In all seriousness, does anyone genuinely believe that Johnson is looking to get a deal done?
It's not totally beyond the realms. If he's not a details man, if he's always got people under him to work up the details, if the tales of impossibility have been heard by him 100 times before for things that have ultimately been done, if the back of an envelope that's been presented to the EU is just how he works, then he make think it is all sincere.
It is not at all an uncommon mode of senior management overreach.
He’s certainly not a details man - and we are beyond the stage where securing a deal could be left to his oppos. It is going to need some political capital from the top to land anything now, even if this remains possible.
Off topic, this lodge where I am in Kentucky - in temperatures predicted to top 90F/32C today - put its Christmas trees and other decorations up LAST WEEK. Surely this must be a record?
In all seriousness, does anyone genuinely believe that Johnson is looking to get a deal done?
It's not totally beyond the realms. If he's not a details man, if he's always got people under him to work up the details, if the tales of impossibility have been heard by him 100 times before for things that have ultimately been done, if the back of an envelope that's been presented to the EU is just how he works, then he make think it is all sincere.
It is not at all an uncommon mode of senior management overreach.
He’s certainly not a details man - and we are beyond the stage where securing a deal could be left to his oppos. It is going to need some political capital from the top to land anything now, even if this remains possible.
Off topic, this lodge where I am in Kentucky - in temperatures predicted to top 90F/32C today - put its Christmas trees and other decorations up LAST WEEK. Surely this must be a record?
Silly Samuel and Harry have had jobs at the nationals for years.
How come we never see Herdson or TSE on #skypapers e.g
I will be on the Sunday Politics (Yorks & Lincs) this weekend. Still unpaid though. And assuming I don't get dropped for someone with a higher profile.
I don't live there anymore or I'll definitely have tuned in - Good for you and for Team PB
Those fortunate not to live in Yorkshire will be able to pick it up on iPlayer
If someone has sky tv they can watch whichever regional version on BBC they like live
In all seriousness, does anyone genuinely believe that Johnson is looking to get a deal done?
It's not totally beyond the realms. If he's not a details man, if he's always got people under him to work up the details, if the tales of impossibility have been heard by him 100 times before for things that have ultimately been done, if the back of an envelope that's been presented to the EU is just how he works, then he make think it is all sincere.
It is not at all an uncommon mode of senior management overreach.
He’s certainly not a details man - and we are beyond the stage where securing a deal could be left to his oppos. It is going to need some political capital from the top to land anything now, even if this remains possible.
Off topic, this lodge where I am in Kentucky - in temperatures predicted to top 90F/32C today - put its Christmas trees and other decorations up LAST WEEK. Surely this must be a record?
that is the game of political chicken which is going on at the moment. labour want BJ to go for an extension and BJ want labour to kick him out and do it themselves. it's a case of who blinks first.
The problem Labour have is that Boris doesn't need them to VoNC the government; although I suspect they will if they think a collective resignation is imminent.
Boris can walk away and drop Labour down the well any time between now and the crunch date.
I'm still doubtful that Boris will resign the government (I'm not sure it's actually possible under the current arrangements without a VONC) because it will allow Corbyn to be PM going into the resulting election. whatever the pluses the resignation would have it would be bad for morale in the membership to have JC as PM.
In all seriousness, does anyone genuinely believe that Johnson is looking to get a deal done?
I genuinely think he believes that if he can brandish No Deal at the EuCo summit, he will be able to negotiate a new deal which will amount to full continuity without the Withdrawal Agreement.
If that is the case, why hasn't HMG forwarded their suggested amendments to the text of the WA to enable that outcome?
I said without the Withdrawal Agreement. He wants to bypass it entirely and thinks the EU will be so afraid of the consequences of No Deal, that they will ensure there are no consequences.
Sorry - I must have translated that in my head to "without the backstop".
But it still makes no sense. How do you have a withdrawal agreement without a Withdrawal Agreement?!
It’s the mythical managed No Deal using GATT 24 to avoid tariffs.
Silly Samuel and Harry have had jobs at the nationals for years.
How come we never see Herdson or TSE on #skypapers e.g
I will be on the Sunday Politics (Yorks & Lincs) this weekend. Still unpaid though. And assuming I don't get dropped for someone with a higher profile.
I don't live there anymore or I'll definitely have tuned in - Good for you and for Team PB
Those fortunate not to live in Yorkshire will be able to pick it up on iPlayer
If someone has sky tv they can watch whichever regional version on BBC they like live
In all seriousness, does anyone genuinely believe that Johnson is looking to get a deal done?
It's not totally beyond the realms. If he's not a details man, if he's always got people under him to work up the details, if the tales of impossibility have been heard by him 100 times before for things that have ultimately been done, if the back of an envelope that's been presented to the EU is just how he works, then he make think it is all sincere.
It is not at all an uncommon mode of senior management overreach.
He’s certainly not a details man - and we are beyond the stage where securing a deal could be left to his oppos. It is going to need some political capital from the top to land anything now, even if this remains possible.
Off topic, this lodge where I am in Kentucky - in temperatures predicted to top 90F/32C today - put its Christmas trees and other decorations up LAST WEEK. Surely this must be a record?
Surely Halloween comes first?
A few of the decorations on the trees suggest a Halloween theme - pumpkins and the like - but otherwise they look like Christmas trees. With reindeer decorations and the rest.
Long time lurker - so can I just say thanks for the excellent site, comments, and banter.
To answer the question in the thread title in my personal experience - yes, Surrender Act seems to be cutting through, whether or not it means anything logically. It summarises a reality - that the UK is the weaker negotiating partner, it’s limited leverage squandered by bitter internal division, up against a more powerful entity which is likely to get its way in the end. It is a reality very many people are unhappy about. The phrase provides an emotive way to summarise that and to rail against it, that makes those people (myself included) happier.
For that reason I think it’s going to end up being as politically devastating as ‘Take Back Control’ was.
Hmm. 🤔
So remainers approach is too logical and cerebral, they need to make it an emotional thing too?
Strange how none of these people ever rioted, or did anything else particularly subversive, during all the decades when we were supposedly under the jackboot of a hostile foreign power. Now they're dusting down the molotov cocktail only when we're just about to leave. All piss and wind I suspect.
Silly Samuel and Harry have had jobs at the nationals for years.
How come we never see Herdson or TSE on #skypapers e.g
I will be on the Sunday Politics (Yorks & Lincs) this weekend. Still unpaid though. And assuming I don't get dropped for someone with a higher profile.
I don't live there anymore or I'll definitely have tuned in - Good for you and for Team PB
Those fortunate not to live in Yorkshire will be able to pick it up on iPlayer
If someone has sky tv they can watch whichever regional version on BBC they like live
Sky TV? Someone’s doing well.
Is that one thing team maomentum havent comitted to nationalizing...yet
Silly Samuel and Harry have had jobs at the nationals for years.
How come we never see Herdson or TSE on #skypapers e.g
I will be on the Sunday Politics (Yorks & Lincs) this weekend. Still unpaid though. And assuming I don't get dropped for someone with a higher profile.
Will you be wearing red shoes ? ....
Asking for cheating fashion victim of some disrepute.
I'm not the bloody pope!
We did wonder after your white smoke 2017 general election revelations ....
Long time lurker - so can I just say thanks for the excellent site, comments, and banter.
To answer the question in the thread title in my personal experience - yes, Surrender Act seems to be cutting through, whether or not it means anything logically. It summarises a reality - that the UK is the weaker negotiating partner, it’s limited leverage squandered by bitter internal division, up against a more powerful entity which is likely to get its way in the end. It is a reality very many people are unhappy about. The phrase provides an emotive way to summarise that and to rail against it, that makes those people (myself included) happier.
For that reason I think it’s going to end up being as politically devastating as ‘Take Back Control’ was.
