politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now all eyes are on the DUP – if they’re happy then a deal mor
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now all eyes are on the DUP – if they’re happy then a deal more likely
"In politics sometimes you get a second chance. It is what we do with this that counts, because there will be no third chance"
0
Comments
-
First0
-
I’m feeling strangely positive about the news tonight0
-
Everyone needs to stop playing silly bu**ers now and just pass the dratted thing.
Still got my concerns that the MV will fail again though, and where we go from there, who knows!0 -
Mike Penning first switcher, Newsnight says he has said he will switch from voting against the Deal last time to for the Deal tomorrow0
-
Nothing has changed, but it’s this Deal or remain, so it’s this deal. Then the real fun begins.0
-
Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.0
-
Friend of IDS I believeHYUFD said:Mike Penning first switcher, Newsnight says he has said he will switch from voting against the Deal last time to for the Deal tomorrow
0 -
Juncker said today's changes are "legally binding". That's a big change and that's coming from Juncker, not May.Alistair said:Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.
This is new, this is different. Its hilarious seeing Remain Ultras desperate to pretend nothing has changed now.0 -
They would be insane not to backdown. It’s this or remain. There are surely enough of them who do actually want to leave.Alistair said:Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.
0 -
So - do I need to do my presentation to clients tomorrow or not??????0
-
Interesting stuff.
Ultimately, I think if we want to exit the backstop in years to come it will still be on the basis of the UK deciding to rip up the WA and walk away. But tonight's developments mean we will have some legal document with treaty like force to wave about to justify our actions. Which we didn't have 3 hours ago.
Coupled with it being "take it or leave it" time, I think this is going to pass.
For the first time in the past 3 years I now think we are actually going to leave the EU.0 -
That’s not in doubt. This whole process has been designed to give Cox enough space to change his mind without there being any material change to the WA and backstop. Any Brexiteer rejecting this deal doesn’t want Brexit.Sweeney74 said:
That is not true. The WA itself may not have altered, but there are other instruments in play. I’m waiting for the AG’s reviewAlistair said:Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.
0 -
The people who said it would be instantly rejected by the DUP and ERG do seem to have misread the situation.0
-
-
Jezza still wants to reject deal.....0
-
Reposting from previous thread:
Sporting Index have a market up on the number of "ayes" on MV2 tomorrow, although market is currently suspended.
I suspect it will be volatile, for a while, once it opens/resumes. The distribution of outcomes is non-trivial right now; I would suggest it is bi- and possibly multi-modal.0 -
The DUP are know for their reasonableness, it'll be fine.
I know there will be so much more aggravation to follow, years of it, but it is nice to think, for a moment, that whether one wants to remain or leave at least the question might be settled tomorrow. Thank you to the DUP for not killing it off right away, so I can take that thought with me as I go to rest.
Night all.
0 -
0
-
Said it on previous thread, there is room in this for the DUP to back it. I'd be surprised though if they say anything before the morning and indeed might just stretch it to lunchtime....0
-
But judging by the reference to the unilateral declaration in tomorrow's motion, it is about the action the UK plans to take, rather than about the interpretation of the agreement.Gallowgate said:0 -
It definitely is ADMISSIBLE (just of limited weight) under English law. But the UN guidance makes pretty clear that international law works differently, which makes sense. Far less precedent and less intrinsic sense of what the objective observer would think.Gallowgate said:
0 -
If it does not pass because the AG doesn't say it is legally enough, then May falls.numbertwelve said:Everyone needs to stop playing silly bu**ers now and just pass the dratted thing.
Still got my concerns that the MV will fail again though, and where we go from there, who knows!0 -
If it gets 300+ ............. short extension, extensive pressure and/or pork distribution to a number of MPs, MV3 passes.numbertwelve said:
Still got my concerns that the MV will fail again though, and where we go from there, who knows!
<300 ...... urrrgh. General election?
