Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Remainers of the Day. Why are pollsters consistently findi

1468910

Comments

  • DougSeal said:

    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.
    Also on a pragmatic basis, would they think negotiating subsequent deals with a bunch of Brexitloons drunk on victory would have any utility whatsoever? Defeat them utterly and start again with what's left.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237

    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.

    I agree. The only Ref2 with a solid claim to legitimacy would be a trinary Hard/Soft/Remain and some sort of pref voting to ID the winner.

    Unfortunately I do not see the ballot paper having Hard on it.

    And TBH I am not expecting to see any Ref at all since a Labour win (of any type) in any pre-Brexit GE is a stretch for my imaginative faculties right now.
  • That long?
    Probably not.

    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.
    Boris is great at preaching to the choir.

    It’s the unpersuaded he needs to convince.

    Given voters think by a factor of 2:1 he’s in it for himself and not the country that may be an uphill task.
  • DougSeal said:

    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.
    Pride cometh before the fall.
    Yes.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,478
    kinabalu said:

    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.

    I agree. The only Ref2 with a solid claim to legitimacy would be a trinary Hard/Soft/Remain and some sort of pref voting to ID the winner.

    Unfortunately I do not see the ballot paper having Hard on it.

    And TBH I am not expecting to see any Ref at all since a Labour win (of any type) in any pre-Brexit GE is a stretch for my imaginative faculties right now.
    Don't fancy writing the questions, TBH.
  • I’m sure Boris will put Leo right on Monday:

    https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1169927858074083329?s=20
  • Jonathan said:
    I can't believe they're dumb enough to fall into Boris's trap.

    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.
    Maybe in your echo chamber. Boris was widely predicted to lead the Conservative Party (or what is left of it) to destruction. It will be his only "achievement", and he is making ground on this prediction. The man is a liability and a disgrace to his family party and country. The UK's first joke PM. The second one, a socialist version, on his way, curtesy of the first.
  • That long?
    Probably not.

    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.
    Have you taken over from HYUFD for ludicrously partisan predictions?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,216
    Brom said:

    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.

    If he doesn't extend then my guess is he quickly gets VONCed at High Speed and the remain alliance quickly agrees to make Corbyn the Prime Minister so he can extend. Needs must in that situation.

    Meanwhile he gets taken to court and faces a recall petition in Uxbridge (Corbyn, Clarke or whoever extends).

    It'd be the biggest by-election ever.
  • kinabalu said:

    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.

    I agree. The only Ref2 with a solid claim to legitimacy would be a trinary Hard/Soft/Remain and some sort of pref voting to ID the winner.

    Unfortunately I do not see the ballot paper having Hard on it.

    And TBH I am not expecting to see any Ref at all since a Labour win (of any type) in any pre-Brexit GE is a stretch for my imaginative faculties right now.
    That's an unusual meaning of "agree" you have there:

    @Nigel_Foremain: "I really don't think revoke is anything like sensible from where we are now"
    @kinabalu: "I agree. The only Ref2 with a solid claim to legitimacy would be a trinary Hard/Soft/Remain and some sort of pref voting to ID the winner."
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    DougSeal said:

    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.
    Pride cometh before the fall.
    Indeed - as Boris is discovering this week.

    There is no upside politically in Ireland to anyone’s abandoning the backstop. They take a hit economically, sure (not as much as Brexiteers think though) but they can blame the big bad Brits for that. London is disliked there as Brussels is here - it would be considered a “surrender” in the charming military argot you love.

    There is nothing to be gained in Germany, France or anywhere else for throwing Ireland under a bus. So it’s no deal. Some more Tory MPs won’t change that. Just means our Parliament is as united as they are and positions are more entrenched.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046

    Jonathan said:
    yay, I used POBWAS the other shame. I know it was popular on PB as POGWAS back in Gordon's day. I think maybe we should change to POBWAT.
    Guys, you've lost me. I've only just got my head around QTWTAIY
    Poor old Gordon, what a shame

    Poor old Boris, what a t**t
  • Jonathan said:
    yay, I used POBWAS the other shame. I know it was popular on PB as POGWAS back in Gordon's day. I think maybe we should change to POBWAT.
    Guys, you've lost me. I've only just got my head around QTWTAIY
    POGWAS was Poor Old Gordon What a Shame. POBWAT is Poor Old Boris What a T___
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237

    Don't fancy writing the questions, TBH.

    No, me neither. Nothing quite works. And it's such a massive thing to do to ask people to vote again, i.e. to set aside June 2016. All of which is why, although I can see the route to it, I simply cannot envisage it happening. For me, Ref2 is a Not Happening event. One of those things that I will believe if and when it occurs and not before.
  • Somewhat amusing that one of the acts of a PM 2 before Boris (Dave) namely the FTPA is the thing which is scuppering Boris now.
  • Brom said:

    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.

    Well, apart from it being the law that he has to ask (and for three months). Though aren't the anti No-Dealers taking a risk that he can't persuade one European leader to veto? (Or that one of them will choose to veto of their own accord). I suppose they would then move to an VONC and an emergency Revoke PM?
  • Brom said:

    Poor old Gina Miller, completely useless and out of her depth!

