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.
then Parliament should collapse the government and force fresh elections,
Mr. kle4, consider if Labour had a non-far left leader.
Cooper or Benn would be looking at 20-30 point leads.
Nah, Tory voters want a No Deal Brexit now. They wouldn't switch to Benn or Cooper. Benn or Cooper would take a few from the Lib Dems, but otherwise the country would still be utterly divided.
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.
Two points before I go to work. Firstly, it was not the case that the official campaign dismissed withdrawal from the CU, indeed leaving it was an essential part of the "new trade deals" package. Secondly, May's deal did not involve us leaving the CU or the SM. These things were still up for grabs and would have continued during the transitional period. Given the backstop my expectation is that they would have continued indefinitely. We are where we are because remainers rejected the deal.
"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."
I agree entirely with that paragraph, but think the author is (possibly/probably) wrong in thinking this is the start of the Brexit endgame. I think prorogation is designed to create a further extension, and specifically not to deliver Brexit by the end of October, whilst allowing the PM to cynically claim he did everything to leave as promised.
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.
"All part of the negotiating process - to convince the EU we were serious about No Deal." And he'd be exactly right. But what it will require is Westminster to approve the Deal by 31st October, ensuring the Remainers have lost the war and our exit date is certain. Boris will take that as a win.
If they don't pass the deal, no deal is what happens next. On 31st October.
Yes, I think this is the best move for remainiacs now, they need to both restrain and de-scarify Corbyn, not just as temporary PM, but for the election campaign.
It's all very well getting your GoNAfaE sorted out and having an election with a big old LibDem surge that takes 30 seats off the Tories, but if Labour is still on 20%, that's a huge majority for Boris, which is now starting to get genuinely frightening in the way that Trump would be if he wasn't such a moron. At least in the US there's a constitution with a half-decent set of checks and balances, in Britain a PM with a majority can do pretty much what they like, and No Deal produces a huge amount of chaos that could be exploited by an astute would-be-authoritarian.
So send Corbyn out to make a grave speech on the importance of our great unwritten constitution etc etc and how deeply he would feel bound by his responsibilities, put Corbyn in, give him some time to seem reasonable and statesmanlike. If you do that Boris has just ensured that you can't have an election until October at the earliest, which gives him plenty of time to meet with other world leaders and ostentatiously not try to nationalize things or give the Palestinians the bomb.
Once Remainiacs feel like Corbyn would be bad but not terrifying, then you can have your election and let the LibDems take a chunk out of Tory-held Remainia.
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.
then Parliament should collapse the government and force fresh elections,
Parliament should certainly act. Though not, I think, in the way you suggest.
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 remainersmaniacal 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.
This presumably is the "The EU will come begging to us once we threaten No Deal for real but No Deal won't make much difference to our daily lives" @MarqueeMark moronic type of argument?
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?
All three earlier years have been post-Brexit referendum. So yes, a bit.....
This being from the same Commons which voted down the only Deal on the table THREE times? Outrageous
We could just put the Brexit project on hold until we have a party has been able to form a majority government with a specific form of leaving in their manifesto?
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 PM, the Foreign Secretary (who negotiated it!) and the Home Secretary all rejected the perfectly reasonable compromise. How on earth is it absurd to place at least some of the blame on them??
Yes, I think this is the best move for remainiacs now, they need to both restrain and de-scarify Corbyn, not just as temporary PM, but for the election campaign.
It's all very well getting your GoNAfaE sorted out and having an election with a big old LibDem surge that takes 30 seats off the Tories, but if Labour is still on 20%, that's a huge majority for Boris, which is now starting to get genuinely frightening in the way that Trump would be if he wasn't such a moron. At least in the US there's a constitution with a half-decent set of checks and balances, in Britain a PM with a majority can do pretty much what they like, and No Deal produces a huge amount of chaos that could be exploited by an astute would-be-authoritarian.
So send Corbyn out to make a grave speech on the importance of our great unwritten constitution etc etc and how deeply he would feel bound by his responsibilities, put Corbyn in, give him some time to seem reasonable and statesmanlike. If you do that Boris has just ensured that you can't have an election until October at the earliest, which gives him plenty of time to meet with other world leaders and ostentatiously not try to nationalize things or give the Palestinians the bomb.
Once Remainiacs feel like Corbyn would be bad but not terrifying, then you can have your election and let the LibDems take a chunk out of Tory-held Remainia.
Agreed. What can Corbyn with 250 Labour MPs do ? In any event die hard Corbynistas are about 50.
"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."
I agree entirely with that paragraph, but think the author is (possibly/probably) wrong in thinking this is the start of the Brexit endgame. I think prorogation is designed to create a further extension, and specifically not to deliver Brexit by the end of October, whilst allowing the PM to cynically claim he did everything to leave as promised.
Entirely disagree as I set out above. New Deal signed off by 31st October - or it's No Deal by 31st October.
People not wanting No Deal better pray Boris gets a decent deal they can vote for.
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 don't remember that much about what politicians said in the 80s, partly as I was mostly living abroad, but it's certainly not true now and wasn't true in the Blair/Brown era either. As an active and pretty partisan MP, I was often pretty complimentary about various Conservatives, and cooperation out of the PMQ limelight has always been commonplace.
Two points before I go to work. Firstly, it was not the case that the official campaign dismissed withdrawal from the CU, indeed leaving it was an essential part of the "new trade deals" package. Secondly, May's deal did not involve us leaving the CU or the SM. These things were still up for grabs and would have continued during the transitional period. Given the backstop my expectation is that they would have continued indefinitely. We are where we are because remainers rejected the deal.
If this were true, then why would May not compromise with Corbyn on CU or back the Boles or Clarke amendments? You seem to be saying there was no practical difference between them and her deal.
Mr. kle4, consider if Labour had a non-far left leader.
Cooper or Benn would be looking at 20-30 point leads.
Nah, Tory voters want a No Deal Brexit now. They wouldn't switch to Benn or Cooper. Benn or Cooper would take a few from the Lib Dems, but otherwise the country would still be utterly divided.
I think supporters of both main parties significantly fail to understand how many anti the other party voters there are at the moment.
The main reason to vote Labour is Boris Johnson and his govt. The main reason to vote Tory is Jeremy Corbyn and his cabal.
Replacing the opposition leader with someone palatable makes a huge change in both turnout and intent.
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.
Beware of the power cuts! Canned goods and shotgun shells IMO
Agreed. What can Corbyn with 250 Labour MPs do ? In any event die hard Corbynistas are about 50.
The next step once everyone's got their breath back is a constitutional reform package that reduces the scope for the PM to run amok. Get that in the Lab manifesto, lovely and juicy for the LibDems, create a nice contrast with the irresponsible Trumpist Tories, and reassure non-Corbynists that it's safe to elect a Labour-led government.
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 don't remember that much about what politicians said in the 80s, partly as I was mostly living abroad, but it's certainly not true now and wasn't true in the Blair/Brown era either. As an active and pretty partisan MP, I was often pretty complimentary about various Conservatives, and cooperation out of the PMQ limelight has always been commonplace.
Unfortunately Nick, I don't recall seeing you on the telly much. I'm sure behind closed doors and within select committees there is good work done between Labour and Tory MPs. Unfortunately, though, when it comes to the crunch the Labour Party is utterly tribal.
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.
Yes, that sums it up. Excellent article by Alastair, by the way - quite apart from the content, the writing is just scintillating.
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 divi out of Downing Street.
