Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » An unconventional carry-on

245

Comments

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    IanB2 said:

    The lead nicely summarises much of recent debate.

    The political consequences - short and long - will be key. And will hang upon how the story ends. I can see a scenario where in the short term Bozo is cheered along for his ruthless desperation by those keen to see the deed done, but in the long term as everything starts to unravel both he and his party sink to the absolute bottom of popularity and reputation.

    After the economic figures were released, ministers appeared to openly contradict one another about the impact of leaving the European Union without an agreement.

    Sajid Javid, the chancellor, denied that the economy was at risk of entering a recession and said that a no-deal Brexit was “nothing to be frightened of”. He added: “We will be ready for it, we will get through it, we will come out stronger and even more resilient.”

    George Freeman, a transport minister, said that a no-deal Brexit would be an “absolute disaster” and could lead to the Conservatives being out of power for 20 years.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/bailout-fund-to-prop-up-businesses-after-brexit-8w2883fz2

    BoZo's only chance of winning an election is before crashing out. Until then he keeps the Brexiteers on board.

    When the food rationing starts, he is fucked.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,422
    OllyT said:

    What this header does not acknowledge - in fact, nobody acknowledges - is that what drives Boris and Cummings is that very sense of fair play. Parliament entered into a compact with the voters. Once and for all, we will put the issue of the EU to bed with a referendum, MPs said. PM Cameron said he would implement the outcome of that referndum. Startled by that outcome they may have been, but Parliament undertook to serve the Article 50 notice. At the election in 2017, 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging to implment Brexit.

    But then, MPs cheated. The likes of Grieve and Soubry and Wollaston, not to mention dozens of Labour MPs, took out the sandpaper and - in full view of the umpire - tampered with the ball. Despite pledges made to voters, they demonstrated they had no intention of passing ANY form of Brexit.

    And now those same cheating MPs are bitching that they are facing bodyline bowling. Well boo bloody hoo.


    As you say, nobody acknowledges it and nobody acknowledges it because it is not true.

    Cummings and Johnson are trying to hijack the referendum result and impose an outcome that we were told would not happen.
    None so blind....

    How the f*** do you hijack a referendum result to leave the EU by, er, leaving the EU?

    Point and laugh at Remainers time.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 71,784

    nielh said:

    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    David

    I know that you want to justify your decision to quit, but I think you are being unfair to the government here

    The tone of your piece is unremitting negative towards the government but when you look at the individual steps all of their actions are reasonable/justifiable (as you acknowledge)

    1. They won’t (even if out of fear of the Speaker) try to prevent a VoNC. I’ve not seen anyone suggest that they will

    2. They won’t resign until it is clear someone else can command a majority. That is in line with precedent. They are not going to try to hang on afterwards. My guess is that Times article was a decoy by Cummings to get the Remainers wasting time and energy on something that’s not going to happen

    3. Corbyn is the most likely alternative - I matter instead.

    What we are seeing is a government with a majority of one and a PM elected by a small self selected unrepresentative group (Tory party members) taking a hugely damaging step against the wishes of a majority of citizens and a majority of MPs. That's what he's doing wrong.

    It's a very British coup. He and his party will suffer mightily for it but that's no consolation. The rest of us will too.
    My gut feeling is that they wont suffer for it. They will end up as the winners.

    Short-term, without doubt. Unless there is epic tactical voting the Tories look nailed on to win the next general election. But they cannot solve the problems the No Deal they are set to inflict on us will create. And they will not be forgiven for that. I’d expect a priority for the Johnson government after the next GE will be more GOP imports: a focus on ways to gerrymander the constituency map and aggressive voter suppression. But even that may not be enough to save them.

    The Tories have already been in office for 3 terms and have only won a fourth term once in the last century. It would be triumph enough if Boris delivers a historic 4th consecutive Tory government (Labour has never won a 4th term and only got a third term once under Blair) but you have to go back to Lord Liverpool in the early 19th century to find a Tory government that lasted more than 4 terms (and indeed that was pre Reform Act) so Deal or No Deal I cannot see the Tories getting a 5th term (though if Corbynism retains its grip on Labour it might take the LDs to oust them)
  • MattWMattW Posts: 3,417
    Nice header. Not totally clear that I agree with all of it, though.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 32,865
    algarkirk said:

    Charles said:

    David

    I know that you want to justify your decision to quit, but I think you are being unfair to the government here

    The tone of your piece is unremitting negative towards the government but when you look at the individual steps all of their actions are reasonable/justifiable (as you acknowledge)

    1. They won’t (even if out of fear of the Speaker) try to prevent a VoNC. I’ve not seen anyone suggest that they will

    2. They won’t resign until it is clear someone else can command a majority. That is in line with precedent. They are not going to try to hang on afterwards. My guess is that Times article was a decoy by Cummings to get the Remainers wasting time and energy on something that’s not going to happen

    3. Corbyn is the most likely alternative - I agree with your assessment (and think it’s entirely logical and reasonable behaviour by Labour) but that’s not really the government’s fault

    4. Not seeking an extension - Brexiting on Oct 31 is the status quo at the moment. Essentially - as you acknowledge - Remainers are complaining that the government is going to implement the law that parliament passed and not stop it (in an act that would cause great political harm). This is reinforced by the fact that the FTPA give Parliament 14 days to select a new government and - in this scenario - they will have chosen not to

    All of the above are within both the rules AND the spirit / convention of our system. I’m no fan of Boris (or leaving without a deal) but I’m struggling to see what he is doing wrong on these technical issues

    What we are seeing is a bunch of Remainers (not you specifically) in politics and the media thrashing about trying to make mud stick. They’ve been outplayed - there is a small window where they can do something effective to get what they want but they are wasting their time whinging about things that really don’t matter instead.

    Spot on. In particular the PM is the PM until someone else is. We have got so used to everyone getting away with having opinions about what they don't want and not what they do that we have forgotten it's not enough not to want Boris and the Tories, you have to decide what you want instead - in some detail. Boris and co are the government until there is another option that the PM believes could command confidence (Gordon Brown 2010). We are not anarchists (yet).

    Good header by David, but I think it extremely unlikely that Johnson will refuse to leave Downing Street if NoVC has passed and there is another who can command the confidence.

    What would be the point of his petulance, other to be doing what Rasputin has told him to do?

    The Queen will dismiss him, and it will never be forgotten that the Conservative Party no less was the one that dragged her into politics and tried to break the constitutional monarchy's delicate balancing act.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 3,510

    I think David is spot on. Cummings is a wrecking ball. Johnson wants to be PM. They will do whatever it takes to get No Deal over the line.


    I think that is right but Cummings got the gig because he was only one with any sort of plan of what to do. In the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man is king. I doubt Johnson had thought beyond winning the prize.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 32,865
    As some of us on PB have been saying for many months:

    "Jeremy Corbyn sees no-deal as the perfect moment for a Leninist revolution"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/10/jeremy-corbyn-sees-no-deal-perfect-moment-leninist-revolution/
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,562
    moonshine said:

    What this header does not acknowledge - in fact, nobody acknowledges - is that what drives Boris and Cummings is that very sense of fair play. Parliament entered into a compact with the voters. Once and for all, we will put the issue of the EU to bed with a referendum, MPs said. PM Cameron said he would implement the outcome of that referndum. Startled by that outcome they may have been, but Parliament undertook to serve the Article 50 notice. At the election in 2017, 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging to implment Brexit.

    But then, MPs cheated. The likes of Grieve and Soubry and Wollaston, not to mention dozens of Labour MPs, took out the sandpaper and - in full view of the umpire - tampered with the ball. Despite pledges made to voters, they demonstrated they had no intention of passing ANY form of Brexit.

    And now those same cheating MPs are bitching that they are facing bodyline bowling. Well boo bloody hoo.

    Super stuff. This summer is beginning to look like the final unedifying thrashing of the Remainer corpse. In years to come this will be seen as the textbook case in how not to do politics. If they had deliberately set out to maximise the chances of a No Deal exit, the Remain campaign could scarcely have done a more effective job than they have these past years. We’re heading in a slightly regrettable and unnecessary direction and it’s all their fault.
    Yes. The Remainers best tactic would have been to fairly quietly see through the softest Brexit practicable (TM's for example) with the the longest possible transition period. (This may of course still happen, but few thanks to remainers). In this eventuality the mandate of the referendum is discharged and it becomes entirely practical politics and morally decent to campaign for another vote on the matter (ask Nicola Sturgeon who is doing exactly that re Scottish independence). The long transition gives a time for sensible and mature reflection on both sides. I am not holding my breath.

  • Mr. Observer, possibly.

    But the Clown Prince's great sun around which all his deeds and thoughts orbit is not No Deal, but his own ambition. Those seeking to avert said departure should harness the fool's egocentrism to the chariot of either a deal, or a referendum.

    Or just take Parliamentary action, of course.

    That's the key distinction, I think. Cummings wants Brexit, as soon as possible, and (according to Robert Person) isn't planning on being around for the fallout. Johnson wants to be PM, so needs to be liked. At the moment, those aims coincide, but they won't forever. In fact, it's not obvious that they will continue to do so all the way to Halloween.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 2,352
    edited August 2019
    Scott_P said:

    IanB2 said:

    The lead nicely summarises much of recent debate.

    The political consequences - short and long - will be key. And will hang upon how the story ends. I can see a scenario where in the short term Bozo is cheered along for his ruthless desperation by those keen to see the deed done, but in the long term as everything starts to unravel both he and his party sink to the absolute bottom of popularity and reputation.

    After the economic figures were released, ministers appeared to openly contradict one another about the impact of leaving the European Union without an agreement.

    Sajid Javid, the chancellor, denied that the economy was at risk of entering a recession and said that a no-deal Brexit was “nothing to be frightened of”. He added: “We will be ready for it, we will get through it, we will come out stronger and even more resilient.”

    George Freeman, a transport minister, said that a no-deal Brexit would be an “absolute disaster” and could lead to the Conservatives being out of power for 20 years.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/bailout-fund-to-prop-up-businesses-after-brexit-8w2883fz2

    BoZo's only chance of winning an election is before crashing out. Until then he keeps the Brexiteers on board.

    When the food rationing starts, he is fucked.
    Yes. I assume Cummings, with his fixation with wargaming and brainstorming scenarios, and apparent interest in alternative histories, will have thought this through.

    If Johnson goes for the most likely option to save his skin, a pre-crashout election, that carries significant risks too - but it does offer him the unlikely, but not impossible prospect, of a BRX-Tory explicit mandate for no-deal. There is also the issue that Cummings says he is leaving the job on October 31, though that could be at least partial gamesmanship too.

    The final possibility, which we and all parliamentarians still have to consider and plan for, is that Johnson and Cummings really mean it and there will be a post-crashout election. They hold a trump card here because the stakes are so high that parliament must act on this, whether it is ready to happen or not.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,211

    What this header does not acknowledge - in fact, nobody acknowledges - is that what drives Boris and Cummings is that very sense of fair play. Parliament entered into a compact with the voters. Once and for all, we will put the issue of the EU to bed with a referendum, MPs said. PM Cameron said he would implement the outcome of that referndum. Startled by that outcome they may have been, but Parliament undertook to serve the Article 50 notice. At the election in 2017, 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging to implment Brexit.

