The alternatives to May's deal remain impossible. May's deal remains improbable.
Improbable > impossible.
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Though the alternatives are not impossible they too are improbable. Clock running out is improbable but possible. Revoke is improbable but possible. An acceptable compromise being reached is improbable but possible.
No Deal is impossible. And that looks to be all that is on offer as an alternative.
No deal is what’s already legislated for, and is what will happen unless something else can be agreed on by everyone in the next six weeks.
Every day that passes makes it a little more likely.
But can you see TMay allowing us over the cliff edge on March 30th? No. If we're in the last week of March and her Deal has not passed (I think it will by that stage), then she will ask for (and get) a significant extension to A50, requesting a 2nd vote or a new GE. I reckon she'd go for 2nd vote. The third alternative is that she would let parliament decide by elimination what Brexit we have (which again requires an extension).
I completely agree with this analysis and have been on that position since forever. The 'No Deal is a 80% chance' is doomed to be yet another piece of PB groupthinkery that will blow up in the faces of its advocates.
It's strange though, I'm sure I remember all the pb level heads assuring us that there was nothing wrong with the Seaborne Freight contract.
There was nothing wrong with it. It was a contract subject to various conditions, notably Seaborne being in a position to provide the service, which would have provided some very useful extra capacity not available from anyone else. Those conditions won't be met so the contract is voided, and no payment is being made. I really don't see what the alleged scandal or incompetence is supposed to be here - the criticisms seem to be pure partisan sniping.
Incidentally, my contact in the Democratic Party (very well connected) thinks neither Sanders nor Biden will run. Also the Hillary machine is not going to transfer across to any particular candidate.
Hilary can run again then....
Something tells me she’s seriously considering it.
Biden is by no means certain to run - but far more likely to do so than Clinton might be were he not to do so.
Personally I’d love to see Biden run, but he’s probably too old. If he does stand, he wins the nomination though. If he doesn’t stand but endorses someone, I’d bet on that candidate winning the nomination too.
I tend to agree (though I don't think Biden would win automatically; Harris for one will be tough competition).
The good 538 piece on Klobuchar which I linked to earlier included this: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/amy-klobuchar-2020-democratic-nomination-kickoff/ Democrats really, really want to beat President Trump. A recent Monmouth University poll found that 56 percent of Democrats “prefer someone who would be a strong candidate against Trump even if they disagree with that candidate on most issues,” compared with just 33 percent who held the opposite view.... Early frontrunners are likely to build support, providing they avoid egregious errors.
But would this group maintain TMay in office. Seems unlikely to me.
The assumption behind that is that someone who's currently maintaining her in office stops doing that, so it depends on who and how many.
If it's just the DUP then there might be enough retiring and/or deselected MPs to keep the government alive long enough to pass the deal+referendum legislation, but I'm not sure - you'd have to think about individuals.
If a chunk of Tory MPs also vote no-confidence in their own government then I think that's the end of that: TMay requests and Article 50 extension and you have a general election. I couldn't see opposition MPs saving a governing party whose members just voted that they have no confidence in themselves.
But I'd be interested in other PBers' opinions? What's your list of outcomes and percentages? Anyone?
Perhaps indeed this could make a thread, TSE and OGH? Where we all have a vote and see the PB consensus?
Probabilities for end-2019:
No deal: 20% May's deal: 15% Softer Brexit deal: 30% No Brexit: 30% Something else: 5%
General election: 50% Second referendum: 40%
I don't understand. That's about 230%
Some are not mutually exclusive, Sean, but even so it's....erm, 'a book with a very high over-round', as pro-punters like us might say.
It's an extraordinary comment on the current state of affairs that all these options are plausible. It's a no-bet race for me. No idea what happens next. Only thing I'm fairly sure about is that it will be ugly, whatever happens.
Interesting. If they think that (and they are probably right) then it's obvious what they should do: point out that signing up to the deal doesn't preclude a softer version of the future relationship more in line with what Labour MPs want, if a future government negotiates accordingly with the EU. That would make it much harder to Labour MPs to continue voting with the ERG.
The alternatives to May's deal remain impossible. May's deal remains improbable.
Improbable > impossible.
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Though the alternatives are not impossible they too are improbable. Clock running out is improbable but possible. Revoke is improbable but possible. An acceptable compromise being reached is improbable but possible.
No Deal is impossible. And that looks to be all that is on offer as an alternative.
No deal is what’s already legislated for, and is what will happen unless something else can be agreed on by everyone in the next six weeks.
Every day that passes makes it a little more likely.
But can you see TMay allowing us over the cliff edge on March 30th? No. If we're in the last week of March and her Deal has not passed (I think it will by that stage), then she will ask for (and get) a significant extension to A50, requesting a 2nd vote or a new GE. I reckon she'd go for 2nd vote. The third alternative is that she would let parliament decide by elimination what Brexit we have (which again requires an extension).
Right now she’s fixated on her deal, despite that fact that it’s been massively rejected by Parliament and the EU seem unwilling to re-negotiate.
Something has to break the stalemate at some point, but in the absence of a specific something it’s going to be no deal - whether by design or by accident.
The PM needs to decide before yesterday what her strategy is going to be. Right now she thinks the absence of a strategy counts as having one.
The only way the EU will open the negotiation is to seriously threaten no deal, but if she does that she’ll have resignations from the Cabinet.
It she tries to go down the route of appeasing Corbyn and Tusk, to leave without really leaving, she’ll have resignations of others.
It's strange though, I'm sure I remember all the pb level heads assuring us that there was nothing wrong with the Seaborne Freight contract.
There was nothing wrong with it. It was a contract subject to various conditions, notably Seaborne being in a position to provide the service, which would have provided some very useful extra capacity not available from anyone else.
I'm old fashioned, Richard. Unlike you and Catastrofuck Grayling, I'm of the decidedly out-of-fashion opinion that you're supposed to due the due diligence before you award the contract, not a month afterwards.
And you know what, it was the partisan snipers that turned out to be right, and the "Grayling isn't a massive 720-degree walking Tory shitstorm of omni-incompetence" brigade like you who are the ones who defended the indefensible for no profitable reason.
But I'd be interested in other PBers' opinions? What's your list of outcomes and percentages? Anyone?
Perhaps indeed this could make a thread, TSE and OGH? Where we all have a vote and see the PB consensus?
Probabilities for end-2019:
No deal: 20% May's deal: 15% Softer Brexit deal: 30% No Brexit: 30% Something else: 5%
General election: 50% Second referendum: 40%
I don't understand. That's about 230%
More than one can be true. The top section is 100%, people make the mistake of acting like a GE or referendum are alternatives to May's Deal or No Deal. They're not. They're alternatives to this Parliament making up it's own mind.
But I'd be interested in other PBers' opinions? What's your list of outcomes and percentages? Anyone?
Perhaps indeed this could make a thread, TSE and OGH? Where we all have a vote and see the PB consensus?
Probabilities for end-2019:
No deal: 20% May's deal: 15% Softer Brexit deal: 30% No Brexit: 30% Something else: 5%
General election: 50% Second referendum: 40%
I don't understand. That's about 230%
The top five are Brexit outcomes. They sum to 100%. The other two are not Brexit outcomes, they are just other not mutually exclusive events which may be part of the process to those outcomes. I put a space between the two groups to try to make that clear, but it was obviously not clear, apologies.
It's strange though, I'm sure I remember all the pb level heads assuring us that there was nothing wrong with the Seaborne Freight contract.
There was nothing wrong with it. It was a contract subject to various conditions, notably Seaborne being in a position to provide the service, which would have provided some very useful extra capacity not available from anyone else.