The division is being caused by those who do not acceptg 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.
then Parliament should collapse the government and force fresh elections,
Parliament should certainly act. Though not, I think, in the way you suggest.
The problem is simply as described by @DavidL down thread. This Parliament is not fit for purpose. There is no majority for anythimg. They have turned down remain, leave and any option in between.If they extend, they will still bicker endlessly and decide nothing.
Too many Parliamentariians want to game the sysem - BoJo is doing it now, but remainers can hardly cry foul when the speaker was gaming it just a few months back to their benefit.
This Parliament is a dysfunctional body which has too much invested in a fight most voters have tired of. Time to clear the decks and get on with domestic matters.
This being from the same Commons which voted down the only Deal on the table THREE times? Outrageous
We could just put the Brexit project on hold until we have a party has been able to form a majority government with a specific form of leaving in their manifesto?
Enjoy your time under Prime Minister Nigel Farage then......
"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."
I agree entirely with that paragraph, but think the author is (possibly/probably) wrong in thinking this is the start of the Brexit endgame. I think prorogation is designed to create a further extension, and specifically not to deliver Brexit by the end of October, whilst allowing the PM to cynically claim he did everything to leave as promised.
Entirely disagree as I set out above. New Deal signed off by 31st October - or it's No Deal by 31st October.
People not wanting No Deal better pray Boris gets a decent deal they can vote for.
I will be surprised if he is the one negotiating it in this parliament. He may have a go if he gets a majority following an extension imposed on him.
He has not even outlined a deal, there is no plan to negotiate with the EU as he doesnt want to bring back a deal that doesnt get thru the current HoC. He does not want no deal as it will quickly bring in Corbyn.
His best option by far is to be temporarily removed from power, use that people against the elite line to win a bigger majority and then negotiate with the EU knowing he can get it thru parliament.
This being from the same Commons which voted down the only Deal on the table THREE times? Outrageous
We could just put the Brexit project on hold until we have a party has been able to form a majority government with a specific form of leaving in their manifesto?
Enjoy your time under Prime Minister Nigel Farage then......
If public opinion is such that he can get elected, then so be it.
This being from the same Commons which voted down the only Deal on the table THREE times? Outrageous
We could just put the Brexit project on hold until we have a party has been able to form a majority government with a specific form of leaving in their manifesto?
Enjoy your time under Prime Minister Nigel Farage then......
If public opinion is such that he can get elected, then so be it.
I somehow doubt it. Youll spend ages complaining about the undemocatic electoral system and how everyone was lied to.
"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."
I agree entirely with that paragraph, but think the author is (possibly/probably) wrong in thinking this is the start of the Brexit endgame. I think prorogation is designed to create a further extension, and specifically not to deliver Brexit by the end of October, whilst allowing the PM to cynically claim he did everything to leave as promised.
Entirely disagree as I set out above. New Deal signed off by 31st October - or it's No Deal by 31st October.
People not wanting No Deal better pray Boris gets a decent deal they can vote for.
I will be surprised if he is the one negotiating it in this parliament. He may have a go if he gets a majority following an extension imposed on him.
He has not even outlined a deal, there is no plan to negotiate with the EU as he doesnt want to bring back a deal that doesnt get thru the current HoC. He does not want no deal as it will quickly bring in Corbyn.
His best option by far is to be temporarily removed from power, use that people against the elite line to win a bigger majority and then negotiate with the EU knowing he can get it thru parliament.
"there is no plan to negotiate with the EU"
You seem to have missed that the EU is meeting with our negotiaitng team twice a week now. Maybe they just have good biscuits, or maybe......
O/T, an elderly relative who my mother talked about but I've never met has got in touch with a wealth of family history that I knew nothing about. Among other surprises for me, I turn out to be Jewish - my grandfather, a charismatic figure who I remember well simply as an ebullient optimist, turns out to have been prominent in this:
My mother, who like me was not very interested in religion of any kind, never mentioned it, though she was passionately involved in UNRRA, the relief organisation which helped the concentration camp survivors. Just at a personal level, it's a real pleasure to be descended from those traditions.
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 don't agree, David. The point was the WA agreed by May achieved the worst of all worlds - it was too "hard" for those who wanted BINO and too "soft" for those who wanted a decisive break from the EU. Remember with the transition period, even if we left on 31/10 with the WA, we would still be in the SM, CU,subject to EU laws and still paying our share with no input into the decision-making process until 31/12/20.
Some might call that transition, others might call it purgatory.
Apart from the disastrous GE, May's other monumental blunder was not to realise that in a Parliament with a Remain majority, the unity of the Conservative Party was a side issue. To get a deal through the Commons all she needed to do, much as Heath had in 1971, was to court those opponents whose support she could use to get through a BINO WA. Unlike Heath, however, May saw the preservation of the unity of the Conservative Party as the primary objective and kept throwing the ERG enough red meat to keep them onside but alienate the BINO supporters with whose support she could have got a WA through Parliament.
It's also ridiculous to suppose even Remain MPs should have voted to any old WA put in front of them just to honour the 23/6/16 result. This notion of "honouring the result" has been used by the No Dealers to justify every action. I voted Leave but this nonsense is not in my name,. I don't see the argument for even short-term economic dislocation, I don't see the argument for one lost job or one failed business just to honour a 2016 vote, the basis of which, from both sides, I consider spurious, fallacious and mendacious.
"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."
I agree entirely with that paragraph, but think the author is (possibly/probably) wrong in thinking this is the start of the Brexit endgame. I think prorogation is designed to create a further extension, and specifically not to deliver Brexit by the end of October, whilst allowing the PM to cynically claim he did everything to leave as promised.
Quite. It seems to me as a moderate centrist who thinks both (even all) sides have strong cases to make, that the real difference now is that despite TM's apparent determination and inflexibility, the truth is that in those palmy peaceful days so far off just a couple of months ago only one side was playing hardball, and it wasn't her's; now both sides are playing hardball and the shouts of anguish from those who had had the field to themselves until July are wondrous to behold.
Meanwhile the sanity of a Kenneth Clarke - and others - is being sidelined.
The problem is simply as described by @DavidL down thread. This Parliament is not fit for purpose. There is no majority for anythimg. They have turned down remain, leave and any option in between.If they extend, they will still bicker endlessly and decide nothing.
Too many Parliamentariians want to game the sysem - BoJo is doing it now, but remainers can hardly cry foul when the speaker was gaming it just a few months back to their benefit.
This Parliament is a dysfunctional body which has too much invested in a fight most voters have tired of. Time to clear the decks and get on with domestic matters.
Parliament reflects the country on this, which is angry, partisan, divided and confused. It is unsurprising that its output is similarly confused.
I may be unfashionable in this but actually I think Parliament has been working fairly well given the challenges it has faced. The failures have been of the executive - first Theresa May in failing to broker any kind of even partial consensus on the way forward and now Boris Johnson in failing to respect democratic norms.
"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."
I agree entirely with that paragraph, but think the author is (possibly/probably) wrong in thinking this is the start of the Brexit endgame. I think prorogation is designed to create a further extension, and specifically not to deliver Brexit by the end of October, whilst allowing the PM to cynically claim he did everything to leave as promised.
Entirely disagree as I set out above. New Deal signed off by 31st October - or it's No Deal by 31st October.
People not wanting No Deal better pray Boris gets a decent deal they can vote for.
I will be surprised if he is the one negotiating it in this parliament. He may have a go if he gets a majority following an extension imposed on him.
