politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On this day lets not forget the 1998 Good Friday Agreement tha

grabcocque said:

After today, surely May needs a new Chief Whip and Leader of the House? Together they tried every underhanded trick they had at their disposal to stop this catastrophic defeat happening, and they failed.

She shouldn't have promoted Tarantula Man.

Mr. Cocque, what's the relevance of your 'white, male' comment?

I think the solution is just to extend the deadline by ten years.

grabcocque said:

Pauline Latham possible has flipped to No

https://twitter.com/Pauline_Latham/status/1085189861533921280

Deluded. It’ll be on yer bike from them.

https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1085190589128224768

AlastairMeeks said:

Sean_F said:

Birmingham Live reports that Eddie Hughes and Mike Wood will vote in favour of the Deal.

Have you a link? Mike Wood had previously said that he was opposed to the deal and so far as I'm aware Eddie Hughes has played his cards close to his chest.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/brexit-news-vote-tonight-live-15673799

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/how-black-country-mps-expected-15530801

Crazy that anyone in cabinet thinks this would convince the DUP.
https://twitter.com/samcoatestimes/status/1085191455994343425?s=21

Sean_F said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Sean_F said:

Birmingham Live reports that Eddie Hughes and Mike Wood will vote in favour of the Deal.

Have you a link? Mike Wood had previously said that he was opposed to the deal and so far as I'm aware Eddie Hughes has played his cards close to his chest.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/brexit-news-vote-tonight-live-15673799

"He tells me that he’s worried about the backstop but he’s more concerned about the prospect of Brexit not being delivered, and that’s why he expects to vote for Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement."

Expect more of this.....

kinabalu said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Except that they have said they are in favour of remaining within the CU, and almost all of their MPs are not sympathetic to hard brexit. Therefore the will of the people is far from clear. When you combine that with the MPs on the Conservative Party that are hostile to Brexit and the other parties including (I hate to have to mention them) the SNP it becomes clear that it is not clear at all. Brexit can't be Brexit, because there is no clear mandate for any one version

The 2016 referendum result does not represent the will of the people. The term is far too grandiose for a 52/48 majority answer to a poorly understood question.

What it represents is what it says on the tin. It is an instruction to parliament to take the UK out of the European Union on the best terms that can in practice by negotiated by the government with the EU27.

Arguing that it means anything more or less than this, from wherever and whoever the argument comes from, is special pleading and wholly without merit.

Unfortunately many of them are arguing for more than this. Even Theresa May played to the gallery when she thought it would curry favour with the headbangers.

Scott_P said:

kinabalu said:

The 2016 referendum result does not represent the will of the people. The term is far too grandiose for a 52/48 majority answer to a poorly understood question.

What it represents is what it says on the tin. It is an instruction to parliament to take the UK out of the European Union on the best terms that can in practice by negotiated by the government with the EU27.

Arguing that it means anything more or less than this, from wherever and whoever the argument comes from, is special pleading and wholly without merit.

https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1085157687787163648

Couldn't you say the same about the referendum result? I don't remember seeing a recipe on the ballot paper.

Chris said:

Scott_P said:

kinabalu said:

The 2016 referendum result does not represent the will of the people. The term is far too grandiose for a 52/48 majority answer to a poorly understood question.

What it represents is what it says on the tin. It is an instruction to parliament to take the UK out of the European Union on the best terms that can in practice by negotiated by the government with the EU27.

Arguing that it means anything more or less than this, from wherever and whoever the argument comes from, is special pleading and wholly without merit.

https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1085157687787163648

Couldn't you say the same about the referendum result? I don't remember seeing a recipe on the ballot paper.

Well, quite. If the Leave campaigns had cared about what was in the tin, they could have listed the ingredients before asking voters to open it.

Sean_F said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Sean_F said:

Birmingham Live reports that Eddie Hughes and Mike Wood will vote in favour of the Deal.

Have you a link? Mike Wood had previously said that he was opposed to the deal and so far as I'm aware Eddie Hughes has played his cards close to his chest.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/brexit-news-vote-tonight-live-15673799

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/how-black-country-mps-expected-15530801

Thanks, that's very helpful.

No dealers are about to sign Brexit's death warrant by voting down May's withdrawal Agreement this afternoon. Mark my words young man.

grabcocque said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

grabcocque said:

Pauline Latham possible has flipped to No

https://twitter.com/Pauline_Latham/status/1085189861533921280

TBH there's little reason now for Tory MPs to vote for the deal even if they think it's on balance the best option, given that it's going down big-time anyway.