    So useless she enforced the legal requirement for the HoC to agree on any WA. Not that useless really! Poor old Brexiteers, no real understanding of how our system of legal checks and balances work!
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    eek said:
    The FTPA has done a sterling job of separating the legislature from the executive. Separation of powers fans must love it.
  • DougSeal said:

    eek said:
    The FTPA has done a sterling job of separating the legislature from the executive. Separation of powers fans must love it.
    It doesn't go far enough, but it is a start.
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917
    Scott_P said:
    This means resignation. Corbyn in No.10, massively legitimised.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,478
    Tabman said:

    Jonathan said:
    yay, I used POBWAS the other shame. I know it was popular on PB as POGWAS back in Gordon's day. I think maybe we should change to POBWAT.
    Guys, you've lost me. I've only just got my head around QTWTAIY
    Poor old Gordon, what a shame

    Poor old Boris, what a t**t
    Obliged!
    Obvious when you think about it.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    No deal is dead. Brexit is on life-support.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,067
    edited September 2019
    Scott_P said:
    Smart move.

    Boris Johnson stood for the Tory party leadership in a bid "to get Brexit done." He doesn't want an election, the public don't want an election and now it's clear the opposition doesn't want an election.

    Let's see how this piece of sh*t proceeds. Has the retarded moron Cummings war-gamed this? Watching the lying disingenuous fat slob stew in his own mess will be deliciously fun!!!
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751
    Jonathan said:
    Scott_P said:
    So that means the only prospect of Johnson getting an early by any means possible would be with the help of the people he's just thrown out of his own party - tht's if there were time to go by a route other than 2/3.

    It's just as well he "doesn't want an election"!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237
    edited September 2019
    kamski said:

    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.

    I agree with you - and this was more or less Labour's original position - but the current polarized political climate makes such an offering impossible for them now.

    They would get slaughtered both sides - Tories 'Proper' Leave, LDs Remain.

    Hence the pivot to Ref2.
  • Scott_P said:
    Cummings must have gamed it that an extension would be deadly for Boris. No Deal followed by an election wouldn't be ideal, but an prolonged Brexit must be avoided at any cots, even if Boris is criminally charged.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    I’m sure Boris will put Leo right on Monday:

    https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1169927858074083329?s=20

    What the resident PB Brexiteers don’t seem to understand is that getting rid of the Backstop is seen in Dublin and Ireland more generally as a “surrender” to London. That phrase has much more resonance historically there than our bleating about “surrender” to Brussels. We’ve never been militarily occupied by Brussels. London has been sending troops to Ireland for the best part of a millennium
  • DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    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.
    Pride cometh before the fall.
    Indeed - as Boris is discovering this week.

    There is no upside politically in Ireland to anyone’s abandoning the backstop. They take a hit economically, sure (not as much as Brexiteers think though) but they can blame the big bad Brits for that. London is disliked there as Brussels is here - it would be considered a “surrender” in the charming military argot you love.

    There is nothing to be gained in Germany, France or anywhere else for throwing Ireland under a bus. So it’s no deal. Some more Tory MPs won’t change that. Just means our Parliament is as united as they are and positions are more entrenched.
    The gain from agreeing a deal is they avoid the economic hit.

    Is an economic hit worth paying to avoid embarrassment?
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    Scott_P said:
    Of course he won’t. It would be electoral seppuku. He will abide by the Surrender Act, and wait for the EU to impose a new extension, then he will turn to voters and say, Look, see what they’ve made us do, see how they’ve handed even more power to Brussels.

    And it might work.

  • Scott_P said:
    This means resignation. Corbyn in No.10, massively legitimised.
    Johnson should resign Oct 18 and recommend Ken Clarke as his successor.
  • I'm calling it now.

    If no election is agreed on Monday, Boris Johnson will continue to prorogue Parliament past October 31, so they cannot kick Boris out whilst Boris fails to agree an extension and we leave with no deal on the 31st of October.

    Well that's the plan, I think we're going to see some epic constitutional shenanigans.
  • Byronic said:

    Scott_P said:
    Of course he won’t. It would be electoral seppuku. He will abide by the Surrender Act, and wait for the EU to impose a new extension, then he will turn to voters and say, Look, see what they’ve made us do, see how they’ve handed even more power to Brussels.

    And it might work.

    Then again, it might not. It will work with those 32% or so who think no-deal self harm is a good idea, but I doubt it will wash much with the rest. Dog whistle stuff for the CINO Party core vote
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751
    Byronic said:

    Scott_P said:
    Of course he won’t. It would be electoral seppuku. He will abide by the Surrender Act, and wait for the EU to impose a new extension, then he will turn to voters and say, Look, see what they’ve made us do, see how they’ve handed even more power to Brussels.

    And it might work.

    ?

    He's saying he won't abide by the Anti-No Deal Act, isn't he?
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    Scott_P said:
    Cummings must have gamed it that an extension would be deadly for Boris. No Deal followed by an election wouldn't be ideal, but an prolonged Brexit must be avoided at any cots, even if Boris is criminally charged.
    You’re totally misreading it, perhaps because you’ve forgotten the Surrender Act. If Boris does not seek an Extension, the EU will unilaterally give us one, of a length they will choose
  • murali_s said:

    Let's see how this piece of sh*t proceeds. Has the retarded moron Cummings war-gamed this? Watching the lying disingenuous fat slob stew in his own mess will be deliciously fun!!!

