IDS on radio 4 suggesting the gov may need to VONC in itself. This seems very possible to me, with agreement from SNP and LibDems (who want an election) will produce 50% + for it to pass.
If this happens, this needs an additional 14 days and assuming no alternative gov is formed we are into a 2020 election. Too late for 12/19, which is good for my bets!
The SNP want an election soon. The Lib Dems do not.
Have they both said as much, or is this just a bit more Tory spin?
I spoke with a Lib Dem MP recently and that was straight from the horses mouth. The SNP position is my own conjecture based on public statements.
I can only see the Lib Dems voting for an election if they think it's going to go through already, and they don't want the optics of having been dragged into one.
Boris is playing a simple game, but one seemingly too complicated for MPs. I say I will do this, but I'm completely thwarted by the opposition who don't want it. Am I then a liar?
There's more than a hint of childishness about all this. Na-na-na, we stopped you, and your granny smalls of piss.
Most people want Brexit sorted (see the polls) So not allowing that to happen will make you popular? Really?
Rich Burgon is becoming a national treasure.... he should get his own Saturday night TV series and follow in the great footsteps of his true forebears - Les Dennis, Dustin Gee, Bobby Davro and Mr Blobby.
Rich Burgon is becoming a national treasure.... he should get his own Saturday night TV series and follow in the great footsteps of his true forebears - Les Dennis, Dustin Gee, Bobby Davro and Mr Blobby.
No, he'd have to be part of a comedy duo, as the dull straight-man.
Only for as long as it's off the Parliamentary agenda. If it comes back, which Labour might very well see as their wisest course of action, then Johnson owns neither the content nor the timing.
I think Labour could play a very astute game here by SO24-ing the bill back into committee stage and tabling their amendments. It would stymie the idea of them blocking Brexit. If they played a full hand they might even attach their PV at the end of it.
p.s. Ken Clarke and Jeremy Corbyn last night were more-or-less saying the same thing on this.
This is actually the most democratic route, from the perspective of parliamentary democracy.
Johnson then resigns Corbyn invited to be PM and form a government. Johnson puts down vote of no confidence in corbyn then what?
Labour could have had a very simple Brexit policy. Between the gaping WTO/harder FTA Canada+++ Tory/Brexit position and revocation of Lib Dems/SNP there was at the start a gaping hole for arguing to be in the single market, outside CU Norway arrangement. It was massive !
Instead they decided to set 6 impossible tests before breakfast and just say no to whatever the Tories proposed. Now they're like a reluctant passenger on the People's vote bus.
To make things easy, I would define leaving the EU as paying no further money. I would define not leaving the EU as paying the same money as we do now. Unless, you have a different definition.
No doubt economic models will tell us that the economy is a percent or so smaller than it might have been but as the comparator does not exist in the real world none of us will really notice that either.
The impact of the latest Boris Johnson deal is projected to be a cumulative 7% or so - nearly as bad as no deal.
That's the equivalent of a very severe recession that the Conservatives are going to inflict on us. Nor is there any reason to expect Britain to rebound from that, since Britain is weighing itself down with more anti-competitiveness by distancing itself and putting barriers in the way of trading with its biggest market. Fuck business, as our Prime Minister said.
As a bonus, the Conservatives have sought to trash the constitution along the way at every stage.
The whole thing is a complete disaster anyway you care to look at it.
It's 7% after 10 years. That's the equivalent of shaving off 0.68% of growth a year. If our growth is normally around 2% year, we would lose one third of it. That's significant, but it's not a severe recession.
Why do you think Britain's growth rate is around 2% a year?
Does the electoral register have information on those under 17? I thought it only held details of those who would become 18 during the term of the next register? Can 16 and 17 year olds actually get a vote in December even if that law is passed?
Except maybe there are three camps: 1) sovereignty (the old-time Tory Eurobores and some on the Labour left) 2) immigration (Farage, or at least his supporters) 3) free market extremists and their hedgw fund mates.
As Banks notes, it was unhelpful to the Leave cause to tell voters the main benefit of Brexit will be to close their factories. The Remain side similarly took aim at its own foot by saying the main drawback of Brexit was that wages would go up.
There won’t be an election in 2019 I don’t think. A campaign at Christmas would be a farce, so I think we are probably looking at Feb or March. That’s my best guess anyway.
