Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Clarke’s TANDA – what about all the other positions?

SystemSystem Posts: 12,171
edited August 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Clarke’s TANDA – what about all the other positions?

Let’s make the heroic assumption that the Tories are brought down in a Vote of No Confidence, Corbyn cannot gather the support to form a government but he reluctantly concedes that if someone else can, on a temporary basis, in order to secure an Article 50 extension and then trigger a general election, Labour will support that.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited August 2019
    A Clarke-led minority government is a unicorn. As DH says, there is the question of who would actually be in the government, and as Clarke himself has suggested this would be to renegotiate Brexit, this would matter because it would inevitably take time. Secondly, it would split the Conservative Party for a generation. Thirdly, it would mean Boris resigning as leader just a few weeks after his landslide election.

    Corbyn and a splash-and-dash, extension and election government, with acceptance of purdah to rule out action in other areas, remains the only viable chance to stop Brexit. Ironically, it would then not matter very much who was in the Cabinet as purdah and time would preclude new legislation.

    The only viable route to a Clarke premiership is as leader of a Conservative government if Boris falls under a bus.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    There is no chance of any of these pro-celebrity government of all the cvnts being formed nor surviving longer than a day.

    Utter fantasy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,152
    edited August 2019

    A Clarke-led minority government is a unicorn. As DH says, there is the question of who would actually be in the government, and as Clarke himself has suggested this would be to renegotiate Brexit, this would matter because it would inevitably take time. Secondly, it would split the Conservative Party for a generation. Thirdly, it would mean Boris resigning as leader just a few weeks after his landslide election.

    Corbyn and a splash-and-dash, extension and election government, with acceptance of purdah to rule out action in other areas, remains the only viable chance to stop Brexit. Ironically, it would then not matter very much who was in the Cabinet as purdah and time would preclude new legislation.

    The only viable route to a Clarke premiership is as leader of a Conservative government if Boris falls under a bus.

    Clarke has no chance being leader of a Tory government and extending again to stop No Deal Brexit, his only chance would be getting most Labour MPs to ignore Corbyn and vote to make him PM, joined by the LDs and SNP and about 50 anti No Deal Tory rebels. Corbyn will never accept anyone else being PM but him.

    Boris of course would not resign but stay Tory leader and replace Corbyn as Leader of the Opposition with the vast majority of Tory MPs and the DUP behind him as well as a few Labour rebels.

    With Clarke PM on an anti No Deal ticket and Boris Leader of the Opposition on a pro No Deal Brexit ticket, Corbyn would be left in no man's land having lost control of the vast majority of his MPs who would be backing a Clarke premiership
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    HYUFD said:

    A Clarke-led minority government is a unicorn. As DH says, there is the question of who would actually be in the government, and as Clarke himself has suggested this would be to renegotiate Brexit, this would matter because it would inevitably take time. Secondly, it would split the Conservative Party for a generation. Thirdly, it would mean Boris resigning as leader just a few weeks after his landslide election.

    Corbyn and a splash-and-dash, extension and election government, with acceptance of purdah to rule out action in other areas, remains the only viable chance to stop Brexit. Ironically, it would then not matter very much who was in the Cabinet as purdah and time would preclude new legislation.

    The only viable route to a Clarke premiership is as leader of a Conservative government if Boris falls under a bus.

    Clarke has no chance being leader of a Tory government and extending again to stop No Deal Brexit, his only chance would be getting most Labour MPs to ignore Corbyn and vote to make him PM, joined by the LDs and SNP and about 50 anti No Deal Tory rebels. Corbyn will never accept anyone else being PM but him.

    Boris of course would not resign but stay Tory leader and replace Corbyn as Leader of the Opposition with the vast majority of Tory MPs and the DUP behind him as well as a few Labour rebels.

    With Clarke PM on an anti No Deal ticket and Boris Leader of the Opposition on a pro No Deal Brexit ticket, Corbyn would be left in no man's land having lost control of the vast majority of his MPs who would be backing a Clarke premiership
    Ken Clarke is not going to take over the Labour Party. Otherwise this is what the header debunks. Corbyn is Hobson's Choice.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,627
    Ah, this one again. Surely it’s closer to 140/1 than 14/1?

    Does Ken Clarke really want to finish more than 50 years of loyal service to the Conservatives by splitting the party in half over Europe and form a government of trots and greens?

    Also, how many Tories would commit career suicide by joining in? We hear talk of 40 or 50, but would more than a handful of retirees actually cross the floor to do it?
  • This. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,806
    Good morning, everyone.

    It's too damned warm.

    Whilst not disagreeing, I wonder what those who are suggesting a Clarke Government is unlikely think the likeliest alternative outcome is.
  • No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,216
    edited August 2019
    Clarke is in the red column for me in the next PM market. Corbyn is wrong about most things, but on getting next dibs to be PM I think he has every right to expect to be next in line after Johnson.
    If not Corbyn, GE.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,237
    edited August 2019
    Sandpit said:

    Ah, this one again. Surely it’s closer to 140/1 than 14/1?

    Does Ken Clarke really want to finish more than 50 years of loyal service to the Conservatives by splitting the party in half over Europe and form a government of trots and greens?

    Also, how many Tories would commit career suicide by joining in? We hear talk of 40 or 50, but would more than a handful of retirees actually cross the floor to do it?

