politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betfair punters now put the chances of a 2019 Brexit referendu

Sloppy seconds....

https://twitter.com/thetimesscot/status/1068598655085617153

If May sticks around a referendum is hard to resist - what would her other plan be in the even of her deal failing? Either she says she is going to renegotiate after all, and she has to succeed at it, or she seeks a way to get her deal to the people, which has at least potential of getting other parties on board so long as remain is included.

But as I cannot see her lasting until Xmas it will probably take longer for the second referendum acceptance to happen.

FPT:...

ralphmalph said:

David_Evershed said:

FF43 said:

rcs1000 said:

<
Also, not all assets are created equally. If we lost €800bn of money market or French government bond business, I doubt we'd notice. On the other hand, that works probably represent the entire London private equity and venture capital space, and we'd definitely notice that.

I suspect financial services will be clobbered under any Brexit scenario, because of regulation and not market access. The EU will discourage activity it doesn't have direct control over to avoid disrupting its systems. Meanwhile UK authorities won't accept rules made by others if they are on the hook for any liability. So activity will move from the smaller regulatory area to the bigger one. There's a reason why New York is a much more important financial centre than Toronto.

Bad for me :-(

Of course instead of banks moving to the continent, continental companies in need of funds might move their Treasuries to the UK.

I have always thought that they would use their UK subsidiaries to do the deal in London that the Euro HQ wanted.

Speaking as a former CFO of a multinational business, the main function of treasury is to make sure that all subsidiaries are able to meet payroll and other bills. This means that you need to shift money about between entities as easily as possible. This can be done in one of three ways:

1. You will have a transfer pricing policy that allows services to be done, and paid for
2. You will dividend profits up from subsidiaries to the parent
3. You will have inter company balances as money is lent as necessary

So, say you have a London based TopCo. Right now, because of the rules on no double taxation, and no withholding tax, you can have your German subsidiary lend your Spanish one money to make payroll. But those kind of remittances become very hard to do without protection against withholding taxes, and double taxation. If your German subsidiary transferred money out to another part of the group structure, that looks awfully like paying a dividend without the associated tax. And tax authorities hate that.

(Addendum: In the old days, you'd have your Irish or Cayman Islands subsidiary as the holder of all the IP, which would then use transfer pricing to siphon profits off shore. You'd then loan the money from the tax haven to the parent, and pay dividends or buy back stock or whatever.)

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Great article by Peston: https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-30/has-prime-minister-just-signed-her-own-warrant-of-execution/

Big_G can I ask you a question? If May's deal is rejected and May says "OK we are exiting without a deal then" I would want to see her ousted and replaced by a new leader who instead seeks to renegotiate the deal without a backstop, like Peston describes here.

Would you support May or join me in wanting her replaced in that scenario?

The process is laid down in Nick chart. TM has a max of 21 days to return to parliament with a response duing which time the government cannot be vnoc as long as it complies with the speakers requests

During that period the cabinet and party leaders will no doubt have intensive meetings to decide on the next process which could be return to EU to seek better terms, resubmit the deal, propose a second referendum or some other course of action.

In practice I expect it to be only a few days before TM makes her intentions known and until then everyone will need patience

I assume that the 21 days refers to 'sitting days' and would exclude the Xmas Recess period.

It's curious, as section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act contains several subsections which explicitly make reference to 'Commons sitting days', but does not use that terminology in subsection 4 which sets out the 21 days part.

(4)A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution, make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.

(5)A statement under subsection (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.

(6)A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for—

(a)a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of the statement mentioned in subsection (4), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made, and


I'm no lawyer, but if other parts make specific reference to sitting days, and the act defines what that means, then a reference in the same section which does not contain that specificity would surely only mean the ordinary meaning of the word 'day', most likely calendar day?

dixiedean said:

kle4 said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Great article by Peston: https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-30/has-prime-minister-just-signed-her-own-warrant-of-execution/

Big_G can I ask you a question? If May's deal is rejected and May says "OK we are exiting without a deal then" I would want to see her ousted and replaced by a new leader who instead seeks to renegotiate the deal without a backstop, like Peston describes here.