Hmm. 🤔
So remainers approach is too logical and cerebral, they need to make it an emotional thing too?
They should have called it the Taking Back Control bill (which it is, if you think about it).
In all seriousness, does anyone genuinely believe that Johnson is looking to get a deal done?
I genuinely think he believes that if he can brandish No Deal at the EuCo summit, he will be able to negotiate a new deal which will amount to full continuity without the Withdrawal Agreement.
If that is the case, why hasn't HMG forwarded their suggested amendments to the text of the WA to enable that outcome?
I said without the Withdrawal Agreement. He wants to bypass it entirely and thinks the EU will be so afraid of the consequences of No Deal, that they will ensure there are no consequences.
Sorry - I must have translated that in my head to "without the backstop".
But it still makes no sense. How do you have a withdrawal agreement without a Withdrawal Agreement?!
My understanding would be:
Leave the EU officially Pay exit bill Dont send any UK officials/MEPs to EU Other arrangements stay as they were when we were in EU incl FOM and ECJ Negotiate FTA from there within 2 years
It would kind of take us back in time to where the UK wanted to be before we lost the timetabling issue (bar having paid the exit bill).
Yes obviously it needs a codified document to achieve it, but it is scrapping a different transition period and replacing it with largely status quo, but Boris able to claim success for leaving the EU.
In all seriousness, does anyone genuinely believe that Johnson is looking to get a deal done?
I genuinely think he believes that if he can brandish No Deal at the EuCo summit, he will be able to negotiate a new deal which will amount to full continuity without the Withdrawal Agreement.
If that is the case, why hasn't HMG forwarded their suggested amendments to the text of the WA to enable that outcome?
I said without the Withdrawal Agreement. He wants to bypass it entirely and thinks the EU will be so afraid of the consequences of No Deal, that they will ensure there are no consequences.
Sorry - I must have translated that in my head to "without the backstop".
But it still makes no sense. How do you have a withdrawal agreement without a Withdrawal Agreement?!
It’s the mythical managed No Deal using GATT 24 to avoid tariffs.
The use of the term surrender bill is not really any different from a long line of names politicians have disingenuously referred to policies / acts they oppose. We have has all sorts of death taxes, dementia tax, etc
They do it because more often than not it cuts through. How many seats did May lose because of the care policy being misrepresented.
Long time lurker - so can I just say thanks for the excellent site, comments, and banter.
To answer the question in the thread title in my personal experience - yes, Surrender Act seems to be cutting through, whether or not it means anything logically. It summarises a reality - that the UK is the weaker negotiating partner, it’s limited leverage squandered by bitter internal division, up against a more powerful entity which is likely to get its way in the end. It is a reality very many people are unhappy about. The phrase provides an emotive way to summarise that and to rail against it, that makes those people (myself included) happier.
For that reason I think it’s going to end up being as politically devastating as ‘Take Back Control’ was.
Hmm. 🤔
So remainers approach is too logical and cerebral, they need to make it an emotional thing too?
ultimately it always comes down to an emotional thing. "Labour isn't working", "things can only get better" both perfectly summed up the mood of the day and the specific policies only helped to support the mood.
Strange how none of these people ever rioted, or did anything else particularly subversive, during all the decades when we were supposedly under the jackboot of a hostile foreign power. Now they're dusting down the molotov cocktail only when we're just about to leave. All piss and wind I suspect.
Indeed. Barring a few thickie-thick knuckle draggers from the EDL yakking a few cans of Carling around I dare say one would be unwise to worry too much.
that is the game of political chicken which is going on at the moment. labour want BJ to go for an extension and BJ want labour to kick him out and do it themselves. it's a case of who blinks first.
The problem Labour have is that Boris doesn't need them to VoNC the government; although I suspect they will if they think a collective resignation is imminent.
Boris can walk away and drop Labour down the well any time between now and the crunch date.
I'm still doubtful that Boris will resign the government (I'm not sure it's actually possible under the current arrangements without a VONC) because it will allow Corbyn to be PM going into the resulting election. whatever the pluses the resignation would have it would be bad for morale in the membership to have JC as PM.
Johnson can definitely resign; I think I read that cummings’ cunning plan #435 was for him to do so while refusing to recommend his successor to the queen, buying 14 days to squat in No. 10 before FTPA results in an election. In practice there must always be a government and the queen would ask whoever is seen as having the best chance of commanding the confidence of the house to form that government.
In the unlikely event of a sitting PM resigning it’s not clear whether that would be someone from his own party or the LOTO, but there’s at least a risk that a snap change of leader in the Conservative party triggered by his resignation as PM could see the new leader asked to form a government.
Good post. Yes I agree "Surrender Act" appeals strongly to those most exposed to the cognitive dissonance of Brexit. The "stab in the back" meme is a strong one for nationalists.
It does cut through. That is why we keep hearing it. For many people, Brexit is viewed as a war against foreign oppressors.
A TV vox pop from Stoke the other day illustrated this well. A bloke said -
"Look, we come out in October and that's it. Deal or No Deal, makes no difference to me. We've done it before and we can do it again."
Note the 'it' in the last sentence here and consider what it means.
It means 'stand alone against hostile foreign nations in war'.
This is powerful stuff and it is going on deep deep deep in the brain chemistry of Leavers.
Wittering on about tariffs and job losses and loss of GDP stands no chance whatsoever against it.
I despair. It's enough to make you want a no deal so the f******s have to deal with the consequences.
Update - looking at them more closely on the way back from breakfast, they ARE supposed to be Halloween trees. Which is a new one on me. The place has clearly got out the rest of the decs and put them up at the same time
You cannot take No Deal off the table from a negotiation standpoint. It is like me going to my employer and saying "give me a pay rise or else. By the way, I won't leave."
The simple fact is, economically, the EU is in a grim state at the moment as per the economic data, and the last thing any of them needs is 1-2% off GDP, even if we are hit more.
That example only works if you walking away from jobs really hurts the other party in the negotiation. Does us no dealing really hurt EU to that influential extent?
"Surrender bill" has no logical coherence. It exists solely as a Goebbels style slander to delegitimise the opposition. Cummings and Johnson simultaneously attack opposition MPs for insisting on a deal and not voting for one. Which is nonsense.
It does raise a dilemma for politicians of good intent (ie NOT Johnson). Should they take on the slogan and point out that insisting on Johnson doing what he said he would do and get a deal, isn't surrender, and in this way inadvertently give the slander currency?. Or should they let it pass unchallenged.
The use of the term surrender bill is not really any different from a long line of names politicians have disingenuously referred to policies / acts they oppose. We have has all sorts of death taxes, dementia tax, etc
They do it because more often than not it cuts through. How many seats did May lose because of the care policy being misrepresented.
Bedroom tax is another. We have bad policies because of this phenomen, not sure how it can be stopped.
Long time lurker - so can I just say thanks for the excellent site, comments, and banter.
To answer the question in the thread title in my personal experience - yes, Surrender Act seems to be cutting through, whether or not it means anything logically. It summarises a reality - that the UK is the weaker negotiating partner, it’s limited leverage squandered by bitter internal division, up against a more powerful entity which is likely to get its way in the end. It is a reality very many people are unhappy about. The phrase provides an emotive way to summarise that and to rail against it, that makes those people (myself included) happier.
For that reason I think it’s going to end up being as politically devastating as ‘Take Back Control’ was.
Hmm. 🤔
So remainers approach is too logical and cerebral, they need to make it an emotional thing too?
ultimately it always comes down to an emotional thing. "Labour isn't working", "things can only get better" both perfectly summed up the mood of the day and the specific policies only helped to support the mood.
I do think that if either side had spent any time trying to craft a message that spoke to the emotions at play of the other, that side would now be well on its way to a resolution in their favour. Theresa May was trying to do this, but her capacity to speak to anyone’s emotions was rather limited.
