politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In the latest from PB/Polling Matters the podcaster try to ans

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

stodge said:

I've just thought of something and again perhaps the knowledgeable on here will help.

As I understand it, IF we pass the WA, we will still effectively leave on 22/5 - the date prevents us having to get involved in the EU parliamentary elections - but the Transition period, backstop and all the rest of it kick in so we are in effect still members (though without any say) until 31/12/20 or whenever.

If we don't pass the WA and we don't revoke, we leave without a Deal on 12/4 - that's it. We would then have to move forward with trade negotiations round the world.

If we chose to Revoke we would have to do so before 12/4 because we would then still be full members and would legally have to participate in the EU parliamentary elections. Revocation simply ends the cancellation of this A50 process and doesn't stop us re-instigating A50 in the summer or autumn and re-setting the clock.

Have I got this and would I be right in thinking second votes, GE, alternative options and the like are all just smoke and mirrors?

No because a further option is to agree an alternative plan (#peoplesvote/GE/completely different objectives) by 12 April, pass a Euro elections enabling bill, and for the EU to arrange a longer extension. More complex, but viable.

I agree and thank you for acknowledging the enabling bill.

Nothing is impossible but in our HOC getting the enabling bill through all it stages and passing into law by the 12th April would require a single attitude of purpose by mps that is not there, and would be fought tooth and nail by ERG and others

Does an enabling bill need to pass by the 12th or do we just need to commit to holding the elections by the 12th?

Has to be in law by the 12th April as the EU election campaigns start then

Not negotiable at all - in law or no extension

YBarddCwsc said:

AndyJS said:

O/T

"Opioids crisis
Sackler family: 500 cities, counties and tribes sue owners of Oxycontin maker

Vast lawsuit accuses family of helping to create ‘worst drug crisis in American history’"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/21/sackler-family-500-cities-counties-and-tribes-sue-oxycontin-maker

I think the Sackler are trashed. Most of my US friends (even apolitical ones) are outraged by their sh1tty behaviour pushing opioids.

The Universities and Museums and Galleries are disowning their money as too dirty -- rightly too.

I’m always conflicted about that

I don’t think with a situation like this the donations help their reputation (and in any event that wasn’t Maurice’s intention).

So why not take the money and use it for good?

AlastairMeeks said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.

The swine.

I got him at 1000 on that market in April 2018.

Alright alright no one likes a show off.

Would be the biggest odds winner on PB I think.

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.

The swine.

I got him at 1000 on that market in April 2018.

Alright alright no one likes a show off.

Would be the biggest odds winner on PB I think.

I'm only on for a tenner at 100-1

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

stodge said:

I've just thought of something and again perhaps the knowledgeable on here will help.

As I understand it, IF we pass the WA, we will still effectively leave on 22/5 - the date prevents us having to get involved in the EU parliamentary elections - but the Transition period, backstop and all the rest of it kick in so we are in effect still members (though without any say) until 31/12/20 or whenever.

If we don't pass the WA and we don't revoke, we leave without a Deal on 12/4 - that's it. We would then have to move forward with trade negotiations round the world.

If we chose to Revoke we would have to do so before 12/4 because we would then still be full members and would legally have to participate in the EU parliamentary elections. Revocation simply ends the cancellation of this A50 process and doesn't stop us re-instigating A50 in the summer or autumn and re-setting the clock.

Have I got this and would I be right in thinking second votes, GE, alternative options and the like are all just smoke and mirrors?

No because a further option is to agree an alternative plan (#peoplesvote/GE/completely different objectives) by 12 April, pass a Euro elections enabling bill, and for the EU to arrange a longer extension. More complex, but viable.

I agree and thank you for acknowledging the enabling bill.

Nothing is impossible but in our HOC getting the enabling bill through all it stages and passing into law by the 12th April would require a single attitude of purpose by mps that is not there, and would be fought tooth and nail by ERG and others

Does an enabling bill need to pass by the 12th or do we just need to commit to holding the elections by the 12th?

Has to be in law by the 12th April as the EU election campaigns start then

Not negotiable at all - in law or no extension

I get that but the EU communique makes no reference to laws, simply the UK's "intention" not to hold elections at the moment. Does the law actually need changing? A lot of the UK's Brexit law changes haven't actually been enacted yet and simply occur on "exit day" so if the law to hold elections hasn't been repealed yet then a new one doesn't need passing we just need to get on with it.

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

_Anazina_ said:

Slackbladder

If you love Indian restaurants but loathe Chinese restaurant, and your wife loves Chinese restaurants but loathes Indian restaurants, insisting on one Asian cuisine or the other is unlikely to lead to enjoyable nights out.

Better to compromise on French or Italian food, which is neither partner’s first choice. More compromise, happier couple, healthier sex life.

How about Fusion?

With a waiter/waitress to explain how to eat it.

Intrusive service is the think I dislike above everything else

MarqueeMark said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.

The swine.

Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?

I would imagine they would have to be elected by the membership to count as non-temporary place-holders. Good luck getting Lidington past the members.....

You don't need to be a party leader to be PM.

Churchill was PM for several months despite not being Tory party leader.

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.

The swine.

I got him at 1000 on that market in April 2018.

Alright alright no one likes a show off.

Would be the biggest odds winner on PB I think.

LCFC at 3000/1 £1e/w

Cyclefree said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/1109028095699365888?s=21

I do hope some in the Cabinet are reading it. May is an obstacle now and needs to go. We cannot afford to waste the 3 weeks we have left.

Moreover, the EU summit shows that the EU has lost all confidence in May. She's had that up till now. Something has changed.

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.