I'm old fashioned, Richard. Unlike you and Catastrofuck Grayling, I'm of the decidedly out-of-fashion opinion that you're supposed to due the due diligence before you award the contract, not a month afterwards.
Any contract involving due diligence that I've ever known about is signed subject to certain conditions. So they quite often don't go through in the end. In this case it was Arklow Shipping which decided not to continue backing the venture.
Interesting. If they think that (and they are probably right) then it's obvious what they should do: point out that signing up to the deal doesn't preclude a softer version of the future relationship more in line with what Labour MPs want, if a future government negotiates accordingly with the EU. That would make it much harder to Labour MPs to continue voting with the ERG.
Not really, because it will be May's government who'll be negotiating the future relationship.
But I'd be interested in other PBers' opinions? What's your list of outcomes and percentages? Anyone?
Perhaps indeed this could make a thread, TSE and OGH? Where we all have a vote and see the PB consensus?
Probabilities for end-2019:
No deal: 20% May's deal: 15% Softer Brexit deal: 30% No Brexit: 30% Something else: 5%
General election: 50% Second referendum: 40%
I don't understand. That's about 230%
The top five are Brexit outcomes. They sum to 100%. The other two are not Brexit outcomes, they are just other not mutually exclusive events which may be part of the process to those outcomes. I put a space between the two groups to try to make that clear, but it was obviously not clear, apologies.
It was clear to me for what it's worth.
I disagree with your top section in that what's currently being sought is a form of Harder Brexit deal by finding an alternative to the backstop. That only seems to be under Something Else.
The alternatives to May's deal remain impossible. May's deal remains improbable.
Improbable > impossible.
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Though the alternatives are not impossible they too are improbable. Clock running out is improbable but possible. Revoke is improbable but possible. An acceptable compromise being reached is improbable but possible.
No Deal is impossible. And that looks to be all that is on offer as an alternative.
No deal is what’s already legislated for, and is what will happen unless something else can be agreed on by everyone in the next six weeks.
Every day that passes makes it a little more likely.
True, but Revoke is in the back pocket and can be implemented at the last minute.
Interesting. If they think that (and they are probably right) then it's obvious what they should do: point out that signing up to the deal doesn't preclude a softer version of the future relationship more in line with what Labour MPs want, if a future government negotiates accordingly with the EU. That would make it much harder to Labour MPs to continue voting with the ERG.
Not really, because it will be May's government who'll be negotiating the future relationship.
Well yes, initially. But I doubt whether it will be finalised in this parliament and certainly not by Mrs May.
It's strange though, I'm sure I remember all the pb level heads assuring us that there was nothing wrong with the Seaborne Freight contract.
There was nothing wrong with it. It was a contract subject to various conditions, notably Seaborne being in a position to provide the service, which would have provided some very useful extra capacity not available from anyone else.
I'm old fashioned, Richard. Unlike you and Catastrofuck Grayling, I'm of the decidedly out-of-fashion opinion that you're supposed to due the due diligence before you award the contract, not a month afterwards.
And you know what, it was the partisan snipers that turned out to be right, and the "Grayling isn't a massive 720-degree walking Tory shitstorm of omni-incompetence" brigade like you who are the ones who defended the indefensible for no profitable reason.
In partial defence of Grayling (can't believe I just typed that), time possibly did not allow that, as they would have to start negotiating for ship hire / dredging etc before such DD might be conducted.
But yes, it was a pretty desperate last minute effort, bordering on incompetent clusterfuck, even without the benefit of hindsight.
The alternatives to May's deal remain impossible. May's deal remains improbable.
Improbable > impossible.
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Though the alternatives are not impossible they too are improbable. Clock running out is improbable but possible. Revoke is improbable but possible. An acceptable compromise being reached is improbable but possible.
No Deal is impossible. And that looks to be all that is on offer as an alternative.
No deal is what’s already legislated for, and is what will happen unless something else can be agreed on by everyone in the next six weeks.
Every day that passes makes it a little more likely.
True, but Revoke is in the back pocket and can be implemented at the last minute.
Assuming there can be agreement on the legally required process, yes.
I’m surprised someone hasn’t already got a case underway, in an attempt to have the Supreme Court rule definitively on this in order to avoid a right legal mess.
But I'd be interested in other PBers' opinions? What's your list of outcomes and percentages? Anyone?
Perhaps indeed this could make a thread, TSE and OGH? Where we all have a vote and see the PB consensus?
Probabilities for end-2019:
No deal: 20% May's deal: 15% Softer Brexit deal: 30% No Brexit: 30% Something else: 5%
General election: 50% Second referendum: 40%
I don't understand. That's about 230%
Some are not mutually exclusive, Sean, but even so it's....erm, 'a book with a very high over-round', as pro-punters like us might say.
It's an extraordinary comment on the current state of affairs that all these options are plausible. It's a no-bet race for me. No idea what happens next. Only thing I'm fairly sure about is that it will be ugly, whatever happens.
How could it be otherwise, when it divides the country down the middle.
And unlike a general election, whose result carries with it the consolation that you can always throw the bastards out in five years time, this promises long term irreversibility for whatever uncomfortable outcome is arrived at.
But I'd be interested in other PBers' opinions? What's your list of outcomes and percentages? Anyone?
Perhaps indeed this could make a thread, TSE and OGH? Where we all have a vote and see the PB consensus?
Probabilities for end-2019:
No deal: 20% May's deal: 15% Softer Brexit deal: 30% No Brexit: 30% Something else: 5%
General election: 50% Second referendum: 40%
I don't understand. That's about 230%
Some are not mutually exclusive, Sean, but even so it's....erm, 'a book with a very high over-round', as pro-punters like us might say.
It's an extraordinary comment on the current state of affairs that all these options are plausible. It's a no-bet race for me. No idea what happens next. Only thing I'm fairly sure about is that it will be ugly, whatever happens.
How could it be otherwise, when it divides the country down the middle.
And unlike a general election, whose result carries with it the consolation that you can always throw the bastards out in five years time, this promises long term irreversibility for whatever uncomfortable outcome is arrived at.
We can always elect a party pledging to reverse any outcome.
Less than half the number needed to trigger a debate in Parliament. Unimpressive I'm sure for anyone as pig headed as Jezziah.
I'm sure he will utter some warm words and then do nothing.
It would be an irony if his EU-hatred did for him in the end, seeing as this was so well known and obvious when they all voted for him to be leader... twice.
But I'd be interested in other PBers' opinions? What's your list of outcomes and percentages? Anyone?
Perhaps indeed this could make a thread, TSE and OGH? Where we all have a vote and see the PB consensus?
Probabilities for end-2019:
No deal: 20% May's deal: 15% Softer Brexit deal: 30% No Brexit: 30% Something else: 5%
General election: 50% Second referendum: 40%
I don't understand. That's about 230%
First up we'll assume that all the top events are completely independent (As they are final outcomes)
The GE and 2nd ref are trickier, they are events along the way
First up: Assume that GE and 2nd Ref are totally dependent events.
No deal & GE = 10% (.2 * .5) No deal & 2nd Ref = 8% (.2 * .4) No deal & No Ref & No GE = 2% ( .2 * .1)
= 20%.
Next up: Assume that GE and 2nd Ref are totally dependent events.
