent, and pay dividends or buy back stock or whatever.)
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1068596197873598464
(4)A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution, make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.
(5)A statement under subsection (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.
(6)A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for—
(a)a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of the statement mentioned in subsection (4), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made, and
I'm no lawyer, but if other parts make specific reference to sitting days, and the act defines what that means, then a reference in the same section which does not contain that specificity would surely only mean the ordinary meaning of the word 'day', most likely calendar day?
We badly need root and branch constitutional reform whether in or out, or under Corbyn, May or AN Other Tory.
Though just from my own line of work you have to be precise on if it is a 'clear' working day or not for example.
Not actually that relatedly, but I would be curious if the actual Root and Branch Bill was, itself, particularly clearly written.
Under the terms of the FTPA if say there is a VONC held immediately after the lost meaningful vote, the government loses it and 14 days later there's an early election then Parliament is dissolved. The clock is still ticking though and until the government is replaced the responsible Minister of the Crown is still a Minister of the Crown. Thus 21 days after the original vote, 7 days into the General Election campaign, the Minister must make their statement in writing.
Once the statement is made, there are no more sitting days yet so the clock stops ticking. We have the election, 7 sitting days later the motion is put.
I am not a lawyer but that would be my understanding.
But in fairness I don't think there's a big row about it.
2015 onwards the curtain has been pulled back to reveal a not very pretty scene.
You and some others seem to be strugging with the max 21 days. The government will not change until TM makes her decision to parliament known in accordance with the road map nor will a vnoc be sustained as long as the government responds to the speakers requests during that period
Of course, if there is no Plan B prepared, then that would be metaphorically criminal negligence.
So, that is perhaps what will happen.
It is at that time many things could happen including TM resignation, consultation with the EU, a second referendum, vnoc in TM of the government. No one knows at this stage
It is at that time many things could happen including TM resignation, consultation with the EU, a second referendum, vnoc in TM of the government. No one knows at this stage
Just because the government is obliged to do something in the future does not change other laws. The FTPA still stands. If the HOC passes a VONC then it does so, regardless of what the roadmap says. The government has other obligations it needs to make by statute too - none of them are preventing a VONC either.
If Jeremy Corbyn tables a VONC then the vote happens. Even if that messes with timetables as Leader of the Opposition that's Jeremy Corbyn's prerogative.
Much as you may hope the speaker will not allow the process you hope within the time scale set in the act
Kate Osamor and her entrepreneurial offspring.
Looks like he has more to worry about on the front of the times than playing games
And, no, the Speaker could not block it. To do so would be a Constitutional outrage, defying all precedent.
Would be different if she were to resign, obviously, call a GE, referendum, or even liaise with opposition Parties.
Kate Osamor shows the Donald how to deal with a troublesome journalist.
Without the usual patronising nonsense from the usual suspect, there's no obvious route to the end of the Conservative Government which, for all its travails, is ahead in the polls and has 315 seats in Parliament.
It would need the latter number to be reduced by defections to change the balance in Parliament but does anyone seriously believe 30 Conservative MPs will break from the Party and choose to sit as Independent Conservatives or whatever - seriously?
Even if that happens, we then have to imagine the defectors and others offering sufficient support to a minority Labour Government - seriously?
Notions of a "collapse" of the Government fall against that truth - there are 315 Conservative MPs and as long as that group remains united (if not coherent) they remain in Government whoever leads them (May, Hunt, Hammond, JRM).
I suppose they could voluntarily go into Opposition and simply abstain on all legislation put forward by an alternative Government - seriously?
So, whether we like it or not, some form of Conservative administration is going to remain in office if not necessarily power. How a new Government is constituted if/when May goes is really only for the Conservatives to work out.
Voting for or against May's Deal changes that not one iota - in essence, the Deal isn't really that important unless it creates a schism within the Conservative Party - seriously, fetch me some popcorn?
The only role the speaker has is to follow the procedures laid out requiring the PM to return to the HOC with her intentions. The speaker does control that period but at that point Corbyn can vnoc the government
Lets add the SNP + Lib Dems, that gets you ~120 MPs. Question then is, are there 200 Tory MPs who would back Norway?
The process will still continue regardless, they could run in parallel. But calling a Vote of No Confidence is the perogative of the Leader of the Opposition and the Speaker can't just ignore that for three weeks.
This isn't wishful thinking: Corbyn winning a VONC and potentially becoming PM is the very last thing I want.
But if we did, Corbyn would either fall into line, or see Labour discipline fall apart.
Corby can try for a VONC, but -- unless he knows the DUP will support it -- it does seem pointless posturing.
As far as I know, the DUP may hate May, they may hate May and Corbyn, they may hate everyone on the planet.
But they -- for sure -- know that a new election will change the electoral arithmetic and they won’t be in the golden position they are now, which is a small party’s dream come true.
So, I don’t see any way they will support a VONC.
TM will be given the time to deal with cabinet and other party leaders as laid out in the procedures and it will be high politics when she comes to the dispatch box with her decision
After the laughter the EU may well say when you and Corbyn turn up and tell us you both support this deal, we will believe you.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-universities-minister-sam-gyimah-13670812
https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/status/1068478176987414528/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed&ref_url=https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/7046/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-it-s-now-down-to-an-evens-chance-in-the-betting-that-the-uk-wi/p1
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/30/tory-minister-sam-gyimah-resigns-protest-theresa-mays-withdrawal/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw
It might shift a few copies, but will they have the balls to follow him out of the door?
As I've been saying, basically by January times up so if nothing is in place by then we leave with No Deal.
EDIT: If the ERG had said "that will do us....", then Soubry and Grieve and Wollaston and others would have rejected because the ERG accepted it.
And that's without the DUP still saying "NOOOOO!!!"
As a result of reading it, though, I am finding it harder to see why majority of MPs are not supporting May's deal tbh.
Er, hold on, 'any deal'? Ok, seriously, why would he not have resigned well before now then if he thinks any deal would be unacceptable?
Seems like in his comments he's doing it so we can Remain. Which is a point of view one can hold, but given his comments that any deal would in essence be unacceptable I don't see why the latest comments on Gallileo were the tipping point for him.
Any estimates the deal, if it even gets voted on, could lose by even more than 200? The payroll vote and super loyalists are getting thinner on the ground every day.