In order to save this democracy it was necessary to destroy it.
And you studiously avoid the “then what?” question which is the essence of my point. How is this going to settle anything? It’s going to do the opposite.
If Boris decisively wins an election after No Deal, then Brexit will be resolved (poltiically speaking). He would then have 5 years to set up some new arrangements and the opposition would be split between arguing to rejoin, or mitigate the damage.
Can Boris decisively win an election after No Deal? I've no idea but it's possible. I think it may turn out to be more complicated than: massive disruption --> blame Boris.
The rest not so much. May didn't much bring a knife to a gun fight as walk about unarmed and aimless waiting to be hit. Which she was, repeatedly. This government is fighting back with the same ferocity that the remainers have been using and they are playing to win. It has a purpose and a determination which is invigorating.
The notion that those remainers who voted down May's deal, a deal that left us in the SM and CU for the transitional period with every chance of that being the permanent state of affairs, indeed with a backstop applied to the whole of the UK which would have had that effect if nothing else was agreed, were ever going to come around to accept a democratic vote and come together looks more fanciful with every day that passes. These people are every bit as maniacal as the nutters in the ERG. To blame Boris or his government for that is absurd. We will all come to regret the rejection of that deal but Boris is right to fight for the democratic decision of this country.
In order to save this democracy it was necessary to destroy it.
And you studiously avoid the “then what?” question which is the essence of my point. How is this going to settle anything? It’s going to do the opposite.
Margaret Thatcher was a very divisive PM in the 80s, but the country ran well enough.
I think perhaps the Blair-Cameron era (Where there was the frequent complaint of there only being a rizla's width between all 3 parties) was perhaps the exception rather than the norm.
Yes, I agree and said as much earlier. I think Alastair would too. As he has often said, there are no good outcomes from here, although some are less bad than others.
Maybe a unity government committed to a Brexit deal is the only way forward. I'd love Ken Clarke to be PM. Therefore of course it won't happen
It's an indictment of our political system that KC was never made Party Leader, but then I recall Labour being similarly reluctant to appoint Denis Healey to lead his Party. What a waste of talent.
Clarke's preferred solution to the current predicament is, I believe, a long deferment in which the Leave Team draw up a practical plan and timetable for withdrawal. I'd certainly accept that. It's what should have happened from the outset. We are certainly not going to see such a rational approach now.
Yes but it is the long term nature of the Clarke solution that makes it unviable. It would be a proper government, enacting policies across all ministries. If a coalition GNU, which parties would get which departments? The SNP would want a second SindyRef; Labour would want to nationalise manhole covers. How long would forming the coalition take, let alone negotiating a new deal with the EU? The Conservatives would need a new leader as Boris must resign. If not a coalition then who would vote for it? Not Labour, nor Boris's half of the Conservative party.
No, it won't fly. There is one viable alternative. Corbyn proposes a splash-and-dash minority Labour government that would extend Article 50 and call an election, accepting purdah which rules out any policy enactment across Whitehall that might frighten other parties, and would last only a couple of weeks.
I seriously wonder if that is Boris's plan. The Corbyn solution keeps Boris in place as leader of a more-or-less united Conservative Party, and he would be confident of winning the election and returning to Downing Street in time for Christmas.
The wonder of it is that anyone ever fell for the idea that, despite appearances, Johnson was really a clever man.
Everyone could see that during the leadership campaign he was stupidly and quite unnecessarily making it impossible to achieve a sane resolution of Brexit. Now, in order to pursue the insane course, he's driven to ever wilder and more reckless expedients.
The rest not so much. May didn't much bring a knife to a gun fight as walk about unarmed and aimless waiting to be hit. Which she was, repeatedly. This government is fighting back with the same ferocity that the remainers have been using and they are playing to win. It has a purpose and a determination which is invigorating.
The notion that those remainers who voted down May's deal, a deal that left us in the SM and CU for the transitional period with every chance of that being the permanent state of affairs, indeed with a backstop applied to the whole of the UK which would have had that effect if nothing else was agreed, were ever going to come around to accept a democratic vote and come together looks more fanciful with every day that passes. These people are every bit as maniacal as the nutters in the ERG. To blame Boris or his government for that is absurd. We will all come to regret the rejection of that deal but Boris is right to fight for the democratic decision of this country.
In order to save this democracy it was necessary to destroy it.
And you studiously avoid the “then what?” question which is the essence of my point. How is this going to settle anything? It’s going to do the opposite.
Margaret Thatcher was a very divisive PM in the 80s, but the country ran well enough.
I think perhaps the Blair-Cameron era (Where there was the frequent complaint of there only being a rizla's width between all 3 parties) was perhaps the exception rather than the norm.
It doesn't help that during that era, Labour politicians still talked of their Tory opponents as being terrible people. I cannot recall a Labour politician ever having a good word to say about a Tory or anything they have done.
Yes, I agree and said as much earlier. I think Alastair would too. As he has often said, there are no good outcomes from here, although some are less bad than others.
This is indeed my view. From here, things can only get worse. The only question is the route and the speed.
Yes, I agree and said as much earlier. I think Alastair would too. As he has often said, there are no good outcomes from here, although some are less bad than others.
Maybe a unity government committed to a Brexit deal is the only way forward. I'd love Ken Clarke to be PM. Therefore of course it won't happen
It's an indictment of our political system that KC was never made Party Leader, but then I recall Labour being similarly reluctant to appoint Denis Healey to lead his Party. What a waste of talent.
Clarke's preferred solution to the current predicament is, I believe, a long deferment in which the Leave Team draw up a practical plan and timetable for withdrawal. I'd certainly accept that. It's what should have happened from the outset. We are certainly not going to see such a rational approach now.
Yes but it is the long term nature of the Clarke solution that makes it unviable. It would be a proper government, enacting policies across all ministries. If a coalition GNU, which parties would get which departments? The SNP would want a second SindyRef; Labour would want to nationalise manhole covers. How long would forming the coalition take, let alone negotiating a new deal with the EU? The Conservatives would need a new leader as Boris must resign. If not a coalition then who would vote for it? Not Labour, nor Boris's half of the Conservative party.
No, it won't fly. There is one viable alternative. Corbyn proposes a splash-and-dash minority Labour government that would extend Article 50 and call an election, accepting purdah which rules out any policy enactment across Whitehall that might frighten other parties, and would last only a couple of weeks.
I seriously wonder if that is Boris's plan. The Corbyn solution keeps Boris in place as leader of a more-or-less united Conservative Party, and he would be confident of winning the election and returning to Downing Street in time for Christmas.
The only problem with that is that Corbyn is toxc to so many, even those on his own side
Yes, I agree and said as much earlier. I think Alastair would too. As he has often said, there are no good outcomes from here, although some are less bad than others.
This is indeed my view. From here, things can only get worse. The only question is the route and the speed.
It is with regret for our country I agree with you
The rest not so much. May didn't much bring a knife to a gun fight as walk about unarmed and aimless waiting to be hit. Which she was, repeatedly. This government is fighting back with the same ferocity that the remainers have been using and they are playing to win. It has a purpose and a determination which is invigorating.
The notion that those remainers who voted down May's deal, a deal that left us in the SM and CU for the transitional period with every chance of that being the permanent state of affairs, indeed with a backstop applied to the whole of the UK which would have had that effect if nothing else was agreed, were ever going to come around to accept a democratic vote and come together looks more fanciful with every day that passes. These people are every bit as maniacal as the nutters in the ERG. To blame Boris or his government for that is absurd. We will all come to regret the rejection of that deal but Boris is right to fight for the democratic decision of this country.
In order to save this democracy it was necessary to destroy it.
And you studiously avoid the “then what?” question which is the essence of my point. How is this going to settle anything? It’s going to do the opposite.
Margaret Thatcher was a very divisive PM in the 80s, but the country ran well enough.
I think perhaps the Blair-Cameron era (Where there was the frequent complaint of there only being a rizla's width between all 3 parties) was perhaps the exception rather than the norm.
It doesn't help that during that era, Labour politicians still talked of their Tory opponents as being terrible people. I cannot recall a Labour politician ever having a good word to say about a Tory or anything they have done.
I think that's more tribal Labour habit than anything else. The Blair Ministries were undeniably soft centre left though, a fair whack to the right of Foot and Corbyn. Cameron self described as "The heir to Blair" And Major, who I've forgot to mention is and was clearly very pro EU like Blair. There were other differences of course but they're not as widely pronounced as now or for much of the 80s.
The rest not so much. May didn't much bring a knife to a gun fight as walk about unarmed and aimless waiting to be hit. Which she was, repeatedly. This government is fighting back with the same ferocity that the remainers have been using and they are playing to win. It has a purpose and a determination which is invigorating.
The notion that those remainers who voted down May's deal, a deal that left us in the SM and CU for the transitional period with every chance of that being the permanent state of affairs, indeed with a backstop applied to the whole of the UK which would have had that effect if nothing else was agreed, were ever going to come around to accept a democratic vote and come together looks more fanciful with every day that passes. These people are every bit as maniacal as the nutters in the ERG. To blame Boris or his government for that is absurd. We will all come to regret the rejection of that deal but Boris is right to fight for the democratic decision of this country.
In order to save this democracy it was necessary to destroy it.
