Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Woodcock is right: Remain’s grand strategy is so muddled as to
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Woodcock is right: Remain’s grand strategy is so muddled as to not exist
Boris Johnson’s Brexit plan is commendably clear: leave on 31 October without a deal. The clarity might be the only thing that’s commendable about it and it leaves many questions open about what happens into November and beyond but on the central point of Britain’s EU membership, the issue would be closed.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The other one was obviously closer to the server, or on Totnes Time. Or it was rigged by MI5. Or something.
An extension without a clear purpose is the worst possible scenario, it just wastes all the stockpiling and preparations people have done for now while making them become necessary in the future and changing absolutely nothing.
If you have no strategy, tactics are pointless. The only way to avoid a No Deal Brexit is to vote for the Deal but that opportunity was rejected three times.
The fools!
The end result of all this is that we will get a No Deal Brexit, something desired only by the loony right and the loony far Left. Who knew that it would be the Tories who would finally enact a key part of Labour’s 1983 (“longest suicide note in history”) manifesto? Corbyn must be delighted.
I think this article puts up more barriers than are there in truth, and reminds of the similar articles about how Theresa May couldn't call an election in 2017 due to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. When it came to it, she asked for it in the morning, got it in the afternoon, job done.
Parliament has always done the minimum required to absolutely guarantee that there won't be a No-Deal and I don't see that changing. Thing is, I reckon that's what Boris is relying on without wanting to get his hands dirty. If we have to go over the cliff, it'll be his fault and his alone; nothing that ever happens is the Oppositions fault.
The maximum is for the Commons to pass a resolution revoking Article 50.
Those are the only alternatives to no deal left now. An extension would almost certainly be vetoed and there is no time for an election.
At the moment neither seems probable.
I'd still put no deal as favourite for all the reasons listed in the header, but some of them surely will come to see that they have to pick an option soon, and the working through options that we are seeing in silly season is part of that last desperate flailing.
I sense David’s frustration at the lack of something clearcut about the long-term future. But the Brexit sands are shifting on an almost daily basis so there’s nothing surprising, or indeed wrong, with a flexible approach. Nor do I accept his premise that there has to be a final goal in place now before stopping the immediate catastrophe of a No Deal exit. That is a non sequitur and fatally flawed.
But perhaps the biggest fault with this piece is the one with which his ‘game through’ (argh what an execrable term) begins. Boris Johnson will not simply ‘resign’ because he sees an extension of A50 coming. That’s a frankly absurd suggestion, not least because under the FTPA it will achieve absolutely nothing. Johnson resigning doesn’t precipitate a General Election. It’s getting wearisome the number of people who have evidently never bothered to read and assimilate the FTPA.
Article 50 will be extended by a Parliament which is implacably opposed to No Deal. The route to this will be legislation. Herdson seems tacitly to accept this in his rather muddled arguments.
That there is not, yet, a clear solution to the future beyond the extension is irrelevant. Yes, we could elect an entirely Remainer Parliament. Yes, we could have a 2nd Referendum. Yes both are solutions. The composition of the post General Election Parliament is a red herring for now.
The immediate task in hand is quite properly to extend Article 50. That’s not ‘kicking the can’. It’s saving the nation from cataclysm.
The seller has a lump sum of cash when the sale completes. Taking it out of the seller means it is automatic and never really saved or spent by anyone.
Taking it from the borrower means they need to have the cash up front, you are front-loading the borrowers expenditure and they have to save it real terms. If the seller charges it to the borrower in the sale price, then yes it is the same to the government but the mortgage covers a large proportion of it. It takes the borrowers expenditure from being up front along with the deposit to being in the future.
Example: House sale at £300k, not a first time buyer, buyer getting a mortgage with a 20% deposit.
Deposit: £60,000
Stamp Duty: £5,000
Total up front: £65,000
Alternate: House sale of £305k, not a first time buyer, 20% deposit, no buyers stamp duty.
Deposit: £61,000
Total up front: £61,000
If Boris Johnson isn't willing to bring back the deal (possibly with a fig leaf) then a Con-Lab collaboration to install Clarke or Harman as PM is* the only way to extend the situation rather than leave with no deal.