    This kind of language is quite unnecessary and not in tune with the long-established ethos of the site. You are not the only offender, so (to a point) I apologise for singling this post out.
  • I’m sure Boris will put Leo right on Monday:

    https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1169927858074083329?s=20

    Cool. Lets jump straight to 7 then. His choice.
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917
    Byronic said:

    Scott_P said:
    Of course he won’t. It would be electoral seppuku. He will abide by the Surrender Act, and wait for the EU to impose a new extension, then he will turn to voters and say, Look, see what they’ve made us do, see how they’ve handed even more power to Brussels.

    And it might work.

    But due to the FTPA, how does he ever call an election?! The opposition parties could wait until 2022....
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,573
    Boris has a couple of moves up his sleeve - though fast running out of options.

    1 In mid October bring back TMs deal as, in the circumstances the best available

    and/or

    2 A couple of days before he is due to go to ask for the extension he has been forced into by the new act, go to the Palace, resign, and advise HM the Queen to ask Corbyn, as LOTO to form a government.

  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    Chris said:

    Byronic said:

    Scott_P said:
    Of course he won’t. It would be electoral seppuku. He will abide by the Surrender Act, and wait for the EU to impose a new extension, then he will turn to voters and say, Look, see what they’ve made us do, see how they’ve handed even more power to Brussels.

    And it might work.

    ?

    He's saying he won't abide by the Anti-No Deal Act, isn't he?
    He can’t do that. It’s now the law. And it specifically provides for this eventuality.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    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.
    Pride cometh before the fall.
    Indeed - as Boris is discovering this week.

    There is no upside politically in Ireland to anyone’s abandoning the backstop. They take a hit economically, sure (not as much as Brexiteers think though) but they can blame the big bad Brits for that. London is disliked there as Brussels is here - it would be considered a “surrender” in the charming military argot you love.

    There is nothing to be gained in Germany, France or anywhere else for throwing Ireland under a bus. So it’s no deal. Some more Tory MPs won’t change that. Just means our Parliament is as united as they are and positions are more entrenched.
    The gain from agreeing a deal is they avoid the economic hit.

    Is an economic hit worth paying to avoid embarrassment?
    A minor hit for them; a major hit for us. A political win for them (SM integrity maintained, example made of UK).

    That's why threat of no deal is empty. And always has been.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751
    Byronic said:

    Scott_P said:
    Cummings must have gamed it that an extension would be deadly for Boris. No Deal followed by an election wouldn't be ideal, but an prolonged Brexit must be avoided at any cots, even if Boris is criminally charged.
    You’re totally misreading it, perhaps because you’ve forgotten the Surrender Act. If Boris does not seek an Extension, the EU will unilaterally give us one, of a length they will choose
    The Act obliges the prime minister to seek an extension, it doesn't permit the EU to impose an extension if the PM doesn't ask for one.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,478
    murali_s said:

    Scott_P said:
    Smart move.

    Boris Johnson stood for the Tory party leadership in a bid "to get Brexit done." He doesn't want an election, the public don't want an election and now it's clear the opposite doesn't want an election.

    Let's see how this piece of sh*t proceeds. Has the retarded moron Cummings war-gamed this? Watching the lying disingenuous fat slob stew in his own mess will be deliciously fun!!!
    Boris can still 'get Brexit done'. He'll just have to have a bit less of the 'Come on chaps, fix bayonets and over the top' mentality they presumably taught him in the Eton CCF. After all charging machine guns with fixed bayonets was eventually realised to be a Bad Idea.
  • I'm calling it now.

    If no election is agreed on Monday, Boris Johnson will continue to prorogue Parliament past October 31, so they cannot kick Boris out whilst Boris fails to agree an extension and we leave with no deal on the 31st of October.

    Well that's the plan, I think we're going to see some epic constitutional shenanigans.

    Sounds about right. The objective has to be: Brexit on Oct 31. Worry about the aftermath later.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    Chris said:

    Byronic said:

    Scott_P said:
    Cummings must have gamed it that an extension would be deadly for Boris. No Deal followed by an election wouldn't be ideal, but an prolonged Brexit must be avoided at any cots, even if Boris is criminally charged.
    You’re totally misreading it, perhaps because you’ve forgotten the Surrender Act. If Boris does not seek an Extension, the EU will unilaterally give us one, of a length they will choose
    The Act obliges the prime minister to seek an extension, it doesn't permit the EU to impose an extension if the PM doesn't ask for one.
    Yes it does. However parliament has the power to reject the offered extension. Clearly parliament won’t reject, as the alternative will be no deal.
  • Tabman said:

    The gain from agreeing a deal is they avoid the economic hit.

    Is an economic hit worth paying to avoid embarrassment?

    A minor hit for them; a major hit for us. A political win for them (SM integrity maintained, example made of UK).

    That's why threat of no deal is empty. And always has been.
    Minor for Ireland?