Would you support May or join me in wanting her replaced in that scenario?

The process is laid down in Nick chart. TM has a max of 21 days to return to parliament with a response duing which time the government cannot be vnoc as long as it complies with the speakers requests

During that period the cabinet and party leaders will no doubt have intensive meetings to decide on the next process which could be return to EU to seek better terms, resubmit the deal, propose a second referendum or some other course of action.

In practice I expect it to be only a few days before TM makes her intentions known and until then everyone will need patience

I assume that the 21 days refers to 'sitting days' and would exclude the Xmas Recess period.

It's cur

(5)A statement under subsection (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.

(6)A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for—

(a)a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of the statement mentioned in subsection (4), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made, and


I'm no lawyer, but if other parts make specific reference to sitting days, and the act defines what that means, then a reference in the same section which does not contain that specificity would surely only mean the ordinary meaning of the word 'day', most likely calendar day?

So now we are in the ludicrous situation of a Parliamentary rumble about the definition of a "day."
We badly need root and branch constitutional reform whether in or out, or under Corbyn, May or AN Other Tory.

I don't think root and branch reform would solve the issue of what is meant by a day if people draft unclearly - I thought most legislation would lay that out in a definitions section.

Though just from my own line of work you have to be precise on if it is a 'clear' working day or not for example.

Not actually that relatedly, but I would be curious if the actual Root and Branch Bill was, itself, particularly clearly written.

kle4 said:

dixiedean said:

So now we are in the ludicrous situation of a Parliamentary rumble about the definition of a "day."
We badly need root and branch constitutional reform whether in or out, or under Corbyn, May or AN Other Tory.

I don't think root and branch reform would solve the issue of what is meant by a day if people draft unclearly - I thought most legislation would lay that out in a definitions section.

Though just from my own line of work you have to be precise on if it is a 'clear' working day or not for example.

Not actually that relatedly, but I would be curious if the actual Root and Branch Bill was, itself, particularly clearly written.

I think it is clear. It is 21 calendar days. The image in the flowchart says that too.

@kle4. Cba with blockquote. Obviously this example is poor drafting. However, it is just one more example in a long list of cock-ups, stupidity, arrogance, mis-steps and downright incompetence on the part of our governing classes (of all Parties), which has been the story of Brexit.
2015 onwards the curtain has been pulled back to reveal a not very pretty scene.

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Great article by Peston: https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-30/has-prime-minister-just-signed-her-own-warrant-of-execution/

Big_G can I ask you a question? If May's deal is rejected and May says "OK we are exiting without a deal then" I would want to see her ousted and replaced by a new leader who instead seeks to renegotiate the deal without a backstop, like Peston describes here.

Would you support May or join me in wanting her replaced in that scenario?

The process is laid down in Nick chart. TM has a max of 21 days to return to parliament with a response duing which time the government cannot be vnoc as long as it complies with the speakers requests

During that period the cabinet and party leaders will no doubt have intensive meetings to decide on the next process which could be return to EU to seek better terms, resubmit the deal, propose a second referendum or some other course of action.

In practice I expect it to be only a few days before TM makes her intentions known and until then everyone will need patience

The chart doesn't say TM has a max of 21 days, it says the government does. The government can change in the interim.

Lets say though that yes TM her intentions known and says "there is no deal, we are exiting without a deal". I would want her replaced by a new leader who is prepared to go down the route of no deal as a last resort but who instead first tries to renegotiate to remove the backstop. As described here by Peston: https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-30/has-prime-minister-just-signed-her-own-warrant-of-execution/

What would you prefer in that scenario? Get on with preparing for the upcoming no deal Brexit under May? Or get rid of May and install someone new to resume talks with the EU first?