    But then, MPs cheated. The likes of Grieve and Soubry and Wollaston, not to mention dozens of Labour MPs, took out the sandpaper and - in full view of the umpire - tampered with the ball. Despite pledges made to voters, they demonstrated they had no intention of passing ANY form of Brexit.

    And now those same cheating MPs are bitching that they are facing bodyline bowling. Well boo blooody hoo.

    The governing party, which proposed and passed the Brexit legislation, was unable to agree amongst itself on what kind of Brexit to proceed with, and then was found to be utterly inept in its preparations for any kind of Brexit. The result was that Brexit was delayed. Grieve, amongst others, only got involved once it was clear that no-deal was a real possibility, largely because of this internal failure to agree.

    What has changed is simply that the preparations for the hardest and most last-resort kind of Brexit seem to be becoming more professionalised ; bureaucratic reform is Cumming's selling point and raison d'etre. The underlying fissures within the conservative party that set this entire crisis in mention from 2016 remain, to use a choice phrase.
    You choose to ignore that Labour MPs have chosen to play for political advantage, rather than implement their commitment to the voters. If they were honest, they would have signed up to May's Deal - or at least tried to make meaningful proress on shaping it when invited to do so. The current House is full of MPs intent on cheating the voters. As long as Boris plays a straight bat, it will serve him well in the upcoming election. Where wickets will tumble.....
    It is all down to May and the Tories who chose to exclude everyone else from the process, not realising they were actually thick as mince and unable to understand brexit or how to negotiate deals.
  • Barnesian said:

    I think David is spot on. Cummings is a wrecking ball. Johnson wants to be PM. They will do whatever it takes to get No Deal over the line.

    Johnson is already PM! He needs a large secure majority for a successful five year term. That means a GE very soon. No Deal might give him a majority by attracting Brexit party members. But it won't give him a successful five year term. Nothing but pain.

    He needs parliament to get him off the hook of No Deal so he can go on a Betrayal Who Governs? GE campaign.

    Johnson cares about Johnson. Five years and more of pain for the UK is fine by him. He’ll be in Number 10 pretending to be Winston Churchill.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,044
    algarkirk said:

    moonshine said:

    What this header does not acknowledge - in fact, nobody acknowledges - is that what drives Boris and Cummings is that very sense of fair play. Parliament entered into a compact with the voters. Once and for all, we will put the issue of the EU to bed with a referendum, MPs said. PM Cameron said he would implement the outcome of that referndum. Startled by that outcome they may have been, but Parliament undertook to serve the Article 50 notice. At the election in 2017, 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging to implment Brexit.

    But then, MPs cheated. The likes of Grieve and Soubry and Wollaston, not to mention dozens of Labour MPs, took out the sandpaper and - in full view of the umpire - tampered with the ball. Despite pledges made to voters, they demonstrated they had no intention of passing ANY form of Brexit.

    And now those same cheating MPs are bitching that they are facing bodyline bowling. Well boo bloody hoo.

    Super stuff. This summer is beginning to look like the final unedifying thrashing of the Remainer corpse. In years to come this will be seen as the textbook case in how not to do politics. If they had deliberately set out to maximise the chances of a No Deal exit, the Remain campaign could scarcely have done a more effective job than they have these past years. We’re heading in a slightly regrettable and unnecessary direction and it’s all their fault.
    Yes. The Remainers best tactic would have been to fairly quietly see through the softest Brexit practicable (TM's for example) with the the longest possible transition period. (This may of course still happen, but few thanks to remainers). In this eventuality the mandate of the referendum is discharged and it becomes entirely practical politics and morally decent to campaign for another vote on the matter (ask Nicola Sturgeon who is doing exactly that re Scottish independence). The long transition gives a time for sensible and mature reflection on both sides. I am not holding my breath.

    You both seem to think that a chaotic no deal exit is in the interests of Leavers. It seems to me that there is either going to be a chaotic no deal exit, which will do nothing to build a consensus for Brexit and in all probability result in a rejoin sooner rather than later, or a panicked revocation of the Article 50 notice. Neither look like good outcomes for Leavers.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,517

    moonshine said:

    What this header does not acknowledge - in fact, nobody acknowledges - is that what drives Boris and Cummings is that very sense of fair play. Parliament entered into a compact with the voters. Once and for all, we will put the issue of the EU to bed with a referendum, MPs said. PM Cameron said he would implement the outcome of that referndum. Startled by that outcome they may have been, but Parliament undertook to serve the Article 50 notice. At the election in 2017, 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging to implment Brexit.

    But then, MPs cheated. The likes of Grieve and Soubry and Wollaston, not to mention dozens of Labour MPs, took out the sandpaper and - in full view of the umpire - tampered with the ball. Despite pledges made to voters, they demonstrated they had no intention of passing ANY form of Brexit.

    And now those same cheating MPs are bitching that they are facing bodyline bowling. Well boo bloody hoo.

    Super stuff. This summer is beginning to look like the final unedifying thrashing of the Remainer corpse. In years to come this will be seen as the textbook case in how not to do politics. If they had deliberately set out to maximise the chances of a No Deal exit, the Remain campaign could scarcely have done a more effective job than they have these past years. We’re heading in a slightly regrettable and unnecessary direction and it’s all their fault.
    Leavers trash democratic norms and it’s all Remainers’ fault? Honestly, there is absolutely nothing that Leavers will take responsibility for.
    It was a Remainer (Gina Miller) who allowed the MPs to play silly beggars and keep "no deal" alive.
    It was the courts which pointed out that the government was subject to the law. If anyone was playing “silly beggars” it was a government which seemed to think it was above the law.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,562
    All this discussion is only happening because Boris is negotiating in exactly the way TM was criticised for not doing. Where did that get her? His position remains that he wants a deal. If you want peace, prepare for war and all that...Speculation is running way ahead of events.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited August 2019

    Some added spice might be added by the party conferences running through the likely VONC season and run-up to Brexit.

    Lib Dems: 14 to 17/9
    Labour: 21 to 25/9
    Conservatives: 29/9 to 2/10
    SNP: 13 to 15/10
    DUP: could not see anything on their web site.

    The Cabinet Manual (see 2.19 on page 15 for VONCs and resignations) can be found at:
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdf

    And a Select Committee review of it, including complaints that remind us the Cabinet Manual is not handed down on tablets of stone, as does DH's header:
    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/233/233.pdf

    One other known unknown is David Cameron's memoirs due out in mid-September so review copies should be going out shortly. In the past, Cameron has been less than complimentary about Dominic Cummings, though on Brexit his ire seems to have been directed at Michael Gove more than Boris, perhaps because Gove was seen as a friend as well as a colleague.

    There may well be nothing in the Cameron book but remember it is just a few weeks since Michael Gove's chance of becoming prime minister was destroyed by advance copies of his (then forthcoming, now published) biography.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,044
    algarkirk said:

    All this discussion is only happening because Boris is negotiating in exactly the way TM was criticised for not doing. Where did that get her? His position remains that he wants a deal. If you want peace, prepare for war and all that...Speculation is running way ahead of events.

    That’s not true. Britain currently has no negotiating position, reasonable or not.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 32,865

    Scott_P said:

    IanB2 said:

    The lead nicely summarises much of recent debate.

    The political consequences - short and long - will be key. And will hang upon how the story ends. I can see a scenario where in the short term Bozo is cheered along for his ruthless desperation by those keen to see the deed done, but in the long term as everything starts to unravel both he and his party sink to the absolute bottom of popularity and reputation.

    After the economic figures were released, ministers appeared to openly contradict one another about the impact of leaving the European Union without an agreement.

    Sajid Javid, the chancellor, denied that the economy was at risk of entering a recession and said that a no-deal Brexit was “nothing to be frightened of”. He added: “We will be ready for it, we will get through it, we will come out stronger and even more resilient.”

    George Freeman, a transport minister, said that a no-deal Brexit would be an “absolute disaster” and could lead to the Conservatives being out of power for 20 years.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/bailout-fund-to-prop-up-businesses-after-brexit-8w2883fz2

    BoZo's only chance of winning an election is before crashing out. Until then he keeps the Brexiteers on board.

    When the food rationing starts, he is fucked.
    Yes. I assume Cummings, with his fixation with wargaming and brainstorming scenarios, and apparent interest in alternative histories, will have thought this through.

    If Johnson goes for the most likely option to save his skin, a pre-crashout election, that carries significant risks too - but it does offer him the unlikely, but not impossible prospect, of a BRX-Tory explicit mandate for no-deal. There is also the issue that Cummings says he is leaving the job on October 31, though that could be at least partial gamesmanship too.

    The final possibility, which we and all parliamentarians still have to consider and plan for, is that Johnson and Cummings really mean it and there will be a post-crashout election. They hold a trump card here because the stakes are so high that parliament must act on this, whether it is ready to happen or not.
    Good luck to Johnson winning an election after No Deal. The Tories wont see power again for a generation.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,211

    The prospect of Scottish Independence grows every day the Westminster parliament appears to be more corrupt. I have started my planning for the break up of the Union. An event I never thought I would see.

    A month or so ago I posted that I felt the country was in recession. I see it has got worse since last month. The service sector in particular has hit the rocks

    A rarity, a Scottish unionist who sees reality and does not just spout SNPBAD.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,517
    algarkirk said:

    All this discussion is only happening because Boris is negotiating in exactly the way TM was criticised for not doing. Where did that get her? His position remains that he wants a deal. If you want peace, prepare for war and all that...Speculation is running way ahead of events.

    Rubbish. May was criticised for not trying to build a consensus. In what way is Johnson trying to build a consensus?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,562
    edited August 2019
    Cyclefree said:

    moonshine said:

    What this header does not acknowledge - in fact, nobody acknowledges - is that what drives Boris and Cummings is that very sense of fair play. Parliament entered into a compact with the voters. Once and for all, we will put the issue of the EU to bed with a referendum, MPs said. PM Cameron said he would implement the outcome of that referndum. Startled by that outcome they may have been, but Parliament undertook to serve the Article 50 notice. At the election in 2017, 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging to implment Brexit.

    But then, MPs cheated. The likes of Grieve and Soubry and Wollaston, not to mention dozens of Labour MPs, took out the sandpaper and - in full view of the umpire - tampered with the ball. Despite pledges made to voters, they demonstrated they had no intention of passing ANY form of Brexit.

    And now those same cheating MPs are bitching that they are facing bodyline bowling. Well boo bloody hoo.

    Super stuff. This summer is beginning to look like the final unedifying thrashing of the Remainer corpse. In years to come this will be seen as the textbook case in how not to do politics. If they had deliberately set out to maximise the chances of a No Deal exit, the Remain campaign could scarcely have done a more effective job than they have these past years. We’re heading in a slightly regrettable and unnecessary direction and it’s all their fault.
    Leavers trash democratic norms and it’s all Remainers’ fault? Honestly, there is absolutely nothing that Leavers will take responsibility for.
    It was a Remainer (Gina Miller) who allowed the MPs to play silly beggars and keep "no deal" alive.
    It was the courts which pointed out that the government was subject to the law. If anyone was playing “silly beggars” it was a government which seemed to think it was above the law.
    Nonsense. Governments have a long tradition of obeying courts. The supreme court itself was divided on the Miller case, which shows that there was, as so often, a decent case on both sides. The fact that every level of government can be contested in our courts, and is, every day, is something to be proud of. Ask the people of Hong Kong or North Korea.

