politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the Article 50 exit date gets deferred it could raise doubt
Options
Comments
-
The Independent Republic of Northern Ireland.williamglenn said:
What's your solution for Northern Ireland under both scenarios?rcs1000 said:So, I genuinely don't know what will happen. I think the right thing for the country is a No Deal vs EFTA/EEA referendum, as it respects the first referendum.
0 -
Previously endorsed Bernie. Straw in the wind for his chances?grabcocque said:Tulsi Gabbard says she will run for president in 2020.
https://twitter.com/ckmarie/status/10838675438052802570 -
IanB2 said:
Remarkable when you consider 2000 was a leap year yet 2100 won't be.Chris_A said:There's also some unexpected and unusual repetitions in the dates of Easter too. For instance the Easters we're all living through from 1948 to 2047 will repeat exactly between 2100 and 2199.
The changing dates of Easter is a joke. It’s a pain for business and, when it’s early, short changes workers because the holidays are short and under GMT hours.
Fix the long holiday weekend to the second week of April and stop messing about. If the church wants to faff about celebrating a bloke’s death on a different day each year, let it go ahead.
That we haven’t done this always shows how sycophantic we still are in the face of organised religion.
It really is embarrassing.0 -
No sign of any decisive break one way or another over Brexit. Its basically 50/50.Black_Rook said:twitter.com/Survation/status/1083869040186179584
0 -
51% Remain/49% Leave is more interesting......Black_Rook said:0 -
That's a very May compromise. A solution nobody wanted or asked for and makes everyone furious.rcs1000 said:
The Independent Republic of Northern Ireland.williamglenn said:
What's your solution for Northern Ireland under both scenarios?rcs1000 said:So, I genuinely don't know what will happen. I think the right thing for the country is a No Deal vs EFTA/EEA referendum, as it respects the first referendum.
Personally I think we should give Northern Ireland to Belgium.0 -
I wonder if the number of would be Presidential candidates has any correlation with who wins the general?
So, in 2016 there were a lot of Republican candidates, and they flipped the Presidency. This probably needs some analysis...0 -
Both still anchored somewhere in the high 30s and early 40s. Great.FrancisUrquhart said:
Labour has also taken a three-point lead over the Tories with the Conservatives on 38 to Labour’s 41.SouthamObserver said:Labour takes three point lead over the Tories in the latest Survation poll for tomorrow’s Mail.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6583091/Ministers-grave-warning-poll-shows-Tory-voters-support-PMs-deal-Brussels.html0 -
Black_Rook said:
I wonder if Mortimer and the other true believers will waste as many pixels analysing this one as they did the recent meaningless random number generator that had the Tories a few points ahead.
0 -
If you are basing that on them crying about no deal, I think you may be in for a shock.rcs1000 said:
But there are probably 100s of Remainer MPs, who - if push came to shove - would choose the Deal over No Deal.AndyJS said:
I'm convinced No Deal will happen on 29th March.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky just now.
A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50
I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B
.0 -
Not an option, and given that your starting assumption in both scenarios is that the UK will cease to exist, the mandate from the first referendum will have been discharged already - the UK will no longer be a member of the EU.rcs1000 said:
The Independent Republic of Northern Ireland.williamglenn said:
What's your solution for Northern Ireland under both scenarios?rcs1000 said:So, I genuinely don't know what will happen. I think the right thing for the country is a No Deal vs EFTA/EEA referendum, as it respects the first referendum.
0 -
Lol.MarqueeMark said:
51% Remain/49% Leave is more interesting......Black_Rook said:0 -
theAnazina said:
Lol.MarqueeMark said:
51% Remain/49% Leave is more interesting......Black_Rook said:
C U R S E D N U M B E R S
are back!0 -
We could become signatories to the EEA Treaty without being members of EFTA, so I don't think that's an issue.Black_Rook said:
But surely (a) Norway+CU requires the assent of the EFTA states (which, if the noises off that have filtered into our press are anything to go by, they may not give); and (b) there's no incentive for the EU27 to grant an A50 extension for a referendum including a No Deal option, even if they're both willing and able to do so to begin with?rcs1000 said:
And TOPPING is convinced the deal will pass...AndyJS said:
I'm convinced No Deal will happen on 29th March.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky just now.
A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50
I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B
Who to believe?
The power of inertia points to No Deal. Corbyn wants Brexit to be as messy as possible because it increases the chance of his becoming Prime Minister down the line.
But there are probably 100s of Remainer MPs, who - if push came to shove - would choose the Deal over No Deal.