    I think there are two ways a caretaker administration could happen, and neither of them is very likely.

    The first is a situation where Ken Clarke makes it clear that he would ask for an extension, and then immediately call for a No Confidence vote on his own government. Mr Clarke would be the shorting serving Prime Minister on record, managing, the Palace, a call to Brussels, lunch, and a No Confidence vote in the space of about three hours. In such a situation, there would be no need for the filling of Ministerial posts because any Conservative Backers of the (T)GoNAfaE would simply then give confidence again to Mr Johnson. (For the record, I doubt they'd get to stand as Conservatives at the next election. But if Mr Clarke offered this, it *might* theoretically happen.) I'll call this a 500-1 shot.

    The second is one where Mr Johnson vowed to have an election after 31 October. So, he's been no confidenced, and then foolishly boasts that any General Election would take place actually on 31 October. (Which, if I recall correctly is a Thursday.) There is then an incredibly small chance that the "forces of Remain" chose to put in place a caretaker government solely for the purpose of having a PM who would choose a date before 31 October. This is also not very likely. I'd say it's more likely than the first option, but not much. Shall we say 250-1?

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,237
    edited August 2019
    Re Iowa. There was the completely unscientific straw poll at the Iowa State Fair this week.

    It had Biden on 17.7%, Warren on 17.4%, Buttigieg on 13.9%, and Sanders on 10%. Nobody else made it out of single digits.

    No Democrat who has ever won the straw poll has ever gone on to win the Iowa caucuses, so it looks like Warren had a lucky escape.

    Worth mentioning that Tulsi Gabbard did surprisingly well, beating out Amy Klouba... Amy from Minnesota, and landing seventh spot with 5%. She was also well ahead of Beto O'Rourke, whose Presidential campaign is tanking hard.
  • It seems like Johnson’s cunning plan is to essentially revert to a NI-only backstop.

    https://twitter.com/darranmarshall/status/1165374321969303552?s=21
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,237

    It seems like Johnson’s cunning plan is to essentially revert to a NI-only backstop.

    https://twitter.com/darranmarshall/status/1165374321969303552?s=21

    So, a sort of mini backstop, where agricultural rules (for example) stayed aligned in Northern Ireland. But it was all sufficiently opaque that he gets to claim victory. That could work
  • rcs1000 said:

    It seems like Johnson’s cunning plan is to essentially revert to a NI-only backstop.

    https://twitter.com/darranmarshall/status/1165374321969303552?s=21

    So, a sort of mini backstop, where agricultural rules (for example) stayed aligned in Northern Ireland. But it was all sufficiently opaque that he gets to claim victory. That could work

    I don’t see how that gets passed the ERG and the DUP, so Johnson will need Labour votes. He could get them, but would face a huge BXP onslaught in the subsequent general election.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,478
    I fear that, the alternatives being so unlikely, we will Leave on 31st Oct. There will serious short-term problems for a while, then things will ease off until around Christmas, when the press will begin to carry stories of care homes without staff and so on.

    Incidentally, my wife has just been told that there is no point in trying for a Dermatology appointment locally; there just aren't enough clinical staff. It's not that she can't have one for three months; the contractor to the local CCG just isn't making any at all at the moment.The last consultant she saw, six months ago, told her was off back to, IIRC, Poland.
  • We all know who truly benefits from a No Deal Brexit - especially one that is then followed a few months later by a deal.
    https://twitter.com/shippersunbound/status/1165367219200638979?s=21
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936

    rcs1000 said:

    It seems like Johnson’s cunning plan is to essentially revert to a NI-only backstop.

    https://twitter.com/darranmarshall/status/1165374321969303552?s=21

    So, a sort of mini backstop, where agricultural rules (for example) stayed aligned in Northern Ireland. But it was all sufficiently opaque that he gets to claim victory. That could work

    I don’t see how that gets passed the ERG and the DUP, so Johnson will need Labour votes. He could get them, but would face a huge BXP onslaught in the subsequent general election.

    Probably not if he actually managed to pull something off. I suspect the majority of BXP voters don't care about the specifics of the deal, they just want out.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,653
    edited August 2019
    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    It seems like Johnson’s cunning plan is to essentially revert to a NI-only backstop.

    https://twitter.com/darranmarshall/status/1165374321969303552?s=21

    So, a sort of mini backstop, where agricultural rules (for example) stayed aligned in Northern Ireland. But it was all sufficiently opaque that he gets to claim victory. That could work

    I don’t see how that gets passed the ERG and the DUP, so Johnson will need Labour votes. He could get them, but would face a huge BXP onslaught in the subsequent general election.

    Probably not if he actually managed to pull something off. I suspect the majority of BXP voters don't care about the specifics of the deal, they just want out.

    If they just wanted out they’d have backed May’s Deal. They are a sub-set if the Leave vote addicted to betrayal.

  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 1,138

    No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?

    Yep.

    No deal is happening. And Remain have themselves to blame.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,806
    In terms of Commons votes, suppose Johnson actually advocates his own deal (May's with backstop alterations). Do Labour support it?

    My guess is no. But with the time so short and the implications in the news for weeks, that might weigh on them.

    Still, with the media focused on a few score ERGers and seemingly incapable of mentioning that most of those who vote against the various deals are pro-EU Labour MPs I doubt it'll worry Corbyn unduly.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,478
    nunuone said:

    No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?