The level of independence between GE and 2nd ref needs to be calculated fully to give the full table - If they were independent events (They are not) we'd have:
No deal & GE & 2nd Ref = 4% (.2 * .5 * .4) No deal & GE & No 2nd Ref = 6% (.2* .5 * .6) No deal & No GE & 2nd Ref = 4% (.2* .5 * .4) No deal & No Ref & No GE = 6%. (.2* .5 * .6)
So we know
No deal & GE = 10% No deal & 2nd Ref = 8%
The precise probabilities of anything else depends on the correlation between a GE and 2nd ref.
But I'd be interested in other PBers' opinions? What's your list of outcomes and percentages? Anyone?
Perhaps indeed this could make a thread, TSE and OGH? Where we all have a vote and see the PB consensus?
Probabilities for end-2019:
No deal: 20% May's deal: 15% Softer Brexit deal: 30% No Brexit: 30% Something else: 5%
General election: 50% Second referendum: 40%
I don't understand. That's about 230%
Some are not mutually exclusive, Sean, but even so it's....erm, 'a book with a very high over-round', as pro-punters like us might say.
It's an extraordinary comment on the current state of affairs that all these options are plausible. It's a no-bet race for me. No idea what happens next. Only thing I'm fairly sure about is that it will be ugly, whatever happens.
How could it be otherwise, when it divides the country down the middle.
And unlike a general election, whose result carries with it the consolation that you can always throw the bastards out in five years time, this promises long term irreversibility for whatever uncomfortable outcome is arrived at.
We can always elect a party pledging to reverse any outcome.
True - but if we leave the EU would we want to rejoin it on substantially more onerous terms?
Is deriding his previous job really that clever? We are constantly told that not enough MPs have had real life experience outside of Uni and Parliament, yet here it is made to be a massive hindrance.
And from Wiki his past career sounds quite impressive:
"Williamson worked as managing director of fireplace manufacturer Elgin & Hall, a subsidiary of AGA, until 2004.[9][10] Williamson had become managing director of Aynsley China, a Staffordshire-based pottery firm by 2005. It sold ceramic tableware and he later became co-owner. In April 2005, Williamson was quoted in reports on the consumer rush to buy items with the wrong wedding date on for Charles and Camilla's wedding. He told The Telegraph, "We've literally had fights in our own retail shops. On the first day after the announcement I went into our factory shop in Stoke-on-Trent and we had people fighting over the last plate that we had on the shop floor. I think everybody has decided that this is going to be their pension."[4][11][12][13] He has also worked for a Staffordshire pottery firm that made and sold ceramic tableware, of which he became co-owner, and for an architectural design firm until he became an MP in 2010"
Outragous and misplaced snobbery. An MD and co owner of a ceramics company.
I suspect that if he'd ridden above his humble beginnings of peddling tat to arseholes to become a competent, or even not mental, SecDef he wouldn't be so derided.
As it is he the perfect archetype of the tory chickenhawk and thus deserves far more opprobrium than can be directed at him than by referring to his wilderness years in the fireplace showroom.
He and Grayling are unworthy of high office
It's strange though, I'm sure I remember all the pb level heads assuring us that there was nothing wrong with the Seaborne Freight contract.
The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.
True - but if we leave the EU would we want to rejoin it on substantially more onerous terms?
Of course. By that point, Brexit will be seen as the vast, ongoing national disaster it was always promised to be, and agreeing to the EU's surrender terms will be seen as a blessed relief.
Rebelling against the vast Brexit mistakes of pig-headed boomers is the one thing that more than anything will drive the next generation of British voters to want to be at the very heart of the European project.
Options. 1. No Deal = 79.99% 2. Grand Coalition compromise (enough concessions to Corbyn on the future relationship - or how it is negotiated - to have him whip his MPs to vote for the withdrawal agreement) = 15% 3. People's Vote compromise (pass the Withdrawal Agreement subject to confirmation in a referendum, where the contrary default option is revoking Article 50 and remaining in the EU) = 5% 4. Coalition of all the Remainers (Bercow allows a vote on a motion instructing the Executive to revoke Article 50 on March 28th or thereabouts; possibly including a change in PM to head a new Executive to put this into effect) = 0.01%
But I'd be interested in other PBers' opinions? What's your list of outcomes and percentages? Anyone?
Perhaps indeed this could make a thread, TSE and OGH? Where we all have a vote and see the PB consensus?
Probabilities for end-2019:
No deal: 20% May's deal: 15% Softer Brexit deal: 30% No Brexit: 30% Something else: 5%
General election: 50% Second referendum: 40%
I don't understand. That's about 230%
First up we'll assume that all the top events are completely independent (As they are final outcomes)
The GE and 2nd ref are trickier, they are events along the way
First up: Assume that GE and 2nd Ref are totally dependent events.
No deal & GE = 10% (.2 * .5) No deal & 2nd Ref = 8% (.2 * .4) No deal & No Ref & No GE = 2% ( .2 * .1)
= 20%.
Next up: Assume that GE and 2nd Ref are totally dependent events.
The level of independence between GE and 2nd ref needs to be calculated fully to give the full table - If they were independent events (They are not) we'd have:
No deal & GE & 2nd Ref = 4% (.2 * .5 * .4) No deal & GE & No 2nd Ref = 6% (.2* .5 * .6) No deal & No GE & 2nd Ref = 4% (.2* .5 * .4) No deal & No Ref & No GE = 6%. (.2* .5 * .6)
So we know
No deal & GE = 10% No deal & 2nd Ref = 8% No deal & No GE & No 2nd Ref = {2% -> 6%} No deal & No GE & 2nd Ref = {0% -> 4%}
The precise probabilities of the final two depend on the correlation between a GE and 2nd ref.
Great that's totally clear now, finally I can concentrate on something easier like the origin of consciousness.
I think it was slightly wrong , confident my edited version is correct though..
It's strange though, I'm sure I remember all the pb level heads assuring us that there was nothing wrong with the Seaborne Freight contract.
There was nothing wrong with it. It was a contract subject to various conditions, notably Seaborne being in a position to provide the service, which would have provided some very useful extra capacity not available from anyone else.
I'm old fashioned, Richard. Unlike you and Catastrofuck Grayling, I'm of the decidedly out-of-fashion opinion that you're supposed to due the due diligence before you award the contract, not a month afterwards.
Any contract involving due diligence that I've ever known about is signed subject to certain conditions. So they quite often don't go through in the end. In this case it was Arklow Shipping which decided not to continue backing the venture.
Do we know why Arklow pulled out? Presumably they saw they'd be dealing with some shady entity that copies-and-pastes its legal stipulations from the websites of fast-food outlets and ran a mile.
Interesting. If they think that (and they are probably right) then it's obvious what they should do: point out that signing up to the deal doesn't preclude a softer version of the future relationship more in line with what Labour MPs want, if a future government negotiates accordingly with the EU. That would make it much harder to Labour MPs to continue voting with the ERG.
And of course, that's what Corbyn has acknowledged himself, by offering Labour support for the Withdrawal Agreement unamended, in return for a commitment about the direction of the future negotiations.
May can revoke Article 50 legally by herself . Politically that’s a different matter .
The Gina Miller case narrowed what can be done by Royal Perogative . The case was won as the Supreme Court ruled the RP cannot be used to remove rights and needs Parliament to sanction that . A revocation by RP does not remove rights as these are maintained and so the RP can be used .
The no deal outcome lives on but this assumes that the PM would push the country over the cliff as the pound imploded, and businesses were wheeled out to deliver their verdict .
Much has been said that the Tories would suffer if they don’t deliver Brexit , but delivering a no deal Brexit will damage them much more.
Of course. By that point, Brexit will be seen as the vast, ongoing national disaster it was always promised to be, and agreeing to the EU's surrender terms will be seen as a blessed relief.