Congratulations Egg on your first thread piece. You will now learn for yourself that:
a) the job is unpaid b) you get a load of shit aimed at you, mostly from people who know even less than you c) most of the rest just ignore what you say and chat about their own preoccupations d) the time you spend on it is out of all proportion to any satisfaction it may give you
Well done, and keep going. Always good to have a range of voices.
Thanks. The flak will be no problem. And it took no time to write. I was in a sports bar yesterday afternoon drinking lager and watching cricket, I composed it all on back of a couple of beer mats.
It all revolves around one crux: is the no deal threat to EU, of us walking away with no deal, really that much threat to them to make a difference in negotiation?
Currently I don’t think it is, so I invite leavers to explain how it is.
Especially when, apparently, no deal will only cause a few bumps in the road for us.
It’s your belief no deal is just some short term issues between us and the sunlit uplands of freedom? Not a medium or long term issue?
"Surrender bill" has no logical coherence. It exists solely as a Goebbels style slander to delegitimise the opposition. Cummings and Johnson simultaneously attack opposition MPs for insisting on a deal and not voting for one. Which is nonsense.
It does raise a dilemma for politicians of good intent (ie NOT Johnson). Should they take on the slogan and point out that insisting on Johnson doing what he said he would do and get a deal, isn't surrender, and in this way inadvertently give the slander currency?. Or should they ignore it?
The use of the term surrender bill is not really any different from a long line of names politicians have disingenuously referred to policies / acts they oppose. We have has all sorts of death taxes, dementia tax, etc
They do it because more often than not it cuts through. How many seats did May lose because of the care policy being misrepresented.
Two big differences: I can’t think of another similar nickname that appropriates the language of international conflict with the intention to imply that opponents are traitors to their country; and the nickname has literally nothing to do with what the act itself achieves, which is to make clear that the final decision on a matter is taken by Parliament not the executive.
that is the game of political chicken which is going on at the moment. labour want BJ to go for an extension and BJ want labour to kick him out and do it themselves. it's a case of who blinks first.
The problem Labour have is that Boris doesn't need them to VoNC the government; although I suspect they will if they think a collective resignation is imminent.
Boris can walk away and drop Labour down the well any time between now and the crunch date.
I'm still doubtful that Boris will resign the government (I'm not sure it's actually possible under the current arrangements without a VONC) because it will allow Corbyn to be PM going into the resulting election. whatever the pluses the resignation would have it would be bad for morale in the membership to have JC as PM.
Johnson can definitely resign; I think I read that cummings’ cunning plan #435 was for him to do so while refusing to recommend his successor to the queen, buying 14 days to squat in No. 10 before FTPA results in an election. In practice there must always be a government and the queen would ask whoever is seen as having the best chance of commanding the confidence of the house to form that government.
In the unlikely event of a sitting PM resigning it’s not clear whether that would be someone from his own party or the LOTO, but there’s at least a risk that a snap change of leader in the Conservative party triggered by his resignation as PM could see the new leader asked to form a government.
I don't think that is the case. under the FTPA the 14 days only start when there is a motion passed by the house which states "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government". prior to the FTPA you couldn't resign as PM without naming a successor. it's never been possible for a PM to resign the whole government it has to be brought down.
Why would Labour save Johnson now when they have him on the ropes? The price of Tory brexit in this parliament would at a minimum be the end of Johnsons "reign". He is not going to fall on his sword and the Tory party dont seem in a hurry to boot him out.
You misunderstand.
The A50 Extension letter is the electoral killer.
Labour wouldn't be 'saving' Johnson.
Johnson would be killing Labour by resigning.
I agree with you. However, I wonder whether Johnson is tactically astute enough to appreciate its merits. Maybe he is waiting to use the platform of the Conservative conference and a (rejected) Queens Speech before forcing the issue and putting the boot on the other foot.
The use of the term surrender bill is not really any different from a long line of names politicians have disingenuously referred to policies / acts they oppose. We have has all sorts of death taxes, dementia tax, etc
They do it because more often than not it cuts through. How many seats did May lose because of the care policy being misrepresented.
Exactly.
At times, in Parliament in particular, it means using strong language but, actually, if it reflects your honest views, I think it is better to be honest than it is to be in any way deceptive.
Silly Samuel and Harry have had jobs at the nationals for years.
How come we never see Herdson or TSE on #skypapers e.g
I will be on the Sunday Politics (Yorks & Lincs) this weekend. Still unpaid though. And assuming I don't get dropped for someone with a higher profile.
I don't live there anymore or I'll definitely have tuned in - Good for you and for Team PB
Those fortunate not to live in Yorkshire will be able to pick it up on iPlayer
on topic: I'm not quite following your logic. From my simple position, leaving no deal on the table is supposed to mean we hold their feet to the fire because a no deal is worse than a deal.
But the reality is that whilst a no deal is not good for the EU27, it's much, much worse for us. And they also offset the problems of no deal with the political and economic need to preserve SM and CU integrity (with the added advantage from EU27 position of having a test case of the world of s**t leaving the EU creates for the leaver).
So I fail to see how a no deal an be a negotiating weapon.
It’s exploring that. Trying to provoke leavers to explain your very point.
Brexit was based on lies and we will not “heal” until this is conceded.
We will not heal until it is forgotten about - or at least, regarded as being of no great consequence. This may take some time.
By contrast, requiring Leavers to concede that their victory was based on lies is essentially advocating a War Guilt Clause.
I was just thinking.
What do Leavers want the most? To Leave. What do Remainers want the most? For it to be acknowledged that the Brexit platform was in many ways a lie.
Both Leavers and Remainers can get what they want, if they are willing to compromise.
We need a government at this moment not just saying 'Never forget that compromise is not a dirty word. Life depends on compromise’ but being able to put that into action and carry the nation with them. in other words the complete opposite from the government we have got.
The term "surrender bill" is clearly hyperbole, but it does zero in on the point that it takes power away from the British government and give it to the European Union. It seems similar to the 350m for the NHS. It overstates the case but creates a controversy and focuses debate on an issue that helps the Leavers and hurts the Remainers.
It is of course a lie to suggest that the Benn-Burt Act takes No Deal off the table.
It merely defers it to Jan 2020, and only then, subject to the EU agreeing to make an offer - or, alternatively, to some other date the EU offers, subject to the government and Commons not both rejecting it.
Agreed. It’s just can kicking.
No, it's not just can kicking. It allows a GE to take place in the meantime without an October 31st gun being held to our heads.
That is, given where we are, the best available route by far, perhaps the only one. If Boris wins it on a manifesto of crashing us out in chaos, well, then he'd have a mandate to do so and I for one wouldn't think it was illegitimate to do so (although it would of course still be raving bonkers as a policy). It would certainly be massively better than crashing us out in direct contradiction of the settled will of the current parliament.
If he doesn't get such a mandate, then the new parliament can consider what to do next - accept the Withdrawal Agreement, hold a referendum, go and fish for new unicorns, etc. But at least there will have been an election on the issue now facing us.
You convinced there will be an election in that little wintry window?
Brexit was based on lies and we will not “heal” until this is conceded.
We will not heal until it is forgotten about - or at least, regarded as being of no great consequence. This may take some time.
By contrast, requiring Leavers to concede that their victory was based on lies is essentially advocating a War Guilt Clause.
I was just thinking.
What do Leavers want the most? To Leave. What do Remainers want the most? For it to be acknowledged that the Brexit platform was in many ways a lie.
Both Leavers and Remainers can get what they want, if they are willing to compromise.
We need a government at this moment not just saying 'Never forget that compromise is not a dirty word. Life depends on compromise’ but being able to put that into action and carry the nation with them. in other words the complete opposite from the government we have got.