The swine.

Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?

I would imagine they would have to be elected by the membership to count as non-temporary place-holders. Good luck getting Lidington past the members.....

You don't need to be a party leader to be PM.

Churchill was PM for several months despite not being Tory party leader.

you don't but you do need to have support of the house, which would effectively be party leader (at least for a period of time).

edmundintokyo said:

NickPalmer said:

It seems clear that May's deal won't pass unless there's a massive shift over the next few days, and also clear that Cooper/Boles/Benn will pass, giving us indicative votes which will probably give majorities to "customs union" and "referendum", both of which have been ruled out by May up to now.

May then has three choices. She's spent three years refusing to shift her red lines,but she can pick one of the options with majority support and try to run with it. Her recent statements seem to indicate a possible willingness to do that, backing off from "as PM I will not...". She can resign. I don't think anything we've seen of her suggests she'll willingly give up. Or she can defy Parliament and say she'll let no deal happen.

In case 3, we then get an instant Labour VONC. Tory rebels then have to consider whether they will break party unity on that (=reselection death) or accept that May can ignore Parliament (=democracy death).

On past performance what she'll do is stall until it's too late to pass legislation enabling the Euros then try the MV again. This makes it hard to bring her down with a VONC because there's no definitive point at which the rebels know they need to jump, and once Corbyn tables it she can lie to them to keep them on board.

PS. The "=democracy death" bit reads with more melodrama than you probably intended...

She will waste time. So she needs to go. ASAP. This, more than indicative votes, is what is needed now. A new PM can set a new strategy and get some goodwill from the EU. If the Tories had any sense they would install Ken Clarke - so that he can perform one last job for his party and the nation - and buy us the time needed to set an alternative course which commands support.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

stodge said:

I've just thought of something and again perhaps the knowledgeable on here will help.

As I understand it, IF we pass the WA, we will still effectively leave on 22/5 - the date prevents us having to get involved in the EU parliamentary elections - but the Transition period, backstop and all the rest of it kick in so we are in effect still members (though without any say) until 31/12/20 or whenever.

If we don't pass the WA and we don't revoke, we leave without a Deal on 12/4 - that's it. We would then have to move forward with trade negotiations round the world.

If we chose to Revoke we would have to do so before 12/4 because we would then still be full members and would legally have to participate in the EU parliamentary elections. Revocation simply ends the cancellation of this A50 process and doesn't stop us re-instigating A50 in the summer or autumn and re-setting the clock.

Have I got this and would I be right in thinking second votes, GE, alternative options and the like are all just smoke and mirrors?

No because a further option is to agree an alternative plan (#peoplesvote/GE/completely different objectives) by 12 April, pass a Euro elections enabling bill, and for the EU to arrange a longer extension. More complex, but viable.

I agree and thank you for acknowledging the enabling bill.

Nothing is impossible but in our HOC getting the enabling bill through all it stages and passing into law by the 12th April would require a single attitude of purpose by mps that is not there, and would be fought tooth and nail by ERG and others

Yes, the need for an enabling bill for the Euro elections is why the date is April 12th. It is a prerequesite for a longer extension. If MV3 fails then voting against a Euro elections bill means voting for No Deal.

I am so pleased we are on the same page Foxy

It has been a battle over the last few days and this morning especially, to explain the 12th April was selected by the EU as it is the last date before the campaign for the EU elections and we have to take part if we want an extension of any kind

It is upto the HOC, but I am truly dismayed at how journalists, media and politicians are not explaining this in detail, as it was one of the most important issues coming from the EU

But according to Wiki at least the repeal of the European Elections Act hasn't been enacted yet. Therefore if we wish to hold elections we can presumably do so under the old act that is still legally current legislation. We just need to commit to do so as the law is still on the books.

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

stodge said:

I've just thought of something and again perhaps the knowledgeable on here will help.

As I understand it, IF we pass the WA, we will still effectively leave on 22/5 - the date prevents us having to get involved in the EU parliamentary elections - but the Transition period, backstop and all the rest of it kick in so we are in effect still members (though without any say) until 31/12/20 or whenever.

If we don't pass the WA and we don't revoke, we leave without a Deal on 12/4 - that's it. We would then have to move forward with trade negotiations round the world.

If we chose to Revoke we would have to do so before 12/4 because we would then still be full members and would legally have to participate in the EU parliamentary elections. Revocation simply ends the cancellation of this A50 process and doesn't stop us re-instigating A50 in the summer or autumn and re-setting the clock.

Have I got this and would I be right in thinking second votes, GE, alternative options and the like are all just smoke and mirrors?

No because a further option is to agree an alternative plan (#peoplesvote/GE/completely different objectives) by 12 April, pass a Euro elections enabling bill, and for the EU to arrange a longer extension. More complex, but viable.

I agree and thank you for acknowledging the enabling bill.

Nothing is impossible but in our HOC getting the enabling bill through all it stages and passing into law by the 12th April would require a single attitude of purpose by mps that is not there, and would be fought tooth and nail by ERG and others

Does an enabling bill need to pass by the 12th or do we just need to commit to holding the elections by the 12th?

Has to be in law by the 12th April as the EU election campaigns start then

Not negotiable at all - in law or no extension

I get that but the EU communique makes no reference to laws, simply the UK's "intention" not to hold elections at the moment. Does the law actually need changing? A lot of the UK's Brexit law changes haven't actually been enacted yet and simply occur on "exit day" so if the law to hold elections hasn't been repealed yet then a new one doesn't need passing we just need to get on with it.