I have explained this the last time you asked and with respect I am not going over it again

You and some others seem to be strugging with the max 21 days. The government will not change until TM makes her decision to parliament known in accordance with the road map nor will a vnoc be sustained as long as the government responds to the speakers requests during that period

This is all rather esoteric anyway. If the Deal falls we don't, in practice, have 21 days, let alone 21 sitting days, to fanny around while the Conservative Party debates what next. I fully expect Plan B to revealed immediately after the vote. A decision will have to be made then, even if it is merely to vote again.
Of course, if there is no Plan B prepared, then that would be metaphorically criminal negligence.
So, that is perhaps what will happen.

dodrade said:

Cyclefree said:

I do wonder if I will still be alive when the next non-Brexit thread happens...........

Your grandchildren might be if they're lucky...

AV and lucky isn't a normal association!

dixiedean said:

This is all rather esoteric anyway. If the Deal falls we don't, in practice, have 21 days, let alone 21 sitting days, to fanny around while the Conservative Party debates what next. I fully expect Plan B to revealed immediately after the vote. A decision will have to be made then, even if it is merely to vote again.
Of course, if there is no Plan B prepared, then that would be metaphorically criminal negligence.
So, that is perhaps what will happen.

No 10 will be gaming this but on the deal falling she will first summon the cabinet and no doubt all leaders before coming to the HOC to announce the governments decision. While the statue provides 21 days I would expect it to be 24 - 48 unless concensus is achieved through cross party talks

It is at that time many things could happen including TM resignation, consultation with the EU, a second referendum, vnoc in TM of the government. No one knows at this stage

justin124 said:

The Opposition can table a Vote of No Confidence at any time - and in no way does it have to be Brexit-related at all!

Absolutely!

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The absence of sitting days there means its 21 calendar days. But the inclusion of sitting days on the next one explains what happens next.

Under the terms of the FTPA if say there is a VONC held immediately after the lost meaningful vote, the government loses it and 14 days later there's an early election then Parliament is dissolved. The clock is still ticking though and until the government is replaced the responsible Minister of the Crown is still a Minister of the Crown. Thus 21 days after the original vote, 7 days into the General Election campaign, the Minister must make their statement in writing.

Once the statement is made, there are no more sitting days yet so the clock stops ticking. We have the election, 7 sitting days later the motion is put.

I am not a lawyer but that would be my understanding.

Wth respect you are incorrect

How? What part did I - legally - get wrong?

Confusing FPTP with the withdrawal bill

MarqueeMark said:

Sloppy seconds....

Like remainers?

RobD said:

48th *innocent face*

Fake news. You are 47.99999999th

Philip_Thompson said:

justin124 said:

I agree totally. Labour can table a Vote of Confidence at a time of its own choosing in the same way that Thatcher tabled such motions on a quite regular basis against the Callaghan Government.

Indeed. Big_G seems to be implying (I think) that the Speaker won't No Confidence the government as long as the roadmap is followed, but the Speaker doesn't determine No Confidence votes. They're tabled by the Leader of the Opposition whenever they choose to do so.

If Jeremy Corbyn tables a VONC then the vote happens. Even if that messes with timetables as Leader of the Opposition that's Jeremy Corbyn's prerogative.

The speaker controls the businesss in the house and if the deal falls he controls the next process

Much as you may hope the speaker will not allow the process you hope within the time scale set in the act

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

justin124 said:

I agree totally. Labour can table a Vote of Confidence at a time of its own choosing in the same way that Thatcher tabled such motions on a quite regular basis against the Callaghan Government.

Indeed. Big_G seems to be implying (I think) that the Speaker won't No Confidence the government as long as the roadmap is followed, but the Speaker doesn't determine No Confidence votes. They're tabled by the Leader of the Opposition whenever they choose to do so.

If Jeremy Corbyn tables a VONC then the vote happens. Even if that messes with timetables as Leader of the Opposition that's Jeremy Corbyn's prerogative.