He has not even outlined a deal, there is no plan to negotiate with the EU as he doesnt want to bring back a deal that doesnt get thru the current HoC. He does not want no deal as it will quickly bring in Corbyn.
His best option by far is to be temporarily removed from power, use that people against the elite line to win a bigger majority and then negotiate with the EU knowing he can get it thru parliament.
"there is no plan to negotiate with the EU"
You seem to have missed that the EU is meeting with our negotiaitng team twice a week now. Maybe they just have good biscuits, or maybe......
Meeting twice a week! Wow, how hard they are working......I never understood why there wasnt a seven day a week meeting team organised back in July 2016 so forgive me if I might think that is for show rather than delivery. Hope they enjoy their taxpayer funded biscuits (and no doubt expensive lunches, dinners and hotels).
This being from the same Commons which voted down the only Deal on the table THREE times? Outrageous
We could just put the Brexit project on hold until we have a party has been able to form a majority government with a specific form of leaving in their manifesto?
Enjoy your time under Prime Minister Nigel Farage then......
If public opinion is such that he can get elected, then so be it.
I somehow doubt it. Youll spend ages complaining about the undemocatic electoral sysem and how everyone was lied to.
Would I? Well complaining about what you don't like is one of the advantages of a democracy.
"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."
I agree entirely with that paragraph, but think the author is (possibly/probably) wrong in thinking this is the start of the Brexit endgame. I think prorogation is designed to create a further extension, and specifically not to deliver Brexit by the end of October, whilst allowing the PM to cynically claim he did everything to leave as promised.
Yes, at least to a point. Boris imo hopes Corbyn can get him out of this mess, so he (Boris) can then run an insurgent election campaign. Whether that is also Cummings' goal is uncertain.
Yes, I think this is the best move for remainiacs now, they need to both restrain and de-scarify Corbyn, not just as temporary PM, but for the election campaign.
It's all very well getting your GoNAfaE sorted out and having an election with a big old LibDem surge that takes 30 seats off the Tories, but if Labour is still on 20%, that's a huge majority for Boris, which is now starting to get genuinely frightening in the way that Trump would be if he wasn't such a moron. At least in the US there's a constitution with a half-decent set of checks and balances, in Britain a PM with a majority can do pretty much what they like, and No Deal produces a huge amount of chaos that could be exploited by an astute would-be-authoritarian.
So send Corbyn out to make a grave speech on the importance of our great unwritten constitution etc etc and how deeply he would feel bound by his responsibilities, put Corbyn in, give him some time to seem reasonable and statesmanlike. If you do that Boris has just ensured that you can't have an election until October at the earliest, which gives him plenty of time to meet with other world leaders and ostentatiously not try to nationalize things or give the Palestinians the bomb.
Once Remainiacs feel like Corbyn would be bad but not terrifying, then you can have your election and let the LibDems take a chunk out of Tory-held Remainia.
Agreed. What can Corbyn with 250 Labour MPs do ? In any event die hard Corbynistas are about 50.
The idea that Corbyn is the answer is fantasy
Mps should vote in a senior politician to seek A50 extension and then call the GE
The problem is simply as described by @DavidL down thread. This Parliament is not fit for purpose. There is no majority for anythimg. They have turned down remain, leave and any option in between.If they extend, they will still bicker endlessly and decide nothing.
Too many Parliamentariians want to game the sysem - BoJo is doing it now, but remainers can hardly cry foul when the speaker was gaming it just a few months back to their benefit.
This Parliament is a dysfunctional body which has too much invested in a fight most voters have tired of. Time to clear the decks and get on with domestic matters.
Parliament reflects the country on this, which is angry, partisan, divided and confused. It is unsurprising that its output is similarly confused.
I may be unfashionable in this but actually I think Parliament has been working fairly well given the challenges it has faced. The failures have been of the executive - first Theresa May in failing to broker any kind of even partial consensus on the way forward and now Boris Johnson in failing to respect democratic norms.
I agree there has been a failure of leadership. On the other hand however I think the tightness of the numbers on the governments majority has just made all parties want to stretch their luck. This has been enabled by the FTPA which means MPs can do what they fancy and avoid the consequences until 2022.
The problem is simply as described by @DavidL down thread. This Parliament is not fit for purpose. There is no majority for anythimg. They have turned down remain, leave and any option in between.If they extend, they will still bicker endlessly and decide nothing.
Too many Parliamentariians want to game the sysem - BoJo is doing it now, but remainers can hardly cry foul when the speaker was gaming it just a few months back to their benefit.
This Parliament is a dysfunctional body which has too much invested in a fight most voters have tired of. Time to clear the decks and get on with domestic matters.
Parliament reflects the country on this, which is angry, partisan, divided and confused. It is unsurprising that its output is similarly confused.
I may be unfashionable in this but actually I think Parliament has been working fairly well given the challenges it has faced. The failures have been of the executive - first Theresa May in failing to broker any kind of even partial consensus on the way forward and now Boris Johnson in failing to respect democratic norms.
I think the difficulty with this argument is that parliament when presented with as decent a compromise as was possible over Brexit failed to take it for party reasons, and wilfully misunderstood what the WA set out to achieve. Yes, parliament too surely reflects the divisions and anger of the country but along with government has failed to bring order out of chaos - a large part of its job.
Yes, I think this is the best move for remainiacs now, they need to both restrain and de-scarify Corbyn, not just as temporary PM, but for the election campaign.
It's all very well getting your GoNAfaE sorted out and having an election with a big old LibDem surge that takes 30 seats off the Tories, but if Labour is still on 20%, that's a huge majority for Boris, which is now starting to get genuinely frightening in the way that Trump would be if he wasn't such a moron. At least in the US there's a constitution with a half-decent set of checks and balances, in Britain a PM with a majority can do pretty much what they like, and No Deal produces a huge amount of chaos that could be exploited by an astute would-be-authoritarian.
So send Corbyn out to make a grave speech on the importance of our great unwritten constitution etc etc and how deeply he would feel bound by his responsibilities, put Corbyn in, give him some time to seem reasonable and statesmanlike. If you do that Boris has just ensured that you can't have an election until October at the earliest, which gives him plenty of time to meet with other world leaders and ostentatiously not try to nationalize things or give the Palestinians the bomb.
Once Remainiacs feel like Corbyn would be bad but not terrifying, then you can have your election and let the LibDems take a chunk out of Tory-held Remainia.
Agreed. What can Corbyn with 250 Labour MPs do ? In any event die hard Corbynistas are about 50.
The idea that Corbyn is the answer is fantasy
Mps should vote in a senior politician to seek A50 extension and then call the GE
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 . 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.
then Parliament should collapse the government and force fresh elections,
While it’s the only thing they can do constitutionally, unless Bercow comes up with another of his constitutional outrages wheezes, it doesn’t guarantee the outcome they want - which is more time for more faffing around as far as anyone can tell....
It seems like Leo Varadkar has been very quiet recently, with Simon Coveney making most of the runnning on Brexit. A close friend of Varadkar's has suggested that compromise on the backstop is the way forward, though there have been furious denials that this represents Varadkar's own thinking.
The problem is simply as described by @DavidL down thread. This Parliament is not fit for purpose. There is no majority for anythimg. They have turned down remain, leave and any option in between.If they extend, they will still bicker endlessly and decide nothing.
Too many Parliamentariians want to game the sysem - BoJo is doing it now, but remainers can hardly cry foul when the speaker was gaming it just a few months back to their benefit.
This Parliament is a dysfunctional body which has too much invested in a fight most voters have tired of. Time to clear the decks and get on with domestic matters.