And you studiously avoid the “then what?” question which is the essence of my point. How is this going to settle anything? It’s going to do the opposite.
Margaret Thatcher was a very divisive PM in the 80s, but the country ran well enough.
I think perhaps the Blair-Cameron era (Where there was the frequent complaint of there only being a rizla's width between all 3 parties) was perhaps the exception rather than the norm.
It doesn't help that during that era, Labour politicians still talked of their Tory opponents as being terrible people. I cannot recall a Labour politician ever having a good word to say about a Tory or anything they have done.
I think that's more tribal Labour habit than anything else. The Blair Ministries were undeniably soft centre left though, a fair whack to the right of Foot and Corbyn. Cameron self described as "The heir to Blair" And Major, who I've forgot to mention is and was clearly very pro EU like Blair. There were other differences of course but they're not as widely pronounced as now or for much of the 80s.
The point I'm making is that, roles reversed, there would be far more scope for Tory MPs in opposition supporting a Labour government. Iraq being the obvious example (though I accept that that's not necessarily a helpful example here!). It's been said before but Flint, Barron, Mann and Lloyd deserve a huge amount of credit for voting for May's deal.
The Corbyn solution keeps Boris in place as leader of a more-or-less united Conservative Party, and he would be confident of winning the election and returning to Downing Street in time for Christmas.
“Challenging”. Ho ho. Aye, you lot are challenged right enough.
Yet you managed to lose to this challenged lot when it really mattered in 2014.
We lost to SLab footsoldiers, Gordon Brown, the Daily Record and the BBC. In contrast, the Tories were an absolute gift to the Yes campaign.
Utter rubbish, it was Tories energy which got out over 90% of Scottish Tory voters for No, while useless SLab lost over a third of their traditional voters to Yes and then even more to the SNP. Indeed the 95% of Scottish Tory voters who voted No was even higher than the 86% of SNP voters who voted Yes.
Tonight SLab will likely fall to 4th in the Shetland by election behind the Scottish LDs, SNP and Scottish Tories, a pathetic shell of a party whose machine once dominated Scottish politics, now rejected by nationalists and unionists alike
90% of diddly squat did not win IndyRef1 for the BritNats. It was purely a Scottish Labour/BBC joint victory, based on wall-to-wall lies, which is also why both those institutions have crippled reputations. The Cons were a dreadful hindrance to the No campaign (especially Osborne).
SLab-watchers will not be waiting on tenterhooks for the Shetland result. Numpty.
Yes, I agree and said as much earlier. I think Alastair would too. As he has often said, there are no good outcomes from here, although some are less bad than others.
Maybe a unity government committed to a Brexit deal is the only way forward. I'd love Ken Clarke to be PM. Therefore of course it won't happen
It's an indictment of our political system that KC was never made Party Leader, but then I recall Labour being similarly reluctant to appoint Denis Healey to lead his Party. What a waste of talent.
Clarke's preferred solution to the current predicament is, I believe, a long deferment in which the Leave Team draw up a practical plan and timetable for withdrawal. I'd certainly accept that. It's what should have happened from the outset. We are certainly not going to see such a rational approach now.
Yes but it is the long term nature of the Clarke solution that makes it unviable. It would be a proper government, enacting policies across all ministries. If a coalition GNU, which parties would get which departments? The SNP would want a second SindyRef; Labour would want to nationalise manhole covers. How long would forming the coalition take, let alone negotiating a new deal with the EU? The Conservatives would need a new leader as Boris must resign. If not a coalition then who would vote for it? Not Labour, nor Boris's half of the Conservative party.
No, it won't fly. There is one viable alternative. Corbyn proposes a splash-and-dash minority Labour government that would extend Article 50 and call an election, accepting purdah which rules out any policy enactment across Whitehall that might frighten other parties, and would last only a couple of weeks.
I seriously wonder if that is Boris's plan. The Corbyn solution keeps Boris in place as leader of a more-or-less united Conservative Party, and he would be confident of winning the election and returning to Downing Street in time for Christmas.
The only problem with that is that Corbyn is toxc to so many, even those on his own side
Hence Corbyn talking about purdah, saying to his opponents it is a safe choice because no other action will be taken, no policies enacted, no bills passed. (Of course, what Corbyn does get out of it is that the electorate for the November election will have seen him in Downing Street without the sky falling in, so for that reason, purdah is a feature not a bug).
Yes, I agree and said as much earlier. I think Alastair would too. As he has often said, there are no good outcomes from here, although some are less bad than others.
Maybe a unity government committed to a Brexit deal is the only way forward. I'd love Ken Clarke to be PM. Therefore of course it won't happen
It's an indictment of our political system that KC was never made Party Leader, but then I recall Labour being similarly reluctant to appoint Denis Healey to lead his Party. What a waste of talent.
Clarke's preferred solution to the current predicament is, I believe, a long deferment in which the Leave Team draw up a practical plan and timetable for withdrawal. I'd certainly accept that. It's what should have happened from the outset. We are certainly not going to see such a rational approach now.
Yes but it is the long term nature of the Clarke solution that makes it unviable. It would be a proper government, enacting policies across all ministries. If a coalition GNU, which parties would get which departments? The SNP would want a second SindyRef; Labour would want to nationalise manhole covers. How long would forming the coalition take, let alone negotiating a new deal with the EU? The Conservatives would need a new leader as Boris must resign. If not a coalition then who would vote for it? Not Labour, nor Boris's half of the Conservative party.
No, it won't fly. There is one viable alternative. Corbyn proposes a splash-and-dash minority Labour government that would extend Article 50 and call an election, accepting purdah which rules out any policy enactment across Whitehall that might frighten other parties, and would last only a couple of weeks.
I seriously wonder if that is Boris's plan. The Corbyn solution keeps Boris in place as leader of a more-or-less united Conservative Party, and he would be confident of winning the election and returning to Downing Street in time for Christmas.
The only problem with that is that Corbyn is toxc to so many, even those on his own side
I think that was before your party decided to became a dictatorship to ignore Parliament. And it is your party as unlike others on here I don't think you've resigned.
I suspect a lot of MPs will now hold their nose and vote for Corbyn if needs must which wasn't the case on Tuesday. I know were I an MP I would be doing so.
The 'Yes' Vote in 2016 was 36.3% So if the Nat had won 'Shetland would have been taken out of the EU UK against its will" Unquote.
No doubt we will be having a thread-header about how that under-performing LibDem Scot, Swinson, must now be on the way out - having lost 20% vote share in, er, Scotland.
Or not.
Most definitely "not", :-D
In Shetland, like much of rural Scotland, politics is personal, and this is why party politics is done so differently- if it is done at all.
In fact, in the face of a strong SNP campaign, the Lib Dems have performed very well indeed.
LOL, as predicted LD's surging but in wrong direction, circling the drain soon
The rest not so much. May didn't much bring a knife to a gun fight as walk about unarmed and aimless waiting to be hit. Which she was, repeatedly. This government is fighting back with the same ferocity that the remainers have been using and they are playing to win. It has a purpose and a determination which is invigorating.
The notion that those remainers who voted down May's deal, a deal that left us in the SM and CU for the transitional period with every chance of that being the permanent state of affairs, indeed with a backstop applied to the whole of the UK which would have had that effect if nothing else was agreed, were ever going to come around to accept a democratic vote and come together looks more fanciful with every day that passes. These people are every bit as maniacal as the nutters in the ERG. To blame Boris or his government for that is absurd. We will all come to regret the rejection of that deal but Boris is right to fight for the democratic decision of this country.
In order to save this democracy it was necessary to destroy it.
And you studiously avoid the “then what?” question which is the essence of my point. How is this going to settle anything? It’s going to do the opposite.
Then we will be out of the EU. But it will not have gone away. If we leave with no deal we will still need a deal with them. It will look remarkably like May's deal. We will pay what we agree we owe them. We will not pay extra for market access unless we get that market access. We will need to facilitate trade as quickly as possible. That means decisions will need to be taken on how much regulatory equivalence we can live with to ensure market access. Some will find these decisions difficult. Tough.
There will be a lot to do and it will probably need a new Parliament to do it. Life will go on. In Scotland we know about the bitterness caused by referendums. Those on the losing side still harbour a grievance which we hear every day. But the trains are (mostly) on time and the economy totters along damaged by both the previous referendum and the threat of another but still functioning. So let it be with Brexit.
The rest not so much. May didn't much bring a knife to a gun fight as walk about unarmed and aimless waiting to be hit. Which she was, repeatedly. This government is fighting back with the same ferocity that the remainers have been using and they are playing to win. It has a purpose and a determination which is invigorating.
The notion that those remainers who voted down May's deal, a deal that left us in the SM and CU for the transitional period with every chance of that being the permanent state of affairs, indeed with a backstop applied to the whole of the UK which would have had that effect if nothing else was agreed, were ever going to come around to accept a democratic vote and come together looks more fanciful with every day that passes. These people are every bit as maniacal as the nutters in the ERG. To blame Boris or his government for that is absurd. We will all come to regret the rejection of that deal but Boris is right to fight for the democratic decision of this country.
In order to save this democracy it was necessary to destroy it.
And you studiously avoid the “then what?” question which is the essence of my point. How is this going to settle anything? It’s going to do the opposite.
