politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The betting markets now make it a 61% chance that Brexit won’t
Comments
-
Because it's a betting site? This is the time to pick up the consequences of what's going on, before it becomes obvious to the political media (except Peston, obvs).Richard_Nabavi said:Much jumping to judgement, I see.
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?0 -
May, "may", "indefinitely", "backstop" - inextricably linked.Pulpstar said:0 -
Oops, not DfT's responsibility (though it will be their problem).TheScreamingEagles said:
Remind me how much they refused to pay for electricfication oop North?Scott_P said:
An absolute shower is Chris Grayling.0 -
As the ex-Mr Amber Rudd once said, so acutely, the problem with watching stupid reality shows is that there is no button to press anywhere to show that you are doing so ironically.grabcocque said:
That'll fit in nicely on my tat shelf of ironic thingummies.Richard_Nabavi said:
We might be able to run to a picture of the PM signed by herself.grabcocque said:
Ooh, I hope I get a puppy.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yeah, I've got end-of-year bonuses to finalise.Tissue_Price said:
THREAD SUSPENDED. GO BACK TO YOUR SPREADSHEETS AND DO SOME WORK. WE WILL RECONVENE AT 15:30.Richard_Nabavi said:Much jumping to judgement, I see.
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?0 -
The official "iron rule of megaprojects": Over time, over budget, over and over.Scott_P said:
They're also inevitably oversold on the grounds of their benefits. Unfortunately, politicians love them because they look decisive, statesmanlike, transformative, and - best of all - they'll be long gone by the time they turn out to be over time, over budget, and oversold.
This doesn't mean you should never do a megaproject - just make sure you're realistic about the cost, time, and - especially - benefits against the cost and time. Always double or treble each of the costs and time, and halve the expected benefits, and you'll be in the ballpark of the real cost, time, and benefit.
0 -
MarqueeMark said:
ERG will just sit back, arms folded. And wait.
......and in a year or two, when their actions have resulted in us staying in the EU, maybe some of them might even think: "We could have had 90% of what we wanted, but instead we gambled it all for 100% and got nothing."0 -
A GNU is only possible if Labour is willing to split, which it isn't.The_Taxman said:
The Tories did well in the 1930s out of a National Government as did the country. Personally it would have been my chosen vehicle in 2010 rather than the ConDem concoction. It would have nipped a lot of problems in the bud that we now face.Oort said:
A general election could solve that problem!HYUFD said:A general election solves NOTHING there is no majority in the Commons for Corbyn's Brexit plus permanent Customs Union either
So could a government of national unity that excludes the ERG rather than letting them have a third of the seats in the Cabinet as they do now. Sure, it would mean the end of the Tory party in its present form. If I were Corbyn I'd consider that a result.
(Edit - and, even more pertinently, there can't be a Government of National Unity if there isn't any unity).0 -
The chances of May getting a significant concession that changes enough minds to get a vote through Parliament must be tiny.MarqueeMark said:
Agree. She can either deliver the goods - or resign.OblitusSumMe said:
If we assume that she is heading back to Brussels to renegotiate the backstop, then she is only doing what the ERG told her to do. Why put in a letter now if you didn't do so when Mogg said to do so?TGOHF said:No sign of many cheerleaders for Mrs May now.
Regardless of the topic - this is an utter failure by the PM.
48 letters must be in tonight - surely.
ERG will just sit back, arms folded. And wait.
The likeliest outcome though is May expends her remaining political capital in Brussels (plus pledges a bunch of extra cash/concessions), shows it to Parliament with a flourish - and everyone goes "What the actual fuck is THAT?"0 -
I'm not seeing much sober discussions of the probabilitiesdavid_herdson said:
Because it's a betting site? This is the time to pick up the consequences of what's going on, before it becomes obvious to the political media (except Peston, obvs).Richard_Nabavi said:Much jumping to judgement, I see.
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?
0 -
I remember Johnny Speight said something similar about Alf Garnett. Of course, you as an educated liberal, are writing Alf dripping with irony and thinly-veiled contempt, but you also know that a chunk of your audience love him unironically for "sticking it to the darkies".TOPPING said:
As the ex-Mr Amber Rudd once said, so acutely, the problem with watching stupid reality shows is that there is no button to press anywhere to show that you are doing so ironically.grabcocque said:
That'll fit in nicely on my tat shelf of ironic thingummies.Richard_Nabavi said:
We might be able to run to a picture of the PM signed by herself.grabcocque said:
Ooh, I hope I get a puppy.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yeah, I've got end-of-year bonuses to finalise.Tissue_Price said:
THREAD SUSPENDED. GO BACK TO YOUR SPREADSHEETS AND DO SOME WORK. WE WILL RECONVENE AT 15:30.Richard_Nabavi said:Much jumping to judgement, I see.
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?
Never assume other people you meet are on the same irony level as you.0 -
Economic consequences can always be mitigated to some extent at least. The damage to democracy and society will be far more serious and long lasting.SeanT said:
Speaking as a Liberal Leaver, I have virtually abandoned all hope of Leaving sans catastrophe, and if the alternative is a GE and a probable Corbyn government, I would rather have a 2nd referendum, and then I suspect I would vote, sadly and with some self hatred, for Remain.Oort said:
A general election could solve that problem!HYUFD said:A general election solves NOTHING there is no majority in the Commons for Corbyn's Brexit plus permanent Customs Union either
So could a government of national unity that excludes the ERG rather than letting them have a third of the seats in the Cabinet as they do now. Sure, it would mean the end of the Tory party in its present form. If I were Corbyn I'd consider that a result.
This is coming down to realpolitik - and seriously nasty economic choices.0 -
Yesterday was supposed to be the opening day, too.The_Taxman said:
A good day to bury bad news? I suspect a bit of Co-ordination is going on here!Scott_P said:0 -
Its difficult to work them all out to be fair.Richard_Nabavi said:
I'm not seeing much sober discussions of the probabilitiesdavid_herdson said:
Because it's a betting site? This is the time to pick up the consequences of what's going on, before it becomes obvious to the political media (except Peston, obvs).Richard_Nabavi said:Much jumping to judgement, I see.
