Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Olly Robbins’ overheard comments are a clue that TMay might be
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Olly Robbins’ overheard comments are a clue that TMay might be considering EURef2
Brexit is not going to plan, it’s fair to assume. Only the Leave Ultras, intent on a No Deal outcome are likely to be feeling any confidence at the moment, and that group is always given to unjustified hope and expectation before the event anyway. Labour partisans not bothered about Brexit might also be revelling in the government’s discomfort too, but the list pleased with how it’s going runs short after that.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Like the benefits of Brexit
'I've Seen Smarter Cabinets at Ikea'
Like those who should be up against the wall
Another referendum? I am shocked!!!
Or party policy it would seem
However, given that avoiding no deal is my first priority, the structure suggested in the article would be very likely to bring me back to Remain.
1) Vote for a referendum
2) But only if it includes a No Deal option
???
I'd been assuming there were basically none of these, but you could pass Remain vs Deal on TMay-Loyalists + Lab-Remain + LD/SNP/etc
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6708821/Lawyer-two-black-Empire-extras-detained-Jussie-Smollett-attack-says-innocent.html
I still feel that there's a strong chance of a No Deal outcome, simply because there are a lot of hurdles in the way of any other result but it's lower than I'd previously thought if an A50 extension is being considered not just to tidy up the implementation of a pre-29/3 vote but for something else beyond.
A referendum would be a rotten process to have to go through. But it might be the least rotten one, if the Commons won't sign anything off without that extra mandate.
In theory they could pass new legislation to stop being bound by it, but there's not much risk of that since parliament can't agree on anything in the first place, and that's why we're getting to the referendum.
The one wrinkle is No Deal, because ultimately the UK and EU would presumably make some *other* deal, at which point the people who backed No Deal will say they woz robbed.
In other words, you put all the implementing legislation under three groups of sections, and then include another section that says something like "if the result of the referendum is to Remain in the EU, sections X to Y shall become active on the 3rd working day after the vote, Sections M to N shall not be active, and the prime minister shall be required to send the EU a letter notifying revocation of Article 50 within 7 days of the vote", or "if the result of the referendum is the leave the EU with the agreed deal, the Secretary of State shall deposit within 7 days an instrument of ratification to the Withdrawal Agreement ... etc"
In the meantime this article just smells of remainers clinging to chinese whispers.
This does not mean that what he said is untrue, but it does mean that what he said was meant to be heard and reported.
But it's a slender basis for David's inference. It would be much more May-like to mean that she'd try for a long period of leisurely can-kicking.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/15/trump-shinzo-abe-nominated-me-nobel-peace-prize
After years of 'cast iron' guarantees and 'no ifs or buts' pledges do you really expect anyone to believe this ?
As a way of reaching out to businesses it has the charm of novelty. But it's a bit random, no?
The first referendum aftermath demostrated the truth of this when a overwhelming majority voted in favour of invoking A50 without pausing to enquire too deeply (or at all) into the likely consequences. Absent any such guidance on how to deal with those consequences, parliament is utterly paralysed as a decision making body.
Should parliament vote for a second referendum, I would expect a similar massive majority to back implementation of the result, albeit with a slightly larger number of irreconcilables ... whatever the result might be.
She isn’t that bad delivering to a mic, an audience or dealing with a press conference or audience questions. May performed better at the last election than Corbyn and better than Milliband in 2015. Her manifesto was more substantial and credible than Labours, it had what was dubbed dementia tax in it (that actually wasn’t a dementia tax) her party and workers were poorly briefed on it, other than that people say Corbyn the great campaigner, May a poor one simply on the result, the result was redreamers naively flocking to Labour, a surge in youth voting because of brexit, it is wrong to believe the myth the result was down to how both party leaders campaigned. I don’t care if I’m a lone voice saying this, I am right. I was there, I know what I saw heard and analysed.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/430261-sanders-biden-seen-as-most-popular-second-choices-for-dem
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-47252834
Plans for a "Sausage World" attraction in North Yorkshire have been put on hold after funding from the European Union was refused.
It was a piss poor campaign.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/15/huerta-endorses-kamala-harris-2020-election-1172256
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41456555
There’s also polling which strongly demonstrates Democrats on either wing of the party will vote for the candidate they think has the best chance of beating Trump, even if they’re on the ‘wrong’ side. You’re quite right that it suggests name recognition is the likely cause, but I don’t think it’s definitive.
Or do you mean, why would parliament make the second one binding after they made the first one advisory? The answer is that the first one was implemented by a party with a majority that agreed it wanted to do it, whereas the second one is designed to clear a logjam of having multiple factions all wanting different things. The factions don't trust each other, so each faction wouldn't quite be 100% confident that its rivals would cooperate in passing the legislation it would need if it won. The solution is to write the legislation to be binding, so that you don't need your rivals to cooperate once the referendum legislation is passed.