So, I genuinely don't know what will happen. I think the right thing for the country is a No Deal vs EFTA/EEA referendum, as it respects the first referendum.
But that's far too sensible, so I don't think it's going to happen.
It may or may not be sensible, but regardless I don't see how it flies.
Whether or not the Deal passes presumably depends on if Parliament, having rejected it, can find a majority for anything else (and also on timing; again, I assume if they leave it late enough then they'll run out of time to pass all the associated legislation needed to make any kind of Brexit work?) If it gets very close to March 29th without MPs having coalesced around any single option, then it may come down to whether they've the nerve to force revocation, or we end up with a disorderly No Deal.
I think the EU would allow us a (three month?) extension for No Deal / EEA referendum, because they would rather we remained in their orbit.0 -
Love a hot cross bun.SandyRentool said:Today I bought my second pack of hot cross buns of the year.
I've been setting up an Amazon Echo tonight.0 -
Jeff is now going to know all your inner thoughts...GIN1138 said:
Love a hot cross bun.SandyRentool said:Today I bought my second pack of hot cross buns of the year.
I've been setting up an Amazon Echo tonight.0 -
Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.rcs1000 said:
We could become signatories to the EEA Treaty without being members of EFTA, so I don't think that's an issue.Black_Rook said:
But surely (a) Norway+CU requires the assent of the EFTA states (which, if the noises off that have filtered into our press are anything to go by, they may not give); and (b) there's no incentive for the EU27 to grant an A50 extension for a referendum including a No Deal option, even if they're both willing and able to do so to begin with?rcs1000 said:
And TOPPING is convinced the deal will pass...AndyJS said:
I'm convinced No Deal will happen on 29th March.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky just now.
A spokesperson for TM confirms she has ruled out extending A50
I would suggest she will hold this line, as the nearer it gets the more pressure arises to accept her deal - either plan A or B
Who to believe?
The power of inertia points to No Deal. Corbyn wants Brexit to be as messy as possible because it increases the chance of his becoming Prime Minister down the line.
But there are probably 100s of Remainer MPs, who - if push came to shove - would choose the Deal over No Deal.
So, I genuinely don't know what will happen. I think the right thing for the country is a No Deal vs EFTA/EEA referendum, as it respects the first referendum.
But that's far too sensible, so I don't think it's going to happen.
It may or may not be sensible, but regardless I don't see how it flies.
Whether or not the Deal passes presumably depends on if Parliament, having rejected it, can find a majority for anything else (and also on timing; again, I assume if they leave it late enough then they'll run out of time to pass all the associated legislation needed to make any kind of Brexit work?) If it gets very close to March 29th without MPs having coalesced around any single option, then it may come down to whether they've the nerve to force revocation, or we end up with a disorderly No Deal.
I think you're in denial. We're not leaving the EU's orbit.rcs1000 said:
I think the EU would allow us a (three month?) extension for No Deal / EEA referendum, because they would rather we remained in their orbit.0 -
Who or what is this AP?Black_Rook said:0 -
AFAIK it's not particularly different to the intermittent narrow leads for Remain that have been reported in such polls for some time. There may be some evidence of Bregret, but as you point out I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest that public opinion has shifted decisively.FrancisUrquhart said:
No sign of any decisive break one way or another over Brexit. Its basically 50/50.Black_Rook said:twitter.com/Survation/status/1083869040186179584
It certainly isn't a result to fill advocates of a second referendum with confidence. Personally I think they'd win a Deal versus Remain poll, but that's obviously a reasoned hunch rather than a confident prediction, and all those people who want to stay in the EU but loathe the Deal will presumably have to weigh seriously the risk of the Deal winning out if they manage to secure a new plebiscite.0 -
Chortle.grabcocque said:
theAnazina said:
Lol.MarqueeMark said:
51% Remain/49% Leave is more interesting......Black_Rook said:
C U R S E D N U M B E R S
are back!0 -
That's not true. The EEA treaty could be amended to say "the EFTA states and the United Kingdom", it wouldn't be much of a stretch.williamglenn said:Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.
0 -
rcs1000 said:
Who or what is this AP?Black_Rook said:
0 -
You'd have to amend more than that. Which governance pillar would the UK fall under? Once you get into such a substantive amendment we'd no longer be acceding to the same thing so it loses all meaning.rcs1000 said:
That's not true. The EEA treaty could be amended to say "the EFTA states and the United Kingdom", it wouldn't be much of a stretch.williamglenn said:Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.