Yes - the law needs an enabling bill passed and with royal assent by the 12th April

Andy_Cooke said:

FF43 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

It's ridiculous to say anyone could have done better: Brexit is a mess, and would have been a mess whoever was in charge of negotiations. The sides are too far apart for any meaningful compromise to be easily reached.

Give would have faced just as many problems as May; they might have been different problems, but problems nonetheless.

And the reason the sides are so far apart? The leave campaigns who lied about Brexit, and promised everything to everyone.

It'd be good for leavers to take some responsibility instead of pathetically moaning: "If my person was in charge it would have been different!"

Norway is a meaningful compromise, which could have been, and might just still be reached.

It would mean pissing off most people, but to a lesser extent overall than any other likely solution.

Norway does everything except deliver on the mandate obtained, which was an anti-immigration platform.

Norway is damage limitation. It is better than any other form of Brexit, but it doesn't offer any advantages to anyone over the status quo. Which is why noone much has gone for it.

Other than, of course, being outside the CAP.

Oh, and the CFP.

Apart from that, then... oh, what about being outside the Justice Pillar? And the Home Affairs and the Foreign Affairs Pillars? Those are advantages, as well, I'd guess.

The permanent and unconditional exemption from ever-closer-union might be seen as an advantage by some.

And, of course, a reduction in fees from £350 million per week to £100 million per week or so. That's a benefit, definitely.

Being outside the majority of the EU acquis of law is definitely a plus on the Brexit side, when you look at it.

Whilst retaining the benefits of the Single Market and access to whatever EU institutions we desire and being involved in the initial shaping of all Single Market legislation.

On reflection, I can see some advantages.

What is the mechanism for leaving "Norway"?

Slackbladder said:

Foxy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.

The swine.

Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?

I would imagine they would have to be elected by the membership to count as non-temporary place-holders. Good luck getting Lidington past the members.....

Surely an uncontested coronation by MPs would meet the criteria. Not a cat in hells chance of that though!

they might be forced to. If May resigns as PM, then the tory party have a choice. Have a 'new' tory PM, which would have to be uncontested (or a very very quick election), or Lizzie sends for Jezza.

No the cabinet agree an interim PM until leadership is sorted. She only sends for Corbyn if VONC and he can command confidence which he can't unless Tories agree to abstain

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

stodge said:

I've just thought of something and again perhaps the knowledgeable on here will help.

As I understand it, IF we pass the WA, we will still effectively leave on 22/5 - the date prevents us having to get involved in the EU parliamentary elections - but the Transition period, backstop and all the rest of it kick in so we are in effect still members (though without any say) until 31/12/20 or whenever.

If we don't pass the WA and we don't revoke, we leave without a Deal on 12/4 - that's it. We would then have to move forward with trade negotiations round the world.

If we chose to Revoke we would have to do so before 12/4 because we would then still be full members and would legally have to participate in the EU parliamentary elections. Revocation simply ends the cancellation of this A50 process and doesn't stop us re-instigating A50 in the summer or autumn and re-setting the clock.

Have I got this and would I be right in thinking second votes, GE, alternative options and the like are all just smoke and mirrors?

No because a further option is to agree an alternative plan (#peoplesvote/GE/completely different objectives) by 12 April, pass a Euro elections enabling bill, and for the EU to arrange a longer extension. More complex, but viable.

I agree and thank you for acknowledging the enabling bill.

Nothing is impossible but in our HOC getting the enabling bill through all it stages and passing into law by the 12th April would require a single attitude of purpose by mps that is not there, and would be fought tooth and nail by ERG and others

Yes, the need for an enabling bill for the Euro elections is why the date is April 12th. It is a prerequesite for a longer extension. If MV3 fails then voting against a Euro elections bill means voting for No Deal.

I am so pleased we are on the same page Foxy

It has been a battle over the last few days and this morning especially, to explain the 12th April was selected by the EU as it is the last date before the campaign for the EU elections and we have to take part if we want an extension of any kind

It is upto the HOC, but I am truly dismayed at how journalists, media and politicians are not explaining this in detail, as it was one of the most important issues coming from the EU

But according to Wiki at least the repeal of the European Elections Act hasn't been enacted yet. Therefore if we wish to hold elections we can presumably do so under the old act that is still legally current legislation. We just need to commit to do so as the law is still on the books.

Nope - it has to be an enabling act

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

CarlottaVance said:

Nigelb said:

I’ve already told you. Norway.

And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?

Or just the bits of the result you like?

Do you think those Leave voters bothered about FoM are happy with the fact that non-EU immigration has gone up since the referendum and EU migration is down. Are they whooping with delight at this and at the prospect of even more migrants coming in from the far corners of the world, the sorts of migrants that the Leave campaigns were so intent on putting on their posters?

If Leavers don’t want immigration they have the ability to vote for a government that will actually (as opposed to pretend to) reduce it

That option isn’t available while we are members of the EU

Democratic control of our politicians is important

Reducing non-EU immigration has always been available to us while in the EU. Altering our welfare system and tax credit system has always been available to us while in the EU. FoM would never have become the issue it has had either of these steps been taken seriously. Making the EU the scapegoat for problems which were always in our control has been a long-standing and bad habit of our politicians.

Why should we need to reduce non-EU immigration any more? We're already very strict on non-EU migration and non=EU represents 93% of the globe yet typically only about half of net migration. While EU represents 7% of the globe and roughly about the other half net.

NickPalmer said:

Stereotomy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stereotomy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

felix said:

It is now time for May to choose. She needs to ditch the ERG and accept Benn's offer to vote for her deal with a referendum. It is the only way she can act in the national interest.

