I wonder if it is a good time or bad time for him to release that book? My feeling its bad given the current political backdrop. More blame might be heading his way...
I don't know what publishing lead times are, but I would think that there's a risk that a lot of what he writes about the Conservative Party and Brexit will look very stale in the light of recent events.
Indeed. The Tories are a different beast now. I suspect it will be all spin and some of the real driving events will never be disclosed. Some facts are better left outside the public domain!...
I can't think that we will learn anything of significance that hasn't already been covered in Shipman's All Out War.
Frankly everything before 2016 is going to look very mundane compared to the three years since Cameron buggered off to his shepherd's hut.
I like to think that the events of the last few weeks have been designed to force a final choice between a deal or no deal. Maybe that is wishful thinking on my part.
The ERG will vote it down on purity grounds The DUP will vote it down on NI/rUK non alignment grounds Labour will vote it down for political advantage The SNP will vote it down because Scotland is outside the single market. Lib Dems will vote it down because they now want to revoke A50. The Gaukeward sqaud will for for it and have the whip restored. The hard Grieveites will vote it down and not have the whip restored.
So it'll help Gauke and a couple of others have the whip restored, and that will be about it. I'm not sure what the Kinnock group within Labour will do but with Mann now in the Lords, Hoey as an honorary DUPer pretty much and the likes of Ronnie Campbell/Dennis Skinners loyalty to Corbyn I doubt their numbers will be enough.
I think that is correct in part. I think if the PM had been truthful to the Queen about why he was proroguing parliament, but lied to the media and public etc., that would be considered fine (if distasteful). The court seems to be saying that lying to the Queen, even by omission, would be illegal.
It depends on the full judgement published tomorrow, but the impression I'd got from their summary statement was that the purpose was an improper one regardless of whether the Government had been honest about it. But, as it happens, they also lied about it.
It was open to Parliament last week to vonc Boris, appoint a successor and advise HMQ to withdraw the prorogation. In fact, if they believed the govt had acted improperly you could argue that they had a clear duty to do so. In the event they shirked it and asked the judiciary to do the dirty work instead. Don't be surprised if they decline.
If this is true it puts the lie to the claims that Boris has not been negotiating and has not been serious about chasing a deal. That in turn does mean Parliament's idiotic actions do put a deal at risk
The ERG will vote it down on purity grounds The DUP will vote it down on NI/rUK non alignment grounds Labour will vote it down for political advantage The SNP will vote it down because Scotland is outside the single market. Lib Dems will vote it down because they now want to revoke A50. The Gaukeward sqaud will for for it and have the whip restored. The hard Grieveites will vote it down and not have the whip restored.
So it'll help Gauke and a couple of others have the whip restored, and that will be about it. I'm not sure what the Kinnock group within Labour will do but with Mann now in the Lords, Hoey as an honorary DUPer pretty much and the likes of Ronnie Campbell/Dennis Skinners loyalty to Corbyn I doubt their numbers will be enough.
With a bit of luck the EU will say it’s this deal or no deal and no extension to concentrate minds.
Botham has sounded pissed every time he’s been on commentary this Ashes series
Sky need to clear out so much dead wood from their cricket commentary team. Their analysis is pretty much in my day, we didnt do that and we were great....eg archer should bowl 95 mph every session...oh he has 6 for bowling at 85mph..still in my day, fast bowlers bowled fast as possible.
If i i wanted such a shallow level of insight, i would just listen to boycott on TMS.
Botham and Gower have not had their contracts renewed. I think that’s harsh on Gower. Botham fits your description but not many others do in my opinion. Nass and Athers are great.
sangakkara is the one for me that clearly knows the modern game.
Holding and bumble not a clue especially when it comes to ODIs.
There's one Indian guy (I think) who can't actually Speaka Da English.
Cricket is a BORING game, suitable for Brexiteers and other assorted reactionaries!
Not sure if has been picked up but the first election poll from Canada shows the Conservatives four points ahead of the Liberals (36.3-32.4). Greens are third with 11.6% followed by NDP on 8.6%. Polling from Forum and changes from their late July poll Libs +1 Con +2 NDP -3.5 Green +0.5 so nothing too dramatic.