Parliament reflects the country on this, which is angry, partisan, divided and confused. It is unsurprising that its output is similarly confused.
I may be unfashionable in this but actually I think Parliament has been working fairly well given the challenges it has faced. The failures have been of the executive - first Theresa May in failing to broker any kind of even partial consensus on the way forward and now Boris Johnson in failing to respect democratic norms.
Absolutely. The Parliament elected in 2017 has a more recent mandate than the referendum, and is not bound by previous Parliaments. It represents the views of a divided people better than one could realistically expect under FPFT.
Fighting fantasy series were the nuts. I remember reading / doing them on long car journies around this time of year as we travelled on holiday.
The main thing I learnt from them was to place a crafty finger on each page a few decisions back in case I needed to reverse my fate. Sadly this strategy has proven unavailable in real life.
Oh no you cant do that.....thats worse than proroging parliament to try and get your way!
I better not tell you my approach to the dice rolls.....
I used to draw flow charts to map out the 400(?) possible events and figure out the optimal way though 😅
While it’s the only thing they can do constitutionally, unless Bercow comes up with another of his constitutional outrages wheezes, it doesn’t guarantee the outcome they want - which is more time for more faffing around as far as anyone can tell....
Had Boris not boxed himself in with a departure date of October 31st - fresh elections would be the sane choice.
Given the deadline and the time elections require I'm not so sure that is still the case.
The problem is simply as described by @DavidL down thread. This Parliament is not fit for purpose. There is no majority for anythimg. They have turned down remain, leave and any option in between.If they extend, they will still bicker endlessly and decide nothing.
Too many Parliamentariians want to game the sysem - BoJo is doing it now, but remainers can hardly cry foul when the speaker was gaming it just a few months back to their benefit.
This Parliament is a dysfunctional body which has too much invested in a fight most voters have tired of. Time to clear the decks and get on with domestic matters.
Parliament reflects the country on this, which is angry, partisan, divided and confused. It is unsurprising that its output is similarly confused.
I may be unfashionable in this but actually I think Parliament has been working fairly well given the challenges it has faced. The failures have been of the executive - first Theresa May in failing to broker any kind of even partial consensus on the way forward and now Boris Johnson in failing to respect democratic norms.
I agree there has been a failure of leadership. On the other hand however I think the tightness of the numbers on the governments majority has just made all parties want to stretch their luck. This has been enabled by the FTPA which means MPs can do what they fancy and avoid the consequences until 2022.
Another 3 years of this is in no-ones interest.
I thought the humiliation of the British political establishment was what you wanted?
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 . 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 thg 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.
then Parliament should collapse the government and force fresh elections,
While it’s the only thing they can do constitutionally, unless Bercow comes up with another of his constitutional outrages wheezes, it doesn’t guarantee the outcome they want - which is more time for more faffing around as far as anyone can tell....
MPs are currently chickens looking for their heads.
Yes, I think this is the best move for remainiacs now, they need to both restrain and de-scarify Corbyn, not just as temporary PM, but for the election campaign.
It's all very well getting your GoNAfaE sorted out and having an election with a big old LibDem surge that takes 30 seats off the Tories, but if Labour is still on 20%, that's a huge majority for Boris, which is now starting to get genuinely frightening in the way that Trump would be if he wasn't such a moron. At least in the US there's a constitution with a half-decent set of checks and balances, in Britain a PM with a majority can do pretty much what they like, and No Deal produces a huge amount of chaos that could be exploited by an astute would-be-authoritarian.
So send Corbyn out to make a grave speech on the importance of our great unwritten constitution etc etc and how deeply he would feel bound by his responsibilities, put Corbyn in, give him some time to seem reasonable and statesmanlike. If you do that Boris has just ensured that you can't have an election until October at the earliest, which gives him plenty of time to meet with other world leaders and ostentatiously not try to nationalize things or give the Palestinians the bomb.
Once Remainiacs feel like Corbyn would be bad but not terrifying, then you can have your election and let the LibDems take a chunk out of Tory-held Remainia.
Agreed. What can Corbyn with 250 Labour MPs do ? In any event die hard Corbynistas are about 50.
The idea that Corbyn is the answer is fantasy
Mps should vote in a senior politician to seek A50 extension and then call the GE
"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."
I agree entirely with that paragraph, but think the author is (possibly/probably) wrong in thinking this is the start of the Brexit endgame. I think prorogation is designed to create a further extension, and specifically not to deliver Brexit by the end of October, whilst allowing the PM to cynically claim he did everything to leave as promised.
Yes, at least to a point. Boris imo hopes Corbyn can get him out of this mess, so he (Boris) can then run an insurgent election campaign. Whether that is also Cummings' goal is uncertain.
Cummings knows that his political life is short. He is smart enough to know he is hated, even within his own party. His objective is No Deal Brexit by any means, he doesn't care much after that.
The problem is simply as described by @DavidL down thread. This Parliament is not fit for purpose. There is no majority for anythimg. They have turned down remain, leave and any option in between.If they extend, they will still bicker endlessly and decide nothing.
Too many Parliamentariians want to game the sysem - BoJo is doing it now, but remainers can hardly cry foul when the speaker was gaming it just a few months back to their benefit.
This Parliament is a dysfunctional body which has too much invested in a fight most voters have tired of. Time to clear the decks and get on with domestic matters.
Parliament reflects the country on this, which is angry, partisan, divided and confused. It is unsurprising that its output is similarly confused.
I may be unfashionable in this but actually I think Parliament has been working fairly well given the challenges it has faced. The failures have been of the executive - first Theresa May in failing to broker any kind of even partial consensus on the way forward and now Boris Johnson in failing to respect democratic norms.
I think the difficulty with this argument is that parliament when presented with as decent a compromise as was possible over Brexit failed to take it for party reasons, and wilfully misunderstood what the WA set out to achieve. Yes, parliament too surely reflects the divisions and anger of the country but along with government has failed to bring order out of chaos - a large part of its job.
There are very few parliamentarians to come out of this with any credit. Letwin, Boles, Clarke, Benn, Cooper, Morgan, Stewart perhaps.
ERG - enough already said May govt - enough already said Mainstream Tories - failed to either support May or topple her, left her isolated (admittedly her own fault) Labour leavers - should have voted for the deal or given an alternative text of what they would vote through Labour leadership - utterly cynical Lib Dems & Change - failed to support anything in the indicative votes risking no deal instead of soft brexit
The problem is simply as described by @DavidL down thread. This Parliament is not fit for purpose. There is no majority for anythimg. They have turned down remain, leave and any option in between.If they extend, they will still bicker endlessly and decide nothing.
Too many Parliamentariians want to game the sysem - BoJo is doing it now, but remainers can hardly cry foul when the speaker was gaming it just a few months back to their benefit.
This Parliament is a dysfunctional body which has too much invested in a fight most voters have tired of. Time to clear the decks and get on with domestic matters.
Parliament reflects the country on this, which is angry, partisan, divided and confused. It is unsurprising that its output is similarly confused.
I may be unfashionable in this but actually I think Parliament has been working fairly well given the challenges it has faced. The failures have been of the executive - first Theresa May in failing to broker any kind of even partial consensus on the way forward and now Boris Johnson in failing to respect democratic norms.
I think the difficulty with this argument is that parliament when presented with as decent a compromise as was possible over Brexit failed to take it for party reasons, and wilfully misunderstood what the WA set out to achieve. Yes, parliament too surely reflects the divisions and anger of the country but along with government has failed to bring order out of chaos - a large part of its job.