Rebelling against the vast Brexit mistakes of pig-headed boomers is the one thing that more than anything will drive the next generation of British voters to want to be at the very heart of the European project.
Interesting to speculate whether the party leader who promises to take us back into Europe is nominally on the left or the right...
It seems the December ruling on revocation has not answered all the questions and left some major issues, especially if we try to revoke and then reapply A50 a few months later.
"Perhaps more seriously, the Court’s judgment leaves us largely in the dark as to what would happen in the not unlikely scenario that the UK seeks to revoke without having definitively decided to remain in the EU."
It's strange though, I'm sure I remember all the pb level heads assuring us that there was nothing wrong with the Seaborne Freight contract.
There was nothing wrong with it. It was a contract subject to various conditions, notably Seaborne being in a position to provide the service, which would have provided some very useful extra capacity not available from anyone else.
I'm old fashioned, Richard. Unlike you and Catastrofuck Grayling, I'm of the decidedly out-of-fashion opinion that you're supposed to due the due diligence before you award the contract, not a month afterwards.
Any contract involving due diligence that I've ever known about is signed subject to certain conditions. So they quite often don't go through in the end. In this case it was Arklow Shipping which decided not to continue backing the venture.
Do we know why Arklow pulled out? Presumably they saw they'd be dealing with some shady entity that copies-and-pastes its legal stipulations from the websites of fast-food outlets and ran a mile.
So here's my campaign strategy for Corbyn if May did call a snap GE.
First, delay having to talk about Brexit. Come up with some sort of phony process about consulting members, unions, MPs about their intended way forward. When interviewers ask "You've had 2 years to come up with a Brexit policy, why can't you give us a straight answer now", focus on some specifics you can give ("We will immediately rule out a No Deal Brexit") and say something like "Labour has been committed to sticking to our manifesto pledges. Now we're facing another manifesto, we're going back to the party to ensure we make the right choice going forward."
But have those kinds of conversations as little as possible, by filling the news agenda with juicy pre-manifesto tidbits which poll popularly. Including stuff that we already know like shares for workers (or whatever they're calling that), closing fox-hunting loopholes, and so on. Hopefully this will be enough to distract people from Brexit for a few days... but really if it's not, you're screwed no matter what because there's no way you can win an actual Brexit-focused election.
Then, with some fanfare (and ideally timed to throw the Tories off, like just before a speech from May or debate or something), a big Brexit speech: "In 2015, a desperate Cameron pledged a referendum he had no idea how to implement. One new PM and two elections later, with the deadline looming, the Tories are still split, and their leader still has nothing to offer except 'Brexit means Brexit'. They have found that a tiny lead for Leave does not translate into popular support for any single vision of Leave- May's deal, overwhelmingly rejected by parliament, is supported by only X% of the population. Kamikaze Brexiteers' option of No Deal has only Y% behind it. Labour would not have called this flawed, divisive referendum, but now that it's happened, we must honour its result. That's why I will pledge to negotiate the best possible Brexit. Not a Tory Brexit which blah blah, but a Labour Brexit which blah blah blah. And unlike the Tories, who will try to force through any Brexit deal they can cobble together, no matter how many of the original Leave voters actually support it, Labour's Brexit will be put to a new referendum, to confirm that it really has the support of the voting public before it's signed."
That'll no doubt piss off a lot of people, but in terms of election strategy may be the best of a bad set of options. Give the news cycle a couple of days to digest, then back to trying to fill it with as much non-Brexit stuff as possible. Publish a manifesto full of shiny gems and dead cats for your hopefully-newly-fired-up membership to go and sell.
It seems the December ruling on revocation has not answered all the questions and left some major issues, especially if we try to revoke and then reapply A50 a few months later.
"Perhaps more seriously, the Court’s judgment leaves us largely in the dark as to what would happen in the not unlikely scenario that the UK seeks to revoke without having definitively decided to remain in the EU."
If the PM attempts to revoke the A50 notification unilaterally, or following a single vote in the Commons, it’s quite possible that someone (Arron Banks?) would attempt to get an injunction against the PM to prevent her from doing so - on the basis that primary legislation is required to revoke the notice that required primary legislation to invoke in the first place.
Thought for the day: Do we have time for both a 2nd ref and a GE inside 2019 ? Or does one exclude the other.
Related but independent events, definitely possible to see both this year, eg Lab/LD/SNP force a referendum on the deal, then DUP and a few “Brexit Party” defectors force an election when it passes.
Thought for the day: Do we have time for both a 2nd ref and a GE inside 2019 ? Or does one exclude the other.
Related but independent events, definitely possible to see both this year, eg Lab/LD/SNP force a referendum on the deal, then DUP and a few “Brexit Party” defectors force an election when it passes.
It seems the December ruling on revocation has not answered all the questions and left some major issues, especially if we try to revoke and then reapply A50 a few months later.
"Perhaps more seriously, the Court’s judgment leaves us largely in the dark as to what would happen in the not unlikely scenario that the UK seeks to revoke without having definitively decided to remain in the EU."
If the PM attempts to revoke the A50 notification unilaterally, or following a single vote in the Commons, it’s quite possible that someone (Arron Banks?) would attempt to get an injunction against the PM to prevent her from doing so - on the basis that primary legislation is required to revoke the notice that required primary legislation to invoke in the first place.
It could be a right legal mess on both sides.
Didn't Geoffrey Cox say in parliament that if we revoke we can NEVER leave.
Interesting. If they think that (and they are probably right) then it's obvious what they should do: point out that signing up to the deal doesn't preclude a softer version of the future relationship more in line with what Labour MPs want, if a future government negotiates accordingly with the EU. That would make it much harder to Labour MPs to continue voting with the ERG.
And of course, that's what Corbyn has acknowledged himself, by offering Labour support for the Withdrawal Agreement unamended, in return for a commitment about the direction of the future negotiations.
Would a commitment on direction on future negotiations actually mean anything?
It seems the December ruling on revocation has not answered all the questions and left some major issues, especially if we try to revoke and then reapply A50 a few months later.
"Perhaps more seriously, the Court’s judgment leaves us largely in the dark as to what would happen in the not unlikely scenario that the UK seeks to revoke without having definitively decided to remain in the EU."
If the PM attempts to revoke the A50 notification unilaterally, or following a single vote in the Commons, it’s quite possible that someone (Arron Banks?) would attempt to get an injunction against the PM to prevent her from doing so - on the basis that primary legislation is required to revoke the notice that required primary legislation to invoke in the first place.
It could be a right legal mess on both sides.
Didn't Geoffrey Cox say in parliament that if we revoke we can NEVER leave.
Interesting. If they think that (and they are probably right) then it's obvious what they should do: point out that signing up to the deal doesn't preclude a softer version of the future relationship more in line with what Labour MPs want, if a future government negotiates accordingly with the EU. That would make it much harder to Labour MPs to continue voting with the ERG.
And of course, that's what Corbyn has acknowledged himself, by offering Labour support for the Withdrawal Agreement unamended, in return for a commitment about the direction of the future negotiations.
Would a commitment on direction on future negotiations actually mean anything?
It would mean Corbyn would have another excuse for not pushing for a second referendum.
Thought for the day: Do we have time for both a 2nd ref and a GE inside 2019 ? Or does one exclude the other.
Related but independent events, definitely possible to see both this year, eg Lab/LD/SNP force a referendum on the deal, then DUP and a few “Brexit Party” defectors force an election when it passes.
Events can't be both related and independent.