  • algarkirk said:

    All this discussion is only happening because Boris is negotiating in exactly the way TM was criticised for not doing. Where did that get her? His position remains that he wants a deal. If you want peace, prepare for war and all that...Speculation is running way ahead of events.

    That’s not true. Britain currently has no negotiating position, reasonable or not.
    Yes it does. The position is drop the backstop and we can talk.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 71,784
    edited August 2019

    As some of us on PB have been saying for many months:

    "Jeremy Corbyn sees no-deal as the perfect moment for a Leninist revolution"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/10/jeremy-corbyn-sees-no-deal-perfect-moment-leninist-revolution/

    Except No Deal is also the likeliest circumstance in the short term for a Boris majority as the Brexit Party collapses in the Tories favour and in the long term for the LDs to replace Labour as the main party of the centre left as the stronger anti Brexit and pro Remain Party leading resistance to Boris and the Tories and No Deal.

    Had Corbyn backed the Withdrawal Agreement though Brexit would have been done now and he could have made ending austerity the focus of the next general election as he did in 2017 and had a good chance of becoming PM while promising to keep Customs Union membership in the future relationship with the EU with a referendum on the final trade Deal. He is tactically inept and may end up the last Labour leader of the opposition never mind becoming PM
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    That’s not true. Britain currently has no negotiating position, reasonable or not.

    In the street, shouting through the letterbox. Oh, wait, that was just BoZo...
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,211
    Cyclefree said:

    moonshine said:

    What this header does not acknowledge - in fact, nobody acknowledges - is that what drives Boris and Cummings is that very sense of fair play. Parliament entered into a compact with the voters. Once and for all, we will put the issue of the EU to bed with a referendum, MPs said. PM Cameron said he would implement the outcome of that referndum. Startled by that outcome they may have been, but Parliament undertook to serve the Article 50 notice. At the election in 2017, 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging to implment Brexit.

    But then, MPs cheated. The likes of Grieve and Soubry and Wollaston, not to mention dozens of Labour MPs, took out the sandpaper and - in full view of the umpire - tampered with the ball. Despite pledges made to voters, they demonstrated they had no intention of passing ANY form of Brexit.

    And now those same cheating MPs are bitching that they are facing bodyline bowling. Well boo bloody hoo.

    Super stuff. This summer is beginning to look like the final unedifying thrashing of the Remainer corpse. In years to come this will be seen as the textbook case in how not to do politics. If they had deliberately set out to maximise the chances of a No Deal exit, the Remain campaign could scarcely have done a more effective job than they have these past years. We’re heading in a slightly regrettable and unnecessary direction and it’s all their fault.
    Leavers trash democratic norms and it’s all Remainers’ fault? Honestly, there is absolutely nothing that Leavers will take responsibility for.
    It was a Remainer (Gina Miller) who allowed the MPs to play silly beggars and keep "no deal" alive.
    It was the courts which pointed out that the government was subject to the law. If anyone was playing “silly beggars” it was a government which seemed to think it was above the law.
    +1
  • malcolmg said:

    eristdoof said:

    Mango said:


    Why do you think the SNP seats collapsed at the last general election?

    Because they freakishly over-performed seat-wise at the previous election.

    They still seem pretty well-placed to me. A few tight races against the Lib Dems, but some soft Tory targets to pick up too.
    Claiming the SNP vote collapsed in 2017 is like claiming the Labour vote collapsed in 2005
    That is your Scottish unionist for you , like other bitter Scots Scottp, Carlotta , etc , Briskin just cannot see past the hatred of the SNP . Rather than address reality they just hurl childish insults and say SNPBAD. Nothing to say about why their parties are languishing and being ignored by the voters. Bet none of them could come up with a policy for Scotland from the unionist parties.
    Morning Malc.

    This strongly pro union Ruth Davidson supporter acknowledges the SNP have been good for Scotland in many ways, especially in making labour irrelevant, but for family ties and the belief Scotland as part of a devolved UK is stronger than divorcing itself from 60% of it's trade I think they are wrong. Additionally creating a border from Carlisle to Berwick, putting thousands of jobs at risk particularly in the RAF and defence industry threatening the viability of RAF Lossiemouth, and ending up being ruled by Brussels

    And of course not getting Scotland out of the CFP is unacceptable to Scotlands fishermen
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,044

    algarkirk said:

    All this discussion is only happening because Boris is negotiating in exactly the way TM was criticised for not doing. Where did that get her? His position remains that he wants a deal. If you want peace, prepare for war and all that...Speculation is running way ahead of events.

    That’s not true. Britain currently has no negotiating position, reasonable or not.
    Yes it does. The position is drop the backstop and we can talk.
    It has no alternative proposal to talk about.
  • Cyclefree said:

    algarkirk said:

    All this discussion is only happening because Boris is negotiating in exactly the way TM was criticised for not doing. Where did that get her? His position remains that he wants a deal. If you want peace, prepare for war and all that...Speculation is running way ahead of events.

    Rubbish. May was criticised for not trying to build a consensus. In what way is Johnson trying to build a consensus?
    May was criticised for trying to be all things to all people.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,562

    algarkirk said:

    moonshine said:

    What this header does not acknowledge - in fact, nobody acknowledges - is that what drives Boris and Cummings is that very sense of fair play. Parliament entered into a compact with the voters. Once and for all, we will put the issue of the EU to bed with a referendum, MPs said. PM Cameron said he would implement the outcome of that referndum. Startled by that outcome they may have been, but Parliament undertook to serve the Article 50 notice. At the election in 2017, 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging to implment Brexit.

    But then, MPs cheated. The likes of Grieve and Soubry and Wollaston, not to mention dozens of Labour MPs, took out the sandpaper and - in full view of the umpire - tampered with the ball. Despite pledges made to voters, they demonstrated they had no intention of passing ANY form of Brexit.

    And now those same cheating MPs are bitching that they are facing bodyline bowling. Well boo bloody hoo.

    Super stuff. This summer is beginning to look like the final unedifying thrashing of the Remainer corpse. In years to come this will be seen as the textbook case in how not to do politics. If they had deliberately set out to maximise the chances of a No Deal exit, the Remain campaign could scarcely have done a more effective job than they have these past years. We’re heading in a slightly regrettable and unnecessary direction and it’s all their fault.
    Yes. The Remainers best tactic would have been to fairly quietly see through the softest Brexit practicable (TM's for example) with the the longest possible transition period. (This may of course still happen, but few thanks to remainers). In this eventuality the mandate of the referendum is discharged and it becomes entirely practical politics and morally decent to campaign for another vote on the matter (ask Nicola Sturgeon who is doing exactly that re Scottish independence). The long transition gives a time for sensible and mature reflection on both sides. I am not holding my breath.

    You both seem to think that a chaotic no deal exit is in the interests of Leavers. It seems to me that there is either going to be a chaotic no deal exit, which will do nothing to build a consensus for Brexit and in all probability result in a rejoin sooner rather than later, or a panicked revocation of the Article 50 notice. Neither look like good outcomes for Leavers.
    For myself I think a deal (TM's actually) with a longish transition is best for all sides. Boris of course says he wants a deal. The consequences of no deal are simply unknowable - that's what's wrong with it.

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 5,876

    Barnesian said:

    I think David is spot on. Cummings is a wrecking ball. Johnson wants to be PM. They will do whatever it takes to get No Deal over the line.

    Johnson is already PM! He needs a large secure majority for a successful five year term. That means a GE very soon. No Deal might give him a majority by attracting Brexit party members. But it won't give him a successful five year term. Nothing but pain.

    He needs parliament to get him off the hook of No Deal so he can go on a Betrayal Who Governs? GE campaign.

    Johnson cares about Johnson. Five years and more of pain for the UK is fine by him. He’ll be in Number 10 pretending to be Winston Churchill.

    If we are suffering pain by crashing out, who is the enemy that caused it, to his Winston?

    I agree that Johnson cares about Johnson. I think that's all he cares about. But he is also insecure as we know. He likes to be liked. He'll hate being hated.
  • algarkirk said:

    All this discussion is only happening because Boris is negotiating in exactly the way TM was criticised for not doing. Where did that get her? His position remains that he wants a deal. If you want peace, prepare for war and all that...Speculation is running way ahead of events.

    That’s not true. Britain currently has no negotiating position, reasonable or not.
    Yes it does. The position is drop the backstop and we can talk.
    It has no alternative proposal to talk about.
    Because there is no alternative proposal. The alternative is that we enter the transition and discuss what happens in the future during the future negotiations. A perfectly rational suggestion.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 2,352
    edited August 2019

    Cyclefree said:

    algarkirk said:

    All this discussion is only happening because Boris is negotiating in exactly the way TM was criticised for not doing. Where did that get her? His position remains that he wants a deal. If you want peace, prepare for war and all that...Speculation is running way ahead of events.

    Rubbish. May was criticised for not trying to build a consensus. In what way is Johnson trying to build a consensus?
    May was criticised for trying to be all things to all people.
    This is not the same as trying to reach a consensus, though. May changed her story for every audience, rather than having the intellectual and charismatic skills to please all of them simultaneously with the same line.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,562
    edited August 2019

    Cyclefree said:

    algarkirk said:

    All this discussion is only happening because Boris is negotiating in exactly the way TM was criticised for not doing. Where did that get her? His position remains that he wants a deal. If you want peace, prepare for war and all that...Speculation is running way ahead of events.

    Rubbish. May was criticised for not trying to build a consensus. In what way is Johnson trying to build a consensus?
    May was criticised for trying to be all things to all people.
    TM was criticised for more than one thing; among which is making it obvious that she would not consider no deal. This seriously weakened her position.

  • Cyclefree said:

    algarkirk said:

    All this discussion is only happening because Boris is negotiating in exactly the way TM was criticised for not doing. Where did that get her? His position remains that he wants a deal. If you want peace, prepare for war and all that...Speculation is running way ahead of events.

    Rubbish. May was criticised for not trying to build a consensus. In what way is Johnson trying to build a consensus?
    May was criticised for trying to be all things to all people.
    This is not the same as trying to reach a consensus, though. May changed her story for every audience, rather than having the intellectual and charismatic skills to please all of them simultaneously with the same line.
    There is no consensus. May belatedly tried to find a consensus, she failed. Parliament repeatedly through its indicative vote process tried to find a consensus, it failed. The time for consensus-seeking is over, it is time to end the uncertainty and do something.
  • algarkirk said:

    moonshine said:

    What this header does not acknowledge - in fact, nobody acknowledges - is that what drives Boris and Cummings is that very sense of fair play. Parliament entered into a compact with the voters. Once and for all, we will put the issue of the EU to bed with a referendum, MPs said. PM Cameron said he would implement the outcome of that referndum. Startled by that outcome they may have been, but Parliament undertook to serve the Article 50 notice. At the election in 2017, 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging to implment Brexit.

