Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters make it a 26% chance that Brexit won’t happen before 2
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters make it a 26% chance that Brexit won’t happen before 2022 – if at all
Betdata.io chart of movement on the Betfair exchange
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
DIdn't expect Benn to lose. The will of parliament, right? Does he get another go before May does?
https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/1106240295698644992?s=21
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1106256421266571265
But it won't be her problem, so why not? I disagree. It's reckless and stupid, but it is not disgusting nor even disgraceful - parliament has not yet approved anything else, so she keeps bringing back her recommended solution. They have the power to stop her doing that and so far parliament has implicitly encouraged her to keep going.
But Bercow should be about to disrupt her - where parliament won't mess with the government, he will.
' The chief executive of Volkswagen has apologised for evoking a Nazi slogan to describe the importance of boosting the group's profits.
Herbert Diess used the line "Ebit macht frei" at a company event on Tuesday.
The phrase echoes the maxim "Arbeit Macht Frei" - meaning "work sets you free" - which was famously emblazoned in wrought-iron on the gates of the Auschwitz concentration camp. '
Oh dear
' In a separate announcement prior to Mr Diess' remarks, Volkswagen said it would cut 7,000 jobs, as it shifts its focus to electric cars, which require fewer workers to build. '
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47566898
As has long been noted, it is not enough to just say you don't want something if you don't say what you do want. Parliament, so far, has shown itself content to be messed about by May.
If Parliament won't remove her, and won't approve something else, it's basically telling her to keep trying what she is doing. They can stop moaning about that and either force her to stop doing it or just do it. She bears a lot of responsibility as PM, to be sure, but parliament is sovereign after all - they are not helpless to act, they've simply chosen not to, and as such they must collectively share the blame May gets.
Jezza makes it up again, whinge whinge moan, but Im going to do bugger all but whinge some more
Unfortunately her arrogance has prevented this from happening.
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1106256530276528129?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1106256530276528129&ref_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-47529293
Not sure why he submitted it if he was not confident of it passing, and this gave cover to the Speaker to reject MV3.
Obviously we know what Bercow would like to do, anything that stops Brexit, but is the only hope for the government that Bercow will need to allow back some very similar votes to those already moved to get what he wants?
May could have made it easier for them. In my view, she had a responsibility to make it easier for them. But we know that from day 1 shes not been interested in compromise.
That this house:
(1) notes the resolutions of the house of 12 and 13 March, and accordingly agrees that the government will seek to agree with the European Union an extension of the period specified in article 50(3);
(2) agrees that, if the house has passed a resolution approving the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship for the purposes of section 13(1) (b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 by 20 March 2019, then the government will seek to agree with the European Union a one-off extension of the period specified in article 50(3) for a period ending on 30 June 2019 for the purpose of passing the necessary EU exit legislation; and
(3) notes that, if the house has not passed a resolution approving the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 by 20 March 2019, then it is highly likely that the European council at its meeting the following day would require a clear purpose for any extension, not least to determine its length, and that any extension beyond 30 June 2019 would require the United Kingdom to hold European parliament elections in May 2019.
It's clear as mud, TBH.
https://twitter.com/angiebUK/status/1106258275782324224
So "a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing" might sum up today's Westminster nonsense. A second vote is dead - we all knew that. We can ask the EU for an extension if the WA isn't passed by 29/3 but it's up to the EU what kind of extension it will be.
Bercow now has to decide if there will be an MV3 - if not, we're down to revocation, extension or leaving without a Deal on 29/3. If we get MV3 that will be next week's jollifications.
So perhaps they go round in a circle.
Corbyn changing course once more on a referendum. Perhaps he might find a new stance by midnight.
It was all so clear and well thought through before.
I am quite the fan of procedural issues (although frankly the way the rules are worded it seems like it is designed such that if you are creative enough, or the House wants it enough, it can do anything it wants) but at the end of the day they do need to make a decision, even if that means considering things they have looked at before, and recurrent votes in a parliament are really not the same thing as rerunning a massive nation wide referendum (which I support, btw). Simply ignoring the rules is not something to be done lightly, or easily (I do enjoy the examples of Acts passed in a few minutes, but by expediting each stage, rather than ignoring them), but the rules are deliberately bendable it seems, since no one wants an assembly unable to decide certain things when on a tight timescale.
Prepare for MOAR FEAR !
*BBC
Surely Barclay can't have broken whip?
Abstain on motion to require a public vote thus ensuring it fails.
Give a soundbite sounding like you want one to keep your supporters.
He and his wife would never speak again.
Which would be ironic. For a Speaker.
Hilary Benn's motion failed by two votes.
Jared O'Mara and Fiona Onasanya abstained.
That is what is wrong. May is the problem.
Which is basically we could give you an extension but really want to know what you plan to do with it...
So please make up your minds for once and for all...
TMay’s most egregious error was not seeing that narrow win by Leave as a driver for compromise and Soft Brexit. EFTA or whatever. Instead, for stupid partisan reasons, she decided to take it as a decisive vote instructing her to seek a bloody Hard Brexit, scrawled with stupid red lines, She is politically autistic, if not actually autistic.
Politics is about getting your opponents to do your bidding, spout your policy. The EU May have just won.
What follows? British Government and the People’s brexit now at the mercy of the EU it will be seen as weak, its effectively failed leadership. For Any Extension UK will accept strings. those strings in hands of Macron, Tusk, Dublin. our negotiation our Brexit on the end of those strings.
People big up no deal brexit like it’s end of the world. But an extension with strings is politically very very difficult. More difficult than the no deal now certain to eventually happen.
Except: someone is once again putting up money on the other side. And one of the ERG on R4 this morning was claiming they had some procedural trick up their sleeve to thwart any extension. So DYoR.
Why doesn't she just suspend government and assign all cabinet posts to herself? Its not like she has a functioning cabinet is it?
The shopping list for Hammond to stump up for could be very long and expensive...
None of that makes May less responsible, she is meant to be leading parliament and achieving outcomes after all, but it would be to pretend to suggest she is 'the' problem, particularly when Mps collectively rejected taking the responsibility for options off her.
Is there any alternative which would have won over more of the Remain MPs than it lost Leave MPs ?
The Legislature DEMANDED to be involved in the meetings, opining on the minutiae of the process. Then demonstrated they hadn't a clue what they were doing in there. It's like the commercial director trying to do a deal, not just having the Board in negotiations with him for instruction and guidance (which would be bad enough) - but also every bloody shareholder too.
A business doing that would be in administration by teatime.