politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Day 3 of the Supreme Court hearing opens with the Government’s

TheScreamingEagles said:

IDS has made a right mammary gland of himself over this case.

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Curiously, Niall Fergusson's recantation over BREXIT has only made the Sun & the Mail - Guardian and BBC must be fact checking it.......

Did the BBC and Guardian cover Ferguson's original position?

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

IDS has made a right mammary gland of himself over this case.

With IDS it's always about the size of the mammary gland rather than whether he is one or not.

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Pulpstar said:

rcs1000 said:

PlatoSaid said:

I don't think I've seen this mentioned on PB

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/12/boom-trump-announces-sprint-agreement-invest-50-billion-us-create-50000-jobs-video/

"The KC Star reported:

President-elect Donald Trump said Tuesday that the Tokyo-based parent company of Sprint Corp. has agreed to invest $50 billion and create 50,000 jobs in the United States...."

He's borrowing $50bn in the US to invest $50bn in the US. It's a sort of "heads he wins, tails the banks lose" kind of trade.

What is worth $70 Bn in collateral that Sprint is giving ?

He is using his Sprint holdings as collateral, yes.

Currently, SoftBank owns 3.3bn shares of sprint, worth around $20bn.

So, he's using $20bn of collateral to make the trade.

There's a big but though.

Sprint itself is very, very highly levered. It has $31bn of debt on its balance sheet, and free cash flow of -$247m. If Sprint works out, he'll do very well. But if US mobile phone prices were to come down towards European levels, then Sprint (the fourth largest US mobile phone company) could find itself in real trouble, real quick.

I like his chtuzpah: take one asset that's a bit troubled, and borrow $50bn against it, to invest in a whole bunch of other things. If it doesn't work out, walk away from the whole lot, and lose a maximum of $20bn. (And he hasn't really lost that, as he couldn't really sell Sprint for that money today.) But if Sprint works, or if some of these investments pay off, you could be looking at $100bn of upside.

As I said "heads he wins, tails the banks lose".

TheScreamingEagles said:

IDS has made a right mammary gland of himself over this case.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, nothing says anarchy like respecting the result of a referendum

I think concerns are more about oligarchy than anarchy. Can't have the pesky unwashed masses getting their way without lawyers sticking their oar in, can we?

How terribly helpful that the referendum was made advisory rather than binding, a choice that only harms one potential result.

[I'm being a bit tongue in cheek as I'm procrastinating. But I do think most people will just be annoyed, or angered].

Bromptonaut said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, got to say I think any finding against the Government will annoy far more people than it delights.

My mother voted for Remain, but is bloody sick of the dilly-dallying.

Justice shouldn't be decided to please the masses.

It must be based on the rule of law.

Otherwise we're headed for anarchy.

If it forces May to take a more open and collaborative approach to the monumental task the nation faces, it will all have been worth it.

Where do I nominate Gina Miller for a gong?

CarlottaVance said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

FPT:

rottenborough said:

Great photo of Osborne looking witheringly at Britain's leading pitchforker, IDS, in DM this morning:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4007894/IAIN-DUNCAN-SMITH-s-crucial-judges-decide-fate-Brexit-scrutinised.html

Don't bother to read the actual article which just shows why the Tories made their greatest decision when they dumped him. The dog next door has more knowledge of the british legal and constitutional system.

George has put back on the weight he lost in the run up to his replacement of Cameron the last GE - at first I thought it must be an old photo - but it can't be as he's on the back benches where he belongs (-that's enough - ed.)

When I saw him a few weeks ago he was svelte as he has been.

We know you have a man-crush on him.....its a jolly unflattering photo then......

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, you're using the absence of a march to claim the presence of mob rule? Interesting approach to logic.

Pulpstar said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Pulpstar said:

rcs1000 said:

PlatoSaid said:

I don't think I've seen this mentioned on PB

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/12/boom-trump-announces-sprint-agreement-invest-50-billion-us-create-50000-jobs-video/

"The KC Star reported:

President-elect Donald Trump said Tuesday that the Tokyo-based parent company of Sprint Corp. has agreed to invest $50 billion and create 50,000 jobs in the United States...."