    Cool then what's the big deal, take the hit and move on.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,478
    Byronic said:

    Chris said:

    Byronic said:

    Scott_P said:
    Of course he won’t. It would be electoral seppuku. He will abide by the Surrender Act, and wait for the EU to impose a new extension, then he will turn to voters and say, Look, see what they’ve made us do, see how they’ve handed even more power to Brussels.

    And it might work.

    ?

    He's saying he won't abide by the Anti-No Deal Act, isn't he?
    He can’t do that. It’s now the law. And it specifically provides for this eventuality.
    Fiona whatever her name was thought she could disregard the law, and look what happened to her!
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760

    I'm calling it now.

    If no election is agreed on Monday, Boris Johnson will continue to prorogue Parliament past October 31, so they cannot kick Boris out whilst Boris fails to agree an extension and we leave with no deal on the 31st of October.

    Well that's the plan, I think we're going to see some epic constitutional shenanigans.

    Sounds about right. The objective has to be: Brexit on Oct 31. Worry about the aftermath later.
    Agreed. It would be the smart thing for Boris to do. I hope he warns Labour on Monday that is his plan. Surely they cannot ignore an election and just sit back and allow no deal to happen?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751
    Byronic said:

    Chris said:

    Byronic said:

    Scott_P said:
    Of course he won’t. It would be electoral seppuku. He will abide by the Surrender Act, and wait for the EU to impose a new extension, then he will turn to voters and say, Look, see what they’ve made us do, see how they’ve handed even more power to Brussels.

    And it might work.

    ?

    He's saying he won't abide by the Anti-No Deal Act, isn't he?
    He can’t do that. It’s now the law. And it specifically provides for this eventuality.
    Well, what do you think it means when it says "says he would not seek Brexit delay even if it becomes law"?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237
    edited September 2019

    That's an unusual meaning of "agree" you have there:

    @Nigel_Foremain: "I really don't think revoke is anything like sensible from where we are now"
    @kinabalu: "I agree. The only Ref2 with a solid claim to legitimacy would be a trinary Hard/Soft/Remain and some sort of pref voting to ID the winner."

    He meant 'Revoke' as in without Ref2 was not sensible.

    Didn't you, Nigel?
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,878
    So what does Boris do now? FTPA GE won't pass. Probably a one liner single bill won't pass.

    He could raise a VoC in his own government, and dare the opposition to 'support' him (or abstain). Is that it? I don't see any other way now.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    edited September 2019
    Chris said:

    Byronic said:

    Chris said:

    Byronic said:

    Scott_P said:
    Of course he won’t. It would be electoral seppuku. He will abide by the Surrender Act, and wait for the EU to impose a new extension, then he will turn to voters and say, Look, see what they’ve made us do, see how they’ve handed even more power to Brussels.

    And it might work.

    ?

    He's saying he won't abide by the Anti-No Deal Act, isn't he?
    He can’t do that. It’s now the law. And it specifically provides for this eventuality.
    Well, what do you think it means when it says "says he would not seek Brexit delay even if it becomes law"?
    He’s bluffing. Also, note how he says HE won’t seek an extension, that’s permissible by law. But the same law says, in that scenario, the EU should offer an extension of its own choosing, which the commons - not Boris - can reject or not
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,129
    edited September 2019
    Byronic said:

    Scott_P said:
    Of course he won’t. It would be electoral seppuku. He will abide by the Surrender Act, and wait for the EU to impose a new extension, then he will turn to voters and say, Look, see what they’ve made us do, see how they’ve handed even more power to Brussels.

    And it might work.

    The question comes down to will the public be grateful that parliament engineered a way to block no-deal and also blocked an election they don't want, or will they see it as parliament blocking Brexit / GE and in doing some being anti-democratic.
  • kinabalu said:

    That's an unusual meaning of "agree" you have there:

    @Nigel_Foremain: "I really don't think revoke is anything like sensible from where we are now"
    @kinabalu: "I agree. The only Ref2 with a solid claim to legitimacy would be a trinary Hard/Soft/Remain and some sort of pref voting to ID the winner."

    He meant 'Revoke' as in without Ref2 was not sensible.

    Didn't you, Nigel?
    He literally called for a referendum between Hard Brexit and EEA.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751
    Chris said:

    Byronic said:

    Chris said:

    Byronic said:

    Scott_P said:
    Of course he won’t. It would be electoral seppuku. He will abide by the Surrender Act, and wait for the EU to impose a new extension, then he will turn to voters and say, Look, see what they’ve made us do, see how they’ve handed even more power to Brussels.

    And it might work.

    ?

    He's saying he won't abide by the Anti-No Deal Act, isn't he?
    He can’t do that. It’s now the law. And it specifically provides for this eventuality.
    Well, what do you think it means when it says "says he would not seek Brexit delay even if it becomes law"?
    You mean he will agree to it but he won't seek it?
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,067
    edited September 2019

    I'm calling it now.

    If no election is agreed on Monday, Boris Johnson will continue to prorogue Parliament past October 31, so they cannot kick Boris out whilst Boris fails to agree an extension and we leave with no deal on the 31st of October.

    Well that's the plan, I think we're going to see some epic constitutional shenanigans.