    But then, MPs cheated. The likes of Grieve and Soubry and Wollaston, not to mention dozens of Labour MPs, took out the sandpaper and - in full view of the umpire - tampered with the ball. Despite pledges made to voters, they demonstrated they had no intention of passing ANY form of Brexit.

    And now those same cheating MPs are bitching that they are facing bodyline bowling. Well boo bloody hoo.

    Super stuff. This summer is beginning to look like the final unedifying thrashing of the Remainer corpse. In years to come this will be seen as the textbook case in how not to do politics. If they had deliberately set out to maximise the chances of a No Deal exit, the Remain campaign could scarcely have done a more effective job than they have these past years. We’re heading in a slightly regrettable and unnecessary direction and it’s all their fault.
    Yes. The Remainers best tactic would have been to fairly quietly see through the softest Brexit practicable (TM's for example) with the the longest possible transition period. (This may of course still happen, but few thanks to remainers). In this eventuality the mandate of the referendum is discharged and it becomes entirely practical politics and morally decent to campaign for another vote on the matter (ask Nicola Sturgeon who is doing exactly that re Scottish independence). The long transition gives a time for sensible and mature reflection on both sides. I am not holding my breath.

    You both seem to think that a chaotic no deal exit is in the interests of Leavers. It seems to me that there is either going to be a chaotic no deal exit, which will do nothing to build a consensus for Brexit and in all probability result in a rejoin sooner rather than later, or a panicked revocation of the Article 50 notice. Neither look like good outcomes for Leavers.
    But a chaotic no deal situation is an excellent outcome if you believe that the current model of government has failed, and you believe that it needs to be replaced by an oligarchy of historians supported by physics PhDs.

    Though it might help to be in utter sociopath, if you wanted to unleash disaster on a country to prove your point.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 1,565
    Very good article David.

    If we are in the land of a successful VONC and there is an alternative and the PM fails to resign we are in dictator territory, which would be very worrying.

    Most frustrating would be if we had a successful VONC and the minor parties and Tory rebels have their act together and the leadership of the Labour party screws it up, which seems very possible.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    malcolmg said:

    LOL, idiot insults people by using childish jibes. Grow up. Is it any wonder unionists are getting thrashed when the best they can do is call people childish names. Perhaps for once you could actually post a cogent argument.

    Morning Malky.

    I notice you completely ignore the substance of the post, and instead whined about a perceived grievance.

    Just like a Zoomer...
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 2,352
    edited August 2019
    I would say May skewed her efforts towards hard Brexiters rather than soft Tories, let alone flexible soft remainers outside the Tory party, presented this as a neutral stance, and having failed in this talked up the possibility of no-deal as a nuclear option which she thought would bring MPs into line. Instead it simply normalised no-deal rather than hard Brexit, and then inevitably brought in a more extreme and cavalier prime minister to, *apparently*, implement this.
  • algarkirk said:

    All this discussion is only happening because Boris is negotiating in exactly the way TM was criticised for not doing. Where did that get her? His position remains that he wants a deal. If you want peace, prepare for war and all that...Speculation is running way ahead of events.

    That’s not true. Britain currently has no negotiating position, reasonable or not.
    Yes it does. The position is drop the backstop and we can talk.

    That is not a negotiating position. It is a demand. Negotiations involve compromise. What will the UK offer to make removing the backstop it previously asked for from the EU palatable?

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 53,408
    Mr. Observer, that's true, but the EU's also wretched. "We're always ready to talk. We won't change anything." That's not exactly negotiating either.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,562
    kjh said:

    Very good article David.

    If we are in the land of a successful VONC and there is an alternative and the PM fails to resign we are in dictator territory, which would be very worrying.

    Most frustrating would be if we had a successful VONC and the minor parties and Tory rebels have their act together and the leadership of the Labour party screws it up, which seems very possible.

    Speculation running wild in paragraph 2.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 3,510
    edited August 2019

    OllyT said:

    What this header does not acknowledge - in fact, nobody acknowledges - is that what drives Boris and Cummings is that very sense of fair play. Parliament entered into a compact with the voters. Once and for all, we will put the issue of the EU to bed with a referendum, MPs said. PM Cameron said he would implement the outcome of that referndum. Startled by that outcome they may have been, but Parliament undertook to serve the Article 50 notice. At the election in 2017, 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging to implment Brexit.

    But then, MPs cheated. The likes of Grieve and Soubry and Wollaston, not to mention dozens of Labour MPs, took out the sandpaper and - in full view of the umpire - tampered with the ball. Despite pledges made to voters, they demonstrated they had no intention of passing ANY form of Brexit.

    And now those same cheating MPs are bitching that they are facing bodyline bowling. Well boo bloody hoo.


    As you say, nobody acknowledges it and nobody acknowledges it because it is not true.

    Cummings and Johnson are trying to hijack the referendum result and impose an outcome that we were told would not happen.
    None so blind....

    How the f*** do you hijack a referendum result to leave the EU by, er, leaving the EU?

    Point and laugh at Remainers time.

    Strange isn't it that when a Norway solution or May's WA was raised leavers were up in arms telling us that that "betrayed" the referendum result even though both fulfilled the referendum result by leaving.

    During the referendum we were assured we would get a good deal and only leave with a deal in place and when the very notion of leaving with No Deal was ridiculed as "Project Fear",. Yet now we are headed towards No Deal you are trying to tell us that that is what we voted for all along. It's a joke. I think you will get away with it in the short term but I suspect it will end the political careers of Johnson, Farage and the ERG.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 19,751

    Barnesian said:

    I think David is spot on. Cummings is a wrecking ball. Johnson wants to be PM. They will do whatever it takes to get No Deal over the line.

    Johnson is already PM! He needs a large secure majority for a successful five year term. That means a GE very soon. No Deal might give him a majority by attracting Brexit party members. But it won't give him a successful five year term. Nothing but pain.

    He needs parliament to get him off the hook of No Deal so he can go on a Betrayal Who Governs? GE campaign.

    Johnson cares about Johnson. Five years and more of pain for the UK is fine by him. He’ll be in Number 10 pretending to be Winston Churchill.

    Is there time to cobble up a bust of BJ that can be put in pride of place in Trump's White House?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,562

    Mr. Observer, that's true, but the EU's also wretched. "We're always ready to talk. We won't change anything." That's not exactly negotiating either.

    Agree.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    algarkirk said:

    For myself I think a deal (TM's actually) with a longish transition is best for all sides. Boris of course says he wants a deal. The consequences of no deal are simply unknowable - that's what's wrong with it.

    Similarly, what is best for Boris is not crashing out which may lead to disaster but leaving on time with a May-like deal but with a far longer transition period, so nothing much changes. Leave voters, even if not Nigel Farage, will be pleased by the fact of leaving and Boris can get on with the business of government while negotiations with the EU continue off-camera.

    One thing that is worrying is Boris's softening us up for a US trade deal which will probably be far worse for Britain than the current arrangements with the EU and indeed America.
  • Mr. Observer, that's true, but the EU's also wretched. "We're always ready to talk. We won't change anything." That's not exactly negotiating either.

    How can they change anything without there being proposals for change? If the UK wants to renegotiate the deal the UK needs to suggest how it can be done. It’s the UK’s red lines that the WA was built around.

  • algarkirk said:

    All this discussion is only happening because Boris is negotiating in exactly the way TM was criticised for not doing. Where did that get her? His position remains that he wants a deal. If you want peace, prepare for war and all that...Speculation is running way ahead of events.

    That’s not true. Britain currently has no negotiating position, reasonable or not.
    Yes it does. The position is drop the backstop and we can talk.

    That is not a negotiating position. It is a demand. Negotiations involve compromise. What will the UK offer to make removing the backstop it previously asked for from the EU palatable?

    This government never previously asked for it. May did, that is history.

    The EU has 3 requirements: The Irish border, money and citizens rights.

    Without a backstop we can offer to undergo a transition period which keeps the Irish border open while we negotiate a long term solutiont to the border, it will offer to guarantee citizens rights and an agreement on money.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 4,860

    Additionally creating a border from Carlisle to Berwick, putting thousands of jobs at risk particularly in the RAF and defence industry threatening the viability of RAF Lossiemouth, and ending up being ruled by Brussels

    Lossiemouth will be fine as there will almost certainly be a NATO (or perhaps EU!) air policing mission based there after Scottish Independence. The GIUK gap is strategically very important and the emergent Scottish Air Force won't have and probably won't want the capability of 24/7 QRA.

    HMNB Clyde would not survive in anything like its current form so the prostitutes and drug dealers of Dumbarton are in for hard times.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 53,881
    edited August 2019
    I really am so pissed off at our MPs. None of this was necessary. If they were determined to leave or remain they could have showed some godsdamned spine much much earlier than this and made a decision that meant we were not in this horrific limbo right now.

    To compound matters the one decision they did make definitively, triggering article 50, they falsely profess to not understand given their phoney surprise that it means we leave unless they decide something else.

    Seriously, I'm at my wits end with these idiots. The reasoning of so many of them is still party focused. BoJo and the clowns are pillorying an agreement they voted for and pretending they are not pursuing the option they are, only caring about looking tough ahead of a GE. You have Grieve and co posturing about doing anything to stop no deal when that clearly is not the case since they wont vote for a deal nor so far support someone they dont like to do so. You have Corbynista central who dont seem to care what Brexit option occurs so long as they get to blame the Tories. You have the Nandyites who love to bemoan everything from everyone while using every excuse as to why they cannot back anything.

    I could go on, and it's not very original, but my gods it's frustrating. I think David H is right that at this point the gov will do whatever it can, never mind the consequences or conventions. Only victory matters no matter the cost, they have literally said words close to that effect. And while it's ok to think high costs are worth it, or even to think wrongly thered be no cost, people who say 'any' cost or price is acceptable go way too far.

    It is deeply concerning that no price is to high to win for all sides of this now. They dont care about achieving Brexit or stopping Brexit - we could have done both if they wanted that above all else. No, they want to achieve it in the way they want and no other way, making anger at not leaving or tears at leaving so much spit in our faces.

    BoJo, Corbyn, that arse Grieve and all the rest, they truly believe we are all really stupid. And the worst part is they are probably right.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 2,957
    edited August 2019
    What'll happen:

    1. The HoC will VONC Johnson and install a Conservative remainer. Why? Because it's the only way the tories will vote it through. The pay-back to keep Corbyn on board will be the agreement that its sole purpose is to Extend Article 50 and call an immediate General Election.

    2. Seeing this, Johnson will attempt to cling to power by pre-empting and calling for an election for mid-October election on a 2/3rds vote.

    So the election will be before Oct 31st and it will be Brexit or bust.

    Simples, really.

    End of speculative post.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    Additionally creating a border from Carlisle to Berwick, putting thousands of jobs at risk particularly in the RAF and defence industry threatening the viability of RAF Lossiemouth, and ending up being ruled by Brussels

    Lossiemouth will be fine as there will almost certainly be a NATO (or perhaps EU!) air policing mission based there after Scottish Independence. The GIUK gap is strategically very important and the emergent Scottish Air Force won't have and probably won't want the capability of 24/7 QRA.

