politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay is the odds-on favourite to win a TV Brexit debate with C

Can I get odds on Amber Rudd winning the debate?

It won't get anywhere near 8 million.

Mr. Pulpstar, or lost even more.

Artist said:

It won't get anywhere near 8 million.

12% of population must be possible

RobD said:

grabcocque said:

FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.

He's not accusing a pollster of lying, he's accusing the Daily Fail of misrepresenting poll results. Which they are.

Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only)
- Remain 44%
- Govt Brexit Agreement 22%
- Leaving EU with no deal 29%

("Britons Back May's Deal")

grabcocque said:

CarlottaVance said:

grabcocque said:

Q??? Would staying in the EU be humiliating?

Daily Mail reported this as Yes 47, No 24.
(But... this question appears not to exist in the Survation poll. At this point, we're way beyond maximising the truth's scope and into outright fabrication)

Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'

Agree: 47
Disagree: 24

And among Con voters its 60: 20

You really haven't covered yourself in glory with this Survation poll, have you? First you accused Survation of Push Polling, then you cited a two week old poll as proof the Mail are lying - and now you can't even read the tables when you do have them in front of you....

The daily mail states it as "it would be humiliating". That's not nearly what the question asks, like the other questions, it's a gross misrepresentation of the data.

You're the one thats lying.

The Mail writes: Reversing Brexit would damage our national standing, according to 47 per cent.

That's a simple abbreviation of the question: Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'

And when they do editorialise they also cite the question:

But the public is in no doubt about the potential humiliation caused by any decision to reverse Brexit at the 11th hour – 47 per cent say it would damage our international standing against 24 per cent who disagree.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6435545/British-people-Mays-Brexit-deal-exclusive-poll-finds.html

Hmm. A small arbitrage opportunity. Perhaps.

Ladbrokes has 6.5 (7 with boost) on a Brexit deal, 11 December, passing. Betfair as 1.25 on Brexit not being approved, but it looks like the terms are looser, covering all December.

Check for yourself, as a second vote in December passing would, seemingly, make both red.

grabcocque said:

FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

The Mail have been highly selective in the presentation of the data - but the only one thats been lying is you.

It depends what you mean by win.

Is anybody going to be shocked if Jezza just does it usual schtick, but at the end says he backs a second referendum.

The media will go wild and it won't matter what careful arguments RoboMay might have put out.

Poor Guido, what a knob.

The Daily Mail has made strong representations that our previous headline “Daily Mail Twists Own Poll Results, Public Opposes May’s Deal, Frontpage Headline Says Opposite” was unfair and untrue. On further reflection we accept that we were quoting from two different polls commissioned by the Daily Mail two weeks apart. We have now changed the headline and the content of this story. We accept that their front page story reflects accurately and truthfully data from the second poll. We apologise in particular


https://order-order.com/2018/11/28/daily-mail-twists-poll-results-public-opposes-mays-deal-frontpage-headline-say-opposite/

RobD said:

grabcocque said:

FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.

Blessed relief for everyone else. I assume (and honestly hope) this is some form of performance art which will next see the light of day at the Turner Prize awards.

A "Great Brexit Betrayal" march is planned for 9 December, led by UKIP leader Gerard Batten's adviser Tommy Robinson, starting in Park Lane and ending in Whitehall. Is this likely to be a big thing or will it be in the same category as previous events featuring about 20 tattooed middle-aged men shouting? Will Lord Pearson of Leave send his apologies?

I’ve completed polls by YouGov and Populus on this and the wider Brexit questions.

I’d expect to see the YouGov in either tomorrow’s edition or Friday’s edition.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Poor Guido, what a knob.