Safety in numbers, etc. The Whip's Office's job has always been to convince waverers that the result was going to be close so that herd mentality flips waverers to Yes rather than No. But it seems they never came close to being able to do that, beyond a few vague and hard to believe briefings over christmas that the "mood was changing" and "the DUP were coming round".

Another destructive dynamic is that the Tory leadership race has started already. Any senior Tory who harbours leadership ambitions is sending stage whispers to the headbangers that No Deal really wouldn’t be so bad.

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1085189608969629696?s=21

She is quite right but May doesn’t do leadership.

Not in the commonly accepted sense.

If the vote against is 200+, I am really not sure how she is able to kick the can any further. After tonight’s defeat, if she attempts to come back to the House with another deferral, she should be deposed. It would be a form of negligence.

*How* exactly, is the PM supposed to take No Deal off the table?

Brexit is legislated for in UK law, and is set to take place in EU law. Only two things can prevent that and one can defer it.

A deferral requires the consent of the EU27, which may not be forthcoming. The PM can ask, but cannot unilaterally implement an A50 extension.

Revoking A50 would take No Deal off the table but it's far from clear whether the government has the power to do so unilaterally under UK law, given that the Notification Act only authorised the government to invoke A50, not to revoke it. (There is an argument that the government could revoke on executive authority, as revoking is simply retaining the status quo and not overriding existing legislation, however it would certainly override the spirit of the Notification Act and is at least a grey area). In any case, revoking A50 probably isn't politically possible for the PM.

And the only other way out is for the deal the PM has negotiated to be ratified by parliament, which again - very obviously - isn't within the PM's power alone.

So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?

https://twitter.com/TelePolitics/status/1085194898444185602

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/iainjwatson/status/1085194518574465027

Who was it?

Sean_F said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Sean_F said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Sean_F said:

Birmingham Live reports that Eddie Hughes and Mike Wood will vote in favour of the Deal.

Have you a link? Mike Wood had previously said that he was opposed to the deal and so far as I'm aware Eddie Hughes has played his cards close to his chest.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/brexit-news-vote-tonight-live-15673799

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/how-black-country-mps-expected-15530801

Thanks, that's very helpful.

Robert Courts has confirmed he will vote against, but I think he was already on your list.

He was, but he was one of the ones I had seen as potentially wobblier.

david_herdson said:

So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?

It's a good question, but one better directed at the Labour, LibDem and SNP MPs who are adamant that they don't want No Deal but are voting against a deal.

Old news but in case it wasn't posted. Plan B is just try again https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1085170937358700544

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1085189608969629696?s=21

She is quite right but May doesn’t do leadership.

Not in the commonly accepted sense.

If the vote against is 200+, I am really not sure how she is able to kick the can any further. After tonight’s defeat, if she attempts to come back to the House with another deferral, she should be deposed. It would be a form of negligence.

*How* exactly, is the PM supposed to take No Deal off the table?

Brexit is legislated for in UK law, and is set to take place in EU law. Only two things can prevent that and one can defer it.

A deferral requires the consent of the EU27, which may not be forthcoming. The PM can ask, but cannot unilaterally implement an A50 extension.

Revoking A50 would take No Deal off the table but it's far from clear whether the government has the power to do so unilaterally under UK law, given that the Notification Act only authorised the government to invoke A50, not to revoke it. (There is an argument that the government could revoke on executive authority, as revoking is simply retaining the status quo and not overriding existing legislation, however it would certainly override the spirit of the Notification Act and is at least a grey area). In any case, revoking A50 probably isn't politically possible for the PM.

And the only other way out is for the deal the PM has negotiated to be ratified by parliament, which again - very obviously - isn't within the PM's power alone.

So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?

They haven't thought about that.

I think we are talking in the context of a Plan B. May would be derelict in my view not to rule out a No Deal in my opinion, at first rhetorically and then by seeking an amendment to the bill (Corbyn or Norway or ref or a combination) which might gain a majority in Parliament.

She cannot let the ERGers hold the country to ransom, and her grave responsibility is to pursue a path likely to command the support of both parliament and the people.

david_herdson said:

Danny565 said:

david_herdson said:

TOPPING said:

grabcocque said:

Sean_F said:

Pulpstar said:

I think Lucy Powell's proposal to reach across the house is sensible actually - better than no deal or no Brexit nonsense perpetuated by plenty of others.

With the DUP and ERG's wishes clearly incompatible to an agreement with the EU it is an avenue worth persuing.

How many Labour backbenchers can she bring along ?

10 maybe. Labour want a general election. They don't want to reach agreement with the government.

The professional commentariat have been STUNNED to find this large group of Labour MPs they promised would be willing to commit career suicide to rush to the defence of a doomed Tory prime has utterly failed to materialise.