He's borrowing $50bn in the US to invest $50bn in the US. It's a sort of "heads he wins, tails the banks lose" kind of trade.

What is worth $70 Bn in collateral that Sprint is giving ?

He is using his Sprint holdings as collateral, yes.

Currently, SoftBank owns 3.3bn shares of sprint, worth around $20bn.

So, he's using $20bn of collateral to make the trade.

There's a big but though.

Sprint itself is very, very highly levered. It has $31bn of debt on its balance sheet, and free cash flow of -$247m. If Sprint works out, he'll do very well. But if US mobile phone prices were to come down towards European levels, then Sprint (the fourth largest US mobile phone company) could find itself in real trouble, real quick.

I like his chtuzpah: take one asset that's a bit troubled, and borrow $50bn against it, to invest in a whole bunch of other things. If it doesn't work out, walk away from the whole lot, and lose a maximum of $20bn. (And he hasn't really lost that, as he couldn't really sell Sprint for that money today.) But if Sprint works, or if some of these investments pay off, you could be looking at $100bn of upside.

As I said "heads he wins, tails the banks lose".

Well I assume the bank is earning a healthy amount of interest on this, I'd be looking for around 15% given these "facts"/collateral

PlatoSaid said:

Jon Ashmore
No Labour MPs on PMQs list. Party source: "It's a sign of their strong support and respect for Emily Thornberry" (Corbyn's stand-in)

PlatoSaid said:

Jon Ashmore
No Labour MPs on PMQs list. Party source: "It's a sign of their strong support and respect for Emily Thornberry" (Corbyn's stand-in)

CarlottaVance said:

@afneil UK industrial output suffered its biggest monthly drop in more than four years in October after the temporary shutdown of a major oilfield

Before anyone get carried away.....Look! See! I told you!

CarlottaVance said:

@afneil UK industrial output suffered its biggest monthly drop in more than four years in October after the temporary shutdown of a major oilfield

Before anyone get carried away.....Look! See! I told you!

TheScreamingEagles said:

ICYMI

Liz Truss and her tribute to The Day Today

https://twitter.com/Sean__Clare/status/806132017242972161

FF43 said:

Andy_Cooke said:

It's looking like Gina Miller and co may have saved Brexit after all, then.

After all, compare the following outcomes:

THE WAY THINGS ARE:
- The case is taken to Court before Government tries to invoke A50. The High Court checks constitutional law and affirms that the constitutional requirements for the UK are that Parliament makes the official decision to withdraw. The Supreme Court either uphold or reject this. If they reject it, no delay, no issue. If they uphold it, TMay has three-and-a-half months to get a short Bill through Parliament whilst holding an absolute majority in the Commons and the moral backing of a referendum. It either passes easily or MPs block it; if they block it, she has plenty of routes to dissolving Parliament (even with the FTPA) in plenty of time to let the people kick out the blockers. No delay.

IN A WORLD WHERE THE REMAINERS PLAY CUNNING:
- They wait for after March, and maybe into next year. Or even 18 months into negotiations and then bring the case.
The law is the same, and the outcome is revealed similarly. It is found that this Member State has not followed the first provision of Article 50: "1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
A case is brought to the ECJ to block Brexit on account of Article 50 not having been lawfully invoked. The exit process is halted while the court finds - and given the law, it looks pretty clear.
We're now deep into 2019 or even 2020. Article 50 has not been officially invoked and everything is a clusterfuck. Given the fallout and chaos, the chance of actually halting Brexit completely would be orders of magnitude greater.

The battle is over the HOW and not the WHAT of Brexit. There is essentially no legal way to stop Brexit. (And FWIW, and as someone who is confident Brexit is going to be a huge mess anyway, I don't think they should try). Even your second approach would only delay it until the government got its ducks in a row. Theresa May wants to shut down debate over the HOW. The legal challenge is one way of pushing back.

