Westminstenders: May's Deal or No Deal

[RedToothBrush]

Tonight: Votes on Amendments after May's Stitch-Up Promise which might nerf the crucial Cooper-Boles amendment as its now deemed 'unnecessary'. I think voting starts very shortly. (They are just summing up now)

A - Corbyn's Brexit deal
K - SNP's, banning No Deal
C - Cooper-Letwin bill paving amendment (which they hope not to move)
B - Alberto Costa's EU citizens rights
F - Spelman/Dromey's to enshrine PM's Brexit extension promise

Corbyn's amendment. You can ignore. Its going to fail.

The SNPs amendment should in theory pass, but with the vote on the 13th March and the government whip, it might fail today.

Cooper-Letwin (or Cooper-Boles whichever you prefer) needs to pass to ensure May can't worm her way out of the current timetable but it looks unlikely to pass. If it does it would come into effect on the 13th March.

Costa's amendment is interesting as he was forced to resign in order to table it (and protect his parents who are EU citz) even though the government have now backed his amendment. His speech was striking in how he stressed it was about people not party politics.

Looking like Spelman has been withdrawn. So possible there will be no vote on it, as May has promised a vote on extension on the 14th March.

The battle now turns to how long the (almost inevitable) a50 extension will be.

March 12th (or earlier): Second vote on May deal.
Its still unlikely to pass.

Which would lead to Cooper-Boles coming into effect (if it passes) though it now has effectively been accepted by May though she might renege.

We now face a vote rejecting no deal on March 13th. Which should ban no deal.

This makes the all important vote effectively on March 14th which will be about the extension. The detail and amendments on this are important and will affect what happens next.

March 29th is probably no longer important as we won't be leaving then.

If we only are able to get a short extension (which the EU might refuse and insist on a longer one! But I doubt it) then the end of April begining of May is crucial. If we don't pass the legislation to take part in EU elections then May can dictate to the HoC and force her deal through as the only alternative to No Deal.

The EU elections fall on May 23-26.

The new parliament starts on the July 1st. This is now effectively the cliff edge if May has her way.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu_referendum_2016_/3492426-Westministenders-Abbreviation
Abbreviation thread.

Yes, but I think the odds are getting lower now of no deal.

ITYM higher.

Cut and pasted from their website below so I can’t confuse the issue further!

No Deal Brexit?
For the purposes of this market, leaving with 'No Deal' is defined as exiting the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement having being ratified by the UK House of Commons and the EU Parliament.

No (Withdrawal Agreement in place by 30-03-2019 or Article 50 extended/revoked)
1/9

Yes (UK leave the EU on 30-03-2019 without Withdrawal Agreement in place)
9/2

Oo 1/9 is different. It means it is less likely.

Ok 9/2 on No Deal means a bit more likely. Not quite 4/1 but nearly.
Which is why gambling is for mugs.

The UK can't extend (nor, probably even revoke - but that needs to be defined and may well be a condition of the approval for extension ) beyond the end of June unless it agrees to hold EU Parliament elections, which the rest of the EU (as per its rules) will be holding 23-26 May

Given the comments that have been made about the two main parties suffering from donations drying up and therefore unable to afford a GE, I doubt that they have put aside a budget to contest EU elections in May

I think now that those Labour MPs who are themselves Remain but in Leave constituencies have got to become bolder, and go back to their constituents and say that "look, the deal that is on the table or no deal will make you poorer". Citing Honda as an example, ask them, are they willing to risk their jobs? I don't know many Leavers and those that did, most certainly didn't make an informed decision, and most definitely wouldn't want to lose their jobs.

So basically, go back to your constituencies and tell the voters, "you are wrong?", yes I can see how that'll go down well.

I suppose the funding comes from different pots but to say the UK can't afford a GE when the government is splashing the cash to the DUP, shipless companies and many thousands of redeployed staff and a whole bunch of 'consultants' seems crazy.
The UK kills itself in the scuffle in the dark when the 50 pence in the meter runs out!

