Proroguing doesn’t look too smart now - just allows Jezza to sit back and count the days until a post-No Deal general election. Tic toc.
I think you mean a post-extension general election? After Johnson's "do or die" pledge to leave by 31 October has been binned.
Depends whether Boris can kill off the Rebel Bill by not allowing HM to give assent etc. His best option now is Leave 31 October with No Deal and election later. Nothing else seems possible or good.
I think the govt has already agreed the bill will receive the RA by Monday.
In that case Cummings must have another trick up his sleeve to prevent an extension. Quite what remains to be seen and be amazed at.
I do wish people would stop elevating this politically autistic advisor. He was good on one single issue campaign that didn't involve dealing with MPs or, indeed, anyone who had a voice in or around his team.
Cummings is politically inept and has created a total disaster.
We had all this nonsense hero worship with Nick Timothy.
Cummings is a tool. Framing the opposition as blocking Brexit is broadly a winning approach I think but its execution has been abject. What really did for him was the size of the rebellion. I guess he thought they might be suspending the whip from a handful, not 21, but that was down to how things were done. The sequencing was all askew.
Grieve and the others were preventing the Tories from implementing their policy to Brexit, do or die.
The 2017 manifesto they were elected on was not “Brexit do or die” least of all to a deadline set by the President of France!
The 2017 manifesto didn't win a majority and the PM was elected by the party after that and is preparing his own manifesto.
He needs MPs who will back his own manifesto, not May's.
He needs a mandate for his own manifesto - in the meantime MPs were elected on the 2017 one.
And he's called for an election to get his own mandate. Problem solved.
Oh and post-2017 he overwhelmingly won the leadership election so on a party level he has an overwhelming mandate too.
It’s a bit of a wish list (eg we’d still have to send money to Brussels ) but I’d be content with that. Not happy, but content. And certainly pleased it was all over. I imagine 70% of the country would feel similar, and in 10 years we could revisit the issue and decide if we want to move further away (or further in again)
Lots of people want to get Brexit over with. There's only one way to get Brexit over with. It's not No Deal - that will be followed by years of negotiating with the EU It's not May's WA - ditto It's not revoke - leavers will carry on campaigning to leave
It's to leave and stay in the Single Market and the Customs Union. Not only is this the option that by far the most people can live with, it has lots of advantages:
The UK carries out the result of 2016 referendum to leave the EU The disruption is minimal The UK will stop sending "350 million a week" to the EU The UK will be out of the CAP The UK will be out of the CFP The UK will be out of "ever-closer union" or the European superstate
Maybe the main problem is the UK will still have Freedom of Movement. But a few tweaks should be possible, I think a couple of restrictions could be introduced, an "emergency break" could be allowed. Maybe the UK could get an opt out from Freedom of Movement for any new member states, so that if, for example, Turkey ever joins the EU (of course it won't but that was a Leave campaign claim) Turkish citizens wouldn't get FoM to the UK, (nor British citizens to Turkey). Or some other fudges might be possible.
There's a few disadvantages as well of course, but it looks like the only reasonable way forward from here
This (subject to confirmatory referendum) is the 'incoherent' Labour policy.
There has always been the opportunity to restrict freedom of movement. It's just that we never took it.
Lots of people want to get Brexit over with. There's only one way to get Brexit over with. It's not No Deal - that will be followed by years of negotiating with the EU It's not May's WA - ditto It's not revoke - leavers will carry on campaigning to leave
It's to leave and stay in the Single Market and the Customs Union. Not only is this the option that by far the most people can live with, it has lots of advantages:
The UK carries out the result of 2016 referendum to leave the EU The disruption is minimal The UK will stop sending "350 million a week" to the EU The UK will be out of the CAP The UK will be out of the CFP The UK will be out of "ever-closer union" or the European superstate
Maybe the main problem is the UK will still have Freedom of Movement. But a few tweaks should be possible, I think a couple of restrictions could be introduced, an "emergency break" could be allowed. Maybe the UK could get an opt out from Freedom of Movement for any new member states, so that if, for example, Turkey ever joins the EU (of course it won't but that was a Leave campaign claim) Turkish citizens wouldn't get FoM to the UK, (nor British citizens to Turkey). Or some other fudges might be possible.
There's a few disadvantages as well of course, but it looks like the only reasonable way forward from here
Conveniently the first step to staying in the Single Market and the Customs Union is to pass TMay's WA.
Lots of people want to get Brexit over with. There's only one way to get Brexit over with. It's not No Deal - that will be followed by years of negotiating with the EU It's not May's WA - ditto It's not revoke - leavers will carry on campaigning to leave
It's to leave and stay in the Single Market and the Customs Union. Not only is this the option that by far the most people can live with, it has lots of advantages:
The UK carries out the result of 2016 referendum to leave the EU The disruption is minimal The UK will stop sending "350 million a week" to the EU The UK will be out of the CAP The UK will be out of the CFP The UK will be out of "ever-closer union" or the European superstate
Maybe the main problem is the UK will still have Freedom of Movement. But a few tweaks should be possible, I think a couple of restrictions could be introduced, an "emergency break" could be allowed. Maybe the UK could get an opt out from Freedom of Movement for any new member states, so that if, for example, Turkey ever joins the EU (of course it won't but that was a Leave campaign claim) Turkish citizens wouldn't get FoM to the UK, (nor British citizens to Turkey). Or some other fudges might be possible.
There's a few disadvantages as well of course, but it looks like the only reasonable way forward from here
As it would have been from June 25th 2016 if any grown-ups had come to the wicket. At any point up until then, most of the leavers would have bitten your hand off (although I think some of them were naively assuming a "cake and eat it" settlement on rule-taking and immigration).
But I fear the "landing zone" for TMay's negotiation, subsequent domestic dismissal of it and ratcheting-up of the ante by the ERG has poisoned that ground pretty long-term now.
