Cont: Brexit: Now What? 7th heaven...

[LondonJohn]

It is not the same as an opinion poll because of the trading of money. That's why if someone predicts something and another says "Wanna bet on it?" it introduces a different consideration, and putting one's money where one's mouth is does not have the same consequences as merely opening one's mouth. Ladbrokes and other bookmakers also have online trade it isn't necessary to go into a betting shop, which may be a social occasion for a certain strata of punter (no idea really)

That said there is bound to be some betting with emotion (rather than analysis) even if money is involved. Bookies can get stuff wrong just as polls can (the traded odds also said "remain" in 2016 for instance, but by a smaller margin than polls). So they are not unbiased estimators but there are grounds to expect them to outperform opinion polls.

Well firstly I'd actually separate this out by class of betting instrument: the dynamics of betting exchanges are markedly different from those of "traditional" bookmakers. In the former, the odds reflect matched trades (e.g. in a two horse race, the amount of money being bet on outcome one x the odds offered on outcome one = the money on outcome two x the odds on outcome two), after allowing for the exchange commission. So in that respect, the odds offerered by exchanges should, all other things being equal, represent a far closer reflection of bettors' intentions on either side of the bet than the odds offered by old-style bookies (who adjust odds on all sides of any bet downwards as a way of protecting their book and making their money).

And secondly, as you and others have alluded to, the intentions of people who actively place bets is far from a proper statistically-appropriate representation of the wider population (in this instance, the population being all those people who voted in the first referendum or who would intend to vote in any second referendum).

In fact, it's extremely difficult to forecast outcomes in this sort of contest. Professional polling & market research companies can certainly select sample populations which at least come pretty close to representing the actual voting population. But, as you point out, what people SAY they would do to pollsters, and what people actually DO do, are often different.

In short, I don't think anything - whether publicly-traded odds, or polls/market research/focus groups of any sort - can predict the outcome of this sort of contest without a margin of error which tends to render the prediction effectively of very low worth. (But of course that's definitely not something that the odds-setters, or even moreso the polling & mkt research operators, would like to admit)

 

[LondonJohn]

I wish.

Well, so do I. But we are where we are......

And I disagree with Vixen's assignments of relative probabilities here.

In particular, there's one huge elephant in the room that not even the political media have yet picked up on (although I'm pretty confident that most political leaders know it), and it's this:

Regardless of whether Parliament legislates to "prevent" an No Deal Brexit, this is not actually a gift that is in Parliament's hand if push comes to shove. For example, suppose we get to the week running up to 31st October, and no deal has yet been a) agreed to by the EU, and b) signed off by Parliament. Suppose we ask the EU for a further extension. Suppose they say no (it's entirely their choice and their decision).

Well, in that scenario, it doesn't matter one jot whether or not the UK Parliament might have legislated to "prevent" a No Deal Brexit. If the clock ticks over to 31st October, and there is not a deal that has been ratified by both the EU and the UK Parliament, and there is no granting of a further extension by the EU..... then the UK will by default leave the EU with No Deal.

Now, it may very well be (in fact, I think it's probable) that the EU would grant a further time extension in those sorts of circumstances - after all, it's not in the EU's interest for the UK to crash out with No Deal either. But people here should nevertheless be made aware that if the clock runs out absent an agreed deal on all sides, there WILL be a No Deal Brexit

 

[toto]

Since no one really knows what will happen we can all guess without getting egg on our faces.
I guess: a) May's deal tweaked and sold with Johnson bravado and possibly a bit of an extension to achieve this.

b) if this fails then No Deal , again sold by a faux Churchillian Johnson.

I do not think we will get a 2nd referendum, but I think we might get a General Election (and thus an extension then follow a) or b).

 

[Pixel42]

Well, in that scenario, it doesn't matter one jot whether or not the UK Parliament might have legislated to "prevent" a No Deal Brexit.

Unless they voted to revoke A50 if there was no deal and no extension, which is the only way they could actually legislate to prevent a no deal Brexit.