The withdrawal agreement was sabotaged by those who now wish to use that sabotage as evidence that Parliament is not working. It was abundantly clear that Leavers hated it. Why should Remain MPs from outside the ruling party set themselves up as the objects of the next stab-in-the-back myth?
And here’s another fact for the elderly pearl clutchers who think life for Milennials is all avocado on toast:
“For anyone under 30, the experience of a stable climate is entirely unknown. Not a single month in their lifetime has fallen within the limited range of temperature, precipitation or storm activity that governed the planet for the previous 10,000 years.”
Fucking frightening, isn’t it?
I’m going with “bollocks” - do you have a link?
The temperature range from vineyards in Yorkshire to the Thames freezing over is pretty wide
The problem is simply as described by @DavidL down thread. This Parliament is not fit for purpose. There is no majority for anythimg. They have turned down remain, leave and any option in between.If they extend, they will still bicker endlessly and decide nothing.
Too many Parliamentariians want to game the sysem - BoJo is doing it now, but remainers can hardly cry foul when the speaker was gaming it just a few months back to their benefit.
This Parliament is a dysfunctional body which has too much invested in a fight most voters have tired of. Time to clear the decks and get on with domestic matters.
Parliament reflects the country on this, which is angry, partisan, divided and confused. It is unsurprising that its output is similarly confused.
I may be unfashionable in this but actually I think Parliament has been working fairly well given the challenges it has faced. The failures have been of the executive - first Theresa May in failing to broker any kind of even partial consensus on the way forward and now Boris Johnson in failing to respect democratic norms.
Agree entirely we have had two pms who have put party above country at a crucial time for the country. There is no consensus left and it will get worse, maybe much worse before it gets better.
Brexit has died. The Scots will never go along with it and frankly why should they. The big fight is in England and Wales. It could get nasty. I actually don’t think Ireland will be an issue as they will just ignore edicts from London. Peace is more important there than brexit.
Yes, I think this is the best move for remainiacs now, they need to both restrain and de-scarify Corbyn, not just as temporary PM, but for the election campaign.
It's all very well getting your GoNAfaE sorted out and having an election with a big old LibDem surge that takes 30 seats off the Tories, but if Labour is still on 20%, that's a huge majority for Boris, which is now starting to get genuinely frightening in the way that Trump would be if he wasn't such a moron. At least in the US there's a constitution with a half-decent set of checks and balances, in Britain a PM with a majority can do pretty much what they like, and No Deal produces a huge amount of chaos that could be exploited by an astute would-be-authoritarian.
So send Corbyn out to make a grave speech on the importance of our great unwritten constitution etc etc and how deeply he would feel bound by his responsibilities, put Corbyn in, give him some time to seem reasonable and statesmanlike. If you do that Boris has just ensured that you can't have an election until October at the earliest, which gives him plenty of time to meet with other world leaders and ostentatiously not try to nationalize things or give the Palestinians the bomb.
Once Remainiacs feel like Corbyn would be bad but not terrifying, then you can have your election and let the LibDems take a chunk out of Tory-held Remainia.
Agreed. What can Corbyn with 250 Labour MPs do ? In any event die hard Corbynistas are about 50.
The idea that Corbyn is the answer is fantasy
Mps should vote in a senior politician to seek A50 extension and then call the GE
No need to involve the divisive Corbyn
Still a member of the Tory party?
Yes
In which case I think you've missed a shift in sentiment. For some reason since Wednesday Corbyn is suddenly no longer as divisive as all other options.
It seems like Leo Varadkar has been very quiet recently, with Simon Coveney making most of the runnning on Brexit. A close friend of Varadkar's has suggested that compromise on the backstop is the way forward, though there have been furious denials that this represents Varadkar's own thinking.
I do have some sympathy with the view the prorogation isn't the greatest constitutional outrage of all time. Much worse has been done in done of curtailing civil liberties and extending State control in the name of fighting terrorism and the like.
The other aspect is the EU are still waiting (as they have been since 2017) for the UK to come up with viable and credible solutions to the problems which will be caused by us choosing to leave the EU. The EU, quite rightly, argue we chose to leave and while we wibble on about honouring the result, the real work should be about coming up with the solutions to the disruption and dislocation caused by our decision,
We have done nothing - there are fanciful technical solutions which might work in 2030 but the EU needs solutions for Day 1. They want solutions which, quite reasonably, protect the integrity of the SM and minimise dislocation and disruption to cross-border trade. We have wasted the A50 process period because we went in chronically ill-prepared because May thought she would win a landslide and get her new majority to accept any old gruel she dished up.
You can blame Corbyn if you like - you can harangue the Remainers for "not honouring the result" but the fault for me lies squarely with the Conservative Party and Government and even now their own political self-preservation is deemed more important than the economic welfare of the country and its people.
Mr. kle4, consider if Labour had a non-far left leader.
Cooper or Benn would be looking at 20-30 point leads.
That is the tragedy of the situation. History is going to show that Coirbyn enabled everything that is now happening. Johnson would be terrified of an election if Labour had the right leader
Andrew Lilico just said on LBC that even if Parliament passes law to prevent No Deal Brexit, Govt can ignore it.
Reason: Staying in the EU requires the spending of money. And only the Govt can propose the spending of money (which then subsequently gets approved by Parliament).
But Govt has to initiate it. If it doesn't, money can't be spent.
No idea if he's correct (ie there literally can't be any exceptions) or if there is any way around the above.
Interesting. Does a bill commanding the government to revoke A50 constitute a money bill?
It should, but I believe it’s at the Speaker’s discretion
A hard Brexit, he said, would raise the question of how Ireland could bake bread at all.
Varadkar and Coveney have been playing fast and loose with their voters interests.
I'd like to say the chickens are now coming home to roost but according to the Irish freight association there wont be any chickens.
“Ireland’s retail shops have no space to stockpile anything,” he told the Irish Independent. “They must be fed by distribution centres every day – and the UK is the major distribution hub for Ireland.
“Stores here have no space to stockpile anything, not even two days of products. They are seriously constrained.
Yes, I think this is the best move for remainiacs now, they need to both restrain and de-scarify Corbyn, not just as temporary PM, but for the election campaign.
It's all very well getting your GoNAfaE sorted out and having an election with a big old LibDem surge that takes 30 seats off the Tories, but if Labour is still on 20%, that's a huge majority for Boris, which is now starting to get genuinely frightening in the way that Trump would be if he wasn't such a moron. At least in the US there's a constitution with a half-decent set of checks and balances, in Britain a PM with a majority can do pretty much what they like, and No Deal produces a huge amount of chaos that could be exploited by an astute would-be-authoritarian.
So send Corbyn out to make a grave speech on the importance of our great unwritten constitution etc etc and how deeply he would feel bound by his responsibilities, put Corbyn in, give him some time to seem reasonable and statesmanlike. If you do that Boris has just ensured that you can't have an election until October at the earliest, which gives him plenty of time to meet with other world leaders and ostentatiously not try to nationalize things or give the Palestinians the bomb.
Once Remainiacs feel like Corbyn would be bad but not terrifying, then you can have your election and let the LibDems take a chunk out of Tory-held Remainia.
Agreed. What can Corbyn with 250 Labour MPs do ? In any event die hard Corbynistas are about 50.
The idea that Corbyn is the answer is fantasy
Mps should vote in a senior politician to seek A50 extension and then call the GE
No need to involve the divisive Corbyn
Still a member of the Tory party?