Regional polling is also hugely significant - the Conservatives will sweep the plains and the west but if all they do is pile up votes there and not make headway in Ontario and Quebec the Liberals will still be a strong player.
Do you think Ireland “called all the shots” in the original GFA negotiation?
Clear view I had from speaking to someone (who has sat down with Boris last week and having one in ones with 3 cabinet ministers this week) is that there is a decent chance at a deal
The ERG will vote it down on purity grounds The DUP will vote it down on NI/rUK non alignment grounds Labour will vote it down for political advantage The SNP will vote it down because Scotland is outside the single market. Lib Dems will vote it down because they now want to revoke A50. The Gaukeward sqaud will for for it and have the whip restored. The hard Grieveites will vote it down and not have the whip restored.
So it'll help Gauke and a couple of others have the whip restored, and that will be about it. I'm not sure what the Kinnock group within Labour will do but with Mann now in the Lords, Hoey as an honorary DUPer pretty much and the likes of Ronnie Campbell/Dennis Skinners loyalty to Corbyn I doubt their numbers will be enough.
If this is true it puts the lie to the claims that Boris has not been negotiating and has not been serious about chasing a deal. That in turn does mean Parliament's idiotic actions do put a deal at risk
The ERG will vote it down on purity grounds The DUP will vote it down on NI/rUK non alignment grounds Labour will vote it down for political advantage The SNP will vote it down because Scotland is outside the single market. Lib Dems will vote it down because they now want to revoke A50. The Gaukeward sqaud will for for it and have the whip restored. The hard Grieveites will vote it down and not have the whip restored.
So it'll help Gauke and a couple of others have the whip restored, and that will be about it. I'm not sure what the Kinnock group within Labour will do but with Mann now in the Lords, Hoey as an honorary DUPer pretty much and the likes of Ronnie Campbell/Dennis Skinners loyalty to Corbyn I doubt their numbers will be enough.
With a bit of luck the EU will say it’s this deal or no deal and no extension to concentrate minds.
The remain lot will vote down the deal then try and get a SO24 to attempt to revoke Article 50 I reckon.
The ERG will vote it down on purity grounds The DUP will vote it down on NI/rUK non alignment grounds Labour will vote it down for political advantage The SNP will vote it down because Scotland is outside the single market. Lib Dems will vote it down because they now want to revoke A50. The Gaukeward sqaud will for for it and have the whip restored. The hard Grieveites will vote it down and not have the whip restored.
So it'll help Gauke and a couple of others have the whip restored, and that will be about it. I'm not sure what the Kinnock group within Labour will do but with Mann now in the Lords, Hoey as an honorary DUPer pretty much and the likes of Ronnie Campbell/Dennis Skinners loyalty to Corbyn I doubt their numbers will be enough.
Then Boris will resign and advise HM to send for Corbyn. When Corbyn faces HoC the Tories will abstain. Installed in No. 10 his first task will be to to to Brussels and beg for an extension. They'll give him 2 years. Opinion polls thereafter will make interesting reading.
I wonder if it is a good time or bad time for him to release that book? My feeling its bad given the current political backdrop. More blame might be heading his way...
I don't know what publishing lead times are, but I would think that there's a risk that a lot of what he writes about the Conservative Party and Brexit will look very stale in the light of recent events.
Indeed. The Tories are a different beast now. I suspect it will be all spin and some of the real driving events will never be disclosed. Some facts are better left outside the public domain!...
I can't think that we will learn anything of significance that hasn't already been covered in Shipman's All Out War.
Frankly everything before 2016 is going to look very mundane compared to the three years since Cameron buggered off to his shepherd's hut.
The last 12 years have been so turbulent politically compared to earlier periods. That said. Even a relatively benign period like 1997 - june 2001 had significant events such as fuel protests, foot and mouth etc. I dont think life is ever easy, the problems have just been ratcheted up massively since 2007. Tough times...
The ERG will vote it down on purity grounds The DUP will vote it down on NI/rUK non alignment grounds Labour will vote it down for political advantage The SNP will vote it down because Scotland is outside the single market. Lib Dems will vote it down because they now want to revoke A50. The Gaukeward sqaud will for for it and have the whip restored. The hard Grieveites will vote it down and not have the whip restored.
