politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The deal splits the Tories whilst a referendum would split LAB

First, unlike May in a 'Who can give a straight answer?' competition.

A second referendum would split the Tories too.

I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

May's changing her tune again and again on what happens if the Deal is voted down.

I guess there's only one way to find out...

Pulpstar said:

I see Sir John Hayes has named his price for supporting the Gov't.

My parents have known him for years. The stories they could tell...

FrancisUrquhart said:

Benpointer said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

As it is Black Friday, public service announcement. For those that don’t know camelcamelcamel is a great website for tracking historical prices on amazon so you can check if it really is a good deal or not.

Does camelcamelcamel only cover Amazon?

Yes, Amazon and third party sellers on Amazon. However, with that combined data that is pretty good indicator of the "real" market value of an item.

If you use Chrome as your browser, the Keepa extension does the same thing for Amazon pages. Really useful.

Good header.

As I have said several times, clear your diaries for May/June.

On topic, this shows how much the mood has changed. Julia Hartley-Brewer's applause line is greeted with silence.

https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1065895474870321152

notme said:

Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

Immigration

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/1065992958040858624

It's a Remain landslide then...

Well, even with that not a landslide perhaps.

But I don't see how a ref is avoided if Mps actually believe what they say about no deal. For Tories it is a bit better than a GE after dividing so publicly and for labour they can claim to not back a side bit leave it to the people.

Benpointer said:

notme said:

Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

Good point. Can somebody remind me again why that was ruled out exactly?

Immigration

FrancisUrquhart said:

Benpointer said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

As it is Black Friday, public service announcement. For those that don’t know camelcamelcamel is a great website for tracking historical prices on amazon so you can check if it really is a good deal or not.

Does camelcamelcamel only cover Amazon?

Yes, Amazon and third party sellers on Amazon. However, with that combined data that is pretty good indicator of the "real" market value of an item.

Ok thanks. Looking for a non-contract iPhone SE to replace Mrs. P's old iPhone 5C. Refurbished doesn't sound like a good idea but there's a huge range of prices for a phone that is basically end of life.

anothernick said:

Sean_F said:

A second referendum would split the Tories too.

I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.

Maybe the Commons will have to stage a referendum about what the question should be in any second referendum.

kle4 said:

anothernick said:

Sean_F said:

A second referendum would split the Tories too.

I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.

In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.

Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

anothernick said:

Sean_F said:

A second referendum would split the Tories too.

I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.

In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.

Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?

Good question. Someone should ask them.

AndyJS said:

In some ways it's surprising that in the United States they still require all 12 jurors to agree on a verdict.

As part of a wider system that sees far few decisions in court (but more juries compared to judges' decisions)

TGOHF said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/22/cabinet-brexiteers-gambling-managed-no-deal-good-chance-bet/

"The threat of the Tory whips – “May’s deal or no Brexit” – is fast losing its potency because a striking number of senior Brexiteers now believe that her deal is far worse. Thursday’s “political declaration” confirmed her plan: send £39 billion to Brussels with almost no assurances of what will be given in return. A free trade deal is spoken of, but not guaranteed.

We learned on Thursday that, in spite of Britain promising to align with EU regulations, we are not even being promised frictionless trade. Astonishingly, Northern Ireland is ceded to the EU regulatory orbit – for as long as the EU wants it."

"There might be a bigger Brexit deal in two years’ time, but having banked both our money and Ireland, the EU has almost no incentive to give us one. “Free movement will be next to go,” says one former Cabinet Brexiteer. “We’d be better staying in. No question.”"

"As recently as last week, Mrs May had hoped that the passage of time would lead MPs to see her deal as the most pragmatic option. But they’re coming to believe that her deal – this blind Brexit with nothing clear at the end of it – would guarantee years of instability, making the Tories forever seen as the party that botched Brexit, reviving populism and near-guaranteeing victory for Jeremy Corbyn.

There are, now, no safe Brexit options. The Brexiteers’ plan – betting on her losing next month’s vote, then pushing for a managed no-deal – is a massive gamble. But a great many Tories are coming to believe that nodding through Mrs May’s Brexit deal might be the most reckless gamble of all."

Isn't it because the EU won't negotiate anything on the future relationship until the UK is a third party? A50 only says that "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."

kle4 said:

anothernick said:

Sean_F said:

A second referendum would split the Tories too.

I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.

In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.

Mrs May might have played a blinder here! We shall see.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

AndyJS said:

In some ways it's surprising that in the United States they still require all 12 jurors to agree on a verdict.

As part of a wider system that sees far few decisions in court (but more juries compared to judges' decisions)

Isn't some insanely high percentage of prosecutions are by plea-bargain, like over 90%?