0 -
I wouldn't advise my clients to accept a best endeavours clause lightly. It's of uncertain effect, under English law (which is a bit of a proviso here - the assumption of English lawyers has always been continental systems have more room for it) but not of no effect.Dadge said:0 -
Without reading it - the man is pure classFloater said:Jezza still wants to reject deal.....
0 -
David Allen Green should address his point to Mr Juncker, who doesn't agree with him:Dadge said:
"It is in this spirit that today the prime minister and I have agreed on a joint legally binding instrument relating to the withdrawal agreement. This instrument provides meaningful clarifications and legal guarantees on the nature of the backstop."0 -
Which is what he's wanted for the country all along....bigjohnowls said:0 -
Well, all will be revealed tomorrow.
I am imagining Nigel Dodds tucked up in his bed, laughing, as he has already decided what to do.
But he'll make us wait.
Night all.
0 -
What a stupid way to make such an important decision.0
-
-
0
-
The sleight of hand is in the phrase "measures that could ultimately lead to the disapplication". Yes, but the disapplication won't be unilateral. The text is careful never to say the UK does have a unilateral exit.FF43 said:
Not a lawyer, but once you get past the waffle, the UK can raise a dispute (part 6, title 3) . It isn't a unilateral exit. Question is whether enough MPs want to believe it.Scott_P said:0 -
The UK cannot leave unilaterally. It can instigate action that may lead to it being able to leave. That means going through an arbitration process. That will not be conducted under English law.Chris said:
But judging by the reference to the unilateral declaration in tomorrow's motion, it is about the action the UK plans to take, rather than about the interpretation of the agreement.Gallowgate said:
0 -
if deal passes and we leave, then if we are not happy with EU negotiation on the FTA can we still walk away and go WTO. how would the backstop affect this from tonights declarations?0
-
O/T
Technical discussion of the Ethiopian air crash.
https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/619272-ethiopian-airliner-down-africa-27.html0 -
David Allen Green is a fanatical Remainer who would not support any form of Brexit even if every other single person in Britain and the EU thought it was a good deal. I am amazed anyone gives any credence to his electronic diarrhoea.Richard_Nabavi said:
David Allen Green should address his point to Mr Juncker, who doesn't agree with him:Dadge said:
"It is in this spirit that today the prime minister and I have agreed on a joint legally binding instrument relating to the withdrawal agreement. This instrument provides meaningful clarifications and legal guarantees on the nature of the backstop."0 -
Some still unhappy, no surprise there
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/1105251232241864704?s=200 -
the betfair market on the vote tomorow is quite thin- only £100k traded. Gives just under 25% chance on the deal passing FWIW0
-
It’ll be enough. It’s this or Remain.FF43 said:
The sleight of hand is in the phrase "measures that could ultimately lead to the disapplication". Yes, but the disapplication won't be unilateral. The text is careful never to say the UK does have a unilateral exit.FF43 said:
Not a lawyer, but once you get past the waffle, the UK can raise a dispute (part 6, title 3) . It isn't a unilateral exit. Question is whether enough MPs want to believe it.Scott_P said:
0 -
What do these people want? It’s like some kind of puritanical religious zealotry. I wonder if they self flagellate in private.HYUFD said:Some still unhappy, no surprise there
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/1105251232241864704?s=200 -
What an ignorant comment. He’s a Eurosceptic who was opposed to the Maastricht Treaty.Richard_Tyndall said:
David Allen Green is a fanatical Remainer who would not support any form of Brexit even if every other single person in Britain and the EU thought it was a good deal. I am amazed anyone gives any credence to his electronic diarrhoea.Richard_Nabavi said:
David Allen Green should address his point to Mr Juncker, who doesn't agree with him:Dadge said:
"It is in this spirit that today the prime minister and I have agreed on a joint legally binding instrument relating to the withdrawal agreement. This instrument provides meaningful clarifications and legal guarantees on the nature of the backstop."0 -
I have lots of words for him - class is not one of themoxfordsimon said:
Without reading it - the man is pure classFloater said:Jezza still wants to reject deal.....