AlastairMeeks said:

These odds make no sense. While "Do Not Overrule" should be favourite, "Overrule" should be no longer than 6/4.

CarlottaVance said:

Mary Beard:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/dons_life/2016/12/the-fall-of-the-roman-empire-on-twitter.html

FrancisUrquhart said:

CarlottaVance said:

@afneil UK industrial output suffered its biggest monthly drop in more than four years in October after the temporary shutdown of a major oilfield

Before anyone get carried away.....Look! See! I told you!

Ed Conway making a tit of himself...nothing new there.

perdix said:

Bromptonaut said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, got to say I think any finding against the Government will annoy far more people than it delights.

My mother voted for Remain, but is bloody sick of the dilly-dallying.

Justice shouldn't be decided to please the masses.

It must be based on the rule of law.

Otherwise we're headed for anarchy.

If it forces May to take a more open and collaborative approach to the monumental task the nation faces, it will all have been worth it.

Where do I nominate Gina Miller for a gong?

Gina Miller should be nominated for deportation.

TGOHF said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Red cards in cricket ? World's gone mad

MCC recommends red cards be introduced into laws of cricket

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/dec/07/mcc-recommend-red-cards-sending-off-laws-of-cricket

Much more interesting: "The committee believes that the balance of the game has tilted too far in the batsman’s favour and has also recommended specific bat size limitations."

PlatoSaid said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Plato, that sounds really rather stupid. Why would someone mock the person who made a positive comment on an article they wrote?

Not to mention it being rude.

I was WTF. I simply said I wished to see more great columns, he mocked me for not knowing he'd a regular one. I'd not noticed yet knew and looked for other columnists.

Totally weird and rude clever dickhead behaviour by him. I've unfollowed so many journalists on Twitter recently, I look at their childish playground output and see nothing worth reading. It's embarrassing stuff.

The whole profession is obsessed with trivia, gossip and innuendo. There's no news.

Guido has more scoops and doesn't pretend to be high faluting.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

My instincts tell me that the Supreme Court and remainers may win but will lose the war in the eyes of the voter.
I believe that this will lead to increasing anger with the out of touch left elite and those threatening to stop Brexit.
I expect to see many remainers siding with leavers as an injustice is perceived to be happening. You can throw as much common law as you like at trying to subvert the will of the people but it will only increase the reasons why Brexit happened, as well as Trump and this week Italy.
Remainers are playing with fire.

AlastairMeeks said:

FF43 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

These odds make no sense. While "Do Not Overrule" should be favourite, "Overrule" should be no longer than 6/4.

Journalists have favourably compared the cogent advocacy of the Article 50 challenge with the mundane case put by the Government side. But that seems to be partly down to a more personable advocate for the challenge. It's not likely to cut much ice with Supreme Court judges, who will have a higher regard for their own understanding of the law than any barrister that comes before them.

On this occasion, journalists don't know what they're talking about. Good luck trying to overwhelm Lord Sumption with skilful advocacy.

Yesterday Faisal Islam observed on twitter that: "The Justices interventions with Pannick have, so far, been far more confirmatory "Does this mean xyz? Yes" than with Eadie."

That is not good for the respondents. Engaged judges challenge and pull at arguments. They don't just seek to establish what the arguments are.

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

perdix said:

Bromptonaut said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, got to say I think any finding against the Government will annoy far more people than it delights.

My mother voted for Remain, but is bloody sick of the dilly-dallying.

Justice shouldn't be decided to please the masses.

It must be based on the rule of law.

Otherwise we're headed for anarchy.

If it forces May to take a more open and collaborative approach to the monumental task the nation faces, it will all have been worth it.

Where do I nominate Gina Miller for a gong?

Gina Miller should be nominated for deportation.

You can't deport British citizens.

We used to! Bring back penal colonies I say.