Yes
In which case I think you've missed a shift in sentiment. For some reason since Wednesday Corbyn is suddenly no longer as divisive as all other options.
I see no evidence of that.
I am happy for a GONU to extend A50 but not under the divisive Corbyn
As far as my membership is concerned I remain but only subject to a deal.
Mr. kle4, consider if Labour had a non-far left leader.
Cooper or Benn would be looking at 20-30 point leads.
Nah, Tory voters want a No Deal Brexit now. They wouldn't switch to Benn or Cooper. Benn or Cooper would take a few from the Lib Dems, but otherwise the country would still be utterly divided.
I think supporters of both main parties significantly fail to understand how many anti the other party voters there are at the moment.
The main reason to vote Labour is Boris Johnson and his govt. The main reason to vote Tory is Jeremy Corbyn and his cabal.
Replacing the opposition leader with someone palatable makes a huge change in both turnout and intent.
That was true under May, under Boris though Tories are casting a positive vote for Boris to deliver Brexit Deal or No Deal not just an anti Corbyn one
The problem is simply as described by @DavidL down thread. This Parliament is not fit for purpose. There is no majority for anythimg. They have turned down remain, leave and any option in between.If they extend, they will still bicker endlessly and decide nothing.
Too many Parliamentariians want to game the sysem - BoJo is doing it now, but remainers can hardly cry foul when the speaker was gaming it just a few months back to their benefit.
This Parliament is a dysfunctional body which has too much invested in a fight most voters have tired of. Time to clear the decks and get on with domestic matters.
Parliament reflects the country on this, which is angry, partisan, divided and confused. It is unsurprising that its output is similarly confused.
I may be unfashionable in this but actually I think Parliament has been working fairly well given the challenges it has faced. The failures have been of the executive - first Theresa May in failing to broker any kind of even partial consensus on the way forward and now Boris Johnson in failing to respect democratic norms.
I think the difficulty with this argument is that parliament when presented with as decent a compromise as was possible over Brexit failed to take it for party reasons, and wilfully misunderstood what the WA set out to achieve. Yes, parliament too surely reflects the divisions and anger of the country but along with government has failed to bring order out of chaos - a large part of its job.
The withdrawal agreement was sabotaged by those who now wish to use that sabotage as evidence that Parliament is not working. It was abundantly clear that Leavers hated it. Why should Remain MPs from outside the ruling party set themselves up as the objects of the next stab-in-the-back myth?
Because they stood on a leave manifesto in 2017 and the WA was not inconsistent with their aims, and that unlike some Tories they could have put country and compromise before everything else, like say Kenneth Clarke? Wrongs are not cancelled out by wrongs.
And BTW, when both extremes are playing hardball, the poor old moderates in No mans' land are experiencing heavy shelling.
I do have some sympathy with the view the prorogation isn't the greatest constitutional outrage of all time. Much worse has been done in done of curtailing civil liberties and extending State control in the name of fighting terrorism and the like.
The other aspect is the EU are still waiting (as they have been since 2017) for the UK to come up with viable and credible solutions to the problems which will be caused by us choosing to leave the EU. The EU, quite rightly, argue we chose to leave and while we wibble on about honouring the result, the real work should be about coming up with the solutions to the disruption and dislocation caused by our decision,
We have done nothing - there are fanciful technical solutions which might work in 2030 but the EU needs solutions for Day 1. They want solutions which, quite reasonably, protect the integrity of the SM and minimise dislocation and disruption to cross-border trade. We have wasted the A50 process period because we went in chronically ill-prepared because May thought she would win a landslide and get her new majority to accept any old gruel she dished up.
You can blame Corbyn if you like - you can harangue the Remainers for "not honouring the result" but the fault for me lies squarely with the Conservative Party and Government and even now their own political self-preservation is deemed more important than the economic welfare of the country and its people.
One would also expect that even if theUK comes up with a possible solution to the NI boarder they would want to actually see it work in practice for at least six months before they would agree that the backstop wasn’t needed. So the backstop will stay until proven unnecessary
"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."
I agree entirely with that paragraph, but think the author is (possibly/probably) wrong in thinking this is the start of the Brexit endgame. I think prorogation is designed to create a further extension, and specifically not to deliver Brexit by the end of October, whilst allowing the PM to cynically claim he did everything to leave as promised.
Yes, at least to a point. Boris imo hopes Corbyn can get him out of this mess, so he (Boris) can then run an insurgent election campaign. Whether that is also Cummings' goal is uncertain.
Cummings knows that his political life is short. He is smart enough to know he is hated, even within his own party. His objective is No Deal Brexit by any means, he doesn't care much after that.
Why would that be his objective? Is there any evidence that is what he wants beyond people reading into the current govt actions?
In 2017 Cummings said the referendum was a dumb idea, a big leap to go from there to thinking he is completely desperate for no deal?
It doesnt stack up to me. Acting like you are so desperate for no deal looks like acting not real delivery.
It seems like Leo Varadkar has been very quiet recently, with Simon Coveney making most of the runnning on Brexit. A close friend of Varadkar's has suggested that compromise on the backstop is the way forward, though there have been furious denials that this represents Varadkar's own thinking.
But the EU will surely barely notice No deal because of their better preparations (said a PB expert).
So perhaps you can answer the question as to whether our hardball no deal approach will bring the EU grovelling to its knees on account of the sheer destruction and chaos it will bring upon them, or whether no deal is no problem at all and we will breeze right on without really noticing it save for a temporary shortage of avocados from Ocado.
It seems like Leo Varadkar has been very quiet recently, with Simon Coveney making most of the runnning on Brexit. A close friend of Varadkar's has suggested that compromise on the backstop is the way forward, though there have been furious denials that this represents Varadkar's own thinking.
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.
Where we are headed now was always the right-wing Tory plan from the off. All they had to do was keep the end destination quiet till they got the referendum out of the way. It looks like working in the short term. Let's see what the leave voters in Stoke and Grimsby make of it once they have got it.
The withdrawal agreement was sabotaged by those who now wish to use that sabotage as evidence that Parliament is not working. It was abundantly clear that Leavers hated it. Why should Remain MPs from outside the ruling party set themselves up as the objects of the next stab-in-the-back myth?
Deciding risk aversion for the general economy was more important than their own political careers ?
As you said yourself, Lisa Nandy was "Once, twice, three times a maybe.."
Mr. kle4, consider if Labour had a non-far left leader.
Cooper or Benn would be looking at 20-30 point leads.
Nah, Tory voters want a No Deal Brexit now. They wouldn't switch to Benn or Cooper. Benn or Cooper would take a few from the Lib Dems, but otherwise the country would still be utterly divided.
I think supporters of both main parties significantly fail to understand how many anti the other party voters there are at the moment.
The main reason to vote Labour is Boris Johnson and his govt. The main reason to vote Tory is Jeremy Corbyn and his cabal.
Replacing the opposition leader with someone palatable makes a huge change in both turnout and intent.
That was true under May, under Boris though Tories are casting a positive vote for Boris to deliver Brexit Deal or No Deal not just an anti Corbyn one
There will certainly be more pro Boris Tory votes than pro May Tory votes, but equally there will now be fewer anti Corbyn Tory votes and more anti Boris Labour votes.
A hard Brexit, he said, would raise the question of how Ireland could bake bread at all.
Varadkar and Coveney have been playing fast and loose with their voters interests.
I'd like to say the chickens are now coming home to roost but according to the Irish freight association there wont be any chickens.