0 -
In the oil industry when we are writing programmes for agreement by joint venture partners we are always advised we should use the term 'reasonable endeavours' not 'best endeavours'. Oil companies have been sued by partners for not effectively pursuing any and all means to achieve an objective almost irrespective of the cost when they had claimed they would use 'best endeavours'. With rig rates of half a million pounds a day it can prove extremely costly.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I wouldn't advise my clients to accept a best endeavours clause lightly. It's of uncertain effect, under English law (which is a bit of a proviso here - the assumption of English lawyers has always been continental systems have more room for it) but not of no effect.Dadge said:0 -
I hadn't seen the text of the declaration previously. It's strange. Given the hype, I thought that was going to be the basis of Cox changing his advice, but what's in it that could change his mind?SouthamObserver said:
The UK cannot leave unilaterally. It can instigate action that may lead to it being able to leave. That means going through an arbitration process. That will not be conducted under English law.Chris said:
But judging by the reference to the unilateral declaration in tomorrow's motion, it is about the action the UK plans to take, rather than about the interpretation of the agreement.Gallowgate said:0 -
Most legal documents aim for definition, so if the other party steps out of line, you can sue their ass off. This isn't that kind of document. The authors don't care whether it has any legal effect. It just has to hold up for two days without too much challenge, so MPs feel comfortable about voting for May's Deal.FF43 said:
The sleight of hand is in the phrase "measures that could ultimately lead to the disapplication". Yes, but the disapplication won't be unilateral. The text is careful never to say the UK does have a unilateral exit.FF43 said:
Not a lawyer, but once you get past the waffle, the UK can raise a dispute (part 6, title 3) . It isn't a unilateral exit. Question is whether enough MPs want to believe it.Scott_P said:0 -
Godwilling the Commons will pass the deal tomorrow. It will be cathartic, and hopefully a majority of the nation will breathe a sigh of relief.
On a more quotidian note, it will also improve the re-election prospects of the more than 5,000 Tory councillors up for election in May.0 -
Not these days.williamglenn said:
What an ignorant comment. He’s a Eurosceptic who was opposed to the Maastricht Treaty.Richard_Tyndall said:
David Allen Green is a fanatical Remainer who would not support any form of Brexit even if every other single person in Britain and the EU thought it was a good deal. I am amazed anyone gives any credence to his electronic diarrhoea.Richard_Nabavi said:
David Allen Green should address his point to Mr Juncker, who doesn't agree with him:Dadge said:
"It is in this spirit that today the prime minister and I have agreed on a joint legally binding instrument relating to the withdrawal agreement. This instrument provides meaningful clarifications and legal guarantees on the nature of the backstop."0 -
This does look like good news for Nigel Farage. He’ll get his betrayal.0
-
Sometimes parties to agreements can find a certain lack of clarity to be useful.FF43 said:
Most legal documents aim for definition, so if the other party steps out of line, you can sue their ass off. This isn't that kind of document. The authors don't care whether it has any legal effect. It just has to hold up for two days without too much challenge, so MPs feel comfortable about voting for May's Deal.FF43 said:
The sleight of hand is in the phrase "measures that could ultimately lead to the disapplication". Yes, but the disapplication won't be unilateral. The text is careful never to say the UK does have a unilateral exit.FF43 said:
Not a lawyer, but once you get past the waffle, the UK can raise a dispute (part 6, title 3) . It isn't a unilateral exit. Question is whether enough MPs want to believe it.Scott_P said:0 -
Looks like Theresa's done it!0
-
Because that would also give the EU a unilateral exit.FF43 said:
The sleight of hand is in the phrase "measures that could ultimately lead to the disapplication". Yes, but the disapplication won't be unilateral. The text is careful never to say the UK does have a unilateral exit.FF43 said:
Not a lawyer, but once you get past the waffle, the UK can raise a dispute (part 6, title 3) . It isn't a unilateral exit. Question is whether enough MPs want to believe it.Scott_P said:0 -
Doddsy been perfectly positioning himself whenever he thinks the camera is on him in the chamber looking like suitably thoughtful yet sharp legal eagle. No forgetting though, he may understand his law but he is a political operator first and foremost.rottenborough said:Well, all will be revealed tomorrow.