Yes I know they're unlikely to have the guts to do that, but I can dream.

 

[Information Analyst]

Scotland has the biggest weapons stored in a cave at Faslane.

They're not "Scotland's," any more than the one which happen to be at Burghfield are "England's."

 

[a_unique_person]

True, I've taken quite a lot of money off them on political bets.

Off the other punters after the bookies have taken their cut

 

[The Don]

The current debate is exactly how much of the divorce bill settlement each of the PM candidates propose to renege on.

Hunt says he'll withhold some, Boris is prepared to stiff the EU on the whole amount.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48814944

What a great way to start a new relationship

 

[ohms]

One interesting YouGov poll today shows the Lib Dems could end up in charge if a general election were to be held later this year. Of course, the way the question is phrased is important but still, pause for thought perhaps.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...would-it-take-labour-win-general-election-new

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

They're not "Scotland's," any more than the one which happen to be at Burghfield are "England's."

Well in the event that England decided that it wasn't going to negotiate in good faith on independence they would have to remove them which would present several issues 1) Getting them and 2) Having somewhere to put them.

Which is one amongst a multitude of reasons why the idea that the UK will simply claim the entire RN for themselves post independence is nonsense on stilts.

People can bluster as much as they want but as Brexit has shown when bluster meets reality, reality wins.

It's simply not how independence works. Even the Russians didn't try to keep the entire Soviet armed forces.

 

[Andy_Ross]

What bits would Scotland be able to support?

they would have to go for a joint defence treaty or, like Ireland go for a number of coastal patrol boats.

 

[Vixen]

One interesting YouGov poll today shows the Lib Dems could end up in charge if a general election were to be held later this year. Of course, the way the question is phrased is important but still, pause for thought perhaps.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...would-it-take-labour-win-general-election-new

If you scroll down there is another poll about what would people vote if Labour came out anti-Brexit and they come second.

 

[The Don]

If you scroll down there is another poll about what would people vote if Labour came out anti-Brexit and they come second.

Interesting, though it's specifically Labour under Corbyn supporting a second referendum. I'd be one of those who wouldn't switch back to Labour for fear that if elected as PM, he'd become less enthusiastic again about a second referendum.

If he was replaced by a competent Remainer then that'd be a different matter.

 

[Vixen]

Interesting, though it's specifically Labour under Corbyn supporting a second referendum. I'd be one of those who wouldn't switch back to Labour for fear that if elected as PM, he'd become less enthusiastic again about a second referendum.

If he was replaced by a competent Remainer then that'd be a different matter.

Have you heard? Nigel Farage claims the Brexit Party is going to field 'a hundred candidates' and that the Tory party should just step aside. Hunt claims he'd go for a no-deal with 'a heavy heart' and would consider holding back some of the £39bn. The whole political scene is stark raving mad.

 

[McHrozni]

But they don't have any subject matter knowledge, they merely reflect how the punters have placed their bets.

If England are odds on to win a cricket match, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are the better team and are therefore more likely to win, just that more money has been placed on England than the other team. If those bets are driven by pro-England emotion and not reason then England may indeed be less likely to win.

Just because Ladbrokes punters think that the most likely outcomes are a 2019 revocation of Article 50 or a 2020 referendum doesn't necessarily mean that this is the case.

If you add these together it means the majority of betting population thinks that to be the case. That may be large enough to be statistically significant part of the electorate. I'm not sure if it affects anything.

A new referendum before the end of 2019 is out of the question, there isn't enough time for one. My dream scenario right now is for BJ to attempt to negotiate with EU one last time, fail and then bend the knee and beg for more time, agreeing to another referendum in exchange for the extension.