The Daily Mail has made strong representations that our previous headline “Daily Mail Twists Own Poll Results, Public Opposes May’s Deal, Frontpage Headline Says Opposite” was unfair and untrue. On further reflection we accept that we were quoting from two different polls commissioned by the Daily Mail two weeks apart. We have now changed the headline and the content of this story. We accept that their front page story reflects accurately and truthfully data from the second poll. We apologise in particular


https://order-order.com/2018/11/28/daily-mail-twists-poll-results-public-opposes-mays-deal-frontpage-headline-say-opposite/

He has friends on this site.....

grabcocque said:

Sean_F said:

The Mail is being no more misleading than most papers are when reporting polls.

Strictly speaking, they should have said "a plurality support May's deal." (37/35%)

I dispute that. The Mail has tried to build an entire front page narrative around selective misrepresentation of a poll. I know everyone misrepresents polls to some extent, but this seems to me of a different class of fraudulent.

One thing is certain though, the Mail's behaviour will almost certainly anger Tories and harden opposition to May.

Tory voters are very supportive of May, although I agree that Tory MPs are not.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1067788467369852928

Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:

11 Dec - Deal voted down
12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.

Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.

grabcocque said:

RobD said:

grabcocque said:

RobD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

grabcocque said:

FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.

He's not accusing a pollster of lying, he's accusing the Daily Fail of misrepresenting poll results. Which they are.

Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only)
- Remain 44%
- Govt Brexit Agreement 22%
- Leaving EU with no deal 29%

("Britons Back May's Deal")

I thought accusations of push polling were frowned upon?

I didn't accuse anyone of push polling. I said a couple of the questions were leading. I'm not implying any malice here. I just think Survation were a bit careless especially as the Mail has a clear agenda here to misrepresent the results as far as possible.

Fair enough. I don’t see them as leading myself, and I suspect you are still climbing down from your stance yesterday based off a week-old poll.

If the questions weren't leading, I'm still waiting for a coherent explanation of the discrepancy between how people say they'd vote, and how they want MPs to vote.

I accept there might be an explanation that doesn't involve leading questions (though so far nobody has indicated what that might be).

But Occam's Razor suggests the discrepancy is a procedural error. I guess we need more polls to be sure.

It’s the fantasy/reality thing.

We’d all like a job that pays £10 million a year but we’d be happy with a job that pays ‘only’ £250k per year.

Key point about Mail Survation poll is the direction of travel, not the absolute numbers.

What is clear is that support for the deal is increasing, even if it's still 3rd behind Remain and No Deal.

The point is there is at least some momentum towards support for the deal - and if that momentum continues then support for the deal could move into 2nd or even 1st place.

Momentum is important in politics - as we've seen over the last few years.

https://twitter.com/GeneralBoles/status/1067797922237026305

TheScreamingEagles said:

grabcocque said:

RobD said:

grabcocque said:

RobD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

grabcocque said:

FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.

He's not accusing a pollster of lying, he's accusing the Daily Fail of misrepresenting poll results. Which they are.

Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only)
- Remain 44%
- Govt Brexit Agreement 22%
- Leaving EU with no deal 29%

("Britons Back May's Deal")

I thought accusations of push polling were frowned upon?

I didn't accuse anyone of push polling. I said a couple of the questions were leading. I'm not implying any malice here. I just think Survation were a bit careless especially as the Mail has a clear agenda here to misrepresent the results as far as possible.

Fair enough. I don’t see them as leading myself, and I suspect you are still climbing down from your stance yesterday based off a week-old poll.

If the questions weren't leading, I'm still waiting for a coherent explanation of the discrepancy between how people say they'd vote, and how they want MPs to vote.

I accept there might be an explanation that doesn't involve leading questions (though so far nobody has indicated what that might be).

But Occam's Razor suggests the discrepancy is a procedural error. I guess we need more polls to be sure.

It’s the fantasy/reality thing.

We’d all like a job that pays £10 million a year but we’d be happy with a job that pays ‘only’ £250k per year.

Chicken feed. /Boris.

Anorak said:

https://twitter.com/GeneralBoles/status/1067797922237026305

Good lord, I hope we get AV on this one.

grabcocque said:

CarlottaVance said:

grabcocque said:

CarlottaVance said:

grabcocque said:

CarlottaVance said:

grabcocque said:

Q??? Would staying in the EU be humiliating?

