The problem is the GE date ( subject to the 25 working days rule ) is set by the PM via prerogative power. So if Corbyn wants a long campaign his options are ( a ) finding a legal route to bind the PM after granting a FTPA motion disolution. ( B ) Supporting a FTPA Bill that also sets the GE date in statute. ( C ) Announcing that Labour will support a FTPA motion in January and demand broadcasters act as if the campaign restrictions are in force already. He could challenge Johnson to debates before Christmas for instance to set the mood. Of course there is ( D ) become PM and set the date himself but do long campaigns suit governments ?
That's easy. To get only 25 working days, Boris Johnson needs to get a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons on a vote for an early election. Jeremy Corbyn can lengthen that by a fortnight just by ousting him via a vote of no confidence. Now, if the vote takes place on, say, 1 November, that means that the 14 days run out on 15 November. 25 working days then take us to 20 December. Is the government really going to insist on holding an election on the Friday before Christmas? To make absolutely sure of a still longer campaign, Jeremy Corbyn can schedule his vote of no confidence for, say, 6 November, thus making the seven week period expire on 28 December. Boris Johnson would be morally forced to defer the election until at least 4 January and in all probability he would choose 11 January, so that those away on holiday over Christmas would all vote.
That’s going to make some family Christmas dinners fun!
I know that we all think very little of our politicians, but does anyone seriously think that an election campaign running over Christmas is going to somehow endear them to us any more?
If not a 5th December election, it's going to be a campaign starting early Jan, for an election on 13th or 20th Feb.
If the EU deadline extension is until 31st Jan, then it's going to have to be 5th Dec for the election, called no later than 31st October.
The 1918 election took place on 14th December - so 12th December might just be possible. Beyond that Dissolution could occur in mid-December for an election on 23rd or 30th January.
I am beginning to wonder if a few pound on another referendum would be a good investment. The odds are still good but I see it as increasingly likely. Johnson seems to be doing OK at neutralising the threat of having to ask for an extension so a Labour policy to force a second referendum rather than a general election seems to have logic. The idea was force Johnson into a delay and then get an election when he was seen as weak. But if that does not happen forcing a referendum with May's deal (it is still the only deal available) or Remain as the two options will probably rip the Tories apart. People will need to campaign for options they voted against in the HoC and there would be a considerable risk that Remain would win. Holding a general election two weeks after the referendum would probably see the Tories in disarray. Yes there would be a risk to some Labour MPs but they would have to argue that the HoC is broken and asking the people is that only possible solution.
The problem with a referendum is that for sanity's sake it needs to include a "Leave with a deal" option. So it's difficult to see unless a deal at least cosmetically different from May's deal can be negotiated first. So now it's difficult to see without a change of government.
The bottom line is that the Good Friday Agreement means Britain has no right to take Northern Ireland out of the EU in anything but name. The only way to do it would be to renege on the treaty commitments Britain made under the GFA. Not a single political party has the guts to say this.
It is not a particularly shameful position to be in. Every country has treaty commitments. But basically both Leave and Remain lied about this to the electorate in 2016.
Surely not Remain. I well remember this being discussed well before the 2016 vote - quite apart from what was in the media, I pointed it out to a keen Brexiter (married to an Irish lady), and a friend of mine had a chat with someone of diplomatic experience who noted that Brexit was an a priori breach of that international treaty.
I am glad to hear that.
What I recall said on the Remain side is that a British departure from the EU would mess up relations in Ireland and could bring back the Troubles, but if it was clearly said that Brexit would be a breach of British treaty commitments under the GFA then I take back that part of what I wrote. Unfortunately everything is so toxified now that this simple fact may remain buried under a mountain of "process" considerations (to put it politely). The Leave side, including this disgracefully piss-taking government, prefers to blame the Germans rather than say "Let's Renege on the GFA - It's Worth It".
Me too, though as Byronic makes clear there is a difference between official campaigns and wider debate.
I seem to remember either Osborne or Cam himself or perhaps even Blair pre-ref say that it would endanger the NI peace process.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
Anyone who thinks May's deal is remain is too dumb to vote hence it would be no loss.