That's how ideas are killed. Their main backers must visibly betray them. It would be better if Nigel Farage was doing it, but BJ should be good enough, IMHO.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

You make that sound like a nautical Hamish Macbeth.

https://www.scotland.police.uk/whats-happening/featured-articles/dive-and-marine-unit-q-and-a

If there is some historical reason for the waters to belong to UK (or however the remnanlt would be called) and not newly independent Scotland, it is possible for the waters closer to Scotland than UK would be granted to UK. It is not a given however, the default is the equidistant line and it's up to UK to prove their case.

UN Convention of the law of the sea:

Article 15: 'Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith.'

If Scotland agrees to give up territorial waters of else if the said waters were separated between Scotland and England since time immemorial (or at least some time before the dissolution), UK may have a case to claim those waters in the name of England. If not they belong to Scotland under international law.

Slovenia and Croatia have been scruffing over a tiny unimportant bay since their independence from Yugoslavia (1991), there was no closure yet - Slovenia claims the second provision applies on two counts (historic precendens and access to international waters), Croatia claims they don't apply and want the equidistant line. There's no natural resources to speak of in the bay. With UK/Scotland only historical precendens could apply, since those waters do not restrict British access to the high seas and those waters do offer vast resources of hydrocarbons. This is just to give you a little taste of how difficult it is to get sea borders drawn sometimes.

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

Have you heard? Nigel Farage claims the Brexit Party is going to field 'a hundred candidates' and that the Tory party should just step aside. Hunt claims he'd go for a no-deal with 'a heavy heart' and would consider holding back some of the £39bn. The whole political scene is stark raving mad.

Given who they are trying to appeal to their "promises" are entirely rational for someone who wants to be PM.

 

[The Don]

I note that Jeremy Hunt has found Theresa May's magic money tree and is proposing to give the fruit to the farmers and fishermen.

Tory leadership contender Jeremy Hunt is to outline his plans for a no-deal Brexit later, including a £6bn pledge to the fishing and farming industries and help for small businesses.

Mr Hunt will say farmers and fishermen "face uncertainty" with no deal, and as PM he would "help smooth it over".

As the owner of a small business (turnover has so far been under £1m a year in the 16 years we have been trading) which is likely to go under in the event of a no-deal and which is already struggling in the current climate (most of our clients are non-UK EU, and those which are renewing are only doing so in the very short term and finding new EU clients is proving "challenging" to say the least), I'd be interested to see what his proposals amount to.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What bits would Scotland be able to support?

Presumably all the bits they currently have and are willing to pay to maintain.

they would have to go for a joint defence treaty or, like Ireland go for a number of coastal patrol boats.

They may pursue a joint defence treaty but i don't believe that is currently proposed.

Scotland would be a proper country just like any other in Europe. It's not bloody Andorra or Jersey FFS. The idea that it would be uniquely unable to look after its own affairs is Unionist wet dreamery.

 

[IanS]

Well, so do I. But we are where we are......

And I disagree with Vixen's assignments of relative probabilities here.

In particular, there's one huge elephant in the room that not even the political media have yet picked up on (although I'm pretty confident that most political leaders know it), and it's this:

Regardless of whether Parliament legislates to "prevent" an No Deal Brexit, this is not actually a gift that is in Parliament's hand if push comes to shove. For example, suppose we get to the week running up to 31st October, and no deal has yet been a) agreed to by the EU, and b) signed off by Parliament. Suppose we ask the EU for a further extension. Suppose they say no (it's entirely their choice and their decision).

Well, in that scenario, it doesn't matter one jot whether or not the UK Parliament might have legislated to "prevent" a No Deal Brexit. If the clock ticks over to 31st October, and there is not a deal that has been ratified by both the EU and the UK Parliament, and there is no granting of a further extension by the EU..... then the UK will by default leave the EU with No Deal.