So it'll help Gauke and a couple of others have the whip restored, and that will be about it. I'm not sure what the Kinnock group within Labour will do but with Mann now in the Lords, Hoey as an honorary DUPer pretty much and the likes of Ronnie Campbell/Dennis Skinners loyalty to Corbyn I doubt their numbers will be enough.
With a bit of luck the EU will say it’s this deal or no deal and no extension to concentrate minds.
The remain lot will vote down the deal then try and get a SO24 to attempt to revoke Article 50 I reckon.
I think you're right.
How ironic if the EU refusal of an extension led the HoC to take back control and revoke A50.
The ERG will vote it down on purity grounds The DUP will vote it down on NI/rUK non alignment grounds Labour will vote it down for political advantage The SNP will vote it down because Scotland is outside the single market. Lib Dems will vote it down because they now want to revoke A50. The Gaukeward sqaud will for for it and have the whip restored. The hard Grieveites will vote it down and not have the whip restored.
So it'll help Gauke and a couple of others have the whip restored, and that will be about it. I'm not sure what the Kinnock group within Labour will do but with Mann now in the Lords, Hoey as an honorary DUPer pretty much and the likes of Ronnie Campbell/Dennis Skinners loyalty to Corbyn I doubt their numbers will be enough.
I think if all that were true then the EU would offer a short extension for the purpose of an election so that the new parliament could choose between the deal and no-deal. Fine if so.
Not sure if has been picked up but the first election poll from Canada shows the Conservatives four points ahead of the Liberals (36.3-32.4). Greens are third with 11.6% followed by NDP on 8.6%. Polling from Forum and changes from their late July poll Libs +1 Con +2 NDP -3.5 Green +0.5 so nothing too dramatic.
Regional polling is also hugely significant - the Conservatives will sweep the plains and the west but if all they do is pile up votes there and not make headway in Ontario and Quebec the Liberals will still be a strong player. </blockquote
If this is true it puts the lie to the claims that Boris has not been negotiating and has not been serious about chasing a deal. That in turn does mean Parliament's idiotic actions do put a deal at risk
Part of the Someone is wrong on the internet series.
No deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy.
Yesterday the Byline Times outlined some £4.6bn of aggregate short equity positions from hedge funds that, the site claimed, “directly or indirectly bankrolled Boris Johnson’s leadership campaign”, and thus a no deal Brexit.
The inference is that hedge funds have used their financial might to influence the outcome of Brexit via political donations and are now standing to benefit through short positions in UK companies.
The problem is, it doesn’t make any sense. Here are a few of the problems with the article:
Hedge funds contain multitudes. Take Marshall Wace, which boasts £40bn of assets under management. It’s run by pro-Brexit Paul Marshall (cited in the article), and pro-Remain Ian Wace (not cited in the article).
UK stocks often have little exposure to the UK economy. Take Cineworld, which according to the data Byline Times cited, has seen the biggest increase in short interest in the past month. But 75 per cent of its revenue was from the US in the first half of 2019, according to the company’s latest interim results.
Equity outcomes are explicitly uncertain — what is a short position on a “no deal Brexit”? A short position on any company? A short position could also be a play on remain. For instance, a company might benefit from a stronger dollar, or less EU regulation.
Hedge fund strategies are not simply running grand macro strategies on the fate of a nation. To mention Marshall Wace again, it runs a quantitative strategy called TOPS, which aggregates and makes decisions based on external investment research.
The most-shorted companies have short theses which have nothing to do with Brexit, like Thomas Cook (over-leveraged) or Kier Group (over-leveraged).
A fund might be short because of arbitrage opportunities, or to hedge a long position (which might contradict the notion it is betting on no deal).
The biggest single donor to either campaign was Lord Sainsbury, who donated £4.2m to the Remain campaign (source: Transparency International). Of the £16.4m contributed by the top ten donors to either campaign, 58 per cent went to Leave and 42 per cent to Remain.
As Louis Goddard from Global Witness pointed out on Twitter, there also fundamental problems with how the data has been presented.