“Ireland’s retail shops have no space to stockpile anything,” he told the Irish Independent. “They must be fed by distribution centres every day – and the UK is the major distribution hub for Ireland.
“Stores here have no space to stockpile anything, not even two days of products. They are seriously constrained.
and all our warehouses are full for our own shops.
Varadkar has been coming under growing pressure to out line what the Irish Government is planning to do. So far he has refused to say anything substantive bar Ive done lots of planning ( as he keeps his fingers crossed ).
Mr. Stodge, the vast majority of the Conservative Party MPs voted for May's deal. Labour and Lib Dem MPs did not. The route to a no deal departure was the doing of those who are most pro-EU. One might well criticise May's deal, but those bleating the loudest about no deal are those for whom it's a consequence of their actions.
You don't get to complain about a lacklustre love life after you chose to slap a crocodile with your todger.
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 divi out of Downing Street.
The division is being caused by those who do not acceptg 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.
then Parliament should collapse the government and force fresh elections,
Parliament should certainly act. Though not, I think, in the way you suggest.
The problem is simply as described by @DavidL down thread. This Parliament is not fit for purpose. There is no majority for anythimg. They have turned down remain, leave and any option in between.If they extend, they will still bicker endlessly and decide nothing.
Too many Parliamentariians want to game the sysem - BoJo is doing it now, but remainers can hardly cry foul when the speaker was gaming it just a few months back to their benefit.
This Parliament is a dysfunctional body which has too much invested in a fight most voters have tired of. Time to clear the decks and get on with domestic matters.
If this parliament is not fit for purpose you are essentially telling the public they voted for the wrong MPs.
Mr. kle4, consider if Labour had a non-far left leader.
Cooper or Benn would be looking at 20-30 point leads.
Nah, Tory voters want a No Deal Brexit now. They wouldn't switch to Benn or Cooper. Benn or Cooper would take a few from the Lib Dems, but otherwise the country would still be utterly divided.
I think supporters of both main parties significantly fail to understand how many anti the other party voters there are at the moment.
The main reason to vote Labour is Boris Johnson and his govt. The main reason to vote Tory is Jeremy Corbyn and his cabal.
Replacing the opposition leader with someone palatable makes a huge change in both turnout and intent.
That was true under May, under Boris though Tories are casting a positive vote for Boris to deliver Brexit Deal or No Deal not just an anti Corbyn one
I wish I could take you around a few doors... Johnson is toxic waste here in Scotland... In fact the Tory brand is toxic waste, as Ruth Davidson's despair shows all too clearly. I think you will come third here, in a seat you currently hold, and I don't think that is going to be a unique situation either in Scotland or across the UK.
Johnson is not the anti-Corbyn, he is simply the Tory Corbyn.
The problem is simply as described by @DavidL down thread. This Parliament is not fit for purpose. There is no majority for anythimg. They have turned down remain, leave and any option in between.If they extend, they will still bicker endlessly and decide nothing.
Too many Parliamentariians want to game the sysem - BoJo is doing it now, but remainers can hardly cry foul when the speaker was gaming it just a few months back to their benefit.
This Parliament is a dysfunctional body which has too much invested in a fight most voters have tired of. Time to clear the decks and get on with domestic matters.
Parliament reflects the country on this, which is angry, partisan, divided and confused. It is unsurprising that its output is similarly confused.
I may be unfashionable in this but actually I think Parliament has been working fairly well given the challenges it has faced. The failures have been of the executive - first Theresa May in failing to broker any kind of even partial consensus on the way forward and now Boris Johnson in failing to respect democratic norms.
I think the difficulty with this argument is that parliament when presented with as decent a compromise as was possible over Brexit failed to take it for party reasons, and wilfully misunderstood what the WA set out to achieve. Yes, parliament too surely reflects the divisions and anger of the country but along with government has failed to bring order out of chaos - a large part of its job.
The withdrawal agreement was sabotaged by those who now wish to use that sabotage as evidence that Parliament is not working. It was abundantly clear that Leavers hated it. Why should Remain MPs from outside the ruling party set themselves up as the objects of the next stab-in-the-back myth?
Because they stood on a leave manifesto in 2017 and the WA was not inconsistent with their aims, and that unlike some Tories they could have put country and compromise before everything else, like say Kenneth Clarke? Wrongs are not cancelled out by wrongs.
And BTW, when both extremes are playing hardball, the poor old moderates in No mans' land are experiencing heavy shelling.
It is not putting the country first to leave on terms that command no legitimacy. By the time of the third meaningful vote, it was apparent that the withdrawal agreement commanded no legitimacy on any side.
That state of affairs was engineered by Leavers, who set out to sabotage the withdrawal agreement even before it was announced.
Mr. Stodge, the vast majority of the Conservative Party MPs voted for May's deal. Labour and Lib Dem MPs did not. The route to a no deal departure was the doing of those who are most pro-EU. One might well criticise May's deal, but those bleating the loudest about no deal are those for whom it's a consequence of their actions.
You don't get to complain about a lacklustre love life after you chose to slap a crocodile with your todger.
The PM, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary voted against it. Indeed it was the PM and Foreign Secretary who sabotaged it - without bothering to even read the final text - and made it unpalatable to the country.
LDs hold on but SNP vote up with the loss of the Tavish Scott personal vote for the Liberals.
Swing of 2.25% from Labour to the Tories too, Labour a humiliating 6th
SNP on 32% in Shetland last night, still below the 37% they got in Orkney and Shetland in 2015 too
How many seats would the SNP gain on last night's swing ?
Fewer than in 2015
In 2015 the SNP sent the highest ever proportion of MPs from a single party from a constituent country of the UK in a GE, higher even than Irish nationalist parties in their time. I fully expect that in 20 years time that you'll be posting from Free Wangland comparing subsamples from selected polls with 2015.
A hard Brexit, he said, would raise the question of how Ireland could bake bread at all.
Varadkar and Coveney have been playing fast and loose with their voters interests.
I'd like to say the chickens are now coming home to roost but according to the Irish freight association there wont be any chickens.
“Ireland’s retail shops have no space to stockpile anything,” he told the Irish Independent. “They must be fed by distribution centres every day – and the UK is the major distribution hub for Ireland.
“Stores here have no space to stockpile anything, not even two days of products. They are seriously constrained.
and all our warehouses are full for our own shops.
Varadkar has been coming under growing pressure to out line what the Irish Government is planning to do. So far he has refused to say anything substantive bar Ive done lots of planning ( as he keeps his fingers crossed ).
Mr. kle4, consider if Labour had a non-far left leader.
Cooper or Benn would be looking at 20-30 point leads.
Nah, Tory voters want a No Deal Brexit now. They wouldn't switch to Benn or Cooper. Benn or Cooper would take a few from the Lib Dems, but otherwise the country would still be utterly divided.
I think supporters of both main parties significantly fail to understand how many anti the other party voters there are at the moment.
The main reason to vote Labour is Boris Johnson and his govt. The main reason to vote Tory is Jeremy Corbyn and his cabal.
Replacing the opposition leader with someone palatable makes a huge change in both turnout and intent.
That was true under May, under Boris though Tories are casting a positive vote for Boris to deliver Brexit Deal or No Deal not just an anti Corbyn one
There will certainly be more pro Boris Tory votes than pro May Tory votes, but equally there will now be fewer anti Corbyn Tory votes and more anti Boris Labour votes.