I knew you’d say that! They’re theoretically independent bets, but I wouldn’t offer an accumulator on them.
Interesting. If they think that (and they are probably right) then it's obvious what they should do: point out that signing up to the deal doesn't preclude a softer version of the future relationship more in line with what Labour MPs want, if a future government negotiates accordingly with the EU. That would make it much harder to Labour MPs to continue voting with the ERG.
And of course, that's what Corbyn has acknowledged himself, by offering Labour support for the Withdrawal Agreement unamended, in return for a commitment about the direction of the future negotiations.
Would a commitment on direction on future negotiations actually mean anything?
Interesting. If they think that (and they are probably right) then it's obvious what they should do: point out that signing up to the deal doesn't preclude a softer version of the future relationship more in line with what Labour MPs want, if a future government negotiates accordingly with the EU. That would make it much harder to Labour MPs to continue voting with the ERG.
And of course, that's what Corbyn has acknowledged himself, by offering Labour support for the Withdrawal Agreement unamended, in return for a commitment about the direction of the future negotiations.
Would a commitment on direction on future negotiations actually mean anything?
Not in any way.
As 200 angry Labour MPs are about to point out to Corbyn.
Because I do not believe the Tory party would allow TMay to risk a Corbyn government. They would rather risk a 2nd vote than that, plus there may just be a majority in the Common (if the alternative is No Deal) for a new vote. There will very likely never be a majority for a GE.
But I'd be interested in other PBers' opinions? What's your list of outcomes and percentages? Anyone?
Perhaps indeed this could make a thread, TSE and OGH? Where we all have a vote and see the PB consensus?
70% probability of eventually ending in the "Vassal State"; 20% chance of Brexit not happening; 10% chance Klingon makes a takeover bid for the United Kingdom, or other. These percentages are not scientific.
Whether we get to VS by May's Deal, a period of No Deal, after an extension and whether it happens rapidly or slowly as the unicorns and cake get stripped way is up for grabs.
At its best Brexit is an exercise in empty-chairing the meetings that make the decisions that affect us. We will be affected by those decisions just as much and probably bound by them too. Empty chairing has big implications for democratic accountability, as well as the fact the decisions won't be taken in our interest if we are not there. But the VS does give us the close relationship with our European neighbours and if we are bound by the rules so are our partners, which gives us protection.
At the end of the day, I think most Leavers will take the Vassal State over no Brexit at all. And we do need the relationship stuff.
Thought for the day: Do we have time for both a 2nd ref and a GE inside 2019 ? Or does one exclude the other.
I think so, but it's a bit tight and requires several unlikely things on top of each other.
1) GE first: TMay calls an election soonish, Article 50 extension ending just before the Euros. Corbyn does a David Cameron and runs on Renegotiation + Referendum and wins, and immediately needs a new extension. EU says get on with it, minor tweak to the Political Declaration, referendum around November.
2) Referendum first: Parliament agrees remain-or-deal referendum. 3-month extension to get it done. a) Government falls before it happens but next government doesn't stop it b) Referendum happens, tectonic plates move, parties realign, government falls, new GE c) Referendum happens, TMay triumphant, takes her victory to the bank with a snap GE
Mr. T, from what I gather (just vague mood music over the years) HS2 is pretty popular in Leeds.
Might be because of transport funding disparities.
In Northern Powerhouse terms, it makes particular sense to strength the relatively small distance links between Leeds and Manchester.
So, going by past form, the Government may well make the London-Birmingham HS2 link, and then stop.
Exactly it will never get extended to the north. We will have a pointless vanity train that goes from London to Brum.
Just scrap the fucker and build fast electric suburban trains linking the northern cities into one transport conurbation for about a third the price.
Britain simply isn't big enough to justify high speed trains, especially at a time when they are very possibly going to be technologically superseded very soon.
Its not just that Britain isn't big enough but most of the British population fits into the London-Bristol-Liverpool-Hull quadrilateral.
In France, by contrast, the big cities (except Lyon) tend to scatter about around the edges - Lille, Strasbourg, Nice, Marseilles, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Nantes - with Paris in the centre.
Peston: "I am told Starmer is not the happiest member of the frontbench, to put it mildly - according to multiple sources.
He had agreed that the final part of Corbyn’s letter to May would say “if you do not accept this [Brexit offer] there will be a People’s Vote”.
A source tells me “LOTO [the leader of the opposition] agreed to this. But then Keir discovered after the letter had been sent and published that the People’s Vote para had gone”.
Starmer “called LOTO and was told ‘oh we must have forgotten that paragraph’”
How can the Starmerites tolerate this? It is blisteringly obvious the Labour leadership is lying, they will never allow a 2nd vote: they want Hard Brexit, under TMay.
At some point the majority of Labour MPs who disagree with Corbyn must rise up. Surely?
Last time they did that Corbyn had two thirds of membership on his side, not in this argument though, three quarters of Labour members dont want Mays hard brexit, same with all the centre ground votes they borrowed to survive the last general election. Jez and Len really do need to pull something out the hat here and quick
Thought for the day: Do we have time for both a 2nd ref and a GE inside 2019 ? Or does one exclude the other.
Related but independent events, definitely possible to see both this year, eg Lab/LD/SNP force a referendum on the deal, then DUP and a few “Brexit Party” defectors force an election when it passes.
Events can't be both related and independent.
I knew you’d say that! They’re theoretically independent bets, but I wouldn’t offer an accumulator on them.
I'd rather offer one than take one, I think...
One happening probably reduces the chance of the other, although not to zero. There are some unlikely GE outcomes which drastically increase the likelihood of a referendum.
It seems the December ruling on revocation has not answered all the questions and left some major issues, especially if we try to revoke and then reapply A50 a few months later.
"Perhaps more seriously, the Court’s judgment leaves us largely in the dark as to what would happen in the not unlikely scenario that the UK seeks to revoke without having definitively decided to remain in the EU."
If the PM attempts to revoke the A50 notification unilaterally, or following a single vote in the Commons, it’s quite possible that someone (Arron Banks?) would attempt to get an injunction against the PM to prevent her from doing so - on the basis that primary legislation is required to revoke the notice that required primary legislation to invoke in the first place.
It could be a right legal mess on both sides.
Didn't Geoffrey Cox say in parliament that if we revoke we can NEVER leave.
If he did it should have been all capitalised, and NEVER in bold font...
Mr. T, from what I gather (just vague mood music over the years) HS2 is pretty popular in Leeds.
Might be because of transport funding disparities.
In Northern Powerhouse terms, it makes particular sense to strength the relatively small distance links between Leeds and Manchester.
So, going by past form, the Government may well make the London-Birmingham HS2 link, and then stop.
Exactly it will never get extended to the north. We will have a pointless vanity train that goes from London to Brum.
Just scrap the fucker and build fast electric suburban trains linking the northern cities into one transport conurbation for about a third the price.
Britain simply isn't big enough to justify high speed trains, especially at a time when they are very possibly going to be technologically superseded very soon.
Its not just that Britain isn't big enough but most of the British population fits into the London-Bristol-Liverpool-Hull quadrilateral.
In France, by contrast, the big cities (except Lyon) tend to scatter about around the edges - Lille, Strasbourg, Nice, Marseilles, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Nantes - with Paris in the centre.
Is there a reason for the HS2 talk - has there been some announcement ?
Mr. T, from what I gather (just vague mood music over the years) HS2 is pretty popular in Leeds.
Might be because of transport funding disparities.
In Northern Powerhouse terms, it makes particular sense to strength the relatively small distance links between Leeds and Manchester.