That has gone with yesterdays 12th April deadline. No referendum now possible

Nah, they said they'd consider a longer extension for a "plan B". That includes a referendum

I do not want to be argumentative but many posters on here do not understand the EU position on this

I have for days said that without UK participation in the EU elections in May those elections become void in EU law if we are still a member. It is precisely for this reason the EU agreed the date of the 12th April for us to have passed the enabling legislation to take part, and that is not going to happen

Referendum and GE are out of the equation

TM deal - amended deal - no deal - revoke

Nothing else

Well obviously if you take it as a given that parliament won't pass the legislation, then it's not an option. You can say that for anything except no deal. When I say something is an option I mean it is available for parliament to choose, not that they will. I think that's what most other people mean too.

It seems clear that May's deal won't pass unless there's a massive shift over the next few days, and also clear that Cooper/Boles/Benn will pass, giving us indicative votes which will probably give majorities to "customs union" and "referendum", both of which have been ruled out by May up to now.

May then has three choices. She's spent three years refusing to shift her red lines,but she can pick one of the options with majority support and try to run with it. Her recent statements seem to indicate a possible willingness to do that, backing off from "as PM I will not...". She can resign. I don't think anything we've seen of her suggests she'll willingly give up. Or she can defy Parliament and say she'll let no deal happen.

In case 3, we then get an instant Labour VONC. Tory rebels then have to consider whether they will break party unity on that (=reselection death) or accept that May can ignore Parliament (=democracy death).

Parliament can’t instruct the executive to act

They can ask and, if defied, sack the executive

You are looking to upend the constitutional settlement

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

stodge said:

I've just thought of something and again perhaps the knowledgeable on here will help.

As I understand it, IF we pass the WA, we will still effectively leave on 22/5 - the date prevents us having to get involved in the EU parliamentary elections - but the Transition period, backstop and all the rest of it kick in so we are in effect still members (though without any say) until 31/12/20 or whenever.

If we don't pass the WA and we don't revoke, we leave without a Deal on 12/4 - that's it. We would then have to move forward with trade negotiations round the world.

If we chose to Revoke we would have to do so before 12/4 because we would then still be full members and would legally have to participate in the EU parliamentary elections. Revocation simply ends the cancellation of this A50 process and doesn't stop us re-instigating A50 in the summer or autumn and re-setting the clock.

Have I got this and would I be right in thinking second votes, GE, alternative options and the like are all just smoke and mirrors?

No because a further option is to agree an alternative plan (#peoplesvote/GE/completely different objectives) by 12 April, pass a Euro elections enabling bill, and for the EU to arrange a longer extension. More complex, but viable.

I agree and thank you for acknowledging the enabling bill.

Nothing is impossible but in our HOC getting the enabling bill through all it stages and passing into law by the 12th April would require a single attitude of purpose by mps that is not there, and would be fought tooth and nail by ERG and others

Does an enabling bill need to pass by the 12th or do we just need to commit to holding the elections by the 12th?

Has to be in law by the 12th April as the EU election campaigns start then

Not negotiable at all - in law or no extension

I get that but the EU communique makes no reference to laws, simply the UK's "intention" not to hold elections at the moment. Does the law actually need changing? A lot of the UK's Brexit law changes haven't actually been enacted yet and simply occur on "exit day" so if the law to hold elections hasn't been repealed yet then a new one doesn't need passing we just need to get on with it.

Yes - the law needs an enabling bill passed and with royal assent by the 12th April

Why if the old law is still legislation?

No idea - but the enabling act is needed as also confirmed by Foxy this morning

Would you put £200m into Debenhams?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47666249

dyedwoolie said:

Slackbladder said:

Foxy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.

The swine.

Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?

I would imagine they would have to be elected by the membership to count as non-temporary place-holders. Good luck getting Lidington past the members.....

Surely an uncontested coronation by MPs would meet the criteria. Not a cat in hells chance of that though!

they might be forced to. If May resigns as PM, then the tory party have a choice. Have a 'new' tory PM, which would have to be uncontested (or a very very quick election), or Lizzie sends for Jezza.

No the cabinet agree an interim PM until leadership is sorted. She only sends for Corbyn if VONC and he can command confidence which he can't unless Tories agree to abstain

I'm not sure it's as simple as that. The backbenchers would have a very dim view of a new PM (temp or not) being decided that way without their input, espceially if that person wasn't deemed to be valid by say the ERG.

The only way is a MP wide very quick election, in a matter of a day without giving the membership a vote, which is also soemthing which might not be accepted. I can;t see the MPs playing ball here.

Dura_Ace said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Anazina, perhaps that every country to the east of Cyprus (excepting, of course, any African nations, I'd guess Madagascar might otherwise fit the bill) is in Asia.

So Norway is in Asia? You should be Grayling's Chief of Staff.

.

MarqueeMark said:

Andy_Cooke said:

FF43 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

It's ridiculous to say anyone could have done better: Brexit is a mess, and would have been a mess whoever was in charge of negotiations. The sides are too far apart for any meaningful compromise to be easily reached.

Give would have faced just as many problems as May; they might have been different problems, but problems nonetheless.

And the reason the sides are so far apart? The leave campaigns who lied about Brexit, and promised everything to everyone.

It'd be good for leavers to take some responsibility instead of pathetically moaning: "If my person was in charge it would have been different!"

Norway is a meaningful compromise, which could have been, and might just still be reached.

It would mean pissing off most people, but to a lesser extent overall than any other likely solution.

Norway does everything except deliver on the mandate obtained, which was an anti-immigration platform.

Norway is damage limitation. It is better than any other form of Brexit, but it doesn't offer any advantages to anyone over the status quo. Which is why noone much has gone for it.