I'd have gone for May's Deal on both V2 and MV3 but now Merkel has said May's deal is actually the annexation of Northern Ireland its difficult to see many Leavers (or Remainers) being able to support it.
You have no idea what Merkel said.
If she hasn't said it she'd have denied it.
You have no idea of that either.
You're scraping the barrel here. She's been accused of effectively telling the Birish Prime Minister that the only was the UK can leave the EU is if we allow Northern Ireland to be annexed.
Even the EU/ROI seems shocked by what she's supposed to have said.
You seriously think if she hadn't said it she and those close to her wouldn't be "cliarifying" what she actually did say?
What I think is irrelevant. You, and others here, have created a narrative which has become "the truth". But it's not the truth. It is your imagination.
None of us know what she said and all the shoulda woulda coulda about what she might have said means nothing.
The bottom line is that the Good Friday Agreement means Britain has no right to take Northern Ireland out of the EU in anything but name. The only way to do it would be to renege on the treaty commitments Britain made under the GFA. Not a single political party has the guts to say this.
It is not a particularly shameful position to be in. Every country has treaty commitments. But basically both Leave and Remain lied about this to the electorate in 2016.
Surely not Remain. I well remember this being discussed well before the 2016 vote - quite apart from what was in the media, I pointed it out to a keen Brexiter (married to an Irish lady), and a friend of mine had a chat with someone of diplomatic experience who noted that Brexit was an a priori breach of that international treaty.
I am glad to hear that.
What I recall said on the Remain side is that a British departure from the EU would mess up relations in Ireland and could bring back the Troubles, but if it was clearly said that Brexit would be a breach of British treaty commitments under the GFA then I take back that part of what I wrote. Unfortunately everything is so toxified now that this simple fact may remain buried under a mountain of "process" considerations (to put it politely). The Leave side, including this disgracefully piss-taking government, prefers to blame the Germans rather than say "Let's Renege on the GFA - It's Worth It".
Me too, though as Byronic makes clear there is a difference between official campaigns and wider debate.
I seem to remember either Osborne or Cam himself or perhaps even Blair pre-ref said that it would endanger the NI peace process.
A no deal Brexit, let alone a deal Brexit, does not renege on the GFA though.
Hence all this amorphous bullshit about "the spirit of the GFA".
The GFA is a matter of law. If it was getting breached then we would be seeing court cases to enforce the law.
We haven't breached it yet have we?
Don't need to breach it first to have a court case. Miller case was before invocation and so was today's court case which got adjourned because of assurances the law would be followed.
Why isn't there a Miller case to outlaw No Deal if the GFA makes it unlawful?
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
Anyone who thinks May's deal is remain is too dumb to vote hence it would be no loss.
I'd have gone for May's Deal on both V2 and MV3 but now Merkel has said May's deal is actually the annexation of Northern Ireland its difficult to see many Leavers (or Remainers) being able to support it.
You have no idea what Merkel said.
If she hasn't said it she'd have denied it.
You have no idea of that either.
You're scraping the barrel here. She's been accused of effectively telling the Birish Prime Minister that the only was the UK can leave the EU is if we allow Northern Ireland to be annexed.
Even the EU/ROI seems shocked by what she's supposed to have said.
You seriously think if she hadn't said it she and those close to her wouldn't be "cliarifying" what she actually did say?
What I think is irrelevant. You, and others here, have created a narrative which has become "the truth". But it's not the truth. It is your imagination.
None of us know what she said and all the shoulda woulda coulda about what she might have said means nothing.
It's not me who's barrel scraping.
It's not our imagination. One party in the conversation said this was said.
[talking about making Corbyn PM...] "apply to those voters who are broadly in the moderate centre ground of politics..."
LOL
What I'm saying is that Remainers who are both turned off by Corbyn's radical Left politics AND live in a Lab/Con marginal have a tricky decision to make in the polling booth if they wish to embrace the tactical aspect of the GE.
Which prospect do they hate the most, PM Corbyn or Brexit?
Are you LOLing because it's just a blindingly obvious point that doesn't really need making?
And I was replying to your post re that choice.
The LOL was the juxtaposition you used in your post.