I am imagining Nigel Dodds tucked up in his bed, laughing, as he has already decided what to do.
But he'll make us wait.
Night all.
I don't think there is a hard Brexiteer amongst the DUP Westminster team in the mould of the ideologues within the Conservatives PP. .0 -
Thing is you don't need many of them to be insane to block the thingSouthamObserver said:
They would be insane not to backdown. It’s this or remain. There are surely enough of them who do actually want to leave.Alistair said:Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.
0 -
I suppose that depends on how many Labour will risk upsetting their constituents.edmundintokyo said:
Thing is you don't need many of them to be insane to block the thingSouthamObserver said:
They would be insane not to backdown. It’s this or remain. There are surely enough of them who do actually want to leave.Alistair said:Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.
0 -
I would agree that in contract law, an undertaking to use "best endeavours" is not to be given lightly.Richard_Tyndall said:
In the oil industry when we are writing programmes for agreement by joint venture partners we are always advised we should use the term 'reasonable endeavours' not 'best endeavours'. Oil companies have been sued by partners for not effectively pursuing any and all means to achieve an objective almost irrespective of the cost when they had claimed they would use 'best endeavours'. With rig rates of half a million pounds a day it can prove extremely costly.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I wouldn't advise my clients to accept a best endeavours clause lightly. It's of uncertain effect, under English law (which is a bit of a proviso here - the assumption of English lawyers has always been continental systems have more room for it) but not of no effect.Dadge said:0 -
I am certainly not a lawyer so until this was pointed out to me I had no idea there was a legal difference between the two. I just make sure that these days we never ever say we will use best endeavours.Sean_F said:
I would agree that in contract law, an undertaking to use "best endeavours" is not to be given lightly.Richard_Tyndall said:
In the oil industry when we are writing programmes for agreement by joint venture partners we are always advised we should use the term 'reasonable endeavours' not 'best endeavours'. Oil companies have been sued by partners for not effectively pursuing any and all means to achieve an objective almost irrespective of the cost when they had claimed they would use 'best endeavours'. With rig rates of half a million pounds a day it can prove extremely costly.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I wouldn't advise my clients to accept a best endeavours clause lightly. It's of uncertain effect, under English law (which is a bit of a proviso here - the assumption of English lawyers has always been continental systems have more room for it) but not of no effect.Dadge said:0 -
I don't see why that would change from last time.Richard_Tyndall said:
I suppose that depends on how many Labour will risk upsetting their constituents.edmundintokyo said:
Thing is you don't need many of them to be insane to block the thingSouthamObserver said:
They would be insane not to backdown. It’s this or remain. There are surely enough of them who do actually want to leave.Alistair said:Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.
0 -
That, I think, is the point.Bob__Sykes said:Interesting stuff.
Ultimately, I think if we want to exit the backstop in years to come it will still be on the basis of the UK deciding to rip up the WA and walk away. But tonight's developments mean we will have some legal document with treaty like force to wave about to justify our actions. Which we didn't have 3 hours ago...
We’ve always had the power to abrogate an international treaty; as has often been pointed out, it’s the fact that there are very big costs involved in doing so rather than ‘international law’ itself that prevent it happening.
Exiting unilaterally a treaty which we’ve warned we might leave before signing it - and had that warning acknowledged by the other party - could not possibly impact in our international credibility in the same way.
It might be legal flim flam, but it does seem effectively to deal with the ‘indefinitely trapped’ objection.
0 -
So much weight has been placed on the AG advice . If he changes this then the ERG and DUP will look like they are holding the country hostage if they don’t vote for the deal .