    Yep.

    No deal is happening. And Remain have themselves to blame.
    So it's going to be a disaster and the people who said it would be are to blame? Really?

    I knew the Leave campaign was the most dishonest one ever seen in this country, but getting what you want and then blaming the other side for it going wrong really does take the biscuit!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,806
    King Cole, point of order: we do (including me) refer to Remain and Leave a lot, but these aren't fixed or definitive positions. It's like referring to Christianity or Islam. There's quite a lot of divergence in there.

    Also, most of those opposing deals supported Remain and the deal was negotiated by a Remain-supporting PM.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    rcs1000 said:

    Re Iowa. There was the completely unscientific straw poll at the Iowa State Fair this week.

    It had Biden on 17.7%, Warren on 17.4%, Buttigieg on 13.9%, and Sanders on 10%. Nobody else made it out of single digits.

    No Democrat who has ever won the straw poll has ever gone on to win the Iowa caucuses, so it looks like Warren had a lucky escape.

    Worth mentioning that Tulsi Gabbard did surprisingly well, beating out Amy Klouba... Amy from Minnesota, and landing seventh spot with 5%. She was also well ahead of Beto O'Rourke, whose Presidential campaign is tanking hard.

    I'm keeping it simple: laying Harris, Sanders and Yang.
  • nunuone said:

    No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?

    Yep.

    No deal is happening. And Remain have themselves to blame.
    So it's going to be a disaster and the people who said it would be are to blame? Really?

    I knew the Leave campaign was the most dishonest one ever seen in this country, but getting what you want and then blaming the other side for it going wrong really does take the biscuit!

    We learned years ago they will never take any responsibility. It will always be someone else’s fault.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    Pulpstar said:

    Clarke is in the red column for me in the next PM market. Corbyn is wrong about most things, but on getting next dibs to be PM I think he has every right to expect to be next in line after Johnson.
    If not Corbyn, GE.

    The most likely scenario at present is that Parliament votes for a law banning No Deal in September, and demanding another extension.

    Johnson will then do his best to ignore it, and I don't know what happens then.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,478
    I know Mrs May said she voted Remain, and indeed said publicly before the vote that Leaving was a Bad Idea but she seemed to be convinced by her promotion to PM that she'd been wrong.

    Agree about the divergence; like all movements. I understand that some Tories regard Boris Johnson as less than the ideal leader.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,806
    Mr. Royale, I agree that MPs collectively might want to do that but could it be done in the time frame, and are there the Parliamentary mechanisms that permit a disparate group of MPs to propose such binding legislation?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,478

    nunuone said:

    No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?

    Yep.

    No deal is happening. And Remain have themselves to blame.
    So it's going to be a disaster and the people who said it would be are to blame? Really?

    I knew the Leave campaign was the most dishonest one ever seen in this country, but getting what you want and then blaming the other side for it going wrong really does take the biscuit!

    We learned years ago they will never take any responsibility. It will always be someone else’s fault.

    Many, many years ago, during one of Wilson's economic crises a City type who had been gambling on sterling falling was quoted as saying something like 'it's unpatriotic and derogatory to sterling, but on balance it makes sense.'
    Hedge fund operators, especially those with offices in Dublin anyone?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,733

    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    It seems like Johnson’s cunning plan is to essentially revert to a NI-only backstop.

    https://twitter.com/darranmarshall/status/1165374321969303552?s=21

    So, a sort of mini backstop, where agricultural rules (for example) stayed aligned in Northern Ireland. But it was all sufficiently opaque that he gets to claim victory. That could work

    I don’t see how that gets passed the ERG and the DUP, so Johnson will need Labour votes. He could get them, but would face a huge BXP onslaught in the subsequent general election.

    Probably not if he actually managed to pull something off. I suspect the majority of BXP voters don't care about the specifics of the deal, they just want out.

    If they just wanted out they’d have backed May’s Deal. They are a sub-set if the Leave vote addicted to betrayal.

    It will always be the wrong sort of Leave to them.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    " but the rest of government still goes on, and such an administration would be in office for over a month, during the election"

    The point is the government ministries and department go on as usual run by the civil servants. During an election the HoC ministers are still the ministers but they are not making decisions of any importance, just signing and stamping enough letter to make sure everything carries on as usual. In the Clarke as PM scenario, he would be active PM for 1 day, after that he would either be de facto PM during an election campaign that he would not be standing in, or Johnson would return as de facto PM during the election campaign.

    Recent examples where the governments has carried on as usal for months regardless of who actually the minister is and without any policy decisions being made are in Germany 2017-18 (six months) post GE and in Belgium 2010-2011 (19 months) post GE. These situations are not great, but competely workable.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,914
    More to the point, Nancy pelosi has to agree too.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Johnson fawning over trump is sickening congratulating him on his economic policies etc etc
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    nichomar said:

    Johnson fawning over trump is sickening congratulating him on his economic policies etc etc


  • More to the point, Nancy pelosi has to agree too.

    Even if the deal doesn’t happen Johnson gets his win: a few Trump quotes on how tough Johnson was and he just had to concede on pork pies!

  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    Surely, if a GONU or TANDA were to extend Brexit or vote against No Deal it would finish up in the courts, upon the basis that Parliament had voted against itself (having effectively approved a potential No Deal when it passed Article 50)?

