Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Johnson’s “Surrender Bill” rhetoric – cutting through ?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Johnson’s “Surrender Bill” rhetoric – cutting through ?
To call it the surrender bill, do you have to truly believe we can pressure the EU into an exit favourable to us by threatening EU with No Deal, or use it with ulterior motive? And is it really a differential, or does it preach to the perverted and those already on board? Let’s get to the bottom of these questions.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Con 30.8%
Lab 23.6%
LD 20.6%
BRX 14.6%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2019
If BoZo does seek an extension, he is the one who surrendered.
How does that fit his "winner' narrative?
a) the job is unpaid
b) you get a load of shit aimed at you, mostly from people who know even less than you
c) most of the rest just ignore what you say and chat about their own preoccupations
d) the time you spend on it is out of all proportion to any satisfaction it may give you
Well done, and keep going. Always good to have a range of voices.
It merely defers it to Jan 2020, and only then, subject to the EU agreeing to make an offer - or, alternatively, to some other date the EU offers, subject to the government and Commons not both rejecting it.
If Boris wins a majority I expect he would go for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop for GB and just leave it for NI (maybe subject to a NI referendum on backstop v hard border) but he needs a Tory majority first otherwise the DUP would block it
The simple fact is, economically, the EU is in a grim state at the moment as per the economic data, and the last thing any of them needs is 1-2% off GDP, even if we are hit more.
Resigning the government and letting Corbyn submit the request is the only sensible route for Boris.
Silly Samuel and Harry have had jobs at the nationals for years.
How come we never see Herdson or TSE on #skypapers e.g
To answer the question in the thread title in my personal experience - yes, Surrender Act seems to be cutting through, whether or not it means anything logically. It summarises a reality - that the UK is the weaker negotiating partner, it’s limited leverage squandered by bitter internal division, up against a more powerful entity which is likely to get its way in the end. It is a reality very many people are unhappy about. The phrase provides an emotive way to summarise that and to rail against it, that makes those people (myself included) happier.
For that reason I think it’s going to end up being as politically devastating as ‘Take Back Control’ was.
https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1177562148937064449
Anything better than May's Deal will serve its purpose.
It all revolves around one crux: is the no deal threat to EU, of us walking away with no deal, really that much threat to them to make a difference in negotiation?
Currently I don’t think it is, so I invite leavers to explain how it is.
Good for her.
Agreed. It’s just can kicking.
If they want to overturn the will of 17m voters then they will have to face the consequences at the ballot box.
It will resonate...no question at all.
I don't expect many Brexiteers to see the irony in that
What have you seen that convinces you something as high as 15% or even 12% over comes vote lending of the other parties?
I'm not quite following your logic. From my simple position, leaving no deal on the table is supposed to mean we hold their feet to the fire because a no deal is worse than a deal.
But the reality is that whilst a no deal is not good for the EU27, it's much, much worse for us. And they also offset the problems of no deal with the political and economic need to preserve SM and CU integrity (with the added advantage from EU27 position of having a test case of the world of s**t leaving the EU creates for the leaver).
So I fail to see how a no deal an be a negotiating weapon.
I honestly believe that the vast majority of MP's would take the chance now of getting Brexit done.
Yes, the would be extremists on either end who would be like the Japanese WW2 soldiers still fighting on in the 70s but everyone else would breathe a sigh of relief.
We could get back to the quaint days of joshing about the national meltdown over Greggs pasties having 2p put on them.
I topped up on No Deal yesterday. No one can stop the car crash.
I guess part of the calculation is, "would the EU feel it necessary to punish the UK for leaving without a deal?"
That is, given where we are, the best available route by far, perhaps the only one. If Boris wins it on a manifesto of crashing us out in chaos, well, then he'd have a mandate to do so and I for one wouldn't think it was illegitimate to do so (although it would of course still be raving bonkers as a policy). It would certainly be massively better than crashing us out in direct contradiction of the settled will of the current parliament.
If he doesn't get such a mandate, then the new parliament can consider what to do next - accept the Withdrawal Agreement, hold a referendum, go and fish for new unicorns, etc. But at least there will have been an election on the issue now facing us.
He is ON THE RECORD as stating that the chances of a Deal are 99.9999%.
Converted to real world language that is a certainty.
It is also therefore a guarantee.
It's entirely about optics, Corbyn won't be able to pass any controversial legislation with the house numbers as they are.
It is not at all an uncommon mode of senior management overreach.
If you want no trade barriers then don't Brexit, it really is that simple. All the rest is arguing about the height of the barriers.
The Deal doesn't stop the Brexit headache, it just closes the first phase and moves onto a time limited discussion of much wider issues.
I eggpect some divergence.
The A50 Extension letter is the electoral killer.
Labour wouldn't be 'saving' Johnson.
Johnson would be killing Labour by resigning.
He seems way too committed to no deal leavers to perform that switch now.
On a related note, isn't he off to have a procedure in October?
If we were planning a hard Brexit then we should have started building bigger customs and excise departments years ago. Indeed that was what I advocated from July 2016.
No Deal is not viable, not because of the Benn Act, because of the near complete lack of preparation for it.
I see no electoral benefit to Boris staying on if parliament refuses to vote for whatever he may bring back as a final deal.
Benn bill and crash out. No that’s too far fetched even for me isn’t it?
Asking for cheating fashion victim of some disrepute.
https://twitter.com/KeejayOV2/status/1177562682242871297
Boris can walk away and drop Labour down the well any time between now and the crunch date.
Add to that tariffs and other standard issues, then we quickly become persona non gratis.
Obviously things have moved on since then and we've nearly all become "radicalized" in some way over Brexit but I do think if they could get a deal from the EU that removed the backstop they would go with it.
Hamilton 3.35
Le Clerc 2.8
Vettel 5.2
Bottas 4.3
Max (5 place grid penalty); a rather lowly 6.2
I'll ask Ms Briskin if I can lay Bottas when she gets back.
UK farmers have a 15bill hole to fill, EU countries will have milk lakes, tomato mountains. The EU know this because Putin stopped all EU food imports and the consequences are well published.
But it still makes no sense. How do you have a withdrawal agreement without a Withdrawal Agreement?!
A TV vox pop from Stoke the other day illustrated this well. A bloke said -
"Look, we come out in October and that's it. Deal or No Deal, makes no difference to me. We've done it before and we can do it again."
Note the 'it' in the last sentence here and consider what it means.
It means 'stand alone against hostile foreign nations in war'.
This is powerful stuff and it is going on deep deep deep in the brain chemistry of Leavers.
Wittering on about tariffs and job losses and loss of GDP stands no chance whatsoever against it.