I still think Brexiteers who give a toss long-term would be advised to find an accommodation somewhere in that centre-ground. Because if much of the No Deal worst-case scenario comes to pass, there'll be a fairly strong "rejoin" campaign which would presumably come with Schengen, social chapter, possibly the Euro and all sorts of other accoutrements we'd so far dodged.
Umunna has chosen City & Westminster apparently because parties conduct MRP polling.
It's a decent choice for both Chuka and the Lib Dems I reckon. Although he must be a bit disappointed he didn't get safe Twickers from a Vince retirement.
Umunna has chosen City & Westminster apparently because parties conduct MRP polling.
It's a decent choice for both Chuka and the Lib Dems I reckon. Although he must be a bit disappointed he didn't get safe Twickers from a Vince retirement.
Lots of people want to get Brexit over with. There's only one way to get Brexit over with. It's not No Deal - that will be followed by years of negotiating with the EU It's not May's WA - ditto It's not revoke - leavers will carry on campaigning to leave
It's to leave and stay in the Single Market and the Customs Union. Not only is this the option that by far the most people can live with, it has lots of advantages:
The UK carries out the result of 2016 referendum to leave the EU The disruption is minimal The UK will stop sending "350 million a week" to the EU The UK will be out of the CAP The UK will be out of the CFP The UK will be out of "ever-closer union" or the European superstate
Maybe the main problem is the UK will still have Freedom of Movement. But a few tweaks should be possible, I think a couple of restrictions could be introduced, an "emergency break" could be allowed. Maybe the UK could get an opt out from Freedom of Movement for any new member states, so that if, for example, Turkey ever joins the EU (of course it won't but that was a Leave campaign claim) Turkish citizens wouldn't get FoM to the UK, (nor British citizens to Turkey). Or some other fudges might be possible.
There's a few disadvantages as well of course, but it looks like the only reasonable way forward from here
that is far too sensible to appeal to the headbangers at either end of the debate. I would prefer that the whole sorry charade had never happened, but it has. I would be very happy with what you have described, it is the common sense solution.
It’s a bit of a wish list (eg we’d still have to send money to Brussels ) but I’d be content with that. Not happy, but content. And certainly pleased it was all over. I imagine 70% of the country would feel similar, and in 10 years we could revisit the issue and decide if we want to move further away (or further in again)
Question is, how do you get there, politically?
In 2016 a free vote would have been fine. Now the idea of compromise has been so tarnished that will look like a stitch up. A citizens assembly is the best option, and Rory Stewart would have made an excellent PM.
WTF is a citizens assembly in reality? Who chooses who goes there or can everyone go there.
If everyone can go to the citizens assembly then that would be a referendum. If only representatives of the people can go to the citizens assembly then that would be Parliament.
Rory Stewart would have made a terrible PM and got the result he deserved in the leadership election. He should respect democracy.
His half hearted prorogation made no deal extremely unlikely with close to zero benefits for actually delivering no deal as parliament had time either side of it.
If they knew exactly what they were doing, and I think they broadly did and your post says you agree, then by definition they were trying to minimise the chance of no deal and gain an extension.
His half-hearted prorogation was as far as he could constitutionally push it.
To completely prorogue Parliament would have been undemocratic and probably ruled illegal by the courts.
By acting as he did he flushed out the rats and got rid of them.
But what on earth was the point of it? It achieved literally zero in terms of delivering no deal? Or delivering any of their agenda.
On the flip side it created huge momentum to block no deal.
It is logically inconsistent to believe they were in control of events, knew what they were doing, and wanted to keep no deal on 31 Oct alive.
(They may still want to keep no deal alive at a later date, if the Tories have a 30+ majority and are negotiating solely with the EU, and not the EU & parliament simultaneously).
'Tis a good question. I think a single transferable vote 3 option referendum might get us there, but I can't see it happening. I would put it as my first preference above remain.
I might too actually. So if there are lots like us that Ref2 under Labour might NOT be a slam dunk for Remain!
In any second referendum the Remain base will be higher due to British naturalised EU citizens, and an age evolved electorate. You could also have higher Remain motivation (to overturn the vote) plus sheer frustration and apathy as some Leave voters (usual non voters) give up. So I’d agree Leave start under par.
To fight against that Leave would have an animated activist base (who’ll be angry the vote is even taking place) and what I’d call “Democratic Remainers” who might want to vote Leave - despite their personal preference - to uphold the original result.
This is where it gets interesting: both sides need to be very careful. Leave will want to keep it as open-ended as possible again (to give themselves the broadest possible voting coalition) whilst really wanting to use it as a mandate for No Deal. Remain will want to set up a Leave so soft as an alternative they can argue it’s pointless.
It’s high risk but both sides might have their long term strategies the wrong way round.
With the types of voters I’ve identified above Leave’s best chance to win a 2nd referendum again (albeit on a lower turnout) is to have a “safe” Leave option on the table already agreed, which is what some Revokers currently want with a Deal v. Remain option. That leaves further evolution of Leave open in the long-term.
Meanwhile a Remain v. Open-ended (No Deal) Leave could easily be the better choice for arch revokers. It will generate a high turnout but probably be clearly defeated, with a residual angry core of 40% of voters that then need appeasing, but with Brexit killed off for the short-medium term.
It’s a bit of a wish list (eg we’d still have to send money to Brussels ) but I’d be content with that. Not happy, but content. And certainly pleased it was all over. I imagine 70% of the country would feel similar, and in 10 years we could revisit the issue and decide if we want to move further away (or further in again)
Question is, how do you get there, politically?
Vote Labour if there's a GE! :-)
If we vote Labour there will be no money left in 10 years.