Daily Mail reported this as Yes 47, No 24.
(But... this question appears not to exist in the Survation poll. At this point, we're way beyond maximising the truth's scope and into outright fabrication)

Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'

Agree: 47
Disagree: 24

And among Con voters its 60: 20

You really haven't covered yourself in glory with this Survation poll, have you? First you accused Survation of Push Polling, then you cited a two week old poll as proof the Mail are lying - and now you can't even read the tables when you do have them in front of you....

The daily mail states it as "it would be humiliating". That's not nearly what the question asks, like the other questions, it's a gross misrepresentation of the data.

You're the one thats lying.

The Mail writes: Reversing Brexit would damage our national standing, according to 47 per cent.

That's a simple abbreviation of the question: Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'

And when they do editorialise they also cite the question:

But the public is in no doubt about the potential humiliation caused by any decision to reverse Brexit at the 11th hour – 47 per cent say it would damage our international standing against 24 per cent who disagree.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6435545/British-people-Mays-Brexit-deal-exclusive-poll-finds.html

Survation did not ask people if they thought staying in the EU would be a "humiliation".

No such question was asked. The Mail is lying through its teeth here.

The Mail quoted a precis of the question when they editorialised 'humiliation' - its not my fault you can't read.

But the public is in no doubt about the potential humiliation caused by any decision to reverse Brexit at the 11th hour – 47 per cent say it would damage our international standing against 24 per cent who disagree.

Oh, they "editorialised". They didn't lie, they "editorialised".

This is quite a fun euphemism.

As I wrote, I can't help it if you can't read. If the Mail had said (as you claimed) that "47% said it would be humiliating" you'd have a point. But they didn't, so you don't.

Mr. Anorak, no option for invading France?

Gerrymandered ballot paper if ever I saw one.

david_herdson said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1067788467369852928

Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:

11 Dec - Deal voted down
12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.

Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.

The Speaker could allow an amendment to be tabled that requires a referendum. A month is ample time. If officials say "Britain needs 10 times longer to do something than Greece because that's how we do things here", they can resign to general guffawing and look for jobs in restaurants. (The time-wasting jobsworth sods would be well advised not to apply anywhere that serves moussaka though.) Bercow could also let a referendum motion be tabled on 11 December.

AlastairMeeks said:

Sean_F said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Putting Emmanuel Macron's low poll ratings into context:

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1067801515887349762

The French really don't like their political leaders.

You have to pay tribute to their judgement.

It's striking that they rate Macron very poorly, but think the others are *even worse*

grabcocque said:

@CarlottaVance

It's right there ON THE FRONT PAGE you monstrous honking great bellend.

And they quote the question accurately.

I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.

grabcocque said:

RobD said:

grabcocque said:

RobD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

grabcocque said:

FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.

He's not accusing a pollster of lying, he's accusing the Daily Fail of misrepresenting poll results. Which they are.

Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only)
- Remain 44%
- Govt Brexit Agreement 22%
- Leaving EU with no deal 29%

("Britons Back May's Deal")

I thought accusations of push polling were frowned upon?

I didn't accuse anyone of push polling. I said a couple of the questions were leading. I'm not implying any malice here. I just think Survation were a bit careless especially as the Mail has a clear agenda here to misrepresent the results as far as possible.

Fair enough. I don’t see them as leading myself, and I suspect you are still climbing down from your stance yesterday based off a week-old poll.

If the questions weren't leading, I'm still waiting for a coherent explanation of the discrepancy between how people say they'd vote, and how they want MPs to vote.

I accept there might be an explanation that doesn't involve leading questions (though so far nobody has indicated what that might be).

But Occam's Razor suggests the discrepancy is a procedural error. I guess we need more polls to be sure.

The obvious one is related to the description of the government (I paraphrase because I don’t remember the exact quote):

“We choose as our government men who will do things that we don’t like and don’t approve of, but know that we must do”

Basically the public is virtue signalling. But that’s ok. They didn’t ask for the responsibility of being MPs.