    "Boris will continue to prorogue Parliament past October 31"

    Can the lying disingenuous fat slob actually do this? What are the mechanisms here?
  • Mr. Thompson. When are you guys that support Brexit going to understand? The EU knows we have a lot more to lose than they. They will lose to some extent, but they will mitigate, and they do not think it is worth compromising the single market, and they are right.

    Besides, Boris is telling everyone here there is nothing to fear from no-deal. Therefore by extension there is less to fear for the EU. It is therefore a very limited bargaining chip. Unless he is lying to us, which I am sure Boris wouldn't do now would he?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Maybe I am missing something, but I am struggling to see how BoZo going to the country saying "I was forced to make Corbyn PM, so elect me again so I can deal with Brussels" is a winning strategy
  • He should deny Royal Assent to the bill.
  • Mr. Thompson. When are you guys that support Brexit going to understand? The EU knows we have a lot more to lose than they. They will lose to some extent, but they will mitigate, and they do not think it is worth compromising the single market, and they are right.

    Besides, Boris is telling everyone here there is nothing to fear from no-deal. Therefore by extension there is less to fear for the EU. It is therefore a very limited bargaining chip. Unless he is lying to us, which I am sure Boris wouldn't do now would he?

    We have more to lose by agreeing to the backstop than they do to removing the backstop.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046

    Tabman said:

    The gain from agreeing a deal is they avoid the economic hit.

    Is an economic hit worth paying to avoid embarrassment?

    A minor hit for them; a major hit for us. A political win for them (SM integrity maintained, example made of UK).

    That's why threat of no deal is empty. And always has been.
    Minor for Ireland?

    Cool then what's the big deal, take the hit and move on.
    The point is it's not going to change the agreed WA.

    The economic hit to Ireland will be bailed out by the other 26 (and the US)
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    murali_s said:

    I'm calling it now.

    If no election is agreed on Monday, Boris Johnson will continue to prorogue Parliament past October 31, so they cannot kick Boris out whilst Boris fails to agree an extension and we leave with no deal on the 31st of October.

    Well that's the plan, I think we're going to see some epic constitutional shenanigans.

    "Boris will continue to prorogue Parliament past October 31"

    Can the lying disingenuous fat slob actually do this? What are the mechanisms here?
    Of course he can do it and it's glaringly obvious, plus he will get plenty of public support for doing so. Labour will have to backtrack on not voting for an election or take Boris to the courts.
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917
    edited September 2019
    Brom said:

    I'm calling it now.

    If no election is agreed on Monday, Boris Johnson will continue to prorogue Parliament past October 31, so they cannot kick Boris out whilst Boris fails to agree an extension and we leave with no deal on the 31st of October.

    Well that's the plan, I think we're going to see some epic constitutional shenanigans.

    Sounds about right. The objective has to be: Brexit on Oct 31. Worry about the aftermath later.
    Agreed. It would be the smart thing for Boris to do. I hope he warns Labour on Monday that is his plan. Surely they cannot ignore an election and just sit back and allow no deal to happen?
    No, no more warnings. One of the reasons Cummings and No.10 have fucked up is their intentions end up getting widely reported in the media, tipping off the enemy at every turn. If they intend to go down the - what would be absolutely nuclear - route of faking attempts to seek an extension, then Brexiting hard on 31st October, they need to keep absolutely schtum.

    Doesn't sit well with me. One, they would be breaking the law. Two, there could be civil strife (even if only of the quiche-eating variety). Three, Brexiting in such a way would legitimise further calls to Remain (or re-join). Brexit would be a running sore indefinitely.
  • Tabman said:

    Tabman said:

    The gain from agreeing a deal is they avoid the economic hit.

    Is an economic hit worth paying to avoid embarrassment?

    A minor hit for them; a major hit for us. A political win for them (SM integrity maintained, example made of UK).

    That's why threat of no deal is empty. And always has been.
    Minor for Ireland?

    Cool then what's the big deal, take the hit and move on.
    The point is it's not going to change the agreed WA.

    The economic hit to Ireland will be bailed out by the other 26 (and the US)
    I can live with that.
  • Byronic said:

    Chris said:

    Byronic said:

    Chris said:

    Byronic said:

    Scott_P said:
    Of course he won’t. It would be electoral seppuku. He will abide by the Surrender Act, and wait for the EU to impose a new extension, then he will turn to voters and say, Look, see what they’ve made us do, see how they’ve handed even more power to Brussels.

    And it might work.

    ?

    He's saying he won't abide by the Anti-No Deal Act, isn't he?
    He can’t do that. It’s now the law. And it specifically provides for this eventuality.
    Well, what do you think it means when it says "says he would not seek Brexit delay even if it becomes law"?
    He’s bluffing.
    He is a "something will come up" man. It is why he is such a poor leader. He does not plan, he leaves that to Cummings, and therefore when Cummy gets it slightly wrong he gets blown all over the place.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751
    Byronic said:

    Chris said:

    Byronic said:

    Chris said:

    Byronic said:

    Scott_P said:
    Of course he won’t. It would be electoral seppuku. He will abide by the Surrender Act, and wait for the EU to impose a new extension, then he will turn to voters and say, Look, see what they’ve made us do, see how they’ve handed even more power to Brussels.