So, going by past form, the Government may well make the London-Birmingham HS2 link, and then stop.
Exactly it will never get extended to the north. We will have a pointless vanity train that goes from London to Brum.
Just scrap the fucker and build fast electric suburban trains linking the northern cities into one transport conurbation for about a third the price.
Britain simply isn't big enough to justify high speed trains, especially at a time when they are very possibly going to be technologically superseded very soon.
Its not just that Britain isn't big enough but most of the British population fits into the London-Bristol-Liverpool-Hull quadrilateral.
In France, by contrast, the big cities (except Lyon) tend to scatter about around the edges - Lille, Strasbourg, Nice, Marseilles, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Nantes - with Paris in the centre.
Is there a reason for the HS2 talk - has there been some announcement ?
But I'd be interested in other PBers' opinions? What's your list of outcomes and percentages? Anyone?
Perhaps indeed this could make a thread, TSE and OGH? Where we all have a vote and see the PB consensus?
Probabilities for end-2019:
No deal: 20% May's deal: 15% Softer Brexit deal: 30% No Brexit: 30% Something else: 5%
General election: 50% Second referendum: 40%
I don't understand. That's about 230%
Some are not mutually exclusive, Sean, but even so it's....erm, 'a book with a very high over-round', as pro-punters like us might say.
It's an extraordinary comment on the current state of affairs that all these options are plausible. It's a no-bet race for me. No idea what happens next. Only thing I'm fairly sure about is that it will be ugly, whatever happens.
How could it be otherwise, when it divides the country down the middle.
And unlike a general election, whose result carries with it the consolation that you can always throw the bastards out in five years time, this promises long term irreversibility for whatever uncomfortable outcome is arrived at.
We can always elect a party pledging to reverse any outcome.
Including one pledging to walk away from May's Shit Deal.
Interesting. If they think that (and they are probably right) then it's obvious what they should do: point out that signing up to the deal doesn't preclude a softer version of the future relationship more in line with what Labour MPs want, if a future government negotiates accordingly with the EU. That would make it much harder to Labour MPs to continue voting with the ERG.
And of course, that's what Corbyn has acknowledged himself, by offering Labour support for the Withdrawal Agreement unamended, in return for a commitment about the direction of the future negotiations.
Would a commitment on direction on future negotiations actually mean anything?
Not in any way.
As 200 angry Labour MPs are about to point out to Corbyn.
I think it does. Can kicking into the future negotiation can allow everyone who wants to save face to vote for Mays deal. The technical aspect of it is meaningless,The nebulous the better for spinning it and rebutting claims of sell out. The political aspect is what matters, noises of DUP and brexiteers looking to save face, LOTO looking to compromise. Will be very easy for Corbyn and his front bench to compromise with May over custom policy as Labours CU is so nebulous to start with.
Mr. T, from what I gather (just vague mood music over the years) HS2 is pretty popular in Leeds.
Might be because of transport funding disparities.
In Northern Powerhouse terms, it makes particular sense to strength the relatively small distance links between Leeds and Manchester.
So, going by past form, the Government may well make the London-Birmingham HS2 link, and then stop.
Exactly it will never get extended to the north. We will have a pointless vanity train that goes from London to Brum.
Just scrap the fucker and build fast electric suburban trains linking the northern cities into one transport conurbation for about a third the price.
Britain simply isn't big enough to justify high speed trains, especially at a time when they are very possibly going to be technologically superseded very soon.
Its not just that Britain isn't big enough but most of the British population fits into the London-Bristol-Liverpool-Hull quadrilateral.
In France, by contrast, the big cities (except Lyon) tend to scatter about around the edges - Lille, Strasbourg, Nice, Marseilles, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Nantes - with Paris in the centre.
Is there a reason for the HS2 talk - has there been some announcement ?
Mr. T, from what I gather (just vague mood music over the years) HS2 is pretty popular in Leeds.
Might be because of transport funding disparities.
In Northern Powerhouse terms, it makes particular sense to strength the relatively small distance links between Leeds and Manchester.
So, going by past form, the Government may well make the London-Birmingham HS2 link, and then stop.
Exactly it will never get extended to the north. We will have a pointless vanity train that goes from London to Brum.
Just scrap the fucker and build fast electric suburban trains linking the northern cities into one transport conurbation for about a third the price.
Britain simply isn't big enough to justify high speed trains, especially at a time when they are very possibly going to be technologically superseded very soon.
Its not just that Britain isn't big enough but most of the British population fits into the London-Bristol-Liverpool-Hull quadrilateral.
In France, by contrast, the big cities (except Lyon) tend to scatter about around the edges - Lille, Strasbourg, Nice, Marseilles, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Nantes - with Paris in the centre.
Is there a reason for the HS2 talk - has there been some announcement ?
Mr. T, from what I gather (just vague mood music over the years) HS2 is pretty popular in Leeds.
Might be because of transport funding disparities.
In Northern Powerhouse terms, it makes particular sense to strength the relatively small distance links between Leeds and Manchester.
So, going by past form, the Government may well make the London-Birmingham HS2 link, and then stop.
Exactly it will never get extended to the north. We will have a pointless vanity train that goes from London to Brum.
Just scrap the fucker and build fast electric suburban trains linking the northern cities into one transport conurbation for about a third the price.
Britain simply isn't big enough to justify high speed trains, especially at a time when they are very possibly going to be technologically superseded very soon.
Its not just that Britain isn't big enough but most of the British population fits into the London-Bristol-Liverpool-Hull quadrilateral.
In France, by contrast, the big cities (except Lyon) tend to scatter about around the edges - Lille, Strasbourg, Nice, Marseilles, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Nantes - with Paris in the centre.
Is there a reason for the HS2 talk - has there been some announcement ?
But I'd be interested in other PBers' opinions? What's your list of outcomes and percentages? Anyone?
Perhaps indeed this could make a thread, TSE and OGH? Where we all have a vote and see the PB consensus?
Probabilities for end-2019:
No deal: 20% May's deal: 15% Softer Brexit deal: 30% No Brexit: 30% Something else: 5%
General election: 50% Second referendum: 40%
I don't understand. That's about 230%
Some are not mutually exclusive, Sean, but even so it's....erm, 'a book with a very high over-round', as pro-punters like us might say.
It's an extraordinary comment on the current state of affairs that all these options are plausible. It's a no-bet race for me. No idea what happens next. Only thing I'm fairly sure about is that it will be ugly, whatever happens.
How could it be otherwise, when it divides the country down the middle.
And unlike a general election, whose result carries with it the consolation that you can always throw the bastards out in five years time, this promises long term irreversibility for whatever uncomfortable outcome is arrived at.
We can always elect a party pledging to reverse any outcome.
Including one pledging to walk away from May's Shit Deal.
Will Starmer resign? Will Labour MPs form a new, non-demented party? Will the Conservatives split?
For these questions, the acronym QTWTAIN was invented.
If Brexit happens it will because Corbyn facilitated it
If he had endorsed a second referendum or even remain Brexit would have been very doubtful but Corbyn would be overwhelmed in leave voting areas
You sure. I think you may be wrong. 🤔
The votes for leave simply to slap the faces of Cammo and Ossie and their austerity project, slap their faces for stealing the 2015 election with project Millifear, The votes for leave in these areas because remain belonged to the political establishment these voters think never listens to them (probably rightly so after 18 years of Thatcherism, 13 of new Labour and six of Osbornonics, AND another couple more trying to water down straightforward leave vote) why wouldn’t Corbyn mop many of those up? the picture also skewed because some lab voters in these labour areas not voting in 2016 whilst people there who don’t normally participate voting instead because leave went out the way to target them. So giving these areas a choice between leave or a Labour government these voters could choose the Labour government. what you are spouting as fact is at the least debatable
Peston: "I am told Starmer is not the happiest member of the frontbench, to put it mildly - according to multiple sources.