If they vote against then the chances of a second EU vote go up especially if the public start warming to the deal.0 -
I suppose because this time it really would mean they were effectively ending Brexit. Not sure how many of them would want to be tarred with that brush after all this time trying to avoid it.edmundintokyo said:
I don't see why that would change from last time.Richard_Tyndall said:
I suppose that depends on how many Labour will risk upsetting their constituents.edmundintokyo said:
Thing is you don't need many of them to be insane to block the thingSouthamObserver said:
They would be insane not to backdown. It’s this or remain. There are surely enough of them who do actually want to leave.Alistair said:Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.
0 -
Indeed. It suits the EU that the UK agrees to its permanent backstop. It suits the UK to pretend it's temporary. Win/win.Sean_F said:
Sometimes parties to agreements can find a certain lack of clarity to be useful.FF43 said:
Most legal documents aim for definition, so if the other party steps out of line, you can sue their ass off. This isn't that kind of document. The authors don't care whether it has any legal effect. It just has to hold up for two days without too much challenge, so MPs feel comfortable about voting for May's Deal.FF43 said:
The sleight of hand is in the phrase "measures that could ultimately lead to the disapplication". Yes, but the disapplication won't be unilateral. The text is careful never to say the UK does have a unilateral exit.FF43 said:
Not a lawyer, but once you get past the waffle, the UK can raise a dispute (part 6, title 3) . It isn't a unilateral exit. Question is whether enough MPs want to believe it.Scott_P said:0 -
Because now there's a chance it might pass without them. They're quite happy voting against if they win, but they dare not be on the wrong side of the one passes.edmundintokyo said:
I don't see why that would change from last time.Richard_Tyndall said:
I suppose that depends on how many Labour will risk upsetting their constituents.edmundintokyo said:
Thing is you don't need many of them to be insane to block the thingSouthamObserver said:
They would be insane not to backdown. It’s this or remain. There are surely enough of them who do actually want to leave.Alistair said:Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.
0 -
Which is why they’ll be happy to take a hard line against the withdrawal agreement in the knowledge it will lead to no Brexit.Y0kel said:
Doddsy been perfectly positioning himself whenever he thinks the camera is on him in the chamber looking like suitably thoughtful yet sharp legal eagle. No forgetting though, he may understand his law but he is a political operator first and foremost.rottenborough said:Well, all will be revealed tomorrow.
I am imagining Nigel Dodds tucked up in his bed, laughing, as he has already decided what to do.
But he'll make us wait.
Night all.
I don't think there is a hard Brexiteer amongst the DUP Westminster team in the mould of the ideologues within the Conservatives PP. .0 -
I think the DUP would have rejected it swiftly if they were going to - no point in letting expectation build up overnight and then swatting it. My guess is that it will pass by 25 votes or so.
And no, I don't think it's significantly different from before, but a lot of Tory opponents didn't necessarily hate the deal, they just hated agreeing without having some apparent new element to embrace.0 -
LOL. Apologies. Not laughing at what you say exactly. I just find it funny that you and I think the same thing but apparently for almost exactly opposite reasons.Endillion said:
Because now there's a chance it might pass without them. They're quite happy voting against if they win, but they dare not be on the wrong side of the one passes.edmundintokyo said:
I don't see why that would change from last time.Richard_Tyndall said:
I suppose that depends on how many Labour will risk upsetting their constituents.edmundintokyo said:
Thing is you don't need many of them to be insane to block the thingSouthamObserver said:
They would be insane not to backdown. It’s this or remain. There are surely enough of them who do actually want to leave.Alistair said:Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.