Completely agree. We also need an opposition willing to do the same thing. Unfortunately we have neither.
The term "surrender bill" is clearly hyperbole, but it does zero in on the point that it takes power away from the British government and give it to the European Union. It seems similar to the 350m for the NHS. It overstates the case but creates a controversy and focuses debate on an issue that helps the Leavers and hurts the Remainers.
You mean it’s working on the emotional thing, rather than the brain thing?
Silly Samuel and Harry have had jobs at the nationals for years.
How come we never see Herdson or TSE on #skypapers e.g
The better threads are well up to National media standards, well above them in some cases.
You've not answered my question though. I've seen mike on daily politics, I think, and heard him on Today prog - why no Herdson et al making any coverage, the mini-guidos are always popping up on sky news - is it just a landan thing
on topic: I'm not quite following your logic. From my simple position, leaving no deal on the table is supposed to mean we hold their feet to the fire because a no deal is worse than a deal.
But the reality is that whilst a no deal is not good for the EU27, it's much, much worse for us. And they also offset the problems of no deal with the political and economic need to preserve SM and CU integrity (with the added advantage from EU27 position of having a test case of the world of s**t leaving the EU creates for the leaver).
So I fail to see how a no deal an be a negotiating weapon.
It’s exploring that. Trying to provoke leavers to explain your very point.
Leavers, certainly the ERG et al, believe that keeping no-deal on the table has a major impact on the EU but don't believe that it will have any impact on the UK.
whereas the remainers in parliament believe that no-deal will have a major impact on the UK but a relatively minor one on the EU.
neither of those positions are strictly true as I think it'll be a major impact for both the UK and the EU
I think there are some people who lie so often that they find it hard to tell the truth, even about mundane things of no consequence. I don't know Johnson well enough to know if he is such a person, but I can't rule it out.
He probably is.
And unfortunately there seems to be a trend in politics these days whereby if you have low (or no) standards you benefit from this because you get judged against that low (or non existent) bar.
So, X lies, or does or says something tacky, something really low rent, and rather than shock horror that is terrible, it's "Oh well, that's just X" - or my own personal unfavourite, "Yeah, I know, awful, but everyone knows what X is like. It's priced in."
There seem to be more Xs around now than there used to be. It is a most unwelcome development.
The term "surrender bill" is clearly hyperbole, but it does zero in on the point that it takes power away from the British government and give it to the European Union. It seems similar to the 350m for the NHS. It overstates the case but creates a controversy and focuses debate on an issue that helps the Leavers and hurts the Remainers.
It takes power away from the government and gives it to parliament. Because parliament wrote the letter, and if the EU rejects the term of the letter, it is down to parliament to choose what to do next. If the EU is like "we don't like the date, we suggest x" then we don't have to "just accept it" like the PM argues. Parliament votes on whether they want to accept that date. Now, is that moot because Parliament seem intent on preventing No Deal no matter what? Potentially. But it is an important distinction.
In all seriousness, does anyone genuinely believe that Johnson is looking to get a deal done?
I genuinely think he believes that if he can brandish No Deal at the EuCo summit, he will be able to negotiate a new deal which will amount to full continuity without the Withdrawal Agreement.
If that is the case, why hasn't HMG forwarded their suggested amendments to the text of the WA to enable that outcome?
I said without the Withdrawal Agreement. He wants to bypass it entirely and thinks the EU will be so afraid of the consequences of No Deal, that they will ensure there are no consequences.
Sorry - I must have translated that in my head to "without the backstop".
But it still makes no sense. How do you have a withdrawal agreement without a Withdrawal Agreement?!
My understanding would be:
Leave the EU officially Pay exit bill Dont send any UK officials/MEPs to EU Other arrangements stay as they were when we were in EU incl FOM and ECJ Negotiate FTA from there within 2 years
It would kind of take us back in time to where the UK wanted to be before we lost the timetabling issue (bar having paid the exit bill).
Yes obviously it needs a codified document to achieve it, but it is scrapping a different transition period and replacing it with largely status quo, but Boris able to claim success for leaving the EU.
Sorry. It does not work like that. If we do not exit by agreeing the WA before we leave, we will be leaving on WTO terms. And, I am sure, the EU will not even begin negotiations for a trade bill unless the 39bn or its equivalent at the time is paid or we agree to pay.
The use of the term surrender bill is not really any different from a long line of names politicians have disingenuously referred to policies / acts they oppose. We have has all sorts of death taxes, dementia tax, etc
They do it because more often than not it cuts through. How many seats did May lose because of the care policy being misrepresented.
Two big differences: I can’t think of another similar nickname that appropriates the language of international conflict with the intention to imply that opponents are traitors to their country; and the nickname has literally nothing to do with what the act itself achieves, which is to make clear that the final decision on a matter is taken by Parliament not the executive.
On the latter, you can take your Bedroom Taxes and your Death Taxes and many many other examples. You know what, listen to a Labour MP flap their mouth for a few minutes and you'll find another one. Sure of it.
I reckon a good search would find an example of the former.
In all seriousness, does anyone genuinely believe that Johnson is looking to get a deal done?
It's not totally beyond the realms. If he's not a details man, if he's always got people under him to work up the details, if the tales of impossibility have been hard by him 100 times before for things that have ultimately been done, if the back of an envelope that's been presented to the EU is just how he works, then he make think it is all sincere.
It is not at all an uncommon mode of senior management overreach.
And what is the grand plan to sell this magic deal to the one body that matters most - parliament? Insult and threaten the opposition MPs? Insult and remove the whip from MPs in his own party? Genius!
Or daft.
To throw the word surrender around, whilst you are negotiating and need to sell something, what a playground error! Even girly swots know better than not to throw stones when in glass houses.
[to be said in same voice Potter said go home the police are waiting for you] Ramp it with the word surrender Boris, you know Farage is waiting for you
It is of course a lie to suggest that the Benn-Burt Act takes No Deal off the table.
It merely defers it to Jan 2020, and only then, subject to the EU agreeing to make an offer - or, alternatively, to some other date the EU offers, subject to the government and Commons not both rejecting it.
Agreed. It’s just can kicking.
No, it's not just can kicking. It allows a GE to take place in the meantime without an October 31st gun being held to our heads.
That is, given where we are, the best available route by far, perhaps the only one. If Boris wins it on a manifesto of crashing us out in chaos, well, then he'd have a mandate to do so and I for one wouldn't think it was illegitimate to do so (although it would of course still be raving bonkers as a policy). It would certainly be massively better than crashing us out in direct contradiction of the settled will of the current parliament.
If he doesn't get such a mandate, then the new parliament can consider what to do next - accept the Withdrawal Agreement, hold a referendum, go and fish for new unicorns, etc. But at least there will have been an election on the issue now facing us.
You convinced there will be an election in that little wintry window?
Dunno, but I think it's quite likely if the Benn Act does force an extension.
The term "surrender bill" is clearly hyperbole, but it does zero in on the point that it takes power away from the British government and give it to the European Union. It seems similar to the 350m for the NHS. It overstates the case but creates a controversy and focuses debate on an issue that helps the Leavers and hurts the Remainers.
You mean it’s working on the emotional thing, rather than the brain thing?
No not quite. We have a debate where Remain has points A, B and C on their side, while Leave has X, Y and Z on their side. If X = 5, then Cummings is shouting loudly that X= 8. Remainers can shout all they want about X only equalling 5. We are still talking about X and voters hear "Even in the best case that is five points to Leave".
There’s three ways in which we change society. One is through the ballot box, the democratic process and into Parliament. The second is trade union action, industrial action. The third is basically insurrection, but we now call it direct action…
Don’t expect that change coming from Parliament…we have an elected dictatorship, so I think we have a democratic right to use whatever means to bring this government down. The real fight now is in our communities, it’s on the picket lines, it’s in the streets.