Miss Cyclefree, if the Commons musters the numbers, and the will, to toss Johnson overboard just months into his premiership, for the express purpose of avoiding a no deal departure, the odds on us actually remaining would shorten dramatically. The EU would vastly prefer our substantially annual financial contribution to not having it, not to mention easy access to our market.
Edited extra bit: *would seem to be.
However prepared they are, however frustrated, is it easier to kick the can? Does it leave open the hope we come grovelling back?
I think that goes for each of them EU 27 too, with the possible exception of France where I could argue it either way.
That is not strictly true.
Ken Clarke yesterday suggested a GONU policy of shepherding through as soft a Brexit as possible (while pointing out that his own meaningful vote motion failed by only two votes last time around).
Given he has neither the desire nor capacity to continue as PM beyond that, and no possible agenda to further alongside it while temporary PM, he does seem the obvious candidate. That he voted for the WA despite being one if the most ardent Europeans in the Commons is further evidence of his evenhandedness.
Such a settlement would probably meet Labour’s tests, and could conceivably bring the LibDems on board, as the least of many evils. It ought also to be attractive to Tory rebels - and would comply with the referendum vote.
The obvious obstacle is Corbyn’s determination to be PM, come what may. Even that might not be insurmountable, as such a soft Brexit might well leave the Tories vulnerable to the Brexit party betrayal charges at the post Brexit general election.
He only knew that he had to destroy it. To cast it back into the fires from whence it came.
Parliament can scrutinise, revise or vote down legislation, but it cannot propose it. That is the job of the government.
If the government does not propose any legislation which can be amended to include an Article 50 extension request, what is Parliament going to do?
https://erskinemay.parliament.uk
It would be sublime to see Boris Johnson impotent in Downing Street, having neither done nor died.
My interpretation is Parliament can pass a law which revokes, or appoint a PM who is willing to negotiate for an extension.
However would the EU really engage in constructive negotiations with a Ken Clark's sundry rebels / Corbyn / SNP / Green / PC / Lib Dem coalition that has a life time measured in days or weeks ? My guess is no.
If they grab power they can revoke and submit themselves to the voters judgement, it's the only card they have to play. The judgement is unlikely to be kind
More on why Cooper II may not work here:
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/parliament-role-before-31-october-brexit-FINAL.pdf
I'll post a link if I find it.
We should have had this decision in March. We have wasted another 7 months to no purpose whatsoever. This useless incompetent Parliament is never going to make its mind up about what it wants as opposed to what it doesn't. As the Bard said, "if it were to be done, it were well to be done quickly." Its a bit late for that but its make your mind up time.
To my thinking, if MPs from across the House are willing to oust Johnson after just a few months of being PM, expressly to prevent us leaving without a deal, that makes the chances of remaining much shorter.
Any new PM, to hold together the coalition (and to respect the mandate that got them the position) would be honour bound to listen more to the Commons *and* not be beholden to a party membership. The EU would also see that the Commons was willing to take drastic action to avoid us leaving (with no deal, at the least).
I could see another referendum with Clarke/Harman's Deal versus Remain as the options.
The biggest obstacle is the first. We do live in unusual political times, but it's still a very big ask.
BTW, I think TANDA is great and should be adopted forthwith and by all in place of GNU or GONU or GUC, or anything with 'U' in it. As David says, there is no 'national unity' behind any alternative to Johnson and whatever his plan is. If only there were.
As good a plan as a few we've heard.
Article 50 does only exist effectively because Brown reneged upon a manifesto pledge for a referendum on Lisbon.
It was pro-EU types that insisted Article 50 (as part of the wider treaty) came into being...
I believe there is such a candidate...
Why would Corbyn want to go anywhere near Brexit when, Johnson having painted himself into a corner, could well make a horlicks of the whole issue without any help from Jezza? He has however made a (hollow?) gesture that he could use, in future, as a fig leaf when questioned as to why he didn't do more to prevent no deal. He can finger-point in that event at both Mr Johnson and Ms Swinson.
PB Tories are convinced Corbyn will do anything to become PM and impose his style of Soviet government on us. Did he too have a childhood dream to become 'World King'? I suspect not, he is far too lazy and the thought of actually doing anything (positive or negative) would fill him with dread. Let's face it he has done exactly zip as LOTO, other than to alienate pink Tories on the right of his party. Besides, why get involved with saving Brexit when, if it all unravels Corbyn is the one in the driving seat to deliver his Soviet dream with minimal effort.