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?0 -
I always thought was particularly true of Al Murray's Pub Landlord.grabcocque said:
I remember Johnny Speight said something similar about Alf Garnett. Of course, you as an educated liberal, are writing Alf dripping with irony and thinly-veiled contempt, but you also know that a chunk of your audience love him unironically for "sticking it to the darkies".TOPPING said:
As the ex-Mr Amber Rudd once said, so acutely, the problem with watching stupid reality shows is that there is no button to press anywhere to show that you are doing so ironically.grabcocque said:
That'll fit in nicely on my tat shelf of ironic thingummies.Richard_Nabavi said:
We might be able to run to a picture of the PM signed by herself.grabcocque said:
Ooh, I hope I get a puppy.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yeah, I've got end-of-year bonuses to finalise.Tissue_Price said:
THREAD SUSPENDED. GO BACK TO YOUR SPREADSHEETS AND DO SOME WORK. WE WILL RECONVENE AT 15:30.Richard_Nabavi said:Much jumping to judgement, I see.
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?
Never assume other people you meet are on the same irony level as you.0 -
In The Loop0 -
Delayed, perhaps, but not binned. We'll come back to it in 20 or 30 years when capacity on the WMCL has run out and wonder "why didn't we start building it so that it was ready when we needed it?"tlg86 said:
Hopefully, in the event of no deal Brexit, that will be binned.Pulpstar said:Anyone want a wager that HS2 will be late and overbudget.
Like Crossrail.0 -
And was your view sympathised with? Of the deal, not the Merlot?Recidivist said:Personal note. At a dinner party last Saturday, I opined that May's deal was the best compromise we were likely to get and I admired her for sticking to her guns and trying to get it through despite the widespread opposition. "That's what makes the difference between leaders and people who just kick the can down the road in the hope that something will turn up. She may lose now but the respect she'll gain will pay dividends later." (Or less articulate words to that effect - it was quite a nice Merlot I was drinking.)
So I feel a little let down.0 -
Does indefinite delay not mean they don't have an end date which commands confidence ?SeanT said:
Crossrail makes total sense, and is badly needed: which is why this "indefinite delay" is so depresssing, and outrageous. Heads must roll etc etcAndy_Cooke said:
The official "iron rule of megaprojects": Over time, over budget, over and over.Scott_P said:
They're also inevitably oversold on the grounds of their benefits. Unfortunately, politicians love them because they look decisive, statesmanlike, transformative, and - best of all - they'll be long gone by the time they turn out to be over time, over budget, and oversold.
This doesn't mean you should never do a megaproject - just make sure you're realistic about the cost, time, and - especially - benefits against the cost and time. Always double or treble each of the costs and time, and halve the expected benefits, and you'll be in the ballpark of the real cost, time, and benefit.
HS2 is an absolute nonsense, and must surely be cancelled.
0 -
Speculation is inevitable. And when someone looks this stupid what can one do other that postulate wildly about what is going on?Richard_Nabavi said:Much jumping to judgement, I see.
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?0 -
Meaningful.Scott_P said:0 -
There was a sensible and realistic route to exit. It's just that Leavers and Remainers alike didn't want it.SeanT said:
My mistake was not realising that the British people had already been jailed, and betrayed, by the wretched abomination that is Article 50 - written by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, who openly admits it is designed to be so punishing and painful no sane nation would ever use it.
That's the Article 50 which first appears in the EU Constitution/Lisbon and on which both main parties promised us a vote, a vote we were then denied. We would of course have voted down Lisbon (meaning no A50) which is why the europhile elite never gave us a vote.
That's when the great betrayal of the British people took place, by people like you. I will spend the rest of my life despising europhiles, and maybe even physically assaulting them if I get the chance.
Nonetheless you won, when we signed Lisbon without a referendum. You guys successfully locked the British people into the EU, and made a sensible exit from the EU impossible, for your own nation.
Well done. You must be proud.
Enjoy the fruits of your victory: a nation bitterly divided, for a generation or more.
STEP ONE: Negotiate an exit to EEA/EFTA. Not trivial, but very possible and should be achievable in less than two years. Exits CAP, CFP, most of the EU acquis, ECJ, reduces payments significantly. On the other hand, retains Freedom of Movement and some costs and reduces (but does not remove completely) influence over Single Market legislating.
At this point, the moment the agreement is signed, we're out and Article 50 is expired. We're a non-EU country and the only way back is through official accession.
STEP TWO: Decide where we want to end up. We can prepare (in slow time) for WTO rules, or negotiate a CETA-like agreement, or decide to stay put. Exiting the EEA Agreement can be done by giving twelve months notice. The power asymmetry with the EU is gone; there's no Article 50 timelimit.
However, the EEA countries might be concerned about us potentially just using them temporarily, so a competent negotiator would assure them that there's no chance of us going further and that they're sure we'll stay in the EEA for the forseeable future. At least until it's all signed.
No chance of that now, of course.0 -
david_herdson said:
Because it's a betting site? This is the time to pick up the consequences of what's going on, before it becomes obvious to the political media (except Peston, obvs).Richard_Nabavi said:Much jumping to judgement, I see.
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?
@david_herdson: Given your line on the impossibility of the second referendum is predicated on the government's control over house business, do the chinks in that control seen in the last week give you any pause for thought?grabcocque said:So Erskine May says the right to move an order of the day belongs to the House at large not just member in charge, then says it must be taken on by another member in absence of the forementioned one.
i.e. if the goverment doesn't move an order of the day, another member may so move in the government's absence?
So it looks to me like the house CAN force the meaningful vote, simply by moving to resume the business of last week, if the Leader of the House so declines.0 -
I'd like to hear what she could possibly say that could be a useful remedy.kle4 said:
Speculation is inevitable. And when someone looks this stupid what can one do other that postulate wildly about what is going on?Richard_Nabavi said:Much jumping to judgement, I see.
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?
