Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
No-one is more guilty of caricaturing Leave voters as being anti-immigration than you.
They are far more opposed to immigration than Remainers, I’m surprised you dispute it. It was the reason Leave won, it’s not a caricature, and doesn’t make them the bad guys.
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
Yes, in the sense that the article is clearly biased toward those of a Leave perspective. The problem with our current situation is that the "pragmatic middle" have been hijacked by the extremes. Most of us I think) would settle for an EEA type compromise. Not perfect for Remainers like me and not perfect for Leavers either, so therefore about right for a small majority win by Leave. Sadly we are not being offered that. It is "do or die" from a pound-shop Churchill impersonator
Any coalition of the unwilling is going to be led by either Jeremy Corbyn or by someone acceptable to him. So look at the Labour grandees. Margaret Beckett, Harriet Harman and Ed Miliband look most plausible.
You are right about Corbyn having the choice but I'd look to someone who is a possible successor rather than a grandee from a rival wing of the party: Butler, Pidcock or RLB spring to mind. Since none of these women went to Eton, they might also be more acceptable to Conservative MPs as looking less prime ministerial, with a view to not boosting Corbyn in an imminent election.
Jeremy Corbyn is now 7/4. The 5/2 of last week is a blessed memory.
Any coalition of the unwilling is going to be led by either Jeremy Corbyn or by someone acceptable to him. So look at the Labour grandees. Margaret Beckett, Harriet Harman and Ed Miliband look most plausible.
You are right about Corbyn having the choice but I'd look to someone who is a possible successor rather than a grandee from a rival wing of the party: Butler, Pidcock or RLB spring to mind. Since none of these women went to Eton, they might also be more acceptable to Conservative MPs as looking less prime ministerial, with a view to not boosting Corbyn in an imminent election.
Jeremy Corbyn is now 7/4. The 5/2 of last week is a blessed memory.
The two main parties are in a sorry state when Ed Miliband is regarded as a "grandee"
One thing missing in Casino Royale's fascinating article is that if he fails to get a deal fromt he EU at the European Council meeting Johnson has to request an extension by 19th October. If he doesn't, then he is breaking the law. At that poijnt the courts will get involved and, presumably, those Tory ministers and MPs who believe in the rule of law will resign.
An interesting point is whether not obeying the law while in public office disqualifies people from seeking public office. Does anyone know? If so, quite a few political careers could be ending quite soon.
They will comply with the law or resign. There is a small chance they can get a court to give them a favourable interpretation of the law.
The pampered multi-millionaire elite cabinet will not risk personal bankruptcy for this, which is what would happen from civil claims if they delivered no deal against a clear cut law.
It has no legal force but it could be politically significant
I think the gentleman concerned is operating on the wish is father to the thought principle and trying to make a name for himself on Twitter. Not a career choice I would advocate but hey ho.
The idea (labour current policy) that we should have another referendum where the remain side pick both sides of the question is bonkers. Brexiters will obviously (and justifiably) decry it as illegitimate. At the very least they should get to pick the leave proposition.
Otherwise they will just seek to overturn it, without a further referendum, at a subsequent General Election.
IMO remainers/no dealers have to accept that if a General Election produces a majority for no deal then it will happen. And if it can happen on Oct 15th, then it can happen on November 15th, or on Feb 15th or whenever. I would say it is more likely after a period of Corbyn Govt, or a “rigged” referendum or whatever.
Which is why I see no sense of opposing the proposed election on Oct 15th. If Johnson wins, he wins, and owns the consequences. But have some confidence that he will fall apart during the campaign, and he probably won’t get the support he desires.
Can kicking has gone far enough, it needs a resolution, and one with some measure of democratic legitimacy as soon as possible.
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
I accept both sides have made mistakes . However the polarization and hardening of opinion on the Remain side has been forced by the hijacking of the vote to no deal by the ERG .
We were promised an orderly exit with a deal . As a Remainer I’m willing to accept that but I’ll be damned if I’m going to accept no deal . There is no mandate for that .
“ They will be out of options, except one: to strip control from the Executive, and form an alternative administration. That administration will be left with two choices: to either pass whatever is on the table from the EU, at that stage, or to revoke A50.l
Lol - this group of MPs will never pass a deal.
The more obvious solution is to change our MPs.
Parliament was elected AFTER the referendum but you seem to be saying that the people got it wrong so we must now throw out their choice of MPs after 2 years and ask them to choose new ones.
I suppose if you don't like what a new parliament does you tell people they got it wrong again and tell them to have another go.
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
No-one is more guilty of caricaturing Leave voters as being anti-immigration than you.
It isn't caricaturing though. Leave voters (with a few exceptions) are anti-immigration, and many of them seem proud of it. I suspect if there was no such thing as free movement and Farage hadn't used his scare tactics Leave would have lost by a wide margin.
Any coalition of the unwilling is going to be led by either Jeremy Corbyn or by someone acceptable to him. So look at the Labour grandees. Margaret Beckett, Harriet Harman and Ed Miliband look most plausible.
Whilst I understand the logic of that argument I don’t think any Labour PM would really struggle to own the leadership of delivery of any vote that facilitated Brexit. In any form.
This allows them to still pin it on the Tories whilst also acquiescing in the least worst option in an emergency situation.
They can then pitch themselves to offer a much closer deal for the permanent arrangement during FTA negotiations - possibly including full CU and SM membership - with a reaccession option in the longer term.
One thing missing in Casino Royale's fascinating article is that if he fails to get a deal fromt he EU at the European Council meeting Johnson has to request an extension by 19th October. If he doesn't, then he is breaking the law. At that poijnt the courts will get involved and, presumably, those Tory ministers and MPs who believe in the rule of law will resign.
An interesting point is whether not obeying the law while in public office disqualifies people from seeking public office. Does anyone know? If so, quite a few political careers could be ending quite soon.
They will comply with the law or resign. There is a small chance they can get a court to give them a favourable interpretation of the law.
The pampered multi-millionaire elite cabinet will not risk personal bankruptcy for this, which is what would happen from civil claims if they delivered no deal against a clear cut law.
The civil claims is an interesting point. Any lawyers wish to comment? Would a PM who pursued a policy in contravention of the law be personally liable ?
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
No-one is more guilty of caricaturing Leave voters as being anti-immigration than you.
They are far more opposed to immigration than Remainers, I’m surprised you dispute it. It was the reason Leave won, it’s not a caricature, and doesn’t make them the bad guys.
Why does anyone have to be the bad guys beyond the party leaders? Both sides have pushed conventions to the limit. Both sides have been badly led, whichever side reaches out to the middle first will be the one that gets closer to their preferred outcome.
It may even be getting no deal leads to a fairly quick rejoin, getting revoke leads to a subsequent no deal GE win!! Soft brexit is the only stable answer.
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
No-one is more guilty of caricaturing Leave voters as being anti-immigration than you.
It isn't caricaturing though. Leave voters (with a few exceptions) are anti-immigration, and many of them seem proud of it. I suspect if there was no such thing as free movement and Farage hadn't used his scare tactics Leave would have lost by a wide margin.
If there were no such thing as free movement, or if British people reciprocated the use of free movement of other EU nations, there wouldn’t have been a referendum to lose.
The idea (labour current policy) that we should have another referendum where the remain side pick both sides of the question is bonkers. Brexiters will obviously (and justifiably) decry it as illegitimate. At the very least they should get to pick the leave proposition.
Otherwise they will just seek to overturn it, without a further referendum, at a subsequent General Election.
IMO remainers/no dealers have to accept that if a General Election produces a majority for no deal then it will happen. And if it can happen on Oct 15th, then it can happen on November 15th, or on Feb 15th or whenever. I would say it is more likely after a period of Corbyn Govt, or a “rigged” referendum or whatever.
Which is why I see no sense of opposing the proposed election on Oct 15th. If Johnson wins, he wins, and owns the consequences. But have some confidence that he will fall apart during the campaign, and he probably won’t get the support he desires.
Can kicking has gone far enough, it needs a resolution, and one with some measure of democratic legitimacy as soon as possible.
The assumption is he will find it harder to win after Octobef so why rely on confidence he would fail anyway?
They have done everything to stop no deal except the one thing that actually would stop it - pass the freaking deal.
If the result is no deal, that's their fault and every MP who voted against it, including Johnson, deserves to lose their seats.
There is currently no deal that would pass agreed by the EU. The only choice last week was to rule out No Deal and that would probably have failed except for proroguing parliament forcing minds to make a decision.
There is May's deal. Which is still by far our best option. It would give us another 2 years to (a) find an alternative to the backstop (b) decide actually remaining in the CU and SM is not such a bad idea so lets go down the EFTA route, (c) think sod it, we are not doing any of this and have the equivalent of a no deal Brexit at that point. Personally I think that we would end up with a version of (b). Which would seem a reasonable result given the closeness of the vote.
I'm fully in favour of May's deal. However I think it - and any other deal - is dead in the water.
Why? Because they all rely on important negotiations in good faith. And sadly, we as a country have shown f-all good faith throughout this mess. The EU countries cannot trust that anything they negotiate with us will be able to get through own own parliament.
There'll be a time when they just say: "sod you, just go."
And who could blame them?
It would be very helpful if they did this now and further extensions were effectively taken off the table. On a binary choice of deal or no deal the deal would pass. Whether Boris would remain as PM in that scenario is less clear but it is possible.