Lots of people want to get Brexit over with. There's only one way to get Brexit over with. It's not No Deal - that will be followed by years of negotiating with the EU It's not May's WA - ditto It's not revoke - leavers will carry on campaigning to leave
It's to leave and stay in the Single Market and the Customs Union. Not only is this the option that by far the most people can live with, it has lots of advantages:
The UK carries out the result of 2016 referendum to leave the EU The disruption is minimal The UK will stop sending "350 million a week" to the EU The UK will be out of the CAP The UK will be out of the CFP The UK will be out of "ever-closer union" or the European superstate
Maybe the main problem is the UK will still have Freedom of Movement. But a few tweaks should be possible, I think a couple of restrictions could be introduced, an "emergency break" could be allowed. Maybe the UK could get an opt out from Freedom of Movement for any new member states, so that if, for example, Turkey ever joins the EU (of course it won't but that was a Leave campaign claim) Turkish citizens wouldn't get FoM to the UK, (nor British citizens to Turkey). Or some other fudges might be possible.
There's a few disadvantages as well of course, but it looks like the only reasonable way forward from here
that is far too sensible to appeal to the headbangers at either end of the debate. I would prefer that the whole sorry charade had never happened, but it has. I would be very happy with what you have described, it is the common sense solution.
It’s a bit of a wish list (eg we’d still have to send money to Brussels ) but I’d be content with that. Not happy, but content. And certainly pleased it was all over. I imagine 70% of the country would feel similar, and in 10 years we could revisit the issue and decide if we want to move further away (or further in again)
Question is, how do you get there, politically?
First, the Boris approach needs to fail, and be seen to fail. The next key moment is when he has to open his box labelled "Brilliant plan that the EU will agree to" and we all discover that it's empty.
Next, we need an inconclusive election.
Then, the whole thing gets chucked over to the Rory Steward / Archbishop of Canterbury Citizens Jury thing, who will converge on a very soft Brexit because it's the only thing that makes any sense at all.
Indeed, and is the only solution that a fair majority of the population will get behind
Lots of people want to get Brexit over with. There's only one way to get Brexit over with. It's not No Deal - that will be followed by years of negotiating with the EU It's not May's WA - ditto It's not revoke - leavers will carry on campaigning to leave
It's to leave and stay in the Single Market and the Customs Union. Not only is this the option that by far the most people can live with, it has lots of advantages:
The UK carries out the result of 2016 referendum to leave the EU The disruption is minimal The UK will stop sending "350 million a week" to the EU The UK will be out of the CAP The UK will be out of the CFP The UK will be out of "ever-closer union" or the European superstate
Maybe the main problem is the UK will still have Freedom of Movement.
There's a few disadvantages as well of course, but it looks like the only reasonable way forward from here
that is far too sensible to appeal to the headbangers at either end of the debate. I would prefer that the whole sorry charade had never happened, but it has. I would be very happy with what you have described, it is the common sense solution.
It’s a bit of a wish list (eg we’d still have to send money to Brussels ) but I’d be content with that. Not happy, but content. And certainly pleased it was all over. I imagine 70% of the country would feel similar, and in 10 years we could revisit the issue and decide if we want to move further away (or further in again)
Question is, how do you get there, politically?
In 2016 a free vote would have been fine. Now the idea of compromise has been so tarnished that will look like a stitch up. A citizens assembly is the best option, and Rory Stewart would have made an excellent PM.
WTF is a citizens assembly in reality? Who chooses who goes there or can everyone go there.
If everyone can go to the citizens assembly then that would be a referendum. If only representatives of the people can go to the citizens assembly then that would be Parliament.
Rory Stewart would have made a terrible PM and got the result he deserved in the leadership election. He should respect democracy.
It is people chosen by lot, like jury service, so none of your options above. They get the resources and time needed to learn the details that an ordinary citizen would not have time for, and without the party political ties that bind MPs.
Those who think my criticisms on here of our weather forecasters are overstated should turn now to the forecast for Manchester which states that it is raining. Then check into TMS which states it is not.
They were every bit as bad on the first day of play, when they predicted the rain would have passed through by 4pm. That was more or less exactly the time it started pissing down.
His half hearted prorogation made no deal extremely unlikely with close to zero benefits for actually delivering no deal as parliament had time either side of it.
If they knew exactly what they were doing, and I think they broadly did and your post says you agree, then by definition they were trying to minimise the chance of no deal and gain an extension.
His half-hearted prorogation was as far as he could constitutionally push it.
To completely prorogue Parliament would have been undemocratic and probably ruled illegal by the courts.
By acting as he did he flushed out the rats and got rid of them.
But what on earth was the point of it? It achieved literally zero in terms of delivering no deal? Or delivering any of their agenda.
On the flip side it created huge momentum to block no deal.
It is logically inconsistent to believe they were in control of events, knew what they were doing, and wanted to keep no deal on 31 Oct alive.
(They may still want to keep no deal alive at a later date, if the Tories have a 30+ majority and are negotiating solely with the EU, and not the EU & parliament simultaneously).
Only by acting like this could no deal on 31 Oct be kept alive.
No deal could never have been delivered by this Parliament. If the anti-no dealers hadn't acted this week they would have acted in a few weeks time - by then it would be too late to call for an election. Prorogation to force no deal would always have been found to be illegal by the courts.
By forcing the anti's to act this week it made possible an election and then to repeal the antis decision in the next Parliament. There was no other democratic route to no deal. How else democratically could it be achieved?
'Tis a good question. I think a single transferable vote 3 option referendum might get us there, but I can't see it happening. I would put it as my first preference above remain.
I might too actually. So if there are lots like us that Ref2 under Labour might NOT be a slam dunk for Remain!
TBH I'd be tempted to go for the soft Brexit option.
By any contemporary measure 36 was not “tragically young”. Some of his contemporaries would have been grandparents.
A friend of a friend of mine was a grandmother at 33.
Snap. Or pretty close. The lady was a great-gran around the time she was 50, too.
That is unlikely to happen to the woman I knew. Life was not kind to her kids. They are still alive and kicking but both have suffered medical issues - one congenital, the other by a road traffic accident.
By any contemporary measure 36 was not “tragically young”. Some of his contemporaries would have been grandparents.
A friend of a friend of mine was a grandmother at 33.
Was she from Harlow ?
South Manchester.
Are there a lot of young grandmothers in Harlow?