The speaker controls the businesss in the house and if the deal falls he controls the next process

Much as you may hope the speaker will not allow the process you hope within the time scale set in the act

I really don't believe there is any basis for that at all. Corbyn could have tabled a VONC every month since the 2017 election had he chosen to do so. Many would question the point of his doing that - but it would not be a matter for the Speaker.

You may not believe but we must respectfully disagree.

https://twitter.com/GeneralBoles/status/1068619560713142272

https://twitter.com/TimesPictures/status/1068618916602224641

Kate Osamor and her entrepreneurial offspring.

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

justin124 said:

I agree totally. Labour can table a Vote of Confidence at a time of its own choosing in the same way that Thatcher tabled such motions on a quite regular basis against the Callaghan Government.

Indeed. Big_G seems to be implying (I think) that the Speaker won't No Confidence the government as long as the roadmap is followed, but the Speaker doesn't determine No Confidence votes. They're tabled by the Leader of the Opposition whenever they choose to do so.

If Jeremy Corbyn tables a VONC then the vote happens. Even if that messes with timetables as Leader of the Opposition that's Jeremy Corbyn's prerogative.

The speaker controls the businesss in the house and if the deal falls he controls the next process

Much as you may hope the speaker will not allow the process you hope within the time scale set in the act

I really don't believe there is any basis for that at all. Corbyn could have tabled a VONC every month since the 2017 election had he chosen to do so. Many would question the point of his doing that - but it would not be a matter for the Speaker.

You may not believe but we must respectfully disagree.

Brexit legislation in no way sets aside the right of the Opposition to table a VONC.Corbyn could justify so doing on the basis of a totally unrelated matter - eg the state of the NHS or a Foreign Policy issue.

Well that is another matter but he would not only look a complete plonker but he would lose all credibility as any kind of statesman at this most critical time

But that is a judgement he would have to make.

Corbyn and judgement, but of course

Looks like he has more to worry about on the front of the times than playing games

Evening all

Without the usual patronising nonsense from the usual suspect, there's no obvious route to the end of the Conservative Government which, for all its travails, is ahead in the polls and has 315 seats in Parliament.

It would need the latter number to be reduced by defections to change the balance in Parliament but does anyone seriously believe 30 Conservative MPs will break from the Party and choose to sit as Independent Conservatives or whatever - seriously?

Even if that happens, we then have to imagine the defectors and others offering sufficient support to a minority Labour Government - seriously?

Notions of a "collapse" of the Government fall against that truth - there are 315 Conservative MPs and as long as that group remains united (if not coherent) they remain in Government whoever leads them (May, Hunt, Hammond, JRM).

I suppose they could voluntarily go into Opposition and simply abstain on all legislation put forward by an alternative Government - seriously?

So, whether we like it or not, some form of Conservative administration is going to remain in office if not necessarily power. How a new Government is constituted if/when May goes is really only for the Conservatives to work out.

Voting for or against May's Deal changes that not one iota - in essence, the Deal isn't really that important unless it creates a schism within the Conservative Party - seriously, fetch me some popcorn?

dixiedean said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

justin124 said:

I agree totally. Labour can table a Vote of Confidence at a time of its own choosing in the same way that Thatcher tabled such motions on a quite regular basis against the Callaghan Government.

Indeed. Big_G seems to be implying (I think) that the Speaker won't No Confidence the government as long as the roadmap is followed, but the Speaker doesn't determine No Confidence votes. They're tabled by the Leader of the Opposition whenever they choose to do so.

If Jeremy Corbyn tables a VONC then the vote happens. Even if that messes with timetables as Leader of the Opposition that's Jeremy Corbyn's prerogative.

The speaker controls the businesss in the house and if the deal falls he controls the next process

Much as you may hope the speaker will not allow the process you hope within the time scale set in the act

I really don't believe there is any basis for that at all. Corbyn could have tabled a VONC every month since the 2017 election had he chosen to do so. Many would question the point of his doing that - but it would not be a matter for the Speaker.

You may not believe but we must respectfully disagree.