Scotland is surely more sensitive to NI issues than the London bubble
I don't think the omission was malign or deliberate. As ever, NI was overlooked. An afterthought. The border just doesn't have any salience in the English mindset. Most people forget we even have a land border "with the EU". The GFA has intensified this attitude.
I remember thinking of Ulster for about 5 seconds before voting, then I ignored the issue.
Not any more.
Me neither. Pathetic really.
I pride myself on being politically very informed and thoughtful - guess that's obvious to all - and yet I gave little or no consideration when voting in 2016 to the issue which lies at the very heart of Brexit.
My fault or that of the "political class"? Both, I guess.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
Anyone who thinks May's deal is remain is too dumb to vote hence it would be no loss.
I'd have gone for May's Deal on both V2 and MV3 but now Merkel has said May's deal is actually the annexation of Northern Ireland its difficult to see many Leavers (or Remainers) being able to support it.
You have no idea what Merkel said.
If she hasn't said it she'd have denied it.
You have no idea of that either.
You're scraping the barrel here. She's been accused of effectively telling the Birish Prime Minister that the only was the UK can leave the EU is if we allow Northern Ireland to be annexed.
Even the EU/ROI seems shocked by what she's supposed to have said.
You seriously think if she hadn't said it she and those close to her wouldn't be "cliarifying" what she actually did say?
What I think is irrelevant. You, and others here, have created a narrative which has become "the truth". But it's not the truth. It is your imagination.
None of us know what she said and all the shoulda woulda coulda about what she might have said means nothing.
It's not me who's barrel scraping.
You should calm down, and take your cue from the continental press, which largely accepts that she said this
The bottom line is that the Good Friday Agreement means Britain has no right to take Northern Ireland out of the EU in anything but name. The only way to do it would be to renege on the treaty commitments Britain made under the GFA. Not a single political party has the guts to say this.
It is not a particularly shameful position to be in. Every country has treaty commitments. But basically both Leave and Remain lied about this to the electorate in 2016.
Surely not Remain. I well remember this being discussed well before the 2016 vote - quite apart from what was in the media, I pointed it out to a keen Brexiter (married to an Irish lady), and a friend of mine had a chat with someone of diplomatic experience who noted that Brexit was an a priori breach of that international treaty.
Ireland was almost entirely unmentioned by both sides, including Remain
Have a look at the Remain campaign. Or see these summaries
Incidentally, how bad was the Remain campaign? It always astonishes. Even their name, Britain Stronger in Europe. Awkward, clumsy, offputting, and reduces to an acronym that means mad cow disease.
What do you mean "was"? The Remain campaign has not been interrupted by the mere fact they lost the referendum
I would boycott the next referendum even though I voted Remain. I am definitely in a small minority of Remainers, but not a negligible one.
The bottom line is that the Good Friday Agreement means Britain has no right to take Northern Ireland out of the EU in anything but name. The only way to do it would be to renege on the treaty commitments Britain made under the GFA. Not a single political party has the guts to say this.
It is not a particularly shameful position to be in. Every country has treaty commitments. But basically both Leave and Remain lied about this to the electorate in 2016.
Surely not Remain. I well remember this being discussed well before the 2016 vote - quite apart from what was in the media, I pointed it out to a keen Brexiter (married to an Irish lady), and a friend of mine had a chat with someone of diplomatic experience who noted that Brexit was an a priori breach of that international treaty.
I am glad to hear that.
What I recall said on the Remain side is that a British departure from the EU would mess up relations in Ireland and could bring back the Troubles, but if it was clearly said that Brexit would be a breach of British treaty commitments under the GFA then I take back that part of what I wrote. Unfortunately everything is so toxified now that this simple fact may remain buried under a mountain of "process" considerations (to put it politely). The Leave side, including this disgracefully piss-taking government, prefers to blame the Germans rather than say "Let's Renege on the GFA - It's Worth It".
Me too, though as Byronic makes clear there is a difference between official campaigns and wider debate.
I seem to remember either Osborne or Cam himself or perhaps even Blair pre-ref say that it would endanger the NI peace process.
Don't ask me to find the quote that said.
Why did you even bother to type that?