0 -
Indeed. She was going to lose but could in some respect hold her head high. No longer . Not deserving of respect.Recidivist said:Personal note. At a dinner party last Saturday, I opined that May's deal was the best compromise we were likely to get and I admired her for sticking to her guns and trying to get it through despite the widespread opposition. "That's what makes the difference between leaders and people who just kick the can down the road in the hope that something will turn up. She may lose now but the respect she'll gain will pay dividends later." (Or less articulate words to that effect - it was quite a nice Merlot I was drinking.)
So I feel a little let down.0 -
It was hobbled. It may creep over the line but it's far harder now.Donny43 said:
No, it wasn't.PeterMannion said:
And leave was killed on 10 December 2018 (if not before).Donny43 said:
Remain was killed by the people on 23rd June 2016. Assuming the MPs realise who their boss is.anothernick said:I think it would be fair to say that most of us on here agree that the options as of this morning were
1 May's deal
2 No deal
3 Remain
May's deal is now dead. Nobody thinks Parliament will accept no deal, and now, thanks to the ECJ, MPs have a cast iron way of avoiding no deal by simply voting to revoke article 50. So Option 3 is the only one left on the table.0 -
At least on internet chatrooms it's easy to discern irony.grabcocque said:
I remember Johnny Speight said something similar about Alf Garnett. Of course, you as an educated liberal, are writing Alf dripping with irony and thinly-veiled contempt, but you also know that a chunk of your audience love him unironically for "sticking it to the darkies".TOPPING said:
As the ex-Mr Amber Rudd once said, so acutely, the problem with watching stupid reality shows is that there is no button to press anywhere to show that you are doing so ironically.grabcocque said:
That'll fit in nicely on my tat shelf of ironic thingummies.Richard_Nabavi said:
We might be able to run to a picture of the PM signed by herself.grabcocque said:
Ooh, I hope I get a puppy.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yeah, I've got end-of-year bonuses to finalise.Tissue_Price said:
THREAD SUSPENDED. GO BACK TO YOUR SPREADSHEETS AND DO SOME WORK. WE WILL RECONVENE AT 15:30.Richard_Nabavi said:Much jumping to judgement, I see.
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?
Never assume other people you meet are on the same irony level as you.0 -
That was achievable immediately after the referendum. Most remainers and many leavers would have accepted it.Andy_Cooke said:
There was a sensible and realistic route to exit. It's just that Leavers and Remainers alike didn't want it.SeanT said:
My mistake was not realising that the British people had already been jailed, and betrayed, by the wretched abomination that is Article 50 - written by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, who openly admits it is designed to be so punishing and painful no sane nation would ever use it.
That's the Article 50 which first appears in the EU Constitution/Lisbon and on which both main parties promised us a vote, a vote we were then denied. We would of course have voted down Lisbon (meaning no A50) which is why the europhile elite never gave us a vote.
That's when the great betrayal of the British people took place, by people like you. I will spend the rest of my life despising europhiles, and maybe even physically assaulting them if I get the chance.
Nonetheless you won, when we signed Lisbon without a referendum. You guys successfully locked the British people into the EU, and made a sensible exit from the EU impossible, for your own nation.
Well done. You must be proud.
Enjoy the fruits of your victory: a nation bitterly divided, for a generation or more.
STEP ONE: Negotiate an exit to EEA/EFTA. Not trivial, but very possible and should be achievable in less than two years. Exits CAP, CFP, most of the EU acquis, ECJ, reduces payments significantly. On the other hand, retains Freedom of Movement and some costs and reduces (but does not remove completely) influence over Single Market legislating.
At this point, the moment the agreement is signed, we're out and Article 50 is expired. We're a non-EU country and the only way back is through official accession.
STEP TWO: Decide where we want to end up. We can prepare (in slow time) for WTO rules, or negotiate a CETA-like agreement, or decide to stay put. Exiting the EEA Agreement can be done by giving twelve months notice. The power asymmetry with the EU is gone; there's no Article 50 timelimit.
However, the EEA countries might be concerned about us potentially just using them temporarily, so a competent negotiator would assure them that there's no chance of us going further and that they're sure we'll stay in the EEA for the forseeable future. At least until it's all signed.
No chance of that now, of course.
Then came along May with her "red lines".0 -
Sky reporting that Govt will not bail out Crossrail. Saying Govt will only offer 300 - 400 million as a loan and that Londoners have to foot the whole bill. Mayor Kahn needs to find 1.4 billion and the loan repayments.0
-
The Times, Guardian and Independent say she will postpone. The BBC say she is expected to. If she does then surely she will be forced out within days at most.0
-
We could remain, and then get our EEA-EFTA ducks in line within the EU. And then push the button again only when we know people, parliament and the EFTA are all on board this thing happening.Andy_Cooke said:
No chance of that now, of course.SeanT said:
My mistake was not realising that the British people had already been jailed, and betrayed, by the wretched abomination that is Article 50 - written by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, who openly admits it is designed to be so punishing and painful no sane nation would ever use it.
That's the Article 50 which first appears in the EU Constitution/Lisbon and on which both main parties promised us a vote, a vote we were then denied. We would of course have voted down Lisbon (meaning no A50) which is why the europhile elite never gave us a vote.
That's when the great betrayal of the British people took place, by people like you. I will spend the rest of my life despising europhiles, and maybe even physically assaulting them if I get the chance.
Nonetheless you won, when we signed Lisbon without a referendum. You guys successfully locked the British people into the EU, and made a sensible exit from the EU impossible, for your own nation.
Well done. You must be proud.
Enjoy the fruits of your victory: a nation bitterly divided, for a generation or more.0 -
Today shows once again why lawyers and an independent judiciary are essential for a healthy democracy.
Praise all lawyers as Shakespeare meant to say.-1 -
Agreed.SeanT said:
Speaking as a Liberal Leaver, I have virtually abandoned all hope of Leaving sans catastrophe, and if the alternative is a GE and a probable Corbyn government, I would rather have a 2nd referendum, and then I suspect I would vote, sadly and with some self hatred, for Remain.Oort said:
A general election could solve that problem!HYUFD said:A general election solves NOTHING there is no majority in the Commons for Corbyn's Brexit plus permanent Customs Union either
So could a government of national unity that excludes the ERG rather than letting them have a third of the seats in the Cabinet as they do now. Sure, it would mean the end of the Tory party in its present form. If I were Corbyn I'd consider that a result.