I am not sure that we have shown bad faith. We have just been totally incoherent and unable to show any consistency of purpose which makes negotiating with us a bit of a nightmare.
Not sure Boris has shown them good faith. He has not negotiated with them, whilst telling the public that he is doing so.
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
Yes, in the sense that the article is clearly biased toward those of a Leave perspective. The problem with our current situation is that the "pragmatic middle" have been hijacked by the extremes. Most of us I think) would settle for an EEA type compromise. Not perfect for Remainers like me and not perfect for Leavers either, so therefore about right for a small majority win by Leave. Sadly we are not being offered that. It is "do or die" from a pound-shop Churchill impersonator
Do you consider Lisa Nandy to be as extreme as Bill Cash?
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
I accept both sides have made mistakes . However the polarization and hardening of opinion on the Remain side has been forced by the hijacking of the vote to no deal by the ERG .
We were promised an orderly exit with a deal . As a Remainer I’m willing to accept that but I’ll be damned if I’m going to accept no deal . There is no mandate for that .
Remainer MPs had 3 chances to vote for a deal, knowing that failing to do so increased the chance of No Deal. They thought it a gamble worth risking.
It’s an interesting idea, Casino, but it seems exceedingly unlikely, and would represent such a dramatic change of stance from Hunt that it’s hard to see how he might get the backing of naturally suspicious Labour MPs over any of the other alternatives.
And would they really vote for a WA they have consistently voted against, in preference to trying for some other hail Mary solution ?
One thing you are almost certainly right about us that a lot of talk will be going on during prorogation about an alternate PM, since, only that might provide the ‘change of circumstances’ required by the French to agree to an extension. That would, of course, need to come with a more or less off the shelf plan, too. Norway style solution rather than May’s WA ?
Norway, of course, would make a great deal more sense from the POV of both the SNP and the Lib Dems.
In this scenario, failure to agree any extension at the European council meeting on 17-18th October - the only place it can be agreed - the doomsday clock has only 13 days left to tick. There is no time left to try for some other Hail Mary solution. Revoke or the Deal on the table will be the only two solutions left, or it’s a No Deal Brexit by default.
Is it possible that all the MPs who oppose it won’t be able to see that their only chance to stop it is to pull together as one, and organise themselves to form an administration, yet alone make it work?
Yes, absolutely. But they do now have several weeks during prorogation where the smarter ones will work this out.
They aren’t going to spend much time at Conference Party fringe events this year.
I’m not arguing the logic (other than that of Hunt as the figurehead); rather the emotions of the participants.
I note that McDonnell was interviewed over the weekend as saying Labour would seek to bring back the WA ‘with minor tweaks’ as there isn’t time for a renegotiation (Corbyn’s views are a little more opaque), so that gives support to your proposition. I’m still not quite seeing how the SNP and LibDems come on board with that, though nothing is impossible.
They wouldn’t. They’d sit it out, and argue they’d go for Revoke.
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
No-one is more guilty of caricaturing Leave voters as being anti-immigration than you.
It isn't caricaturing though. Leave voters (with a few exceptions) are anti-immigration, and many of them seem proud of it. I suspect if there was no such thing as free movement and Farage hadn't used his scare tactics Leave would have lost by a wide margin.
If there were no such thing as free movement, or if British people reciprocated the use of free movement of other EU nations, there wouldn’t have been a referendum to lose.
Free movement is reciprocal and millions of British people take advantage of it.
They have done everything to stop no deal except the one thing that actually would stop it - pass the freaking deal.
If the result is no deal, that's their fault and every MP who voted against it, including Johnson, deserves to lose their seats.
There is currently no deal that would pass agreed by the EU. The only choice last week was to rule out No Deal and that would probably have failed except for proroguing parliament forcing minds to make a decision.
There is May's deal. Which is still by far our best option. It would give us another 2 years to (a) find an alternative to the backstop (b) decide actually remaining in the CU and SM is not such a bad idea so lets go down the EFTA route, (c) think sod it, we are not doing any of this and have the equivalent of a no deal Brexit at that point. Personally I think that we would end up with a version of (b). Which would seem a reasonable result given the closeness of the vote.
I'm fully in favour of May's deal. However I think it - and any other deal - is dead in the water.
Why? Because they all rely on important negotiations in good faith. And sadly, we as a country have shown f-all good faith throughout this mess. The EU countries cannot trust that anything they negotiate with us will be able to get through own own parliament.
There'll be a time when they just say: "sod you, just go."
And who could blame them?
It would be very helpful if they did this now and further extensions were effectively taken off the table. On a binary choice of deal or no deal the deal would pass. Whether Boris would remain as PM in that scenario is less clear but it is possible.
I am not sure that we have shown bad faith. We have just been totally incoherent and unable to show any consistency of purpose which makes negotiating with us a bit of a nightmare.
Not sure Boris has shown them good faith. He has not negotiated with them, whilst telling the public that he is doing so.
That's treating them with contempt.
It's not contempt, its just plain lying and pretty obvious lying at that.
One thing missing in Casino Royale's fascinating article is that if he fails to get a deal fromt he EU at the European Council meeting Johnson has to request an extension by 19th October. If he doesn't, then he is breaking the law. At that poijnt the courts will get involved and, presumably, those Tory ministers and MPs who believe in the rule of law will resign.
An interesting point is whether not obeying the law while in public office disqualifies people from seeking public office. Does anyone know? If so, quite a few political careers could be ending quite soon.
They will comply with the law or resign. There is a small chance they can get a court to give them a favourable interpretation of the law.
The pampered multi-millionaire elite cabinet will not risk personal bankruptcy for this, which is what would happen from civil claims if they delivered no deal against a clear cut law.
The civil claims is an interesting point. Any lawyers wish to comment? Would a PM who pursued a policy in contravention of the law be personally liable ?
IANAL but it is not just the PM but anyone advising him. Rees Mogg is reportedly worth £150m, will he stick his money where his mouth is? (No). Life in prison is also a possible if very unlikely sanction.
“ They will be out of options, except one: to strip control from the Executive, and form an alternative administration. That administration will be left with two choices: to either pass whatever is on the table from the EU, at that stage, or to revoke A50.l
Lol - this group of MPs will never pass a deal.
The more obvious solution is to change our MPs.
Parliament was elected AFTER the referendum but you seem to be saying that the people got it wrong so we must now throw out their choice of MPs after 2 years and ask them to choose new ones.
I suppose if you don't like what a new parliament does you tell people they got it wrong again and tell them to have another go.
To be fair that is how our system has worked for centuries. If there is no Government that can command the support of Parliament and/or the Government refuses to change its policies in the light of Parliamentary opposition then we have an election. And we keep having them until something gives.
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
I accept both sides have made mistakes . However the polarization and hardening of opinion on the Remain side has been forced by the hijacking of the vote to no deal by the ERG .
We were promised an orderly exit with a deal . As a Remainer I’m willing to accept that but I’ll be damned if I’m going to accept no deal . There is no mandate for that .
Some have been so forced. As an anti no dealer myself I didnt start out seeking to remain.
But lets not kid ourselves that the hardening is purely in response to others. A large number fought tooth and nail from the start, seeking delay, and clearly dont want to accept an exit that is orderly as that was opposed too.
The idea (labour current policy) that we should have another referendum where the remain side pick both sides of the question is bonkers. Brexiters will obviously (and justifiably) decry it as illegitimate. At the very least they should get to pick the leave proposition.
Otherwise they will just seek to overturn it, without a further referendum, at a subsequent General Election.
IMO remainers/no dealers have to accept that if a General Election produces a majority for no deal then it will happen. And if it can happen on Oct 15th, then it can happen on November 15th, or on Feb 15th or whenever. I would say it is more likely after a period of Corbyn Govt, or a “rigged” referendum or whatever.
Which is why I see no sense of opposing the proposed election on Oct 15th. If Johnson wins, he wins, and owns the consequences. But have some confidence that he will fall apart during the campaign, and he probably won’t get the support he desires.
Can kicking has gone far enough, it needs a resolution, and one with some measure of democratic legitimacy as soon as possible.
Have you not noticed that there might be a teesiweniest little suggestion that Bozo is using a GE to game the system and run down the clock to a no-deal? I am sure a few people may have pointed that this is the reason the opposition parties are not so keen to play his silly games.
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
No-one is more guilty of caricaturing Leave voters as being anti-immigration than you.
It isn't caricaturing though. Leave voters (with a few exceptions) are anti-immigration, and many of them seem proud of it. I suspect if there was no such thing as free movement and Farage hadn't used his scare tactics Leave would have lost by a wide margin.
If there were no such thing as free movement, or if British people reciprocated the use of free movement of other EU nations, there wouldn’t have been a referendum to lose.
Free movement is reciprocal and millions of British people take advantage of it.
If it were anywhere near reciprocated, there would never have been a referendum. The fact it isn’t is the reason there was a referendum that Leave won.
One thing missing in Casino Royale's fascinating article is that if he fails to get a deal fromt he EU at the European Council meeting Johnson has to request an extension by 19th October. If he doesn't, then he is breaking the law. At that poijnt the courts will get involved and, presumably, those Tory ministers and MPs who believe in the rule of law will resign.