    I suspect that such a vote could also be seen as effectively binding the hands of the successor.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,869
    Gadfly said:

    Surely, if a GONU or TANDA were to extend Brexit or vote against No Deal it would finish up in the courts, upon the basis that Parliament had voted against itself (having effectively approved a potential No Deal when it passed Article 50)?

    I suspect that such a vote could also be seen as effectively binding the hands of the successor.

    No and no.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,124
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ah, this one again. Surely it’s closer to 140/1 than 14/1?

    Does Ken Clarke really want to finish more than 50 years of loyal service to the Conservatives by splitting the party in half over Europe and form a government of trots and greens?

    Also, how many Tories would commit career suicide by joining in? We hear talk of 40 or 50, but would more than a handful of retirees actually cross the floor to do it?

    I think there are two ways a caretaker administration could happen, and neither of them is very likely.

    The first is a situation where Ken Clarke makes it clear that he would ask for an extension, and then immediately call for a No Confidence vote on his own government. Mr Clarke would be the shorting serving Prime Minister on record, managing, the Palace, a call to Brussels, lunch, and a No Confidence vote in the space of about three hours. In such a situation, there would be no need for the filling of Ministerial posts because any Conservative Backers of the (T)GoNAfaE would simply then give confidence again to Mr Johnson. (For the record, I doubt they'd get to stand as Conservatives at the next election. But if Mr Clarke offered this, it *might* theoretically happen.) I'll call this a 500-1 shot.

    The second is one where Mr Johnson vowed to have an election after 31 October. So, he's been no confidenced, and then foolishly boasts that any General Election would take place actually on 31 October. (Which, if I recall correctly is a Thursday.) There is then an incredibly small chance that the "forces of Remain" chose to put in place a caretaker government solely for the purpose of having a PM who would choose a date before 31 October. This is also not very likely. I'd say it's more likely than the first option, but not much. Shall we say 250-1?

    If the former, it might not be quite so short an administration. Not if you have to put a Ken Clarke lunch in it.
  • Here’s the timetable:
    1. We No Deal Brexit.
    2. Hedge funds that own the government make hay from the chaos this causes.
    3. Tories win a GE thanks to Corbyn Labour.
    4. Hedge funds realise their profits by ordering Johnson to do a deal.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    TGOHF said:

    There is no chance of any of these pro-celebrity government of all the cvnts being formed nor surviving longer than a day.

    Utter fantasy.

    Be fair.

    It’s useful displacement activity to make them think they are doing something

    The downside is it completely eliminates any incentive for the EU to move (this isn’t to say they would move if the fanatical Remainers would just shut up, but there is a greater chance they would)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?

    Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?

    The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    Re Iowa. There was the completely unscientific straw poll at the Iowa State Fair this week.

    It had Biden on 17.7%, Warren on 17.4%, Buttigieg on 13.9%, and Sanders on 10%. Nobody else made it out of single digits.

    No Democrat who has ever won the straw poll has ever gone on to win the Iowa caucuses, so it looks like Warren had a lucky escape.

    Worth mentioning that Tulsi Gabbard did surprisingly well, beating out Amy Klouba... Amy from Minnesota, and landing seventh spot with 5%. She was also well ahead of Beto O'Rourke, whose Presidential campaign is tanking hard.

    You should know better than that @rcs1000 !

    https://xkcd.com/1122/
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    In terms of Commons votes, suppose Johnson actually advocates his own deal (May's with backstop alterations). Do Labour support it?

    My guess is no. But with the time so short and the implications in the news for weeks, that might weigh on them.

    Still, with the media focused on a few score ERGers and seemingly incapable of mentioning that most of those who vote against the various deals are pro-EU Labour MPs I doubt it'll worry Corbyn unduly.

    I think Boris goes for a free vote if he submits something
  • Charles said:

    No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?

    Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?

    The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.

    Winning the battle of public opinion in the UK is one thing, Charles. But in a post No Deal Brexit world we are going to be heavily reliant on the goodwill of those who do not believe the UK only owes £7bn-£9bn. And public opinion in the UK is of absolutely no interest to them.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Pulpstar said:

    Clarke is in the red column for me in the next PM market. Corbyn is wrong about most things, but on getting next dibs to be PM I think he has every right to expect to be next in line after Johnson.
    If not Corbyn, GE.

    The most likely scenario at present is that Parliament votes for a law banning No Deal in September, and demanding another extension.

    Johnson will then do his best to ignore it, and I don't know what happens then.
    How do they vote for a law like this if the Executive doesn’t introduce a bill?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?

    Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?

    The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.

    Winning the battle of public opinion in the UK is one thing, Charles. But in a post No Deal Brexit world we are going to be heavily reliant on the goodwill of those who do not believe the UK only owes £7bn-£9bn. And public opinion in the UK is of absolutely no interest to them.

    Let’s keep it simple.

    Why should we pay £14.5bn a year (IIRC) for a transition period?
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?

    Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?

    The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.

    Winning the battle of public opinion in the UK is one thing, Charles. But in a post No Deal Brexit world we are going to be heavily reliant on the goodwill of those who do not believe the UK only owes £7bn-£9bn. And public opinion in the UK is of absolutely no interest to them.

    Let’s keep it simple.

    Why should we pay £14.5bn a year (IIRC) for a transition period?

    To ensure the goodwill of those we have made ourselves dependent on.