This is coming down to realpolitik - and seriously nasty economic choices.0 -
The deal on the table is a sensible exit, but the leavers don't want it. They are so obsessed by the flock of birds apparently in the bush that the frozen turkey they had in their shopping bag has defrosted and flown off.Andy_Cooke said:
There was a sensible and realistic route to exit. It's just that Leavers and Remainers alike didn't want it.SeanT said:
My mistake was not realising that the British people had already been jailed, and betrayed, by the wretched abomination that is Article 50 - written by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, who openly admits it is designed to be so punishing and painful no sane nation would ever use it.
That's the Article 50 which first appears in the EU Constitution/Lisbon and on which both main parties promised us a vote, a vote we were then denied. We would of course have voted down Lisbon (meaning no A50) which is why the europhile elite never gave us a vote.
That's when the great betrayal of the British people took place, by people like you. I will spend the rest of my life despising europhiles, and maybe even physically assaulting them if I get the chance.
Nonetheless you won, when we signed Lisbon without a referendum. You guys successfully locked the British people into the EU, and made a sensible exit from the EU impossible, for your own nation.
Well done. You must be proud.
Enjoy the fruits of your victory: a nation bitterly divided, for a generation or more.
STEP ONE: Negotiate an exit to EEA/EFTA. Not trivial, but very possible and should be achievable in less than two years. Exits CAP, CFP, most of the EU acquis, ECJ, reduces payments significantly. On the other hand, retains Freedom of Movement and some costs and reduces (but does not remove completely) influence over Single Market legislating.
At this point, the moment the agreement is signed, we're out and Article 50 is expired. We're a non-EU country and the only way back is through official accession.
STEP TWO: Decide where we want to end up. We can prepare (in slow time) for WTO rules, or negotiate a CETA-like agreement, or decide to stay put. Exiting the EEA Agreement can be done by giving twelve months notice. The power asymmetry with the EU is gone; there's no Article 50 timelimit.
However, the EEA countries might be concerned about us potentially just using them temporarily, so a competent negotiator would assure them that there's no chance of us going further and that they're sure we'll stay in the EEA for the forseeable future. At least until it's all signed.
No chance of that now, of course.
0 -
The stealth massively expanded congestion charge is just about to get even bigger and more expensive...ralphmalph said:Sky reporting that Govt will not bail out Crossrail. Saying Govt will only offer 300 - 400 million as a loan and that Londoners have to foot the whole bill. Mayor Kahn needs to find 1.4 billion and the loan repayments.
0 -
That was never a possible route. For a start, our EU friends were adamant that we couldn't negotiate the future relationship until we'd signed a Withdrawal Agreement and actually left, so there was no option to negotiate an exit to EEA/EFTA until after leaving. And secondly, there was precisely zero chance of the EEA countries and the EU agreeing to an EEA route as a temporary staging post. What's in it for them? It would cause massive disruption, and then we'd want to bugger off anyway?Andy_Cooke said:
There was a sensible and realistic route to exit. It's just that Leavers and Remainers alike didn't want it.SeanT said:
My mistake was not realising that the British people had already been jailed, and betrayed, by the wretched abomination that is Article 50 - written by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, who openly admits it is designed to be so punishing and painful no sane nation would ever use it.
That's the Article 50 which first appears in the EU Constitution/Lisbon and on which both main parties promised us a vote, a vote we were then denied. We would of course have voted down Lisbon (meaning no A50) which is why the europhile elite never gave us a vote.
That's when the great betrayal of the British people took place, by people like you. I will spend the rest of my life despising europhiles, and maybe even physically assaulting them if I get the chance.
Nonetheless you won, when we signed Lisbon without a referendum. You guys successfully locked the British people into the EU, and made a sensible exit from the EU impossible, for your own nation.
Well done. You must be proud.
Enjoy the fruits of your victory: a nation bitterly divided, for a generation or more.
STEP ONE: Negotiate an exit to EEA/EFTA. Not trivial, but very possible and should be achievable in less than two years. Exits CAP, CFP, most of the EU acquis, ECJ, reduces payments significantly. On the other hand, retains Freedom of Movement and some costs and reduces (but does not remove completely) influence over Single Market legislating.
At this point, the moment the agreement is signed, we're out and Article 50 is expired. We're a non-EU country and the only way back is through official accession.
STEP TWO: Decide where we want to end up. We can prepare (in slow time) for WTO rules, or negotiate a CETA-like agreement, or decide to stay put. Exiting the EEA Agreement can be done by giving twelve months notice. The power asymmetry with the EU is gone; there's no Article 50 timelimit.
However, the EEA countries might be concerned about us potentially just using them temporarily, so a competent negotiator would assure them that there's no chance of us going further and that they're sure we'll stay in the EEA for the forseeable future. At least until it's all signed.
No chance of that now, of course.0 -
There is already great symbolism to that March 29th date. Away from Westminster one of the effects of revoking article 50 will be a disastrous night for Tory councillors in May 2019. It is only the threat of Corbyn that might just prevent the Tory party from disintegrating on the ground altogether. Is the Corbyn threat enough though - I'm not so sure.0
-
If it were me, I'd just give it my best shot, and then resign if it were voted down.kle4 said:
Indeed. She was going to lose but could in some respect hold her head high. No longer . Not deserving of respect.Recidivist said:Personal note. At a dinner party last Saturday, I opined that May's deal was the best compromise we were likely to get and I admired her for sticking to her guns and trying to get it through despite the widespread opposition. "That's what makes the difference between leaders and people who just kick the can down the road in the hope that something will turn up. She may lose now but the respect she'll gain will pay dividends later." (Or less articulate words to that effect - it was quite a nice Merlot I was drinking.)
So I feel a little let down.0 -
-
I resign. Someone else can try.TGOHF said:
I'd like to hear what she could possibly say that could be a useful remedy.kle4 said:
Speculation is inevitable. And when someone looks this stupid what can one do other that postulate wildly about what is going on?Richard_Nabavi said:Much jumping to judgement, I see.