    And it might work.

    ?

    He's saying he won't abide by the Anti-No Deal Act, isn't he?
    He can’t do that. It’s now the law. And it specifically provides for this eventuality.
    Well, what do you think it means when it says "says he would not seek Brexit delay even if it becomes law"?
    He’s bluffing. Also, note how he says HE won’t seek an extension, that’s permissible by law. But the same law says, in that scenario, the EU should offer an extension of its own choosing, which the commons - not Boris - can reject or not
    When you wrote "Of course he won't," you meant "Of course he will"?

    Good God.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,152
    edited September 2019

    So what does Boris do now? FTPA GE won't pass. Probably a one liner single bill won't pass.

    He could raise a VoC in his own government, and dare the opposition to 'support' him (or abstain). Is that it? I don't see any other way now.

    Boris will refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension and challenge the Commons to impeach him according to Peston and as a last resort resign, let Corbyn take over to go to Brussels to extend so Labour have their mitts all over denying the Leave vote most Labour seats voted for while the LDs put Corbyn in power (even if purely to extend) then wait for the inevitable general election once the LDs VONC Corbyn as soon as he has extended
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    Byronic said:

    Scott_P said:
    Of course he won’t. It would be electoral seppuku. He will abide by the Surrender Act, and wait for the EU to impose a new extension, then he will turn to voters and say, Look, see what they’ve made us do, see how they’ve handed even more power to Brussels.

    And it might work.

    The question comes down to will the public be grateful that parliament engineered a way to block no-deal and also blocked an election they don't want, or will they see it as parliament blocking Brexit / GE and in doing some being anti-democratic.
    Yes. The ensuing election will turn on that.
  • HYUFD said:

    So what does Boris do now? FTPA GE won't pass. Probably a one liner single bill won't pass.

    He could raise a VoC in his own government, and dare the opposition to 'support' him (or abstain). Is that it? I don't see any other way now.

    Boris will refuse to go to Brussels to ask for an extension and challenge the Commons to impeach him according to Peston and as a last resort resign, let Corbyn take over to extend so Labour have their mitts all over denying the Leave vote most Labour seats voted for while the LDs out Corbyn in power (even if purely to extend) then wait for the inevitable general election once the LDs VONC Corbyn as soon as he has extended
    Wow, you managed all of that without a breath. You forgot to mention "will-of-the-people" and other such moronic platitudes.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760

    Brom said:

    I'm calling it now.

    If no election is agreed on Monday, Boris Johnson will continue to prorogue Parliament past October 31, so they cannot kick Boris out whilst Boris fails to agree an extension and we leave with no deal on the 31st of October.

    Well that's the plan, I think we're going to see some epic constitutional shenanigans.

    Sounds about right. The objective has to be: Brexit on Oct 31. Worry about the aftermath later.
    Agreed. It would be the smart thing for Boris to do. I hope he warns Labour on Monday that is his plan. Surely they cannot ignore an election and just sit back and allow no deal to happen?
    No, no more warnings. One of the reasons Cummings and No.10 have fucked up is their intentions end up getting widely reported in the media, tipping off the enemy at every turn. If they intend to go down the - what would be absolutely nuclear - route of faking attempts to seek an extension, then Brexiting hard on 31st October, they need to keep absolutey schtum.
    I agree that they possibly won't tip off Labour. It just depends what Boris prefers - a no deal Brexit to his name and approval from the majority of his base, or a winnable October election. Both come with huge risk but will clearly be better options for the Tories than asking for a 3 month extension which would be incredibly damaging.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    The nuclear option is for Boris to resign and force Corbyn to sign up to an extension. Corbyn will lose a vote of no confidence a few days later, and there'll be an election. Boris will have kept his promise not to sign.
  • Scott_P said:

    Maybe I am missing something, but I am struggling to see how BoZo going to the country saying "I was forced to make Corbyn PM, so elect me again so I can deal with Brussels" is a winning strategy

    Boris's line would be that the evil Remainer Establishment coup has installed Corbyn so the people must vote for Boris. In other words, Boris would run an insurgent campaign, like that billionaire property developer man of the people in America.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237
    Nov now heavy odds on. 2020 coming in too. Oct a 7/1 shot.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046

    Tabman said:

    Tabman said:

    The gain from agreeing a deal is they avoid the economic hit.

    Is an economic hit worth paying to avoid embarrassment?

    A minor hit for them; a major hit for us. A political win for them (SM integrity maintained, example made of UK).

    That's why threat of no deal is empty. And always has been.
    Minor for Ireland?

    Cool then what's the big deal, take the hit and move on.
    The point is it's not going to change the agreed WA.

    The economic hit to Ireland will be bailed out by the other 26 (and the US)
    I can live with that.
    Great

    So the terms of the debate become No Deal = huge economic damage to ourselves; vs remain and avoid it

    There is no mythical alternative deal.

    Remain vs No Deal

    Bring it on.