An interesting point is whether not obeying the law while in public office disqualifies people from seeking public office. Does anyone know? If so, quite a few political careers could be ending quite soon.
Yes, in reality he’d have to request it by 16th October so the European Council could consider it.
If that meeting concludes without either a request or an agreement on an extension then I think events rapidly move on because i don’t then see how there’s any prospect of Brexit being postponed being beyond 31st October.
“ They will be out of options, except one: to strip control from the Executive, and form an alternative administration. That administration will be left with two choices: to either pass whatever is on the table from the EU, at that stage, or to revoke A50.l
Lol - this group of MPs will never pass a deal.
The more obvious solution is to change our MPs.
Parliament was elected AFTER the referendum but you seem to be saying that the people got it wrong so we must now throw out their choice of MPs after 2 years and ask them to choose new ones.
I suppose if you don't like what a new parliament does you tell people they got it wrong again and tell them to have another go.
Reasonable argument to say that the hung parliament has the greater democratic legitimacy than the very close referendum
The idea (labour current policy) that we should have another referendum where the remain side pick both sides of the question is bonkers. Brexiters will obviously (and justifiably) decry it as illegitimate. At the very least they should get to pick the leave proposition.
Otherwise they will just seek to overturn it, without a further referendum, at a subsequent General Election.
IMO remainers/no dealers have to accept that if a General Election produces a majority for no deal then it will happen. And if it can happen on Oct 15th, then it can happen on November 15th, or on Feb 15th or whenever. I would say it is more likely after a period of Corbyn Govt, or a “rigged” referendum or whatever.
Which is why I see no sense of opposing the proposed election on Oct 15th. If Johnson wins, he wins, and owns the consequences. But have some confidence that he will fall apart during the campaign, and he probably won’t get the support he desires.
Can kicking has gone far enough, it needs a resolution, and one with some measure of democratic legitimacy as soon as possible.
TBH the way Labour referendum policy would get enacted is if we win a majority or if an election works out for a Labour minority government. I can't see a ref happening before an election and especially not with Labour solely dictating the terms.
So much like you said if an election produces a majority for no deal people have to accept it is happening then if an election produces a majority for a 2nd ref then people have to accept it is happening.
They have done everything to stop no deal except the one thing that actually would stop it - pass the freaking deal.
If the result is no deal, that's their fault and every MP who voted against it, including Johnson, deserves to lose their seats.
There is currently no deal that would pass agreed by the EU. The only choice last week was to rule out No Deal and that would probably have failed except for proroguing parliament forcing minds to make a decision.
There is May's deal. Which is still by far our best option. It would give us another 2 years to (a) find an alternative to the backstop (b) decide actually remaining in the CU and SM is not such a bad idea so lets go down the EFTA route, (c) think sod it, we are not doing any of this and have the equivalent of a no deal Brexit at that point. Personally I think that we would end up with a version of (b). Which would seem a reasonable result given the closeness of the vote.
I'm fully in favour of May's deal. However I think it - and any other deal - is dead in the water.
Why? Because they all rely on important negotiations in good faith. And sadly, we as a country have shown f-all good faith throughout this mess. The EU countries cannot trust that anything they negotiate with us will be able to get through own own parliament.
There'll be a time when they just say: "sod you, just go."
And who could blame them?
I think you are being unfair
May’s government negotiated in good faith but couldn’t deliver Parliament which is quite different. The silliness at the end weren’t really negotiations.
Boris has also been admirably clear about what he wants - it may not be deliverable but - vis a vis the EU - there’s no bad faith
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
I accept both sides have made mistakes . However the polarization and hardening of opinion on the Remain side has been forced by the hijacking of the vote to no deal by the ERG .
We were promised an orderly exit with a deal . As a Remainer I’m willing to accept that but I’ll be damned if I’m going to accept no deal . There is no mandate for that .
Whilst I see the point it is somewhat undermined by the fact that this remainer majority rejected a deal and an orderly Brexit when given the chance to accept it. 3x.
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
Yes, in the sense that the article is clearly biased toward those of a Leave perspective. The problem with our current situation is that the "pragmatic middle" have been hijacked by the extremes. Most of us I think) would settle for an EEA type compromise. Not perfect for Remainers like me and not perfect for Leavers either, so therefore about right for a small majority win by Leave. Sadly we are not being offered that. It is "do or die" from a pound-shop Churchill impersonator
Do you consider Lisa Nandy to be as extreme as Bill Cash?
Seems very unlikely, although she's phonier them that awful man.
So Johnson is going for another pointless 2/3 vote for an election - which it's perfectly obvious he won't get - rather than a bill for an election on a specified date - which he might just get if some of the opposition aren't prepared to move from abstention to votin against.
Any coalition of the unwilling is going to be led by either Jeremy Corbyn or by someone acceptable to him. So look at the Labour grandees. Margaret Beckett, Harriet Harman and Ed Miliband look most plausible.
Disagree on Miliband
He’s still young enough to be a plausible long term PM so would be a threat to Corbyn in the temporary role
They have done everything to stop no deal except the one thing that actually would stop it - pass the freaking deal.
If the result is no deal, that's their fault and every MP who voted against it, including Johnson, deserves to lose their seats.
There is currently no deal that would pass agreed by the EU. The only choice last week was to rule out No Deal and that would probably have failed except for proroguing parliament forcing minds to make a decision.
There is May's deal. Which is still by far our best option. It would give us another 2 years to (a) find an alternative to the backstop (b) decide actually remaining in the CU and SM is not such a bad idea so lets go down the EFTA route, (c) think sod it, we are not doing any of this and have the equivalent of a no deal Brexit at that point. Personally I think that we would end up with a version of (b). Which would seem a reasonable result given the closeness of the vote.
I'm fully in favour of May's deal. However I think it - and any other deal - is dead in the water.
Why? Because they all rely on important negotiations in good faith. And sadly, we as a country have shown f-all good faith throughout this mess. The EU countries cannot trust that anything they negotiate with us will be able to get through own own parliament.
There'll be a time when they just say: "sod you, just go."
And who could blame them?
I think you are being unfair
May’s government negotiated in good faith but couldn’t deliver Parliament which is quite different. The silliness at the end weren’t really negotiations.
Boris has also been admirably clear about what he wants - it may not be deliverable but - vis a vis the EU - there’s no bad faith
Has he been clear what he wants? Pouting and saying 'I dont want x, I have some ideas and eventually I'll discuss them' is not very clear .
If there were no such thing as free movement, or if British people reciprocated the use of free movement of other EU nations, there wouldn’t have been a referendum to lose.
Free movement is reciprocal and millions of British people take advantage of it.
If it were anywhere near reciprocated, there would never have been a referendum. The fact it isn’t is the reason there was a referendum that Leave won.
Your mate Enoch against the European Community long before anyone connected it with immigration. Eurosceptics used immigration to further their political goals, not the other way round.
So Johnson is going for another pointless 2/3 vote for an election - which it's perfectly obvious he won't get - rather than a bill for an election on a specified date - which he might just get if some of the opposition aren't prepared to move from abstention to votin against.
Why?
I am baffled on this one. Apart from "I tried...." what else could it be ? After all, it was defeated only last week.
The idea (labour current policy) that we should have another referendum where the remain side pick both sides of the question is bonkers. Brexiters will obviously (and justifiably) decry it as illegitimate. At the very least they should get to pick the leave proposition.
Otherwise they will just seek to overturn it, without a further referendum, at a subsequent General Election.
IMO remainers/no dealers have to accept that if a General Election produces a majority for no deal then it will happen. And if it can happen on Oct 15th, then it can happen on November 15th, or on Feb 15th or whenever. I would say it is more likely after a period of Corbyn Govt, or a “rigged” referendum or whatever.
Which is why I see no sense of opposing the proposed election on Oct 15th. If Johnson wins, he wins, and owns the consequences. But have some confidence that he will fall apart during the campaign, and he probably won’t get the support he desires.
Can kicking has gone far enough, it needs a resolution, and one with some measure of democratic legitimacy as soon as possible.
Of course if a majority in parliament exists for no deal it will happen and be politcally legitimate if bonkers. And it can happen whenever the election is.
No deal with no parliamentary majority and less than 2% of voters supporting it at the last GE has zero legitimacy however.
The reason we are not having an election on Oct 15th is that the PM can choose the date of the election after an election has been agreed. There is no way the opposition can get a guarantee that the election would actually be held on Oct 15th. The PM is a known manipulator and liar, who will do anything for his own personal benefit. Why would the opposition trust him not to delay the election when it would allow him to claim success on his flagship pledge?
Mr. Boy, ahem. It was mostly pro-EU MPs who opposed the deal, and are now aghast that that might mean we leave without a deal...
Tomfoolery doesn't belong to one side alone.
Once again - it was not the job of the opposition to support May's deal - once May unilaterally decided on her red lines and created her plan it was up to her to get her party to vote for it.
Given that she failed to do that why should any other party vote for a deal created by a party that won't accept it.
But it is ridiculous to refuse to support the only deal available, to vote against No Deal, to be unwilling to revoke or to dissolve Parliament.
And the cunning plan, according to the BBC, is to accompany the request for an extension with another document saying he doesn't mean it - which would tell the EU precisely nothing they didn't know already.