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?0 -
-
No, she is simply exploring its lesser known crannies.grabcocque said:
Wreck-it Tessie Breaks the Constitution.TheScreamingEagles said:Been at the cinema for the last two hours.
Have I missed much?
Do I need to postpone my viewing of Wreck It Ralph 2?
It reminds one of the classic line from an apocryphal reference - "his men would follow him anywhere, if only out of a sense of morbid curiosity'...0 -
Credit where it's due, he disguises his lack of sharpness by presenting a moving target.TOPPING said:
You dolt. It was obvious that this would happen. That you are surprised (are you surprised) is about the only thing that is mildly surprising but then you were never that sharp to start with, albeit you have a great literary turn of phrase.SeanT said:
Speaking as a Liberal Leaver, I have virtually abandoned all hope of Leaving sans catastrophe, and if the alternative is a GE and a probable Corbyn government, I would rather have a 2nd referendum, and then I suspect I would vote, sadly and with some self hatred, for Remain.Oort said:
A general election could solve that problem!HYUFD said:A general election solves NOTHING there is no majority in the Commons for Corbyn's Brexit plus permanent Customs Union either
So could a government of national unity that excludes the ERG rather than letting them have a third of the seats in the Cabinet as they do now. Sure, it would mean the end of the Tory party in its present form. If I were Corbyn I'd consider that a result.
This is coming down to realpolitik - and seriously nasty economic choices.0 -
I think you are right. The new system makes it harder for her to survive. In voting against her, you do not have to choose any other candidate over her - that comes later. So, in a secret ballot, why should supposedly loyal cabinet ministers vote to support her if they fancy their own chances?Pulpstar said:
I'm not so sure she will.Barnesian said:She will survive the immediate VNOC in her leadership
0 -
Sure beats "nothing has changed".kle4 said:
I resign. Someone else can try.TGOHF said:
I'd like to hear what she could possibly say that could be a useful remedy.kle4 said:
Speculation is inevitable. And when someone looks this stupid what can one do other that postulate wildly about what is going on?Richard_Nabavi said:Much jumping to judgement, I see.
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?0 -
Various swear-words spring to mind at such people.
https://twitter.com/Laura_K_Hughes/status/10721264671344230410 -
And they were already leaking to the press their own ideas on what to do if the vote failed. Basically admitting they would vote against her as they have their own plans.Wulfrun_Phil said:
I think you are right. The new system makes it harder for her to survive. In voting against her, you do not have to choose any other candidate over her - that comes later. So, in a secret ballot, why should supposedly loyal cabinet ministers vote to support her if they fancy their own chances?Pulpstar said:
I'm not so sure she will.Barnesian said:She will survive the immediate VNOC in her leadership
0 -
Has anyone asked Johnny Mercer for an official upgrade on his earlier "shit-show" designation?Scott_P said:0 -
Parliament will never agree to pushing the button again. And if we remain no senior politician is going to revive the idea of Brexit for many, many years. Brexit is a curse, it has ruined the careers of all those who have crossed its path - Cameron, Osborne, Johnson, May, Davis and many more have fallen victim. As, ironically, has UKIP.grabcocque said:
We could remain, and then get our EEA-EFTA ducks in line within the EU. And then push the button again only when we know people, parliament and the EFTA are all on board this thing happening.Andy_Cooke said:
No chance of that now, of course.SeanT said:
My mistake was not realising that the British people had already been jailed, and betrayed, by the wretched abomination that is Article 50 - written by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, who openly admits it is designed to be so punishing and painful no sane nation would ever use it.
That's the Article 50 which first appears in the EU Constitution/Lisbon and on which both main parties promised us a vote, a vote we were then denied. We would of course have voted down Lisbon (meaning no A50) which is why the europhile elite never gave us a vote.
That's when the great betrayal of the British people took place, by people like you. I will spend the rest of my life despising europhiles, and maybe even physically assaulting them if I get the chance.
Nonetheless you won, when we signed Lisbon without a referendum. You guys successfully locked the British people into the EU, and made a sensible exit from the EU impossible, for your own nation.
Well done. You must be proud.
Enjoy the fruits of your victory: a nation bitterly divided, for a generation or more.0 -
There is also the question of who will control the government, of course.Pro_Rata said:david_herdson said:
Because it's a betting site? This is the time to pick up the consequences of what's going on, before it becomes obvious to the political media (except Peston, obvs).Richard_Nabavi said:Much jumping to judgement, I see.
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?
@david_herdson: Given your line on the impossibility of the second referendum is predicated on the government's control over house business, do the chinks in that control seen in the last week give you any pause for thought?grabcocque said:So Erskine May says the right to move an order of the day belongs to the House at large not just member in charge, then says it must be taken on by another member in absence of the forementioned one.
i.e. if the goverment doesn't move an order of the day, another member may so move in the government's absence?
So it looks to me like the house CAN force the meaningful vote, simply by moving to resume the business of last week, if the Leader of the House so declines.0 -
I happen to agree with Crossrail. And, to be honest, it's not doing badly at all on the pantheon of megaprojects.SeanT said:
Crossrail makes total sense, and is badly needed: which is why this "indefinite delay" is so depresssing, and outrageous. Heads must roll etc etcAndy_Cooke said:
The official "iron rule of megaprojects": Over time, over budget, over and over.Scott_P said:
They're also inevitably oversold on the grounds of their benefits. Unfortunately, politicians love them because they look decisive, statesmanlike, transformative, and - best of all - they'll be long gone by the time they turn out to be over time, over budget, and oversold.
This doesn't mean you should never do a megaproject - just make sure you're realistic about the cost, time, and - especially - benefits against the cost and time. Always double or treble each of the costs and time, and halve the expected benefits, and you'll be in the ballpark of the real cost, time, and benefit.
HS2 is an absolute nonsense, and must surely be cancelled.
Original estimate was £15.9 billion and 10 years. They then cut the budget to £14.8 billion (which was always going to be fiction; the costs for megaprojects don't go in that direction).
With the £590 million overspend last year and a further £1.7 billion estimate now (and we're late in the project stage), we're looking at just over £17 billion (7.5% above original estimates and 15% over the artificially reduced estimate) and a delay somewhere in excess of 1 year. I don't see it being delayed by more than, at most, an extra two years and maybe as little as an extra one year. That'd be 20% to 30% over time.