Other than, of course, being outside the CAP.

Oh, and the CFP.

Apart from that, then... oh, what about being outside the Justice Pillar? And the Home Affairs and the Foreign Affairs Pillars? Those are advantages, as well, I'd guess.

The permanent and unconditional exemption from ever-closer-union might be seen as an advantage by some.

And, of course, a reduction in fees from £350 million per week to £100 million per week or so. That's a benefit, definitely.

Being outside the majority of the EU acquis of law is definitely a plus on the Brexit side, when you look at it.

Whilst retaining the benefits of the Single Market and access to whatever EU institutions we desire and being involved in the initial shaping of all Single Market legislation.

On reflection, I can see some advantages.

What is the mechanism for leaving "Norway"?

There's a ferry direct to Newcastle.

https://twitter.com/greenmiranda/status/1109041897786535936

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

CarlottaVance said:

Nigelb said:

I’ve already told you. Norway.

And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?

Or just the bits of the result you like?

Do you think those Leave voters bothered about FoM are happy with the fact that non-EU immigration has gone up since the referendum and EU migration is down. Are they whooping with delight at this and at the prospect of even more migrants coming in from the far corners of the world, the sorts of migrants that the Leave campaigns were so intent on putting on their posters?

If Leavers don’t want immigration they have the ability to vote for a government that will actually (as opposed to pretend to) reduce it

That option isn’t available while we are members of the EU

Democratic control of our politicians is important

Reducing non-EU immigration has always been available to us while in the EU. Altering our welfare system and tax credit system has always been available to us while in the EU. FoM would never have become the issue it has had either of these steps been taken seriously. Making the EU the scapegoat for problems which were always in our control has been a long-standing and bad habit of our politicians.

You’ve previously written, when I’ve made that point, why should Britain be forced to change its welfare system to fit with EU freedom of movement.

Slackbladder said:

dyedwoolie said:

Slackbladder said:

Foxy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.

The swine.

Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?

I would imagine they would have to be elected by the membership to count as non-temporary place-holders. Good luck getting Lidington past the members.....

Surely an uncontested coronation by MPs would meet the criteria. Not a cat in hells chance of that though!

they might be forced to. If May resigns as PM, then the tory party have a choice. Have a 'new' tory PM, which would have to be uncontested (or a very very quick election), or Lizzie sends for Jezza.

No the cabinet agree an interim PM until leadership is sorted. She only sends for Corbyn if VONC and he can command confidence which he can't unless Tories agree to abstain

I'm not sure it's as simple as that. The backbenchers would have a very dim view of a new PM (temp or not) being decided that way without their input, espceially if that person wasn't deemed to be valid by say the ERG.

The only way is a MP wide very quick election, in a matter of a day without giving the membership a vote, which is also soemthing which might not be accepted. I can;t see the MPs playing ball here.

That's the convention though. Continuity of government. There has to be a PM or Lizzie has yo exercise the royal prerogative. The executive ard not the party. Sure mps could cut up about it and no confidence them but that would be the end of the Tory party and a GE would follow unless jezza could command confidence

YBarddCwsc said:

Charles said:

YBarddCwsc said:

AndyJS said:

O/T

"Opioids crisis
Sackler family: 500 cities, counties and tribes sue owners of Oxycontin maker

Vast lawsuit accuses family of helping to create ‘worst drug crisis in American history’"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/21/sackler-family-500-cities-counties-and-tribes-sue-oxycontin-maker

I think the Sackler are trashed. Most of my US friends (even apolitical ones) are outraged by their sh1tty behaviour pushing opioids.

The Universities and Museums and Galleries are disowning their money as too dirty -- rightly too.

I’m always conflicted about that

I don’t think with a situation like this the donations help their reputation (and in any event that wasn’t Mortiner’s intention).

So why not take the money and use it for good?

I am merely reporting the revulsion that fairly apolitical US friends of mine expressed to me about a year ago.

I think the strength of feeling on this in the US is stronger than here.

The problem is the donations have been so significant - the Sackler Gallery or the Sackler Library for example - that teal damage would be done.

It’s the same with the campaign against BP or BoAS art funding. Without that money there would be far fewer major exhibitions or conservation work.

Philanthropy shouldn’t be politicised

MarqueeMark said:

Would you put £200m into Debenhams?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47666249

The market capitalisation at the current share price is £24 million so why on earth would anyone lend them £200 million. It's not exactly an up and coming start up either.
Why would anyone lend them the money ?!

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

Great anecdote on the news this morning - Macron before May's speech to the EC, estimated chances of MV3 passing at 10%, post speech revised it to 5%.

#charismatic

Slightly higher than his chances of reelection

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

CarlottaVance said:

Nigelb said:

I’ve already told you. Norway.

And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?

Or just the bits of the result you like?

Do you think those Leave voters bothered about FoM are happy with the fact that non-EU immigration has gone up since the referendum and EU migration is down. Are they whooping with delight at this and at the prospect of even more migrants coming in from the far corners of the world, the sorts of migrants that the Leave campaigns were so intent on putting on their posters?

If Leavers don’t want immigration they have the ability to vote for a government that will actually (as opposed to pretend to) reduce it

That option isn’t available while we are members of the EU

Democratic control of our politicians is important

Reducing non-EU immigration has always been available to us while in the EU. Altering our welfare system and tax credit system has always been available to us while in the EU. FoM would never have become the issue it has had either of these steps been taken seriously. Making the EU the scapegoat for problems which were always in our control has been a long-standing and bad habit of our politicians.