TGOHF said:

kle4 said:

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

anothernick said:

Sean_F said:

A second referendum would split the Tories too.

I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.

In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.

Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?

They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.

I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

Do you really think if a brilliant brexiteer was in charge the deal would have been any different. The EU would still be the same EU

Anazina said:

There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

It was all over the campaign though.

All of the targeted ads with questionable funding sources. There is no question it motivated voters.

ralphmalph said:

rottenborough said:

This is a few hours old now, but is I think correct. The Tories will be decimated if a no Deal Brexit happens:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1065887927559962626

Perhaps Mr Hodges can write an article in the DM giving us the benefit of his knowledge, basic services. So the water will be turned off, the rubbish not collected, the potholes filled even less than they are now. I look forward to it.

He probably means that there won't be any Good Brie.

I have been somewhat under the weather of late and struggling to keep up with all the twists and turns of this but I must confess that the position of Raab and seemingly others that May's deal is worse than remaining confounds me completely.

It is true that May's deal is a soft Brexit; that it gives the EU far more say over our future laws and regulations than many would like and that it contains the infamous backstop which potentially gives the EU even more power and say over the laws of NI. It also leaves us rather more beholden to them in respect of a future FTA than I would like. This is all unfortunate and regrettable but a fairly inevitable consequence of the incompetence with which the negotiations have been conducted. Some of it was always inevitable regardless standing the comparative strength of the parties.

OTOH it gets us out of the political mechanisms of the EU, it provides a necessary transitional period, it keeps the disruption to trade to a minimum, it makes it clear that it will be our decision whether we wish to keep free movement once that transitional period is over, it gets us out of the CAP, it largely leaves the decision about whether we remain in the CFP at the end of the transitional period down to us, it prevents the EU from seeking to impose any laws on us outwith the scope of the SM and even there we are simply being asked to accept that if we choose to pass laws incompatible with the SM that we are accepting the consequences of that.

I really don't think that you have to be a glass half full kind of guy or gal to recognise that this is a major step away from the EU, that it is consistent with the referendum result and that it also reflects the fact that the decision to leave was close. I can understand, even if I disagree, with those who say that no deal would be better, that we can make the mini deals to protect residents, transport links etc but we should not agree to any of this. I do not understand how anyone who apparently wanted to leave would say that they would rather stay as an alternative. Do they really think that there is a chance in hell that the UK would want to revisit this issue again for another 40 years? I mean, seriously?

TGOHF said:

kle4 said:

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

anothernick said:

Sean_F said:

A second referendum would split the Tories too.

I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.

In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.

Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?

They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.

I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

Dom Cummings did, he is on record as saying that current MP's and the Civil Service could not deliver a beneficial Brexit or his definition of a beneficial Brexit.

Anazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

notme said:

Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.

Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.

Were you in a coma during the referendum, did you miss all the stuff about ending free movement?

Tissue_Price said:

DavidL said:

I do not understand how anyone who apparently wanted to leave would say that they would rather stay as an alternative. Do they really think that there is a chance in hell that the UK would want to revisit this issue again for another 40 years? I mean, seriously?

I think it's a negotiating tactic: only by threatening to vote against can they hope to get the deal toughened up. Playing with fire, as I said earlier, but there is a certain rationale.

That would be rational, but having read the ravings of people like Andrew Lilico on twitter, I think some of them truly believe what they're saying

notme said:

Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.

And all 6 of them post here regularly

RobD said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

AndyJS said:

In some ways it's surprising that in the United States they still require all 12 jurors to agree on a verdict.

As part of a wider system that sees far few decisions in court (but more juries compared to judges' decisions)

Isn't some insanely high percentage of prosecutions are by plea-bargain, like over 90%?

Plea bargains are pretty corrupt most of the time IMO. If you say to someone who's protesting their innocence that you'll offer them five years in jail if they plead guilty compared to life imprisonment if they plead not guilty and are found guilty, 99% of people are going to plead guilty even if they know they're innocent.

Richard_Tyndall said:

No party has an inherent right to exist and given how badly they have screwed up the most important job they have had to do in the last 50 years they deserve no sympathy and no help. They are unfit to exist as a potentially governing party.

This applies to Labour at least as much as the Tories

notme said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

notme said:

Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.

Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.

Were you in a coma during the referendum, did you miss all the stuff about ending free movement?

Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.

I know but it was the second most important reason, in fact you could argue that it was a subset of number one.

AndyJS said:

RobD said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

AndyJS said:

In some ways it's surprising that in the United States they still require all 12 jurors to agree on a verdict.