I believe so
In days of yore, when dinosaurs walked the earth and before New Labour, working class kids left school at the age of consent whereas poshos left school at 21. Obviously grandmother at 33 is pushing it but it is not outrageous. National service (and the odd war) complicated the class divide for a bit.
If we vote Labour there will be no money left in 10 years.
The other delicious thing about the idea of a referendum-delivering GONU is that PM Corbyn can just take Boris's fuck-everything electioneering spending splurge and make it his own...
His half hearted prorogation made no deal extremely unlikely with close to zero benefits for actually delivering no deal as parliament had time either side of it.
If they knew exactly what they were doing, and I think they broadly did and your post says you agree, then by definition they were trying to minimise the chance of no deal and gain an extension.
His half-hearted prorogation was as far as he could constitutionally push it.
To completely prorogue Parliament would have been undemocratic and probably ruled illegal by the courts.
By acting as he did he flushed out the rats and got rid of them.
But what on earth was the point of it? It achieved literally zero in terms of delivering no deal? Or delivering any of their agenda.
On the flip side it created huge momentum to block no deal.
It is logically inconsistent to believe they were in control of events, knew what they were doing, and wanted to keep no deal on 31 Oct alive.
(They may still want to keep no deal alive at a later date, if the Tories have a 30+ majority and are negotiating solely with the EU, and not the EU & parliament simultaneously).
Only by acting like this could no deal on 31 Oct be kept alive.
No deal could never have been delivered by this Parliament. If the anti-no dealers hadn't acted this week they would have acted in a few weeks time - by then it would be too late to call for an election. Prorogation to force no deal would always have been found to be illegal by the courts.
By forcing the anti's to act this week it made possible an election and then to repeal the antis decision in the next Parliament. There was no other democratic route to no deal. How else democratically could it be achieved?
It is indeed difficult to achieve something democratically that has no mandate! He could have done that by winning an election or a referendum. He could have done it undemocratically through prorogation. He has chosen instead to stand aside and let others make the decisions for him as he didnt have the guts to deliver the likely outcome of his own rhetoric, no deal.
His half hearted prorogation made no deal extremely unlikely with close to zero benefits for actually delivering no deal as parliament had time either side of it.
If they knew exactly what they were doing, and I think they broadly did and your post says you agree, then by definition they were trying to minimise the chance of no deal and gain an extension.
His half-hearted prorogation was as far as he could constitutionally push it.
To completely prorogue Parliament would have been undemocratic and probably ruled illegal by the courts.
By acting as he did he flushed out the rats and got rid of them.
But what on earth was the point of it? It achieved literally zero in terms of delivering no deal? Or delivering any of their agenda.
On the flip side it created huge momentum to block no deal.
It is logically inconsistent to believe they were in control of events, knew what they were doing, and wanted to keep no deal on 31 Oct alive.
(They may still want to keep no deal alive at a later date, if the Tories have a 30+ majority and are negotiating solely with the EU, and not the EU & parliament simultaneously).
Only by acting like this could no deal on 31 Oct be kept alive.
No deal could never have been delivered by this Parliament. If the anti-no dealers hadn't acted this week they would have acted in a few weeks time - by then it would be too late to call for an election. Prorogation to force no deal would always have been found to be illegal by the courts.
By forcing the anti's to act this week it made possible an election and then to repeal the antis decision in the next Parliament. There was no other democratic route to no deal. How else democratically could it be achieved?
It is indeed difficult to achieve something democratically that has no mandate! He could have done that by winning an election or a referendum. He could have done it undemocratically through prorogation. He has chosen instead to stand aside and let others make the decisions for him as he didnt have the guts to deliver the likely outcome of his own rhetoric, no deal.
He's seeking to win the election, he's not standing aside.
Others are running scared of the election, but how else is he supposed to act?
Those who think my criticisms on here of our weather forecasters are overstated should turn now to the forecast for Manchester which states that it is raining. Then check into TMS which states it is not.
They were every bit as bad on the first day of play, when they predicted the rain would have passed through by 4pm. That was more or less exactly the time it started pissing down.
Which weather forecasters? There are so many to choose from now that forecasting the going for any race meeting is nigh-on impossible. And that is before the CotC at Cheltenham starts banging on about micro-climates.
I'm losing track with all the shenanigans. Couldn't Boris just write Tusk a short letter now saying we are leaving without a deal?
Two years is baked into A50 unless that period is changed according to its rules - which it has been. I don’t think he has the ability under U.K. or EU law to do so. Even if he did I doubt he has the guts.
There are some voters who will never vote Tory. Anyone who wants Brexit and is prepared to accept the Tories will vote Tory. BXP will attract voters who want Brexit but hate the Tories. Better they vote BXP than Labour.
Those who think my criticisms on here of our weather forecasters are overstated should turn now to the forecast for Manchester which states that it is raining. Then check into TMS which states it is not.
They were every bit as bad on the first day of play, when they predicted the rain would have passed through by 4pm. That was more or less exactly the time it started pissing down.
The forecasts are for each hour. There is a temporary break between two bands of rain. It has started raining again since your comment. You are being silly.
His half hearted prorogation made no deal extremely unlikely with close to zero benefits for actually delivering no deal as parliament had time either side of it.
If they knew exactly what they were doing, and I think they broadly did and your post says you agree, then by definition they were trying to minimise the chance of no deal and gain an extension.
His half-hearted prorogation was as far as he could constitutionally push it.
To completely prorogue Parliament would have been undemocratic and probably ruled illegal by the courts.
By acting as he did he flushed out the rats and got rid of them.
But what on earth was the point of it? It achieved literally zero in terms of delivering no deal? Or delivering any of their agenda.
On the flip side it created huge momentum to block no deal.
It is logically inconsistent to believe they were in control of events, knew what they were doing, and wanted to keep no deal on 31 Oct alive.
(They may still want to keep no deal alive at a later date, if the Tories have a 30+ majority and are negotiating solely with the EU, and not the EU & parliament simultaneously).
Only by acting like this could no deal on 31 Oct be kept alive.