  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Charles said:

    No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?

    Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?

    The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.
    I think the EU would not expect the £30bn in the event of no deal but would expect £30bn in order to transit to a compressive free trade deal along with acceptance of the backstop and guaranteed rights for EU citizens.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited August 2019

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?

    Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?

    The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.

    Winning the battle of public opinion in the UK is one thing, Charles. But in a post No Deal Brexit world we are going to be heavily reliant on the goodwill of those who do not believe the UK only owes £7bn-£9bn. And public opinion in the UK is of absolutely no interest to them.

    Let’s keep it simple.

    Why should we pay £14.5bn a year (IIRC) for a transition period?

    To ensure the goodwill of those we have made ourselves dependent on.

    Paying £29bn to neighbouring countries “to ensure goodwill”

    That’s a pretty crappy use of taxpayers money
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,387

    It seems like Johnson’s cunning plan is to essentially revert to a NI-only backstop.

    https://twitter.com/darranmarshall/status/1165374321969303552?s=21

    Johnson's plan to become PM and stay there seems to be very convoluted and risky.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?

    Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?

    The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.

    Winning the battle of public opinion in the UK is one thing, Charles. But in a post No Deal Brexit world we are going to be heavily reliant on the goodwill of those who do not believe the UK only owes £7bn-£9bn. And public opinion in the UK is of absolutely no interest to them.

    Let’s keep it simple.

    Why should we pay £14.5bn a year (IIRC) for a transition period?

    To ensure the goodwill of those we have made ourselves dependent on.

    Paying £29bn to neighbouring countries “to ensure goodwill”

    That’s a pretty crappy use of taxpayers money

    That depends on the alternatives, Charles. When you give up control, these are the issues you have to grapple with. In the short term, the UK will clearly withhold the cash. Longer term, we’ll see. At some point the hedge funds that own the government will want to realise their No Deal profits - and that will mean a deal will be necessary.

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237
    rcs1000 said:

    Re Iowa. There was the completely unscientific straw poll at the Iowa State Fair this week.

    It had Biden on 17.7%, Warren on 17.4%, Buttigieg on 13.9%, and Sanders on 10%. Nobody else made it out of single digits.

    No Democrat who has ever won the straw poll has ever gone on to win the Iowa caucuses, so it looks like Warren had a lucky escape.

    Worth mentioning that Tulsi Gabbard did surprisingly well, beating out Amy Klouba... Amy from Minnesota, and landing seventh spot with 5%. She was also well ahead of Beto O'Rourke, whose Presidential campaign is tanking hard.

    The political equivalent of the Masters par 3 competition?
  • nichomar said:

    Charles said:

    No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?

    Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?

    The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.
    I think the EU would not expect the £30bn in the event of no deal but would expect £30bn in order to transit to a compressive free trade deal along with acceptance of the backstop and guaranteed rights for EU citizens.

    We may discover the price has risen a little.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,004
    edited August 2019
    TGOHF said:

    There is no chance of any of these pro-celebrity government of all the cvnts being formed nor surviving longer than a day.

    Utter fantasy.

    I thought we were pretty much at peak government of all the cvnts.

    Edit: I see not, IDS is currently without a role.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    nichomar said:

    Charles said:

    No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?

    Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?

    The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.
    I think the EU would not expect the £30bn in the event of no deal but would expect £30bn in order to transit to a compressive free trade deal along with acceptance of the backstop and guaranteed rights for EU citizens.

    We may discover the price has risen a little.

    Has anything been added, or just because many parts of the bill are in Euros, and the exchange rate has moved against us?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    You can tell Boris would just suck a batch right out of Trump if so commanded.
  • HYUFD said:

    A Clarke-led minority government is a unicorn. As DH says, there is the question of who would actually be in the government, and as Clarke himself has suggested this would be to renegotiate Brexit, this would matter because it would inevitably take time. Secondly, it would split the Conservative Party for a generation. Thirdly, it would mean Boris resigning as leader just a few weeks after his landslide election.

    Corbyn and a splash-and-dash, extension and election government, with acceptance of purdah to rule out action in other areas, remains the only viable chance to stop Brexit. Ironically, it would then not matter very much who was in the Cabinet as purdah and time would preclude new legislation.

    The only viable route to a Clarke premiership is as leader of a Conservative government if Boris falls under a bus.

    Clarke has no chance being leader of a Tory government and extending again to stop No Deal Brexit, his only chance would be getting most Labour MPs to ignore Corbyn and vote to make him PM, joined by the LDs and SNP and about 50 anti No Deal Tory rebels. Corbyn will never accept anyone else being PM but him.

    Boris of course would not resign but stay Tory leader and replace Corbyn as Leader of the Opposition with the vast majority of Tory MPs and the DUP behind him as well as a few Labour rebels.

    With Clarke PM on an anti No Deal ticket and Boris Leader of the Opposition on a pro No Deal Brexit ticket, Corbyn would be left in no man's land having lost control of the vast majority of his MPs who would be backing a Clarke premiership
    This is how I see it. Corbyn and his cult sat next to Boris and his cult both voting alongside each other against the government. Note the irony that as Corbyn sits and votes alongside the ERG his death cult will be screeching that the people NOT doing so because they're in the TANDA government are in fact Tories
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?

    Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?

    The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.