As part of a wider system that sees far few decisions in court (but more juries compared to judges' decisions)

Isn't some insanely high percentage of prosecutions are by plea-bargain, like over 90%?

Plea bargains are pretty corrupt most of the time IMO. If you say to someone who's protesting their innocence that you'll offer them five years in jail if they plead guilty compared to life imprisonment if they plead not guilty and are found guilty, 99% of people are going to plead guilty even if they know they're innocent.

Yes, it's a rotten system. They need magistrates' courts.

ralphmalph said:

TGOHF said:

kle4 said:

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

anothernick said:

Sean_F said:

A second referendum would split the Tories too.

I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.

In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.

Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?

They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.

I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

Dom Cummings did, he is on record as saying that current MP's and the Civil Service could not deliver a beneficial Brexit or his definition of a beneficial Brexit.

Perhaps because it is impossible. Convenient to have the cult of betrayal running early though.

Tissue_Price said:

DavidL said:

I do not understand how anyone who apparently wanted to leave would say that they would rather stay as an alternative. Do they really think that there is a chance in hell that the UK would want to revisit this issue again for another 40 years? I mean, seriously?

I think it's a negotiating tactic: only by threatening to vote against can they hope to get the deal toughened up. Playing with fire, as I said earlier, but there is a certain rationale.

It's completely bonkers. It makes people think that remaining would not be so bad after all and that it is ok to disregard the public vote because even those who argued for leave have now recognised it is all too difficult. As a negotiating tactic its right up there with playing Russian roulette where you have one go aiming at your own head and the next go aiming at your own feet.

https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1065991195137138688

https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1065991196529561601

currystar said:

TGOHF said:

kle4 said:

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

anothernick said:

Sean_F said:

A second referendum would split the Tories too.

I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.

In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.

Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?

They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.

I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

Do you really think if a brilliant brexiteer was in charge the deal would have been any different. The EU would still be the same EU

But there were plenty of people accurately pointing out the mistakes that were being made before they were even agreed. I mean people who genuinely wanted things to go well rather than hardline opponents on either side. It was obvious from the start that agreeing the EU scheduling was a ridiculous idea. If the UK had stood their ground on that and made a cogent argument even the EU would have seen it was daft. Agreeing the Irish backstop was another daft idea. Deciding to represent only the views of a tiny hardline minority of the electorate rather than having a Brexit for the widest number of people.

A moderate Brexit supporter would have been able to see these things - as did many on both sides of the referendum divide - and would have had a far better chance of selling a sensible compromise than someone who clearly did not understand or even want to understand why people voted Brexit.

I can well imagine May sat in meetings in Brussels saying ' look I am really sorry about this. I didn't vote for Brexit and have no idea why people did'. It may be a way to keep friends in the EU but it is no way to try and run a negotiation.

Richard_Tyndall said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rottenborough said:

This is a few hours old now, but is I think correct. The Tories will be decimated if a no Deal Brexit happens:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1065887927559962626

The Tories will be decimated if we Remain as well. Actually just losing one in ten would be the very least they could expect. I would not be surprised to see them destroyed as a political force.

They need years of quiet to rebuild. But they won't get that.

Nor do they deserve it. No party has an inherent right to exist and given how badly they have screwed up the most important job they have had to do in the last 50 years they deserve no sympathy and no help. They are unfit to exist as a potentially governing party.

That's actually been the case for most of my adult life. Time and again, the Conservatives form a circular firing squad.

DavidL said:

Tissue_Price said:

DavidL said:

I do not understand how anyone who apparently wanted to leave would say that they would rather stay as an alternative. Do they really think that there is a chance in hell that the UK would want to revisit this issue again for another 40 years? I mean, seriously?

I think it's a negotiating tactic: only by threatening to vote against can they hope to get the deal toughened up. Playing with fire, as I said earlier, but there is a certain rationale.

It's completely bonkers. It makes people think that remaining would not be so bad after all and that it is ok to disregard the public vote because even those who argued for leave have now recognised it is all too difficult. As a negotiating tactic its right up there with playing Russian roulette where you have one go aiming at your own head and the next go aiming at your own feet.

The odious Jake Rees has a third gun, permanently wedged up his anal passage.

Richard_Tyndall said:

currystar said:

TGOHF said:

kle4 said:

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

anothernick said:

Sean_F said:

A second referendum would split the Tories too.

I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.

In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.

Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?

They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.

I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

Do you really think if a brilliant brexiteer was in charge the deal would have been any different. The EU would still be the same EU

But there were plenty of people accurately pointing out the mistakes that were being made before they were even agreed. I mean people who genuinely wanted things to go well rather than hardline opponents on either side. It was obvious from the start that agreeing the EU scheduling was a ridiculous idea. If the UK had stood their ground on that and made a cogent argument even the EU would have seen it was daft. Agreeing the Irish backstop was another daft idea. Deciding to represent only the views of a tiny hardline minority of the electorate rather than having a Brexit for the widest number of people.