No go back to your constituencies and tell them the facts, and that the charlatans Farage and Johnson are snake oil salesmen and can't deliver.

Since the leavers I know aren't engaged in politics, they are likely to say 'whatever'. Tell them that their jobs are now on the line, and it will be a different matter.

{So basically, go back to your constituencies and tell the voters, "you are wrong?", yes I can see how that'll go down well.}

At some point reality for the UK populace will have to set in.
There were no unicorns and the reality of leaving will mean that hundreds of thousands will lose their jobs.
If you insist on calling it 'Project fear' and continue denying it, have a word with the workers in Sunderland and Swindon among many others who have been told directly that their jobs are going. While the companies that 'feed' the car plants may not have been told directly, it doesn't take much to work out that if a massive amount of their work goes to plants that will close, their jobs are not secure unless their company directors can find alternative markets.

So based on the odds given there's a 88.9% chance that we won't be leaving without a deal on March 29th compared to a 22.2% chance that we will be leaving without a deal.

It means nothing though - once the market on a particular bet's established the odds are largely based on the arithmetic of the total amount wagered, rather than the likelihood of a particular outcome.

mother that’s how I understand it too..

So I thought that the 1/9 odds given for a deal/revoke/extend meant that there is 1 chance against this happening versus 9 chances for it happening. Therefore 10% no deal vs 90% for deal/extend/revoke.

I have never gambled so I do struggle to interpret the odds -😂 and as I said I only look at them since they got the referendum result right.

... However iirc I think they got the referendum right due to the volume of bets that were placed for leave, so in a way they had better data than the polls. They won’t have that sort of data for what’s going on in the HoC so I don’t know how they get to their odds on this one.

Oops fishes - cross post.

mother - that’s what I was doing too .

So I thought that the 1/9 odds given for a deal/revoke/extend meant that there is 1 chance against this happening versus 9 chances for it happening. Therefore 10% no deal vs 90% for deal/extend/revoke.

Well you've got the idea right but the maths wrong. 1/9 odds are literally a one-ninth probability - a one-in-nine chance that something will happen. That's 11.111%. A 10% chance would be expressed as 1/10.

...in fact I just expressed all that the wrong way around for this context but you get the idea.

Interesting article from Robert Peston about the WA vote and the arch Brexiteers position.

www.itv.com/news/2019-02-28/why-the-pm-can-dare-to-dream-that-her-brexit-deal-will-pass/

"But a sizeable number of them may at the last adopt their erstwhile ally Gove's dictum that it is a mistake to reject a stinker of a Brexit (in their view) if the alternative is even worse ("don't make poo the enemy of poison")."

"And as long as they are joined in the lobbies by enough Labour MPs who hate Corbyn's reluctant conversion to the referendum cause, May's Brexit deal could just scrape through."

"Am I saying that is likely?"

"No".

"But is it possible?"

"It is. It is".

Like when you have a couple of teenage boys in the house and it all goes quiet, what are the ERG up to? What 'wheeze' have they though of because they will not be dropping their chance of a 'once in a lifetime' fire sale of the UK.

If TM resigns if her deal fails she doesn't need anyone's permission to do that then that would trigger another leadership contest and JC could then call for a ' no confidence' in government. If he wins then a GE.

Tbh I'm still baffled at how an extension is going to help the situation. There still is not a complete consensus in the house for anything, not even for remain. To me, its prelonging the agony. I think there is a lot who agree with that in the house and that is the reason why I'm leaning towards TMs deal getting through thus dispensing with a need for an extension.

Well you've got the idea right but the maths wrong. 1/9 odds are literally a one-ninth probability - a one-in-nine chance that something will happen. That's 11.111%. A 10% chance would be expressed as 1/10.

Thanks fishes, I didn’t know that! Learning more all the time here

Well, if Paddy Power ot the ref right because of leavers voting, i'd say odds are in our favour to place a bet. Leavers don't get the half of what is about to happen, whereas we read the papers and govt reports!