Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dangerous corner. Where would we be now if Remain had won 52:4
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dangerous corner. Where would we be now if Remain had won 52:48?
The musical cigarette box played the Wedding March. Britain chose narrowly but decisively to vote to leave the EU. One of the frustrations with the universe that we live in is that we never get to see what would have happened if things had panned out differently.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The fact that Farage was already calling for another referendum when it looked on the night as though Leave had lost is neither here nor there. They'd all not only have accepted it, but converted to sincere pro-Europeans and called for adoption of the Euro and Schengen.
Incidentally, I found it highly amusing when it turned out that the immediate petition to call for a rerun turned out to have been started by a Leaver just before the vote (believing his side would lose), who was most put out by the way it took off, saying that he now (mysteriously) believed that the vote should be final.
Of course, it misses the LibDem surge under Tim Farron...
It’s arguably libellous.
At a minimum I’m calling Godwin.
Tory MPs may push for second referendum after 2020 if Remain win, says Vote Leave minister
Conservative MPs may push for a second referendum on EU membership with a few years if Remain win, Dominic Raab, the justice minister, has said.
Raab, who is a senior figure in Vote Leave, made the revelation in an interview with the House magazine. He said that he would expect MPs to respect the verdict of the people but also that it was inevitable that the prospect of a second referendum would be an issue in the next leadership contest, which he said he hoped would be near the 2020 general election.
This was particularly the case if Leave lost narrowly, he said.
His comment implies candidates in the next leadership contest may be under pressure to offer a second referendum after the 2020 election.
Raab told the magazine:
You would be naïve to suggest that [a second referendum] wouldn’t become a factor and one element in that [the next leadership contest.]
I think the sensible thing, if it’s very close – within a couple of points – would be to take pause, respect the verdict of the British people and effectively shelve this debate until that point, which I hope is going to be as close to the 2020 election as possible.
I think that’s the pragmatic, sensible approach. Then we can all get on with delivering the business of government ...
I think the public would expect us to accept their verdict, but of course things change. I’m just realistic and I’d like people to acknowledge that whenever the Tory leadership election is, I think it’s obvious that it will be part of that.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/09/eu-referendum-live-wollaston-remain-vote-leave-sturgeon-johnson?page=with:block-57597df6e4b064f52e5f9967#block-57597df6e4b064f52e5f9967
There is a difference between applying the result of a referendum (in this case the Cameron deal) and after a few years arguing for a new vote and not applying the result of a referendum and arguing for a new vote.
The best example is Scotland - I think it would be a mistake for the SNP to call a second referendum but the argument against it (“once in a generation”) is political rather than constitutional. If they went through the proper process and Westminster agreed then a referendum would be legitimate and democratic*.
* I don’t know whether a second referendum was in the SNP manifesto or not but I think most people take Scottish independence as a core objective of theirs so that’s less of an issue in this case
But at best your argument is “you’re like Hitler you are” and I suspect the libel courts wouldn’t give much weight to “oh but X said he said something naughty”
https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/1076064254451728384?s=21
Particularly loved the "My Struggle" line - scary though the thought is.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-46645782
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/26/ukip-founder-alan-sked-party-become-frankensteins-monster
Is there caselaw ?
Oh Tory Leavers what have you done?
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/China-tech/Exclusive-Foxconn-plans-9bn-China-chip-project-amid-trade-war
Just trying to cool Charles down - and curious about the technical point.
It's a great example of why constitutional change needs a 2/3rd majority threshold.
Although, as others have said, we're heading for a crunch point in January, whatever happens then and immediately afterwards will only be the closing of scene, or perhaps an act. The play has a long way to go yet.
There is also a discussion to be had about whether the threshold needs to reflect the degree of irreversibility of the proposed change.
It’s putting your money where your mouth is.
I’d guess Damian lost money on the 2015 general election but that’s not a sexy story?
New proposal: changes that I support - simple majority required; changes I don't support - 90% majority required.
- Damian is incentivised to carry out polling he wouldn't necessarily carry out
- Damian is incentivised to produce polling one way or another to support his betting position
- Damian might bet on the results of unreleased polls or ahead of such information becoming public.
None of which means that Survation has acted improperly. But it is sufficient to raise the question.
On the final point for example we have previously discussed how it wouldn't be a great idea for you or Mike to bet on embargoed polls, even though it isn't seemingly illegal.
But with the important caveat that the government led by him had negotiated a watertight Withdrawal Treaty with said Capitalist System, with the CS192 to be precise, which allowed for a smooth and orderly transition to full communism over a multi-year period.
Unfortunately, just as a narrow Remain win wouldn't have closed down the issue, it looks very much as though we'll be stuck with agonising over the EU in any of the future scenarios. I was particularly struck by Sir Ivan Rogers' prognosis of how the trade negotiations over the next two or three years are likely to go:
This may be the first Anglo-Irish negotiation in history where the greater leverage is not on London’s side of the table. And the vituperation aimed at Dublin politicians tells one just how well that has gone down with politicians and apparatchiks who had not bothered to work out that this was no longer a bilateral business, and are now appalled to find they are cornered.
Well, just wait till the trade negotiations. The solidarity of the remaining Member States will be with the major fishing Member States, not with the U.K. The solidarity will be with Spain, not the U.K., when Madrid makes Gibraltar-related demands in the trade negotiation endgame. The solidarity will be with Cyprus when it says it wants to avoid precedents which might be applied to Turkey.
I could go on. And on… The Free Trade Agreement talks will be tougher than anything we have seen to date.
.....