Or else get a friendly member of the EU to veto an extension. As if any of them are going to change their vote and bring about No Deal - which, remember, is meant to terrify the EU according to Brexiteers - just to oblige the UK.
Is this all the evil genius Cummings can come up with? At this rate I'm starting to think he's just an evil idiot.
Interesting article - Casino adds to the roster of good leading article writers. The Tories could do a lot worse than Hunt (my local MP and an agreeable guy), but I can't see the Opposition going for it. They might just swallow Clarke or another expellee if Corbyn can't get a majority, but not a mainstream Tory. I agree hre's a tempting bet at 66-1 though, especially as you also cover the possibility that Johnson quits in circumstances not involving losing a General election - Hunt would be the obvious standin.
Good morning Nick.
Do you think a Clarke/Harman dream ticket would command the confidence of the House?
So Johnson is going for another pointless 2/3 vote for an election - which it's perfectly obvious he won't get - rather than a bill for an election on a specified date - which he might just get if some of the opposition aren't prepared to move from abstention to votin against.
Why?
Presumably he’s worried that a bill could be amended to insert all kinds of conditions.
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
For someone as well qualified you'd expect something rather less trite and cliched
The idea (labour current policy) that we should have another referendum where the remain side pick both sides of the question is bonkers. Brexiters will obviously (and justifiably) decry it as illegitimate. At the very least they should get to pick the leave proposition.
Otherwise they will just seek to overturn it, without a further referendum, at a subsequent General Election.
IMO remainers/no dealers have to accept that if a General Election produces a majority for no deal then it will happen. And if it can happen on Oct 15th, then it can happen on November 15th, or on Feb 15th or whenever. I would say it is more likely after a period of Corbyn Govt, or a “rigged” referendum or whatever.
Which is why I see no sense of opposing the proposed election on Oct 15th. If Johnson wins, he wins, and owns the consequences. But have some confidence that he will fall apart during the campaign, and he probably won’t get the support he desires.
Can kicking has gone far enough, it needs a resolution, and one with some measure of democratic legitimacy as soon as possible.
TBH the way Labour referendum policy would get enacted is if we win a majority or if an election works out for a Labour minority government. I can't see a ref happening before an election and especially not with Labour solely dictating the terms.
So much like you said if an election produces a majority for no deal people have to accept it is happening then if an election produces a majority for a 2nd ref then people have to accept it is happening.
The difference is in a referendum Leave needs 50.1% which they won't get. In a GE, currently, the Tories win with 35%, even 33%.
It has no legal force but it could be politically significant
The EU may already somehow be aware the govt do not like the extension (in public at least) without the need for that to be expressed in a letter.
Sure, but a PM’s letter carries more weight.
How do you think they would react to a letter saying
As required by law please find enclosed. The government’s position remains that the backstop is unacceptable and we will not conduct any negotiations until it is removed. We will continue to prepare to leave on a no deal basis.
If there were no such thing as free movement, or if British people reciprocated the use of free movement of other EU nations, there wouldn’t have been a referendum to lose.
Free movement is reciprocal and millions of British people take advantage of it.
If it were anywhere near reciprocated, there would never have been a referendum. The fact it isn’t is the reason there was a referendum that Leave won.
Your mate Enoch against the European Community long before anyone connected it with immigration. Eurosceptics used immigration to further their political goals, not the other way round.
Until the mass EU immigration, the non politically engaged couldn’t care less about the EU or EEC. It’s the only reason there was a referendum and the main reason Leave won.
Enoch said the British people voted for membership in 75 because they had no idea how it would change their country. When they were asked again, they changed their mind having seen what it did.
The idea (labour current policy) that we should have another referendum where the remain side pick both sides of the question is bonkers. Brexiters will obviously (and justifiably) decry it as illegitimate. At the very least they should get to pick the leave proposition.
Otherwise they will just seek to overturn it, without a further referendum, at a subsequent General Election.
IMO remainers/no dealers have to accept that if a General Election produces a majority for no deal then it will happen. And if it can happen on Oct 15th, then it can happen on November 15th, or on Feb 15th or whenever. I would say it is more likely after a period of Corbyn Govt, or a “rigged” referendum or whatever.
Which is why I see no sense of opposing the proposed election on Oct 15th. If Johnson wins, he wins, and owns the consequences. But have some confidence that he will fall apart during the campaign, and he probably won’t get the support he desires.
Can kicking has gone far enough, it needs a resolution, and one with some measure of democratic legitimacy as soon as possible.
The assumption is he will find it harder to win after Octobef so why rely on confidence he would fail anyway?
I think the assumptions are quite like unsound, and rest on hypothetical polling which likely fails to anticipate the situation in which such an election would be conducted.
To the extent that it would make a marginal difference over the course of a campaign and I can see circumstances where such an election would actually be easier for Johnson.
And furthermore the great advantage of the October 15th election is it removes the possibility of loads more parliamentary game playing which I think is likely annoying the general public significantly.
Also a post Nov GE cannot be called until October, and what happens then if the polling gets better for the Conservatives? More delay?
So Johnson is going for another pointless 2/3 vote for an election - which it's perfectly obvious he won't get - rather than a bill for an election on a specified date - which he might just get if some of the opposition aren't prepared to move from abstention to votin against.
Why?
He wants to make the point that despite engineering the whole scenario with Cummings, he really really doesnt want an election, nor do the public but Corbyn wants one, but isnt taking the chance because he is chicken!
Really not sure any of this will make the slightest difference in ten weeks time or whenever the election is but will keep a few SPAD strategists very well paid in the meantime.
One thought. I don’t think it’s the most likely outcome, but Corbyn could yet surprise us all and accept an election tonight. He could frame it as “noun wants an election, and with this legislation we should need one, but we just can’t trust a man who says he’d demean his office and break the law” and try to use it to kick start a “you can’t trust Boris, I’m the grown up” narrative.
You could argue that for him, it’s win/win. He either becomes PM now or is midwife to a socialist government led by his successor in five years.
As I say, don’t think it’s the most likely outcome but I can see the logic; more so than I can see the logic for a Remain Government led by Sue Perkins, or whatever is now being assumed.
It has no legal force but it could be politically significant
I think the gentleman concerned is operating on the wish is father to the thought principle and trying to make a name for himself on Twitter. Not a career choice I would advocate but hey ho.
He’s a pretty sensible and thoughtful lawyer. Used to blog as JackofKent
They have done everything to stop no deal except the one thing that actually would stop it - pass the freaking deal.
If the result is no deal, that's their fault and every MP who voted against it, including Johnson, deserves to lose their seats.
There is currently no deal that would pass agreed by the EU. The only choice last week was to rule out No Deal and that would probably have failed except for proroguing parliament forcing minds to make a decision.
There is May's deal. Which is still by far our best option. It would give us another 2 years to (a) find an alternative to the backstop (b) decide actually remaining in the CU and SM is not such a bad idea so lets go down the EFTA route, (c) think sod it, we are not doing any of this and have the equivalent of a no deal Brexit at that point. Personally I think that we would end up with a version of (b). Which would seem a reasonable result given the closeness of the vote.
I'm fully in favour of May's deal. However I think it - and any other deal - is dead in the water.
Why? Because they all rely on important negotiations in good faith. And sadly, we as a country have shown f-all good faith throughout this mess. The EU countries cannot trust that anything they negotiate with us will be able to get through own own parliament.
There'll be a time when they just say: "sod you, just go."
And who could blame them?
I think you are being unfair
May’s government negotiated in good faith but couldn’t deliver Parliament which is quite different. The silliness at the end weren’t really negotiations.
Boris has also been admirably clear about what he wants - it may not be deliverable but - vis a vis the EU - there’s no bad faith
I don't consider that either party previously negotiated in good faith.
The EU's preferred strategy from the start was to provide the UK with a pretext to change its mind, and while going through the pretense of negotiations it was only prepared to offer something so bad that we would either do so or otherwise leave the EU with an outcome even better for the EU than the status quo (i.e. territorial loss or otherwise permanent vassal state status for the UK with a much weakened hand in the second round of negotiations post Brexit.)
May, having used the referendum result to seize power, was never the born again Leaver she claimed to be. Rather, her prime aim in negotiations was maintain her own position as PM, and as such she was prepared to deliver only a pretense of Brexit, the likes of which full on Remainers such as Hammond would be perfectly content to support.
The idea Hunt is going to become PM is laughable, Labour and the SNP and LDs and DUP would vote against him and the Withdrawal Agreement, which is not going to pass regardless in his current form as it failed 3 times before. The Tories are also not going to vote for Hunt over Boris after he lost the Tory MPs voteand was heavily defeated in the Tory membership vote.
No, the only realistic option for a caretaker PM is Ken Clarke. The Tory rebels and LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership and the Tory rebels would also likely vote down any other Labour PM, only Clarke could get Labour LD, SNP and Tory anti No Deal rebel support to extend until a November general election, which the French have said they would allow extension for.
Boris would of course lead the Tories in opposition while Corbyn would have to face the risk of Labour Leavers seeing him put a Tory in yo block Brexit many might then go to Boris on the basis if Corbyn is willing to prop up a Tory I may as well vote for a Tory who respects my Leave vote
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
I accept both sides have made mistakes . However the polarization and hardening of opinion on the Remain side has been forced by the hijacking of the vote to no deal by the ERG .