Margaret Thatcher was a very divisive PM in the 80s, but the country ran well enough.
I think perhaps the Blair-Cameron era (Where there was the frequent complaint of there only being a rizla's width between all 3 parties) was perhaps the exception rather than the norm.
See Butskellism: a portmanteau of RAB Butler and Hugh Gaitskell.
The Corbyn solution keeps Boris in place as leader of a more-or-less united Conservative Party, and he would be confident of winning the election and returning to Downing Street in time for Christmas.
The rest not so much. May didn't much bring a knife to a gun fight as walk about unarmed and aimless waiting to be hit. Which she was, repeatedly. This government is fighting back with the same ferocity that the remainers have been using and they are playing to win. It has a purpose and a determination which is invigorating.
The notion that those remainers who voted down May's deal, a deal that left us in the SM and CU for the transitional period with every chance of that being the permanent state of affairs, indeed with a backstop applied to the whole of the UK which would have had that effect if nothing else was agreed, were ever going to come around to accept a democratic vote and come together looks more fanciful with every day that passes. These people are every bit as maniacal as the nutters in the ERG. To blame Boris or his government for that is absurd. We will all come to regret the rejection of that deal but Boris is right to fight for the democratic decision of this country.
In order to save this democracy it was necessary to destroy it.
And you studiously avoid the “then what?” question which is the essence of my point. How is this going to settle anything? It’s going to do the opposite.
Then we will be out of the EU. But it will not have gone away. If we leave with no deal we will still need a deal with them. It will look remarkably like May's deal. We will pay what we agree we owe them. We will not pay extra for market access unless we get that market access. We will need to facilitate trade as quickly as possible. That means decisions will need to be taken on how much regulatory equivalence we can live with to ensure market access. Some will find these decisions difficult. Tough.
There will be a lot to do and it will probably need a new Parliament to do it. Life will go on. In Scotland we know about the bitterness caused by referendums. Those on the losing side still harbour a grievance which we hear every day. But the trains are (mostly) on time and the economy totters along damaged by both the previous referendum and the threat of another but still functioning. So let it be with Brexit.
You say That means decisions will need to be taken on how much regulatory equivalence we can live with to ensure market access. Some will find these decisions difficult. Tough.
A quick trade deal with the United States could easily make a European agreement nigh-on impossible, not just difficult.
Yes, I agree and said as much earlier. I think Alastair would too. As he has often said, there are no good outcomes from here, although some are less bad than others.
Maybe a unity government committed to a Brexit deal is the only way forward. I'd love Ken Clarke to be PM. Therefore of course it won't happen
It's an indictment of our political system that KC was never made Party Leader, but then I recall Labour being similarly reluctant to appoint Denis Healey to lead his Party. What a waste of talent.
Clarke's preferred solution to the current predicament is, I believe, a long deferment in which the Leave Team draw up a practical plan and timetable for withdrawal. I'd certainly accept that. It's what should have happened from the outset. We are certainly not going to see such a rational approach now.
Yes but it is the long term nature of the Clarke solution that makes it unviable. It would be a proper government, enacting policies across all ministries. If a coalition GNU, which parties would get which departments?
I seriously wonder if that is Boris's plan. The Corbyn solution keeps Boris in place as leader of a more-or-less united Conservative Party, and he would be confident of winning the election and returning to Downing Street in time for Christmas.
The only problem with that is that Corbyn is toxc to so many, even those on his own side
Hence Corbyn talking about purdah, saying to his opponents it is a safe choice because no other action will be taken, no policies enacted, no bills passed. (Of course, what Corbyn does get out of it is that the electorate for the November election will have seen him in Downing Street without the sky falling in, so for that reason, purdah is a feature not a bug).
There is no need to be afraid of a Corbyn government. It could be VONCed almost immediately*.
*Unless PM Corbyn also decided to prorogue Parliament so as to rule by decree. There is recent precedent, I believe...
The Corbyn solution keeps Boris in place as leader of a more-or-less united Conservative Party, and he would be confident of winning the election and returning to Downing Street in time for Christmas.
The rest not so much. May didn't much bring a knife to a gun fight as walk about unarmed and aimless waiting to be hit. Which she was, repeatedly. This government is fighting back with the same ferocity that the remainers have been using and they are playing to win. It has a purpose and a determination which is invigorating.
The notion that those remainers who voted down May's deal, a deal that left us in the SM and CU for the transitional period with every chance of that being the permanent state of affairs, indeed with a backstop applied to the whole of the UK which would have had that effect if nothing else was agreed, were ever going to come around to accept a democratic vote and come together looks more fanciful with every day that passes. These people are every bit as maniacal as the nutters in the ERG. To blame Boris or his government for that is absurd. We will all come to regret the rejection of that deal but Boris is right to fight for the democratic decision of this country.
In order to save this democracy it was necessary to destroy it.
And you studiously avoid the “then what?” question which is the essence of my point. How is this going to settle anything? It’s going to do the opposite.
Then we will be out of the EU. But it will not have gone away. If we leave with no deal we will still need a deal with them. It will look remarkably like May's deal. We will pay what we agree we owe them. We will not pay extra for market access unless we get that market access. We will need to facilitate trade as quickly as possible. That means decisions will need to be taken on how much regulatory equivalence we can live with to ensure market access. Some will find these decisions difficult. Tough.
There will be a lot to do and it will probably need a new Parliament to do it. Life will go on. In Scotland we know about the bitterness caused by referendums. Those on the losing side still harbour a grievance which we hear every day. But the trains are (mostly) on time and the economy totters along damaged by both the previous referendum and the threat of another but still functioning. So let it be with Brexit.
You say That means decisions will need to be taken on how much regulatory equivalence we can live with to ensure market access. Some will find these decisions difficult. Tough.
A quick trade deal with the United States could easily make a European agreement nigh-on impossible, not just difficult.
True. There are choices to be made. Its what we used to elect governments for before they became the play things of Commons proceduralists.
The rest not so much. May didn't much bring a knife to a gun fight as walk about unarmed and aimless waiting to be hit. Which she was, repeatedly. This government is fighting back with the same ferocity that the remainers have been using and they are playing to win. It has a purpose and a determination which is invigorating.
The notion that those remainers who voted down May's deal, a deal that left us in the SM and CU for the transitional period with every chance of that being the permanent state of affairs, indeed with a backstop applied to the whole of the UK which would have had that effect if nothing else was agreed, were ever going to come around to accept a democratic vote and come together looks more fanciful with every day that passes. These people are every bit as maniacal as the nutters in the ERG. To blame Boris or his government for that is absurd. We will all come to regret the rejection of that deal but Boris is right to fight for the democratic decision of this country.
In order to save this democracy it was necessary to destroy it.
And you studiously avoid the “then what?” question which is the essence of my point. How is this going to settle anything? It’s going to do the opposite.
Then we will be out of the EU. But it will not have gone away. If we leave with no deal we will still need a deal with them. It will look remarkably like May's deal. We will pay what we agree we owe them. We will not pay extra for market access unless we get that market access. We will need to facilitate trade as quickly as possible. That means decisions will need to be taken on how much regulatory equivalence we can live with to ensure market access. Some will find these decisions difficult. Tough.
There will be a lot to do and it will probably need a new Parliament to do it. Life will go on. In Scotland we know about the bitterness caused by referendums. Those on the losing side still harbour a grievance which we hear every day. But the trains are (mostly) on time and the economy totters along damaged by both the previous referendum and the threat of another but still functioning. So let it be with Brexit.
So we leave with No Deal and an immediate election is called. How does purdah cope with the negotiations that are essential but cannot occur as decisions need to be made?
The rest not so much. May didn't much bring a knife to a gun fight as walk about unarmed and aimless waiting to be hit. Which she was, repeatedly. This government is fighting back with the same ferocity that the remainers have been using and they are playing to win. It has a purpose and a determination which is invigorating.
The notion that those remainers who voted down May's deal, a deal that left us in the SM and CU for the transitional period with every chance of that being the permanent state of affairs, indeed with a backstop applied to the whole of the UK which would have had that effect if nothing else was agreed, were ever going to come around to accept a democratic vote and come together looks more fanciful with every day that passes. These people are every bit as maniacal as the nutters in the ERG. To blame Boris or his government for that is absurd. We will all come to regret the rejection of that deal but Boris is right to fight for the democratic decision of this country.
In order to save this democracy it was necessary to destroy it.
And you studiously avoid the “then what?” question which is the essence of my point. How is this going to settle anything? It’s going to do the opposite.
Then we will be out of the EU. But it will not have gone away. If we leave with no deal we will still need a deal with them. It will look remarkably like May's deal. We will pay what we agree we owe them. We will not pay extra for market access unless we get that market access. We will need to facilitate trade as quickly as possible. That means decisions will need to be taken on how much regulatory equivalence we can live with to ensure market access. Some will find these decisions difficult. Tough.
There will be a lot to do and it will probably need a new Parliament to do it. Life will go on. In Scotland we know about the bitterness caused by referendums. Those on the losing side still harbour a grievance which we hear every day. But the trains are (mostly) on time and the economy totters along damaged by both the previous referendum and the threat of another but still functioning. So let it be with Brexit.