The ERG will vote it down on purity grounds The DUP will vote it down on NI/rUK non alignment grounds Labour will vote it down for political advantage The SNP will vote it down because Scotland is outside the single market. Lib Dems will vote it down because they now want to revoke A50. The Gaukeward sqaud will for for it and have the whip restored. The hard Grieveites will vote it down and not have the whip restored.
So it'll help Gauke and a couple of others have the whip restored, and that will be about it. I'm not sure what the Kinnock group within Labour will do but with Mann now in the Lords, Hoey as an honorary DUPer pretty much and the likes of Ronnie Campbell/Dennis Skinners loyalty to Corbyn I doubt their numbers will be enough.
Then Boris will resign and advise HM to send for Corbyn. When Corbyn faces HoC the Tories will abstain. Installed in No. 10 his first task will be to to to Brussels and beg for an extension. They'll give him 2 years. Opinion polls thereafter will make interesting reading.
Corbyn starts off with a majority of -145 I think ! In reality its less if he can get the SNP to agree with him but aside from preventing "No deal", there's nothing really Grieve and Ken Clarke agree with him no.
The ERG will vote it down on purity grounds The DUP will vote it down on NI/rUK non alignment grounds Labour will vote it down for political advantage The SNP will vote it down because Scotland is outside the single market. Lib Dems will vote it down because they now want to revoke A50. The Gaukeward sqaud will for for it and have the whip restored. The hard Grieveites will vote it down and not have the whip restored.
So it'll help Gauke and a couple of others have the whip restored, and that will be about it. I'm not sure what the Kinnock group within Labour will do but with Mann now in the Lords, Hoey as an honorary DUPer pretty much and the likes of Ronnie Campbell/Dennis Skinners loyalty to Corbyn I doubt their numbers will be enough.
With a bit of luck the EU will say it’s this deal or no deal and no extension to concentrate minds.
The remain lot will vote down the deal then try and get a SO24 to attempt to revoke Article 50 I reckon.
There's no deal this Parliament will pass, but I'd expect it to be closer this time than MV3.
A GE won't decided anything either so I suspect we're heading for a second referendum next year.
The biggest single donor to either campaign was Lord Sainsbury, who donated £4.2m to the Remain campaign (source: Transparency International). Of the £16.4m contributed by the top ten donors to either campaign, 58 per cent went to Leave and 42 per cent to Remain.
As Louis Goddard from Global Witness pointed out on Twitter, there also fundamental problems with how the data has been presented.
The inference is that hedge funds have used their financial might to influence the outcome of Brexit via political donations and are now standing to benefit through short positions in UK companies.
The problem is, it doesn’t make any sense. Here are a few of the problems with the article:
Hedge funds contain multitudes. Take Marshall Wace, which boasts £40bn of assets under management. It’s run by pro-Brexit Paul Marshall (cited in the article), and pro-Remain Ian Wace (not cited in the article).
This is very curious, and possibly disingenuous, as it nowhere takes account that rather than either that some hedge funds contain both leave and remain individuals, or that the full span of hedge fund bets take out many positions, key individuals, rather than funds, but nevertheless with links to funds, have donated to Leave campaigns since 2016, on a massive scale. When following a paper trail of money, and influence, journalists naturally look to individuals. The decisive factor is that many of the same individuals who donated to Leave are the same as those who have donated to the Tories.
Do you think Ireland “called all the shots” in the original GFA negotiation?
Clear view I had from speaking to someone (who has sat down with Boris last week and having one in ones with 3 cabinet ministers this week) is that there is a decent chance at a deal
If this is true it puts the lie to the claims that Boris has not been negotiating and has not been serious about chasing a deal. That in turn does mean Parliament's idiotic actions do put a deal at risk
The ERG will vote it down on purity grounds The DUP will vote it down on NI/rUK non alignment grounds Labour will vote it down for political advantage The SNP will vote it down because Scotland is outside the single market. Lib Dems will vote it down because they now want to revoke A50. The Gaukeward sqaud will for for it and have the whip restored. The hard Grieveites will vote it down and not have the whip restored.
