politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the Article 50 exit date gets deferred it could raise doubt
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the Article 50 exit date gets deferred it could raise doubts about whether the UK ever leaves
Lots of talk today about the possibility of the March 29th Brexit deadline being deferred because the UK Parliament does not have the time left enact the required legislation.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Hmm.
Hmm.
If Remainers think they're in with a chance that harms May's deal's prospects from that side. Not sure switching Leavers would be enough to outweigh that.
But then what? Revocation-referendum? Extension-referendum? Extension-faffing about-revocation-no-referendum-political class seem surprised by the 'inexplicable' rise of new parties?
A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50
I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B
https://www.bet365.com/?&cb=105802029234#/AC/B5/C20624554/D1/E40174665/F2/
Yes, I think you are right: 75% for an extension looks too high an implied probability.
Betting PostYou can lay a second referendum before the end of the year on Betfair at 2.6, and back it on Ladbrokes at 2.75 (without boost).
And if we remain, I cannot imagine how embarrasing it will be and EU flags flying from UK town halls will cause absolute chaos
To paraphrase, if we eliminate all of the impossible options then what remains, however improbable, must occur. Is this all going to end with the fire exit that the ECJ so conveniently unblocked before Christmas being used?
I take anything May says with a pinch of salt.
So I can't see a scenario where this happens indefinitely.
Extending the transition period, after withdrawing from the EU, could happen indefinitely, but not A50 extension.
Same problem with an election. There’s limited time to hold one before the end of March and no indication that both major parties wouldn’t be seriously split, and that result wouldn’t produce a Parliament more than a couple of dozen seats away from what we have now.
Any extension of more than a few weeks brings us to the EU elections, for which the Parliament that has to pass the deal is dissolved on 23rd April, and would require reallocation of seats across the whole EU if we were to take part.
Can’t see how it’s anything but deal (with Lab support) or no deal from here, in spite of what politicians and commentators with different hopes might wishfully suggest can happen.
Rather than take the blame for telling voters "Your views are irrelevant" which they are, Parliament wants to do it by farting around long enough for it to seem that it's been forced on them by circumstances. Once deferred, there'll suddenly be immense pressure to end the uncertainty.
Guess what will happen then? Parliament forced to take control to end uncertainty and associated damage to economy by cancelling Brexit. I predicted this six months ago. I also expect associated damage to democracy will be ignored.
Now where's my yellow vest?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/business/south-korea-economy.html
Of course with exports making up over 40% of GDP, they are not exactly your average economy.
Some hotels fly all sorts of flags outside themselves.
If a democratically elected Council wants to fly flags or twin themselves with European or any other towns or places it is up to the local electors to change the make up of the council to change its policy on such matters.
All this Brexit nonsense is perverting discourse and subjugating common sense.
It’s impossible to legally call a referendum by an amendment to some other piece of legislation, and the government can’t be compelled to bring forward legislation it doesn’t want to.
Also note that, unlike for an election campaign, Parliament would continue to sit during a referendum campaign.
https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/01/watch-labour-mp-im-talking-myself-into-supporting-the-prime-ministers-deal.html
Because of this, I'm increasingly sceptical that any extension would be granted for any reason other than taking steps which might change the Brexit outcome.
It is clear that any suspension is only going to be allowed for a time limited to weeks (end of May), and for a specific purpose.
No deal, Deal or Revoke are the three options in town.
Is there time to agree, negotiate Norway (++ as required to taste)?
If the legislation isn't completed by 29th March, then we leave without a deal or have a short suspension. The availability of a suspension may be dependent on the legislation we are trying to pass.
If such an election were won outright by Leave-backing parties then they could learn from this experience, prepare thoroughly for 2 or 3 years and then have another tilt at Brexit. If, as seems more likely, it wasn't then the whole business would be put to bed for a while.
There's no point in voting for the Deal to avoid chaos if you then allow chaos to happen because you won't vote to implement it. Surely our MPs are not that dim?