Why should we need to reduce non-EU immigration any more? We're already very strict on non-EU migration and non=EU represents 93% of the globe yet typically only about half of net migration. While EU represents 7% of the globe and roughly about the other half net.

If people want to reduce immigration then they reduce that which they are able to control.

You are assuming that migration should be shared equally around the globe as if all peoples are fungible and that there are not issues about where people come from which might be relevant to a country's decision on migration. Let's be blunt: do you think that a government should be indifferent as to whether all its migration comes from Holland or Saudi Arabia?

The reasoning behind FoM is that the EU and the countries within it form a largely cohesive whole with shared values, history, family ties etc and that therefore free movement within that whole is a good thing. That does not necessarily apply in the same way in relation to migration from very far away places.

Anyway need to go. I was just responding to @Charles's comment that we weren't able to control migration while in the EU. That only applied to part of the migration Britain has seen and FoM seems, IMO, to have been made a scapegoat for the migration which some Leave voters are really concerned about.

Pulpstar said:

MarqueeMark said:

Would you put £200m into Debenhams?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47666249

The market capitalisation at the current share price is £24 million so why on earth would anyone lend them £200 million. It's not exactly an up and coming start up either.
Why would anyone lend them the money ?!

To launder it?

CarlottaVance said:

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

CarlottaVance said:

Nigelb said:

I’ve already told you. Norway.

And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?

Or just the bits of the result you like?

Do you think those Leave voters bothered about FoM are happy with the fact that non-EU immigration has gone up since the referendum and EU migration is down. Are they whooping with delight at this and at the prospect of even more migrants coming in from the far corners of the world, the sorts of migrants that the Leave campaigns were so intent on putting on their posters?

If Leavers don’t want immigration they have the ability to vote for a government that will actually (as opposed to pretend to) reduce it

That option isn’t available while we are members of the EU

Democratic control of our politicians is important

Making the EU the scapegoat for problems which were always in our control has been a long-standing and bad habit of our politicians.

As been woefully exposed over the last few months.

Perhaps that is a worthwhile reason to LEAVE - they can shape up or we can ship 'em out.

But they will still be able to blame the EU, our powerful neighbour, and still will

GIN1138 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1109040724283179009

Could be a by election opportunity for Lib-Dem/Tiggers?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brecon_and_Radnorshire_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

Lib dems held it till 2015

dyedwoolie said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

Great anecdote on the news this morning - Macron before May's speech to the EC, estimated chances of MV3 passing at 10%, post speech revised it to 5%.

#charismatic

Slightly higher than his chances of reelection

Actually, under the French two round system, I think Macron very likely to win again.

matt said:

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

CarlottaVance said:

Nigelb said:

I’ve already told you. Norway.

And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?

Or just the bits of the result you like?

Do you think those Leave voters bothered about FoM are happy with the fact that non-EU immigration has gone up since the referendum and EU migration is down. Are they whooping with delight at this and at the prospect of even more migrants coming in from the far corners of the world, the sorts of migrants that the Leave campaigns were so intent on putting on their posters?

If Leavers don’t want immigration they have the ability to vote for a government that will actually (as opposed to pretend to) reduce it

That option isn’t available while we are members of the EU

Democratic control of our politicians is important

Reducing non-EU immigration has always been available to us while in the EU. Altering our welfare system and tax credit system has always been available to us while in the EU. FoM would never have become the issue it has had either of these steps been taken seriously. Making the EU the scapegoat for problems which were always in our control has been a long-standing and bad habit of our politicians.

You’ve previously written, when I’ve made that point, why should Britain be forced to change its welfare system to fit with EU freedom of movement.

I know. It's one of the consequences of being in the EU. That it flattens out - and is intended to flatten out - differences like this. It's one reason why I can understand - and to some extent - share those with concerns about whether Britain fits happily within the EU. But @Charles was making an incorrect point about us not having control and I was simply saying that we did have some control, albeit not total control. We had to weigh up the costs and benefits.

Theuniondivvie said:

Charles said:

YBarddCwsc said:

AndyJS said:

O/T

"Opioids crisis
Sackler family: 500 cities, counties and tribes sue owners of Oxycontin maker

Vast lawsuit accuses family of helping to create ‘worst drug crisis in American history’"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/21/sackler-family-500-cities-counties-and-tribes-sue-oxycontin-maker

I think the Sackler are trashed. Most of my US friends (even apolitical ones) are outraged by their sh1tty behaviour pushing opioids.

The Universities and Museums and Galleries are disowning their money as too dirty -- rightly too.

I’m always conflicted about that

I don’t think with a situation like this the donations help their reputation (and in any event that wasn’t Maurice’s intention).

So why not take the money and use it for good?

What level or type of behaviour from a possible donor do you think should stop a recipient from accepting their money?

Fundamentally if the money isn’t legitimately their’s to give

In the case of the Sacklers for example, they pushed the envelope very aggressively in marketing but not more than other forms have done in different areas. AstraZeneca, for example, paid a $1bn fine for it (oncology I think)

Clearly opioid abuse is particularly damaging but that’s not Purdue’s fault - it’s the responsibility of the pill factories.

They should be fined heavily and forced to disgorge, plus be enjoined and probably have a DPA imposed. But the money left after all the above is itself is legitimate and can be given away

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

CarlottaVance said:

Nigelb said:

I’ve already told you. Norway.

And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?

Or just the bits of the result you like?

Do you think those Leave voters bothered about FoM are happy with the fact that non-EU immigration has gone up since the referendum and EU migration is down. Are they whooping with delight at this and at the prospect of even more migrants coming in from the far corners of the world, the sorts of migrants that the Leave campaigns were so intent on putting on their posters?