Long time lurker - so can I just say thanks for the excellent site, comments, and banter.
To answer the question in the thread title in my personal experience - yes, Surrender Act seems to be cutting through, whether or not it means anything logically. It summarises a reality - that the UK is the weaker negotiating partner, it’s limited leverage squandered by bitter internal division, up against a more powerful entity which is likely to get its way in the end. It is a reality very many people are unhappy about. The phrase provides an emotive way to summarise that and to rail against it, that makes those people (myself included) happier.
For that reason I think it’s going to end up being as politically devastating as ‘Take Back Control’ was.
The word Back in that slogan is interesting. "Take Back Control" implies something was stolen from you. Same with the Again in "Make America Great Again". "Take Control" would be a more positive and proactive message.
Nevertheless the gig's up once you get onto Surrender bills. It's over bar the betrayal myths.
The term "surrender bill" is clearly hyperbole, but it does zero in on the point that it takes power away from the British government and give it to the European Union. It seems similar to the 350m for the NHS. It overstates the case but creates a controversy and focuses debate on an issue that helps the Leavers and hurts the Remainers.
It takes power away from the government and gives it to parliament. Because parliament wrote the letter, and if the EU rejects the term of the letter, it is down to parliament to choose what to do next. If the EU is like "we don't like the date, we suggest x" then we don't have to "just accept it" like the PM argues. Parliament votes on whether they want to accept that date. Now, is that moot because Parliament seem intent on preventing No Deal no matter what? Potentially. But it is an important distinction.
But the EU knows that parliament will rubber stamp any extension, so it hands substantial power to the EU.
Leave the EU officially Pay exit bill Dont send any UK officials/MEPs to EU Other arrangements stay as they were when we were in EU incl FOM and ECJ Negotiate FTA from there within 2 years
It would kind of take us back in time to where the UK wanted to be before we lost the timetabling issue (bar having paid the exit bill).
Yes obviously it needs a codified document to achieve it, but it is scrapping a different transition period and replacing it with largely status quo, but Boris able to claim success for leaving the EU.
If Johnson were to achieve this, or indeed the mooted alternative of WA with NI only backstop, and get it passed, he would deserve all the plaudits. I'd even go a little further. He would stake a claim to going down in history as a Great Man.
Why would Labour save Johnson now when they have him on the ropes? The price of Tory brexit in this parliament would at a minimum be the end of Johnsons "reign". He is not going to fall on his sword and the Tory party dont seem in a hurry to boot him out.
You misunderstand.
The A50 Extension letter is the electoral killer.
Labour wouldn't be 'saving' Johnson.
Johnson would be killing Labour by resigning.
I agree with you. However, I wonder whether Johnson is tactically astute enough to appreciate its merits. Maybe he is waiting to use the platform of the Conservative conference and a (rejected) Queens Speech before forcing the issue and putting the boot on the other foot.
It is of course a lie to suggest that the Benn-Burt Act takes No Deal off the table.
It merely defers it to Jan 2020, and only then, subject to the EU agreeing to make an offer - or, alternatively, to some other date the EU offers, subject to the government and Commons not both rejecting it.
Agreed. It’s just can kicking.
No, it's not just can kicking. It allows a GE to take place in the meantime without an October 31st gun being held to our heads.
That is, given where we are, the best available route by far, perhaps the only one. If Boris wins it on a manifesto of crashing us out in chaos, well, then he'd have a mandate to do so and I for one wouldn't think it was illegitimate to do so (although it would of course still be raving bonkers as a policy). It would certainly be massively better than crashing us out in direct contradiction of the settled will of the current parliament.
If he doesn't get such a mandate, then the new parliament can consider what to do next - accept the Withdrawal Agreement, hold a referendum, go and fish for new unicorns, etc. But at least there will have been an election on the issue now facing us.
You convinced there will be an election in that little wintry window?
Dunno, but I think it's quite likely if the Benn Act does force an extension.
It's dead-certain if we leave with no-deal. there will be nothing stopping parliament voting for it. that is the situation BJ wants as he can go into the election saying 'we have left' and squeezes TBP. unfortunately I think that it'll alienate a lot of the centre right and he loses to LD/others as many or more than he has gained. more so if the economy tanks because the markets collapse
ultimately leaving with no-deal is not (small c) conservative.
You cannot take No Deal off the table from a negotiation standpoint. It is like me going to my employer and saying "give me a pay rise or else. By the way, I won't leave."
The simple fact is, economically, the EU is in a grim state at the moment as per the economic data, and the last thing any of them needs is 1-2% off GDP, even if we are hit more.
As an employer if someone threatens to leave the last thing I am doing is giving a pay rise, I would be looking to manage their exit. Their best chance outside of a pay review would be to explain why their value is higher than they are getting.
In addition to that, I'm not entirely convinced that the metaphor is appropriate in the first place.
To me it looks much more like the employee has already submitted his notice of termination two and a half years ago, without the real prospect for a new, better job, and is now hoping that a supposedly desperate employer will lure him back with improved terms for a short term zero-hour contract.
Silly Samuel and Harry have had jobs at the nationals for years.
How come we never see Herdson or TSE on #skypapers e.g
The better threads are well up to National media standards, well above them in some cases.
You've not answered my question though. I've seen mike on daily politics, I think, and heard him on Today prog - why no Herdson et al making any coverage, the mini-guidos are always popping up on sky news - is it just a landan thing
How many are based in London, though ?
Yes I mentioned this landan/London - I put on an accent for comedic effect
It's always good to see a new contributor above the line - thanks, Egg. I followed it until the last couple of paragraphs,which seemed to switch from recommending No Deal as a tactic to opposing it. Perhaps I just need coffee.
An underlying issue here is whether we feel we're approaching the negotiations with an adversary ("How can we extract ourselves with them screwing us?") or a partner ("How can we make this work best for both of us?") Ministers seem mostly to be adopting option 1, which makes them and their wilder supporters regard anyone who disagrees as surrender monkeys. Most of us who want No Deal ruled out simply think it's a bad idea all round, and especially for Britain so it's a waste of time and credibility to threaten it.
The use of the term surrender bill is not really any different from a long line of names politicians have disingenuously referred to policies / acts they oppose. We have has all sorts of death taxes, dementia tax, etc
They do it because more often than not it cuts through. How many seats did May lose because of the care policy being misrepresented.
Bedroom tax is another. We have bad policies because of this phenomen, not sure how it can be stopped.
Sometimes it's warranted, sometimes it's not.
"Surrender Act", "bedroom tax" and "poll tax" all IMO sum neatly and accurately the effect of the legislation in question.
"Death tax" and "dementia tax" did not - both sides were deliberately misrepresenting the intent of proposed legislation by scaremongering.
Governments have been the instigators of the trend because they often chose names for legislation that disguises or misrepresents the broader effect. Do you remember "Care in the Community" (elderly residential care) or more recently "Supporting People" (housing for vulnerable people). Both had for their ulterior motive the shift of responsibility onto local government for care services without fully transferring budgets across, leaving local government the responsibility for imposing cuts on budgets that were escalating when funded directly by central government.
There’s three ways in which we change society. One is through the ballot box, the democratic process and into Parliament. The second is trade union action, industrial action. The third is basically insurrection, but we now call it direct action…
Don’t expect that change coming from Parliament…we have an elected dictatorship, so I think we have a democratic right to use whatever means to bring this government down. The real fight now is in our communities, it’s on the picket lines, it’s in the streets.
The use of the term surrender bill is not really any different from a long line of names politicians have disingenuously referred to policies / acts they oppose. We have has all sorts of death taxes, dementia tax, etc
They do it because more often than not it cuts through. How many seats did May lose because of the care policy being misrepresented.
Bedroom tax is another. We have bad policies because of this phenomen, not sure how it can be stopped.