Tells you all you need to know about how little the professional commentariat understand about anything.

NPXMP called it a long time ago as up to six would vote for the deal. I see no reason to think that is underestimating the number.

For now, yes.

Question is: what do they do once all the other options have left the table and only Deal and No Deal remain?

Why do you think the "Extending Article 50" option will leave the table?

I don't think the EU27 will agree to an extension just to enable the UK to keep bickering (though I think they would keep open the option of agreeing the Deal even after 29/3).

An A50 extension is highly likely if parliament has already ratified, as it'll be needed to tidy up the legislative loose ends. I think the EU would accept that because there's a clear end point in sight then.

If they refuse an A50 extension, then we revoke A50 altogether while reserving the right to re-invoke in future, our right to do so having been confirmed by the ECJ.

Corbyn and Starmer have already indicated this is the stance they'll take if/when the no confidence motion fails.

https://twitter.com/josephmdurso/status/1085165363044777984?s=21

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/josephmdurso/status/1085165363044777984?s=21

Looks relatively minor to be honest. He must have missed the march a few months ago.

The EU will allow an extension if we agree to run a second referendum (their usual response to votes that don't go their way?, or agree to kick the can out of sight for the foreseeable future. Putting in a legally enforceable end-point will not be allowed.

Gardenwalker said:

eek said:

Old news but in case it wasn't posted. Plan B is just try again https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1085170937358700544

As predicted. But Parliament should not let her get away with it. It is a negligent running down of the clock.

If I were a Tory Remainer I would seriously consider supporting a VONC if she responds with “Nothing has Changed”.

I wonder how quick they’d be booted out of the party.

Mr's May's time-wasting plan is transparent and silly, but it might just work. Not today, but tomorrow is another day.

david_herdson said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1085189608969629696?s=21

She is quite right but May doesn’t do leadership.

Not in the commonly accepted sense.

If the vote against is 200+, I am really not sure how she is able to kick the can any further. After tonight’s defeat, if she attempts to come back to the House with another deferral, she should be deposed. It would be a form of negligence.

*How* exactly, is the PM supposed to take No Deal off the table?

Brexit is legislated for in UK law, and is set to take place in EU law. Only two things can prevent that and one can defer it.

A deferral requires the consent of the EU27, which may not be forthcoming. The PM can ask, but cannot unilaterally implement an A50 extension.

Revoking A50 would take No Deal off the table but it's far from clear whether the government has the power to do so unilaterally under UK law, given that the Notification Act only authorised the government to invoke A50, not to revoke it. (There is an argument that the government could revoke on executive authority, as revoking is simply retaining the status quo and not overriding existing legislation, however it would certainly override the spirit of the Notification Act and is at least a grey area). In any case, revoking A50 probably isn't politically possible for the PM.

And the only other way out is for the deal the PM has negotiated to be ratified by parliament, which again - very obviously - isn't within the PM's power alone.

So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?

I suppose in theory the government could bring forward a one-line bill requiring Brexit to be revoked if no withdrawal agreement has been ratified by the exit date.

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/iainjwatson/status/1085194518574465027

Who was it?

Raaby within whom ambition burns, I think?

Sorry, duplicate.

grabcocque said:

Does anyone else think it really odd that Mrs May appears not to have told anybody what her next moves will be?

Cabinet seem to be completely in the dark.

Well, would you reveal your plans to a Cabinet which immediately leaks confidential discussions?

AmpfieldAndy said:

kinabalu said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Except that they have said they are in favour of remaining within the CU, and almost all of their MPs are not sympathetic to hard brexit. Therefore the will of the people is far from clear. When you combine that with the MPs on the Conservative Party that are hostile to Brexit and the other parties including (I hate to have to mention them) the SNP it becomes clear that it is not clear at all. Brexit can't be Brexit, because there is no clear mandate for any one version

The 2016 referendum result does not represent the will of the people. The term is far too grandiose for a 52/48 majority answer to a poorly understood question.

What it represents is what it says on the tin. It is an instruction to parliament to take the UK out of the European Union on the best terms that can in practice by negotiated by the government with the EU27.

Arguing that it means anything more or less than this, from wherever and whoever the argument comes from, is special pleading and wholly without merit.

I agree that 52/48 is relatively close but in our our FPTP ballot system, that’s good enough. The ballot paper didn’t say anything about terms - it gave a simple choice. A deal was always going to be better than no deal but no deal was not specifically excluded. If May had focussed on trade she wouldn’t be in the position she is - in my view.

