politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Latest Brexit betting – Monday March 11th 1404GMT
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Latest Brexit betting – Monday March 11th 1404GMT
Betdata.io charts of movement on the Betfair exchange
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Edit: oh, hey, first.
RobD Posts: 35,865
2:12PM
DavidL said:
» show previous quotes
The good ship May is now taking on water from so many different points that the pumps/whips are completely overwhelmed. Not waving but drowning.
Isn’t it a sub?
As Premierships go it is certainly sub par.
They have their red lines too. There is many a slip twixt cup and lip!
I’ll get my coat.....
1) It is the law. We need primary legislation to stop us Leaving, not going to happen in the next few weeks.
2) Corbyn's ambivalent on Brexit, it probably helps his chances of becoming PM if we Leave disorderly
3) Our MPs aren't very good, they think they can stop No Deal by passing an amendment, see 1). Plus there's also enough thickie Leavers who think we still get a transition period with No Deal.
4) The ERG wingnuts (horrible tautology I know) embrace No Deal because they think it will be awesome because we'll have left the EU.
We will have done what every other EU nation has singularly failed to do: honoured a referendum, stood up to “the elite”, defied the EU Commission and the Bullies of Brussels. We will do this knowing it harms us, but we do it because we ARE a democracy, and this is how we voted. And WE DO NOT IGNORE THE VOTERS.
In that light, Brexit is not a “national humiliation”, for all its farce and pain and tedium. It is a national vindication. It is an apotheosis. It is, potentially, and democratically, our Finest Hour. In the end, a country said NO, and that country was Britain. Of course.
I have had one and a half martinis.
And do you seriously think the Conservative party will survive revoking article 50?
Perhaps we could ask that nice Mr Barnier to do it, pro tem. He seems a damn sight more competent than any of our lot.
Yep, its got to be a contender. One positive effect of a GE is that none of them will be in the next Parliament. But the rot goes deeper.
If an extension is granted, I expect it to be a lengthy one - not mainly to help us - but to give other Member States more time to get ready to entice even more of our companies and industries across to the EU.
If May's Deal were to pass I think a one-line Nothing Has Changed Act is possible, to allow us to exit on time and fill in the legislative details later. Parliament is no stranger to retrospective legislation.
But a couple of days ago I saw an interview (from early 2016 I think) when he was discussing Brexit and he said “The Lords have just released a fascinating analysis, which shows that Article 50 is cleverly designed to reduce economic shocks to both parties, when a nation secedes from the EU”.
You what? Cleverly designed to reduce economic shocks??!! The whole POINT of Article 50 is to make it has hard and painful as possible to quit the EU, so as to deter any such thing happening. Its British author, the vile and treacherous Lord Kerr, happily admits this. And that’s how it has worked out
So how come I, a drunken thriller writer, knew this, and Jacob RM didn’t? I was cognisant of the dangers of A50 from the inception of Lisbon, and certainly hyper aware of it by early 2016. Yet Jacob RM was blissfully UNAWARE?
Either he was lying then, or he was a fool then - and therefore is a fool now.
We are governed by twats.
Then the UK says no - we don't like what we asked for and go. Can you change it please.
How do you negotiate with a country that behaves like that? The EU has very many faults. But Britain voted to leave. It was not - is not - unreasonable to expect the country deciding to leave to have some realistic idea of how to do it, taking into account the realities.
Barnier has done exactly what his principals have asked him to do. Obtain a WA which meets the EU's and Britain's red lines. Only Britain's red lines seem to change depending on who has shouted at May last. And MPs are unwilling to do what they are paid to do - because they don't want to be blamed for not obeying the People's Will and also don't want to be blamed for doing something they don't think is a good idea.
So over the waterfall we go.
However the same rule will apply across the Channel. The Brits will be out and the EU nations, dealing with the horrible sequelae, will seek to scapegoat someone on their side too, for a perceived and dramatic failure. That’s gotta be Juncker (he’s going anyway, so an obvious choice) but Selmayr and Barnier will take the flak for having pushed too hard. Countries like Holland, Ireland, Poland, etc, will pile hate on Britain, but they will hate on Brussels as well.