0 -
Associated Press?rcs1000 said:
Who or what is this AP?Black_Rook said:0 -
We'd submit to dispute resolution to the newly named "EFTA and Friends Court".williamglenn said:
You'd have to amend more than that. Which governance pillar would the UK fall under?rcs1000 said:
That's not true. The EEA treaty could be amended to say "the EFTA states and the United Kingdom", it wouldn't be much of a stretch.williamglenn said:Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.
0 -
Yeah, it's only a treaty ratified by 31 sovereign nations, amending it is NO BIGGIE.rcs1000 said:
That's not true. The EEA treaty could be amended to say "the EFTA states and the United Kingdom", it wouldn't be much of a stretch.williamglenn said:Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.
0 -
Polish Police Arrest Huawei Executive On Suspicion Of Spying For China
Poland's Internal Security Agency has arrested and charged an executive of Chinese tech giant Huawei on suspicion of spying for China. A government spokesman identified the suspect as Weijing W.; media reports in Poland and China say he also is known as Stanislaw Wang, Huawei's sales director in Poland.
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/11/684378595/polish-police-arrest-huawei-executive-accused-of-spying-for-china0 -
Treaties are amended all the time.grabcocque said:
Yeah, it's only a treaty ratified by 31 sovereign nations, amending it is NO BIGGIE.rcs1000 said:
That's not true. The EEA treaty could be amended to say "the EFTA states and the United Kingdom", it wouldn't be much of a stretch.williamglenn said:Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.
0 -
Another Party?rcs1000 said:
Who or what is this AP?Black_Rook said:0 -
That makes sense. I thought maybe there was a new political force arising...Black_Rook said:
Another Party?rcs1000 said:
Who or what is this AP?Black_Rook said:
But no. It's simple "Another Party".
Boring.0 -
What would be in it for them? Your position seems to be that we should tell them, "Now look here, either you amend the EEA treaty to say that the UK is a special country that deserves its own special arrangements or it's no deal and we will leave your orbit!"rcs1000 said:
Treaties are amended all the time.grabcocque said:
Yeah, it's only a treaty ratified by 31 sovereign nations, amending it is NO BIGGIE.rcs1000 said:
That's not true. The EEA treaty could be amended to say "the EFTA states and the United Kingdom", it wouldn't be much of a stretch.williamglenn said:Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.
0 -
When was the last time that a treaty with 31 separate signatories was successfully amended?rcs1000 said:
Treaties are amended all the time.grabcocque said:
Yeah, it's only a treaty ratified by 31 sovereign nations, amending it is NO BIGGIE.rcs1000 said:
That's not true. The EEA treaty could be amended to say "the EFTA states and the United Kingdom", it wouldn't be much of a stretch.williamglenn said:Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.
0 -
What would be in it for the EU? Well, we'd remain - as you say - in their orbit. The economic consequences - for them as well as us - would be ameliorated. And we'd still write large cheques to the EU every year.williamglenn said:
What would be in it for them? Your position seems to be that we should tell them, "Now look here, either you amend the EEA treaty to say that the UK is a special country that deserves its own special arrangements or it's no deal and we will leave your orbit!"rcs1000 said:
Treaties are amended all the time.grabcocque said:
Yeah, it's only a treaty ratified by 31 sovereign nations, amending it is NO BIGGIE.rcs1000 said:
That's not true. The EEA treaty could be amended to say "the EFTA states and the United Kingdom", it wouldn't be much of a stretch.williamglenn said:Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.
If I were the EU, that would sound a lot better than a chaotic No Deal Brexit.0 -
The latest party registered with the Electoral Commission is the 'Both Unions Party', perhaps it will be them who arise unlike the other hundreds upon hundreds.rcs1000 said:
That makes sense. I thought maybe there was a new political force arising...Black_Rook said:
Another Party?rcs1000 said:
Who or what is this AP?Black_Rook said:
But no. It's simple "Another Party".
Boring.
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP68850 -
*founds Pineapple on Pizza party*kle4 said:
The latest party registered with the Electoral Commission is the 'Both Unions Party', perhaps it will be them who arise unlike the other hundreds upon hundreds.rcs1000 said:
That makes sense. I thought maybe there was a new political force arising...Black_Rook said:
Another Party?rcs1000 said:
Who or what is this AP?Black_Rook said:
But no. It's simple "Another Party".
Boring.