May might be good in some settings but she was wooden in interviews, ducked the debates and took every decision possible to undermine her 'strong and stable' message, which she repeated ad nauseam, despite it clearly not being credible by week three.
The Tories failed to take Labour's manifesto apart and had no coherence or flexibility to the campaign strategy and messaging.
FWIW, I agree that Corbyn isn't that hot and for the second time, was in the right place at the right time. But May was crap.
All the law said was that IF the AV referendum had passed then the Statutory Instrument implementing it had to be laid before the Queen in the same Privy Council meeting as a Statutory Instrument implementing the Boundary changes.
So even if AV had been Yes, it's still possible there could have been a falling out over the Boundary changes (which were still subject to Commons and Lords votes before SI went to Privy Council) such that AV would not have actually been implemented.
OK, the law did go so far as to say no more votes were needed on AV in Parliament. But at the same time it still wasn't 100% guaranteed to be implemented.
The latter gives her an out which would at least keep the Tories together whilst going for R2 would rip them apart.
She can offer a GE on a manifesto binding all candidates to her deal (she will lose a few current MP's of course who would not stand on that platform) and explain it away as the only realistic option to escape the impasse.
Offering R2 is utterly nuts and gets crazier the more I consider it.
Who would benefit from leaking the story though? Bookies aside.
I do have to agree with him on one thing though, what the fuck did Obama do for his?
ETA: though since last summer I've thought CCHQ has been gearing up for an election.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2019/02/15/lady-falkender-harold-wilsons-controversial-secretary-powerful/
I feel like they will, although taking a step back I'm a bit suspicious of my own judgement on this, since historically, "I want the EU to do X, everybody involved says they won't, but I insist that when it comes to the crunch they will" has been a clear sign of a person who's full of shit.
If R2 produced a remain win the party would be destroyed by perpetual internal warfare. And why would she want to be know as the leader who destroyed her party.
If she wins a majority in a GE she gets her deal through.
If it's a hung parliament she can offer Corbyn the reigns and allow Labour to take the hit for the subsequent sh*tshow.
Either way she comes out of a GE 'relatively' unscathed and certainly not a woman despised as she would be for calling R2.
I mean, the DUP can pull the plug if they want to, but their choice is basically money and power vs no money and power, so that doesn't sound like a great strategic choice.
As for perpetual internal warfare, that's what we've got at the moment, and will have for as long as Brexit is a thing. But it's not at all obvious why a Remain win would destroy the party; Most of the voters are sick of the whole thing, and the people who aren't won't be satisfied by any plausible outcome. Some of the activists would resign in disgust or defect to Farage, and Farage would get a chunk of vote share back, but neither of those things are fatal.
Chris Grayling was under fire on Friday night as a private firm to whom he awarded a probation contract to monitor thousands of offenders went into administration after warnings it put the public at risk.
To be fair to the government:
David Gauke, the Justice Secretary, announced last summer he was terminating early all 21 private probation contracts awarded under Mr Grayling to manage low and medium risk offenders. He is currently consulting on plans for a new regime.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/15/probation-firm-collapses-amid-criticism-failings-put-public/
Yes, Soubry and a few others would stomp off but it would be a small price to pay.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6711275/Baroness-Falkender-former-private-secretary-Harold-Wilson-dies-aged-86.html
And even in your fantasy world, it would likely be the other extreme of the party doing the stomping.
Apart from that, a flawless plan.
I’m not seeing any rationale for Trump’s claim other than his crippling narcissism.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/430317-poll-shows-competitive-matchup-if-orourke-ran-for-senate-again
Labour pledges to prevent universities from going bust
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-47253822
Has she really not noticed that no university in this country, not even the likes of London Met which was insolvent and Lampeter which was (and probably remains) unviable, has ever been allowed to go bankrupt?
In fact in the whole history of these islands I think I am right in saying the only university ever to be actually closed (as in, completely got rid of rather than merged) was Northampton in 1265 - and that was because Henry III decided they were a hotbed of Montfort supporters.
The dialect quiz in case anyone missed it yesterday.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/15/upshot/british-irish-dialect-quiz.html
Yes to AV 32%
Well, we'll see. Politics is certainly quite tricky to predict.
(Although I did tip this at 6.5, and no referendum at 1.75 *cough*).
Going for a short extension, with all the attendant promises it would require, and then coming back for a further one when we still aren't decided or aren't ready would be suicidal.
It would certainly do that, but the danger of getting 'No Deal' would be real if the two part method is chosen. The government and probably Labour leadership would back Leave in the first part, so that would likely win, then we would be faced with a toss up as to the final outcome. So a new referendum is a good idea and may be the only way out but it must be a single part affair and if we must risk 'No Deal' then conducted by AV.
Oh, and we should have an extension on our departure too.
May has been promising, in private, that she won't go no deal from the instant she took office. As would any other PM, faced with the implications.