If Leavers don’t want immigration they have the ability to vote for a government that will actually (as opposed to pretend to) reduce it

That option isn’t available while we are members of the EU

Democratic control of our politicians is important

Reducing non-EU immigration has always been available to us while in the EU. Altering our welfare system and tax credit system has always been available to us while in the EU. FoM would never have become the issue it has had either of these steps been taken seriously. Making the EU the scapegoat for problems which were always in our control has been a long-standing and bad habit of our politicians.

Sure. But why should we have to give up our non contributory welfare system?

_Anazina_ said:

Dura_Ace said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Anazina, perhaps that every country to the east of Cyprus (excepting, of course, any African nations, I'd guess Madagascar might otherwise fit the bill) is in Asia.

So Norway is in Asia? You should be Grayling's Chief of Staff.

.

MarqueeMark said:

Andy_Cooke said:

FF43 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

It's ridiculous to say anyone could have done better: Brexit is a mess, and would have been a mess whoever was in charge of negotiations. The sides are too far apart for any meaningful compromise to be easily reached.

Give would have faced just as many problems as May; they might have been different problems, but problems nonetheless.

And the reason the sides are so far apart? The leave campaigns who lied about Brexit, and promised everything to everyone.

It'd be good for leavers to take some responsibility instead of pathetically moaning: "If my person was in charge it would have been different!"

Norway is a meaningful compromise, which could have been, and might just still be reached.

It would mean pissing off most people, but to a lesser extent overall than any other likely solution.

Norway does everything except deliver on the mandate obtained, which was an anti-immigration platform.

Norway is damage limitation. It is better than any other form of Brexit, but it doesn't offer any advantages to anyone over the status quo. Which is why noone much has gone for it.

Other than, of course, being outside the CAP.

Oh, and the CFP.

Apart from that, then... oh, what about being outside the Justice Pillar? And the Home Affairs and the Foreign Affairs Pillars? Those are advantages, as well, I'd guess.

The permanent and unconditional exemption from ever-closer-union might be seen as an advantage by some.

And, of course, a reduction in fees from £350 million per week to £100 million per week or so. That's a benefit, definitely.

Being outside the majority of the EU acquis of law is definitely a plus on the Brexit side, when you look at it.

Whilst retaining the benefits of the Single Market and access to whatever EU institutions we desire and being involved in the initial shaping of all Single Market legislation.

On reflection, I can see some advantages.

What is the mechanism for leaving "Norway"?

There's a ferry direct to Newcastle.

Not for years there hasn’t!

dyedwoolie said:

GIN1138 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1109040724283179009

Could be a by election opportunity for Lib-Dem/Tiggers?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brecon_and_Radnorshire_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

Lib dems held it till 2015

More importantly, they currently hold it in Assembly. Kirsty Williams is very popular and if she decided to stand for Westminster she would walk it - especially in current climate. But on the oether hand she has another 2 years in Cardiff Bay - she might only get a few months at Westminster...

Slackbladder said:

dyedwoolie said:

Slackbladder said:

Foxy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.

The swine.

Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?

I would imagine they would have to be elected by the membership to count as non-temporary place-holders. Good luck getting Lidington past the members.....

Surely an uncontested coronation by MPs would meet the criteria. Not a cat in hells chance of that though!

they might be forced to. If May resigns as PM, then the tory party have a choice. Have a 'new' tory PM, which would have to be uncontested (or a very very quick election), or Lizzie sends for Jezza.

No the cabinet agree an interim PM until leadership is sorted. She only sends for Corbyn if VONC and he can command confidence which he can't unless Tories agree to abstain

I'm not sure it's as simple as that. The backbenchers would have a very dim view of a new PM (temp or not) being decided that way without their input, espceially if that person wasn't deemed to be valid by say the ERG.

The only way is a MP wide very quick election, in a matter of a day without giving the membership a vote, which is also soemthing which might not be accepted. I can;t see the MPs playing ball here.

It could only be a rubber stamp election of conservative MPs for someone "to guide the country out of the crisis". If there is a proper leadership election then the current parliamentary tories would split and have a vicious fight at exactly the very worst time for the country.

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.

The swine.

I got him at 1000 on that market in April 2018.

Alright alright no one likes a show off.

Would be the biggest odds winner on PB I think.

What numpty laid someone at those odds!

Charles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Charles said:

YBarddCwsc said:

AndyJS said:

O/T

"Opioids crisis
Sackler family: 500 cities, counties and tribes sue owners of Oxycontin maker

Vast lawsuit accuses family of helping to create ‘worst drug crisis in American history’"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/21/sackler-family-500-cities-counties-and-tribes-sue-oxycontin-maker

I think the Sackler are trashed. Most of my US friends (even apolitical ones) are outraged by their sh1tty behaviour pushing opioids.

The Universities and Museums and Galleries are disowning their money as too dirty -- rightly too.

I’m always conflicted about that

I don’t think with a situation like this the donations help their reputation (and in any event that wasn’t Maurice’s intention).

So why not take the money and use it for good?

What level or type of behaviour from a possible donor do you think should stop a recipient from accepting their money?

Fundamentally if the money isn’t legitimately their’s to give

In the case of the Sacklers for example, they pushed the envelope very aggressively in marketing but not more than other forms have done in different areas. AstraZeneca, for example, paid a $1bn fine for it (oncology I think)

Clearly opioid abuse is particularly damaging but that’s not Purdue’s fault - it’s the responsibility of the pill factories.