We were promised an orderly exit with a deal . As a Remainer I’m willing to accept that but I’ll be damned if I’m going to accept no deal . There is no mandate for that .
Remain MPs voted against the only deal on the table
The idea (labour current policy) that we should have another referendum where the remain side pick both sides of the question is bonkers. Brexiters will obviously (and justifiably) decry it as illegitimate. At the very least they should get to pick the leave proposition.
Otherwise they will just seek to overturn it, without a further referendum, at a subsequent General Election.
IMO remainers/no dealers have to accept that if a General Election produces a majority for no deal then it will happen. And if it can happen on Oct 15th, then it can happen on November 15th, or on Feb 15th or whenever. I would say it is more likely after a period of Corbyn Govt, or a “rigged” referendum or whatever.
Which is why I see no sense of opposing the proposed election on Oct 15th. If Johnson wins, he wins, and owns the consequences. But have some confidence that he will fall apart during the campaign, and he probably won’t get the support he desires.
Can kicking has gone far enough, it needs a resolution, and one with some measure of democratic legitimacy as soon as possible.
TBH the way Labour referendum policy would get enacted is if we win a majority or if an election works out for a Labour minority government. I can't see a ref happening before an election and especially not with Labour solely dictating the terms.
So much like you said if an election produces a majority for no deal people have to accept it is happening then if an election produces a majority for a 2nd ref then people have to accept it is happening.
The difference is in a referendum Leave needs 50.1% which they won't get. In a GE, currently, the Tories win with 35%, even 33%.
But if we have a referendum seen as illegitimate then a future Tory(BXP wing) govt could come to power and take us out of the European Union without a further vote.
Free movement is reciprocal and millions of British people take advantage of it.
If it were anywhere near reciprocated, there would never have been a referendum. The fact it isn’t is the reason there was a referendum that Leave won.
Which EU countries are we not allowed to move to and work in?
It has no legal force but it could be politically significant
The EU may already somehow be aware the govt do not like the extension (in public at least) without the need for that to be expressed in a letter.
Sure, but a PM’s letter carries more weight.
How do you think they would react to a letter saying
As required by law please find enclosed. The government’s position remains that the backstop is unacceptable and we will not conduct any negotiations until it is removed. We will continue to prepare to leave on a no deal basis.
They will reluctantly avoid no deal, EU wide recession and the greater chance their govts get voted out because of the recession (they mostly believe no deal=economic disaster rightly or wrongly before people say project fear). They wont be happy but it is the very clear logical lesser of two evils for them.
It’s an interesting idea, Casino, but it seems exceedingly unlikely, and would represent such a dramatic change of stance from Hunt that it’s hard to see how he might get the backing of naturally suspicious Labour MPs over any of the other alternatives.
And would they really vote for a WA they have consistently voted against, in preference to trying for some other hail Mary solution ?
One thing you are almost certainly right about us that a lot of talk will be going on during prorogation about an alternate PM, since, only that might provide the ‘change of circumstances’ required by the French to agree to an extension. That would, of course, need to come with a more or less off the shelf plan, too. Norway style solution rather than May’s WA ?
Norway, of course, would make a great deal more sense from the POV of both the SNP and the Lib Dems.
In this scenario, failure to agree any extension at the European council meeting on 17-18th October - the only place it can be agreed - the doomsday clock has only 13 days left to tick. There is no time left to try for some other Hail Mary solution. Revoke or the Deal on the table will be the only two solutions left, or it’s a No Deal Brexit by default.
Is it possible that all the MPs who oppose it won’t be able to see that their only chance to stop it is to pull together as one, and organise themselves to form an administration, yet alone make it work?
Yes, absolutely. But they do now have several weeks during prorogation where the smarter ones will work this out.
They aren’t going to spend much time at Conference Party fringe events this year.
Revoke is a dumb option. Return to a position that generated all the angst and anti EU feelings. Only it will be worse long term as the agenda for the Euro currency core will dominate and marginalise U. K. further.
The deal that has failed to gain support for two reasons, political advantage and questions over the content. Adopting it now will open lots of politicians up to negative messages.
If we want to be in, go for the Euro and full fat membership. If we don't, then leave, and look at EEA / EFTA at leisure.
In the short term the extremes could be the best options.
It would be a good time to join the Euro with the pound on its knees.
So Johnson is going for another pointless 2/3 vote for an election - which it's perfectly obvious he won't get - rather than a bill for an election on a specified date - which he might just get if some of the opposition aren't prepared to move from abstention to votin against.
Why?
Presumably he’s worried that a bill could be amended to insert all kinds of conditions.
This is a man who is ready to die in the last ditch for Brexit, and he's not even going to try because he's worried that something or other might happen?
Certainly the old idea that no legislation should be initiated in case the Commons amended it has gone, because the Commons have already taken control and passed their own legislation. And anyway, what conditions could be worse than the ones that have already been imposed?
The idea (labour current policy) that we should have another referendum where the remain side pick both sides of the question is bonkers. Brexiters will obviously (and justifiably) decry it as illegitimate. At the very least they should get to pick the leave proposition.
Otherwise they will just seek to overturn it, without a further referendum, at a subsequent General Election.
IMO remainers/no dealers have to accept that if a General Election produces a majority for no deal then it will happen. And if it can happen on Oct 15th, then it can happen on November 15th, or on Feb 15th or whenever. I would say it is more likely after a period of Corbyn Govt, or a “rigged” referendum or whatever.
Which is why I see no sense of opposing the proposed election on Oct 15th. If Johnson wins, he wins, and owns the consequences. But have some confidence that he will fall apart during the campaign, and he probably won’t get the support he desires.
Can kicking has gone far enough, it needs a resolution, and one with some measure of democratic legitimacy as soon as possible.
It sure would be nice if leavers could pick a leave proposition (arguably what should have happened for the 2016 referendum).
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
I accept both sides have made mistakes . However the polarization and hardening of opinion on the Remain side has been forced by the hijacking of the vote to no deal by the ERG .
We were promised an orderly exit with a deal . As a Remainer I’m willing to accept that but I’ll be damned if I’m going to accept no deal . There is no mandate for that .
Some have been so forced. As an anti no dealer myself I didnt start out seeking to remain.
But lets not kid ourselves that the hardening is purely in response to others. A large number fought tooth and nail from the start, seeking delay, and clearly dont want to accept an exit that is orderly as that was opposed too.
So wouldn’t the bigger man resist that and argue courageously and vociferously for a compromise?
If there were no such thing as free movement, or if British people reciprocated the use of free movement of other EU nations, there wouldn’t have been a referendum to lose.
Free movement is reciprocal and millions of British people take advantage of it.
If it were anywhere near reciprocated, there would never have been a referendum. The fact it isn’t is the reason there was a referendum that Leave won.
Your mate Enoch against the European Community long before anyone connected it with immigration. Eurosceptics used immigration to further their political goals, not the other way round.
Until the mass EU immigration, the non politically engaged couldn’t care less about the EU or EEC. It’s the only reason there was a referendum and the main reason Leave won.
Enoch said the British people voted for membership in 75 because they had no idea how it would change their country. When they were asked again, they changed their mind having seen what it did.
It enriched the country with lots of interesting enterprising people from continental Europe?
If there were no such thing as free movement, or if British people reciprocated the use of free movement of other EU nations, there wouldn’t have been a referendum to lose.
Free movement is reciprocal and millions of British people take advantage of it.
If it were anywhere near reciprocated, there would never have been a referendum. The fact it isn’t is the reason there was a referendum that Leave won.
Your mate Enoch against the European Community long before anyone connected it with immigration. Eurosceptics used immigration to further their political goals, not the other way round.
Until the mass EU immigration, the non politically engaged couldn’t care less about the EU or EEC. It’s the only reason there was a referendum and the main reason Leave won.
Enoch said the British people voted for membership in 75 because they had no idea how it would change their country. When they were asked again, they changed their mind having seen what it did.
The reason there was a referendum was because the Tory party was split and there was a hostile faction threatening them from the outside. The anti-immigration sentiment that Eurosceptics exploited was undifferentiated.
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
I accept both sides have made mistakes . However the polarization and hardening of opinion on the Remain side has been forced by the hijacking of the vote to no deal by the ERG .
We were promised an orderly exit with a deal . As a Remainer I’m willing to accept that but I’ll be damned if I’m going to accept no deal . There is no mandate for that .
Remain MPs voted against the only deal on the table
Thanks for the thread, Casino - always good to have new thread contributors and this is excellent.
It reveals, however, the truth the two "blocs" are themselves riven with division. On the anti-No Deal side, there are the Revokers as against those who want us to leave with the existing WA and those who want to leave but with a different or re-negotiated WA.
On the Government side, it seems there are those who want to leave with No Deal and those who still harbour the hope a deal can be done by changing the existing WA to remove the backstop.
Thus has a binary option evolved to four options - Remain, Leave without a Deal, Leave with the Deal we have or Leave with another Deal. None of these options by themselves commands a majority in the Commons and that\'s why we are caught like flies in honey.
Boris Johnson is desperately trying to support at least two of the above simultaneously to hold his Party together but as we approach 31/10 it will become increasingly clear if you want to leave then it will have to be via NO Deal and all that will flow from that. I'm not sure how many of the Johnson loyalists are ready to follow him over that cliff (I'm not wholly convinced he wants to jump).