Sometimes it's warranted, sometimes it's not.
"Surrender Act", "bedroom tax" and "poll tax" all IMO sum neatly and accurately the effect of the legislation in question.
"Death tax" and "dementia tax" did not - both sides were deliberately misrepresenting the intent of proposed legislation by scaremongering.
Governments have been the instigators of the trend because they often chose names for legislation that disguises or misrepresents the broader effect. Do you remember "Care in the Community" (elderly residential care) or more recently "Supporting People" (housing for vulnerable people). Both had for their ulterior motive the shift of responsibility onto local government for care services without fully transferring budgets across, leaving local government the responsibility for imposing cuts on budgets that were escalating when funded directly by central government.
Are you sure those are the names of Acts, rather than the name of the policy?
Congratulations Egg on your first thread piece. You will now learn for yourself that:
a) the job is unpaid b) you get a load of shit aimed at you, mostly from people who know even less than you c) most of the rest just ignore what you say and chat about their own preoccupations d) the time you spend on it is out of all proportion to any satisfaction it may give you
Well done, and keep going. Always good to have a range of voices.
Thanks. The flak will be no problem. And it took no time to write. I was in a sports bar yesterday afternoon drinking lager and watching cricket, I composed it all on back of a couple of beer mats.
It all revolves around one crux: is the no deal threat to EU, of us walking away with no deal, really that much threat to them to make a difference in negotiation?
Currently I don’t think it is, so I invite leavers to explain how it is.
Especially when, apparently, no deal will only cause a few bumps in the road for us.
It’s your belief no deal is just some short term issues between us and the sunlit uplands of freedom? Not a medium or long term issue?
Not at all just pointing out the two faced approach to the strength of no deal in that if it is not a problem the what’s the threat, if it is going to be a problem then he is lying
The term "surrender bill" is clearly hyperbole, but it does zero in on the point that it takes power away from the British government and give it to the European Union. It seems similar to the 350m for the NHS. It overstates the case but creates a controversy and focuses debate on an issue that helps the Leavers and hurts the Remainers.
It takes power away from the government and gives it to parliament. Because parliament wrote the letter, and if the EU rejects the term of the letter, it is down to parliament to choose what to do next. If the EU is like "we don't like the date, we suggest x" then we don't have to "just accept it" like the PM argues. Parliament votes on whether they want to accept that date. Now, is that moot because Parliament seem intent on preventing No Deal no matter what? Potentially. But it is an important distinction.
But the EU knows that parliament will rubber stamp any extension, so it hands substantial power to the EU.
I mean, Parliament may not rubber stamp any extension. And if it does, that is the will of parliament. If Parliament wishes to avoid no deal no matter what, by definition it requires the EU to agree to an extension, so this allows that. It is Parliament's will that an extension happens, and it will happen on terms acceptable by Parliament.
Brexit was based on lies and we will not “heal” until this is conceded.
We will not heal until it is forgotten about - or at least, regarded as being of no great consequence. This may take some time.
By contrast, requiring Leavers to concede that their victory was based on lies is essentially advocating a War Guilt Clause.
I was just thinking.
What do Leavers want the most? To Leave. What do Remainers want the most? For it to be acknowledged that the Brexit platform was in many ways a lie.
Both Leavers and Remainers can get what they want, if they are willing to compromise.
We need a government at this moment not just saying 'Never forget that compromise is not a dirty word. Life depends on compromise’ but being able to put that into action and carry the nation with them. in other words the complete opposite from the government we have got.
Past UK governments without exception (in the modern era anyway) have sought to persuade people of the rightness of their policies and try to create national unity around shared goals and aspirations. They weren't always successful at doing so of course, but they all tried.
May and Johnson have broken with this - the talk of citizens of nowhere and do or die is explicitly intended to foster division and alienate at least 48% of the country.
There’s three ways in which we change society. One is through the ballot box, the democratic process and into Parliament. The second is trade union action, industrial action. The third is basically insurrection, but we now call it direct action…
Don’t expect that change coming from Parliament…we have an elected dictatorship, so I think we have a democratic right to use whatever means to bring this government down. The real fight now is in our communities, it’s on the picket lines, it’s in the streets.
Brexit was based on lies and we will not “heal” until this is conceded.
We will not heal until it is forgotten about - or at least, regarded as being of no great consequence. This may take some time.
By contrast, requiring Leavers to concede that their victory was based on lies is essentially advocating a War Guilt Clause.
I was just thinking.
What do Leavers want the most? To Leave. What do Remainers want the most? For it to be acknowledged that the Brexit platform was in many ways a lie.
Both Leavers and Remainers can get what they want, if they are willing to compromise.
Both sides need to acknowledge the cases for Remain and for Leave were a mixture of good points and lies.
Remain lost. The argument is not about Remain lies (whatever those are).
What Remainers want is a) no damaging Brexit, ie not No Deal b) and end to the mendacious and hyperbolic rhetoric from “Leave” (currently Boris Johnson).
Leave promised it would be easy, Leave promised it would help the economy, Leave promised we would be part of a single trading entity stretching across Europe, Leave promised there would trade deals a go-go.
None of that was true.
If Boris wants to actually pass Brexit it means getting Remainers onside...this talk of “Surrender Bills” is the complete opposite of that.
It is of course a lie to suggest that the Benn-Burt Act takes No Deal off the table.
It merely defers it to Jan 2020, and only then, subject to the EU agreeing to make an offer - or, alternatively, to some other date the EU offers, subject to the government and Commons not both rejecting it.
Agreed. It’s just can kicking.
No, it's not just can kicking. It allows a GE to take place in the meantime without an October 31st gun being held to our heads.
That is, given where we are, the best available route by far, perhaps the only one. If Boris wins it on a manifesto of crashing us out in chaos, well, then he'd have a mandate to do so and I for one wouldn't think it was illegitimate to do so (although it would of course still be raving bonkers as a policy). It would certainly be massively better than crashing us out in direct contradiction of the settled will of the current parliament.
If he doesn't get such a mandate, then the new parliament can consider what to do next - accept the Withdrawal Agreement, hold a referendum, go and fish for new unicorns, etc. But at least there will have been an election on the issue now facing us.
With our Remainer parliament effectively in charge, the EU could chance their luck and put some nasty bells and whistles on the terms of that extension, judging probably correctly that parliament is so desperate to extend that they can successfully ask for even more from the UK. Maybe a 2 year extension for example? Or some reimbursement of costs to the EU caused by all the ongoing uncertainty?
They would be advised not to, because I think they wouldn't like the electoral consequences.
on topic: I'm not quite following your logic. From my simple position, leaving no deal on the table is supposed to mean we hold their feet to the fire because a no deal is worse than a deal.
But the reality is that whilst a no deal is not good for the EU27, it's much, much worse for us. And they also offset the problems of no deal with the political and economic need to preserve SM and CU integrity (with the added advantage from EU27 position of having a test case of the world of s**t leaving the EU creates for the leaver).
So I fail to see how a no deal an be a negotiating weapon.
It’s exploring that. Trying to provoke leavers to explain your very point.
Leavers, certainly the ERG et al, believe that keeping no-deal on the table has a major impact on the EU but don't believe that it will have any impact on the UK.
whereas the remainers in parliament believe that no-deal will have a major impact on the UK but a relatively minor one on the EU.
neither of those positions are strictly true as I think it'll be a major impact for both the UK and the EU
That's not strictly correct.
Leavers believe that the worse position for the UK will be offset by being "free to trade with the rest of the world".
Remainers believe that the EU recognises that the damage caused by no deal is less than the advantages they would lose by breaking the SM and CU.
The latter point is based on fact; the former is conjecture.
In all seriousness, does anyone genuinely believe that Johnson is looking to get a deal done?