You are massively underestimating just how much division this approach would cause. The country would be in ferment, against a backdrop of likely disruption from a chaotic Brexit. In what way is that ever going to be accepted as legitimate or a way for building a future? It would be overturned sooner rather than later, just as soon as the constitutionalists prise the usurpers out of Downing Street.
Dr. Foxy, both sides have made significant errors in judgement. May bringing in the idea of no deal being better than a bad deal, then being desperate for a deal and sunk by no dealers. Grieve bringing in his 'meaningful vote'. Miller's court case that enabled the Commons to be decisively indecisive and allow nothing to happen.
It's quite the farce.
Corbyn remains a dangerous far left fool. The PM's foolishness is incompetent egocentrism. Quite the choice. But far easier to oust a Conservative PM than a Communist one.
"A Britain that had Brexited in such a way would be hopelessly and irremediably riven. The decision would be seen by what in all probability would be a clear majority as illegitimate and unconstitutional. A policy that no one had voted for would have been imposed by an unelected Prime Minister leading a government that was opposed in Parliament by a clear majority, and only because the Prime Minister had abandoned all democratic norms.
In such circumstances, you could easily envisage widespread civil unrest, the more so because there might well be tangible disruption as a result of the Brexit process itself. And you cannot easily envisage the country ever coming back together to forge a new consensus. Boris Johnson would be a hero to his elderly support base but a hate figure for future generations. Scotland and Northern Ireland would both be eyeing the exit door from the United Kingdom in very short order. What was left would inevitably rejoin the EU at some point, with many no doubt resentful but out of options."
I agree with much of this from the header. However, what is equally true is that failure to Brexit in some form is very likely to produce the same result. Both sides in the 52/48 split have to be reflected in the denouement of this awful period, Both sides.
I remember when it was remainers mocking leavers for suggesting there might be civil unrest if we don't leave.
Could it be that "civil unrest" is just a big, threatening-sounding stick we use when it seems like our side is losing?
The rest not so much. May didn't much bring a knife to a gun fight as walk about unarmed and aimless waiting to be hit. Which she was, repeatedly. This government is fighting back with the same ferocity that the remainers have been using and they are playing to win. It has a purpose and a determination which is invigorating.
The notion that those remainers who voted down May's deal, a deal that left us in the SM and CU for the transitional period with every chance of that being the permanent state of affairs, indeed with a backstop applied to the whole of the UK which would have had that effect if nothing else was agreed, were ever going to come around to accept a democratic vote and come together looks more fanciful with every day that passes. These people are every bit as maniacal as the nutters in the ERG. To blame Boris or his government for that is absurd. We will all come to regret the rejection of that deal but Boris is right to fight for the democratic decision of this country.
In order to save this democracy it was necessary to destroy it.
And you studiously avoid the “then what?” question which is the essence of my point. How is this going to settle anything? It’s going to do the opposite.
Then we will be out of the EU. But it will not have gone away. If we leave with no deal we will still need a deal with them. It will look remarkably like May's deal. We will pay what we agree we owe them. We will not pay extra for market access unless we get that market access. We will need to facilitate trade as quickly as possible. That means decisions will need to be taken on how much regulatory equivalence we can live with to ensure market access. Some will find these decisions difficult. Tough.
There will be a lot to do and it will probably need a new Parliament to do it. Life will go on. In Scotland we know about the bitterness caused by referendums. Those on the losing side still harbour a grievance which we hear every day. But the trains are (mostly) on time and the economy totters along damaged by both the previous referendum and the threat of another but still functioning. So let it be with Brexit.
In Scotland the referendum was won by those who wanted no change. You and your fellow Brexiters have upset the apple cart. Change there will be a' plenty.
Dr. Foxy, both sides have made significant errors in judgement. May bringing in the idea of no deal being better than a bad deal, then being desperate for a deal and sunk by no dealers. Grieve bringing in his 'meaningful vote'. Miller's court case that enabled the Commons to be decisively indecisive and allow nothing to happen.
It's quite the farce.
Corbyn remains a dangerous far left fool. The PM's foolishness is incompetent egocentrism. Quite the choice. But far easier to oust a Conservative PM than a Communist one.
At the moment it is the Conservative Prime Minister who is violating constitutional norms, so your assertion is lacking evidence.
The end of jobs for life replaced with evolution and a dynamic survival of the fittest.
Philip Thompson, may I introduce you to the British Monarchy?
Monarchy = Socialism!
Utter crap, monarchy is the essence of British conservatism, the Tory Party was the party of the monarchy long before it was the party of free trade. If you support free trade but not the monarchy you are a liberal, not a British conservative.
Government control of most of the economy is socialism
The Tories were a factional party that first supported the overthrow of the monarchy and then wanted the Prince of Wales to usurp the King
Hence Corbyn talking about purdah, saying to his opponents it is a safe choice because no other action will be taken, no policies enacted, no bills passed. (Of course, what Corbyn does get out of it is that the electorate for the November election will have seen him in Downing Street without the sky falling in, so for that reason, purdah is a feature not a bug).
Yes I think you're right. I see no likelihood of Corbyn passing anything with his rainbow coalition. In any case, he thinks he can win a GE -> he won't want to cling to impotence in number 10 when he thinks he can win all the marbles.
The 3rd place Ind candidate is pro-independence, as are two of the other Inds, plus the Green.
Wee Wullie will be wetting his pants, the idiot was on GMS claiming it was a great victory only losing 20% of your voters, really.
The LibDems will have been mighty relieved by this result as a week ago they were fearing a 2015-type result when they were neck and neck with SNP in Shetland. Essentially they lost the 19% share which Tavish increased their tally by in 2016. I think there was kick-back from the enormous effort the SNP put in. I had thought that if the SNP could marshall all the pro-Indy votes in Shetland they might take it but that didn't happen.
More representative, I think, of things was the council by-election in East Kilbride last night. Shows SNP continuing to consolidate in Central Belt while SLAB continues its vertiginous decline. Lib Dem vote up considerably and Tories drifting down a little, although still well ahead of pre-Ruth results. Perhaps much as you'd expect given the maelstrom in Westminster.
If Boris gets a deal the Faragists and ERG will cry foul as we would then be a rule taker from the EU. The Conservative Party would split. If Boris doesn’t get a deal the ensuing chaos will also cause a split in the Conservative Party.
All looking very positive, if you look forward to the end of the Tories!! The resulting mess may not be much fun but might be worth it!
The end of jobs for life replaced with evolution and a dynamic survival of the fittest.
Philip Thompson, may I introduce you to the British Monarchy?
Monarchy = Socialism!
Utter crap, monarchy is the essence of British conservatism, the Tory Party was the party of the monarchy long before it was the party of free trade. If you support free trade but not the monarchy you are a liberal, not a British conservative.
Government control of most of the economy is socialism
The Tories were a factional party that first supported the overthrow of the monarchy and then wanted the Prince of Wales to usurp the King
The Tories have always supported the institution of monarchy and were established to oppose the Exclusion Bill and the Whigs trying to prevent James, Duke of York taking the throne
This is a great header and asks an important question. The Brexit coalition - composed variously of the mad, the bad, the sad and grandad - is not a stable one, and will certainly not hold up if a no deal Brexit is chaotic as seems likely. My sense as a 'diehard Remainer' is that the best policy now is to sit back and watch this play out. If Brexit does somehow endure, I can always emigrate, perhaps back to an independent Scotland.
Dr. Foxy, both sides have made significant errors in judgement. May bringing in the idea of no deal being better than a bad deal, then being desperate for a deal and sunk by no dealers. Grieve bringing in his 'meaningful vote'. Miller's court case that enabled the Commons to be decisively indecisive and allow nothing to happen.
It's quite the farce.
Corbyn remains a dangerous far left fool. The PM's foolishness is incompetent egocentrism. Quite the choice. But far easier to oust a Conservative PM than a Communist one.
Wasn't Miller's court case about whether the PM could enact Article 50 though? Having a vote on the deal was decided by MPs (which the ERG voted *against*!)
That the Monarchy may take a hit from people either confused about how our system works and who for some reason want to replace the monarch becasue she doesn't have power over the PM in any genuine way and they want the monarch to have that power, is one thing. But the tumescent joy of some that they might be able to give the republican cause a shot in the arm off the back of this situation is both blatant and overdone. The sheer unbridled glee at being able to take advantage of an at best tangentially related situation for an otherwise minorly supported cause, the beloved tactic of extremist revolutionaries everywhere. Let's use anger at this one thing in order to rile up against this other thing!
And I agree with you even though I am a republican
It is not the Queens fault
Its not but this was bound to happen the moment Boris got her involved.
Nice one Boris.
As I said yesterday, she made a serious mistake yesterday morning.
The Queen has one job. She flunked it.
The Queen has one job and she did it.
She's no more than a glorified functionary. A figurehead puppet of the Prime Minister of the day.
As she should be in a democratic constitutional monarchy.
If she wants to start getting involved in decision making she should abdicate and stand for Parliament.
That’s overstating it - it’s true in the field of active politics, but she counsels behind the scenes. And outside politics she had a major albeit symbolic role
There are two intelligent options for that putative majority who oppose Boris and co. One is to install a new government within days - perfectly possible if numbers stack up and agree on a new PM and take forward their new agreed policy; the other is to consider TMs deal and gather the numbers for it, as it remains the most rational way of processing the Brexit referendum vote as things stand. At the moment neither side seems to be giving priority to the real world solutions, and Boris and co's enemies seem only to be agreed about who and what they don't want. In this crisis that won't really suffice.