We will leave on 31st October without a deal. What happens after that is anyone's guess. It could be unicorns gently grazing the sunlit uplands, or it could be martial law, or more likely something moderately unpleasant inbetween.
The question now is whether he is going to drop it in the lake...
"I'm not saying that there wasn't a democratic mandate for brexit at the time. I'm just saying that if I narrowly decided to order fish in a restaurant that was known for chicken, but said it was happy to offer fish, and so far I've been waiting 3 hours, and two chefs who promised to cook the fish have quit, and the third one is promising to deliver the fish in the next five minutes whether it is cooked or not, or indeed still alive,and all the waiting staff have spent the last few hours arguing amongst themselves about whether I wanted battered cod, grilled salmon, jellied eels or dolphin kebabs, and if large parts of the restaurant appeared to be on fire but no one was paying any attention to it because they were all arguing about fish, I would quite like, just once, to be asked if I definitely still wanted fish."
Its gone (trying to sound modern) viral. An MSP said to me yesterday that it was the first and only thing that he had read that made him wonder if there should be a second vote. Not quite there myself but it makes the remainer argument better than anything else I have seen.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1162638085945004032
It’s one of the reasons this notion won’t hold. Any Remainer Gvt will quickly become a lighting rod for abuse and Boris will be a favourite for the following election. Being forced out trying to get Brexit over the line surely brings the Brexit Party Vote in line for him, and he also then gets to oppose every unpopular policy and every postponed decision by the new Gvt, picking up stacks of votes along the way.
I think the thesis of putting in a Remainer Gvt assumes the core proposition is a popular one. Hmm. Ok. Let’s test that. Proponents might be disappointed. It would be particularly ironic if the Remainer Gvt was in long enough for the public to hold it and its policies responsible for the impending recession.
Occasional legislation manages to get passed (not much) and we all get to quite enjoy the quiet life.
Corbyn doesnt care much about Brexit either way, and almost certainly welcomes a Tory led no deal which is one of the very few scenarios that could create a parliamentary majority for a radical Corbyn govt. As he doesnt think there is much difference between a traditional Labour govt and Tory govt, the only destination he cares about is eventually getting a radical left govt.
If the country suffers greatly to get there it is irrelevant as it is the promised land. Virtually the same demented thought process as those wanting Brexit at any cost.
Normal politics could resume shortly thereafter...
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1162394920725942274
All the stuff announced or leaked- the coins, the SpAds, the US trade deal dreams- has essentially been trivia. The latest is SEO, changing UK Exit to Brexit in government websites. None of it actually tells us anything. It feels like displacement activity, because real no-deal prep will be unpopular.
And we know who likes being popular, don't we?
The problem with Brexit is not just that there are no good outcomes. There aren't any immediately stable ones.
I think that translates as a general election but with the entire current gang of MPs barred from standing again.
On the issue of Europe, he ought to command the approval of anyone but the hard Brexiteers or Revokers.
The issue is respect, not popularity.
Even if you don't believe my personal knowledge that Corbyn is (mildly) anti-Brexit, in practice he'd be dependent on MPs inside and outside Labour who wouldn't dream of voting for Brexit. In principle the Government would have a go at a fresh deal and would then put it to a new referendum as one option vs Remain, but in reality the steam would have gone out of the effort.
There are all kinds of reasons why one might not want the Tories to lose. But if they do, Brexit is probably dead.
Incidentally, the cross-party letter that I helped with is the lead in the online Guardian letters page today:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/16/brexit-can-opposition-parties-get-their-act-together-to-stop-no-deal
Surely the dishonourable member for Totnes sums up the situation perfectly. Elected on a manifesto to honour Brexit, immediately on re-election sets out to stop Brexit, huffs and puffs and eventually throws a hissy fit and leaves the party. Then she eventually joins the Liberal Undemocrats whose leader only believes in honouring referenda which suit her and who came 3rd in Totnes in 2017. Said MP was a leading supporter of a bill to require defecting MPs to stand down and face a by-election and when faced with precisely that situation, she refuses to do so!