So it'll help Gauke and a couple of others have the whip restored, and that will be about it. I'm not sure what the Kinnock group within Labour will do but with Mann now in the Lords, Hoey as an honorary DUPer pretty much and the likes of Ronnie Campbell/Dennis Skinners loyalty to Corbyn I doubt their numbers will be enough.
With a bit of luck the EU will say it’s this deal or no deal and no extension to concentrate minds.
The remain lot will vote down the deal then try and get a SO24 to attempt to revoke Article 50 I reckon.
There's no deal this Parliament will pass, but I'd expect it to be closer this time than MV3.
A GE won't decided anything either so I suspect we're heading for a second referendum next year.
I don't see this parliament voting for anything but more faffing time, hopefully followed by a bout of self-awareness long enough to bin themselves off and start again (ie with a GE).
Working Tory majority probably equals deal (small d - though some variation of Deal) by Jan 30.
Any other outcome is probably another extension to the middle of next year and Ref2.
I think that is correct in part. I think if the PM had been truthful to the Queen about why he was proroguing parliament, but lied to the media and public etc., that would be considered fine (if distasteful). The court seems to be saying that lying to the Queen, even by omission, would be illegal.
It depends on the full judgement published tomorrow, but the impression I'd got from their summary statement was that the purpose was an improper one regardless of whether the Government had been honest about it. But, as it happens, they also lied about it.
It was open to Parliament last week to vonc Boris, appoint a successor and advise HMQ to withdraw the prorogation. In fact, if they believed the govt had acted improperly you could argue that they had a clear duty to do so. In the event they shirked it and asked the judiciary to do the dirty work instead. Don't be surprised if they decline.
That doesn't work as an argument.
Courts fairly regularly find the Government to have acted unlawfully on some subject following a judicial review. Normally, it's mildly embarrassing but doesn't really affect much - the Government either changes the policy or rectifies a procedural defect of some kind and proceeds with the policy.
Parliament could VONC a Government over any of those decisions but don't because they are part and parcel of being a government, making lots of decisions in a range of areas.
So there's no argument to say, "we're not going to adjudicate a matter where Parliament didn't see fit to VONC". They have to decide on the merits of whether prorogation was lawful or not - it's unavoidable.
Personally, my hunch is they'll decide it was lawful but not for the reasons you suggest, as they are perfectly willing to find decisions lawful that don't have any prospect of leading to a VONC.
Note that Parliament could have, but didn't, VONC May over initially deciding she didn't need legislation to issue her Article 50 notice. But the courts still overruled her in the Miller case and made her do it.
The ERG will vote it down on purity grounds The DUP will vote it down on NI/rUK non alignment grounds Labour will vote it down for political advantage The SNP will vote it down because Scotland is outside the single market. Lib Dems will vote it down because they now want to revoke A50. The Gaukeward sqaud will for for it and have the whip restored. The hard Grieveites will vote it down and not have the whip restored.
So it'll help Gauke and a couple of others have the whip restored, and that will be about it. I'm not sure what the Kinnock group within Labour will do but with Mann now in the Lords, Hoey as an honorary DUPer pretty much and the likes of Ronnie Campbell/Dennis Skinners loyalty to Corbyn I doubt their numbers will be enough.
I think if all that were true then the EU would offer a short extension for the purpose of an election so that the new parliament could choose between the deal and no-deal. Fine if so.
Most of the remain objectors would vote for the deal if it was attached to a confirmatory referendum. If an amendment is submitted to add a referendum, it would more likely pass now than previously, and if it did, chances of a deal passing rise too.
Second referendum moving rapidly into view - probably a parliamentary majority for it already now that Corbyn is on board, just a matter of sorting out the details and timing (pre or post general election?).
If this is true it puts the lie to the claims that Boris has not been negotiating and has not been serious about chasing a deal. That in turn does mean Parliament's idiotic actions do put a deal at risk
Charles Grant has been consistently wrong about the EU’s position on Ireland throughout the negotiations.
It's basically skipping to agreeing the permanent arrangements in the WA which will be substantially similar to the existing backstop.
It's a fullstop (disguised) upfront.
It's a bit of concession but mainly presentational and might well be enough for Boris to claim a big victory.