Annoying and embarrassing, but if you look at megaprojects (and if you want a big laugh at the expense of our ultra-efficient Teutonic cousins, check out the Berlin-Brandenburg Airport project), it's actually doing bloody well in comparison to most.0 -
Cancel HS2, give £1.4 billion to London to bail out Crossrail, and spend the rest Up North.ralphmalph said:Sky reporting that Govt will not bail out Crossrail. Saying Govt will only offer 300 - 400 million as a loan and that Londoners have to foot the whole bill. Mayor Kahn needs to find 1.4 billion and the loan repayments.
0 -
The great promoter of this Mr Flexit always said that we would have to force it by saying that we are members of EEA/EFTA already and we have only cancelled our EU membership not the other two. Then we would have a couple of years at most to move to an FTA, etc whilst the ECJ decided on whether we were members of EFTA/EEA or not.Richard_Nabavi said:
That was never a possible route. For a start, our EU friends were adamant that we couldn't negotiate the future relationship until we'd signed a Withdrawal Agreement and actually left, so there was no option to negotiate an exit to EEA/EFTA until after leaving. And secondly, there was precisely zero chance of the EEA countries and the EU agreeing to an EEA route as a temporary staging post. What's in it for them? It would cause massive disruption, and then we#d want to bugger off anyway?Andy_Cooke said:
There was a sensible and realistic route to exit. It's just that Leavers and Remainers alike didn't want it.SeanT said:
My mistake was not realising that the British people had already been jailed, and betrayed, by the wretched abomination that is Article 50 - written by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, who openly admits it is designed to be so punishing and painful no sane nation would ever use it.
Well done. You must be proud.
Enjoy the fruits of your victory: a nation bitterly divided, for a generation or more.
STEP ONE: Negotiate an exit to EEA/EFTA. Not trivial, but very possible and should be achievable in less than two years. Exits CAP, CFP, most of the EU acquis, ECJ, reduces payments significantly. On the other hand, retains Freedom of Movement and some costs and reduces (but does not remove completely) influence over Single Market legislating.
At this point, the moment the agreement is signed, we're out and Article 50 is expired. We're a non-EU country and the only way back is through official accession.
STEP TWO: Decide where we want to end up. We can prepare (in slow time) for WTO rules, or negotiate a CETA-like agreement, or decide to stay put. Exiting the EEA Agreement can be done by giving twelve months notice. The power asymmetry with the EU is gone; there's no Article 50 timelimit.
However, the EEA countries might be concerned about us potentially just using them temporarily, so a competent negotiator would assure them that there's no chance of us going further and that they're sure we'll stay in the EEA for the forseeable future. At least until it's all signed.
No chance of that now, of course.
There was some discussion initially about Article 192(From memory) before T May wrote her article 50 letter and as to whether that letter expressly stated we have left EEA/EFTA as well.0 -
Let me take a wild guess and say it is her preference.Scott_P said:0 -
There's even less support up here for HS2 than the deal !Wulfrun_Phil said:
Cancel HS2, give £1.4 billion to London to bail out Crossrail, and spend the rest Up North.ralphmalph said:Sky reporting that Govt will not bail out Crossrail. Saying Govt will only offer 300 - 400 million as a loan and that Londoners have to foot the whole bill. Mayor Kahn needs to find 1.4 billion and the loan repayments.
0 -
0
-
Given the way his language has deteriorated, he might consider a small change to his surname ?Scott_P said:0 -
What's in it for them is a smooth transition and minimal disruption to trade.Richard_Nabavi said:
That was never a possible route. For a start, our EU friends were adamant that we couldn't negotiate the future relationship until we'd signed a Withdrawal Agreement and actually left, so there was no option to negotiate an exit to EEA/EFTA until after leaving. And secondly, there was precisely zero chance of the EEA countries and the EU agreeing to an EEA route as a temporary staging post. What's in it for them? It would cause massive disruption, and then we'd want to bugger off anyway?
As for couldn't negotiate that's not really true. Barnier kept asking early on what we wanted from this but Tessie thought it was a great idea to try to negotiate something that wasn't an option and so he closed down future negotiations talks. But early on they were actually happening.
Had we said from the start "this is our destination, at least for now" from an 'off the shelf' option I think the EU would have been much more amenable to negotiating it.0 -
Yeah, that was nonsense.ralphmalph said:The great promoter of this Mr Flexit always said that we would have to force it by saying that we are members of EEA/EFTA already and we have only cancelled our EU membership not the other two. Then we would have a couple of years at most to move to an FTA, etc whilst the ECJ decided on whether we were members of EFTA/EEA or not.
0 -
Could we propose a motion to pretend the last two years never happened ?Scott_P said:TAKE BACK CONTROL !!!!!
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/10721304664536023060 -
Good. I fail to see what a delay buys.Scott_P said:TAKE BACK CONTROL !!!!!
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/10721304664536023060 -
Some people need to have a valium.MarqueeMark said:
Has anyone asked Johnny Mercer for an official upgrade on his earlier "shit-show" designation?Scott_P said:0 -
If the final destination was EEA, yes I agree that it would have been easier to negotiate. But not as a temporary staging post, and in any case an EEA-style deal was ruled out by the two Leave campaigns.Philip_Thompson said:
What's in it for them is a smooth transition and minimal disruption to trade.Richard_Nabavi said:
That was never a possible route. For a start, our EU friends were adamant that we couldn't negotiate the future relationship until we'd signed a Withdrawal Agreement and actually left, so there was no option to negotiate an exit to EEA/EFTA until after leaving. And secondly, there was precisely zero chance of the EEA countries and the EU agreeing to an EEA route as a temporary staging post. What's in it for them? It would cause massive disruption, and then we'd want to bugger off anyway?
As for couldn't negotiate that's not really true. Barnier kept asking early on what we wanted from this but Tessie thought it was a great idea to try to negotiate something that wasn't an option and so he closed down future negotiations talks. But early on they were actually happening.
