Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Its 5/4 at Ladbrokes that there’ll be no deal on Brexit
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Its 5/4 at Ladbrokes that there’ll be no deal on Brexit
Ladbrokes has some new markets up on the outcome of the Brexit negotiations which look interesting but I’m not sure if any of them offer any value.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
When you think about the chances or there being a transitional arrangement for 2 or more years, this makes it very likely that there will not be a Breit deal in place by the given date. Assuming Lads don't consider the transitional arrangement to be the 'Deal'.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435117300326
However, quite why they thought it was smart to specify the exact date in this market and then use "by" in the title and "before" in the rules is beyond me. Caveat bettor.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.130766060
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer. The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them: to die, to sleep.
5/4 are bad odds on No Deal.
* That word may not be needed.
Sigh.
Gatecrashing the meeting tonight for example.
Why do I get the feeling Michel Barnier is one rejection away from finding a boiled bunny on his stove.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/920981920787386368
As an aside
Donald Trump has invoked the Fifth Amendment almost 100 times.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/two-things-you-should-know-11370724
It's just a matter of if he departs with a bang* or a whimper.
* Not one that's mushroom-shaped, I hope.
Why oh why oh why did nobody warn us.
The discipline of the EU27 is impressive compare and contrast with our cabinet.
https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/735770073822961664
http://www.politico.eu/article/eu-clarifies-stance-brexit-bill-michel-barnier-david-davis/
Very dark and gloomy here.
No deal seems to be only a 'proper' one, ie not including a transition. If that's the case, the odds look fairly good.
If the choice is:
1) Leave + Pay £60bn+
2) Let Corbyn become PM and see what happens
Then surely all Leave MPs would choose 1) because it's the only certain way of leaving - and at least leaving properly.
Whereas Option 2) could result in anything.
Of course they say they want £65-80bn. Why would they say anything else?
That doesn't mean they won't settle for:
Transfer of pension obligations to the UK for UK MEPs and Eurocrats.
Netting off of EIB stake.
£10bn a year payments during the transition period.
and a £20bn one off payment.
They can make that sound like £60bn if they like. And we'll make it sound like they accepted our £20bn.
Key point is it's a one-off payment.
National Debt is £1,700bn
So what if it becomes £1,765bn?
Difference is not material.
You’d rather trap an appendage in a door than give them a penny more.
1 would rip the Tory vote apart and be a gift to UKIP.
"Ferrari risk opening the door to "chaos" if they shake up their organisation too much in response to the reliability failures that have wrecked their championship ambitions, claims Force India chief operating officer Otmar Szafnauer. (Motorsport.com)"
For now, no bet.
Anyway, some out-of-the box thinking from the tory left;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/19/conservative-case-for-redistribution-tories
IMO, the best way for the tories to regenerate themselves among the young/workers is ditching their homeownership fetish.
It's not going to happen, though. Their client vote are rentiers.
Once a deal is agreed it goes into the accounts and we move on, the Tory vote won't go anywhere as the deal will be history while voting is about the future. UKIP can't change the deal when its already happened.
Except that it has to be tied to a deal, otherwise it's just throwing money at the EU. And we can't agree a deal unless they discuss one.
The FT had an excellent article detailing exactly what the EU's claims were here (https://www.ft.com/content/29fc1abc-2fe0-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a and https://www.ft.com/content/69296fe6-51be-11e7-a1f2-db19572361bb?mhq5j=e7).
It says the EU is demanding a gross €100bn (i.e. £85bn), but that it is a net €60bn. The EU always uses the gross figure in its grandstanding (anchoring), but we always talk using net.
Of the €100bn, there is €12bn of contingent liabilities associated with the EU's bail outs in the financial crisis.
This is, of course, nonsense. Even if we accept that we'd be on the hook for a proportion of losses if the Irish government went bust, why would we hand the money over to the EU now so they could hold onto it until Ireland paid them back? (And the whole issue is almost completely academic anyway. Ireland's debt to GDP is now below the UK's and falling fast. A sensible solution where we lent on the Irish government - and potentially Portugal too - to replace their debts to the EU with private sector loans would eliminate this "bill" completely.)
They are cutting it fine.
Bloody PR...
I'm not asking Remainers to take back their guff from the referendum.
Think of it as the moment when Ed Miliband said the last Labour Government didn’t overspend.
The great unwashed have voted for it, it must be honoured.
To admit as much would be tantamount to heresy!
However bad some people think Brexit is, Stopping Brexit is worse. It would be insanely incendiary.
You can’t even treat budget votes as votes of confidence anymore.
After all, £65bn is only the equivalent of delaying the promised £350m per week for the NHS by 3.5 years!
@HYUFD's opinion notwithstanding, I still expect a deal that looks like €20bn to us and €60bn to them, along the lines @rcs1000 suggests.
But the timing is getting ugly in terms of the need for contingency planning, both by governments and firms.
Which is why I wouldn't necessarily have triggered Article 50 - it was written by the EU to advantage the EU. There were other ways of leaving, though perhaps they wouldn't have been politically practicable.
The issue is that EU wants the decision about the size of the bill to precede discussion about trade, at which point our leverage to balance trade concessions for money (or vice versa) is lessened.
Which is why we need to credibly prepare for no deal, while simultaneously being relatively amenable (along the lines I outlined above) on the money.
Ruling out no deal means accepting any deal, which is why Starmer's opportunism is so ridiculous.
Unfortunately, even 16 months after the referendum, we have made next to no progress on being able to leave without a deal.
https://order-order.com/2017/10/19/mcdonnell-confirms-plan-take-labour/
If Corbyn wants to pay £65 billion to the EU let him campaign on that and take the flack along with the minority parties who will have to prop him up to do so.
The Brexiteers current negotiating skills are making Cameron's EU negotiation look like a masterclass.
Mr. Tyndall, let's not argue about who killed who... this is meant to be a happy website.
F1: just an aside but I'm genuinely intrigued to see how the teams stack up. The US has a great circuit, and Red Bull have improved significantly over the course of the season. There's also a very tight midfield Constructor battle. Whilst it's a shame the title duel has effectively ended, there's still four good races (hopefully) ahead.
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/10/19/2194996/is-growing-the-pie-overrated-and-does-that-explain-why-everything-is-terrible/
The tory approach - to impose austerity on the young and the poor while transferring wealth from them to their client vote through the housing market is a rather smart electoral strategy.
They can win the next election if they double down on it.
Fu*king terrifying if you're a young/poor/non-homeowner.
They are not preparing to have no deal on Openskies. They are nor preparing to have no deal on Euratom.
Anyway Javid is already pushing a mass programme of building more affordable housing, even going beyond council's local plans to do so.