We already see in the Withdrawal Agreement the clear signs that, having succeeded with its negotiating plans in this phase, the EU will repeat the clock and cliff edge pressures in the run up the next U.K. election, knowing it can and will exact concessions as the deadline looms. But walking away to a “no deal” outcome, managed or not, does not escape that pressure..
Not an attractive prospect!
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/
How quickly could we have enacted "Remain" in comparison to "Leave"? We know that "Leave" requires close to three years to even get to a transition period.
Would we need a transition period?
How disadvantaged would "Leave" be when putting the question again after such enactment?
The questions come across as facetious, solely because the equivalence is so strained. Whenever you get responses from the pro-Leave side (whether they or on said "side" from believing in Leave or believing that failure to fully deliver would hamper the Conservative Party) on the validity of voting again after fully Leaving, they always say they'd fully accept such a thing, but tend to find it irresistible to gloat that the extra hurdles placed by having left (opt-outs, Euro membership, loss of rebate) would make winning Rejoin so difficult as to be unimaginable to them. One can't help wonder whether such a devotion to democracy in this scenario is made easier by their belief that this one would be one they couldn't win - and that a vote before those hurdles were in place would be one they'd very likely lose.
But of course it would be unfair and insulting to them to even suspect such a thing.
Now that took precious little imagination.
But putting such minor quibbles aside, a terrific piece that was fun to read. Thank you.
https://twitter.com/JewishChron/status/1076082227409231873?s=19
I suppose it depends when he placed the bets. Doing it before the information is in the public domain shouldn't be ethical if not legal.
https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1075871993482895361
My favourite bit of this is Sam Gyimah's face after she said it.
1. He might lose.
2. He might win.
Are you that ignorant the point goes over your head? How does it feel to not be as smart as Liz Truss?
Are you that ignorant the point goes over your head? How does it feel to not be as smart as Liz Truss?
We would indeed still be deeply divided, our relationship with the EU would be problematic and it would be crystal clear that any further steps in the project towards ever closer union were going to be impossible for a UK government to agree to. Not at all sure how our EU friends would feel about that. Those who have given it much thought will rue the decision of the CJEU giving the UK the right to unilaterally revoke the Article 50 notice. We would be a serious impediment to deeper EU integration based around the Euro. They will be counting down the days until 29th March.
One of the officers observed it wasn’t a racist dog but their training.
They’ve been taught that people use spices to confuse the dogs to hide something more serious, and given my heritage I’m coming from a house that uses a lot of spices in food.
Gee, I wish I was as smart as you.
MP says something stupid isn't a new headline it happens plenty to Labour MPs and other parties as well, Imagine it was Diane Abbott if it helps you take it less personally.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1076046215949795328
Leaving aside the question of whether it is likely to happen, how many Leavers think this kind of contingency is an acceptable price to pay for Brexit? Unlike the Remain campaign, this really is Project Fear.
Project Lies more than Project Fear.
But as a grown up I still back May's deal.
In one of his previous grandstanding exhibitions Cameron previously made a big thing about stopping the Eurozone from using EU institutions, but the whole thing was entirely pointless, which is why he quietly dropped his opposition once the media had moved on.
1. Financially we seem to pay higher membership fees to EU than others.
2. Our healthcare and social security system is based solely on need and not on long term contributions. This leads to our system been exploited when we are part of a wider association with other countries whose systems are contribution based.
3. Our education system is failing which leaves our population struggling competing for jobs in a pan European jobs market
4. Our taxation, public sector and financial system acts against long term investment making people feel insecure about their finances.
I doubt almost anyone voted leave because they wanted to change our custom duties system or felt that we should stop selling to Holland and sell more to China. Whether we stay or leave until the issues above are being addressed the population will be rightly unhappy.
As I sit here pondering my budget for next year I have almost no idea where the UK economy is going. I have the best team of staff ever but that has come about from hiring globally and not locally. Unlike almost all my competitors we have remained independent and not sold out to a global MNC. My staff, customers and suppliers all appreciate the stability that this has provided and business has never been better. Yet Government has completely ignored us this year and the abiding sound bite was BJ saying f**k business. Do I feel I got value for money from the £250k+ of taxes I paid this year. (excludes VAT and employees NI ). Hard to say this year I got value for money from our politicians.
Just imagine it was Diane Abbott or another Black Labour MP then you just laugh at them messing up.
https://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/uk-secures-important-victory-ecj-preserve-single-market/
Of course we are in the process of throwing away that particular protection.
The public think we have had a decade of austerity despite the ever rising total of government expenditure. It's such a widely held view the Tories have to give cognisance to it.
I mean people on the internet might be laughing at it because we are all incredibly ignorant and don't understand English on the higher level of people like Liz Truss and Philip Thompson....
Or it might be because she messed up.
FWIW, I've debated at length with some posters on whether or not an angry/disappointed group of leave voters going Ukip (or Nukip) would affect Labour or the Tories most.
I suspect you're right that Labour would be tussling with Ukip for second place, but the alternative scenario is that working class leave voters flock to a firebrand Corbyn promising sweeping societal changes, end to austerity, the housing crisis, free owls for all, etc. Meanwhile Ukip are able to take the blue rinse brigade, splitting the Tories and leaving Corbyn eagerly preparing to measure up the curtains in Number 10.
A great post. Thanks Alastair.
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.com/2018/12/be-careful-what-you-wish-for.html
(isam, formerly of this parish)
https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/brexit-this-island-will-get-into-real-difficulties-taoiseach-warns-as-a-hard-border-looms-37646880.html