Because it *was* brought up pre referendum.
And now, whisper it to XR, but I'm about to taxi to the runway for take off so adieu.
Every evening SeanT wakes up, feeling oddly tired, eats the light breakfast on the table, gets drunk and high, and passes out around midnight. Every morning Byronic wakes up, feeling oddly tired, does the work for the day, makes a light breakfast and leaves it on the table, then goes to bed early. The two have never met and find comparisons between them genuinely puzzling. However they do have some things in common as their psychiatrist and case worker are desperately trying to not mention.
Scotland is surely more sensitive to NI issues than the London bubble
I don't think the omission was malign or deliberate. As ever, NI was overlooked. An afterthought. The border just doesn't have any salience in the English mindset. Most people forget we even have a land border "with the EU". The GFA has intensified this attitude.
I remember thinking of Ulster for about 5 seconds before voting, then I ignored the issue.
Not any more.
Me neither. Pathetic really.
I pride myself on being politically very informed and thoughtful - guess that's obvious to all - and yet I gave little or no consideration when voting in 2016 to the issue which lies at the very heart of Brexit.
My fault or that of the "political class"? Both, I guess.
Not sure how you both missed it. Some people were shouting from the rooftops about it. It was one of the reasons I signed up to hand out leaflets for the Remain campaign. I knew a leave vote would open a pandoras box and so it has. I always feel a little amused that some Brexists have the absolute nick to blame people like me for exactly the situation we warned would happen. But I don't take it personally or even seriously, since everyone else is also seemingly to blame too: Remainers, Ireland, Cameron, Germany, Scotland, foreigners, The Guardian, Labour, capitalism, Gary Linekar, you name it. There are more scapegoats than ballot papers.
Every evening SeanT wakes up, feeling oddly tired, eats the light breakfast on the table, gets drunk and high, and passes out around midnight. Every morning Byronic wakes up, feeling oddly tired, does the work for the day, makes a light breakfast and leaves it on the table, then goes to bed early. The two have never met and find comparisons between them genuinely puzzling. However they do have some things in common as their psychiatrist and case worker are desperately trying to not mention.
Like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Except they're both Mr Hyde.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
Anyone who thinks May's deal is remain is too dumb to vote hence it would be no loss.
I'd have gone for May's Deal on both V2 and MV3 but now Merkel has said May's deal is actually the annexation of Northern Ireland its difficult to see many Leavers (or Remainers) being able to support it.
You have no idea what Merkel said.
LOL! Yes we do!
No you don't. Show me the transcript.
Don't need a transcript to have an "idea" what Merkel said.
Oh. So now it's an "idea". Yours presumably. Well perhaps you will be amazed to hear that your idea means absolutely fuck all in the scheme of things.
Plenty have defended the alleged thrust of merkels supposed comments as true. The argument over precise words used is both tiresome and pointless, and outrage at the words or misinterpretation of the words is hypocritical garbage from no.10 spinners and their opponents. (Like the decrying a blame game even as both sides play it)
The only thing that matters is whether the key points are broadly correct. Few seem to dispute that, only the tone and precise words.
The bottom line is that the Good Friday Agreement means Britain has no right to take Northern Ireland out of the EU in anything but name. The only way to do it would be to renege on the treaty commitments Britain made under the GFA. Not a single political party has t It is not a particularly shameful position to be in. Every country has treaty commitments. But basically both Leave and Remain lied about this to the electorate in 2016.
Surely not Remain. I well remember this being discussed well before the 2016 vote - quite apart from what was in the media, I pointed it out to a keen Brexiter (married to an Irish lady), and a friend of mine had a chat with someone of diplomatic experience who noted that Brexit was an a priori breach of that international treaty.
Ireland was almost entirely unmentioned by both sides, including Remain
IIRC Major and Blair went to NI during the campaign and warned of trouble if Leave won, and were mocked for their pains. I pointed out here frequently that there would be problems and was similarly mocked. I wouldn't use the word "unmentioned" to describe two former Prime Ministers and one statistician doing the equivalent of Biff going "Hello! McFly! "
I keep using the phrase "hemispheric neglect" to describe the propensity of some people in Britain to actively refuse to speak of Northern Ireland, to the point of forgetting it immediately the conversation ceases. It like the Silence in Doctor Who, it's that dramatic.