0 -
The way I see it, everyone understands that the UK will never leave the backstop, but some people needed to be able to claim the UK could if it wanted. There is now a process for the UK to initiate a process which could, in theory, lead us to leaving. It would not be our choice, an arbitration panel would decide, but Cox can change his advice on the basis that we would not instigate the process unless we were going to win. Sleight of hand stuff, but enough.0
-
I'm surprised how many here feel that May has achieved enough to carry the day tomorrow. The betting has moved a bit in her direction but still suggests she won't get the vote through. I hope that most of you are right, that I'm wrong and the betting markets too.0
-
Where does this one sit in the swivel-eyes stakes?
https://twitter.com/damiancollins/status/1105252157794717698?s=210 -
I don't see the problem, generally the opposition want to oppose things, so that they can say I Told You So when they go wrong. It's not like they're voting down brexit, they're voting down TMay's deal, which is beloved by nobody.Endillion said:
Because now there's a chance it might pass without them. They're quite happy voting against if they win, but they dare not be on the wrong side of the one passes.edmundintokyo said:
I don't see why that would change from last time.Richard_Tyndall said:
I suppose that depends on how many Labour will risk upsetting their constituents.edmundintokyo said:
Thing is you don't need many of them to be insane to block the thingSouthamObserver said:
They would be insane not to backdown. It’s this or remain. There are surely enough of them who do actually want to leave.Alistair said:Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.
If there's an argument for letting it through, I guess it's that they'd rather not have to take the subsequent votes on the next step, which is where it gets harder to sit on the fence. But then it's better if other people vote it through, not you.0 -
So Nick, do you think we will Brexit before end March 2019?NickPalmer said:I think the DUP would have rejected it swiftly if they were going to - no point in letting expectation build up overnight and then swatting it. My guess is that it will pass by 25 votes or so.
And no, I don't think it's significantly different from before, but a lot of Tory opponents didn't necessarily hate the deal, they just hated agreeing without having some apparent new element to embrace.0 -
Your point is fair.stjohn said:I'm surprised how many here feel that May has achieved enough to carry the day tomorrow. The betting has moved a bit in her direction but still suggests she won't get the vote through. I hope that most of you are right, that I'm wrong and the betting markets too.
0 -
Former Remainer, now zealous convert to Leave.SouthamObserver said:Where does this one sit in the swivel-eyes stakes?
https://twitter.com/damiancollins/status/1105252157794717698?s=210 -
You can still get 5.1 with Betfair Exchange if you think Brexit will happen on 29th March.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/competition/103935830 -
Ha! Indeed.Richard_Tyndall said:
LOL. Apologies. Not laughing at what you say exactly. I just find it funny that you and I think the same thing but apparently for almost exactly opposite reasons.Endillion said:
Because now there's a chance it might pass without them. They're quite happy voting against if they win, but they dare not be on the wrong side of the one passes.edmundintokyo said:
I don't see why that would change from last time.Richard_Tyndall said:
I suppose that depends on how many Labour will risk upsetting their constituents.edmundintokyo said:
Thing is you don't need many of them to be insane to block the thingSouthamObserver said:
They would be insane not to backdown. It’s this or remain. There are surely enough of them who do actually want to leave.Alistair said:Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.
Shall we just agree that we're talking about two different hypothetical groupings of Labour MPs, both of who will find different reasons to back the Deal later today?
I'm thinking Hoey/Stringer/Field etc, plus possibly Flint/Mann et al.0 -
What's your call AndyJS?AndyJS said:You can still get 5.1 with Betfair Exchange if you think Brexit will happen on 29th March.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/competition/103935830 -
I don't think it's even as strong as that. If it passes, it will be because people who initially hated the permanent backstop have accepted it psychologically. I can see the ERG types going along with it, as they are little Englanders and don't care about Northern Ireland fundamentally. The DUP I'm surprised by. It cuts across what they stand for.SouthamObserver said:The way I see it, everyone understands that the UK will never leave the backstop, but some people needed to be able to claim the UK could if it wanted. There is now a process for the UK to initiate a process which could, in theory, lead us to leaving. It would not be our choice, an arbitration panel would decide, but Cox can change his advice on the basis that we would not instigate the process unless we were going to win. Sleight of hand stuff, but enough.