"For supposedly-clever men, Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings are being remarkably dumb. They’ve spent ages looking at the mechanics and no time at all looking at the aim of the game that they are trying to play."
Hmm. I'm not convinced that they are playing the same game you think they are.
Point is, even if Boris isn't, Cummings is a planner. All of the responses to the prorogation of Parliament - the confected Remainer outrage, the legal challenges, the response of the Speaker - were entirely predictable. Possibly the only unknown was whether it would spur the Remainers to force a VoNC asap (clearly, it hasn't). But Cummings will have the next step planned, and the next, and the next.
The plan may turn out to be inspired, or monstrous (quite possibly both). But we can't see its shape yet. To dismiss it as dumb is downright dangerous.
It astounds me that some people here are so certain that polling before a GE is called relates to what will happen in a GE. I'm not Corybn or Labour, but previously they made up a 20+ point deficit. This time they are less than 10 points behind, on aggregate. With the Tories losing 8-12 of their Scottish seats to the Nats (likely) and 15 - 30 southern seats to LDs (likely), I don't see where the major Lab / BXP / LD splitting allows the Tories through. Areas like Stoke may waver in that direction, but the BXP / LD voters in those areas could easily be life long tories from the extremes of Brexit issue. All Labour need to do is tie in the national vote, and I doubt anyone gets a majority. And in this environment, Swinson and Sturgeon are not going to prop up Boris over Corbyn.
What next has always been the question. Does anyone think "getting Brexit over the line", then winning a GE, possibly with a third of the vote or less, with c half the population embittered is a recipe for harmonious government and society?
No. I’ve said it. @Mr Meeks has said it in this excellent article (for which many thanks). Plenty of others have said it. But the chancers in government and their supporters simply don’t care. They want to ram No Deal through, regardless of the consequences. They are Jacobins - and they will probably get their way. But they should remember what happened to the Jacobins and what happened after they were swept away.
Mr. Meeks, I don't support the PM's proroguing move. It's clearly timed to just prevent (or reduce the chances of) how Parliamentary opponents getting their act together.
However, proroguing for a Queen's Speech is not a contravention of the norm.
I've long said Boris Johnson was not fit to be in Cabinet, and retain that view. I also retain the view that Corbyn is a bigger threat. It may well be that the PM, like Nicias, has become his own worst enemy by winning an argument in which he never believed.
If Boris gets a deal the Faragists and ERG will cry foul as we would then be a rule taker from the EU. The Conservative Party would split. If Boris doesn’t get a deal the ensuing chaos will also cause a split in the Conservative Party.
All looking very positive, if you look forward to the end of the Tories!! The resulting mess may not be much fun but might be worth it!
Farage makes getting a deal impossible for the Tories. Literally the only choice for the party is to leave without a deal and hope they can have an election before things go pearshaped.
Boris clearly wants an election before October but after an extension is granted that he cannot be blamed for. That is starting to look impossible as even Wednesday's games haven't created a demand for an immediate VONC (as everyone has seen through it).
If Boris gets a deal the Faragists and ERG will cry foul as we would then be a rule taker from the EU. The Conservative Party would split. If Boris doesn’t get a deal the ensuing chaos will also cause a split in the Conservative Party.
All looking very positive, if you look forward to the end of the Tories!! The resulting mess may not be much fun but might be worth it!
No, the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop won a majority in the Commons with the vast majority of Tory MPs voting for it, the vast majority of Tories also prefer No Deal to No Brexit.
Labour is now losing more votes to the LDs and SNP than the Tories are to the Brexit Party
Point is, even if Boris isn't, Cummings is a planner.
His disastrous record in education, where he decided to drive through ill-thought out changes for no discernible reason using unlawful methods to show that he could says hello.
“Challenging”. Ho ho. Aye, you lot are challenged right enough.
Yet you managed to lose to this challenged lot when it really mattered in 2014.
We lost to SLab footsoldiers, Gordon Brown, the Daily Record and the BBC. In contrast, the Tories were an absolute gift to the Yes campaign.
Utter rubbish, it was Tories energy which got out over 90% of Scottish Tory voters for No, while useless SLab lost over a third of their traditional voters to Yes and then even more to the SNP. Indeed the 95% of Scottish Tory voters who voted No was even higher than the 86% of SNP voters who voted Yes.
Tonight SLab will likely fall to 4th in the Shetland by election behind the Scottish LDs, SNP and Scottish Tories, a pathetic shell of a party whose machine once dominated Scottish politics, now rejected by nationalists and unionists alike
90% of diddly squat did not win IndyRef1 for the BritNats. It was purely a Scottish Labour/BBC joint victory, based on wall-to-wall lies, which is also why both those institutions have crippled reputations. The Cons were a dreadful hindrance to the No campaign (especially Osborne).
SLab-watchers will not be waiting on tenterhooks for the Shetland result. Numpty.
Rubbish, Yes even won Glasgow the Slab campaign was so hopeless (bar maybe Brown's one brief speech of passion and the vow Cameron implemented with the 2016 Scotland Act).
The largest No vote came from more Tory rural Scotland
Meanwhile, the Coalition of all the C**** seek to take away the one thing that seems to have finally got the EU's attention- the REAL threat of No Deal. I mean, it's only the biggest negotiation of our national economic interests in decades. And there they are, MPs fighting harder for the EU's side than the EU is itself.
So much is obvious. There is not enough legislative time before 1 November for all the nessecary legislation. Remember the Euro Parliament needs time too.
The choice is No Deal or extend, and Bozo will not extend so No Deal is nailed on.
No Deal in 2019 at 2.46 on BFX looks good value to me.
The rest not so much. May didn't much bring a knife to a gun fight as walk about unarmed and aimless waiting to be hit. Which she was, repeatedly. This government is fighting back with the same ferocity that the remainers have been using and they are playing to win. It has a purpose and a determination which is invigorating.
The notion that those remainers who voted down May's deal, a deal that left us in the SM and CU for the transitional period with every chance of that being the permanent state of affairs, indeed with a backstop applied to the whole of the UK which would have had that effect if nothing else was agreed, were ever going to come around to accept a democratic vote and come together looks more fanciful with every day that passes. These people are every bit as maniacal as the nutters in the ERG. To blame Boris or his government for that is absurd. We will all come to regret the rejection of that deal but Boris is right to fight for the democratic decision of this country.
In order to save this democracy it was necessary to destroy it.
And you studiously avoid the “then what?” question which is the essence of my point. How is this going to settle anything? It’s going to do the opposite.
Then we will be out of the EU. But it will not have gone away. If we leave with no deal we will still need a deal with them. It will look remarkably like May's deal. We will pay what we agree we owe them. We will not pay extra for market access unless we get that market access. We will need to facilitate trade as quickly as possible. That means decisions will need to be taken on how much regulatory equivalence we can live with to ensure market access. Some will find these decisions difficult. Tough.
There will be a lot to do and it will probably need a new Parliament to do it. Life will go on. In Scotland we know about the bitterness caused by referendums. Those on the losing side still harbour a grievance which we hear every day. But the trains are (mostly) on time and the economy totters along damaged by both the previous referendum and the threat of another but still functioning. So let it be with Brexit.
So we leave with No Deal and an immediate election is called. How does purdah cope with the negotiations that are essential but cannot occur as decisions need to be made?
It won't be immediate but it will be within months. This Parliament is not fit for purpose.
I think that has been obvious for some time, but the government's plan won't be to say so until such a deal has been reached with the EU, when the caravan will move on to its sunlit uplands and trouble less about dates. It could even work for all I know.
Meanwhile, the Coalition of all the C**** seek to take away the one thing that seems to have finally got the EU's attention- the REAL threat of No Deal. I mean, it's only the biggest negotiation of our national economic interests in decades. And there they are, MPs fighting harder for the EU's side than the EU is itself.
We need a massive clear out in Westminster.
How dare MPs represent anyone's views other than yours!
It astounds me that some people here are so certain that polling before a GE is called relates to what will happen in a GE. I'm not Corybn or Labour, but previously they made up a 20+ point deficit. This time they are less than 10 points behind, on aggregate. With the Tories losing 8-12 of their Scottish seats to the Nats (likely) and 15 - 30 southern seats to LDs (likely), I don't see where the major Lab / BXP / LD splitting allows the Tories through. Areas like Stoke may waver in that direction, but the BXP / LD voters in those areas could easily be life long tories from the extremes of Brexit issue. All Labour need to do is tie in the national vote, and I doubt anyone gets a majority. And in this environment, Swinson and Sturgeon are not going to prop up Boris over Corbyn.
That’s probably about right... certainly “well-hung” seems likely.
I should imagine the coalition talks with both Lab and Con might have “replacement of party leader” near the top of the agenda!
Yes, I agree and said as much earlier. I think Alastair would too. As he has often said, there are no good outcomes from here, although some are less bad than others.
Maybe a unity government committed to a Brexit deal is the only way forward. I'd love Ken Clarke to be PM. Therefore of course it won't happen
It's an indictment of our political system that KC was never made Party Leader, but then I recall Labour being similarly reluctant to appoint Denis Healey to lead his Party. What a waste of talent.