No deal could never have been delivered by this Parliament. If the anti-no dealers hadn't acted this week they would have acted in a few weeks time - by then it would be too late to call for an election. Prorogation to force no deal would always have been found to be illegal by the courts.
By forcing the anti's to act this week it made possible an election and then to repeal the antis decision in the next Parliament. There was no other democratic route to no deal. How else democratically could it be achieved?
Also since the announcement of the prorogation, the bf market for no deal has moved from 45% to 20% - how is that consistent with "Only by acting like this could no deal on 31 Oct be kept alive." It is just not backed by reality.
That is not the blame game, that is blatant politicking. Cummings was always due to leave for medical reasons, and this is standard CYA (or CY Boris's A) propaganda to ingratiate MPs with Boris and Boris with the electorate.
Those who think my criticisms on here of our weather forecasters are overstated should turn now to the forecast for Manchester which states that it is raining. Then check into TMS which states it is not.
They were every bit as bad on the first day of play, when they predicted the rain would have passed through by 4pm. That was more or less exactly the time it started pissing down.
The forecasts are for each hour. There is a temporary break between two bands of rain. It has started raining again since your comment. You are being silly.
OK, but next time I give you a bad tip, no complaints please. I don't get to change the forecast mid-race.
No it definitely isnt. Kamski put "It's not revoke - leavers will carry on campaigning to leave". Labour policy is heavily tilted toward 2nd ref and revoke.
But the Leave option will almost certainly be that one. Or so close as makes no difference.
His half hearted prorogation made no deal extremely unlikely with close to zero benefits for actually delivering no deal as parliament had time either side of it.
.
His half-hearted prorogation was as far as he could constitutionally push it.
To completely prorogue Parliament would have been undemocratic and probably ruled illegal by the courts.
By acting as he did he flushed out the rats and got rid of them.
But what on earth was the point of it? It achieved literally zero in terms of delivering no deal? Or delivering any of their agenda.
On the flip side it created huge momentum to block no deal.
It is logically inconsistent to believe they were in control of events, knew what they were doing, and wanted to keep no deal on 31 Oct alive.
(They may still want to keep no deal alive at a later date, if the Tories have a 30+ majority and are negotiating solely with the EU, and not the EU & parliament simultaneously).
Only by acting like this could no deal on 31 Oct be kept alive.
No deal could never have been delivered by this Parliament. If the anti-no dealers hadn't acted this week they would have acted in a few weeks time - by then it would be too late to call for an election. Prorogation to force no deal would always have been found to be illegal by the courts.
By forcing the anti's to act this week it made possible an election and then to repeal the antis decision in the next Parliament. There was no other democratic route to no deal. How else democratically could it be achieved?
It is indeed difficult to achieve something democratically that has no mandate! He could have done that by winning an election or a referendum. He could have done it undemocratically through prorogation. He has chosen instead to stand aside and let others make the decisions for him as he didnt have the guts to deliver the likely outcome of his own rhetoric, no deal.
He's seeking to win the election, he's not standing aside.
Others are running scared of the election, but how else is he supposed to act?
He boxed himself into a ridiculous position in the Tory leadership contest by fully committing to meet the deadline imposed by the French President. After that he had no good options.
I am pleased he has found a way to avoid no deal. Tories should be absolutely livid he has wrecked his party and been hugely disloyal to avoid the embarrassment of saying actually we need more time though.
- The final polls for the referendum itself has remain in the lead for most pollsters so it is not perhaps surprising if remain is in the lead now -
No, that doesn't work. Pre-referendum polls were flying blind with regards to referendum weightings. Polls since then have been weighted to the referendum. This means that if a poll today were to say 52% Remain to 48% Leave, and the comparable polling from that pollster had been out by, say 5% in favour of Remain, then if the previous weightings had been used, they'd be saying 57% Remain to 43% Leave.
I've seen pro-Leave people "adjusting" polls based on the error without taking into account that the pollsters have already adjusted the polling to take into account the error. It results in an output that's pleasing to the pro-Leavers (as it meets their preconceptions) but is distorted in the other direction.
It's like saying: "This poll says we'll lose by 6%. But they were out by 4% against us last time, so we take off that and it looks better." -- "Um, you still lose by 2%" "Ah, yes, but they were out by 4% last time, so if we take that off, we win by 2%" -- "Wait, didn't you just do that?" "Shut up"
His half hearted prorogation made no deal extremely unlikely with close to zero benefits for actually delivering no deal as parliament had time either side of it.
If they knew exactly what they were doing, and I think they broadly did and your post says you agree, then by definition they were trying to minimise the chance of no deal and gain an extension.
His half-hearted prorogation was as far as he could constitutionally push it.
To completely prorogue Parliament would have been undemocratic and probably ruled illegal by the courts.
By acting as he did he flushed out the rats and got rid of them.
But what on earth was the point of it? It achieved literally zero in terms of delivering no deal? Or delivering any of their agenda.
On the flip side it created huge momentum to block no deal.
It is logically inconsistent to believe they were in control of events, knew what they were doing, and wanted to keep no deal on 31 Oct alive.
(They may still want to keep no deal alive at a later date, if the Tories have a 30+ majority and are negotiating solely with the EU, and not the EU & parliament simultaneously).
Only by acting like this could no deal on 31 Oct be kept alive.
No deal could never have been delivered by this Parliament. If the anti-no dealers hadn't acted this week they would have acted in a few weeks time - by then it would be too late to call for an election. Prorogation to force no deal would always have been found to be illegal by the courts.
By forcing the anti's to act this week it made possible an election and then to repeal the antis decision in the next Parliament. There was no other democratic route to no deal. How else democratically could it be achieved?
Also since the announcement of the prorogation, the bf market for no deal has moved from 45% to 20% - how is that consistent with "Only by acting like this could no deal on 31 Oct be kept alive." It is just not backed by reality.
Because the market includes punters that are dumb, that's how punters that know what they're doing here make their money. If the market knew exactly what was going to happen then there'd be no value whatsoever in the market and this site likely wouldn't exist.