0 -
Looks like the deal will pass...
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/11052584200626135040 -
The odds seem about right to me, so no value in betting at the moment.stjohn said:
What's your call AndyJS?AndyJS said:You can still get 5.1 with Betfair Exchange if you think Brexit will happen on 29th March.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/competition/103935830 -
Its only cutting across what they stand for if they don't think it will give them a result.FF43 said:
I don't think it's even as strong as that. If it passes, it will be because people who initially hated the permanent backstop have accepted it psychologically. I can see the ERG types going along with it, as they are little Englanders and don't care about Northern Ireland fundamentally. The DUP I'm surprised by. It cuts across what they stand for.SouthamObserver said:The way I see it, everyone understands that the UK will never leave the backstop, but some people needed to be able to claim the UK could if it wanted. There is now a process for the UK to initiate a process which could, in theory, lead us to leaving. It would not be our choice, an arbitration panel would decide, but Cox can change his advice on the basis that we would not instigate the process unless we were going to win. Sleight of hand stuff, but enough.
0 -
John Craig on Sky News feels the DUP will vote against and that May will lose the vote.0
-
The question is, how many who voted for the Brady Amendment STILL don't think there has been enough movement. This from Steve Baker, the ERG deputy, at the time of Brady:
"A vote for the Brady amendment is a vote to see if the PM can land a deal that will work. If not then we are not committed."
Is it a deal that will work?
I believe enough on the Tory benches will think it is now adequate to stop buggering about, get on with Brexiting by the only route possible - and lean on Spreadsheet Phil to open his post-Brexit warchest.
FWIW, I also think enough on the Labour benches will realise that "Corbyn's Brexit" will be shown to be a dead unicorn. The EU would offer PM Corbyn nothing more than is in the WA. So what is the point of get in the way of it passing? Abstaining will do the job.0 -
I genuinely don't think the DUP have called on it yet.NickPalmer said:I think the DUP would have rejected it swiftly if they were going to - no point in letting expectation build up overnight and then swatting it. My guess is that it will pass by 25 votes or so.
And no, I don't think it's significantly different from before, but a lot of Tory opponents didn't necessarily hate the deal, they just hated agreeing without having some apparent new element to embrace.0 -
Short version of the tl;dr of the layman's version of this: 'reasonable endeavours' means you have to try one or two things to make it work. 'All reasonable endeavours' means you have to keep trying anything sensible. 'Best endeavours' includes trying a couple of non-sensible things too.Richard_Tyndall said:
In the oil industry when we are writing programmes for agreement by joint venture partners we are always advised we should use the term 'reasonable endeavours' not 'best endeavours'. Oil companies have been sued by partners for not effectively pursuing any and all means to achieve an objective almost irrespective of the cost when they had claimed they would use 'best endeavours'. With rig rates of half a million pounds a day it can prove extremely costly.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I wouldn't advise my clients to accept a best endeavours clause lightly. It's of uncertain effect, under English law (which is a bit of a proviso here - the assumption of English lawyers has always been continental systems have more room for it) but not of no effect.Dadge said:
The interpretative document allows the UK to use the WA arbitration mechanism if it considers the EU to be stringing the backstop out indefinitely (para 12). If the arbitration is available on a mere consideration, then perhaps so would suspension under A60 of the Vienna Treaty. Ballsy move by the AG if he calls it that way.0 -
The EU need to hammer home the messsge that’s it . No more negotiations with the current government .
Still hard to see what happens but I think May could be gone by the end of the week and any extension will be for a new leader to reset the negotiations . Would the EU agree to that and have to put up with more Tory infighting .