Brexit legislation in no way sets aside the right of the Opposition to table a VONC.Corbyn could justify so doing on the basis of a totally unrelated matter - eg the state of the NHS or a Foreign Policy issue.

Well that is another matter but he would not only look a complete plonker but he would lose all credibility as any kind of statesman at this most critical time

But that is a judgement he would have to make.

Quite frankly, if May insists nothing has changed, after the defeat of this, Corbyn would be obliged to call a VONC. To not do so would be a total abrogation of duty. Not least because the DUP need to be put on the spot.
And, no, the Speaker could not block it. To do so would be a Constitutional outrage, defying all precedent.
Would be different if she were to resign, obviously, call a GE, referendum, or even liaise with opposition Parties.

I agree with you and if she returns to the HOC and says that, her party would vnoc her

The only role the speaker has is to follow the procedures laid out requiring the PM to return to the HOC with her intentions. The speaker does control that period but at that point Corbyn can vnoc the government

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1068618988169490432?s=21

How is that a secret. That has been knowledge for some time

DanSmith said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1068618988169490432?s=21

So we know there are minimum 75 Labour MPs who would support this.

Lets add the SNP + Lib Dems, that gets you ~120 MPs. Question then is, are there 200 Tory MPs who would back Norway?

Probably and maybe even more labour to get a majority

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DanSmith said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1068618988169490432?s=21

So we know there are minimum 75 Labour MPs who would support this.

Lets add the SNP + Lib Dems, that gets you ~120 MPs. Question then is, are there 200 Tory MPs who would back Norway?

Probably and maybe even more labour to get a majority

Yeah I was thinking 75 Labour MPs who would be prepared to rebel against the leadership to push this through, if the Labour leadership support it or even just take a neutral stance you are going to have loads more.

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I agree with you and if she returns to the HOC and says that, her party would vnoc her

The only role the speaker has is to follow the procedures laid out requiring the PM to return to the HOC with her intentions. The speaker does control that period but at that point Corbyn can vnoc the government

He can call the vote during that period. There's nothing in statute or Parliamentary procedures or orders denying him that right.

I give up

dixiedean said:

DanSmith said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DanSmith said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1068618988169490432?s=21

So we know there are minimum 75 Labour MPs who would support this.

Lets add the SNP + Lib Dems, that gets you ~120 MPs. Question then is, are there 200 Tory MPs who would back Norway?

Probably and maybe even more labour to get a majority

Yeah I was thinking 75 Labour MPs who would be prepared to rebel against the leadership to push this through, if the Labour leadership support it or even just take a neutral stance you are going to have loads more.

If it were proposed, it would pass. Either May would have to do it, or be replaced by someone who would. How we get there is difficult to see.
But if we did, Corbyn would either fall into line, or see Labour discipline fall apart.

Ultimately the Tory party no confidence mechanism means May has to adopt the position the majority of her party want her to, or off she goes.

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1068624245796818946?s=21

FrankBooth said:

MarqueeMark said:

dixiedean said:

This is all rather esoteric anyway. If the Deal falls we don't, in practice, have 21 days, let alone 21 sitting days, to fanny around while the Conservative Party debates what next. I fully expect Plan B to revealed immediately after the vote. A decision will have to be made then, even if it is merely to vote again.
Of course, if there is no Plan B prepared, then that would be metaphorically criminal negligence.
So, that is perhaps what will happen.

You have to hope that there might be a few "quiet word in your shell-like" going on at the G20. The last thing the world economies need is a pissing contest between UK and EU, which will impact all of them. "Sort it, guys....before Trump gets in the mix!"

I think you may have answered your own point. Who, other than the President of the United States, has the gravitas to state such a thing? And what could we reasonably expect from the current President.

China? Japan? India?

Norway is outside the customs union ! How on earth can we pivot to Norway with the backstop ?

Sam Gyimah not much news on him on Twitter other than that tweet from The Sun.