A moderate Brexit supporter would have been able to see these things - as did many on both sides of the referendum divide - and would have had a far better chance of selling a sensible compromise than someone who clearly did not understand or even want to understand why people voted Brexit.

I can well imagine May sat in meetings in Brussels saying ' look I am really sorry about this. I didn't vote for Brexit and have no idea why people did'. It may be a way to keep friends in the EU but it is no way to try and run a negotiation.

With their treatment of Greece I just can't see the EU acting any differently towards us.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Tissue_Price said:

This jury are being very slow. Unlike Ms Onasanya's car.

Joyridden by a mystery Russian...

Surely this happens to your car all the time. And you lend out both your phones at the same time of course. Nothing surprising about that at all.

Richard_Tyndall said:

currystar said:

TGOHF said:

kle4 said:

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

anothernick said:

Sean_F said:

A second referendum would split the Tories too.

I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.

In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.

Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?

They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.

I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

Do you really think if a brilliant brexiteer was in charge the deal would have been any different. The EU would still be the same EU

But there were plenty of people accurately pointing out the mistakes that were being made before they were even agreed. I mean people who genuinely wanted things to go well rather than hardline opponents on either side. It was obvious from the start that agreeing the EU scheduling was a ridiculous idea. If the UK had stood their ground on that and made a cogent argument even the EU would have seen it was daft. Agreeing the Irish backstop was another daft idea. Deciding to represent only the views of a tiny hardline minority of the electorate rather than having a Brexit for the widest number of people.

A moderate Brexit supporter would have been able to see these things - as did many on both sides of the referendum divide - and would have had a far better chance of selling a sensible compromise than someone who clearly did not understand or even want to understand why people voted Brexit.

I can well imagine May sat in meetings in Brussels saying ' look I am really sorry about this. I didn't vote for Brexit and have no idea why people did'. It may be a way to keep friends in the EU but it is no way to try and run a negotiation.

Even if that was the case, such a PM would probably have faced the same difficulties with his/her own side. There are people who regard any compromise as betrayal.

TheScreamingEagles said:

notme said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

notme said:

Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.

Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.

Were you in a coma during the referendum, did you miss all the stuff about ending free movement?

Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.

I know but it was the second most important reason, in fact you could argue that it was a subset of number one.

So as we have said all along, immigration was not the main driving factor behind the Leave vote and yet we have sacrificed every other possible Brexit on the alter of ending EU migration. I hope HYUFD sees that.

DavidL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Tissue_Price said:

This jury are being very slow. Unlike Ms Onasanya's car.

Joyridden by a mystery Russian...

Surely this happens to your car all the time. And you lend out both your phones at the same time of course. Nothing surprising about that at all.

Of course. Only this afternoon, this bloke who said his name was Sergei knocked on my door. He said he was an DPD delivery driver and could he borrow my car and mobiles for the afternoon, so he could finish his rounds.

Should I be getting worried he hasn't returned yet?

DavidL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Tissue_Price said:

This jury are being very slow. Unlike Ms Onasanya's car.

Joyridden by a mystery Russian...

Surely this happens to your car all the time. And you lend out both your phones at the same time of course. Nothing surprising about that at all.

Live look at a couple of the juror's latest tweets :

https://twitter.com/LenMcCluskey/status/1065880780025577472

Scott_P said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

No party has an inherent right to exist and given how badly they have screwed up the most important job they have had to do in the last 50 years they deserve no sympathy and no help. They are unfit to exist as a potentially governing party.

This applies to Labour at least as much as the Tories

I agree. It applies to any party but it was the Tories who were in charge for the last 3 years so it was their responsibility to sort this out.

felix said:

OT: A second referendum would be a just reward for the idiots on the extrme right of the Tory party. I firmly believe it would be a vote to Remain in the EU.

Believe is the right word for it. There isn't much evidence from the polls that another referendum would produce a significantly different result.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

notme said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

notme said:

Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.

Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.

Were you in a coma during the referendum, did you miss all the stuff about ending free movement?

Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.

I know but it was the second most important reason, in fact you could argue that it was a subset of number one.

So as we have said all along, immigration was not the main driving factor behind the Leave vote and yet we have sacrificed every other possible Brexit on the alter of ending EU migration. I hope HYUFD sees that.

The principal decision that people would want to be taken here is deciding who can come here. For many, "sovereignty" was just code for immigration.