There’s a good argument that it requires primary legislation*, and Mrs May will have most of her cabinet resign the moment she tries to propose it. Conservatives could well cross the floor to vote against the government in a vote of confidence.
Any VoNC in the government likely results in either an election or a replacement Conservative PM, who’s likely to be more inclined to no-deal than to remain.
*in practice the Supreme Court are going to have to rule on this, as they did with the original A50 invocation. Again this takes time.
We actually need a "Follow me!" leader like Blair in this situation, whereas we needed a cautious Theresa May-like leader in deciding whether to get involved in Iraq - an issue where it would in retrospect have been preferable to have spent years pondering the options.
"Bit in bold - the same goes for agreeing to the Deal, no?"
Indeed. I am generally cynical about politicians but I find it's easier to predict their actions that way. They're generally in politics to ensure their views take precedence. The voters are there to be manipulated.
They are seldom honourable or honest. I can accept the first but even in my dotage, I l dislike the second
As Sandpit has pointed out, it would need the existing legislation governing referendums to be amended. It's obviously not going to happen.
As you say, government and ministers may be thin on the ground. I'm sure Bercow will find an arcane way to function where all else falls apart.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/424871-exclusive-trump-team-should-be-allowed-to-correct-final-mueller
As long as the protests stay reasonably peaceful, it may bring realism back to British politics.
That's the actual far right, not the Corbynite definition of Blairites and everyone rightwards of them.
Teaching the electorate their opinion can be ignored when it is contrary to the political class is an intensely stupid, and dangerous, thing to do.
Edit: And on your point about it being a low bar for comparison, I disagree. Mature democracies do often get into situations where there are fundamental differences between factions. Embarrassing is when it is solved by bloodshed. Constitutional stalemate is not something to be embarrassed by at all.
I assume that the Wilson/Callaghan government has the record for the most number of defeats. I seem to remember it got the stage where it was news when they won one. Which shows just how much punishment an executive can take without actually falling.
So the question becomes "which unpalatable option will Parliament vote for at the last minute to stop no deal?"
Withdrawal agreement? Unlikely, it's rubbish, and too many Tories actively prefer no deal.
Revocation? It's possible as an emergency measure but nobody would want to own it. If it was proposed by the government, enough Labour rebels would back it, but neither party's leadership will propose it because of the electoral advantage it would give to the other party.
So that leaves a referendum as the safest option, because it means that all parties can say that they didn't stop Brexit, they just allowed the people to think about it. And it'll be Remain vs WA, because that's the only non-bonkers option that will persuade the EU27 to extend.
It's perfectly possible to envisage revocation under the following circumstances:
1. Mrs May has no time to organise anything else and elects to throw in the towel rather than proceed with a disorganised No Deal with half the required legislation still not on the statute book. For the purposes of this argument it doesn't matter whether or not she is overthrown or the Conservative Party itself disintegrates afterwards: the deed would already have been done.
2. Mrs May refuses point blank to countenance revocation, but it overthrown by an alliance of convenience in the Commons - possibly a National Unity coalition of centrists, possibly by Labour with the assistance of a certain number of Tory rebels. The new Prime Minister then revokes.
Plus in terms of mechanics it requires the Government to actually give them time for such a vote. Nothing that has happened this week allows the Speaker to force through Primary legislation against the wishes of the Government.
Wont work. They will die in the ditches for their unicorns.
https://twitter.com/peteraltmaier/status/1083355816533676032
Now, you can pass an act that specifies a shorter period and the ppera allows this. But I imagine it would be judicial reviewed within seconds in the unlikely event it gets passed.
I appreciate, of course, that a parliamentary vote of MPs on whether we leave the European Union in an orderly fashion is not be compared to a horse race but, still, are we sure about all this? I mean really sure. This nag has no chance?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46840589
My instinct is that May is a rare politician who will try harder than most to keep her promises.
Given that Corbyn's stated strategy is 1. General Election, followed by 2. Unicorn Renegotiation, this seems somewhat improbable.
Too much of this throughout the process - who cares what the frogs etc think.