Clarke's preferred solution to the current predicament is, I believe, a long deferment in which the Leave Team draw up a practical plan and timetable for withdrawal. I'd certainly accept that. It's what should have happened from the outset. We are certainly not going to see such a rational approach now.
Yes but it is the long term nature of the Clarke solution that makes it unviable. It would be a proper government, enacting policies across all ministries. If a rvative party.
No, it won't fly. There is one viable alternative. Corbyn proposes a splash-and-dash minority Labour government that would extend Article 50 and call an election, accepting purdah which rules out any policy enactment across Whitehall that might frighten other parties, and would last only a couple of weeks.
I seriously wonder if that is Boris's plan. The Corbyn solution keeps Boris in place as leader of a more-or-less united Conservative Party, and he would be confident of winning the election and returning to Downing Street in time for Christmas.
The only problem with that is that Corbyn is toxc to so many, even those on his own side
I think that was before your party decided to became a dictatorship to ignore Parliament. And it is your party as unlike others on here I don't think you've resigned.
I suspect a lot of MPs will now hold their nose and vote for Corbyn if needs must which wasn't the case on Tuesday. I know were I an MP I would be doing so.
I think the dictator talk is overblown despite thinking Boris has behaved disgracefully, but I agree on the outcome, or at least it will be much closer now. Indeed I think the point was to cut off other options so mps took down Johnson and either the evil Corbyn kept us in the eu or more likely we get an election.
The key words missing are "in 1997". To which I think the answer is "effectively none".
Why is that the right comparison? In 1997 Labour had just won an election by a landslide. The Tories have been in power since 2010 and don't even have a majority, while closing down parliament in order to force through an unpopular policy. I think they are worthy of scrutiny in these circumstances.
Then we will be out of the EU. But it will not have gone away. If we leave with no deal we will still need a deal with them. It will look remarkably like May's deal. We will pay what we agree we owe them. We will not pay extra for market access unless we get that market access. We will need to facilitate trade as quickly as possible. That means decisions will need to be taken on how much regulatory equivalence we can live with to ensure market access. Some will find these decisions difficult. Tough.
There will be a lot to do and it will probably need a new Parliament to do it. Life will go on. In Scotland we know about the bitterness caused by referendums. Those on the losing side still harbour a grievance which we hear every day. But the trains are (mostly) on time and the economy totters along damaged by both the previous referendum and the threat of another but still functioning. So let it be with Brexit.
You are massively underestimating just how much division this approach would cause. The country would be in ferment, against a backdrop of likely disruption from a chaotic Brexit. In what way is that ever going to be accepted as legitimate or a way for building a future? It would be overturned sooner rather than later, just as soon as the constitutionalists prise the usurpers out of Downing Street.
The division is being caused by those who do not accept the result and rejected a perfectly reasonable compromise. It is absurd to blame the government for fighting back against such an undemocratic and irrational response. May does bear a lot of responsibility for this mess. If she had not been so incompetent, so secretive and so high handed things might have gone better but it was beyond her to reach out or achieve a consensus. That does not excuse the behaviour of remainers, especially those elected on a ticket of honouring the result.
So much is obvious. There is not enough legislative time before 1 November for all the nessecary legislation. Remember the Euro Parliament needs time too.
The choice is No Deal or extend, and Bozo will not extend so No Deal is nailed on.
No Deal in 2019 at 2.46 on BFX looks good value to me.
It is obvious to those who are thinking it through. It is not obvious to many who voted leave on a mostly emotional basis and are not following the process in detail. They will see it as yet another betrayal.
If Boris gets a deal the Faragists and ERG will cry foul as we would then be a rule taker from the EU. The Conservative Party would split. If Boris doesn’t get a deal the ensuing chaos will also cause a split in the Conservative Party.
All looking very positive, if you look forward to the end of the Tories!! The resulting mess may not be much fun but might be worth it!
Farage makes getting a deal impossible for the Tories. Literally the only choice for the party is to leave without a deal and hope they can have an election before things go pearshaped.
Boris clearly wants an election before October but after an extension is granted that he cannot be blamed for. That is starting to look impossible as even Wednesday's games haven't created a demand for an immediate VONC (as everyone has seen through it).
A bit like May not even being able to fall on her sword right.
But yes, theres no time for a deal and to leave on 31 oct, they are ruined if they dont leave by then, ergo no deal was always the plan, or st least to shoot for it was the plan.
“Challenging”. Ho ho. Aye, you lot are challenged right enough.
Yet you managed to lose to this challenged lot when it really mattered in 2014.
We lost to SLab footsoldiers, Gordon Brown, the Daily Record and the BBC. In contrast, the Tories were an absolute gift to the Yes campaign.
Utter rubbish, it was Tories energy which got out over 90% of Scottish Tory voters for No, while useless SLab lost over a third of their traditional voters to Yes and then even more to the SNP. Indeed the 95% of Scottish Tory voters who voted No was even higher than the 86% of SNP voters who voted Yes.
Tonight SLab will likely fall to 4th in the Shetland by election behind the Scottish LDs, SNP and Scottish Tories, a pathetic shell of a party whose machine once dominated Scottish politics, now rejected by nationalists and unionists alike
90% of diddly squat did not win IndyRef1 for the BritNats. It was purely a Scottish Labour/BBC joint victory, based on wall-to-wall lies, which is also why both those institutions have crippled reputations. The Cons were a dreadful hindrance to the No campaign (especially Osborne).
SLab-watchers will not be waiting on tenterhooks for the Shetland result. Numpty.
"It was purely a Scottish Labour/BBC joint victory"
LOL
When the BBC is repatriated south of the border following the tartan victory, viewers north of the border will have endless reruns of Dr Finlay's Casebook and Fyfe Robertson documentaries to look forward to. Can't wait.
The rest not so much. May didn't much bring a knife to a gun fight as walk about unarmed and aimless waiting to be hit. Which she was, repeatedly. This government is fighting back with the same ferocity that the remainers have been using and they are playing to win. It has a purpose and a determination which is invigorating.
The notion that those remainers who voted down May's deal, a deal that left us in the SM and CU for the transitional period with every chance of that being the permanent state of affairs, indeed with a backstop applied to the whole of the UK which would have had that effect if nothing else was agreed, were ever going to come around to accept a democratic vote and come together looks more fanciful with every day that passes. These people are every bit as maniacal as the nutters in the ERG. To blame Boris or his government for that is absurd. We will all come to regret the rejection of that deal but Boris is right to fight for the democratic decision of this country.
In order to save this democracy it was necessary to destroy it.
And you studiously avoid the “then what?” question which is the essence of my point. How is this going to settle anything? It’s going to do the opposite.
Then we will be out of the EU. But it will not have gone away. If we leave with no deal we will still need a deal with them. It will look remarkably like May's deal. We will pay what we agree we owe them. We will not pay extra for market access unless we get that market access. We will need to facilitate trade as quickly as possible. That means decisions will need to be taken on how much regulatory equivalence we can live with to ensure market access. Some will find these decisions difficult. Tough.
There will be a lot to do and it will probably need a new Parliament to do it. Life will go on. In Scotland we know about the bitterness caused by referendums. Those on the losing side still harbour a grievance which we hear every day. But the trains are (mostly) on time and the economy totters along damaged by both the previous referendum and the threat of another but still functioning. So let it be with Brexit.
In Scotland the referendum was won by those who wanted no change. You and your fellow Brexiters have upset the apple cart. Change there will be a' plenty.
After all the hysteria I think we will all be surprised (well, I won't but you know what I mean) about how little changes in every day life. Our politics are going to be especially angry and divisive for some time though and our current political parties may look different by the end of the process.
So much is obvious. There is not enough legislative time before 1 November for all the nessecary legislation. Remember the Euro Parliament needs time too.
The choice is No Deal or extend, and Bozo will not extend so No Deal is nailed on.
No Deal in 2019 at 2.46 on BFX looks good value to me.
Is betting on No Deal AND betting on a Boris exit in Oct an arb effectively? Hard to see Boris staying and asking for an extension. Hard to see a deal getting through.
Dr. Foxy, both sides have made significant errors in judgement. May bringing in the idea of no deal being better than a bad deal, then being desperate for a deal and sunk by no dealers. Grieve bringing in his 'meaningful vote'. Miller's court case that enabled the Commons to be decisively indecisive and allow nothing to happen.
It's quite the farce.
Corbyn remains a dangerous far left fool. The PM's foolishness is incompetent egocentrism. Quite the choice. But far easier to oust a Conservative PM than a Communist one.
Miller’s court case was not an “error of judgment” but a vital reminder that we live in a parliamentary democracy.
For all those bleating about the unprecedented robbing of time for our MPs to do their Parliamentary thang - this is when Parliament hasn't sat over the last three years. (Thanks to Iain Dale)
2016 - 15th Sept to 10th Oct 2017 - 14th Sept to 9th Oct 2018 - 13th Sept to 9th Oct
Then we will be out of the EU. But it will not have gone away. If we leave with no deal we will still need a deal with them. It will look remarkably like May's deal. We will pay what we agree we owe them. We will not pay extra for market access unless we get that market access. We will need to facilitate trade as quickly as possible. That means decisions will need to be taken on how much regulatory equivalence we can live with to ensure market access. Some will find these decisions difficult. Tough.