Commons still won't pass it though.
If the UK had recognised that leaving the single market and customs union would necessitate a specific solution for Northern Ireland instead of thinking the needs of Northern Ireland could be leveraged to cherry-pick on the UK-wide relationship, things would have been much less fractious.
That's the trouble with the metropolitan liberal elite - never happier than when they're scoffing fancy pie and peas in trendy Redcar. They make me sick.
The ERG will vote it down on purity grounds The DUP will vote it down on NI/rUK non alignment grounds Labour will vote it down for political advantage The SNP will vote it down because Scotland is outside the single market. Lib Dems will vote it down because they now want to revoke A50. The Gaukeward sqaud will for for it and have the whip restored. The hard Grieveites will vote it down and not have the whip restored.
So it'll help Gauke and a couple of others have the whip restored, and that will be about it. I'm not sure what the Kinnock group within Labour will do but with Mann now in the Lords, Hoey as an honorary DUPer pretty much and the likes of Ronnie Campbell/Dennis Skinners loyalty to Corbyn I doubt their numbers will be enough.
Then Boris will resign and advise HM to send for Corbyn. When Corbyn faces HoC the Tories will abstain. Installed in No. 10 his first task will be to to to Brussels and beg for an extension. They'll give him 2 years. Opinion polls thereafter will make interesting reading.
Corbyn starts off with a majority of -145 I think ! In reality its less if he can get the SNP to agree with him but aside from preventing "No deal", there's nothing really Grieve and Ken Clarke agree with him no.
Last week Parliament put a noose around Boris's neck. If they reject whatever deal he comes back with he'll just shrug it off and put it round Corbyn's neck instead. It's a long game.
That's the trouble with the metropolitan liberal elite - never happier than when they're scoffing fancy pie and peas in trendy Redcar. They make me sick.
Given the concentration of the 2017 vote among strong leave identifiers a more potent threat to the Conservative vote is likely to come in the shape of the Brexit Party. In total over half of the ‘very strong leave’ group give their likelihood of voting for the Brexit Party as 6/10 or higher. Given this also represents almost half of the total 2017 Conservative vote it leaves open the possibility of up to a quarter of 2017 Conservative voters moving to the Brexit Party (polling immediately after the EU Parliament election detected this). Initial polling suggested the change of leadership in the Conservative party could be enough to stem this flow but the danger remains present should the government (be seen as) failing to deliver on its Brexit commitment.
I think that is correct in part. I think if the PM had been truthful to the Queen about why he was proroguing parliament, but lied to the media and public etc., that would be considered fine (if distasteful). The court seems to be saying that lying to the Queen, even by omission, would be illegal.
It depends on the full judgement published tomorrow, but the impression I'd got from their summary statement was that the purpose was an improper one regardless of whether the Government had been honest about it. But, as it happens, they also lied about it.
It was open to Parliament last week to vonc Boris, appoint a successor and advise HMQ to withdraw the prorogation. In fact, if they believed the govt had acted improperly you could argue that they had a clear duty to do so. In the event they shirked it and asked the judiciary to do the dirty work instead. Don't be surprised if they decline.
That doesn't work as an argument.
Courts fairly regularly find the Government to have acted unlawfully on some subject following a judicial review. Normally, it's mildly embarrassing but doesn't really affect much - the Government either changes the policy or rectifies a procedural defect of some kind and proceeds with the policy.
Parliament could VONC a Government over any of those decisions but don't because they are part and parcel of being a government, making lots of decisions in a range of areas.
So there's no argument to say, "we're not going to adjudicate a matter where Parliament didn't see fit to VONC". They have to decide on the merits of whether prorogation was lawful or not - it's unavoidable.
Personally, my hunch is they'll decide it was lawful but not for the reasons you suggest, as they are perfectly willing to find decisions lawful that don't have any prospect of leading to a VONC.
Note that Parliament could have, but didn't, VONC May over initially deciding she didn't need legislation to issue her Article 50 notice. But the courts still overruled her in the Miller case and made her do it.