The much-vaunted GoNU many come together to block No Deal but would any caretaker PM, having obtained his or her extension, then be able to achieve anything more in terms of getting an improved WA than May or Johnson? I suspect the EU may take a change of Government as a reason for a change in its own position - the EU negotiates with the UK Government not the Commons. However, the EU seem frustrated that, having voted to Leave, the UK has so far been unable to come up with solutions to any of the problems associated with and caused by us leaving.
It's almost as though people believed it would be easy to leave and there would be no problems or consequences.
Free movement is reciprocal and millions of British people take advantage of it.
If it were anywhere near reciprocated, there would never have been a referendum. The fact it isn’t is the reason there was a referendum that Leave won.
Which EU countries are we not allowed to move to and work in?
Not the killer question you think it is I’m afraid. I’m saying that British people don’t take up the option of free movement on the scale that other EU citizens do to come here, not that the option isn’t there. If they did, there wouldn’t have been a referendum.
One thing missing in Casino Royale's fascinating article is that if he fails to get a deal fromt he EU at the European Council meeting Johnson has to request an extension by 19th October. If he doesn't, then he is breaking the law. At that poijnt the courts will get involved and, presumably, those Tory ministers and MPs who believe in the rule of law will resign.
An interesting point is whether not obeying the law while in public office disqualifies people from seeking public office. Does anyone know? If so, quite a few political careers could be ending quite soon.
They will comply with the law or resign. There is a small chance they can get a court to give them a favourable interpretation of the law.
The pampered multi-millionaire elite cabinet will not risk personal bankruptcy for this, which is what would happen from civil claims if they delivered no deal against a clear cut law.
The civil claims is an interesting point. Any lawyers wish to comment? Would a PM who pursued a policy in contravention of the law be personally liable ?
Scenario: Clarke (or other) becomes caretaker PM on basis of extending to hold a General Election (basis for French acceptance). Tories refuse to vote for said election. What happens then? VoNC in Clarke government?
One thing missing in Casino Royale's fascinating article is that if he fails to get a deal fromt he EU at the European Council meeting Johnson has to request an extension by 19th October. If he doesn't, then he is breaking the law. At that poijnt the courts will get involved and, presumably, those Tory ministers and MPs who believe in the rule of law will resign.
An interesting point is whether not obeying the law while in public office disqualifies people from seeking public office. Does anyone know? If so, quite a few political careers could be ending quite soon.
They will comply with the law or resign. There is a small chance they can get a court to give them a favourable interpretation of the law.
The pampered multi-millionaire elite cabinet will not risk personal bankruptcy for this, which is what would happen from civil claims if they delivered no deal against a clear cut law.
The civil claims is an interesting point. Any lawyers wish to comment? Would a PM who pursued a policy in contravention of the law be personally liable ?
IANAL but it is not just the PM but anyone advising him. Rees Mogg is reportedly worth £150m, will he stick his money where his mouth is? (No). Life in prison is also a possible if very unlikely sanction.
If Boris was given life in prison for respecting the will of the people, the backlash from Leavers would be on a scale not seen in this country since the civil war and the Gordon riots
It has no legal force but it could be politically significant
The EU may already somehow be aware the govt do not like the extension (in public at least) without the need for that to be expressed in a letter.
Sure, but a PM’s letter carries more weight.
How do you think they would react to a letter saying
As required by law please find enclosed. The government’s position remains that the backstop is unacceptable and we will not conduct any negotiations until it is removed. We will continue to prepare to leave on a no deal basis.
Well given that Boris is considered a complete clown by the EU (and everyone else) and his latest public schoolboy wheeze is utterly transparent I suspect they’d simply ignore it.
So Johnson is going for another pointless 2/3 vote for an election - which it's perfectly obvious he won't get - rather than a bill for an election on a specified date - which he might just get if some of the opposition aren't prepared to move from abstention to votin against.
Why?
Presumably he’s worried that a bill could be amended to insert all kinds of conditions.
This is a man who is ready to die in the last ditch for Brexit, and he's not even going to try because he's worried that something or other might happen?
Certainly the old idea that no legislation should be initiated in case the Commons amended it has gone, because the Commons have already taken control and passed their own legislation. And anyway, what conditions could be worse than the ones that have already been imposed?
I think the WDA was acceptable to a majority of MPs. If we leave, something very similar to it will be required.
The problem was thst it led to a blind Brexit. The final deal and shape of our future relationship depended on the PM (or next PM after May) and neither the Labour Party nor the ERG trusted that they'd get their sort of deal. That's why they voted against the WDA.
The problem will remain until there is a united overnment with a substantial majority. Even a referendum that votes for the WDA doesn't solve the problem because it leaves open the nature of our future relationship. The PD is malleable.
They have done everything to stop no deal except the one thing that actually would stop it - pass the freaking deal.
If the result is no deal, that's their fault and every MP who voted against it, including Johnson, deserves to lose their seats.
There is currently no deal that would pass agreed by the EU. The only choice last week was to rule out No Deal and that would probably have failed except for proroguing parliament forcing minds to make a decision.
There is May's deal. Which is still by far our best option. It would give us another 2 years to (a) find an alternative to the backstop (b) decide actually remaining in the CU and SM is not such a bad idea so lets go down the EFTA route, (c) think sod it, we are not doing any of this and have the equivalent of a no deal Brexit at that point. Personally I think that we would end up with a version of (b). Which would seem a reasonable result given the closeness of the vote.
I'm fully in favour of May's deal. However I think it - and any other deal - is dead in the water.
Why? Because they all rely on important negotiations in good faith. And sadly, we as a country have shown f-all good faith throughout this mess. The EU countries cannot trust that anything they negotiate with us will be able to get through own own parliament.
There'll be a time when they just say: "sod you, just go."
And who could blame them?
It would be very helpful if they did this now and further extensions were effectively taken off the table. On a binary choice of deal or no deal the deal would pass. Whether Boris would remain as PM in that scenario is less clear but it is possible.
I am not sure that we have shown bad faith. We have just been totally incoherent and unable to show any consistency of purpose which makes negotiating with us a bit of a nightmare.
Not sure Boris has shown them good faith. He has not negotiated with them, whilst telling the public that he is doing so.
That's treating them with contempt.
“Negotiating in good faith” is different to behaving with courtesy
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
Yes, in the sense that the article is clearly biased toward those of a Leave perspective. The problem with our current situation is that the "pragmatic middle" have been hijacked by the extremes. Most of us I think) would settle for an EEA type compromise. Not perfect for Remainers like me and not perfect for Leavers either, so therefore about right for a small majority win by Leave. Sadly we are not being offered that. It is "do or die" from a pound-shop Churchill impersonator
Do you consider Lisa Nandy to be as extreme as Bill Cash?
Seems very unlikely, although she's phonier them that awful man.
It's numbers on a scorecard in golf or a score book in cricket. There are no numbers. There are no annotations. Just those that voted for the WA and those that voted against it.
So Johnson is going for another pointless 2/3 vote for an election - which it's perfectly obvious he won't get - rather than a bill for an election on a specified date - which he might just get if some of the opposition aren't prepared to move from abstention to votin against.
Why?
Presumably he’s worried that a bill could be amended to insert all kinds of conditions.
This is a man who is ready to die in the last ditch for Brexit, and he's not even going to try because he's worried that something or other might happen?
Certainly the old idea that no legislation should be initiated in case the Commons amended it has gone, because the Commons have already taken control and passed their own legislation. And anyway, what conditions could be worse than the ones that have already been imposed?
Changing the franchise?
To include an IQ test, perhaps? That would certainly be fatal for the Brexiteers.
Scenario: Clarke (or other) becomes caretaker PM on basis of extending to hold a General Election (basis for French acceptance). Tories refuse to vote for said election. What happens then? VoNC in Clarke government?
The Tories would vote for it, Boris would be Leader of the Opposition and could blame Clarke propped up by Corbyn and the LDs for extending
They have done everything to stop no deal except the one thing that actually would stop it - pass the freaking deal.
If the result is no deal, that's their fault and every MP who voted against it, including Johnson, deserves to lose their seats.
There is currently no deal that would pass agreed by the EU. The only choice last week was to rule out No Deal and that would probably have failed except for proroguing parliament forcing minds to make a decision.
There is May's deal. Which is still by far our best option. It would give us another 2 years to (a) find an alternative to the backstop (b) decide actually remaining in the CU and SM is not such a bad idea so lets go down the EFTA route, (c) think sod it, we are not doing any of this and have the equivalent of a no deal Brexit at that point. Personally I think that we would end up with a version of (b). Which would seem a reasonable result given the closeness of the vote.
I'm fully in favour of May's deal. However I think it - and any other deal - is dead in the water.
Why? Because they all rely on important negotiations in good faith. And sadly, we as a country have shown f-all good faith throughout this mess. The EU countries cannot trust that anything they negotiate with us will be able to get through own own parliament.
There'll be a time when they just say: "sod you, just go."
And who could blame them?
I think you are being unfair
May’s government negotiated in good faith but couldn’t deliver Parliament which is quite different. The silliness at the end weren’t really negotiations.