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/peston/status/1068629661352116224?s=21

Putting more effort in than some, I'll give him that.

MarqueeMark said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

dixiedean said:

DanSmith said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DanSmith said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1068618988169490432?s=21

So we know there are minimum 75 Labour MPs who would support this.

Lets add the SNP + Lib Dems, that gets you ~120 MPs. Question then is, are there 200 Tory MPs who would back Norway?

Probably and maybe even more labour to get a majority

Yeah I was thinking 75 Labour MPs who would be prepared to rebel against the leadership to push this through, if the Labour leadership support it or even just take a neutral stance you are going to have loads more.

If it were proposed, it would pass. Either May would have to do it, or be replaced by someone who would. How we get there is difficult to see.
But if we did, Corbyn would either fall into line, or see Labour discipline fall apart.

This is when TM either swivels to Norway or resigns. It is interesting the cabinet are coming together on this and of course all this will take place in the immediate aftermath of the deal falling, if it does

TM will be given the time to deal with cabinet and other party leaders as laid out in the procedures and it will be high politics when she comes to the dispatch box with her decision

And how much does Norway cost us per annum? As I understand it, if the Norway fees are grossed up for UK population, we end up paying about what we pay today as EU members. Can't see that going down well.....with Freedom of Movement added for extra grief.

ERG are losing Brexit for BINO

So for all the sound and fury in the end all roads lead to Brexit:

https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/status/1068478176987414528/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed&amp;ref_url=https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/7046/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-it-s-now-down-to-an-evens-chance-in-the-betting-that-the-uk-wi/p1

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/TimesPictures/status/1068618916602224641

Kate Osamor and her entrepreneurial offspring.

Why isn’t the headline “Top Labour MP threatens journalist” that’s much more serious

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MarqueeMark said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

dixiedean said:

DanSmith said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DanSmith said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1068618988169490432?s=21

So we know there are minimum 75 Labour MPs who would support this.

Lets add the SNP + Lib Dems, that gets you ~120 MPs. Question then is, are there 200 Tory MPs who would back Norway?

Probably and maybe even more labour to get a majority

Yeah I was thinking 75 Labour MPs who would be prepared to rebel against the leadership to push this through, if the Labour leadership support it or even just take a neutral stance you are going to have loads more.

If it were proposed, it would pass. Either May would have to do it, or be replaced by someone who would. How we get there is difficult to see.
But if we did, Corbyn would either fall into line, or see Labour discipline fall apart.

This is when TM either swivels to Norway or resigns. It is interesting the cabinet are coming together on this and of course all this will take place in the immediate aftermath of the deal falling, if it does

TM will be given the time to deal with cabinet and other party leaders as laid out in the procedures and it will be high politics when she comes to the dispatch box with her decision

And how much does Norway cost us per annum? As I understand it, if the Norway fees are grossed up for UK population, we end up paying about what we pay today as EU members. Can't see that going down well.....with Freedom of Movement added for extra grief.

ERG are losing Brexit for BINO

This is nothing to do with ERG. May's deal is dead in the water anyway, as there are more than enough non-ERG Tory MPs saying they will vote against May's deal. And if Norway is supported by a fair few Tory leadership candidates and their followers, then it will be Norway if Labour/SNP/LibDems come round to it. In that situation, ERG is an irrelevence. Mr. Rees-Mogg can huff and puff all he likes, but he can't stop it.

kle4 said:

Pulpstar said:

Norway is outside the customs union ! How on earth can we pivot to Norway with the backstop ?

I don't think anything really matters anymore, they're just winging it on a hope and a prayer. Here's hoping one of those prayers comes through.

Has Macron agreed to us having agricultural tarriffs ?

Pulpstar said:

kle4 said:

Pulpstar said:

Norway is outside the customs union ! How on earth can we pivot to Norway with the backstop ?

I don't think anything really matters anymore, they're just winging it on a hope and a prayer. Here's hoping one of those prayers comes through.

Has Macron agreed to us having agricultural tarriffs ?