There will be a lot to do and it will probably need a new Parliament to do it. Life will go on. In Scotland we know about the bitterness caused by referendums. Those on the losing side still harbour a grievance which we hear every day. But the trains are (mostly) on time and the economy totters along damaged by both the previous referendum and the threat of another but still functioning. So let it be with Brexit.
You are massively underestimating just how much division this approach would cause. The country would be in ferment, against a backdrop of likely disruption from a chaotic Brexit. In what way is that ever going to be accepted as legitimate or a way for building a future? It would be overturned sooner rather than later, just as soon as the constitutionalists prise the usurpers out of Downing Street.
The division is being caused by those who do not accept the result and rejected a perfectly reasonable compromise. It is absurd to blame the government for fighting back against such an undemocratic and irrational response. May does bear a lot of responsibility for this mess. If she had not been so incompetent, so secretive and so high handed things might have gone better but it was beyond her to reach out or achieve a consensus. That does not excuse the behaviour of remainers, especially those elected on a ticket of honouring the result.
I partly agree. The awful behaviour of boris and my own dislike of no deal puts me in the position of unhappily on the same side as people who like you I think have behaved badly themselves and their contribution to the responsibility for mess is not erased by Boris's actions.
The 3rd place Ind candidate is pro-independence, as are two of the other Inds, plus the Green.
Citation required.
He makes no mention, one way or the other in his Shetland News manifesto.
Especially as Shetland voted nearly 2:1 against independence and would have been removed from the Union against its will If the vote had gone the other way.
Then we will be out of the EU. But it will not have gone away. If we leave with no deal we will still need a deal with them. It will look remarkably like May's deal. We will pay what we agree we owe them. We will not pay extra for market access unless we get that market access. We will need to facilitate trade as quickly as possible. That means decisions will need to be taken on how much regulatory equivalence we can live with to ensure market access. Some will find these decisions difficult. Tough.
There will be a lot to do and it will probably need a new Parliament to do it. Life will go on. In Scotland we know about the bitterness caused by referendums. Those on the losing side still harbour a grievance which we hear every day. But the trains are (mostly) on time and the economy totters along damaged by both the previous referendum and the threat of another but still functioning. So let it be with Brexit.
You are massively underestimating just how much division this approach would cause. The country would be in ferment, against a backdrop of likely disruption from a chaotic Brexit. In what way is that ever going to be accepted as legitimate or a way for building a future? It would be overturned sooner rather than later, just as soon as the constitutionalists prise the usurpers out of Downing Street.
The division is being caused by those who do not accept the result and rejected a perfectly reasonable compromise. It is absurd to blame the government for fighting back against such an undemocratic and irrational response. May does bear a lot of responsibility for this mess. If she had not been so incompetent, so secretive and so high handed things might have gone better but it was beyond her to reach out or achieve a consensus. That does not excuse the behaviour of remainers, especially those elected on a ticket of honouring the result.
The division was caused by May being unable to get her own party to vote for her deal. If you cannot carry your party with you why should anyone else vote for a deal which contains elements you, your party and your constituents all hate.
And most Labour Leave MPs were sensible enough to get coverage from their constituents when they voted against the deal.
Then we will be out of the EU. But it will not have gone away. If we leave with no deal we will still need a deal with them. It will look remarkably like May's deal. We will pay what we agree we owe them. We will not pay extra for market access unless we get that market access. We will need to facilitate trade as quickly as possible. That means decisions will need to be taken on how much regulatory equivalence we can live with to ensure market access. Some will find these decisions difficult. Tough.
There will be a lot to do and it will probably need a new Parliament to do it. Life will go on. In Scotland we know about the bitterness caused by referendums. Those on the losing side still harbour a grievance which we hear every day. But the trains are (mostly) on time and the economy totters along damaged by both the previous referendum and the threat of another but still functioning. So let it be with Brexit.
You are massively underestimating just how much division this approach would cause. The country would be in ferment, against a backdrop of likely disruption from a chaotic Brexit. In what way is that ever going to be accepted as legitimate or a way for building a future? It would be overturned sooner rather than later, just as soon as the constitutionalists prise the usurpers out of Downing Street.
The division is being caused by those who do not accept the result and rejected a perfectly reasonable compromise. It is absurd to blame the government for fighting back against such an undemocratic and irrational response. May does bear a lot of responsibility for this mess. If she had not been so incompetent, so secretive and so high handed things might have gone better but it was beyond her to reach out or achieve a consensus. That does not excuse the behaviour of remainers, especially those elected on a ticket of honouring the result.
The government is literally shutting down Parliament for a while to curtail democratic debate by elected representatives, because it is opposed by a majority in Parliament. This is a government without a majority under a Prime Minister that no one elected pursuing a policy that no one voted for.
In a Parliamentary democracy, of course the government can be blamed for launching such a putsch.
I think if a Deal is voted through, Johnson will just do what has become the norm in our "Post Truth" world and extend A50, and pretend he never said we'd be out on Oct 31st.
So much is obvious. There is not enough legislative time before 1 November for all the nessecary legislation. Remember the Euro Parliament needs time too.
The choice is No Deal or extend, and Bozo will not extend so No Deal is nailed on.
No Deal in 2019 at 2.46 on BFX looks good value to me.
It is obvious to those who are thinking it through. It is not obvious to many who voted leave on a mostly emotional basis and are not following the process in detail. They will see it as yet another betrayal.
It is No Deal or Corbyn as next PM - I'm not 100% sure which outcome it's going to be.
Next week however a rather large chest freezer will be arriving in the Garage.
You are massively underestimating just how much division this approach would cause. The country would be in ferment, against a backdrop of likely disruption from a chaotic Brexit. In what way is that ever going to be accepted as legitimate or a way for building a future? It would be overturned sooner rather than later, just as soon as the constitutionalists prise the usurpers out of Downing Street.
The division is being caused by those who do not accept the result and rejected a perfectly reasonable compromise. It is absurd to blame the government for fighting back against such an undemocratic and irrational response. May does bear a lot of responsibility for this mess. If she had not been so incompetent, so secretive and so high handed things might have gone better but it was beyond her to reach out or achieve a consensus. That does not excuse the behaviour of remainers, especially those elected on a ticket of honouring the result.
When the referendum was run, the default leave position was "we could be like Norway or Switzerland". Talk of leaving the CU were dismissed as project fear. Now the "compromise" position is everything short of just walking away from the table. On the basis of the argument "we could be Norway or Switzerland" Leave won on 52/48, not a particularly resounding victory. Yet every single aspect of negotiation, deal making and positioning by the Conservatives in charge of this withdrawal process has been to go for the Leaviest Leave to be imagined. No, the WA arranged by May was not a compromise. I voted Remain, but would have accepted Norway or Switzerland lite. But this? This is a burn down the house, vulture capitalist, lets become the 51st state Brexit. Bollocks to that.
Citizen of nowhere, traitor, saboteur. That isn't the language of reconciliation and unity. It was vitriol. And for a change like this we needed someone to try and parse what was possible, not an ideologue.
Well, the loonies are in charge of the madhouse now.
"The prorogation is not a coup. It has been designed with just enough points of justification to fall narrowly short of a constitutional outrage (it allows for the conventional September recess for party conferences, the new Queen’s Speech, and time for debate both at the start and end of the period before 31 October) but it is, without doubt, a brazen use of executive power to set the timetable for political advantage."
The rest not so much. May didn't much bring a knife to a gun fight as walk about unarmed and aimless waiting to be hit. Which she was, repeatedly. This government is fighting back with the same ferocity that the remainers have been using and they are playing to win. It has a purpose and a determination which is invigorating.
The notion that those remainers who voted down May's deal, a deal that left us in the SM and CU for the transitional period with every chance of that being the permanent state of affairs, indeed with a backstop applied to the whole of the UK which would have had that effect if nothing else was agreed, were ever going to come around to accept a democratic vote and come together looks more fanciful with every day that passes. These people are every bit as maniacal as the nutters in the ERG. To blame Boris or his government for that is absurd. We will all come to regret the rejection of that deal but Boris is right to fight for the democratic decision of this country.
In order to save this democracy it was necessary to destroy it.
And you studiously avoid the “then what?” question which is the essence of my point. How is this going to settle anything? It’s going to do the opposite.
Then we will be out of the EU. But it will not have gone away. If we leave with no deal we will still need a deal with them. It will look remarkably like May's deal. We will pay what we agree we owe them. We will not pay extra for market access unless we get that market access. We will need to facilitate trade as quickly as possible. That means decisions will need to be taken on how much regulatory equivalence we can live with to ensure market access. Some will find these decisions difficult. Tough.
There will be a lot to do and it will probably need a new Parliament to do it. Life will go on. In Scotland we know about the bitterness caused by referendums. Those on the losing side still harbour a grievance which we hear every day. But the trains are (mostly) on time and the economy totters along damaged by both the previous referendum and the threat of another but still functioning. So let it be with Brexit.
No deal is the only way Corbyn ever wins a majority. Very conservative to shrug your shoulders and say let it be, just to satisfy an arbitary date imposed on us by the French!!