Had we said from the start "this is our destination, at least for now" from an 'off the shelf' option I think the EU would have been much more amenable to negotiating it.0 -
'Delayed indefinitely' is new. There's evidently some big issues with something; as the tunnels are complete, as are most of the stations, and they are running test trains, my guess is the very complex signalling systems. Probably wrong, though.SeanT said:
I don't think we will forget about this, at least not in London (as it looks like we Londoners are gonna have to pony up the money). This is bad news for Sadiq Khan, as there are very serious questions being asked about when exactly he knew Crossrail was in trouble, and why didn't he say anything....Xenon said:
He could end up in court.
As you say, the question is when people knew that the project was in trouble.0 -
0
-
I was thinking of a single letter.ReggieCide said:0 -
She will say nothing has changed but I understand the backstop concerns and for that reason I will go back to the EU and they will be nice and write a three page addendum on page 586 of the WA which will clarify that the backstop remains as is but they will add some old bollocks which will sound vaguely conciliatory and which I will then hold a press conference about and proclaim victory and then I'll have the vote.Philip_Thompson said:
Sure beats "nothing has changed".kle4 said:
I resign. Someone else can try.TGOHF said:
I'd like to hear what she could possibly say that could be a useful remedy.kle4 said:
Speculation is inevitable. And when someone looks this stupid what can one do other that postulate wildly about what is going on?Richard_Nabavi said:Much jumping to judgement, I see.
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?0 -
I just do not think your comment is at all acceptable.TGOHF said:
Yes - the ERG would be as well waiting until she comes back with some feeble crumbs from the EU - then knife her.OblitusSumMe said:
If we assume that she is heading back to Brussels to renegotiate the backstop, then she is only doing what the ERG told her to do. Why put in a letter now if you didn't do so when Mogg said to do so?TGOHF said:No sign of many cheerleaders for Mrs May now.
Regardless of the topic - this is an utter failure by the PM.
48 letters must be in tonight - surely.
On the day I have lost my special business partner of 40 years and a family friend of 50 years it is out of order0 -
If we think the EU has played hardball with May before, imagine the terrifying edifice of stony silence she's gonna get when she demands "concessions".0
-
It doesn't matter if the government are forced to have a vote or not now - the narrative has already moved on to what concessions can May get from Brussels to get the agreement past a vote later in December or probably January.
If the vote has to go forward tomorrow, and it loses heavily, May can say 'we already knew of its unpopularity which is why we tried to stop the vote and waste all your time, I'm off to the summit to get something that better fits what you want'.0 -
Can you elaborate on the rationale for your last para? It seems a tad fanciful from here.Philip_Thompson said:
What's in it for them is a smooth transition and minimal disruption to trade.Richard_Nabavi said:
That was never a possible route. For a start, our EU friends were adamant that we couldn't negotiate the future relationship until we'd signed a Withdrawal Agreement and actually left, so there was no option to negotiate an exit to EEA/EFTA until after leaving. And secondly, there was precisely zero chance of the EEA countries and the EU agreeing to an EEA route as a temporary staging post. What's in it for them? It would cause massive disruption, and then we'd want to bugger off anyway?
As for couldn't negotiate that's not really true. Barnier kept asking early on what we wanted from this but Tessie thought it was a great idea to try to negotiate something that wasn't an option and so he closed down future negotiations talks. But early on they were actually happening.
Had we said from the start "this is our destination, at least for now" from an 'off the shelf' option I think the EU would have been much more amenable to negotiating it.0 -
0
-
What the EU says and does are often two very different things. Official statements are meaningless at this point.grabcocque said:The EU says "nothing has changed":
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/10721299773516595210 -
Probably that is right. To be fair, she would have a point, in that the backstop has been absurdly misrepresented. But it's too late, as with the 'Dementia tax' she has totally failed to grasp the narrative and has allowed her political enemies to get their dishonest framing in first, so it becomes widely believed.TOPPING said:
She will say nothing has changed but I understand the backstop concerns and for that reason I will go back to the EU and they will be nice and write a three page addendum on page 586 of the WA which will clarify that the backstop remains as is but they will add some old bollocks which will sound vaguely conciliatory and which I will then hold a press conference about and proclaim victory and then I'll have the vote.Philip_Thompson said:
Sure beats "nothing has changed".kle4 said:
I resign. Someone else can try.TGOHF said:
I'd like to hear what she could possibly say that could be a useful remedy.kle4 said:
Speculation is inevitable. And when someone looks this stupid what can one do other that postulate wildly about what is going on?Richard_Nabavi said:Much jumping to judgement, I see.
Here's an idea: why not wait for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes, and see what she has to say?0 -
John Rentoul
Verified account @JohnRentoul
Approx. No-deal Brexit: 124 MPs. PM's deal: 215 MPs. Referendum (ie, Remain): 300. With NDB as default if they can't decide
The problem in a nutshell0 -
At the risk of opening Pandora’s box, what’s so special about the signalling?JosiasJessop said:
'Delayed indefinitely' is new. There's evidently some big issues with something; as the tunnels are complete, as are most of the stations, and they are running test trains, my guess is the very complex signalling systems. Probably wrong, though.SeanT said:
I don't think we will forget about this, at least not in London (as it looks like we Londoners are gonna have to pony up the money). This is bad news for Sadiq Khan, as there are very serious questions being asked about when exactly he knew Crossrail was in trouble, and why didn't he say anything....Xenon said:
He could end up in court.
As you say, the question is when people knew that the project was in trouble.0 -
To be honest I don't really take much notice of other people's political opinions. I just assume everyone agrees with me.OldKingCole said:
And was your view sympathised with? Of the deal, not the Merlot?Recidivist said:Personal note. At a dinner party last Saturday, I opined that May's deal was the best compromise we were likely to get and I admired her for sticking to her guns and trying to get it through despite the widespread opposition. "That's what makes the difference between leaders and people who just kick the can down the road in the hope that something will turn up. She may lose now but the respect she'll gain will pay dividends later." (Or less articulate words to that effect - it was quite a nice Merlot I was drinking.)