Blimey, are we joining Schengen ?

GIN1138 said:

Have been out the loop today. Was any agreement reached on the Tezza/Jezza show?

Not that I've seen. Corbyn's feet getting so cold he now risks frostbite....

Matt gave us a big hint earlier. We should have noticed.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

GIN1138 said:

So for all the sound and fury in the end all roads lead to Brexit:

https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/status/1068478176987414528/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed&amp;ref_url=https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/7046/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-it-s-now-down-to-an-evens-chance-in-the-betting-that-the-uk-wi/p1

Everyone needs to keep this for reference,. This is the procedure the HOC will follow managed by Bercow

Certainly no time for faffing about with "this and that" deal or trying to get a second referendum together.

As I've been saying, basically by January times up so if nothing is in place by then we leave with No Deal.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MarqueeMark said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MarqueeMark said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

dixiedean said:

DanSmith said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DanSmith said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1068618988169490432?s=21

So we know there are minimum 75 Labour MPs who would support this.

Lets add the SNP + Lib Dems, that gets you ~120 MPs. Question then is, are there 200 Tory MPs who would back Norway?

Probably and maybe even more labour to get a majority

Yeah I was thinking 75 Labour MPs who would be prepared to rebel against the leadership to push this through, if the Labour leadership support it or even just take a neutral stance you are going to have loads more.

If it were proposed, it would pass. Either May would have to do it, or be replaced by someone who would. How we get there is difficult to see.
But if we did, Corbyn would either fall into line, or see Labour discipline fall apart.

This is when TM either swivels to Norway or resigns. It is interesting the cabinet are coming together on this and of course all this will take place in the immediate aftermath of the deal falling, if it does

TM will be given the time to deal with cabinet and other party leaders as laid out in the procedures and it will be high politics when she comes to the dispatch box with her decision

And how much does Norway cost us per annum? As I understand it, if the Norway fees are grossed up for UK population, we end up paying about what we pay today as EU members. Can't see that going down well.....with Freedom of Movement added for extra grief.

ERG are losing Brexit for BINO

This is nothing to do with ERG. May's deal is dead in the water anyway, as there are more than enough non-ERG Tory MPs saying they will vote against May's deal. And if Norway is supported by a fair few Tory leadership candidates and their followers, then it will be Norway if Labour/SNP/LibDems come round to it. In that situation, ERG is an irrelevence. Mr. Rees-Mogg can huff and puff all he likes, but he can't stop it.

Had they rowed in behind the deal it would have passed

No, it really wouldn't.....

EDIT: If the ERG had said "that will do us....", then Soubry and Grieve and Wollaston and others would have rejected because the ERG accepted it.

And that's without the DUP still saying "NOOOOO!!!"

Sam Gyimah, the universities and science minister, has resigned in protest at the Government’s “naive” Brexit plan, saying that any deal we strike with Brussels will be “EU first”

Er, hold on, 'any deal'? Ok, seriously, why would he not have resigned well before now then if he thinks any deal would be unacceptable?

Seems like in his comments he's doing it so we can Remain. Which is a point of view one can hold, but given his comments that any deal would in essence be unacceptable I don't see why the latest comments on Gallileo were the tipping point for him.

Any estimates the deal, if it even gets voted on, could lose by even more than 200? The payroll vote and super loyalists are getting thinner on the ground every day.

kle4 said:

Sam Gyimah, the universities and science minister, has resigned in protest at the Government’s “naive” Brexit plan, saying that any deal we strike with Brussels will be “EU first”

Er, hold on, 'any deal'? Ok, seriously, why would he not have resigned well before now then if he thinks any deal would be unacceptable?

Seems like in his comments he's doing it so we can Remain. Which is a point of view one can hold, but given his comments that any deal would in essence be unacceptable I don't see why the latest comments on Gallileo were the tipping point for him.

He was on Question Time not that long ago defending Mrs May and Brexit... You do have to wonder about most of our politicians don't you?