They should be fined heavily and forced to disgorge, plus be enjoined and probably have a DPA imposed. But the money left after all the above is itself is legitimate and can be given away

Though gifts of well scrubbed money may not be helping the Sacklers' reputation (dunno about that), the museums & galleries may be thinking of their own reputations. Those reputations won't last long if prestigious artists are boycotting them and protesting outside them, and no amount of donations can really make up for that.

Nigelb said:

Slackbladder said:

dyedwoolie said:

Slackbladder said:

Foxy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.

The swine.

Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?

I would imagine they would have to be elected by the membership to count as non-temporary place-holders. Good luck getting Lidington past the members.....

Surely an uncontested coronation by MPs would meet the criteria. Not a cat in hells chance of that though!

they might be forced to. If May resigns as PM, then the tory party have a choice. Have a 'new' tory PM, which would have to be uncontested (or a very very quick election), or Lizzie sends for Jezza.

No the cabinet agree an interim PM until leadership is sorted. She only sends for Corbyn if VONC and he can command confidence which he can't unless Tories agree to abstain

I'm not sure it's as simple as that. The backbenchers would have a very dim view of a new PM (temp or not) being decided that way without their input, espceially if that person wasn't deemed to be valid by say the ERG.

The only way is a MP wide very quick election, in a matter of a day without giving the membership a vote, which is also soemthing which might not be accepted. I can;t see the MPs playing ball here.

Why would the membership need to be involved in selecting a temporary PM ?
There's no need for that individual to be leader of the party - but an obvious need to be confirmed by MPs.

Because to avoid it MPs would, on the whole need to play ball on it.

Is there ANY evidence they would, given the last few years?

in terms of next PM. If May quits voluntarily and goes before a new Tory leader is elected then cabinet agree the next PM who will step down when the Tories select their new leader in whatever fashion. That's the process. Liz is only prepared to hold personal hold of the prerogative for the time May's car leaves and the replacement arrives immediately after.

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.

The swine.

Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?

In our constitution there is no such thing as a temporary Prime Minister.

Once you are in possession of the seals of office you're the PM.

But what about the rules of the bet (which don't always coincide with our constitution) ?

For next party leader markets, caretaker/acting leaders do not count.

But for next PM if you get the seal of office you're PM, and the bet pays out.

I've checked with both Shadsy and Betfair to confirm.

Recidivist said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

CarlottaVance said:

Nigelb said:

I’ve already told you. Norway.

And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?

Or just the bits of the result you like?

Do you think those Leave voters bothered about FoM are happy with the fact that non-EU immigration has gone up since the referendum and EU migration is down. Are they whooping with delight at this and at the prospect of even more migrants coming in from the far corners of the world, the sorts of migrants that the Leave campaigns were so intent on putting on their posters?

If Leavers don’t want immigration they have the ability to vote for a government that will actually (as opposed to pretend to) reduce it

That option isn’t available while we are members of the EU

Democratic control of our politicians is important

That isn't true though is it. We've always had and continue to have control over non-EU migration. If leavers don't like Romanians and prefer Somalis they might be happy. But the complaints seem to be about numbers coming rather than where they come from.

Meanwhile, the revoke article 50 petition has now been signed by over 5% of the electorate.

One side-effect of Macron's new deadline is that it will very possibly reach 17.4 million in time, now.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.

The swine.

Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?

In our constitution there is no such thing as a temporary Prime Minister.

Once you are in possession of the seals of office you're the PM.

But what about the rules of the bet (which don't always coincide with our constitution) ?

For next party leader markets, caretaker/acting leaders do not count.

But for next PM if you get the seal of office you're PM, and the bet pays out.

I've checked with both Shadsy and Betfair to confirm.

Cool.

dyedwoolie said:

in terms of next PM. If May quits voluntarily and goes before a new Tory leader is elected then cabinet agree the next PM who will step down when the Tories select their new leader in whatever fashion. That's the process. Liz is only prepared to hold personal hold of the prerogative for the time May's car leaves and the replacement arrives immediately after.

Which would be fine if we had the luxuary of time. The worst thing is if may resigns, but 'stuck' in office whilst the tories then tear each other apart.

the cabinet could lock themselves away and elect a new leader. that could happen but it required forces outside the cabinet to plat ball. but who..if someone like Hammond or Rudd then the ERG would throw a paddy. if someone like Boris or another No-dealer it would similarly be case on the Remainer side.

Gove is possible.

Sean_F said:

GIN1138 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1109040724283179009

Could be a by election opportunity for Lib-Dem/Tiggers?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brecon_and_Radnorshire_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

It could, although I think Brecon & Radnor voted Leave.

Nevertheless looks a strong chance of a Lib Dem gain in a by-election.

eek said:

Slackbladder said:

dyedwoolie said:

in terms of next PM. If May quits voluntarily and goes before a new Tory leader is elected then cabinet agree the next PM who will step down when the Tories select their new leader in whatever fashion. That's the process. Liz is only prepared to hold personal hold of the prerogative for the time May's car leaves and the replacement arrives immediately after.

Which would be fine if we had the luxuary of time. The worst thing is if may resigns, but 'stuck' in office whilst the tories then tear each other apart.

the cabinet could lock themselves away and elect a new leader. that could happen but it required forces outside the cabinet to plat ball. but who..if someone like Hammond or Rudd then the ERG would throw a paddy. if someone like Boris or another No-dealer it would similarly be case on the Remainer side.

Gove is possible.

It needs to be a temporary candidate with an election to follow. Liddington would be the best bet...

the problem though isn't the person. it's the policy. Would Liddington go for No-Deal, or new (softer) deal or referendum?

Just replacing the personnel at the top does nothing.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1109050774896676865