He had agreed that the final part of Corbyn’s letter to May would say “if you do not accept this [Brexit offer] there will be a People’s Vote”.
A source tells me “LOTO [the leader of the opposition] agreed to this. But then Keir discovered after the letter had been sent and published that the People’s Vote para had gone”.
Starmer “called LOTO and was told ‘oh we must have forgotten that paragraph’”
How can the Starmerites tolerate this? It is blisteringly obvious the Labour leadership is lying, they will never allow a 2nd vote: they want Hard Brexit, under TMay.
At some point the majority of Labour MPs who disagree with Corbyn must rise up. Surely?
Sure, but rise up and do what? They can't rise up and get rid of Corbyn, they've tried that already and they know where it ends. They also can't get parliament to vote through a second referendum, because even if they had the whole Labour party they wouldn't have the votes without a decent chunk of Tory defectors, and there aren't enough Tory defectors.
The only route I can see for them is to cut a deal with TMay: Lab-Remain + Tory-Loyalist + LD + SNP would make a majority. But nobody knows if TMay is prepared to deal.
They can rise up and vote for TMay's deal (perhaps tweaked by Brussels: I think that is now what will most likely happen). My estimates for Brexit outcomes today (ignoring an A50 extension which is now inevitable in almost all circumstances) are:
40% TMay's Deal plus tweak 25% 2nd vote 15% No Deal 10% GE 5% Revoke 5% BLACK SWAN ASTEROID
Out of interest, why do you put 2nd referendum above GE?
Because I do not believe the Tory party would allow TMay to risk a Corbyn government. They would rather risk a 2nd vote than that, plus there may just be a majority in the Common (if the alternative is No Deal) for a new vote. There will very likely never be a majority for a GE.
But I'd be interested in other PBers' opinions? What's your list of outcomes and percentages? Anyone?
Perhaps indeed this could make a thread, TSE and OGH? Where we all have a vote and see the PB consensus?
Personally: No Deal 50% TMay Deal (with or without tweak) 20% Closer Deal (thrown together at last minute; the EU would reopen for closer deals): 8% 2nd Vote: 8% GE: 8% Revoke:4% Something else: 2%
I don't think May wants No Deal, but people playing chicken don't want to crash, either.
You’d have thought there would be a way for mature democracies to cooperate on crime fighting without surrendering their independence!
So any Brexit other than no deal is "surrendering independence". A patently absurd position to take.
The point clearly being made is that a severe unplanned dislocation of current arrangements will have consequences.
No. Don’t put words in my mouth.
The deal as it stands clearly does surrender independence over NI (although I support it as I believe it will be temporary and, in any event, NI is a special case)
I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!
We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.
I don't think May wants No Deal, but people playing chicken don't want to crash, either.
I wouldn't have said that May wants No Deal, but I think she views it as the least unacceptable alternative to having her Deal pass. I don't think she will blink at the last moment.
You’d have thought there would be a way for mature democracies to cooperate on crime fighting without surrendering their independence!
So any Brexit other than no deal is "surrendering independence". A patently absurd position to take.
The point clearly being made is that a severe unplanned dislocation of current arrangements will have consequences.
No. Don’t put words in my mouth...
My comment was a perfectly logical critique of what was a pretty silly response to a concern about the consequences of no deal - all the more so if you’re prepared to support the deal.
On topic, the early polling and anecdata indications are that the Democrats want a liberal candidate, but want a candidate that can win even more.
If a liberal can convince that they will win in November 2020, they will get the nomination, but I don’t think it’s going to be a progressive purity contest.
Peston: "I am told Starmer is not the happiest member of the frontbench, to put it mildly - according to multiple sources.
He had agreed that the final part of Corbyn’s letter to May would say “if you do not accept this [Brexit offer] there will be a People’s Vote”.
A source tells me “LOTO [the leader of the opposition] agreed to this. But then Keir discovered after the letter had been sent and published that the People’s Vote para had gone”.
Starmer “called LOTO and was told ‘oh we must have forgotten that paragraph’”
Comments
The good 538 piece on Klobuchar which I linked to earlier included this:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/amy-klobuchar-2020-democratic-nomination-kickoff/
Democrats really, really want to beat President Trump. A recent Monmouth University poll found that 56 percent of Democrats “prefer someone who would be a strong candidate against Trump even if they disagree with that candidate on most issues,” compared with just 33 percent who held the opposite view....
Early frontrunners are likely to build support, providing they avoid egregious errors.
If it's just the DUP then there might be enough retiring and/or deselected MPs to keep the government alive long enough to pass the deal+referendum legislation, but I'm not sure - you'd have to think about individuals.
If a chunk of Tory MPs also vote no-confidence in their own government then I think that's the end of that: TMay requests and Article 50 extension and you have a general election. I couldn't see opposition MPs saving a governing party whose members just voted that they have no confidence in themselves.
It's an extraordinary comment on the current state of affairs that all these options are plausible. It's a no-bet race for me. No idea what happens next. Only thing I'm fairly sure about is that it will be ugly, whatever happens.
Something has to break the stalemate at some point, but in the absence of a specific something it’s going to be no deal - whether by design or by accident.
The PM needs to decide before yesterday what her strategy is going to be. Right now she thinks the absence of a strategy counts as having one.
The only way the EU will open the negotiation is to seriously threaten no deal, but if she does that she’ll have resignations from the Cabinet.
It she tries to go down the route of appeasing Corbyn and Tusk, to leave without really leaving, she’ll have resignations of others.
Who’d want to be the PM right now?
And you know what, it was the partisan snipers that turned out to be right, and the "Grayling isn't a massive 720-degree walking Tory shitstorm of omni-incompetence" brigade like you who are the ones who defended the indefensible for no profitable reason.
Which leaves room for an overall 0.5% probability of an asteroid strike/nuclear attack voiding all bets.
Well done, Mrs May, you've finished step one, the easy bit, the tutorial level. Are you ready for level 2?
So it's "one from the top row, Carol, and as many as you like from anywhere else".
I disagree with your top section in that what's currently being sought is a form of Harder Brexit deal by finding an alternative to the backstop. That only seems to be under Something Else.
But yes, it was a pretty desperate last minute effort, bordering on incompetent clusterfuck, even without the benefit of hindsight.
I’m surprised someone hasn’t already got a case underway, in an attempt to have the Supreme Court rule definitively on this in order to avoid a right legal mess.
And unlike a general election, whose result carries with it the consolation that you can always throw the bastards out in five years time, this promises long term irreversibility for whatever uncomfortable outcome is arrived at.
It would be an irony if his EU-hatred did for him in the end, seeing as this was so well known and obvious when they all voted for him to be leader... twice.
The GE and 2nd ref are trickier, they are events along the way
First up: Assume that GE and 2nd Ref are totally dependent events.
No deal & GE = 10% (.2 * .5)
No deal & 2nd Ref = 8% (.2 * .4)
No deal & No Ref & No GE = 2% ( .2 * .1)
= 20%.
Next up: Assume that GE and 2nd Ref are totally dependent events.