    It's a win win for Remain. Albeit the latter win is pyhrric, but it destroys the Tories too.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    Chris said:

    Byronic said:

    Chris said:

    Byronic said:

    Chris said:

    Byronic said:

    Scott_P said:
    Of course he won’t. It would be electoral seppuku. He will abide by the Surrender Act, and wait for the EU to impose a new extension, then he will turn to voters and say, Look, see what they’ve made us do, see how they’ve handed even more power to Brussels.

    And it might work.

    ?

    He's saying he won't abide by the Anti-No Deal Act, isn't he?
    He can’t do that. It’s now the law. And it specifically provides for this eventuality.
    Well, what do you think it means when it says "says he would not seek Brexit delay even if it becomes law"?
    He’s bluffing. Also, note how he says HE won’t seek an extension, that’s permissible by law. But the same law says, in that scenario, the EU should offer an extension of its own choosing, which the commons - not Boris - can reject or not
    When you wrote "Of course he won't," you meant "Of course he will"?

    Good God.
    He won’t ask for an extension. He will either resign or let the EU impose an extension. As per the Surrender Act

    The fascinating Q is what happens if the EU says, OK, fuck this, your extension is five years. Deal with it once and for all.

    Eek.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    BoZo is due to spend the night at Balmoral

    Maybe HMQ should have a word in his shell-like, if he carries on saying he will deliberately break the law.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751
    Byronic said:

    Chris said:

    Byronic said:

    Scott_P said:
    Cummings must have gamed it that an extension would be deadly for Boris. No Deal followed by an election wouldn't be ideal, but an prolonged Brexit must be avoided at any cots, even if Boris is criminally charged.
    You’re totally misreading it, perhaps because you’ve forgotten the Surrender Act. If Boris does not seek an Extension, the EU will unilaterally give us one, of a length they will choose
    The Act obliges the prime minister to seek an extension, it doesn't permit the EU to impose an extension if the PM doesn't ask for one.
    Yes it does. However parliament has the power to reject the offered extension. Clearly parliament won’t reject, as the alternative will be no deal.
    You need to read the text. Parliament doesn't have the power to reject the extension if it's for the requested date. And if it's for another date, parliament only gets to decide if the PM wants to delegate the decision to them.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541



    The gain from agreeing a deal is they avoid the economic hit.

    Is an economic hit worth paying to avoid embarrassment?

    Similarly if we agree to keep the backstop and pass the WA we avoid an economic hit. However we lose face. If they remove the backstop they lose face. Sauce for the goose etc.

    And it's more than embarrasment for them. They sincerely think removing the backstop risks a return to the violenct past. You and your cohorts sincerely think the backstop is a democratic outrage. I (personally) think both claims are overstated but that hardly matters, they are both sincerely and passionately held. Neither want to "surrender" - much as I hate the use of such militaristic language. If you consider th EU to be the enemy you need to understand their motivations and, with respect, you don't seem to. And the support for the backstop in Ireland and the EU is to my mind stronger than opposition here.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,067
    Brom said:

    murali_s said:

    I'm calling it now.

    If no election is agreed on Monday, Boris Johnson will continue to prorogue Parliament past October 31, so they cannot kick Boris out whilst Boris fails to agree an extension and we leave with no deal on the 31st of October.

    Well that's the plan, I think we're going to see some epic constitutional shenanigans.

    "Boris will continue to prorogue Parliament past October 31"

    Can the lying disingenuous fat slob actually do this? What are the mechanisms here?
    Of course he can do it and it's glaringly obvious, plus he will get plenty of public support for doing so. Labour will have to backtrack on not voting for an election or take Boris to the courts.
    It will be dragged out in the Courts while the EU gives us an indefinite extension then?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Byronic said:

    The fascinating Q is what happens if the EU says, OK, fuck this, your extension is five years. Deal with it once and for all.

    Referendum on the May deal or Revoke
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,733

    AndyJS said:

    eek said:

    Scott_P said:
    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.
    And now the Tories can't back down resulting in 12 seats probably being needlessly lost.
    Can't see many of those indies winning, grieve for example has a very tough ask to win Beaconsfield
    I think Grieve and Clarke could win their seats as independents if the LDs don't stand.
    I can't see Clarke standing again.
    Might back the fragrant Soubry though.

    My brother is in S Hammonds constituency, reckons he is much safer standing against the Tories than under their banner.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited September 2019

    I'm calling it now.

    If no election is agreed on Monday, Boris Johnson will continue to prorogue Parliament past October 31, so they cannot kick Boris out whilst Boris fails to agree an extension and we leave with no deal on the 31st of October.

    Well that's the plan, I think we're going to see some epic constitutional shenanigans.

    I agree with you, which is why I've been asking about this all morning after mulling it for a few days.

    It's Johnson's last, desperate, act once the No Deal bill becomes law.

    And, make no mistake, it really IS desperate. Whether he would succeed, god knows. Probably not, because end of the day the law is the law but still ...

    Ergo, the safest route for the Opposition rebel alliance is to table a Vote of No Confidence after the No Deal Bill has passed. For belt and braces they then ought to vote on someone who DOES have the confidence of the House, whom the Queen can then call to become PM.

    Doesn't have to be for very long. Just to see through Article 50 extension and to call an Election for November. Job done.