    HMNB Clyde would not survive in anything like its current form so the prostitutes and drug dealers of Dumbarton are in for hard times.
    Maybe but it does put doubt over the UK service personal based there
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 2,352
    edited August 2019
    kle4 said:

    I really am so pissed off at our MPs. None of this was necessary. If they were determined to leave or remain they could have showed some godsdamned spine much much earlier than this and made a decision that meant we were not in this horrific limbo right now.

    To compound matters the one decision they did make definitively, triggering article 50, they falsely profess to not understand given their phoney surprise that it means we leave unless they decide something else.

    Seriously, I'm at my wits end with these idiots. The reasoning of so many of them is still party focused. BoJo and the clowns are pillorying an agreement they voted for and pretending they are not pursuing the option they are, only caring about looking tough ahead of a GE. You have Grieve and co posturing about doing anything to stop no deal when that clearly is not the case since they wont vote for a deal not so far support someone they dont like to do so. You have Corbynista central who dont seem to care what Brexit option occurs so long as they get to blame the Tories. You have the Nandyites who love to bemoan everything from everyone while using every excuse as to why they cannot back anything.

    I could go on, and it's not very original, but my gods it's frustrating. I think David H is right that at this point the gov will do whatever it can, never mind the consequences or conventions. Only victory matters no matter the cost, they have literally said words close to that effect. And while it's ok to think high costs are worth it, or even to think wrongly thered be no cost, people who say 'any' cost or price us acceptable go way too far.

    It is deeply concerning that no price is to high to win for all sides of this now. They dont care about achieving Brexit or stopping Brexit - we could have done both if they wanted that above all else. No, they want to achieve it in the way they want and no other way, making anger at not leaving or tears at leaving a spot in our faces.

    BoJo, Corbyn, that arse Grieve and all the rest, they truly believe we are all really stupid. And the worst part is they are probably right.

    Grieve only got involved once May started talking up no-deal - in other words when parliament, or specifically the governing party's internal discipline in parliament, had already failed.

    Johnson's responsibility is much deeper and goes much further, first to the origin of the vote's populism, and then to the fact that he both didn't endorse and did endorse May's deal at various stages. And yet he's presenting himself as the solution to parliamentary dysfunction.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 53,408
    Mr. Observer, the EU does (reasonably) want an alternative proposal from the Clown Prince. They unreasonably claim to be open to talking but have ruled out any changes.
  • algarkirk said:

    All this discussion is only happening because Boris is negotiating in exactly the way TM was criticised for not doing. Where did that get her? His position remains that he wants a deal. If you want peace, prepare for war and all that...Speculation is running way ahead of events.

    That’s not true. Britain currently has no negotiating position, reasonable or not.
    Yes it does. The position is drop the backstop and we can talk.

    That is not a negotiating position. It is a demand. Negotiations involve compromise. What will the UK offer to make removing the backstop it previously asked for from the EU palatable?

    This government never previously asked for it. May did, that is history.

    The EU has 3 requirements: The Irish border, money and citizens rights.

    Without a backstop we can offer to undergo a transition period which keeps the Irish border open while we negotiate a long term solutiont to the border, it will offer to guarantee citizens rights and an agreement on money.

    Then let’s see the government suggest that and put the detail in it. For example, how does it propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no FTA within the agreed transition timeframe?

  • Mr. Observer, that's true, but the EU's also wretched. "We're always ready to talk. We won't change anything." That's not exactly negotiating either.

    How can they change anything without there being proposals for change? If the UK wants to renegotiate the deal the UK needs to suggest how it can be done. It’s the UK’s red lines that the WA was built around.

    The EU know the withdrawal agreement will not pass Parliament yet they keep saying the WA is not up for discussion. Tell me what the government can do ?
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 2,957
    kle4 said:

    I really am so pissed off at our MPs. None of this was necessary. .

    Nah. The problem started with a simplistic binary choice that didn't pay any attention to what Leave might actually be.

    'Though in truth, that is also another way of stating that this all started decades ago and has nothing to do with the country's interests, but a cack-handed attempt to solve the fissure running through the Conservative party.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,562

    algarkirk said:

    All this discussion is only happening because Boris is negotiating in exactly the way TM was criticised for not doing. Where did that get her? His position remains that he wants a deal. If you want peace, prepare for war and all that...Speculation is running way ahead of events.

    That’s not true. Britain currently has no negotiating position, reasonable or not.
    Not convinced. Then greater part of the WA as it stands is likely to be acceptable. A fudge on the backstop needs to be found, though of course it's quite possible there isn't one to be had - the backstop itself being fudge.

    History now, but if in fact there is no way of leaving the EU and preserving the GFA then I think the Remain campaign in 2016 should have made it clear that the reason for voting Remain is that it is literally impossible, as a matter of political logic, to leave. I think Remainers are still reluctant to say that.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 53,881

    algarkirk said:

    For myself I think a deal (TM's actually) with a longish transition is best for all sides. Boris of course says he wants a deal. The consequences of no deal are simply unknowable - that's what's wrong with it.

    Similarly, what is best for Boris is not crashing out which may lead to disaster but leaving on time with a May-like deal but with a far longer transition period, so nothing much changes. Leave voters, even if not Nigel Farage, will be pleased by the fact of leaving and Boris can get on with the business of government while negotiations with the EU continue off-camera.

    Thst is so obviously the solution that thst it has not occurred already is a sign neither will go for it. Rhetoric can be just words, but BoJo and the EU seem entirely disinclined to take such a simple option when ultimate victory, pryrric or not, is on the cards.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 16,013

    algarkirk said:

    Charles said:

    David

    I know that you want to justify your decision to quit, but I think you are being unfair to the government here

    They won’t (even if out of fear of the Speaker) try to prevent a VoNC. I’ve not seen anyone suggest that they will

    2. They won’t resign until it is clear someone else can command a majority. That is in line with precedent. They are not going to try to hang on afterwards. My guess is that Times article was a decoy by Cummings to get the Remainers wasting time and energy on something that’s not going to happen

    3. Corbyn is the most likely alternative - I agree with your assessment (and think it’s entirely logical and reasonable behaviour by Labour) but that’s not really the government’s fault

    4. Not seeking an extension - Brexiting on Oct 31 is the status quo at the moment. Essentially - as you acknowledge - Remainers are complaining that the government is going to implement the law that parliament passed and not stop it (in an act that would cause great political harm). This is reinforced by the fact that the FTPA give Parliament 14 days to select a new government and - in this scenario - they will have chosen not to

    What we are seeing is a bunch of Remainers (not you specifically) in politics and the media thrashing about trying to make mud stick. They’ve been outplayed - there is a small window where they can do something effective to get what they want but they are wasting their time whinging about things that really don’t matter instead.

    Spot on. In particular the PM is the PM until someone else is. We have got so used to everyone getting away with having opinions about what they don't want and not what they do that we have forgotten it's not enough not to want Boris and the Tories, you have to decide what you want instead - in some detail. Boris and co are the government until there is another option that the PM believes could command confidence (Gordon Brown 2010). We are not anarchists (yet).

    Good header by David, but I think it extremely unlikely that Johnson will refuse to leave Downing Street if NoVC has passed and there is another who can command the confidence.

    What would be the point of his petulance, other to be doing what Rasputin has told him to do?

    The Queen will dismiss him, and it will never be forgotten that the Conservative Party no less was the one that dragged her into politics and tried to break the constitutional monarchy's delicate balancing act.
    We should be wary of the word "will". There is always the possibility that she might not, if it's very marginal. As I say in the article, inertia and and a disinclination in the Palace to get involved, never mind take radical action, work to his favour.
  • Mr. Observer, that's true, but the EU's also wretched. "We're always ready to talk. We won't change anything." That's not exactly negotiating either.

    How can they change anything without there being proposals for change? If the UK wants to renegotiate the deal the UK needs to suggest how it can be done. It’s the UK’s red lines that the WA was built around.

    The EU know the withdrawal agreement will not pass Parliament yet they keep saying the WA is not up for discussion. Tell me what the government can do ?

    The EU has made it very clear that the WA reflects the May government’s red lines. There is a very clear implication there.

  • kjhkjh Posts: 1,565

    What'll happen:

    1. The HoC will VONC Johnson and install a Conservative remainer. Why? Because it's the only way the tories will vote it through. The pay-back to keep Corbyn on board will be the agreement that its sole purpose is to Extend Article 50 and call an immediate General Election.

    2. Seeing this, Johnson will attempt to cling to power by pre-empting and calling for an election for mid-October election on a 2/3rds vote.

    So the election will be before Oct 31st and it will be Brexit or bust.

    Simples, really.

    End of speculative post.

    The opposition can ensure 2. fails though.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 53,881
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    I think David is spot on. Cummings is a wrecking ball. Johnson wants to be PM. They will do whatever it takes to get No Deal over the line.

    Johnson is already PM! He needs a large secure majority for a successful five year term. That means a GE very soon. No Deal might give him a majority by attracting Brexit party members. But it won't give him a successful five year term. Nothing but pain.

    He needs parliament to get him off the hook of No Deal so he can go on a Betrayal Who Governs? GE campaign.

    Johnson cares about Johnson. Five years and more of pain for the UK is fine by him. He’ll be in Number 10 pretending to be Winston Churchill.

    If we are suffering pain by crashing out, who is the enemy that caused it, to his Winston?

    I agree that Johnson cares about Johnson. I think that's all he cares about. But he is also insecure as we know. He likes to be liked. He'll hate being hated.
    He has banked everything on no deal notbeing as bad as feared and so he will remain relatively liked. Every other option he knows will be unpopular with the people who voted for him, so he takes the gamble.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 2,957
    kjh said:

    What'll happen:

    1. The HoC will VONC Johnson and install a Conservative remainer. Why? Because it's the only way the tories will vote it through. The pay-back to keep Corbyn on board will be the agreement that its sole purpose is to Extend Article 50 and call an immediate General Election.

    2. Seeing this, Johnson will attempt to cling to power by pre-empting and calling for an election for mid-October election on a 2/3rds vote.

    So the election will be before Oct 31st and it will be Brexit or bust.

    Simples, really.

    End of speculative post.

    The opposition can ensure 2. fails though.
    Yep.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    kle4 said:

    I really am so pissed off at our MPs. None of this was necessary. .

    Nah. The problem started with a simplistic binary choice that didn't pay any attention to what Leave might actually be.

    'Though in truth, that is also another way of stating that this all started decades ago and has nothing to do with the country's interests, but a cack-handed attempt to solve the fissure running through the Conservative party.
    I hope I am around in 30 yrs to see the full result of leaving...
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 3,784
    u

    Mr. Observer, that's true, but the EU's also wretched. "We're always ready to talk. We won't change anything." That's not exactly negotiating either.

    How can they change anything without there being proposals for change? If the UK wants to renegotiate the deal the UK needs to suggest how it can be done. It’s the UK’s red lines that the WA was built around.

    The EU know the withdrawal agreement will not pass Parliament yet they keep saying the WA is not up for discussion. Tell me what the government can do ?

    The EU has made it very clear that the WA reflects the May government’s red lines. There is a very clear implication there.

    Not answering the question.
  • theakestheakes Posts: 405
    What then: Military intervention, tanks on WEhitehall?
  • geoffw said:

    u

    Mr. Observer, that's true, but the EU's also wretched. "We're always ready to talk. We won't change anything." That's not exactly negotiating either.