0 -
The EU is not bound by the Vienna treaty/convention, as it is neither a signatory, nor could it be.Drutt said:
Short version of the tl;dr of the layman's version of this: 'reasonable endeavours' means you have to try one or two things to make it work. 'All reasonable endeavours' means you have to keep trying anything sensible. 'Best endeavours' includes trying a couple of non-sensible things too.Richard_Tyndall said:
In the oil industry when we are writing programmes for agreement by joint venture partners we are always advised we should use the term 'reasonable endeavours' not 'best endeavours'. Oil companies have been sued by partners for not effectively pursuing any and all means to achieve an objective almost irrespective of the cost when they had claimed they would use 'best endeavours'. With rig rates of half a million pounds a day it can prove extremely costly.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I wouldn't advise my clients to accept a best endeavours clause lightly. It's of uncertain effect, under English law (which is a bit of a proviso here - the assumption of English lawyers has always been continental systems have more room for it) but not of no effect.Dadge said:
The interpretative document allows the UK to use the WA arbitration mechanism if it considers the EU to be stringing the backstop out indefinitely (para 12). If the arbitration is available on a mere consideration, then perhaps so would suspension under A60 of the Vienna Treaty. Ballsy move by the AG if he calls it that way.
The purpose of this arbitration mechanism is to ensure that, if the EU is not sincerely attempting to implement the technical measures in the WA, then we can bring it to the attention of an independent body.
It is largely what I suggested a month ago. (Albeit I called it an independent body writing an annual report on progress.)
Now, there are sensible objections, and non-sensible ones.
The principle sensible objection is that it's not technical solutions - or lack thereof - that will keep NI in the backstop. It is that it will end up politically expedient. If 65% of the population in the province want to remain in the backstop, then in all probability Westminster will be unable to enforce it.
And the unsensible one: the independent body will shit on us.0 -
If I were in the ERG, I'd still be leveraging their bloc of votes as supporting the deal, contingent on May announcing she will step down pronto.....0
-
And that is most important thing on my mind at the moment. No, it really is!RoyalBlue said:Godwilling the Commons will pass the deal tomorrow. It will be cathartic, and hopefully a majority of the nation will breathe a sigh of relief.
On a more quotidian note, it will also improve the re-election prospects of the more than 5,000 Tory councillors up for election in May.
0 -
Seeing as the AG has, AIUI, been our key negotiator with the EU for most of the last week or so, I would be surprised if tonight's "deal" doesn't pass his "good enough" test.0
-
I'm surprised at the confidence (that is some rather than overwhelming) from some at the idea of MV2 passing tomorrow TBH, I didn't think these changes would be substantial enough to recover the deficit from last time.
Although maybe that is me misreading some in the ERG rather than a mistake, unlike last time where I was sure it would go down I'm not hugely confident of saying it will happen again.0 -
Maybe, but they're all going to have to stand for re-election at some point. I was guessing they'd rather not have to try to explain the (by then) somewhat nuanced difference of voting against Brexit and voting against May's Brexit.edmundintokyo said:
I don't see the problem, generally the opposition want to oppose things, so that they can say I Told You So when they go wrong. It's not like they're voting down brexit, they're voting down TMay's deal, which is beloved by nobody.Endillion said:
Because now there's a chance it might pass without them. They're quite happy voting against if they win, but they dare not be on the wrong side of the one passes.edmundintokyo said:
I don't see why that would change from last time.Richard_Tyndall said:
I suppose that depends on how many Labour will risk upsetting their constituents.edmundintokyo said:
Thing is you don't need many of them to be insane to block the thingSouthamObserver said:
They would be insane not to backdown. It’s this or remain. There are surely enough of them who do actually want to leave.Alistair said:Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.
If there's an argument for letting it through, I guess it's that they'd rather not have to take the subsequent votes on the next step, which is where it gets harder to sit on the fence. But then it's better if other people vote it through, not you.
If the Deal passes, there's unlikely to be a GE for a while, whereas one becomes likely in 2019 if it gets voted down again. So they can crash Brexit and the Government, or neither, but not one without the other. In that situation I think I'd be inclined to crash neither, but obviously I'm very far from being an opposition MP.0
This discussion has been closed.