Boris has also been admirably clear about what he wants - it may not be deliverable but - vis a vis the EU - there’s no bad faith
Has he been clear what he wants? Pouting and saying 'I dont want x, I have some ideas and eventually I'll discuss them' is not very clear .
Yes - he doesn’t want X. The rest he doesn’t care about - it’s the EU insisting on that
The idea (labour current policy) that we should have another referendum where the remain side pick both sides of the question is bonkers. Brexiters will obviously (and justifiably) decry it as illegitimate. At the very least they should get to pick the leave proposition.
Otherwise they will just seek to overturn it, without a further referendum, at a subsequent General Election.
IMO remainers/no dealers have to accept that if a General Election produces a majority for no deal then it will happen. And if it can happen on Oct 15th, then it can happen on November 15th, or on Feb 15th or whenever. I would say it is more likely after a period of Corbyn Govt, or a “rigged” referendum or whatever.
Which is why I see no sense of opposing the proposed election on Oct 15th. If Johnson wins, he wins, and owns the consequences. But have some confidence that he will fall apart during the campaign, and he probably won’t get the support he desires.
Can kicking has gone far enough, it needs a resolution, and one with some measure of democratic legitimacy as soon as possible.
It sure would be nice if leavers could pick a leave proposition (arguably what should have happened for the 2016 referendum).
I dont mind leavers picking a leave proposition but if it is no deal that is not sufficient on its own. It needs to map out our relationship with the EU for more than a month or two, and avoid unicorns.
- no deal followed by negotiating limited free trade area with hard border in NI, paying EU £16bn in exit costs is fine - no deal followed by full access to single market, full control of EU migration, open border in NI and zero exit costs should not be allowed
Would leavers consider it a fair starting point that something more descriptive and achievable than no deal is on the ballot paper?
“ They will be out of options, except one: to strip control from the Executive, and form an alternative administration. That administration will be left with two choices: to either pass whatever is on the table from the EU, at that stage, or to revoke A50.l
Lol - this group of MPs will never pass a deal.
The more obvious solution is to change our MPs.
Parliament was elected AFTER the referendum but you seem to be saying that the people got it wrong so we must now throw out their choice of MPs after 2 years and ask them to choose new ones.
I suppose if you don't like what a new parliament does you tell people they got it wrong again and tell them to have another go.
To be fair that is how our system has worked for centuries. If there is no Government that can command the support of Parliament and/or the Government refuses to change its policies in the light of Parliamentary opposition then we have an election. And we keep having them until something gives.
Trying to resolve Brexit through a GE is not the most sensible way forward. The last one was set up as verdict on Mays Brexit plans but when it went wrong of course there were those that said it was nothing to do with Brexit but May's campaign. The same could well happen again, you cannot will a GE to be about a single issue.
Even if we had one and a No Deal Conservative party wins on a 30-35% vote that too would be a recipe for disaster if the LD's Labour, Greens, SNP had clearly outpolled them. I would be happy with a GE if we had a proportional voting system but not what as errtic as ours. Particularly if the GE is designed to resolve just 1 issue.
The most clear cut way out of the present impasse would be a final say on the form of Brexit that the Government is proposing. We should never have had a referendum where one of the 2 options was not defined. Brexit should have been clearly defined before we voted or there should have been a ratification vote built into the process.
I think the WDA was acceptable to a majority of MPs. If we leave, something very similar to it will be required.
The problem was thst it led to a blind Brexit. The final deal and shape of our future relationship depended on the PM (or next PM after May) and neither the Labour Party nor the ERG trusted that they'd get their sort of deal. That's why they voted against the WDA.
The problem will remain until there is a united overnment with a substantial majority. Even a referendum that votes for the WDA doesn't solve the problem because it leaves open the nature of our future relationship. The PD is malleable.
If Boris wins a majority the Withdrawal Agreement will likely pass albeit with a NI only backstop until a technical solution for the Irish border is found as suggested last night
Superb piece Casino although it’s another piece by a Remainer. 🤣
Glad to see you responding to criticism 👍🏻
Although the thrust of the criticism was that the articles were all pro Remain, not necessarily that they were always written by Remain voters. This article is not pro Leave
The idea Hunt is going to become PM is laughable, Labour and the SNP and LDs and DUP would vote against him and the Withdrawal Agreement, which is not going to pass regardless in his current form as it failed 3 times before. The Tories are also not going to vote for Hunt over Boris after he lost the Tory MPs voteand was heavily defeated in the Tory membership vote.
No, the only realistic option for a caretaker PM is Ken Clarke. The Tory rebels and LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership and the Tory rebels would also likely vote down any other Labour PM, only Clarke could get Labour LD, SNP and Tory anti No Deal rebel support to extend until a November general election, which the French have said they would allow extension for.
Boris would of course lead the Tories in opposition while Corbyn would have to face the risk of Labour Leavers seeing him put a Tory in yo block Brexit many might then go to Boris on the basis if Corbyn is willing to prop up a Tory I may as well vote for a Tory who respects my Leave vote
"LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership " - very soon you will have to eat those words and you will be reminded.
One thing missing in Casino Royale's fascinating article is that if he fails to get a deal fromt he EU at the European Council meeting Johnson has to request an extension by 19th October. If he doesn't, then he is breaking the law. At that poijnt the courts will get involved and, presumably, those Tory ministers and MPs who believe in the rule of law will resign.
An interesting point is whether not obeying the law while in public office disqualifies people from seeking public office. Does anyone know? If so, quite a few political careers could be ending quite soon.
They will comply with the law or resign. There is a small chance they can get a court to give them a favourable interpretation of the law.
The pampered multi-millionaire elite cabinet will not risk personal bankruptcy for this, which is what would happen from civil claims if they delivered no deal against a clear cut law.
The civil claims is an interesting point. Any lawyers wish to comment? Would a PM who pursued a policy in contravention of the law be personally liable ?
IANAL but it is not just the PM but anyone advising him. Rees Mogg is reportedly worth £150m, will he stick his money where his mouth is? (No). Life in prison is also a possible if very unlikely sanction.
If Boris was given life in prison for respecting the will of the people, the backlash from Leavers would be on a scale not seen in this country since the civil war and the Gordon riots
The sovereign will of the people is parliament. He will resign or obey the law (he is perfectly entitled to find a court to test its limits and will surely do so).
The idea Hunt is going to become PM is laughable, Labour and the SNP and LDs and DUP would vote against him and the Withdrawal Agreement, which is not going to pass regardless in his current form as it failed 3 times before. The Tories are also not going to vote for Hunt over Boris after he lost the Tory MPs voteand was heavily defeated in the Tory membership vote.
No, the only realistic option for a caretaker PM is Ken Clarke. The Tory rebels and LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership and the Tory rebels would also likely vote down any other Labour PM, only Clarke could get Labour LD, SNP and Tory anti No Deal rebel support to extend until a November general election, which the French have said they would allow extension for.
Boris would of course lead the Tories in opposition while Corbyn would have to face the risk of Labour Leavers seeing him put a Tory in yo block Brexit many might then go to Boris on the basis if Corbyn is willing to prop up a Tory I may as well vote for a Tory who respects my Leave vote
"LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership " - very soon you will have to eat those words and you will be reminded.
I think that they would vote down a Corbyn premiership and in any case it's a non starter because the independent Tories would too.
Superb piece Casino although it’s another piece by a Remainer. 🤣
Glad to see you responding to criticism 👍🏻
Although the thrust of the criticism was that the articles were all pro Remain, not necessarily that they were always written by Remain voters. This article is not pro Leave
To be fair this thread looks at a possible scenario with betting implications, which I much prefer to the "this is terrible, I don't like what's happening" threads.
Superb piece Casino although it’s another piece by a Remainer. 🤣
Glad to see you responding to criticism 👍🏻
Although the thrust of the criticism was that the articles were all pro Remain, not necessarily that they were always written by Remain voters. This article is not pro Leave
I campaigned for Leave, voted Leave and still advocate Leave. I am a Leaver. Further this article describes a course of action which would still result in us Leaving.
The idea Hunt is going to become PM is laughable, Labour and the SNP and LDs and DUP would vote against him and the Withdrawal Agreement, which is not going to pass regardless in his current form as it failed 3 times before. The Tories are also not going to vote for Hunt over Boris after he lost the Tory MPs voteand was heavily defeated in the Tory membership vote.
No, the only realistic option for a caretaker PM is Ken Clarke. The Tory rebels and LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership and the Tory rebels would also likely vote down any other Labour PM, only Clarke could get Labour LD, SNP and Tory anti No Deal rebel support to extend until a November general election, which the French have said they would allow extension for.
Boris would of course lead the Tories in opposition while Corbyn would have to face the risk of Labour Leavers seeing him put a Tory in yo block Brexit many might then go to Boris on the basis if Corbyn is willing to prop up a Tory I may as well vote for a Tory who respects my Leave vote
"LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership " - very soon you will have to eat those words and you will be reminded.
I don’t think so. I think HYUFD would be very happy to be wrong on this one. It would help the Tories’ electoral prospects enormously
Comments
Jeremy Corbyn is now 7/4. The 5/2 of last week is a blessed memory.
The pampered multi-millionaire elite cabinet will not risk personal bankruptcy for this, which is what would happen from civil claims if they delivered no deal against a clear cut law.
Otherwise they will just seek to overturn it, without a further referendum, at a subsequent General Election.