But there's a difference between the Govt breaching statute law (which the courts are well-placed to determine) and the Govt exercising the royal prerogative, which is a constitutional convention. It's obvious why the Govt prorogued and it's sheer humbug to pretend otherwise, but this doesn't mean judicial intervention would be appropriate when Parliament itself holds the remedy.
"And mostly everyone else would breathe a sigh of relief at the whole ghastly mess having reached some sort of denouement."
Not so fast. We now have a 2 year transition with a cliff edge awaiting if we can't agree the Future Relationship. Expect further intense Brexit argument (there is a lot more to agree now) and the Remain faction to morph into the Norway faction with rejoining the ultimate objective. In this round of negotiations we suffer the position of being on the outside and a 3rd country and therefore less leverage. Meanwhile the EU quietly makes sure that in the event of no deal in 2021 their economic impact will be minimised after the 2019 fiasco. We will try to do the same and start a massive program of customs infrastructure and customs recruitment etc etc (which will then in itself make agreeing a Norway almost impossible "we spent £xbn on this and now we don't need it????"). Meanwhile the economy deflates as economic links with our closest neighbours stagnates and our services industry suffers as the likelihood of free access to the EU market diminishes.
Unless someone comes up with a way to tow our islands over to the US or perhaps SE Asia
Comments
Frankly everything before 2016 is going to look very mundane compared to the three years since Cameron buggered off to his shepherd's hut.
https://twitter.com/CER_Grant/status/1172135630765273089?s=19
The ERG will vote it down on purity grounds
The DUP will vote it down on NI/rUK non alignment grounds
Labour will vote it down for political advantage
The SNP will vote it down because Scotland is outside the single market.
Lib Dems will vote it down because they now want to revoke A50.
The Gaukeward sqaud will for for it and have the whip restored.
The hard Grieveites will vote it down and not have the whip restored.
So it'll help Gauke and a couple of others have the whip restored, and that will be about it.
I'm not sure what the Kinnock group within Labour will do but with Mann now in the Lords, Hoey as an honorary DUPer pretty much and the likes of Ronnie Campbell/Dennis Skinners loyalty to Corbyn I doubt their numbers will be enough.
Not sure if has been picked up but the first election poll from Canada shows the Conservatives four points ahead of the Liberals (36.3-32.4). Greens are third with 11.6% followed by NDP on 8.6%. Polling from Forum and changes from their late July poll Libs +1 Con +2 NDP -3.5 Green +0.5 so nothing too dramatic.
Regional polling is also hugely significant - the Conservatives will sweep the plains and the west but if all they do is pile up votes there and not make headway in Ontario and Quebec the Liberals will still be a strong player.
Both sides to a deal need to agree
Do you think Ireland “called all the shots” in the original GFA negotiation?
Clear view I had from speaking to someone (who has sat down with Boris last week and having one in ones with 3 cabinet ministers this week) is that there is a decent chance at a deal
Then they can have the whip removed as “the 21” have it restored!
Surely Grievances not Grievites?
https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1172110391423488001?s=20
How ironic if the EU refusal of an extension led the HoC to take back control and revoke A50.
Part of the Someone is wrong on the internet series.
No deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy.
Yesterday the Byline Times outlined some £4.6bn of aggregate short equity positions from hedge funds that, the site claimed, “directly or indirectly bankrolled Boris Johnson’s leadership campaign”, and thus a no deal Brexit.
The inference is that hedge funds have used their financial might to influence the outcome of Brexit via political donations and are now standing to benefit through short positions in UK companies.
The problem is, it doesn’t make any sense. Here are a few of the problems with the article:
Hedge funds contain multitudes. Take Marshall Wace, which boasts £40bn of assets under management. It’s run by pro-Brexit Paul Marshall (cited in the article), and pro-Remain Ian Wace (not cited in the article).
UK stocks often have little exposure to the UK economy. Take Cineworld, which according to the data Byline Times cited, has seen the biggest increase in short interest in the past month. But 75 per cent of its revenue was from the US in the first half of 2019, according to the company’s latest interim results.
Equity outcomes are explicitly uncertain — what is a short position on a “no deal Brexit”? A short position on any company? A short position could also be a play on remain. For instance, a company might benefit from a stronger dollar, or less EU regulation.