I genuinely think he believes that if he can brandish No Deal at the EuCo summit, he will be able to negotiate a new deal which will amount to full continuity without the Withdrawal Agreement.
If that is the case, why hasn't HMG forwarded their suggested amendments to the text of the WA to enable that outcome?
I said without the Withdrawal Agreement. He wants to bypass it entirely and thinks the EU will be so afraid of the consequences of No Deal, that they will ensure there are no consequences.
Sorry - I must have translated that in my head to "without the backstop".
But it still makes no sense. How do you have a withdrawal agreement without a Withdrawal Agreement?!
My understanding would be:
Leave the EU officially Pay exit bill Dont send any UK officials/MEPs to EU Other arrangements stay as they were when we were in EU incl FOM and ECJ Negotiate FTA from there within 2 years
It would kind of take us back in time to where the UK wanted to be before we lost the timetabling issue (bar having paid the exit bill).
Yes obviously it needs a codified document to achieve it, but it is scrapping a different transition period and replacing it with largely status quo, but Boris able to claim success for leaving the EU.
Sorry. It does not work like that. If we do not exit by agreeing the WA before we leave, we will be leaving on WTO terms. And, I am sure, the EU will not even begin negotiations for a trade bill unless the 39bn or its equivalent at the time is paid or we agree to pay.
What is impossible about the above? Am I missing something?
There is give and take on all sides and without being a lawyer or having negotiated a trade deal it seems relatively straightforward.
The UK loses Mays red lines, but gets the sequencing back on track and avoids disaster Boris gets to claim sucess on his only promise ERG dont get what they want at all, but have power in cabinet to negotiate the FTA EU lose out on sequencing but get the exit bill sorted and avoid no deal Labour still have opportunity to topple govt and negotiate SM/CU from the transition if and when the electoral mood is right.
It is of course a lie to suggest that the Benn-Burt Act takes No Deal off the table.
It merely defers it to Jan 2020, and only then, subject to the EU agreeing to make an offer - or, alternatively, to some other date the EU offers, subject to the government and Commons not both rejecting it.
Agreed. It’s just can kicking.
No, it's not just can kicking. It allows a GE to take place in the meantime without an October 31st gun being held to our heads.
That is, given where we are, the best available route by far, perhaps the only one. If Boris wins it on a manifesto of crashing us out in chaos, well, then he'd have a mandate to do so and I for one wouldn't think it was illegitimate to do so (although it would of course still be raving bonkers as a policy). It would certainly be massively better than crashing us out in direct contradiction of the settled will of the current parliament.
If he doesn't get such a mandate, then the new parliament can consider what to do next - accept the Withdrawal Agreement, hold a referendum, go and fish for new unicorns, etc. But at least there will have been an election on the issue now facing us.
With our Remainer parliament effectively in charge, the EU could chance their luck and put some nasty bells and whistles on the terms of that extension, judging probably correctly that parliament is so desperate to extend that they can successfully ask for even more from the UK. Maybe a 2 year extension for example? Or some reimbursement of costs to the EU caused by all the ongoing uncertainty?
They would be advised not to, because I think they wouldn't like the electoral consequences.
They would only be able to put bells/whistles on which could pass parliament. an election would be one any other wouldn't
The use of the term surrender bill is not really any different from a long line of names politicians have disingenuously referred to policies / acts they oppose. We have has all sorts of death taxes, dementia tax, etc
They do it because more often than not it cuts through. How many seats did May lose because of the care policy being misrepresented.
Exactly.
At times, in Parliament in particular, it means using strong language but, actually, if it reflects your honest views, I think it is better to be honest than it is to be in any way deceptive.
I’m saying it’s used as deception. It’s a lie. You are only in a strong position if you are the one who can walk away and come out best from No Deal. Threatening EU with no deal is like threatening Hitler with Morris Dancing. Its weak threat. Its fake threat. We come out worse in that scenario. Hence it is us who need to take it off table.
this is the crux of the argument. Yes. You can in all honestly and belief say, no, the greater no deal threat is on the EU not us, that’s why need to use this threat. And yes, even say taking it off table is surrender to EU. But it means you are deluded, it’s not based on the facts, because its clearly not a strong threat from us. Its fake threat. It’s a lie.
It is leaders of Leave, intelligent enough to know the truth, misleading leave voters more than anyone. Exploiting them. Exploiting the divided country and the solid block of brexiteers who understand no deal to be a sort of short term pain between us and the sunlit uplands of freedom.
That lie. That misleading people. That exploitation. It’s an unpatriotic crime against this nation.
The use of the term surrender bill is not really any different from a long line of names politicians have disingenuously referred to policies / acts they oppose. We have has all sorts of death taxes, dementia tax, etc
They do it because more often than not it cuts through. How many seats did May lose because of the care policy being misrepresented.
Exactly.
At times, in Parliament in particular, it means using strong language but, actually, if it reflects your honest views, I think it is better to be honest than it is to be in any way deceptive.
I’m saying it’s used as deception. It’s a lie. You are only in a strong position if you are the one who can walk away and come out best from No Deal. Threatening EU with no deal is like threatening Hitler with Morris Dancing. Its weak threat. Its fake threat. We come out worse in that scenario. Hence it is us who need to take it off table.
this is the crux of the argument. Yes. You can in all honestly and belief say, no, the greater no deal threat is on the EU not us, that’s why need to use this threat. And yes, even say taking it off table is surrender to EU. But it means you are deluded, it’s not based on the facts, because its clearly not a strong threat from us. Its fake threat. It’s a lie.
It is leaders of Leave, intelligent enough to know the truth, misleading leave voters more than anyone. Exploiting them. Exploiting the divided country and the solid block of brexiteers who understand no deal to be a sort of short term pain between us and the sunlit uplands of freedom.
That lie. That misleading people. That exploitation. It’s an unpatriotic crime against this nation.
Not my words or belief I'm afraid. Words and beliefs of John McDonnell.
on topic: I'm not quite following your logic. From my simple position, leaving no deal on the table is supposed to mean we hold their feet to the fire because a no deal is worse than a deal.
But the reality is that whilst a no deal is not good for the EU27, it's much, much worse for us. And they also offset the problems of no deal with the political and economic need to preserve SM and CU integrity (with the added advantage from EU27 position of having a test case of the world of s**t leaving the EU creates for the leaver).
So I fail to see how a no deal an be a negotiating weapon.
It’s exploring that. Trying to provoke leavers to explain your very point.
Leavers, certainly the ERG et al, believe that keeping no-deal on the table has a major impact on the EU but don't believe that it will have any impact on the UK.
whereas the remainers in parliament believe that no-deal will have a major impact on the UK but a relatively minor one on the EU.
neither of those positions are strictly true as I think it'll be a major impact for both the UK and the EU
That's not strictly correct.
Leavers believe that the worse position for the UK will be offset by being "free to trade with the rest of the world".
Remainers believe that the EU recognises that the damage caused by no deal is less than the advantages they would lose by breaking the SM and CU.
The latter point is based on fact; the former is conjecture.
The Leave position may be true in the longer term and they are prepared to suffer the short term pain for it. for Remainers this doesn't fly both because of the short term but also because of the long term.
whether this is actually true or not will only be known if we do leave with no deal and make trade deals. how would our reputation fare if we left with no-deal
It won’t matter a jot if corbyn requests the extension to his vote. No matter what Johnson says he will have failed to deliver on his promise and has to now die in a ditch.
I'm genuinely surprised that you think it will not make a difference at the next GE if Corbyn requests the extension.
I think the surrender/betrayal/traitor narrative will sink him...just as it will Boris if he signs it.
The remainers won't care either way...they're heading for the Lib Dems.
It is the leavers that will have their vengeance on whoever does the deed.
Comments
Off topic, this lodge where I am in Kentucky - in temperatures predicted to top 90F/32C today - put its Christmas trees and other decorations up LAST WEEK. Surely this must be a record?