For all those bleating about the unprecedented robbing of time for our MPs to do their Parliamentary thang - this is when Parliament hasn't sat over the last three years. (Thanks to Iain Dale)
2016 - 15th Sept to 10th Oct 2017 - 14th Sept to 9th Oct 2018 - 13th Sept to 9th Oct
and
2019 - 9th Sept to 14th Oct
Manufactured outrage? Much?
This really is one of silliest arguments going. Closing parliament for longest period in years just after saying its Oct 31st 2019 do or die, is a meaningful difference. You know it, everyone knows it. Why are you spinning for Boris, you’re better than that.
For all those bleating about the unprecedented robbing of time for our MPs to do their Parliamentary thang - this is when Parliament hasn't sat over the last three years. (Thanks to Iain Dale)
2016 - 15th Sept to 10th Oct 2017 - 14th Sept to 9th Oct 2018 - 13th Sept to 9th Oct
and
2019 - 9th Sept to 14th Oct
Manufactured outrage? Much?
The conference season, in other words. Much else happening was there?
Then we will be out of the EU. But it will not have gone away. If we leave with no deal we will still need a deal with them. It will look remarkably like May's deal. We will pay what we agree we owe them. We will not pay extra for market access unless we get that market access. We will need to facilitate trade as quickly as possible. That means decisions will need to be taken on how much regulatory equivalence we can live with to ensure market access. Some will find these decisions difficult. Tough.
There will be a lot to do and it will probably need a new Parliament to do it. Life will go on. In Scotland we know about the bitterness caused by referendums. Those on the losing side still harbour a grievance which we hear every day. But the trains are (mostly) on time and the economy totters along damaged by both the previous referendum and the threat of another but still functioning. So let it be with Brexit.
You are massively underestimating just how much division this approach would cause. The country would be in ferment, against a backdrop of likely disruption from a chaotic Brexit. In what way is that ever going to be accepted as legitimate or a way for building a future? It would be overturned sooner rather than later, just as soon as the constitutionalists prise the usurpers out of Downing Street.
The division is being caused by those who do not accept the result and rejected a perfectly reasonable compromise. It is absurd to blame the government for fighting back against such an undemocratic and irrational response. May does bear a lot of responsibility for this mess. If she had not been so incompetent, so secretive and so high handed things might have gone better but it was beyond her to reach out or achieve a consensus. That does not excuse the behaviour of remainers, especially those elected on a ticket of honouring the result.
The division was caused by May being unable to get her own party to vote for her deal. If you cannot carry your party with you why should anyone else vote for a deal which contains elements you, your party and your constituents all hate.
And most Labour Leave MPs were sensible enough to get coverage from their constituents when they voted against the deal.
because you hate the other alternative even more and you dont have a majority to get what you want ?
Mr. kle4, consider if Labour had a non-far left leader.
Cooper or Benn would be looking at 20-30 point leads.
To be honest it would not arise. Any sane labour leader would have supported a referendum from day one, affirmed they want to remain, and we would most likely have already decided to femain in the EU
Comments
Can Boris decisively win an election after No Deal? I've no idea but it's possible.
I think it may turn out to be more complicated than: massive disruption --> blame Boris.
I think perhaps the Blair-Cameron era (Where there was the frequent complaint of there only being a rizla's width between all 3 parties) was perhaps the exception rather than the norm.
No, it won't fly. There is one viable alternative. Corbyn proposes a splash-and-dash minority Labour government that would extend Article 50 and call an election, accepting purdah which rules out any policy enactment across Whitehall that might frighten other parties, and would last only a couple of weeks.
I seriously wonder if that is Boris's plan. The Corbyn solution keeps Boris in place as leader of a more-or-less united Conservative Party, and he would be confident of winning the election and returning to Downing Street in time for Christmas.
Everyone could see that during the leadership campaign he was stupidly and quite unnecessarily making it impossible to achieve a sane resolution of Brexit. Now, in order to pursue the insane course, he's driven to ever wilder and more reckless expedients.
Cameron self described as "The heir to Blair"
And Major, who I've forgot to mention is and was clearly very pro EU like Blair. There were other differences of course but they're not as widely pronounced as now or for much of the 80s.
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1167326633524486144
The treatment of EU citizens as a result of Brexit is already causing Brexiteers to get antsy
SLab-watchers will not be waiting on tenterhooks for the Shetland result. Numpty.
I suspect a lot of MPs will now hold their nose and vote for Corbyn if needs must which wasn't the case on Tuesday. I know were I an MP I would be doing so.
That could've either halved the reduction in the Lib Dem decline or doubled the rise of the SNP. Quite a bit of statistical noise.
There will be a lot to do and it will probably need a new Parliament to do it. Life will go on. In Scotland we know about the bitterness caused by referendums. Those on the losing side still harbour a grievance which we hear every day. But the trains are (mostly) on time and the economy totters along damaged by both the previous referendum and the threat of another but still functioning. So let it be with Brexit.
A quick trade deal with the United States could easily make a European agreement nigh-on impossible, not just difficult.
*Unless PM Corbyn also decided to prorogue Parliament so as to rule by decree. There is recent precedent, I believe...
It's quite the farce.
Corbyn remains a dangerous far left fool. The PM's foolishness is incompetent egocentrism. Quite the choice. But far easier to oust a Conservative PM than a Communist one.
Could it be that "civil unrest" is just a big, threatening-sounding stick we use when it seems like our side is losing?
More representative, I think, of things was the council by-election in East Kilbride last night. Shows SNP continuing to consolidate in Central Belt while SLAB continues its vertiginous decline. Lib Dem vote up considerably and Tories drifting down a little, although still well ahead of pre-Ruth results. Perhaps much as you'd expect given the maelstrom in Westminster.
All looking very positive, if you look forward to the end of the Tories!! The resulting mess may not be much fun but might be worth it!
Swing of 2.25% from Labour to the Tories too, Labour a humiliating 6th
Hmm. I'm not convinced that they are playing the same game you think they are.
Point is, even if Boris isn't, Cummings is a planner. All of the responses to the prorogation of Parliament - the confected Remainer outrage, the legal challenges, the response of the Speaker - were entirely predictable. Possibly the only unknown was whether it would spur the Remainers to force a VoNC asap (clearly, it hasn't). But Cummings will have the next step planned, and the next, and the next.
The plan may turn out to be inspired, or monstrous (quite possibly both). But we can't see its shape yet. To dismiss it as dumb is downright dangerous.
However, proroguing for a Queen's Speech is not a contravention of the norm.
I've long said Boris Johnson was not fit to be in Cabinet, and retain that view. I also retain the view that Corbyn is a bigger threat. It may well be that the PM, like Nicias, has become his own worst enemy by winning an argument in which he never believed.
Boris clearly wants an election before October but after an extension is granted that he cannot be blamed for. That is starting to look impossible as even Wednesday's games haven't created a demand for an immediate VONC (as everyone has seen through it).
Labour is now losing more votes to the LDs and SNP than the Tories are to the Brexit Party
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1167320378340888576?s=20
The largest No vote came from more Tory rural Scotland
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49515489
Meanwhile, the Coalition of all the C**** seek to take away the one thing that seems to have finally got the EU's attention- the REAL threat of No Deal. I mean, it's only the biggest negotiation of our national economic interests in decades. And there they are, MPs fighting harder for the EU's side than the EU is itself.
We need a massive clear out in Westminster.
The choice is No Deal or extend, and Bozo will not extend so No Deal is nailed on.
No Deal in 2019 at 2.46 on BFX looks good value to me.
I should imagine the coalition talks with both Lab and Con might have “replacement of party leader” near the top of the agenda!
Either way Corbyn is no longer scary.
But yes, theres no time for a deal and to leave on 31 oct, they are ruined if they dont leave by then, ergo no deal was always the plan, or st least to shoot for it was the plan.
Cooper or Benn would be looking at 20-30 point leads.
LOL
When the BBC is repatriated south of the border following the tartan victory, viewers north of the border will have endless reruns of Dr Finlay's Casebook and Fyfe Robertson documentaries to look forward to. Can't wait.
Hard to see Boris staying and asking for an extension. Hard to see a deal getting through.
Too bad that was inconvenient for Brexit tyrants.
2016 - 15th Sept to 10th Oct
2017 - 14th Sept to 9th Oct
2018 - 13th Sept to 9th Oct
and
2019 - 9th Sept to 14th Oct
Manufactured outrage? Much?
He makes no mention, one way or the other in his Shetland News manifesto.
Especially as Shetland voted nearly 2:1 against independence and would have been removed from the Union against its will If the vote had gone the other way.
And most Labour Leave MPs were sensible enough to get coverage from their constituents when they voted against the deal.
In a Parliamentary democracy, of course the government can be blamed for launching such a putsch.
Though a Cooper or Benn led Labour would be tied with the Boris led Tories not 12% behind the Boris led Tories as Corbyn Labour are in the same poll
Next week however a rather large chest freezer will be arriving in the Garage.
Citizen of nowhere, traitor, saboteur. That isn't the language of reconciliation and unity. It was vitriol. And for a change like this we needed someone to try and parse what was possible, not an ideologue.
Well, the loonies are in charge of the madhouse now.
https://unherd.com/2019/08/the-brexit-endgame-begins/
Corbyn is hugely guilty for this disaster