    Winning the battle of public opinion in the UK is one thing, Charles. But in a post No Deal Brexit world we are going to be heavily reliant on the goodwill of those who do not believe the UK only owes £7bn-£9bn. And public opinion in the UK is of absolutely no interest to them.

    Let’s keep it simple.

    Why should we pay £14.5bn a year (IIRC) for a transition period?

    To ensure the goodwill of those we have made ourselves dependent on.

    Paying £29bn to neighbouring countries “to ensure goodwill”

    That’s a pretty crappy use of taxpayers money

    That depends on the alternatives, Charles. When you give up control, these are the issues you have to grapple with. In the short term, the UK will clearly withhold the cash. Longer term, we’ll see. At some point the hedge funds that own the government will want to realise their No Deal profits - and that will mean a deal will be necessary.

    Can you give me any example of a FTA which has involved a substantial upfront cash payment?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,387
    edited August 2019

    Here’s the timetable:
    1. We No Deal Brexit.
    2. Hedge funds that own the government make hay from the chaos this causes.
    3. Tories win a GE thanks to Corbyn Labour.
    4. Hedge funds realise their profits by ordering Johnson to do a deal.

    That sounds about right. However 3 is still not a guarantee for Johnson after no deal even with the hapless Corbyn steering the sinking Labour ship. Johnson is relying on the split LD/Labour vote and if Corbyn is blamed for facilitating Johnson's no deal the LDs might do better than expected. I am not sure Johnson has that factored in yet.

    Anyway I'm off to a German discount supermarket to stockpile canned food. Baked beans and tinned tomatoes for Christmas lunch will be fine by me, I assume I might be in the minority however.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?

    Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?

    The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.

    Winning the battle of public opinion in the UK is one thing, Charles. But in a post No Deal Brexit world we are going to be heavily reliant on the goodwill of those who do not believe the UK only owes £7bn-£9bn. And public opinion in the UK is of absolutely no interest to them.

    Let’s keep it simple.

    Why should we pay £14.5bn a year (IIRC) for a transition period?

    To ensure the goodwill of those we have made ourselves dependent on.

    Paying £29bn to neighbouring countries “to ensure goodwill”

    That’s a pretty crappy use of taxpayers money

    That depends on the alternatives, Charles. When you give up control, these are the issues you have to grapple with. In the short term, the UK will clearly withhold the cash. Longer term, we’ll see. At some point the hedge funds that own the government will want to realise their No Deal profits - and that will mean a deal will be necessary.

    Can you give me any example of a FTA which has involved a substantial upfront cash payment?

    Can you give me an example of an FTA that has involved a country negotiating a worse trade deal than it currently has with the parties on the other side of the table? Every FTA is different, Charles. We will be negotiating our ones from a position of considerable weakness.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,806
    Mr. Observer, that rather underestimates what the EU is, and aspires to be.

    If it were just an FTA it'd be very popular in the UK.
  • Gadfly said:

    Surely, if a GONU or TANDA were to extend Brexit or vote against No Deal it would finish up in the courts, upon the basis that Parliament had voted against itself (having effectively approved a potential No Deal when it passed Article 50)?

    I suspect that such a vote could also be seen as effectively binding the hands of the successor.

    Parliament often votes against something it has previously supported. There is no problem with that.

    There is no law against parliament binding the hands of its successor. In any case, this would not do so. Even if parliament enacted a law against no deal, a future parliament can repeal that law.

    So no, any attempt to take this to the courts would fail.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited August 2019
    On topic, who cares who the ministers are? It's purdah, they can't do anything except make sure the lights are turned off. It's not like being temporary PM which at least has some glamour and some interesting arbitrary powers. Pension implications aside, you wouldn't even *want* a dull distraction like that if you're busy fighting an election.

    Either keep the current ones, or use the chairs of the relevant select committees, substituting a retiring grandee from the same party for each select committee chairman who declines.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675
    So Boris wants to substitute a chain around our ankle for a yoke around our neck. Or is it a noose?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    Also it's GoNAfaE, I don't know why David Herdson keeps calling it TANDA.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    Won't happen. The only way forward now is to experience Brexit in all its unalloyed glory after a Halloween No Deal and then decide where we want to go from there via the next GE.

    Anything less is going to have the Diehard Brexiteers screaming "treason", "betrayal" and worse for ever and a day. Even some sort of deal is not going satisfy them. The boil needs to be lanced sooner rather than later.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,733
    Yes, forcing through a policy opposed by a significant majority of the public is not something that is likely to bring calm to the country.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,806
    Mr. Jonathan, a cangue might be what you're after.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238
    Another shrug ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/25/no-deal-brexit-will-instantly-disrupt-uk-role-as-data-hub-digital-economy
    The UK currently has the largest data centre market in Europe. More than 75% of UK data transfers are with EU countries.

    Until the UK leaves the EU, data can flow freely to and from other member states and has been able to do so since the emergence of the internet and digital economy. The free flow of data within the EU is governed by harmonised data protection rules and common systems of regulatory enforcement. EU member states also have shared arrangements for data flows with non-EU countries...

    ...Felicity Burch, the CBI’s director of digital and innovation, said: “A no-deal Brexit endangers UK’s position as a global hub for data flows. From day one, the free flow of data that underpins every sector from automotive to logistics will be hit.