Now, it may very well be (in fact, I think it's probable) that the EU would grant a further time extension in those sorts of circumstances - after all, it's not in the EU's interest for the UK to crash out with No Deal either. But people here should nevertheless be made aware that if the clock runs out absent an agreed deal on all sides, there WILL be a No Deal Brexit

I don't think the above is a realistic possibility. I posted the following in the other thread a week ago (see link below re. legal options from a Barrister in Law specialising in Foreign Policy) -

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019...rogue-parliament-to-deliver-a-no-deal-brexit/

The first point made in that link is that Boris cannot simply run down the clock and leave on 31st Oct. with No Deal, because it's within the power of the Speaker of the House of commons (HoC) John Berkov, to prevent that.

If the PM (Boris, presumably) still insists on leaving with No Deal despite the Speaker blocking that move, then the PM must ask the Queen to Prorogue Parliament. IOW – if the PM (Boris) actually wanted to leave with No Deal and refused to allow MPs in the HoC to vote against that, he would in the end be forced to ask the Queen for permission to Prorogue parliament.

The text of that article makes clear that, whilst that would be an unprecedented step in UK politics and in UK law, the bottom line is that the PM would probably be ruled in breach of the law and having no legal right to ask the Queen for that permission simply in order to circumvent the will of the elected parliament.

The link discusses various ifs & buts of this situation. So that various things are possible either way (ie to force a No Deal or to block a No Deal), but the bottom line is really this passage which I quote here from that link -

*It is almost certainly beyond the power of the Prime Minster to advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament in order to frustrate the will of that same Parliament. It is also arguably outside the scope of the Queen’s prerogative power to exercise it so as to frustrate the will of Parliament. As the House of Lords held in*R (Fire Brigades Union et al) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1995] 2 A.C. 513*(albeit in the case of a clear statutory steer from parliament), the executive is not permitted to use prerogative powers to frustrate the will of Parliament. Both Houses of Parliament have expressed the view that a “no deal” Brexit should not be permitted. Parliament has exercised control over the process of Brexit so as to ensure a “no deal” Brexit is avoided. It will likely seek to do so again in October. The act of advising the Queen to prorogue Parliament before (and across) 31 October would have the effect of excluding Parliament from the Brexit process.


Other legal experts may of course make a different argument from the one given in that link. However, on the basis of the above, which afaik is perfectly reasonable as an authority on the legal facts of this matter, it is clear that whilst a PM such as Boris might be reckless enough to try to circumvent the will of parliament and simply force a no deal by blocking any opposition votes from MPs, that artifice from the PM would almost certainly be defeated by a legal challenge.

In earlier posts here it also seems to be suggested that Boris could run down the clock to the 31st Oct. by simply refusing or not bothering to ask the EU for an extension of the Article-50 deadline. However, according to the above link that is probably not a possibility open to the PM. Here's what that link says on that possibility -

*In the*European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Act 2019*Parliament, in effect, ordered the Prime Minister to seek an extension to the Article 50 TFEU process so as to avoid a “no deal” Brexit on 12 April. Similarly, various motions all related to 29 March or 12 April.

And that's all apart from the fact he (PM Boris) would need to persuade the Queen to Prorogue parliament, which she almost certainly would not do (since her legal advisors would almost certainly tell her she must not do that).

Really the only way that PM Boris (or PM Hunt) could produce a No Deal exit on 31st October (assuming that is what they really wanted to do), is to allow a vote in the HoC, in which they persuade the majority of MPs to vote against any motion that asks the House to rule out a No Deal. The PM would really have to get that authority from the House in a vote for or against a No Deal.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Presumably all the bits they currently have and are willing to pay to maintain.



They may pursue a joint defence treaty but i don't believe that is currently proposed.

Scotland would be a proper country just like any other in Europe. It's not bloody Andorra or Jersey FFS. The idea that it would be uniquely unable to look after its own affairs is Unionist wet dreamery.

Do you know how much a modern frigate or destroyer costs?
What would they do with a single frigate?

Would they be expecting to engage in high intensity naval warfare?

Ireland has a very good and well balanced maritime defence force with very capable patrol vessels. Their entire fleet cost less than one Type 45 Destroyer.

https://www.military.ie/en/who-we-are/naval-service/the-fleet/