Weekly corrections on Carole Cadswallop article...

UPDATE II: The same article has been corrected for a third time, clarifying that the Centre for Policy Studies was not implicated in the Sanni case, and yet again that none of these parties coordinated to vilify Sanni. Two corrections are careless, but three seem deliberately disingenuous…

https://order-order.com/2018/11/28/carole-correction-cadwalladr/

grabcocque said:

@CarlottaVance

It's right there ON THE FRONT PAGE you monstrous honking great bellend.

Says the man who made a total idiot of himself last night by linking to totally the wrong poll and claiming the Daily Mail totally made up the figures.

CarlottaVance said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Poor Guido, what a knob.

The Daily Mail has made strong representations that our previous headline “Daily Mail Twists Own Poll Results, Public Opposes May’s Deal, Frontpage Headline Says Opposite” was unfair and untrue. On further reflection we accept that we were quoting from two different polls commissioned by the Daily Mail two weeks apart. We have now changed the headline and the content of this story. We accept that their front page story reflects accurately and truthfully data from the second poll. We apologise in particular


https://order-order.com/2018/11/28/daily-mail-twists-poll-results-public-opposes-mays-deal-frontpage-headline-say-opposite/

He has friends on this site.....

I'm not a particular fan, but he's always been quick to correct errors openly and obviously.

AlastairMeeks said:

John McDonnell has almost certainly sunk Theresa May's deal now. The prospect of a second referendum is going to make it most unlikely that unenthused erstwhile Remainers will hold their noses and support it. And the ERG are too dopey to notice that they're enabling their opponents.

Yep - it feels like the ERG are effectively voting to remain now if they block the deal in Parliament.....Amazing they don't get this. And comments from people like Mark Francois are pure virtue signalling - he is the real coward.

david_herdson said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1067788467369852928

Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:

11 Dec - Deal voted down
12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.

Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.

Seems an eminently plausible series of events. If they happen we will end up with Deal, as Labour and other opposition parties will back it above No Deal.
However, what happens Dec 12 is key. Almost anything could. Would be very surprised if there were not 48 letters. May might resign. The grey suits may call time. The govt may lose a VONC. The EU or May or both may not re open negotiations. Then all subsequent actions proceed along a very different decision tree.

grabcocque said:

CarlottaVance said:

grabcocque said:

@CarlottaVance

It's right there ON THE FRONT PAGE you monstrous honking great bellend.

And they quote the question accurately.

The infographic, that contains the lie, that you say isn't a lie, accurately represents the question, even though the question wasn't asked, because it's an infographic of an "editorialisation" of the truth?

Trying to understand how the concept of truth works in the world of Maypologism.

Because "Humiliating' is shorter than 'Damage Britain's International Standing' to fit in a graphic or headline?

What other precis of the question would have satisfied you? (None I'm guessing...)

david_herdson said:

Notch said:

david_herdson said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1067788467369852928

Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:

11 Dec - Deal voted down
12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.

Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.

The Speaker could allow an amendment to be tabled that requires a referendum. A month is ample time. If officials say "Britain needs 10 times longer to do something than Greece because that's how we do things here", they can resign to general guffawing and look for jobs in restaurants. Bercow could also do it on 11 December.

An amendment to a motion isn't binding. What is binding is the Withdrawal Act that specifies Brexit Day to be 29 March 2019.

The reality is that it will take *at least* 3 months from initial proposal to vote to hold a referendum because the government has no power to compel local authorities to participate in a referendum; there needs to be an Act of Parliament to do so. There also needs to be time for the campaigning groups to organise and register with the Electoral Commission. You can't simply have a free-for-all without spending limits or accountable individuals. And then after that, you need at least 3 weeks for the campaign itself. A month is not remotely ample time.

I can't help thinking that demands for a Second Referendum., pivoting to Norway + or Canada -, renegotiating the WA, getting rid of May etc. are just different forms of displacement activity.