    “Businesses have already undertaken costly legal processes and some are investing in EU data centres. An adequacy agreement must remain a priority for government or the UK’s £174bn data economy is at risk.’
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,806
    Dr. Foxy, I sympathise with the sentiment but there doesn't appear to be a unifying option on the table.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,406
    edited August 2019
    OllyT said:

    Won't happen. The only way forward now is to experience Brexit in all its unalloyed glory after a Halloween No Deal and then decide where we want to go from there via the next GE.

    Anything less is going to have the Diehard Brexiteers screaming "treason", "betrayal" and worse for ever and a day. Even some sort of deal is not going satisfy them. The boil needs to be lanced sooner rather than later.

    No Deal is what 26% of the population wants. So your option keeps 26% happy (and it won't be 26% once stuff goes wrong) but will at a minimum annoy everyone else.

  • eek said:

    OllyT said:

    Won't happen. The only way forward now is to experience Brexit in all its unalloyed glory after a Halloween No Deal and then decide where we want to go from there via the next GE.

    Anything less is going to have the Diehard Brexiteers screaming "treason", "betrayal" and worse for ever and a day. Even some sort of deal is not going satisfy them. The boil needs to be lanced sooner rather than later.

    No Deal is what 26% of the population wants. So your option keeps 26% happy (and it won't be 26% once stuff goes wrong) but will at a minimum annoy everyone else.

    The hedge funds that own the government need a few months to make hay. The 26% provide the perfect cover.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,387
    Foxy said:

    Yes, forcing through a policy opposed by a significant majority of the public is not something that is likely to bring calm to the country.
    You forget, we have a great wartime PM whose 'backs to the wall', 'dig for victory' sunny optimism will bind us together as we face the foe from across the English Channel with our American brothers.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238
    Anyone know how this is coming along ?

    An Existential Threat to WTO Dispute Settlement: Blocking Appointment of Appellate Body Members by the United States
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3216633

    By the time we No Deal, we could be looking at GATT rules, rather than WTO...
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    ..
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?

    Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?

    The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.

    Winning the battle of public opinion in the UK is one thing, Charles. But in a post No Deal Brexit world we are going to be heavily reliant on the goodwill of those who do not believe the UK only owes £7bn-£9bn. And public opinion in the UK is of absolutely no interest to them.

    Let’s keep it simple.

    Why should we pay £14.5bn a year (IIRC) for a transition period?
    OK. No FTA then. Oh, I forgot. They need us more than we need them.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238
    Foxy said:

    Yes, forcing through a policy opposed by a significant majority of the public is not something that is likely to bring calm to the country.
    Which rather starkly illustrates why there was never a mandate for anything but the softest of Brexits.

    Anyone claiming otherwise is a Britain Trump.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,004
    Is it time for the Royals to brick up Randy 'only with consenting adults' Andy in a room in Glamis Castle and forget he ever existed?

    https://twitter.com/100_survivor/status/1165483489967398912?s=20
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?

    Why would we pay the £30bn or so for the transition period budget contribution if there is no transition period?

    The government was on the news this morning saying that of course they would pay their legal obligations which they estimated at £7-9bn.

    Winning the battle of public opinion in the UK is one thing, Charles. But in a post No Deal Brexit world we are going to be heavily reliant on the goodwill of those who do not believe the UK only owes £7bn-£9bn. And public opinion in the UK is of absolutely no interest to them.

    Let’s keep it simple.

    Why should we pay £14.5bn a year (IIRC) for a transition period?
    Depends how ready the UK as a whole is for No Deal at the end of October. Would two years to sort out new trading relationships and get the systems in place save the country more than 30 billion pounds? I don't know. But the value of that is non-zero.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,912
    edited August 2019
    nichomar said:

    Johnson fawning over trump is sickening congratulating him on his economic policies etc etc

    At some point in the future we will get to see Boris doing a Prince Andrew like rebuttal of his relationship with Trump.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    eek said:

    OllyT said:

    Won't happen. The only way forward now is to experience Brexit in all its unalloyed glory after a Halloween No Deal and then decide where we want to go from there via the next GE.

    Anything less is going to have the Diehard Brexiteers screaming "treason", "betrayal" and worse for ever and a day. Even some sort of deal is not going satisfy them. The boil needs to be lanced sooner rather than later.

    No Deal is what 26% of the population wants. So your option keeps 26% happy (and it won't be 26% once stuff goes wrong) but will at a minimum annoy everyone else.

    I don't want it but I think that is where we are headed and it will have one single benefit - we get to experience full-on Brexit and I happen to think it is probably the quickest route now to us joining EFTA or rejoining the EU.

    Brexit has turned into a culture war and the Brexit side thrives on narratives of betrayal, "metropolitan elites" and "enemies of the people". Anything short of a "clean" break feeds the narrative.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,387

    Is it time for the Royals to brick up Randy 'only with consenting adults' Andy in a room in Glamis Castle and forget he ever existed?

    https://twitter.com/100_survivor/status/1165483489967398912?s=20

    This is just another sideshow to deflect from the chaos of Brexit. If there is a case, investigate, charge and prosecute. If there isn't who cares?
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    So that s who Grant Schapps is a giggling schoolboy pretending to be a government minister we have so much political talent in the UK today. We even had that nice Mr Gardiner on earlier spouting bollocks.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    My thoughts:

    1. Governments control the agenda. It's difficult for non government bodies to force through a different agenda.
    2. The Conservatives will win a workable majority if they can squeeze BXP and Lib Dems and Labour split the opposition equally.
    3. No Deal won't work. There is far too much headwind. So we're back to the key Brexit conundrum: the UK can't do without a close relationship with the EU, which will be on the EU27's terms. They all have to agree, have little flexibility and aren't in a great hurry.
    4. Brexit at heart an ideological project. Johnson's close advisors and financial backers as well as likely Johnson himself want to burn the bridges, the boats and scorch the earth so the UK turns away from European social democracy and international rule of law to an irredentist American order. This position has little support outside of the inner circle and hits against point 3.
  • StreeterStreeter Posts: 684
    “I am writing on behalf of all former ministers”

    https://twitter.com/philiphammonduk/status/1165539601680916480?s=21
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,772
    Streeter said:

    “I am writing on behalf of all former ministers”

    https://twitter.com/philiphammonduk/status/1165539601680916480?s=21

    Burn!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237
    OllyT said:

    I don't want it but I think that is where we are headed and it will have one single benefit - we get to experience full-on Brexit and I happen to think it is probably the quickest route now to us joining EFTA or rejoining the EU.

    Brexit has turned into a culture war and the Brexit side thrives on narratives of betrayal, "metropolitan elites" and "enemies of the people". Anything short of a "clean" break feeds the narrative.

    I have a lot of time for this argument.

    There comes a point ... "Brexit means Brexit" ... and perhaps it has come.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,534
    Opinium in the Observer (buried at the bottom of their Brexit survey):

    Overall the Conservatives have opened up a six-point lead over Labour, gaining one point in two weeks ago to stand on 32%, while Labour is down two points on 26% and the Brexit party unchanged on 16%. The Liberal Democrats are on 15%, the SNP 5%, the Greens on 4%, and Plaid Cymru and Ukip on 1%.

    Like the other polls though with methodological differences that we've debated, this shows:

    * the Johnson bounce continuing, but at a slower rate
    * the Brexit Party vote holding up despite zero publicity
    * Labour ahead of the LibDems

    We're all familiar with the various implications: suffice it to say that I don't think an election is without risk for Johnson.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,490

    No Deal is happening. Johnson needs it to happen. He has no choice. The interesting bit is what happens then. We’ll all be less free, as will all UK businesses, and we’ll be entirely reliant on the goodwill of others with regards to trade, so will have less control than now. And it looks like we’ll be testing that goodwill by withholding payment of the £39 billion. Johnson clearly believes he needs constant conflict in order to stay on as PM. But will that be politically sustainable if No Deal does start to bite?

    As has been said before, a good portion of the 39bn (I think about 15bn but I could be misremembering) is to pay for a transition phase. If there's no transitation phase, could you explain why you feel we should pay for one?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,490

    Streeter said:

    “I am writing on behalf of all former ministers”

    https://twitter.com/philiphammonduk/status/1165539601680916480?s=21

    Burn!
    That's a bit severe, but certainly a period without access to a keyboard would do no harm. We hear more from the witless charisma vacuum now than we did when he was Chancellor.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238
    Streeter said:

    “I am writing on behalf of all former ministers”

    https://twitter.com/philiphammonduk/status/1165539601680916480?s=21

    Boris mendacious ?

    Why is anyone surprised ?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,362
    Nigelb said:

    Anyone know how this is coming along ?

    An Existential Threat to WTO Dispute Settlement: Blocking Appointment of Appellate Body Members by the United States
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3216633

    By the time we No Deal, we could be looking at GATT rules, rather than WTO...

    Nigel, can you highlight the differences in less than a page please
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,534
    On topic, I agree with EiT (as usual, I'd vote for him as PM,, he'd do a better job even in Tokyo) that the identity of Ministers in a caretaker administration is irrelevant - if Labour signs up to Clarke (which I don't rule out, so long as Corbyn has had a try first), they won't jib at the Ministers being the chairs of Select Committees. A problem is that, coming back from holiday and admitting he'd not been following the details, Clarke said he would want to "solve Brexit", not lead a caretaker administration. That is a very different kettle of fish - Labour would not sign up to 3 years of Clarke government.

    The sequence I can see happening (10-1 shot) is:

    1. Johnson makes enough extreme threats (like suspending Parliament for a month) to terminally piss off enough rebels to pass a VONC even without knowing what happens next.
    2. Corbyn tries to get a majority, and fails.
    3. Clarke says now I've caught up, OK, I'll do a caretaker job till an election if you like. He gets a majority. Oct 31 is delayed.
    4. The election is held with Britain still in and the result is...???

    On a minor note, LibDem sources in Broxtowe tell me that Anna Soubry is going to stand against them in Broxtowe. Nobody who knows AS is surprised (she is the least cooperative person you've ever heard of), but it makes the election there wildly unpredictable.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,004

    Is it time for the Royals to brick up Randy 'only with consenting adults' Andy in a room in Glamis Castle and forget he ever existed?

    https://twitter.com/100_survivor/status/1165483489967398912?s=20

    This is just another sideshow to deflect from the chaos of Brexit. If there is a case, investigate, charge and prosecute. If there isn't who cares?
    We're told 24/7 by the fawning media (especially the BBC) that the adoring populace does care very, very much. As a republican I'll happily anticipate one more kick in the door to bring the whole rotten structure tumbling down.
This discussion has been closed.