The level of independence between GE and 2nd ref needs to be calculated fully to give the full table - If they were independent events (They are not) we'd have:
No deal & GE & 2nd Ref = 4% (.2 * .5 * .4)
No deal & GE & No 2nd Ref = 6% (.2* .5 * .6)
No deal & No GE & 2nd Ref = 4% (.2* .5 * .4)
No deal & No Ref & No GE = 6%. (.2* .5 * .6)
So we know
No deal & GE = 10%
No deal & 2nd Ref = 8%
The precise probabilities of anything else depends on the correlation between a GE and 2nd ref.
Rebelling against the vast Brexit mistakes of pig-headed boomers is the one thing that more than anything will drive the next generation of British voters to want to be at the very heart of the European project.
1. No Deal = 79.99%
2. Grand Coalition compromise (enough concessions to Corbyn on the future relationship - or how it is negotiated - to have him whip his MPs to vote for the withdrawal agreement) = 15%
3. People's Vote compromise (pass the Withdrawal Agreement subject to confirmation in a referendum, where the contrary default option is revoking Article 50 and remaining in the EU) = 5%
4. Coalition of all the Remainers (Bercow allows a vote on a motion instructing the Executive to revoke Article 50 on March 28th or thereabouts; possibly including a change in PM to head a new Executive to put this into effect) = 0.01%
The Gina Miller case narrowed what can be done by Royal Perogative . The case was won as the Supreme Court ruled the RP cannot be used to remove rights and needs Parliament to sanction that . A revocation by RP does not remove rights as these are maintained and so the RP can be used .
The no deal outcome lives on but this assumes that the PM would push the country over the cliff as the pound imploded, and businesses were wheeled out to deliver their verdict .
Much has been said that the Tories would suffer if they don’t deliver Brexit , but delivering a no deal Brexit will damage them much more.
Or does one exclude the other.
It seems the December ruling on revocation has not answered all the questions and left some major issues, especially if we try to revoke and then reapply A50 a few months later.
"Perhaps more seriously, the Court’s judgment leaves us largely in the dark as to what would happen in the not unlikely scenario that the UK seeks to revoke without having definitively decided to remain in the EU."
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/12/20/the-legal-issues-of-revoking-the-notification-to-leave-the-eu-but-then-notifying-to-leave-again/
First, delay having to talk about Brexit. Come up with some sort of phony process about consulting members, unions, MPs about their intended way forward. When interviewers ask "You've had 2 years to come up with a Brexit policy, why can't you give us a straight answer now", focus on some specifics you can give ("We will immediately rule out a No Deal Brexit") and say something like "Labour has been committed to sticking to our manifesto pledges. Now we're facing another manifesto, we're going back to the party to ensure we make the right choice going forward."
But have those kinds of conversations as little as possible, by filling the news agenda with juicy pre-manifesto tidbits which poll popularly. Including stuff that we already know like shares for workers (or whatever they're calling that), closing fox-hunting loopholes, and so on. Hopefully this will be enough to distract people from Brexit for a few days... but really if it's not, you're screwed no matter what because there's no way you can win an actual Brexit-focused election.
Then, with some fanfare (and ideally timed to throw the Tories off, like just before a speech from May or debate or something), a big Brexit speech: "In 2015, a desperate Cameron pledged a referendum he had no idea how to implement. One new PM and two elections later, with the deadline looming, the Tories are still split, and their leader still has nothing to offer except 'Brexit means Brexit'. They have found that a tiny lead for Leave does not translate into popular support for any single vision of Leave- May's deal, overwhelmingly rejected by parliament, is supported by only X% of the population. Kamikaze Brexiteers' option of No Deal has only Y% behind it. Labour would not have called this flawed, divisive referendum, but now that it's happened, we must honour its result. That's why I will pledge to negotiate the best possible Brexit. Not a Tory Brexit which blah blah, but a Labour Brexit which blah blah blah. And unlike the Tories, who will try to force through any Brexit deal they can cobble together, no matter how many of the original Leave voters actually support it, Labour's Brexit will be put to a new referendum, to confirm that it really has the support of the voting public before it's signed."
That'll no doubt piss off a lot of people, but in terms of election strategy may be the best of a bad set of options. Give the news cycle a couple of days to digest, then back to trying to fill it with as much non-Brexit stuff as possible. Publish a manifesto full of shiny gems and dead cats for your hopefully-newly-fired-up membership to go and sell.
If the PM attempts to revoke the A50 notification unilaterally, or following a single vote in the Commons, it’s quite possible that someone (Arron Banks?) would attempt to get an injunction against the PM to prevent her from doing so - on the basis that primary legislation is required to revoke the notice that required primary legislation to invoke in the first place.
It could be a right legal mess on both sides.
Such a thing is impossible.
Whether we get to VS by May's Deal, a period of No Deal, after an extension and whether it happens rapidly or slowly as the unicorns and cake get stripped way is up for grabs.
At its best Brexit is an exercise in empty-chairing the meetings that make the decisions that affect us. We will be affected by those decisions just as much and probably bound by them too. Empty chairing has big implications for democratic accountability, as well as the fact the decisions won't be taken in our interest if we are not there. But the VS does give us the close relationship with our European neighbours and if we are bound by the rules so are our partners, which gives us protection.
At the end of the day, I think most Leavers will take the Vassal State over no Brexit at all. And we do need the relationship stuff.
1) GE first: TMay calls an election soonish, Article 50 extension ending just before the Euros. Corbyn does a David Cameron and runs on Renegotiation + Referendum and wins, and immediately needs a new extension. EU says get on with it, minor tweak to the Political Declaration, referendum around November.
2) Referendum first: Parliament agrees remain-or-deal referendum. 3-month extension to get it done.
a) Government falls before it happens but next government doesn't stop it
b) Referendum happens, tectonic plates move, parties realign, government falls, new GE
c) Referendum happens, TMay triumphant, takes her victory to the bank with a snap GE
In France, by contrast, the big cities (except Lyon) tend to scatter about around the edges - Lille, Strasbourg, Nice, Marseilles, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Nantes - with Paris in the centre.
One happening probably reduces the chance of the other, although not to zero. There are some unlikely GE outcomes which drastically increase the likelihood of a referendum.
But that shouldn't be any consolation.
.... with ‘in my opinion’ in 8 point italics.
http://tinyurl.com/yyhs4ywe
And the front page of today's Express had something about HS2.
Project Manager - HS2
Location: London
Salary: £53000 to £70000 per annum
The votes for leave simply to slap the faces of Cammo and Ossie and their austerity project, slap their faces for stealing the 2015 election with project Millifear,
The votes for leave in these areas because remain belonged to the political establishment these voters think never listens to them (probably rightly so after 18 years of Thatcherism, 13 of new Labour and six of Osbornonics, AND another couple more trying to water down straightforward leave vote) why wouldn’t Corbyn mop many of those up?
the picture also skewed because some lab voters in these labour areas not voting in 2016 whilst people there who don’t normally participate voting instead because leave went out the way to target them.
So giving these areas a choice between leave or a Labour government these voters could choose the Labour government. what you are spouting as fact is at the least debatable
No Deal 50%
TMay Deal (with or without tweak) 20%
Closer Deal (thrown together at last minute; the EU would reopen for closer deals): 8%
2nd Vote: 8%
GE: 8%
Revoke:4%
Something else: 2%
I don't think May wants No Deal, but people playing chicken don't want to crash, either.
The deal as it stands clearly does surrender independence over NI (although I support it as I believe it will be temporary and, in any event, NI is a special case)
If a liberal can convince that they will win in November 2020, they will get the nomination, but I don’t think it’s going to be a progressive purity contest.
60 - 10 - 0 - 25 - 0 - 5
The old “oops, sorry, my mistake” line
😝