There will be the same number of anti Corbyn Tory votes but maybe more anti Boris LD votes, anti No Deal May backing Tories might go LD, they will not go Corbyn Labour
Comments
Benn or Cooper would take a few from the Lib Dems, but otherwise the country would still be utterly divided.
If they don't pass the deal, no deal is what happens next. On 31st October.
It's all very well getting your GoNAfaE sorted out and having an election with a big old LibDem surge that takes 30 seats off the Tories, but if Labour is still on 20%, that's a huge majority for Boris, which is now starting to get genuinely frightening in the way that Trump would be if he wasn't such a moron. At least in the US there's a constitution with a half-decent set of checks and balances, in Britain a PM with a majority can do pretty much what they like, and No Deal produces a huge amount of chaos that could be exploited by an astute would-be-authoritarian.
So send Corbyn out to make a grave speech on the importance of our great unwritten constitution etc etc and how deeply he would feel bound by his responsibilities, put Corbyn in, give him some time to seem reasonable and statesmanlike. If you do that Boris has just ensured that you can't have an election until October at the earliest, which gives him plenty of time to meet with other world leaders and ostentatiously not try to nationalize things or give the Palestinians the bomb.
Once Remainiacs feel like Corbyn would be bad but not terrifying, then you can have your election and let the LibDems take a chunk out of Tory-held Remainia.
People not wanting No Deal better pray Boris gets a decent deal they can vote for.
The main reason to vote Labour is Boris Johnson and his govt.
The main reason to vote Tory is Jeremy Corbyn and his cabal.
Replacing the opposition leader with someone palatable makes a huge change in both turnout and intent.
https://twitter.com/AVMitchell2010/status/1167344654452502529?s=20
Too many Parliamentariians want to game the sysem - BoJo is doing it now, but remainers can hardly cry foul when the speaker was gaming it just a few months back to their benefit.
This Parliament is a dysfunctional body which has too much invested in a fight most voters have tired of. Time to clear the decks and get on with domestic matters.
He has not even outlined a deal, there is no plan to negotiate with the EU as he doesnt want to bring back a deal that doesnt get thru the current HoC. He does not want no deal as it will quickly bring in Corbyn.
His best option by far is to be temporarily removed from power, use that people against the elite line to win a bigger majority and then negotiate with the EU knowing he can get it thru parliament.
You seem to have missed that the EU is meeting with our negotiaitng team twice a week now. Maybe they just have good biscuits, or maybe......
https://www.ort.org/
My mother, who like me was not very interested in religion of any kind, never mentioned it, though she was passionately involved in UNRRA, the relief organisation which helped the concentration camp survivors. Just at a personal level, it's a real pleasure to be descended from those traditions.
Some might call that transition, others might call it purgatory.
Apart from the disastrous GE, May's other monumental blunder was not to realise that in a Parliament with a Remain majority, the unity of the Conservative Party was a side issue. To get a deal through the Commons all she needed to do, much as Heath had in 1971, was to court those opponents whose support she could use to get through a BINO WA. Unlike Heath, however, May saw the preservation of the unity of the Conservative Party as the primary objective and kept throwing the ERG enough red meat to keep them onside but alienate the BINO supporters with whose support she could have got a WA through Parliament.
It's also ridiculous to suppose even Remain MPs should have voted to any old WA put in front of them just to honour the 23/6/16 result. This notion of "honouring the result" has been used by the No Dealers to justify every action. I voted Leave but this nonsense is not in my name,. I don't see the argument for even short-term economic dislocation, I don't see the argument for one lost job or one failed business just to honour a 2016 vote, the basis of which, from both sides, I consider spurious, fallacious and mendacious.
Meanwhile the sanity of a Kenneth Clarke - and others - is being sidelined.
I may be unfashionable in this but actually I think Parliament has been working fairly well given the challenges it has faced. The failures have been of the executive - first Theresa May in failing to broker any kind of even partial consensus on the way forward and now Boris Johnson in failing to respect democratic norms.
Mps should vote in a senior politician to seek A50 extension and then call the GE
No need to involve the divisive Corbyn
Mr. NorthWales, that's certainly possible. Even more so is that they wouldn't've been so fence-sitting as Corbyn has been.
That said, Labour MPs deserve censure for being mindless nodding dogs, by and large.
Another 3 years of this is in no-ones interest.
Given the deadline and the time elections require I'm not so sure that is still the case.
https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/absolute-chaos-for-months-shoppers-here-facing-empty-shelves-within-days-of-nodeal-brexit-38450011.html
ERG - enough already said
May govt - enough already said
Mainstream Tories - failed to either support May or topple her, left her isolated (admittedly her own fault)
Labour leavers - should have voted for the deal or given an alternative text of what they would vote through
Labour leadership - utterly cynical
Lib Dems & Change - failed to support anything in the indicative votes risking no deal instead of soft brexit
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/49509020
The temperature range from vineyards in Yorkshire to the Thames freezing over is pretty wide
Brexit has died. The Scots will never go along with it and frankly why should they. The big fight is in England and Wales. It could get nasty. I actually don’t think Ireland will be an issue as they will just ignore edicts from London. Peace is more important there than brexit.
https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1166788859931320323?s=19
The other aspect is the EU are still waiting (as they have been since 2017) for the UK to come up with viable and credible solutions to the problems which will be caused by us choosing to leave the EU. The EU, quite rightly, argue we chose to leave and while we wibble on about honouring the result, the real work should be about coming up with the solutions to the disruption and dislocation caused by our decision,
We have done nothing - there are fanciful technical solutions which might work in 2030 but the EU needs solutions for Day 1. They want solutions which, quite reasonably, protect the integrity of the SM and minimise dislocation and disruption to cross-border trade. We have wasted the A50 process period because we went in chronically ill-prepared because May thought she would win a landslide and get her new majority to accept any old gruel she dished up.
You can blame Corbyn if you like - you can harangue the Remainers for "not honouring the result" but the fault for me lies squarely with the Conservative Party and Government and even now their own political self-preservation is deemed more important than the economic welfare of the country and its people.
I'd like to say the chickens are now coming home to roost but according to the Irish freight association there wont be any chickens.
“Stores here have no space to stockpile anything, not even two days of products. They are seriously constrained.
I am happy for a GONU to extend A50 but not under the divisive Corbyn
As far as my membership is concerned I remain but only subject to a deal.
And BTW, when both extremes are playing hardball, the poor old moderates in No mans' land are experiencing heavy shelling.
In 2017 Cummings said the referendum was a dumb idea, a big leap to go from there to thinking he is completely desperate for no deal?
It doesnt stack up to me. Acting like you are so desperate for no deal looks like acting not real delivery.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/world-view-ireland-must-give-more-than-lip-service-to-francophonie-1.3684222
hes probably just stocking up on foie gras.
As you said yourself, Lisa Nandy was "Once, twice, three times a maybe.."
Varadkar has been coming under growing pressure to out line what the Irish Government is planning to do. So far he has refused to say anything substantive bar Ive done lots of planning ( as he keeps his fingers crossed ).
You don't get to complain about a lacklustre love life after you chose to slap a crocodile with your todger.
https://twitter.com/stevebarclay/status/1166765868891725825?s=21
Johnson is not the anti-Corbyn, he is simply the Tory Corbyn.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/17869398.snp-attack-jeremy-corbyn-indyref2-deal-richard-leonard/
That state of affairs was engineered by Leavers, who set out to sabotage the withdrawal agreement even before it was announced.
https://twitter.com/SteveBarclay/status/1166765868891725825