If anyone didn't foresee Grieve, Clarke, Stewart etc voting against no deal they clearly haven't been paying attention.
There are some voters who will never vote Tory. Anyone who wants Brexit and is prepared to accept the Tories will vote Tory. BXP will attract voters who want Brexit but hate the Tories. Better they vote BXP than Labour.
No it definitely isnt. Kamski put "It's not revoke - leavers will carry on campaigning to leave". Labour policy is heavily tilted toward 2nd ref and revoke.
But the Leave option will almost certainly be that one. Or so close as makes no difference.
I think Brexit is a massive stupidity, but I really don't think revoke is anything like sensible from where we are now. One way out would be to offer a referendum that clarifies the original result with Hard Brexit v EEA on the ballot paper. Hopefully the sensible compromise of EEA or similar would prevail.
Proroguing doesn’t look too smart now - just allows Jezza to sit back and count the days until a post-No Deal general election. Tic toc.
I think you mean a post-extension general election? After Johnson's "do or die" pledge to leave by 31 October has been binned.
Depends whether Boris can kill off the Rebel Bill by not allowing HM to give assent etc. His best option now is Leave 31 October with No Deal and election later. Nothing else seems possible or good.
I think the govt has already agreed the bill will receive the RA by Monday.
In that case Cummings must have another trick up his sleeve to prevent an extension. Quite what remains to be seen and be amazed at.
I do wish people would stop elevating this politically autistic advisor. He was good on one single issue campaign that didn't involve dealing with MPs or, indeed, anyone who had a voice in or around his team.
Cummings is politically inept and has created a total disaster.
We had all this nonsense hero worship with Nick Timothy.
Cummings is a tool. Framing the opposition as blocking Brexit is broadly a winning approach I think but its execution has been abject. What really did for him was the size of the rebellion. I guess he thought they might be suspending the whip from a handful, not 21, but that was down to how things were done. The sequencing was all askew.
Grieve and the others were preventing the Tories from implementing their policy to Brexit, do or die.
The 2017 manifesto they were elected on was not “Brexit do or die” least of all to a deadline set by the President of France!
The 2017 manifesto didn't win a majority and the PM was elected by the party after that and is preparing his own manifesto.
He needs MPs who will back his own manifesto, not May's.
He needs a mandate for his own manifesto - in the meantime MPs were elected on the 2017 one.
And he's called for an election to get his own mandate.
And once he gets it from the electorate he will.
In the meantime the only electoral mandate is the 2017 manifesto. Which he, and much of the cabinet, voted against.
He boxed himself into a ridiculous position in the Tory leadership contest by fully committing to meet the deadline imposed by the French President. After that he had no good options.
I am pleased he has found a way to avoid no deal. Tories should be absolutely livid he has wrecked his party and been hugely disloyal to avoid the embarrassment of saying actually we need more time though.
It doesn't matter who chose the deadline. He opposed extending in March and voted against it then, why would he support extending in October?
Ah but has the prime minister won? There has been so much speculation about bluffs, false flags and war-gamed scenarios in this looking-glass world that I've quite forgotten what Boris and Cummings gain from proroguing parliament in the first place.
Preventing Parliament from stopping us leaving with no deal.
Oh, wait...
Aye. It seems to me that now Benn-Letwin will almost certainly pass today and be given Royal Assent on Monday that it is pretty pointless to Prorogue Parliament now.
But if he doesn't (can Johnson cancel it?) then he looks like a (bigger) fool. Of course, if Proroguation doesn't happen, what does Parliament do next week anyway? VoNC him? And are Conferences still on?
Seems all a bit pointless now. We need that election. Ideally not 31st October.... this is because I'm away, but any other time is fine by me!
He boxed himself into a ridiculous position in the Tory leadership contest by fully committing to meet the deadline imposed by the French President. After that he had no good options.
I am pleased he has found a way to avoid no deal. Tories should be absolutely livid he has wrecked his party and been hugely disloyal to avoid the embarrassment of saying actually we need more time though.
It doesn't matter who chose the deadline. He opposed extending in March and voted against it then, why would he support extending in October?
Because going into October he has no majority, no EU negotiators to deal with. By January he hopes to have a decent majority, and new EU representatives to deal with who are not tied to the existing plans.
January is clearly a better date for him negotiating than October.
But the LibDems polled over three times what the (real) Tories managed in Westminster at the Euros. And that was before Fields' thuggishness at the Guildhall, and before he switched from sanity to Johnsonism.
Those voting with the Spiv will have to explain their treachery to their voters. In Field's case, he'll also have to explain his manifestly deranged political judgement.
He boxed himself into a ridiculous position in the Tory leadership contest by fully committing to meet the deadline imposed by the French President. After that he had no good options.
I am pleased he has found a way to avoid no deal. Tories should be absolutely livid he has wrecked his party and been hugely disloyal to avoid the embarrassment of saying actually we need more time though.
It doesn't matter who chose the deadline. He opposed extending in March and voted against it then, why would he support extending in October?
Because going into October he has no majority, no EU negotiators to deal with. By January he hopes to have a decent majority, and new EU representatives to deal with who are not tied to the existing plans.
January is clearly a better date for him negotiating than October.
Indeed. Thanks guys.
And I expect him to have a very handsome majority indeed thanks to the idiots "opposing" him running away from an election.
He boxed himself into a ridiculous position in the Tory leadership contest by fully committing to meet the deadline imposed by the French President. After that he had no good options.
I am pleased he has found a way to avoid no deal. Tories should be absolutely livid he has wrecked his party and been hugely disloyal to avoid the embarrassment of saying actually we need more time though.
It doesn't matter who chose the deadline. He opposed extending in March and voted against it then, why would he support extending in October?
Because going into October he has no majority, no EU negotiators to deal with. By January he hopes to have a decent majority, and new EU representatives to deal with who are not tied to the existing plans.
January is clearly a better date for him negotiating than October.
Indeed. Thanks guys.