    How can they change anything without there being proposals for change? If the UK wants to renegotiate the deal the UK needs to suggest how it can be done. It’s the UK’s red lines that the WA was built around.

    The EU know the withdrawal agreement will not pass Parliament yet they keep saying the WA is not up for discussion. Tell me what the government can do ?

    The EU has made it very clear that the WA reflects the May government’s red lines. There is a very clear implication there.

    Not answering the question.

    Yes, I did. But if you are not bright enough to understand that I’ll spell it out: what the UK government can say is that it is prepared to look again at its red lines.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 32,866
    edited August 2019

    What'll happen:

    1. The HoC will VONC Johnson and install a Conservative remainer. Why? Because it's the only way the tories will vote it through. The pay-back to keep Corbyn on board will be the agreement that its sole purpose is to Extend Article 50 and call an immediate General Election.

    2. Seeing this, Johnson will attempt to cling to power by pre-empting and calling for an election for mid-October election on a 2/3rds vote.

    So the election will be before Oct 31st and it will be Brexit or bust.

    Simples, really.

    End of speculative post.

    There has been a lot of discussion in the media over this and several labour mps seemed to acknowledge that there is not a path for Corbyn to be able to form a government, and the main hope of those opposed to a no deal is to coalesce around a candidate that could gain majority backing under a GONU

    However, that too is doubtful, and all the time there is no clear successor Boris remains PM

    Indeed there seems to be a consensus growing that a vonc is not the right process and that attempts are needed to continue to try to wrestle back control through Parliamentary procedures as a vonc could well play directly into Boris's hand
  • algarkirk said:

    All this discussion is only happening because Boris is negotiating in exactly the way TM was criticised for not doing. Where did that get her? His position remains that he wants a deal. If you want peace, prepare for war and all that...Speculation is running way ahead of events.

    That’s not true. Britain currently has no negotiating position, reasonable or not.
    Yes it does. The position is drop the backstop and we can talk.

    That is not a negotiating position. It is a demand. Negotiations involve compromise. What will the UK offer to make removing the backstop it previously asked for from the EU palatable?

    This government never previously asked for it. May did, that is history.

    The EU has 3 requirements: The Irish border, money and citizens rights.

    Without a backstop we can offer to undergo a transition period which keeps the Irish border open while we negotiate a long term solutiont to the border, it will offer to guarantee citizens rights and an agreement on money.

    Then let’s see the government suggest that and put the detail in it. For example, how does it propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no FTA within the agreed transition timeframe?

    That's up to the future negotiations.

    How does the EU propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no deal before 31 October?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 53,881

    kle4 said:

    I really am so pissed off at our MPs. None of this was necessary. If they were determined to leave or remain they could have showed some godsdamned spine much much earlier than this and made a decision that meant we were not in this horrific limbo right now.

    To compound matters the one decision they did make definitively, triggering article 50, they falsely profess to not understand given their phoney surprise that it means we leave unless they decide something else.

    Seriously, I'm at my wits end with these idiots. The reasoning of so many of them is still party focused. BoJo and the clowns are pillorying an agreement they voted for and pretending they are not pursuing the option they are, only caring about looking tough ahead of a GE. You have Grieve and co posturing about doing anything to stop no deal when that clearly is not the case since they wont vote for a deal not so far support someone they dont like to do so. You have Corbynista central who dont seem to care what Brexit option occurs so long as they get to blame the Tories. You have the Nandyites who love to bemoan everything from everyone while using every excuse as to why they cannot back anything.

    I could go on, and it's not very original, but my gods it's frustrating. I think David H is right that at this point the gov will do whatever it can, never mind the consequences or conventions. Only victory matters no matter the cost, they have literally said words close to that effect. And while it's ok to think high costs are worth it, or even to think wrongly thered be no cost, people who say 'any' cost or price us acceptable go way too far.

    It is deeply concerning that no price is to high to win for all sides of this now. They dont care about achieving Brexit or stopping Brexit - we could have done both if they wanted that above all else. No, they want to achieve it in the way they want and no other way, making anger at not leaving or tears at leaving a spot in our faces.

    BoJo, Corbyn, that arse Grieve and all the rest, they truly believe we are all really stupid. And the worst part is they are probably right.

    Grieve only got involved once May started talking up no-deal - in other words when parliament, or specifically the governing party's internal discipline in parliament, had already failed.
    When he was involved is irrelevant. His reasoning is against Brexit entirely yet he hid his true feelings and now self righteously swans about with arcane procedural matters when if he actually cared about avoiding no deal he could have backed up his words and sought to avoid it. He actively opposed preventing it. He doesnt see it that way, but I've said before I think he gets away with it because he us smart and remainers love him. But hes as bad as the Bakers of the world and more false, just less stupid. The LDs and SNP have more honour than him.
  • Mr. Observer, that's true, but the EU's also wretched. "We're always ready to talk. We won't change anything." That's not exactly negotiating either.

    How can they change anything without there being proposals for change? If the UK wants to renegotiate the deal the UK needs to suggest how it can be done. It’s the UK’s red lines that the WA was built around.

    Strip out the backstop, enter transition and start the future negotiations which would cover the Irish border. Job done.
  • Mr. Observer, the EU does (reasonably) want an alternative proposal from the Clown Prince. They unreasonably claim to be open to talking but have ruled out any changes.

    That does not prevent the UK government from submitting proposals. Were it to submit reasonable ones on which it was prepared to negotiate that would put pressure on the EU27 governments domestically. A government that genuinely wanted to avoid No Deal would do that.

  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 3,784

    geoffw said:

    u

    Mr. Observer, that's true, but the EU's also wretched. "We're always ready to talk. We won't change anything." That's not exactly negotiating either.

    How can they change anything without there being proposals for change? If the UK wants to renegotiate the deal the UK needs to suggest how it can be done. It’s the UK’s red lines that the WA was built around.

    The EU know the withdrawal agreement will not pass Parliament yet they keep saying the WA is not up for discussion. Tell me what the government can do ?

    The EU has made it very clear that the WA reflects the May government’s red lines. There is a very clear implication there.

    Not answering the question.

    Yes, I did. But if you are not bright enough to understand that I’ll spell it out: what the UK government can say is that it is prepared to look again at its red lines.

    Thank you for your answer.
    I'll ignore your insult.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,211

    malcolmg said:

    eristdoof said:

    Mango said:


    Why do you think the SNP seats collapsed at the last general election?

    Because they freakishly over-performed seat-wise at the previous election.

    They still seem pretty well-placed to me. A few tight races against the Lib Dems, but some soft Tory targets to pick up too.
    Claiming the SNP vote collapsed in 2017 is like claiming the Labour vote collapsed in 2005
    That is your Scottish unionist for you , like other bitter Scots Scottp, Carlotta , etc , Briskin just cannot see past the hatred of the SNP . Rather than address reality they just hurl childish insults and say SNPBAD. Nothing to say about why their parties are languishing and being ignored by the voters. Bet none of them could come up with a policy for Scotland from the unionist parties.
    Morning Malc.

    This strongly pro union Ruth Davidson supporter acknowledges the SNP have been good for Scotland in many ways, especially in making labour irrelevant, but for family ties and the belief Scotland as part of a devolved UK is stronger than divorcing itself from 60% of it's trade I think they are wrong. Additionally creating a border from Carlisle to Berwick, putting thousands of jobs at risk particularly in the RAF and defence industry threatening the viability of RAF Lossiemouth, and ending up being ruled by Brussels

    And of course not getting Scotland out of the CFP is unacceptable to Scotlands fishermen
    G, we have differing opinions but at least you don't just parrot SNPBAD. I personally don't see why Scotland being independent would make any difference to family ties, trade etc unless one side wanted to be vindictive. We cannot continue with Westminster treating Scotland like it does and I cannot see there ever being proper devolution of powers that would allow a Scottish government to be able to implement policies to improve Scotland's problems. We will always get what is good for London and South East which is useless for Scotland.
    What amazes me is that the "have nots" cannot see it. Brexit will focus their minds for sure and you can be certain the Tories will sell out Scottish fishing yet again to help the south, as always.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 2,352
    edited August 2019
    < When he was involved is irrelevant. His reasoning is against Brexit entirely yet he hid his true feelings and now self righteously swans about with arcane procedural matters when if he actually cared about avoiding no deal he could have backed up his words and sought to avoid it. He actively opposed preventing it. He doesnt see it that way, but I've said before I think he gets away with it because he us smart and remainers love him. But hes as bad as the Bakers of the world and more false, just less stupid. The LDs and SNP have more honour than him. >

    I don't see any evidence for this at all. His first intervention was to give parliament a greater role with the meaningful vote, when May started raising the prospect of no deal without parliamentary consent, and all his other interventions have continued in the same vein. He's been open about not being a Brexiter, but he's also repeatedly given many forms of Brexit an open chance to be fully agreed on by parliament with his actions.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 1,565
    algarkirk said:

    kjh said:

    Very good article David.

    If we are in the land of a successful VONC and there is an alternative and the PM fails to resign we are in dictator territory, which would be very worrying.

    Most frustrating would be if we had a successful VONC and the minor parties and Tory rebels have their act together and the leadership of the Labour party screws it up, which seems very possible.

    Speculation running wild in paragraph 2.
    I don't think so. There have been umpteen interviews with Labour so far, one just the other day on the Today programme, which implied just that. Corbyn wants to be PM. That currently is their position if there is a VONC. The leadership refuses to discuss anything else. Does not bode well.

    How is that speculation running wild?
  • Mr. Observer, that's true, but the EU's also wretched. "We're always ready to talk. We won't change anything." That's not exactly negotiating either.

    How can they change anything without there being proposals for change? If the UK wants to renegotiate the deal the UK needs to suggest how it can be done. It’s the UK’s red lines that the WA was built around.

    Strip out the backstop, enter transition and start the future negotiations which would cover the Irish border. Job done.

    How long does the transition last? What happens if there is no FTA at the end of it?

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 53,881

    < When he was involved is irrelevant. His reasoning is against Brexit entirely yet he hid his true feelings and now self righteously swans about with arcane procedural matters when if he actually cared about avoiding no deal he could have backed up his words and sought to avoid it. He actively opposed preventing it. He doesnt see it that way, but I've said before I think he gets away with it because he us smart and remainers love him. But hes as bad as the Bakers of the world and more false, just less stupid. The LDs and SNP have more honour than him. >

    I don't see any evidence for this at all. His first intervention was to give parliament a greater role with the meaningful vote , when May started raising the prospect of no deal without parliamentary consent, and all his other interventions have continued in the same vein. He's been open about not being a Brexiter, but he's also repeatedly given many forms of Brexit a chance to be agreed on by parliament with his actions.

    While voting against them and keeping no deal on the table. He wants to win, not prevent no deal. That is not being open given his fake emotion about looking his children in the eyes and so on. Thoroughly disreputable man hiding behind his cleverness. I too think now we should remain, but hes one of the worst our mps since hes not indecisive as most have been, hes been decisive but dishonest in intent.
  • Mr. Observer, that's true, but the EU's also wretched. "We're always ready to talk. We won't change anything." That's not exactly negotiating either.