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP6885
*waits for pogrom*0 -
The threatened alternative of a chaotic No Deal Brexit lacks credibility. They get to keep us in their orbit no matter what because ultimately we need a deal with them.rcs1000 said:
What would be in it for the EU? Well, we'd remain - as you say - in their orbit. The economic consequences - for them as well as us - would be ameliorated. And we'd still write large cheques to the EU every year.williamglenn said:
What would be in it for them? Your position seems to be that we should tell them, "Now look here, either you amend the EEA treaty to say that the UK is a special country that deserves its own special arrangements or it's no deal and we will leave your orbit!"rcs1000 said:
Treaties are amended all the time.grabcocque said:
Yeah, it's only a treaty ratified by 31 sovereign nations, amending it is NO BIGGIE.rcs1000 said:
That's not true. The EEA treaty could be amended to say "the EFTA states and the United Kingdom", it wouldn't be much of a stretch.williamglenn said:Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.
If I were the EU, that would sound a lot better than a chaotic No Deal Brexit.0 -
The EU treaties were amended in 2008 to allow the creation of the European Stability Mechanism, and in 2010 to change the state of St Bartholomew (the island.)grabcocque said:
When was the last time that a treaty with 31 separate signatories was successfully amended?rcs1000 said:
Treaties are amended all the time.grabcocque said:
Yeah, it's only a treaty ratified by 31 sovereign nations, amending it is NO BIGGIE.rcs1000 said:
That's not true. The EEA treaty could be amended to say "the EFTA states and the United Kingdom", it wouldn't be much of a stretch.williamglenn said:Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.
Do they count?0 -
The ESM was a new treaty.rcs1000 said:
The EU treaties were amended in 2008 to allow the creation of the European Stability Mechanism, and in 2010 to change the state of St Bartholomew (the island.)grabcocque said:
When was the last time that a treaty with 31 separate signatories was successfully amended?rcs1000 said:
Treaties are amended all the time.grabcocque said:
Yeah, it's only a treaty ratified by 31 sovereign nations, amending it is NO BIGGIE.rcs1000 said:
That's not true. The EEA treaty could be amended to say "the EFTA states and the United Kingdom", it wouldn't be much of a stretch.williamglenn said:Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.
Do they count?0 -
Sorry, I wasn't clear. While there was a treaty for establishing the ESM, the existing EU treaties had to be amended to allow its creation.grabcocque said:
The ESM was a new treaty.rcs1000 said:
The EU treaties were amended in 2008 to allow the creation of the European Stability Mechanism, and in 2010 to change the state of St Bartholomew (the island.)grabcocque said:
When was the last time that a treaty with 31 separate signatories was successfully amended?rcs1000 said:
Treaties are amended all the time.grabcocque said:
Yeah, it's only a treaty ratified by 31 sovereign nations, amending it is NO BIGGIE.rcs1000 said:
That's not true. The EEA treaty could be amended to say "the EFTA states and the United Kingdom", it wouldn't be much of a stretch.williamglenn said:Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.
Do they count?0 -
Erm, new thread?
(And someone's already brought up the Civil Contingencies Act on this one. Such japes.)0 -
Almost neck and neck on the EU referendum figures, cannot be sure how it would turn out if we do end up with EUref2Black_Rook said:0 -
Inserting a single sentence took two and a half years before coming into effect.rcs1000 said:
Sorry, I wasn't clear. While there was a treaty for establishing the ESM, the existing EU treaties had to be amended to allow its creation.grabcocque said:
The ESM was a new treaty.rcs1000 said:
The EU treaties were amended in 2008 to allow the creation of the European Stability Mechanism, and in 2010 to change the state of St Bartholomew (the island.)grabcocque said:
When was the last time that a treaty with 31 separate signatories was successfully amended?rcs1000 said:
Treaties are amended all the time.grabcocque said:
Yeah, it's only a treaty ratified by 31 sovereign nations, amending it is NO BIGGIE.rcs1000 said:
That's not true. The EEA treaty could be amended to say "the EFTA states and the United Kingdom", it wouldn't be much of a stretch.williamglenn said:Only by being designated an "EFTA state" which amounts to the same thing.
Do they count?
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/treaties-agreements/agreement/?id=20110300 -
Plugging that into Electoral Calculus puts Lab on 299 as largest Party, 271 Con, 40 SNP, 19 LDAnazina said:Black_Rook said:
I wonder if Mortimer and the other true believers will waste as many pixels analysing this one as they did the recent meaningless random number generator that had the Tories a few points ahead.
0 -
I just missed that - born at 5.0am on March 1st in 1944.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I was born on the 29th February 1944 and have a birthday each olympic yearIanB2 said:
Remarkable when you consider 2000 was a leap year yet 2100 won't be.Chris_A said:There's also some unexpected and unusual repetitions in the dates of Easter too. For instance the Easters we're all living through from 1948 to 2047 will repeat exactly between 2100 and 2199.
0
This discussion has been closed.