And I expect him to have a very handsome majority indeed thanks to the idiots "opposing" him running away from an election.
He may well. I think regardless it remains very unlikely we no deal regardless which is my main concern.
He boxed himself into a ridiculous position in the Tory leadership contest by fully committing to meet the deadline imposed by the French President. After that he had no good options.
I am pleased he has found a way to avoid no deal. Tories should be absolutely livid he has wrecked his party and been hugely disloyal to avoid the embarrassment of saying actually we need more time though.
It doesn't matter who chose the deadline. He opposed extending in March and voted against it then, why would he support extending in October?
Because going into October he has no majority, no EU negotiators to deal with. By January he hopes to have a decent majority, and new EU representatives to deal with who are not tied to the existing plans.
January is clearly a better date for him negotiating than October.
Indeed. Thanks guys.
And I expect him to have a very handsome majority indeed thanks to the idiots "opposing" him running away from an election.
He may well. I think regardless it remains very unlikely we no deal regardless which is my main concern.
I agree. With a strong UK thanks to Boris winning a handsome majority, the EU will clearly blink and remove the backstop and we can agree a deal.
Just wait until Tory Conference. Boris's speech at Conference is going to be something to remember. Tubthumping, barnstorming and election winning while the cowards opposite still haven't agreed to an election yet.
He boxed himself into a ridiculous position in the Tory leadership contest by fully committing to meet the deadline imposed by the French President. After that he had no good options.
I am pleased he has found a way to avoid no deal. Tories should be absolutely livid he has wrecked his party and been hugely disloyal to avoid the embarrassment of saying actually we need more time though.
It doesn't matter who chose the deadline. He opposed extending in March and voted against it then, why would he support extending in October?
Because going into October he has no majority, no EU negotiators to deal with. By January he hopes to have a decent majority, and new EU representatives to deal with who are not tied to the existing plans.
January is clearly a better date for him negotiating than October.
Indeed. Thanks guys.
And I expect him to have a very handsome majority indeed thanks to the idiots "opposing" him running away from an election.
He may well. I think regardless it remains very unlikely we no deal regardless which is my main concern.
I agree. With a strong UK thanks to Boris winning a handsome majority, the EU will clearly blink and remove the backstop and we can agree a deal.
“Clearly blink” is doing a lot of work there. I see no evidence for it. Giving way on a matter of such fundamental importance would be a huge loss for them. It’s a huge point of pride.
He boxed himself into a ridiculous position in the Tory leadership contest by fully committing to meet the deadline imposed by the French President. After that he had no good options.
I am pleased he has found a way to avoid no deal. Tories should be absolutely livid he has wrecked his party and been hugely disloyal to avoid the embarrassment of saying actually we need more time though.
It doesn't matter who chose the deadline. He opposed extending in March and voted against it then, why would he support extending in October?
Because going into October he has no majority, no EU negotiators to deal with. By January he hopes to have a decent majority, and new EU representatives to deal with who are not tied to the existing plans.
January is clearly a better date for him negotiating than October.
Indeed. Thanks guys.
And I expect him to have a very handsome majority indeed thanks to the idiots "opposing" him running away from an election.
He may well. I think regardless it remains very unlikely we no deal regardless which is my main concern.
I agree. With a strong UK thanks to Boris winning a handsome majority, the EU will clearly blink and remove the backstop and we can agree a deal.
“Clearly blink” is doing a lot of work there. I see no evidence for it. Giving way on a matter of such fundamental importance would be a huge loss for them. It’s a huge point of pride.
No it definitely isnt. Kamski put "It's not revoke - leavers will carry on campaigning to leave". Labour policy is heavily tilted toward 2nd ref and revoke.
But the Leave option will almost certainly be that one. Or so close as makes no difference.
But the point is a referendum which Remain wins by a small margin is unlikely to settle the issue, or is it? And if the Soft Brexit option wins, then why not go straight there without another divisive referendum which half the country anyway won't see as legitimate?
I think the soft brexit option offers a bit more to hardcore remainers than hardcore leavers: We still wouldn't have full control of immigration We'd still be paying money in to Brussels We wouldn't be free to make whatever trade deals we liked with third parties We generally wouldn't have repatriated as much sovereignty as possible.
Against that, I think the UK does have a responsibility for the situation in Northern Ireland, and a very soft Brexit solves that problem. A very soft Brexit also offers the consolation to the hardcore remainers that it would be fairly easy to rejoin at some point in the future. And the consolation to hardcore leavers that it would be possible to leave the single market and/or customs union at some point in the future (when a solution has been found for Northern Ireland). Although I suspect that most people will just want to get on with their lives and never reopen the issue again.
There is no reason for Boris to ask for an extension is there? It seems all very obvious that he just won't bother or will only agree to extend for 1 day.
Comments
Oh and post-2017 he overwhelmingly won the leadership election so on a party level he has an overwhelming mandate too.
:-)
But I fear the "landing zone" for TMay's negotiation, subsequent domestic dismissal of it and ratcheting-up of the ante by the ERG has poisoned that ground pretty long-term now.
I still think Brexiteers who give a toss long-term would be advised to find an accommodation somewhere in that centre-ground. Because if much of the No Deal worst-case scenario comes to pass, there'll be a fairly strong "rejoin" campaign which would presumably come with Schengen, social chapter, possibly the Euro and all sorts of other accoutrements we'd so far dodged.
Couldn't Boris just write Tusk a short letter now saying we are leaving without a deal?
If everyone can go to the citizens assembly then that would be a referendum.
If only representatives of the people can go to the citizens assembly then that would be Parliament.
Rory Stewart would have made a terrible PM and got the result he deserved in the leadership election. He should respect democracy.
On the flip side it created huge momentum to block no deal.
It is logically inconsistent to believe they were in control of events, knew what they were doing, and wanted to keep no deal on 31 Oct alive.
(They may still want to keep no deal alive at a later date, if the Tories have a 30+ majority and are negotiating solely with the EU, and not the EU & parliament simultaneously).