As many point out, a "No deal" Brexit does not mean there are no deals. Hundreds have already been agreed. Let's just get the feck out of the EU and then Boris can call a GE. Then we will see how many of the 650 so called Honourable members truly are in the eyes of their constituents. As for Ken Clarke or any Tory who goes for this so called National Unity idea, they should immediately be stripped of party membership. In any club, if you don't like the rules set by the majority, you leave!
I have always thought Boris acted too much like a buffoon but clearly in planning his campaign for election to PM, he does indeed appear to have got all his ducks in a row and if there is a VONC, a cabinet who will most probably stand four square behind him! Roll on a GE the 2nd week of November.
The first time buyer differential may be kept or removed but by keeping the example clear and consistent it was easy to prove the numbers - at least to me the proof stands. If @rcs1000 still objects I would be curious why?
* None of which is particularly good. It's a choice between suboptimal options, which in turn implies a downgrade on the status quo.
That's one bit of brightness in the gloom.
The problem is if we meaninglessly extend repeatedly in some unending purgatory then each extension has to be stockpiled for once more. We are just repeating the pain again and again but without the supposed benefits of either exiting or remaining.
If we are to exit, then JFDI applies.
If we are to remain, then JFDI works for that too.
Half arsed extensions solve nothing.
There has to be a on election in the end, and in this scenario Labour and Lib Dems would be bound to his choices.
I have topped up a little at those rates.
By hook or by crook, remainers will long for the says of Theresa May.
No deal could have been prevented but remain blocked every other option. You reap as you sow.
I like JFDI as a motto, but the Bard's phrasing is more poetic.
The LibDems' position is that if there is No Deal. we will have apocalyptic scenes of people dying for lack of medicine, food riots, civil strife in Northern Ireland, the break-up of the United Kingdom with the secession of Scotland, a holocaust of sheep and cattle, mass redundancies & catastrophic failure of British industries.
The alternative is Jeremy Corbyn. A rather scruffy & incompetent allotment holder.
Apparently, the LibDems have decided that whatever will happen under Jeremy is actually worse than their truly eschatological vision of No Deal.
In fact, it is an astonishing achievement by the ERG. They are getting their way, with a Parliamentary strength of perhaps 60 MPs.
A Remainer-dominated Parliament has failed & failed & failed & failed.
The Remainers need to vent their fury on their incompetent Remainer MPs -- comprehensively out-thought and out-witted and out-played by Jacob Rees-Mogg & Mark Francois & Co.
I am not sure any MP in this rotten Parliament deserves to ever be returned in a General Election again.
Biden is the creepy male nurse you stick with for fear of 4 more years of the mad joker.
Anyone who has studied Corbyn will note his short game is poor but he plays a less inept long game.
As for being overtaken by India: they've got over a billion people. It's not surprising.
Likewise, the USA, China, and Japan have significantly more people. Germany's also about 20m ahead of us.
No Deal Brexit + No Corbyn vs Corbyn + EURef2
London: 40 / 40
South: 53 / 32
Mid/W: 51 / 33
North: 49 / 36
Scot: 34 / 44
So only the Scots break in favour of Corbyn, while even Labour London is split down the middle. In the rest of the country a clear majority (or (just) plurality in the North) in favour of No Deal Brexit + No Corbyn vs the alternative.
https://tinyurl.com/y4lxgct7
https://twitter.com/magnusllewellin/status/1162641683936403456
The key is that the key to getting into Government and sustaining yourself is to want to actually do things. Simply opposing is never a manifesto for Government, and in that the Conservatives are currently at a massive advantage. To be fair, under the surface, the likes of McDonnell are trying to focus on what Labour would do - but it doesn't get much airtime, and much of it is an anaethema to the electorate.
Blair got into power on the back partly of Conservative popularity yes, but also because he moved on from permanent opposition. In fact, he managed to change the traditional balance, so that the political debates were often about his plans for Government, countered by Conservative criticism, and this began 2-3 years before 1997. And that made him look forward looking with a plan for Government, and his opponents were just sniping.
There aren't any easy answers (though perhaps the qualification for holding cabinet posts would be previous ministerial experience ?), and it would be imperative that any deal be concluded quickly - which again argues for the softest possible Brexit, which could be implemented immediately.
Try asking the same questions for a Corbyn led government, though.