However, I’m fully expecting May and Juncker to pull some fudge out of the back at 1am this morning.
I still think it is *most* likely that we leave, with a May style agreement, though admittedly not by the end of March. I’d put this as high as 50%, and No Deal at no more than 10%.
The rest is infinite variation of extend - extend for an election, a ref, a Parliament-dictated Norway plus, a Tory leadership contest, etc
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/09/03/the-dangers-of-polite-demagogues/
https://twitter.com/stephen_rth/status/1033033628303941638
I don't know what is going to happen but I do know that is simply not realistic.
May is incompetent to a staggering degree.
One could argue she was unlucky if she'd lost the vote narrowly. She lost by a historic margin. And that was after a pointless delay to try and persuade MPs to change their minds.
That said, a lot of MPs are cowards or fools, who refuse to back anything*. The options are what they've always been (remain, leave with a deal, leave with no deal). Voting to not leave with no deal resolves nothing.
*Bit harsh? I can't decide.
Ultimately if parliament won’t approve the deal then she has to seek changes. She may think the current deal is objectively the best possible but if it can’t be ratified then it isn’t acceptable.
The entirety of the responsibility here falls on Parliament
She is not up to the job.
Brussels chose to leverage the Irish issue to get maximum concessions from the UK. We were inept and we folded, sure, but we folded because they chose to sequence it this way, knowing it would fuck us up.
So it fucked us up. Trouble is it fucked us up so bad we are blindly stumbling towards a No Deal Brexit, as a better option, democratically.
I honestly think the EU is not used to dealing with a country that will actually honour referendums. They expect every nation to yield in the end, and revote, or ignore a vote. And why not? Even France yielded, and Holland, Ireland, Denmark, Greece, etc etc etc
The EU’s game-plan all along was, as Barnier admitted, to engineer a deal so bad Britain would prefer to stay. But what if ornery Britain says Fuck You, and Leaves anyway? I don’t think that was their masterplan.
Too many decades where backbenchers have sat there with their tongues out waiting for the chief whip to lob them a biscuit. They have actually forgotten that it's their job to shape the governance of the country.
Btw I really enjoy your thread headers. Keep them coming!
How I despise them. From Blair to Brown to Clegg to Cameron. A whole generation of traitors.
https://twitter.com/PropertySpot/status/1098179419657654272
Part of the reason Parliament won't approve is because so many in her own party - let alone in other parties - have felt - and have been - utterly ignored throughout the whole process. So they have reacted by saying "Shan't". Childish? Yes. Predictable? Yes. But a politician with any nous would have planned for this in advance.
This was always going to be difficult. But May's own failings have made it much much worse than it could have been.
Mr. P, that's an interesting tweet.
In a business you often get told to do things by execs that are stupid. You can convince them to change track sometimes if you come up with a better plan - but also the end of the day they can fire you. We will see what management do this time.
Brexit is not much of a solution to that, though.
He's akin to a man who planted a minefield and is now complaining we're in dangerous territory.
I seem to recall that option being dismissed as giving away our negotiating position to the other side. But it turns out that the biggest obstacle to a deal was creating a compromise at home.
Burning the houses of the people with the capital in the 20s didn’t encourage long term investment
plus the footnote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZ0xISi40E
Because staying in the EU but with a looser relationship is wildly different to leaving with no deal, or leaving with a bad deal, or maybe leaving but nobody knows even though it's meant to happen in 18 days.
DavidL said:
» show previous quotes
I think you will find that Malcolm II was not King of all Scotland and that there was a King of Strathclyde in those days who probably ruled Malcolm’s patch.
I was digging up my turnips there till I saw David's post.
We shall see what happens to the value of their investment.
I'm not at all sure that many Irish thought that those people with houses and capital had invested in the country for the benefit of the natives. Your family may have done.
But there were plenty who thought of Ireland as a country to be exploited and viewed its Catholic population with contempt and loathing. As you sow etc ......
My own farming family were no fans of De Valera, BTW.