In any second referendum the Remain base will be higher due to British naturalised EU citizens, and an age evolved electorate. You could also have higher Remain motivation (to overturn the vote) plus sheer frustration and apathy as some Leave voters (usual non voters) give up. So I’d agree Leave start under par.
To fight against that Leave would have an animated activist base (who’ll be angry the vote is even taking place) and what I’d call “Democratic Remainers” who might want to vote Leave - despite their personal preference - to uphold the original result.
This is where it gets interesting: both sides need to be very careful. Leave will want to keep it as open-ended as possible again (to give themselves the broadest possible voting coalition) whilst really wanting to use it as a mandate for No Deal. Remain will want to set up a Leave so soft as an alternative they can argue it’s pointless.
It’s high risk but both sides might have their long term strategies the wrong way round.
With the types of voters I’ve identified above Leave’s best chance to win a 2nd referendum again (albeit on a lower turnout) is to have a “safe” Leave option on the table already agreed, which is what some Revokers currently want with a Deal v. Remain option. That leaves further evolution of Leave open in the long-term.
Meanwhile a Remain v. Open-ended (No Deal) Leave could easily be the better choice for arch revokers. It will generate a high turnout but probably be clearly defeated, with a residual angry core of 40% of voters that then need appeasing, but with Brexit killed off for the short-medium term.
They were every bit as bad on the first day of play, when they predicted the rain would have passed through by 4pm. That was more or less exactly the time it started pissing down.
No deal could never have been delivered by this Parliament. If the anti-no dealers hadn't acted this week they would have acted in a few weeks time - by then it would be too late to call for an election. Prorogation to force no deal would always have been found to be illegal by the courts.
By forcing the anti's to act this week it made possible an election and then to repeal the antis decision in the next Parliament. There was no other democratic route to no deal. How else democratically could it be achieved?
Boris can write all the letters he likes, without control of the Commons, he is wasting his time
https://twitter.com/JamesDMorris/status/1169920451574927360
https://twitter.com/CamillaTominey/status/1169919461215940608?s=20
#TheSNPWereTheMidwivesOfThatcherism
Others are running scared of the election, but how else is he supposed to act?
So it's ... very close.
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1169921666568396800?s=20
That is not the blame game, that is blatant politicking. Cummings was always due to leave for medical reasons, and this is standard CYA (or CY Boris's A) propaganda to ingratiate MPs with Boris and Boris with the electorate.
as he's had the primaries cancelled:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/06/republicans-cancel-primaries-trump-challengers-1483126
I am pleased he has found a way to avoid no deal. Tories should be absolutely livid he has wrecked his party and been hugely disloyal to avoid the embarrassment of saying actually we need more time though.
This means that if a poll today were to say 52% Remain to 48% Leave, and the comparable polling from that pollster had been out by, say 5% in favour of Remain, then if the previous weightings had been used, they'd be saying 57% Remain to 43% Leave.
I've seen pro-Leave people "adjusting" polls based on the error without taking into account that the pollsters have already adjusted the polling to take into account the error. It results in an output that's pleasing to the pro-Leavers (as it meets their preconceptions) but is distorted in the other direction.
It's like saying: "This poll says we'll lose by 6%. But they were out by 4% against us last time, so we take off that and it looks better."
-- "Um, you still lose by 2%"
"Ah, yes, but they were out by 4% last time, so if we take that off, we win by 2%"
-- "Wait, didn't you just do that?"
"Shut up" We can check that by looking at the weightings and target numbers. They will weight up older voters if they get fewer than necessary for their sample
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1169923103310393344
What could possibly go wrong?
If anyone didn't foresee Grieve, Clarke, Stewart etc voting against no deal they clearly haven't been paying attention.
In the meantime the only electoral mandate is the 2017 manifesto. Which he, and much of the cabinet, voted against.
But if he doesn't (can Johnson cancel it?) then he looks like a (bigger) fool.
Of course, if Proroguation doesn't happen, what does Parliament do next week anyway? VoNC him?
And are Conferences still on?
Seems all a bit pointless now. We need that election.
Ideally not 31st October.... this is because I'm away, but any other time is fine by me!
This is just like Gordon Brown going to Iraq during the 2007 Tory conference.
Both were rightly condemned.
By January he hopes to have a decent majority, and new EU representatives to deal with who are not tied to the existing plans.
January is clearly a better date for him negotiating than October.
He's put out a big massive trap, got a neon flashing sign saying "Trap Here" with an arrow pointing at it and they're going straight in. Hilarious!
Tories 40% by November.
Not to worry Big G, I shall give them stern words.
And I expect him to have a very handsome majority indeed thanks to the idiots "opposing" him running away from an election.
https://twitter.com/LauraBMorlock/status/1169681820855734278
*More chance of me eating a Hawaiian pizza.
https://twitter.com/davemacladd/status/1169661176105639937
Just wait until Tory Conference. Boris's speech at Conference is going to be something to remember. Tubthumping, barnstorming and election winning while the cowards opposite still haven't agreed to an election yet.
https://youtu.be/UPw-3e_pzqU
I think the soft brexit option offers a bit more to hardcore remainers than hardcore leavers:
We still wouldn't have full control of immigration
We'd still be paying money in to Brussels
We wouldn't be free to make whatever trade deals we liked with third parties
We generally wouldn't have repatriated as much sovereignty as possible.
Against that, I think the UK does have a responsibility for the situation in Northern Ireland, and a very soft Brexit solves that problem.
A very soft Brexit also offers the consolation to the hardcore remainers that it would be fairly easy to rejoin at some point in the future. And the consolation to hardcore leavers that it would be possible to leave the single market and/or customs union at some point in the future (when a solution has been found for Northern Ireland). Although I suspect that most people will just want to get on with their lives and never reopen the issue again.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/jacob-rees-mogg-apologises-for-likening-doctor-who-warned-of-no-deal-brexit-deaths-to-disgraced-anti-vaxxer-amid-widespread-condemnation/ar-AAGRFeC?ocid=spartanntp