It's a bit of a partisan rant to be honest. There are some good points, but the effect of those is damped by silliness: https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1181823824356093952 The answer is no, we don't shut down all the other power stations. The generation capacity has to exceed the use capacity for continuity of supply. Plus, if capacity rises above use, there are options for storage or export. There is nothing wrong with wanting to have wind power capacity covering 100% of our domestic electricity needs.
Lastly, the tweeter is from the Centre of Policy Studies. That is one of the most opaque think tanks around. They do not disclose their funding, which means the kind of partisan rant he's tweeted out might actually be a paid-for PR piece trying to discredit a policy that some rich business(person) might like to see squashed (we don't know either way). The CPS has a transparency score of zero -- yes, zero -- with Transparify (https://www.transparify.org/) and should be regarded as an unregulated advertiser rather than a body that analyses policy fairly or campaigns openly on behalf of donors who are happy to not hide in the shadows.
He's right though. Keeping the Government out of the practical implementation is critical to cost efficiency / maximum saving of the planet. Which is one reason why rail privatisation has been such a success.
When our Council had a grant for a number of External Wall Insulation installations, all the Council's Main Contractor achieved was to add about 50% to the cost in return for paper-pushing wrapped around a separate supplier. Found out who the supplier was and the cost quote reduced by 30-40%.
Or consider the thicker Greenies when the Govt were trying to reduce solar subsidies - they went on demanding huge FiT payments when the technology had halved in cost over a very few years, thereby proposing to reduce planet-saving by that amount for a given amount of money. All it would have achieved would be more multimillion fortunes for owners of rent-a-roof companies. But then Greenies generally do not care about piddling away public money.
I prioritise whether a think tank has have a cogent analysis or not over whether they are approved of by a self-appointed 'regulator'.
Correction: May's deal was a complete sellout to the EU.
Boris did not think so, in the end. He thought and presumably still believes it was better than no Brexit at all, so if it was a sellout it was not a complete one.
Comments
None of us know what she said and all the shoulda woulda coulda about what she might have said means nothing.
It's not me who's barrel scraping.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/tony-blair-john-major-warn-brexit-risks-peace-process-1.2678204
Why isn't there a Miller case to outlaw No Deal if the GFA makes it unlawful?
The LOL was the juxtaposition you used in your post.
I pride myself on being politically very informed and thoughtful - guess that's obvious to all - and yet I gave little or no consideration when voting in 2016 to the issue which lies at the very heart of Brexit.
My fault or that of the "political class"? Both, I guess.
And now, whisper it to XR, but I'm about to taxi to the runway for take off so adieu.
But I don't take it personally or even seriously, since everyone else is also seemingly to blame too: Remainers, Ireland, Cameron, Germany, Scotland, foreigners, The Guardian, Labour, capitalism, Gary Linekar, you name it. There are more scapegoats than ballot papers.
The only thing that matters is whether the key points are broadly correct. Few seem to dispute that, only the tone and precise words.
I keep using the phrase "hemispheric neglect" to describe the propensity of some people in Britain to actively refuse to speak of Northern Ireland, to the point of forgetting it immediately the conversation ceases. It like the Silence in Doctor Who, it's that dramatic.
When our Council had a grant for a number of External Wall Insulation installations, all the Council's Main Contractor achieved was to add about 50% to the cost in return for paper-pushing wrapped around a separate supplier. Found out who the supplier was and the cost quote reduced by 30-40%.
Or consider the thicker Greenies when the Govt were trying to reduce solar subsidies - they went on demanding huge FiT payments when the technology had halved in cost over a very few years, thereby proposing to reduce planet-saving by that amount for a given amount of money. All it would have achieved would be more multimillion fortunes for owners of rent-a-roof companies. But then Greenies generally do not care about piddling away public money.
I prioritise whether a think tank has have a cogent analysis or not over whether they are approved of by a self-appointed 'regulator'.
I think it should be a lot higher for a Brexit probably more of a chance in Japan winning the rugby world cup.