    Anything else, i.e. leaving Johnson to continue stewing in his own juices is very dangerous, especially if Parliament isn't sitting. Remember, Johnson was commanding the media agenda until Parliament began to re-assemble. Prorogue Parliament and he can pretend to be on the side of Vox populi.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,573

    Scott_P said:

    Maybe I am missing something, but I am struggling to see how BoZo going to the country saying "I was forced to make Corbyn PM, so elect me again so I can deal with Brussels" is a winning strategy

    Boris's line would be that the evil Remainer Establishment coup has installed Corbyn so the people must vote for Boris. In other words, Boris would run an insurgent campaign, like that billionaire property developer man of the people in America.
    It doesn't look great for Boris, but is there anything that looks better?

  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    Chris said:

    Byronic said:

    Chris said:

    Byronic said:

    Scott_P said:
    Cummings must have gamed it that an extension would be deadly for Boris. No Deal followed by an election wouldn't be ideal, but an prolonged Brexit must be avoided at any cots, even if Boris is criminally charged.
    You’re totally misreading it, perhaps because you’ve forgotten the Surrender Act. If Boris does not seek an Extension, the EU will unilaterally give us one, of a length they will choose
    The Act obliges the prime minister to seek an extension, it doesn't permit the EU to impose an extension if the PM doesn't ask for one.
    Yes it does. However parliament has the power to reject the offered extension. Clearly parliament won’t reject, as the alternative will be no deal.
    You need to read the text. Parliament doesn't have the power to reject the extension if it's for the requested date. And if it's for another date, parliament only gets to decide if the PM wants to delegate the decision to them.
    That’s small print. My point is good.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046
    Scott_P said:

    BoZo is due to spend the night at Balmoral
    .

    {Mindbleach]
  • Mr. Thompson. When are you guys that support Brexit going to understand? The EU knows we have a lot more to lose than they. They will lose to some extent, but they will mitigate, and they do not think it is worth compromising the single market, and they are right.

    Besides, Boris is telling everyone here there is nothing to fear from no-deal. Therefore by extension there is less to fear for the EU. It is therefore a very limited bargaining chip. Unless he is lying to us, which I am sure Boris wouldn't do now would he?

    We have more to lose by agreeing to the backstop than they do to removing the backstop.
    Possibly correct, but the nature of the EU is that they will not do that without the consent of the Taoiseach. The EU is not like Boris Johnson, it won't just say, "Oh we don't agree with you so we will sack you from the Party/club". They are a consensus driven organisation, rather than the autocratic cartel of Brexiteer fantasy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,152

    Scott_P said:
    This means resignation. Corbyn in No.10, massively legitimised.
    Corbyn in No 10 for 10 seconds purely to extend as Neville Chamberlain 2, Tories then sweep through Labour Leave seats at the subsequent general election with Boris campaigning as Winston Churchill (while rightly telling Tory Remainers vote LD you get Corbyn)
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751
    Scott_P said:

    BoZo is due to spend the night at Balmoral

    Maybe HMQ should have a word in his shell-like, if he carries on saying he will deliberately break the law.

    It would be clear grounds for him to be dismissed as prime minister.

    In effect he would be daring the Queen to dismiss him. An appalling position to put her in, but what does he care about that in comparison with his own career?
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,565
    Whoever is advising Corbyn right now is doing a much better job than whoever (we know who) is advising Johnson.

    Had Johnson somehow sprung the election request out of the blue with little time to consult, Corbyn would probably have gone along with it (as with TMay in May 17) But as it was so heavily trailed, smarter voices could warn Corbyn off and persuade him of the virtues of patience, boxing Johnson in. Corbyn's played a blinder this week as he's listened to smarter advice.

    Johnson could perhaps ask Labour if they have any decent advisors going spare?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    I have just returned from town having met a colleague from years ago and she has always been non political. Not this morning, she is furious with the mps for attempting to stop brexit and wants them gone

    Later in Asda I overheard a group discussing brexit and they too were very angry and the target of that anger was Corbyn

    Now we have a rebel alliance refusuing the legitimate request to put it to the people until they think no deal is off the table, which of course it is not if Boris wins a GE on the basis of deal or no deal

    Also does Gina Millar and John Major think they are winning the ordinary voters over with their elite attititude and pots of money attempts through the High and Supteme Courts decision on proroguing parliament. Most people have no idea about the detail but just see a group of the priviliged colluding with the EU to stop brexit

    Boris is a fool but I am beginning to think the public are looking elswhere a the fools resisting brexit by any means possible

    I think you could be right.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    I think Labour Brexit policy is nearly coherent but it needs a tweak. Which is to be neutral on the outcome of the referendum. The policy then becomes:

    In 2016 half the country voted to Remain; half the country to Leave. Three years later we're stuck and it's still half and half. A Labour government will therefore present the best Leave option along with the Remain option and let the people make the final decision. The Labour government will then happily implement the choice made in that vote, allowing us to move onto our main policies of a fairer society etc. The best Leave option, as presented, will be the one that causes the least economic disruption while meeting our obligations to Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK.

    Five sentences instead of a soundbite. But when the soundbites are "Surrender bill" and "Die in the ditch", sensible people might be more comfortable with the Labour approach.

This discussion has been closed.