There was nothing wrong, per se, with the referendum. What has been a disaster is the failure of our politicians to negotiate with the EU or coalesce around an way to execute the referendum result in a manner that can gain majority approval.

This was the Theresa May's "original sin". She treated a once in a generation referendum as a five-yearly general election. A general election it's fine to say sod you to the opposition and not take a scintilla of their demands into account when formulating policy (unless you can't get a majority at the GE!).

But with an epochal referendum, especially a close one, where there is (not expected to be) another vote any time soon, that is not the right approach. It was a fundamental mistake to apply an adversarial winner takes all approach to a far more complex situation.

RobD said:

Gardenwalker said:

eek said:

Old news but in case it wasn't posted. Plan B is just try again https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1085170937358700544

As predicted. But Parliament should not let her get away with it. It is a negligent running down of the clock.

If I were a Tory Remainer I would seriously consider supporting a VONC if she responds with “Nothing has Changed”.

I wonder how quick they’d be booted out of the party.

Immediately

Richard_Nabavi said:

grabcocque said:

Does anyone else think it really odd that Mrs May appears not to have told anybody what her next moves will be?

Cabinet seem to be completely in the dark.

Well, would you reveal your plans to a Cabinet which immediately leaks confidential discussions?

She might not have decided her next moves yet !

Richard_Nabavi said:

grabcocque said:

Does anyone else think it really odd that Mrs May appears not to have told anybody what her next moves will be?

Cabinet seem to be completely in the dark.

Well, would you reveal your plans to a Cabinet which immediately leaks confidential discussions?

And what does it have to do with them, anyway ... ?

MarqueeMark said:

Gardenwalker said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1085189608969629696?s=21

She is quite right but May doesn’t do leadership.

Not in the commonly accepted sense.

If the vote against is 200+, I am really not sure how she is able to kick the can any further. After tonight’s defeat, if she attempts to come back to the House with another deferral, she should be deposed. It would be a form of negligence.

*How* exactly, is the PM supposed to take No Deal off the table?

Brexit is legislated for in UK law, and is set to take place in EU law. Only two things can prevent that and one can defer it.

A deferral requires the consent of the EU27, which may not be forthcoming. The PM can ask, but cannot unilaterally implement an A50 extension.

Revoking A50 would take No Deal off the table but it's far from clear whether the government has the power to do so unilaterally under UK law, given that the Notification Act only authorised the government to invoke A50, not to revoke it. (There is an argument that the government could revoke on executive authority, as revoking is simply retaining the status quo and not overriding existing legislation, however it would certainly override the spirit of the Notification Act and is at least a grey area). In any case, revoking A50 probably isn't politically possible for the PM.

And the only other way out is for the deal the PM has negotiated to be ratified by parliament, which again - very obviously - isn't within the PM's power alone.

So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?

They haven't thought about that.

I think we are talking in the context of a Plan B. May would be derelict in my view not to rule out a No Deal in my opinion, at first rhetorically and then by seeking an amendment to the bill (Corbyn or Norway or ref or a combination) which might gain a majority in Parliament.

She cannot let the ERGers hold the country to ransom, and her grave responsibility is to pursue

Rule out No Deal - and you rule out ANY chance of the EU blinking frst.

Which is why negotaition by House of Commons is stupid. In a commercial negotaition, you have a small team undertaking that negotiation, reporting to the Board (Cabinet). Ultimately the CEO (PM) will carry the can if that fails . But what you can NEVER have is not just every member of the Board giving direction - but every shareholder (MP) too.

Are you still peddling this crap?
To use your analogy the CEO has gone rogue, and the saner members of the Board never wanted a negotiation in the first place.

Richard_Nabavi said:

I think the most sensible thing Theresa May could do is hold a series of indicative votes, asking the children whether they want:

- To leave with no deal
- To revoke Article 50
- To hold a Revoke vs Deal referendum.
- Or whether they'd prefer the deal after all.

Those are the options. It's already ridiculously late to be be arguing about them, they need to choose one.

She will unilaterally extend A50 and keep hammering away at the deal. Should that fail she will have to ask for a deal vs Remain referendum.

I be annoyed. The 250-299 band just went from 6 to 7.

eek said:

AlastairMeeks said:

By openly talking about Plan B being a return of Plan A, are the government trying to maximise their defeat?

It will be interesting to see the reaction of the EU when the Government loses by 200+ votes and yet wins the vote of No Confidence tomorrow lunchtime...

If Theresa May were going to resign tonight after a crushing defeat, would she have done anything differently? Indeed, the talk about a return of Plan A in due course may be to tee up exactly that - "this is the only option, I have failed to persuade you of that so I need to hand over to someone more persuasive".