IMO remainers/no dealers have to accept that if a General Election produces a majority for no deal then it will happen. And if it can happen on Oct 15th, then it can happen on November 15th, or on Feb 15th or whenever. I would say it is more likely after a period of Corbyn Govt, or a “rigged” referendum or whatever.
Which is why I see no sense of opposing the proposed election on Oct 15th. If Johnson wins, he wins, and owns the consequences. But have some confidence that he will fall apart during the campaign, and he probably won’t get the support he desires.
Can kicking has gone far enough, it needs a resolution, and one with some measure of democratic legitimacy as soon as possible.
We were promised an orderly exit with a deal . As a Remainer I’m willing to accept that but I’ll be damned if I’m going to accept no deal . There is no mandate for that .
I suppose if you don't like what a new parliament does you tell people they got it wrong again and tell them to have another go.
Whilst I understand the logic of that argument I don’t think any Labour PM would really struggle to own the leadership of delivery of any vote that facilitated Brexit. In any form.
This allows them to still pin it on the Tories whilst also acquiescing in the least worst option in an emergency situation.
They can then pitch themselves to offer a much closer deal for the permanent arrangement during FTA negotiations - possibly including full CU and SM membership - with a reaccession option in the longer term.
It may even be getting no deal leads to a fairly quick rejoin, getting revoke leads to a subsequent no deal GE win!! Soft brexit is the only stable answer.
Mind you good sense is abjectly missing in the HOC at present
That's treating them with contempt.
Remainer MPs had 3 chances to vote for a deal, knowing that failing to do so increased the chance of No Deal. They thought it a gamble worth risking.
Unlikely but what isn't? - and 66 does look interesting.
https://davidallengreen.com/2019/09/what-if-the-prime-minister-deliberately-broke-the-law-over-extending-article-50/
But lets not kid ourselves that the hardening is purely in response to others. A large number fought tooth and nail from the start, seeking delay, and clearly dont want to accept an exit that is orderly as that was opposed too.
Yes, in reality he’d have to request it by 16th October so the European Council could consider it.
If that meeting concludes without either a request or an agreement on an extension then I think events rapidly move on because i don’t then see how there’s any prospect of Brexit being postponed being beyond 31st October.
Off to work now.
So much like you said if an election produces a majority for no deal people have to accept it is happening then if an election produces a majority for a 2nd ref then people have to accept it is happening.
May’s government negotiated in good faith but couldn’t deliver Parliament which is quite different. The silliness at the end weren’t really negotiations.
Boris has also been admirably clear about what he wants - it may not be deliverable but - vis a vis the EU - there’s no bad faith
I think Clarke is more likely, although Hunt is clearly value.
It could happen.
Why?
He’s still young enough to be a plausible long term PM so would be a threat to Corbyn in the temporary role
No deal with no parliamentary majority and less than 2% of voters supporting it at the last GE has zero legitimacy however.
The reason we are not having an election on Oct 15th is that the PM can choose the date of the election after an election has been agreed. There is no way the opposition can get a guarantee that the election would actually be held on Oct 15th. The PM is a known manipulator and liar, who will do anything for his own personal benefit. Why would the opposition trust him not to delay the election when it would allow him to claim success on his flagship pledge?
Or else get a friendly member of the EU to veto an extension. As if any of them are going to change their vote and bring about No Deal - which, remember, is meant to terrify the EU according to Brexiteers - just to oblige the UK.
Is this all the evil genius Cummings can come up with? At this rate I'm starting to think he's just an evil idiot.
Do you think a Clarke/Harman dream ticket would command the confidence of the House?
How do you think they would react to a letter saying
As required by law please find enclosed. The government’s position remains that the backstop is unacceptable and we will not conduct any negotiations until it is removed. We will continue to prepare to leave on a no deal basis.
Enoch said the British people voted for membership in 75 because they had no idea how it would change their country. When they were asked again, they changed their mind having seen what it did.
To the extent that it would make a marginal difference over the course of a campaign and I can see circumstances where such an election would actually be easier for Johnson.
And furthermore the great advantage of the October 15th election is it removes the possibility of loads more parliamentary game playing which I think is likely annoying the general public significantly.
Also a post Nov GE cannot be called until October, and what happens then if the polling gets better for the Conservatives? More delay?
They are two things doing different things.
Really not sure any of this will make the slightest difference in ten weeks time or whenever the election is but will keep a few SPAD strategists very well paid in the meantime.
You could argue that for him, it’s win/win. He either becomes PM now or is midwife to a socialist government led by his successor in five years.
As I say, don’t think it’s the most likely outcome but I can see the logic; more so than I can see the logic for a Remain Government led by Sue Perkins, or whatever is now being assumed.
The EU's preferred strategy from the start was to provide the UK with a pretext to change its mind, and while going through the pretense of negotiations it was only prepared to offer something so bad that we would either do so or otherwise leave the EU with an outcome even better for the EU than the status quo (i.e. territorial loss or otherwise permanent vassal state status for the UK with a much weakened hand in the second round of negotiations post Brexit.)
May, having used the referendum result to seize power, was never the born again Leaver she claimed to be. Rather, her prime aim in negotiations was maintain her own position as PM, and as such she was prepared to deliver only a pretense of Brexit, the likes of which full on Remainers such as Hammond would be perfectly content to support.
No, the only realistic option for a caretaker PM is Ken Clarke. The Tory rebels and LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership and the Tory rebels would also likely vote down any other Labour PM, only Clarke could get Labour LD, SNP and Tory anti No Deal rebel support to extend until a November general election, which the French have said they would allow extension for.
Boris would of course lead the Tories in opposition while Corbyn would have to face the risk of Labour Leavers seeing him put a Tory in yo block Brexit many might then go to Boris on the basis if Corbyn is willing to prop up a Tory I may as well vote for a Tory who respects my Leave vote
Interesting header Casino.
Certainly the old idea that no legislation should be initiated in case the Commons amended it has gone, because the Commons have already taken control and passed their own legislation. And anyway, what conditions could be worse than the ones that have already been imposed?
Thanks for the thread, Casino - always good to have new thread contributors and this is excellent.
It reveals, however, the truth the two "blocs" are themselves riven with division. On the anti-No Deal side, there are the Revokers as against those who want us to leave with the existing WA and those who want to leave but with a different or re-negotiated WA.
On the Government side, it seems there are those who want to leave with No Deal and those who still harbour the hope a deal can be done by changing the existing WA to remove the backstop.
Thus has a binary option evolved to four options - Remain, Leave without a Deal, Leave with the Deal we have or Leave with another Deal. None of these options by themselves commands a majority in the Commons and that\'s why we are caught like flies in honey.
Boris Johnson is desperately trying to support at least two of the above simultaneously to hold his Party together but as we approach 31/10 it will become increasingly clear if you want to leave then it will have to be via NO Deal and all that will flow from that. I'm not sure how many of the Johnson loyalists are ready to follow him over that cliff (I'm not wholly convinced he wants to jump).
The much-vaunted GoNU many come together to block No Deal but would any caretaker PM, having obtained his or her extension, then be able to achieve anything more in terms of getting an improved WA than May or Johnson? I suspect the EU may take a change of Government as a reason for a change in its own position - the EU negotiates with the UK Government not the Commons. However, the EU seem frustrated that, having voted to Leave, the UK has so far been unable to come up with solutions to any of the problems associated with and caused by us leaving.
It's almost as though people believed it would be easy to leave and there would be no problems or consequences.
But you could try malfeasance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malfeasance_in_office
It’s not easy - the Railtrack misfeasance (slightly different) failed because they couldn’t prove malice aforethought.
I’m not sure you could prove malice with Boris - probably reckless disregard is as far as you could go
Well given that Boris is considered a complete clown by the EU (and everyone else) and his latest public schoolboy wheeze is utterly transparent I suspect they’d simply ignore it.
The problem was thst it led to a blind Brexit. The final deal and shape of our future relationship depended on the PM (or next PM after May) and neither the Labour Party nor the ERG trusted that they'd get their sort of deal. That's why they voted against the WDA.
The problem will remain until there is a united overnment with a substantial majority. Even a referendum that votes for the WDA doesn't solve the problem because it leaves open the nature of our future relationship. The PD is malleable.
Calling your opponent a chicken for avoiding an election in the middle of an election campaign is a tough sell.
- no deal followed by negotiating limited free trade area with hard border in NI, paying EU £16bn in exit costs is fine
- no deal followed by full access to single market, full control of EU migration, open border in NI and zero exit costs should not be allowed
Would leavers consider it a fair starting point that something more descriptive and achievable than no deal is on the ballot paper?
Even if we had one and a No Deal Conservative party wins on a 30-35% vote that too would be a recipe for disaster if the LD's Labour, Greens, SNP had clearly outpolled them. I would be happy with a GE if we had a proportional voting system but not what as errtic as ours. Particularly if the GE is designed to resolve just 1 issue.
The most clear cut way out of the present impasse would be a final say on the form of Brexit that the Government is proposing. We should never have had a referendum where one of the 2 options was not defined. Brexit should have been clearly defined before we voted or there should have been a ratification vote built into the process.
Although the thrust of the criticism was that the articles were all pro Remain, not necessarily that they were always written by Remain voters. This article is not pro Leave
So that’s incorrect.