MP's set everything in motion when they voted to trigger A50.

grabcocque said:

To my earlier question, what happens when Bercow finds the government in contempt of Parliament?

The recent case of the serjeant-at-arms, the hotel, and Ted Kramer, chairman of Six4Three, is relevant. The SAA arrived at the hotel and ordered Kramer to hand over the documents within two hours. Kramer refused. He was then escorted to the Palace of Westminster and informed that if he didn't hand them over he could be fined or imprisoned.

*wonders what No.10's hinges are like*

Another step

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-11-27/u-k-bid-to-join-1-7-trillion-wto-deal-gets-provisional-support

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

It depends what you mean by win.

Is anybody going to be shocked if Jezza just does it usual schtick, but at the end says he backs a second referendum.

The media will go wild and it won't matter what careful arguments RoboMay might have put out.

If he was smart (he's not) and unprincipled (he's not) that's exactly what he should do Waffle along with his usual quasi-Marxist bollocks, but then drop that bomb at the end: We want a 2nd vote. It would cat the pigeons.

I reckon the chances of a new referendum are now greater than 50%. I can't see any other obvious way out of the impasse. No Deal really would be calamitous (tho we'd recover - eventually), TMay's Deal is worse than Remaining, by a distance. A GE solves zero.

IF we had a 2nd vote and it was TMay's deal versus Remain I'd vote Remain.

A vote between No Deal and Remain, I dunno.

He is a total num-nut, and hasn't even read the agreement, but I think he will be swayed by his advisers that this is the way to screw the Tories, win a GE and gain power in order to enact his socialist paradise. In the same way as he was convinced to lie about Trident Renewal and waffling about capping immigration during the GE, despite then being caught out on the phone to Seamus saying how the first was just bollocks.

To me it is just like it was clear they would offer free uni, in the lead up they kept hinting they would and I am fairly sure for a new GE campaign they will promise to legalize weed in some form or other (probably "medical" licensing that they had in places like California for ages).

Nigelb said:

grabcocque said:

McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1067792910027026432

This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.

Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?

It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.

Notch said:

david_herdson said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1067788467369852928

Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:

11 Dec - Deal voted down
12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.

Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.

The Speaker could allow an amendment to be tabled that requires a referendum. A month is ample time. If officials say "Britain needs 10 times longer to do something than Greece because that's how we do things here", they can resign to general guffawing and look for jobs in restaurants. (The time-wasting jobsworth sods would be well advised not to apply anywhere that serves moussaka though.) Bercow could also let a referendum motion be tabled on 11 December.

The “meaningful vote” is not primary legislation

A referendum requires that

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

grabcocque said:

McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1067792910027026432

This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.

Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?

It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.

No Deal is very, very easy. It needs no "engineering". Just no Plan B that enough can be forced to get behind.

borisnut said:

Notch said:

david_herdson said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1067788467369852928

Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:

11 Dec - Deal voted down
12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.

Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.

The Speaker could allow an amendment to be tabled that requires a referendum. A month is ample time. If officials say "Britain needs 10 times longer to do something than Greece because that's how we do things here", they can resign to general guffawing and look for jobs in restaurants. (The time-wasting jobsworth sods would be well advised not to apply anywhere that serves moussaka though.) Bercow could also let a referendum motion be tabled on 11 December.

Could some learned posters here clarify what I think I read that Bercow might allow amendments to the "deal" bill after the substantive motion is lost ? Is that possible ? Or, did I misunderstand it .

No, it's not possible.

He could - and probably will - allow relevant amendments to the motion to be tabled. These will be voted on before the motion itself (whether amended or as originally tabled). Only if that passes will there be a subsequent Bill. Obviously, if there is such a Bill, then MPs are free to table amendments as normal.

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

grabcocque said:

McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1067792910027026432

This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.

Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?

It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.

A No Deal Brexit requires no actions, only the avoidance of actions.