Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Brexit doesn’t happen on the March 29th Article 50 deadline
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Brexit doesn’t happen on the March 29th Article 50 deadline then it might not happen at all
Betdata.io chart of movement on the Betfair exchange
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p072vd4v
John Rentoul and OGH are of course right. It's like karaoke: you don't get anywhere by singing hesitantly. You need to get up on stage, grab the microphone and sing your heart out. It doesn't matter if you hit a few duff notes, the crowd respond to gusto.
Unfortunately, May is only one of these. Her inability to relinquish control over the latter may end up being the reason it never got through.
Of course, if you'd all voted for the Morris Dancer Party, with our sensible, centre-ground policies of constructing a small fleet of Death Stars and invading France, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Currently 5.3
Harold Wilson didn't have to deal with social media, and had all the main politicians on his side, bar the oddballs on either extreme such as Tony Benn and Enoch Powell.
If May had sounded triumphant, it might have worked for a while but the backstop issue couldn't have been fudged: it is what it is.
That said, I do agree with Mike that there is an awful lot in the WA where HMG can be quite proud of what it's achieved. The problem is that that doesn't matter very much if one clause is unacceptable.
Does she not trust them, or are they not prepared to go in to bat for her?
John Howard on the other hand, established a two part referendum on the Australian republicanism issue, first establishing which form of republicanism Australians might want, before they ultimately rejected it against the status quo.
Turnball is right.
Among other things, Brexit has become a global by-word for constituitional malfeasance.
Tbh this is ALSO a problem on the Labour side on Brexit. We hesitantly move into positions, apologetically saying that we think this is what we now think, probably. Some fanfare and glitz is needed. Yeah, you'll get some people grumbling and saying "no, that's not what I think", but you get that anyway.
And I'm someone who is really, really allergic to spin and marketing and all that bullshit. But one has to live in the real world.
The EU aren’t going to blink unless and until no deal is certain to otherwise be the outcome.
It is what the C stands for in America's NAACP. The AA is not African American.
There wasn't a first referendum to determine what type of republic in Australia, there was from memory (I lived there at the time) a constitutional convention to debate it and settle upon something and then it went against the status quo in a referendum.
Cameron could have followed that precedent.
I've no idea why, or who decided on this utterly bizarre distinction.
Maybe politicians really are too self-centred for this to work properly. Or just too busy keeping their own departments above the waterline.
It's only true in the case that she bullshit's a lot.
No early election.
No PM could agree to being bound by the backstop.
No deal is better than a bad deal.
Brexit means Brexit.
The UK will leave on time.
She does bullshit all the time. She is a poster representative for the old joke "how can you tell when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving".
What Mrs May doesn't do is bullshitting well.
It's definitely gone too far in terms of political correctness.
Said David Oyelowo.
Also these things need detailed, professional planning. Just think of the attention to detail that the New Labour machine at its height put into announcements. It wasn't very attractive, but it was extremely effective.
High Court Justice Michael Kirby, a constitutional monarchist, ascribed the failure of the republic referendum to ten factors: lack of bi-partisanship; undue haste; a perception that the republic was supported by big city elites; a "denigration" of monarchists as "unpatriotic" by republicans; the adoption of an inflexible republican model by the Convention; concerns about the specific model proposed (chiefly the ease with which a Prime Minister could dismiss a president); a republican strategy of using big "names" attached to the Whitlam era to promote their cause; strong opposition to the proposal in the smaller states; a counter-productive pro-republican bias in the media; and an instinctive caution among the Australian electorate regarding Constitutional change.
Have bolded the relevant lessons for Remain.
One of her overriding concerns would have been to hold first her cabinet, and then her party, together. Perhaps she was worried that by taking a triumphant approach she would unnecessarily provoke those who disagreed with her.
I don't say that it was the right decision to make, but I can understand it in that way.
I expect a large part of that is that the white majority has no sense of how it seems to minorities.
I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.
I can't think of any nation in the globe that has signed something as much of a usurpation of sovereignty as the backstop is. To permanently take out of our hands our ability to have any say on customs, phytosanitary standards etc unless or until the EU agrees to hand control back to us is to my knowledge utterly without precedent.
Can you provide any examples anywhere else in the world where it operates like this, with no exit clause?
ERG letting Brexit slip away because of some indeterminate "better deal" they can't map out is crass in the extreme.
Edit: I see SeanF has already made the same point.
And now I have no idea how she managed to stay on top of the Home Office for six years with so few blemishes on her record (Windrush, and the occasional summer crush with passports or Border Control, aside).
Continued membership has an exit clause, the backstop doesn't. QED.
We have an exit clause in the status quo, we don't in the backstop.
That's 2 ways in which the backstop is worse.
Edit: yes, technically Article 50 is an exit clause, but it doesn't seem to work particularly well in practice.
2. No agreement lasts forever. They get renegotiated all the time.
Is there an example of anywhere were a third party determines the rules, without you getting a say, and without an exit clause? That's how colonies were treated not modern nations.
Three of the headbanger types reject the deal automatically.
ERG-types: Anything the EU likes is bad automatically, reject it.
Grieve-types: Anything but Remain is bad, reject it.
Corbyn-types: Anything the Tories approve of is bad, reject it.
But then there seems to me to be a fourth headbanger type that is automatically pro-deal.
Anything whatsoever would be better than being an EU member, take any deal.
If you are automatically rejecting or accepting a deal regardless of its merits then that is acting like a headbanger. Any deal will have pros or cons and should be taken on its merits.
https://twitter.com/courty1793/status/1103653106104049665?s=21
Zat so?
Just need a PM with the balls to pursue that route.
I'd add that they'll probably end up proving to have been remarkably successful.
This is why they are now so astonished by the UK trying to renegotiate it. They let us pick the cherries they vowed they would never allow us to pick, and now we're bitching about it.
It's been striking to me that the BBC have completely accepted the ERG narrative that the backstop is a concession the EU have forced us to accept, rather than something that is in our interest too.
I suppose there are very few people in Britain making that argument so it's hard for the BBC to present an independent judgement.
If that had been the process set out at the beginning most people would have considered it perfectly fair. Trying to do it now is still perfectly fair but it suits some to scream about trashing democracy etc because they know there is unlikely to be a Brexit deal that would be ratified.
Bargain-basement algorithms on this one.
Longer term, that scenario could easily play into the hands of the far right.
It's always been a non-starter which is why very few ever tried to pretend it was a serious option. Even Johnson was quoted as saying in 2017 that no one was planning for no deal because there would be a deal.
Trying to pretend that if everyone had shut and pretended we wanted a no deal Brexit then the EU would have fallen for it is naive in the extreme.