    How can they change anything without there being proposals for change? If the UK wants to renegotiate the deal the UK needs to suggest how it can be done. It’s the UK’s red lines that the WA was built around.

    Strip out the backstop, enter transition and start the future negotiations which would cover the Irish border. Job done.

    How long does the transition last? What happens if there is no FTA at the end of it?

    The transition lasts I believe to the end of 2020 but can be extended if both parties agree to extend it. If there is no FTA at the end of it we are back to where we are now and no worse off than we are now. That is an issue for the future not today.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 2,352
    edited August 2019
    kle4 said:

    < When he was involved is irrelevant. His reasoning is against Brexit entirely yet he hid his true feelings and now self righteously swans about with arcane procedural matters when if he actually cared about avoiding no deal he could have backed up his words and sought to avoid it. He actively opposed preventing it. He doesnt see it that way, but I've said before I think he gets away with it because he us smart and remainers love him. But hes as bad as the Bakers of the world and more false, just less stupid. The LDs and SNP have more honour than him. >

    I don't see any evidence for this at all. His first intervention was to give parliament a greater role with the meaningful vote , when May started raising the prospect of no deal without parliamentary consent, and all his other interventions have continued in the same vein. He's been open about not being a Brexiter, but he's also repeatedly given many forms of Brexit a chance to be agreed on by parliament with his actions.

    While voting against them and keeping no deal on the table. He wants to win, not prevent no deal. That is not being open given his fake emotion about looking his children in the eyes and so on. Thoroughly disreputable man hiding behind his cleverness. I too think now we should remain, but hes one of the worst our mps since hes not indecisive as most have been, hes been decisive but dishonest in intent.
    We'll have to agree to disagree, but this seems purely emotive to me.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,211

    Dura_Ace said:

    Additionally creating a border from Carlisle to Berwick, putting thousands of jobs at risk particularly in the RAF and defence industry threatening the viability of RAF Lossiemouth, and ending up being ruled by Brussels

    Lossiemouth will be fine as there will almost certainly be a NATO (or perhaps EU!) air policing mission based there after Scottish Independence. The GIUK gap is strategically very important and the emergent Scottish Air Force won't have and probably won't want the capability of 24/7 QRA.

    HMNB Clyde would not survive in anything like its current form so the prostitutes and drug dealers of Dumbarton are in for hard times.
    Maybe but it does put doubt over the UK service personal based there
    G, we pay a fortune for UK forces we do not need or want. The money could be better spent on real jobs. These are all just temporary posts for English forces and best they do is provide a few cleaning jobs other than as Dura Ace states encourage crime..
  • malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    eristdoof said:

    Mango said:


    Why do you think the SNP seats collapsed at the last general election?

    Because they freakishly over-performed seat-wise at the previous election.

    They still seem pretty well-placed to me. A few tight races against the Lib Dems, but some soft Tory targets to pick up too.
    Claiming the SNP vote collapsed in 2017 is like claiming the Labour vote collapsed in 2005
    That is your Scottish unionist for you , like other bitter Scots Scottp, Carlotta , etc s. Bet none of them could come up with a policy for Scotland from the unionist parties.
    Morning Malc.

    This strongly pro union Ruth Davidson supporter acknowledges the SNP have been good for Scotland in many ways, especially in making labour irrelevant, but for family ties and the belief Scotland as part of a devolved UK is stronger than divorcing itself from 60% of it's trade I think they are wrong. Additionally creating a border from Carlisle to Berwick, putting thousands of jobs at risk particularly in the RAF and defence industry threatening the viability of RAF Lossiemouth, and ending up being ruled by Brussels

    And of course not getting Scotland out of the CFP is unacceptable to Scotlands fishermen
    G, we have differing opinions but at least you don't just parrot SNPBAD. I personally don't see why Scotland being independent would make any difference to family ties, trade etc unless one side wanted to be vindictive. We cannot continue with Westminster treating Scotland like it does and I cannot see there ever being proper devolution of powers that would allow a Scottish government to be able to implement policies to improve Scotland's problems. We will always get what is good for London and South East which is useless for Scotland.
    What amazes me is that the "have nots" cannot see it. Brexit will focus their minds for sure and you can be certain the Tories will sell out Scottish fishing yet again to help the south, as always.
    I do agree that this family would never be vindictive as the Scots are our family

    However, Scotland is stronger as part of the UK then sailing off on its own into the hands of Brussels. That is not to say that I do not understand the growing clamour for independence as Scotland voted remain (as did my wife and I ) but the present disaster that is the EU referendum could envelope Scotland as huge issues over the divorce would turn into as much a problem as we have now with the EU.

    The border problem would make the Irish border look like a 'walk in the park'
  • Mr. Observer, the EU does (reasonably) want an alternative proposal from the Clown Prince. They unreasonably claim to be open to talking but have ruled out any changes.

    That does not prevent the UK government from submitting proposals. Were it to submit reasonable ones on which it was prepared to negotiate that would put pressure on the EU27 governments domestically. A government that genuinely wanted to avoid No Deal would do that.

    What is unreasonable about negotiating what happens in the future, during the future negotiations?
  • algarkirk said:

    All this discussion is only happening because Boris is negotiating in exactly the way TM was criticised for not doing. Where did that get her? His position remains that he wants a deal. If you want peace, prepare for war and all that...Speculation is running way ahead of events.

    That’s not true. Britain currently has no negotiating position, reasonable or not.
    Yes it does. The position is drop the backstop and we can talk.

    That is not a negotiating position. It is a demand. Negotiations involve compromise. What will the UK offer to make removing the backstop it previously asked for from the EU palatable?

    This government never previously asked for it. May did, that is history.

    The EU has 3 requirements: The Irish border, money and citizens rights.

    Without a backstop we can offer to undergo a transition period which keeps the Irish border open while we negotiate a long term solutiont to the border, it will offer to guarantee citizens rights and an agreement on money.

    Then let’s see the government suggest that and put the detail in it. For example, how does it propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no FTA within the agreed transition timeframe?

    That's up to the future negotiations.

    How does the EU propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no deal before 31 October?

    It doesn’t. The EU will decide what changes there will be and over what timeframe if there is No Deal. The UK will lose any any say. As we know, No Deal puts the UK entirely at the mercy of the goodwill of others.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,211

    What'll happen:

    1. The HoC will VONC Johnson and install a Conservative remainer. Why? Because it's the only way the tories will vote it through. The pay-back to keep Corbyn on board will be the agreement that its sole purpose is to Extend Article 50 and call an immediate General Election.

    2. Seeing this, Johnson will attempt to cling to power by pre-empting and calling for an election for mid-October election on a 2/3rds vote.

    So the election will be before Oct 31st and it will be Brexit or bust.

    Simples, really.

    End of speculative post.

    There has been a lot of discussion in the media over this and several labour mps seemed to acknowledge that there is not a path for Corbyn to be able to form a government, and the main hope of those opposed to a no deal is to coalesce around a candidate that could gain majority backing under a GONU

    However, that too is doubtful, and all the time there is no clear successor Boris remains PM

    Indeed there seems to be a consensus growing that a vonc is not the right process and that attempts are needed to continue to try to wrestle back control through Parliamentary procedures as a vonc could well play directly into Boris's hand
    Given the arses will only be working for a week or two maximum between now and November , how will that happen.
  • Mr. Observer, that's true, but the EU's also wretched. "We're always ready to talk. We won't change anything." That's not exactly negotiating either.

    How can they change anything without there being proposals for change? If the UK wants to renegotiate the deal the UK needs to suggest how it can be done. It’s the UK’s red lines that the WA was built around.

    Strip out the backstop, enter transition and start the future negotiations which would cover the Irish border. Job done.

    How long does the transition last? What happens if there is no FTA at the end of it?

    The transition lasts I believe to the end of 2020 but can be extended if both parties agree to extend it. If there is no FTA at the end of it we are back to where we are now and no worse off than we are now. That is an issue for the future not today.

    Not if you want to avoid uncertainty.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 53,881

    kle4 said:

    < When he was involved is irrelevant. His reasoning is against Brexit entirely yet he hid his true feelings and now self righteously swans about with arcane procedural matters when if he actually cared about avoiding no deal he could have backed up his words and sought to avoid it. He actively opposed preventing it. He doesnt see it that way, but I've said before I think he gets away with it because he us smart and remainers love him. But hes as bad as the Bakers of the world and more false, just less stupid. The LDs and SNP have more honour than him. >

    I don't see any evidence for this at all. His first intervention was to give parliament a greater role with the meaningful vote , when May started raising the prospect of no deal without parliamentary consent, and all his other interventions have continued in the same vein. He's been open about not being a Brexiter, but he's also repeatedly given many forms of Brexit a chance to be agreed on by parliament with his actions.

    While voting against them and keeping no deal on the table. He wants to win, not prevent no deal. That is not being open given his fake emotion about looking his children in the eyes and so on. Thoroughly disreputable man hiding behind his cleverness. I too think now we should remain, but hes one of the worst our mps since hes not indecisive as most have been, hes been decisive but dishonest in intent.
    We'll have to agree to disagree, but this seems purely emotive to me.
    Oh its emotive, no question, but the point is it's not because he seeks remain that I am emotive about it. It's how he has conducted himself, in my opinion, and how he gets idolized for fanatical behaviour he and his supporters condemn when done by those on the opposite side.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,211

    Mr. Observer, the EU does (reasonably) want an alternative proposal from the Clown Prince. They unreasonably claim to be open to talking but have ruled out any changes.

    That does not prevent the UK government from submitting proposals. Were it to submit reasonable ones on which it was prepared to negotiate that would put pressure on the EU27 governments domestically. A government that genuinely wanted to avoid No Deal would do that.

    What is unreasonable about negotiating what happens in the future, during the future negotiations?
    You think they will do any better than their efforts over the last 3 years, I have a bridge here going cheap.
  • algarkirk said:

    All this discussion is only happening because Boris is negotiating in exactly the way TM was criticised for not doing. Where did that get her? His position remains that he wants a deal. If you want peace, prepare for war and all that...Speculation is running way ahead of events.

    That’s not true. Britain currently has no negotiating position, reasonable or not.
    Yes it does. The position is drop the backstop and we can talk.

    That is not a negotiating position. It is a demand. Negotiations involve compromise. What will the UK offer to make removing the backstop it previously asked for from the EU palatable?

    This government never previously asked for it. May did, that is history.

    The EU has 3 requirements: The Irish border, money and citizens rights.

    Without a backstop we can offer to undergo a transition period which keeps the Irish border open while we negotiate a long term solutiont to the border, it will offer to guarantee citizens rights and an agreement on money.

    Then let’s see the government suggest that and put the detail in it. For example, how does it propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no FTA within the agreed transition timeframe?

    That's up to the future negotiations.

    How does the EU propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no deal before 31 October?

    It doesn’t. The EU will decide what changes there will be and over what timeframe if there is No Deal. The UK will lose any any say. As we know, No Deal puts the UK entirely at the mercy of the goodwill of others.

    So be it.
  • Mr. Observer, that's true, but the EU's also wretched. "We're always ready to talk. We won't change anything." That's not exactly negotiating either.