Although if riots are inevitable when no-deal is denied, you might need the stockpile either way.
So remainers approach is too logical and cerebral, they need to make it an emotional thing too?
Leave the EU officially
Pay exit bill
Dont send any UK officials/MEPs to EU
Other arrangements stay as they were when we were in EU incl FOM and ECJ
Negotiate FTA from there within 2 years
It would kind of take us back in time to where the UK wanted to be before we lost the timetabling issue (bar having paid the exit bill).
Yes obviously it needs a codified document to achieve it, but it is scrapping a different transition period and replacing it with largely status quo, but Boris able to claim success for leaving the EU.
They do it because more often than not it cuts through. How many seats did May lose because of the care policy being misrepresented.
In the unlikely event of a sitting PM resigning it’s not clear whether that would be someone from his own party or the LOTO, but there’s at least a risk that a snap change of leader in the Conservative party triggered by his resignation as PM could see the new leader asked to form a government.
By contrast, requiring Leavers to concede that their victory was based on lies is essentially advocating a War Guilt Clause.
(On a mildly related note, the Brexit saga - starting with the introduction of the Referendum Bill in 2015 - has now lasted longer than WW1).
That example only works if you walking away from jobs really hurts the other party in the negotiation. Does us no dealing really hurt EU to that influential extent?
It does raise a dilemma for politicians of good intent (ie NOT Johnson). Should they take on the slogan and point out that insisting on Johnson doing what he said he would do and get a deal, isn't surrender, and in this way inadvertently give the slander currency?. Or should they let it pass unchallenged.
What do Leavers want the most? To Leave.
What do Remainers want the most? For it to be acknowledged that the Brexit platform was in many ways a lie.
Both Leavers and Remainers can get what they want, if they are willing to compromise.
At times, in Parliament in particular, it means using strong language but, actually, if it reflects your honest views, I think it is better to be honest than it is to be in any way deceptive.
But you're.... probably safe.
My concern is Singapore, where the Ferrari pace was very strong.
whereas the remainers in parliament believe that no-deal will have a major impact on the UK but a relatively minor one on the EU.
neither of those positions are strictly true as I think it'll be a major impact for both the UK and the EU
And unfortunately there seems to be a trend in politics these days whereby if you have low (or no) standards you benefit from this because you get judged against that low (or non existent) bar.
So, X lies, or does or says something tacky, something really low rent, and rather than shock horror that is terrible, it's "Oh well, that's just X" - or my own personal unfavourite, "Yeah, I know, awful, but everyone knows what X is like. It's priced in."
There seem to be more Xs around now than there used to be. It is a most unwelcome development.
I reckon a good search would find an example of the former.
Both at the same times, OK, fair point ...
To throw the word surrender around, whilst you are negotiating and need to sell something, what a playground error! Even girly swots know better than not to throw stones when in glass houses.
[to be said in same voice Potter said go home the police are waiting for you]
Ramp it with the word surrender Boris, you know Farage is waiting for you
Don’t expect that change coming from Parliament…we have an elected dictatorship, so I think we have a democratic right to use whatever means to bring this government down. The real fight now is in our communities, it’s on the picket lines, it’s in the streets.
Nevertheless the gig's up once you get onto Surrender bills. It's over bar the betrayal myths.
ultimately leaving with no-deal is not (small c) conservative.
To me it looks much more like the employee has already submitted his notice of termination two and a half years ago, without the real prospect for a new, better job, and is now hoping that a supposedly desperate employer will lure him back with improved terms for a short term zero-hour contract.
The whole idea seems somewhat risible.
An underlying issue here is whether we feel we're approaching the negotiations with an adversary ("How can we extract ourselves with them screwing us?") or a partner ("How can we make this work best for both of us?") Ministers seem mostly to be adopting option 1, which makes them and their wilder supporters regard anyone who disagrees as surrender monkeys. Most of us who want No Deal ruled out simply think it's a bad idea all round, and especially for Britain so it's a waste of time and credibility to threaten it.
FPT:
Interesting discussion of polling:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/27/voters-so-promiscuous-the-pollsters-working-to-predict-next-election
"Surrender Act", "bedroom tax" and "poll tax" all IMO sum neatly and accurately the effect of the legislation in question.
"Death tax" and "dementia tax" did not - both sides were deliberately misrepresenting the intent of proposed legislation by scaremongering.
Governments have been the instigators of the trend because they often chose names for legislation that disguises or misrepresents the broader effect. Do you remember "Care in the Community" (elderly residential care) or more recently "Supporting People" (housing for vulnerable people). Both had for their ulterior motive the shift of responsibility onto local government for care services without fully transferring budgets across, leaving local government the responsibility for imposing cuts on budgets that were escalating when funded directly by central government.
May and Johnson have broken with this - the talk of citizens of nowhere and do or die is explicitly intended to foster division and alienate at least 48% of the country.
Full disclosure - I tried for a vanilla race last weekend but bet in play Hulkenburg at 499/1
Passing's very hard, so gentleness on tyres may matter more.
If Verstappen has another ropey start that'll harm him quite a bit.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11893986/Jeremy-Corbyns-top-team-encouraged-street-riots.html
The argument is not about Remain lies (whatever those are).
What Remainers want is
a) no damaging Brexit, ie not No Deal
b) and end to the mendacious and hyperbolic rhetoric from “Leave” (currently Boris Johnson).
Leave promised it would be easy, Leave promised it would help the economy, Leave promised we would be part of a single trading entity stretching across Europe, Leave promised there would trade deals a go-go.
None of that was true.
If Boris wants to actually pass Brexit it means getting Remainers onside...this talk of “Surrender Bills” is the complete opposite of that.
They would be advised not to, because I think they wouldn't like the electoral consequences.
The pay TV deal remains bloody stupid, though.
Leavers believe that the worse position for the UK will be offset by being "free to trade with the rest of the world".
Remainers believe that the EU recognises that the damage caused by no deal is less than the advantages they would lose by breaking the SM and CU.
The latter point is based on fact; the former is conjecture.
There is give and take on all sides and without being a lawyer or having negotiated a trade deal it seems relatively straightforward.
The UK loses Mays red lines, but gets the sequencing back on track and avoids disaster
Boris gets to claim sucess on his only promise
ERG dont get what they want at all, but have power in cabinet to negotiate the FTA
EU lose out on sequencing but get the exit bill sorted and avoid no deal
Labour still have opportunity to topple govt and negotiate SM/CU from the transition if and when the electoral mood is right.
this is the crux of the argument. Yes. You can in all honestly and belief say, no, the greater no deal threat is on the EU not us, that’s why need to use this threat. And yes, even say taking it off table is surrender to EU. But it means you are deluded, it’s not based on the facts, because its clearly not a strong threat from us. Its fake threat. It’s a lie.
It is leaders of Leave, intelligent enough to know the truth, misleading leave voters more than anyone. Exploiting them. Exploiting the divided country and the solid block of brexiteers who understand no deal to be a sort of short term pain between us and the sunlit uplands of freedom.
That lie. That misleading people. That exploitation. It’s an unpatriotic crime against this nation.
BFE
Stoke 2.5
Nottingham Forrest 3.45
Draw 3.2
Sorry..being slightly disingenuous.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11893986/Jeremy-Corbyns-top-team-encouraged-street-riots.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/john-mcdonnell-lynching-personal-abuse-jeremy-corbyn-esther-mcvey-labour-conference-a7328876.html
whether this is actually true or not will only be known if we do leave with no deal and make trade deals. how would our reputation fare if we left with no-deal
I think the surrender/betrayal/traitor narrative will sink him...just as it will Boris if he signs it.
The remainers won't care either way...they're heading for the Lib Dems.
It is the leavers that will have their vengeance on whoever does the deed.