Hedge fund strategies are not simply running grand macro strategies on the fate of a nation. To mention Marshall Wace again, it runs a quantitative strategy called TOPS, which aggregates and makes decisions based on external investment research.
The most-shorted companies have short theses which have nothing to do with Brexit, like Thomas Cook (over-leveraged) or Kier Group (over-leveraged).
A fund might be short because of arbitrage opportunities, or to hedge a long position (which might contradict the notion it is betting on no deal).
The biggest single donor to either campaign was Lord Sainsbury, who donated £4.2m to the Remain campaign (source: Transparency International). Of the £16.4m contributed by the top ten donors to either campaign, 58 per cent went to Leave and 42 per cent to Remain.
As Louis Goddard from Global Witness pointed out on Twitter, there also fundamental problems with how the data has been presented.
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/09/12/1568281802000/No-deal-Brexit-is-not-a-hedge-fund-conspiracy/
A GE won't decided anything either so I suspect we're heading for a second referendum next year.
It's a fullstop (disguised) upfront.
It's a bit of concession but mainly presentational and might well be enough for Boris to claim a big victory.
Commons still won't pass it though.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/831405/2019-09-06_Communique_for_JMC_EN___12_September.docx.pdf
https://twitter.com/annaturley/status/1171717256407146496?s=21
Working Tory majority probably equals deal (small d - though some variation of Deal) by Jan 30.
Any other outcome is probably another extension to the middle of next year and Ref2.
Rattled.
Courts fairly regularly find the Government to have acted unlawfully on some subject following a judicial review. Normally, it's mildly embarrassing but doesn't really affect much - the Government either changes the policy or rectifies a procedural defect of some kind and proceeds with the policy.
Parliament could VONC a Government over any of those decisions but don't because they are part and parcel of being a government, making lots of decisions in a range of areas.
So there's no argument to say, "we're not going to adjudicate a matter where Parliament didn't see fit to VONC". They have to decide on the merits of whether prorogation was lawful or not - it's unavoidable.
Personally, my hunch is they'll decide it was lawful but not for the reasons you suggest, as they are perfectly willing to find decisions lawful that don't have any prospect of leading to a VONC.
Note that Parliament could have, but didn't, VONC May over initially deciding she didn't need legislation to issue her Article 50 notice. But the courts still overruled her in the Miller case and made her do it.
Inoue - Lomachenko at 126 is the best fight out there right now I think.
https://medium.com/@psurridge/volatility-and-vote-switching-part-ii-conservative-2017-voters-f70d735e70cb
Given the concentration of the 2017 vote among strong leave identifiers a more potent threat to the Conservative vote is likely to come in the shape of the Brexit Party. In total over half of the ‘very strong leave’ group give their likelihood of voting for the Brexit Party as 6/10 or higher. Given this also represents almost half of the total 2017 Conservative vote it leaves open the possibility of up to a quarter of 2017 Conservative voters moving to the Brexit Party (polling immediately after the EU Parliament election detected this). Initial polling suggested the change of leadership in the Conservative party could be enough to stem this flow but the danger remains present should the government (be seen as) failing to deliver on its Brexit commitment.
They should have organised Parmos so that Sir Keir could enjoy a true regional culinary delight.
NEW THREAD
And wrt Fury, I'm perfectly prepared to wait until the morning and find it on youtube.
Not so fast. We now have a 2 year transition with a cliff edge awaiting if we can't agree the Future Relationship. Expect further intense Brexit argument (there is a lot more to agree now) and the Remain faction to morph into the Norway faction with rejoining the ultimate objective. In this round of negotiations we suffer the position of being on the outside and a 3rd country and therefore less leverage. Meanwhile the EU quietly makes sure that in the event of no deal in 2021 their economic impact will be minimised after the 2019 fiasco. We will try to do the same and start a massive program of customs infrastructure and customs recruitment etc etc (which will then in itself make agreeing a Norway almost impossible "we spent £xbn on this and now we don't need it????"). Meanwhile the economy deflates as economic links with our closest neighbours stagnates and our services industry suffers as the likelihood of free access to the EU market diminishes.
Unless someone comes up with a way to tow our islands over to the US or perhaps SE Asia