    How can they change anything without there being proposals for change? If the UK wants to renegotiate the deal the UK needs to suggest how it can be done. It’s the UK’s red lines that the WA was built around.

    Strip out the backstop, enter transition and start the future negotiations which would cover the Irish border. Job done.

    How long does the transition last? What happens if there is no FTA at the end of it?

    The transition lasts I believe to the end of 2020 but can be extended if both parties agree to extend it. If there is no FTA at the end of it we are back to where we are now and no worse off than we are now. That is an issue for the future not today.

    Not if you want to avoid uncertainty.

    That's not an option on the table.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,562
    kjh said:

    algarkirk said:

    kjh said:

    Very good article David.

    If we are in the land of a successful VONC and there is an alternative and the PM fails to resign we are in dictator territory, which would be very worrying.

    Most frustrating would be if we had a successful VONC and the minor parties and Tory rebels have their act together and the leadership of the Labour party screws it up, which seems very possible.

    Speculation running wild in paragraph 2.
    I don't think so. There have been umpteen interviews with Labour so far, one just the other day on the Today programme, which implied just that. Corbyn wants to be PM. That currently is their position if there is a VONC. The leadership refuses to discuss anything else. Does not bode well.

    How is that speculation running wild?
    The speculation running wild is the suggestion that a UK PM would fail to resign following losing a VONC if and when it is clear that an alternative person would command the confidence of the commons.

  • Mr. Observer, the EU does (reasonably) want an alternative proposal from the Clown Prince. They unreasonably claim to be open to talking but have ruled out any changes.

    That does not prevent the UK government from submitting proposals. Were it to submit reasonable ones on which it was prepared to negotiate that would put pressure on the EU27 governments domestically. A government that genuinely wanted to avoid No Deal would do that.

    What is unreasonable about negotiating what happens in the future, during the future negotiations?

    Nothing. And there is nothing unreasonable in saying that there needs to be measures in place to ensure the current status of the Irish border if those negotiations drag or fail.

  • malcolmg said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Additionally creating a border from Carlisle to Berwick, putting thousands of jobs at risk particularly in the RAF and defence industry threatening the viability of RAF Lossiemouth, and ending up being ruled by Brussels

    Lossiemouth will be fine as there will almost certainly be a NATO (or perhaps EU!) air policing mission based there after Scottish Independence. The GIUK gap is strategically very important and the emergent Scottish Air Force won't have and probably won't want the capability of 24/7 QRA.

    HMNB Clyde would not survive in anything like its current form so the prostitutes and drug dealers of Dumbarton are in for hard times.
    Maybe but it does put doubt over the UK service personal based there
    G, we pay a fortune for UK forces we do not need or want. The money could be better spent on real jobs. These are all just temporary posts for English forces and best they do is provide a few cleaning jobs other than as Dura Ace states encourage crime..
    Now on that we do disagree Malc.

    The value to the NE Scotland economy is millions and many thousands of mainly good jobs
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,211

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    eristdoof said:

    Mango said:


    Why do you think the SNP seats collapsed at the last general election?

    SNIP
    Claiming the SNP vote collapsed in 2017 is like claiming the Labour vote collapsed in 2005
    That is your Scottish unionist for you , like other bitter Scots Scottp, Carlotta , etc s. Bet none of them could come up with a policy for Scotland from the unionist parties.
    Morning Malc.

    This strongly pro union Ruth Davidson supporter acknowledges the SNP have been good for Scotland in many ways, especially in making labour irrelevant, but for family ties and the belief Scotland as part of a devolved UK is stronger than divorcing itself from 60% of it's trade I think they are wrong. Additionally creating a border from Carlisle to Berwick, putting thousands of jobs at risk particularly in the RAF and defence industry threatening the viability of RAF Lossiemouth, and ending up being ruled by Brussels

    And of course not getting Scotland out of the CFP is unacceptable to Scotlands fishermen
    G, we have differing opinions but at least you don't just parrot SNPBAD. I personally don't see why Scotland being independent would make any difference to family ties, trade etc unless one side wanted to be vindictive. We cannot continue with Westminster treating Scotland like it does and I cannot see there ever being proper devolution of powers that would allow a Scottish government to be able to implement policies to improve Scotland's problems. We will always get what is good for London and South East which is useless for Scotland.
    What amazes me is that the "have nots" cannot see it. Brexit will focus their minds for sure and you can be certain the Tories will sell out Scottish fishing yet again to help the south, as always.
    I do agree that this family would never be vindictive as the Scots are our family

    However, Scotland is stronger as part of the UK then sailing off on its own into the hands of Brussels. That is not to say that I do not understand the growing clamour for independence as Scotland voted remain (as did my wife and I ) but the present disaster that is the EU referendum could envelope Scotland as huge issues over the divorce would turn into as much a problem as we have now with the EU.

    The border problem would make the Irish border look like a 'walk in the park'
    It would be much simpler , we have a handful of roads at most between Scotland and England and only two of these are main arteries , extremely simple to manage.
  • Mr. Observer, the EU does (reasonably) want an alternative proposal from the Clown Prince. They unreasonably claim to be open to talking but have ruled out any changes.

    That does not prevent the UK government from submitting proposals. Were it to submit reasonable ones on which it was prepared to negotiate that would put pressure on the EU27 governments domestically. A government that genuinely wanted to avoid No Deal would do that.

    What is unreasonable about negotiating what happens in the future, during the future negotiations?

    Nothing. And there is nothing unreasonable in saying that there needs to be measures in place to ensure the current status of the Irish border if those negotiations drag or fail.

    Yes it is unreasonable. Unagreeable measures will cause the negotiations to fail before they begin, that is unreasonable.
  • malcolmg said:

    What'll happen:

    1. The HoC will VONC Johnson and install a Conservative remainer. Why? Because it's the only way the tories will vote it through. The pay-back to keep Corbyn on board will be the agreement that its sole purpose is to Extend Article 50 and call an immediate General Election.

    2. Seeing this, Johnson will attempt to cling to power by pre-empting and calling for an election for mid-October election on a 2/3rds vote.

    So the election will be before Oct 31st and it will be Brexit or bust.

    Simples, really.

    End of speculative post.

    There has been a lot of discussion in the media over this and several labour mps seemed to acknowledge that there is not a path for Corbyn to be able to form a government, and the main hope of those opposed to a no deal is to coalesce around a candidate that could gain majority backing under a GONU

    However, that too is doubtful, and all the time there is no clear successor Boris remains PM

    Indeed there seems to be a consensus growing that a vonc is not the right process and that attempts are needed to continue to try to wrestle back control through Parliamentary procedures as a vonc could well play directly into Boris's hand
    Given the arses will only be working for a week or two maximum between now and November , how will that happen.
    That is the media for you
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 21,183

    What'll happen:

    1. The HoC will VONC Johnson and install a Conservative remainer. Why? Because it's the only way the tories will vote it through. The pay-back to keep Corbyn on board will be the agreement that its sole purpose is to Extend Article 50 and call an immediate General Election.

    2. Seeing this, Johnson will attempt to cling to power by pre-empting and calling for an election for mid-October election on a 2/3rds vote.

    So the election will be before Oct 31st and it will be Brexit or bust.

    Simples, really.

    End of speculative post.

    There has been a lot of discussion in the media over this and several labour mps seemed to acknowledge that there is not a path for Corbyn to be able to form a government, and the main hope of those opposed to a no deal is to coalesce around a candidate that could gain majority backing under a GONU

    However, that too is doubtful, and all the time there is no clear successor Boris remains PM

    Indeed there seems to be a consensus growing that a vonc is not the right process and that attempts are needed to continue to try to wrestle back control through Parliamentary procedures as a vonc could well play directly into Boris's hand
    Such a consensus seems an illusion, Big_G.

    If they can’t agree on an caretaker PM, how is a narrow majority of MPs to be corralled together to oversee a complex, ill-defined and certainly unprecedented procedure, in order to attempt to legislate an attempt to tie the PM’s hands ?

    It would be like the meaningful votes, only messier. And with far less time left.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,211

    malcolmg said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Additionally creating a border from Carlisle to Berwick, putting thousands of jobs at risk particularly in the RAF and defence industry threatening the viability of RAF Lossiemouth, and ending up being ruled by Brussels

    Lossiemouth will be fine as there will almost certainly be a NATO (or perhaps EU!) air policing mission based there after Scottish Independence. The GIUK gap is strategically very important and the emergent Scottish Air Force won't have and probably won't want the capability of 24/7 QRA.

    HMNB Clyde would not survive in anything like its current form so the prostitutes and drug dealers of Dumbarton are in for hard times.
    Maybe but it does put doubt over the UK service personal based there
    G, we pay a fortune for UK forces we do not need or want. The money could be better spent on real jobs. These are all just temporary posts for English forces and best they do is provide a few cleaning jobs other than as Dura Ace states encourage crime..
    Now on that we do disagree Malc.

    The value to the NE Scotland economy is millions and many thousands of mainly good jobs
    They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.
  • algarkirk said:

    All this discussion is only happening because Boris is negotiating in exactly the way TM was criticised for not doing. Where did that get her? His position remains that he wants a deal. If you want peace, prepare for war and all that...Speculation is running way ahead of events.

    That’s not true. Britain currently has no negotiating position, reasonable or not.
    Yes it does. The position is drop the backstop and we can talk.

    That is not a negotiating position. It is a demand. Negotiations involve compromise. What will the UK offer to make removing the backstop it previously asked for from the EU palatable?

    This government never previously asked for it. May did, that is history.

    The EU has 3 requirements: The Irish border, money and citizens rights.

    Without a backstop we can offer to undergo a transition period which keeps the Irish border open while we negotiate a long term solutiont to the border, it will offer to guarantee citizens rights and an agreement on money.

    Then let’s see the government suggest that and put the detail in it. For example, how does it propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no FTA within the agreed transition timeframe?

    That's up to the future negotiations.

    How does the EU propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no deal before 31 October?

    It doesn’t. The EU will decide what changes there will be and over what timeframe if there is No Deal. The UK will lose any any say. As we know, No Deal puts the UK entirely at the mercy of the goodwill of others.

    So be it.

    Yep - for you being entirely dependent on the goodwill of others is freedom. I am happy to admit I just don’t get that.

  • malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Additionally creating a border from Carlisle to Berwick, putting thousands of jobs at risk particularly in the RAF and defence industry threatening the viability of RAF Lossiemouth, and ending up being ruled by Brussels

    Lossiemouth will be fine as there will almost certainly be a NATO (or perhaps EU!) air policing mission based there after Scottish Independence. The GIUK gap is strategically very important and the emergent Scottish Air Force won't have and probably won't want the capability of 24/7 QRA.

    HMNB Clyde would not survive in anything like its current form so the prostitutes and drug dealers of Dumbarton are in for hard times.
    Maybe but it does put doubt over the UK service personal based there
    G, we pay a fortune for UK forces we do not need or want. The money could be better spent on real jobs. These are all just temporary posts for English forces and best they do is provide a few cleaning jobs other than as Dura Ace states encourage crime..
    Now on that we do disagree Malc.

    The value to the NE Scotland economy is millions and many thousands of mainly good jobs
    They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.
    Really !!!!
This discussion has been closed.