So I feel a little let down.0 -
I can't see May demanding anything, much more like "pretty please"grabcocque said:If we think the EU has played hardball with May before, imagine the terrifying edifice of stony silence she's gonna get when she demands "concessions".
0 -
The signalling in the Heathrow tunnels is still giving major problems, last I heard. Plus some of the stations are nowhere near ready.JosiasJessop said:
'Delayed indefinitely' is new. There's evidently some big issues with something; as the tunnels are complete, as are most of the stations, and they are running test trains, my guess is the very complex signalling systems. Probably wrong, though.SeanT said:
I don't think we will forget about this, at least not in London (as it looks like we Londoners are gonna have to pony up the money). This is bad news for Sadiq Khan, as there are very serious questions being asked about when exactly he knew Crossrail was in trouble, and why didn't he say anything....Xenon said:
He could end up in court.
As you say, the question is when people knew that the project was in trouble.0 -
Apparently May is seeking a "legally-binding assurance" that we won't be trapped in the backstop indefinitely.
So she wants a legally-binding backstop to the backstop, to prevent the backstop acting as a backstop.
BREXIT, ladies and gentlemen.0 -
If the no-dealers can be convinced that this is the only chance of Brexit (which is looking somewhat likely)....Slackbladder said:
John Rentoul
Verified account @JohnRentoul
Approx. No-deal Brexit: 124 MPs. PM's deal: 215 MPs. Referendum (ie, Remain): 300. With NDB as default if they can't decide
The problem in a nutshell0 -
A bit like Leave EU and its referendum expensesPulpstar said:Heh, hard to disagree.
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/10721041996919234560 -
Hah.0
-
Typically decent of you Big G.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just do not think your comment is at all acceptable.TGOHF said:
Yes - the ERG would be as well waiting until she comes back with some feeble crumbs from the EU - then knife her.OblitusSumMe said:
If we assume that she is heading back to Brussels to renegotiate the backstop, then she is only doing what the ERG told her to do. Why put in a letter now if you didn't do so when Mogg said to do so?TGOHF said:No sign of many cheerleaders for Mrs May now.
Regardless of the topic - this is an utter failure by the PM.
48 letters must be in tonight - surely.
On the day I have lost my special business partner of 40 years and a family friend of 50 years it is out of order
Condolences on what must be a day for a lot of reflection and reminiscing. Best wishes0 -
Mrs M's popularity seems to have fallen even further over on ConHome; something that didn't seem possible.0
-
The government whips who believed they could win the MV are now saying they're "confident" they can prevent the MV happening.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/10721331639363010560 -
The Guardian article mentions the signalling, but also says that test runs through the core have been cancelled. If the signalling is at issue, and there's no estimate of when it will be fixed, then that sounds as though they don't know how to fix it. It may never be fixed. This is potentially a monumental clusterfuck of the most epic of proportions.JosiasJessop said:
'Delayed indefinitely' is new. There's evidently some big issues with something; as the tunnels are complete, as are most of the stations, and they are running test trains, my guess is the very complex signalling systems. Probably wrong, though.SeanT said:
I don't think we will forget about this, at least not in London (as it looks like we Londoners are gonna have to pony up the money). This is bad news for Sadiq Khan, as there are very serious questions being asked about when exactly he knew Crossrail was in trouble, and why didn't he say anything....Xenon said:
He could end up in court.
As you say, the question is when people knew that the project was in trouble.0 -
"Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". Agreed = signed forKentRising said:
What the EU says and does are often two very different things. Official statements are meaningless at this point.grabcocque said:The EU says "nothing has changed":
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/10721299773516595210 -
Well, May and Robbins' version of Brexit.grabcocque said:Apparently May is seeking a "legally-binding assurance" that we won't be trapped in the backstop indefinitely.
So she wants a legally-binding backstop to the backstop, to prevent the backstop acting as a backstop.
BREXIT, ladies and gentlemen.0 -
Different and new systems. In fact, it has three signalling systems.RobD said:
At the risk of opening Pandora’s box, what’s so special about the signalling?JosiasJessop said:
'Delayed indefinitely' is new. There's evidently some big issues with something; as the tunnels are complete, as are most of the stations, and they are running test trains, my guess is the very complex signalling systems. Probably wrong, though.SeanT said:
I don't think we will forget about this, at least not in London (as it looks like we Londoners are gonna have to pony up the money). This is bad news for Sadiq Khan, as there are very serious questions being asked about when exactly he knew Crossrail was in trouble, and why didn't he say anything....Xenon said:
He could end up in court.
As you say, the question is when people knew that the project was in trouble.
*) The central section runs under Communications Based Train Control (CBTC) moving block signalling . I know f'all about this.
*) The western section runs ETCS level 2.
*) The eastern section runs bog-standard TPWS/AWS.
Both CBTC and ETCS are relatively new and untried in the UK. The latter is, I think, only used on the Cambrian line in Wales and has had various problems, such as :
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Railway-safety-and-crime/raib-to-investigate-cambrian-line-ertms-failure
https://www.railengineer.uk/2016/01/08/signalling-crossrail/
I daresay an illustrious PBer may (or may not) be able to say more ...0 -
LondonReconnections have a long article on the CrossRail issues https://www.londonreconnections.com/2018/crossrail-a-hole-new-world/ it's from August but still holds true...RobD said:
At the risk of opening Pandora’s box, what’s so special about the signalling?JosiasJessop said:
'Delayed indefinitely' is new. There's evidently some big issues with something; as the tunnels are complete, as are most of the stations, and they are running test trains, my guess is the very complex signalling systems. Probably wrong, though.SeanT said:
I don't think we will forget about this, at least not in London (as it looks like we Londoners are gonna have to pony up the money). This is bad news for Sadiq Khan, as there are very serious questions being asked about when exactly he knew Crossrail was in trouble, and why didn't he say anything....Xenon said:
He could end up in court.
As you say, the question is when people knew that the project was in trouble.0 -
The UK hasn’t agreed. If it had, what are Parliament voting on?ReggieCide said:
"Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". Agreed = signed forKentRising said:
What the EU says and does are often two very different things. Official statements are meaningless at this point.grabcocque said:The EU says "nothing has changed":
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/10721299773516595210