And how they often come from organisations with perhaps not the best record of accurate forecasting and commented on by PBers with not the best record of economic forecasting themselves
I suspect Foxy is correct then trend growths have fallen in the western world and this was I suspect inevitable, after all very low levels of economic growth were the norm throughout most of human history.
And perhaps lower levels of economic growth are no bad thing regarding the environment and also if it forces us to look at what we want the economy 'to do'.
BTW the cumulative loss of GDP if the 2008-9 recession hadn't occurred and the economy had continued to grow at 2% per year has now gone past 100% and will be increasing at over 10% every year onwards.
AlastairMeeks said: "The whole thing is a complete disaster anyway you care to look at it."
Yeah - If sense prevailed MPs wuld grow some balls and Revoke and insist with EU that we are entitled to apply an emergency brake on free movement. If they had agreed this when Cameron tried to get reforms the referendum result would probably have been different and we wouldn`t be in the mess we are now.
The Remain side similarly took aim at its own foot by saying the main drawback of Brexit was that wages would go up.
Eh? I confess I missed that nugget. Where? Who? When?
It's true - there was an argument going around that business would be hurt by the loss of European workers, driving up costs, with the clear implication of higher wages.
I would be the last to argue that the remain campaign was a masterpiece of strategic accomplishment.
There won’t be an election in 2019 I don’t think. A campaign at Christmas would be a farce, so I think we are probably looking at Feb or March. That’s my best guess anyway.
RIchard Burgon wants an election before Christmas and claims Corbyn thinks the same.
It may have begun to bore the Remainers, but the machinations are now irritating many Leave voters. I accept having my vote ignored, I'm used to that, but the transparent lies are another matter.
What surprises me is that some leavers seem not to have worked out even now that the country is waiting for them to come up with a plan which delivers on the fantasy they outlined in 2016. Three years on and we have finally, in the last month, had an insight into what Brexit actually is. The Johnson deal is the first time we have actually been given any idea of what 'real' Brexit might look like.
The problem is that the Johnson deal is a million miles from the fantasy on the big red bus. It creates a border in our own country and it creates different classes of UK 'citizens' some with more right than others.
It is no wonder that he has been trying to force it through without any scrutiny. It will be interesting to see how it goes with the public. I suspect that many will not see through it until it is too late but those I talk to are pretty clear that it is a really bad deal. So the election may not be as easy as the Tories think.
I may be in an echo chamber (as we all may be), but what I've noticed is the slow corrosion in the trust of MPs. When Brexit dies a slow death (as I've said will happen on here a few times), the remaining feeling will be the that MPs aren't on our side at all. They have their own agenda and will only pay lip service to the voters' wishes.
when they say "we need more time to go through the deal and make amendments", they mean "Oh, goody, another chance to delay and leave a few people to pick out bits they don't like and complain. We can keep these extensions going for another year or two until the voters lose interest."
It may have begun to bore the Remainers, but the machinations are now irritating many Leave voters. I accept having my vote ignored, I'm used to that, but the transparent lies are another matter.
I mean, I don't know what people who voted Leave thought they meant by "take back control" but our elected representatives are holding the executive to account as best they can (badly) and not just letting the minority government do as it pleases (as in a Government from a party that failed to win a democratic election, therefore it can't pass all the policies it stood for during that election).
To me, that is the epitome of "Take Back Control". What doesn't scream functioning democracy is the minority executive claiming that the duly elected representative and legislative body lacks legitimacy because said legislative body wants to... scrutinise legislation.
People can say "3 years have gone by and parliament have had time to do it's job" but actually, no they haven't. Because every time they try to do their job the executive, May previously and Johnson now, refused to be scrutinised. Hence the need for procedural trickery. They wanted to get this WAB through in 3 days. Legislation on preventing animal cruelty in circus performances, 4 days. Maastricht, 23 days (if I remember rightly). The complete disentanglement from almost 40 years of law and economic union? 3 days.
I understand the strain on populism that distrusts politicians and "just wants to leave". But if we did, and it all crashes around peoples' ears, there will be cries of "whose fault is all this"? And right now, no one wants to be introspective and suggest, just maybe, it was our fault all along. Leavers and Remainers, Tory and Labour, left and right. We went about this all the wrong way, and we will pay the price. Except, at times of national strain, economic downturn and populism turned nativism turned "we was betrayed" the people who actually pay the price are usually the weakest amongst us...
I should, of course, have said that Boris' cunning plan was to call an election on 'Who runs Britain? MPs or the voters?' But you knew that, didn't you?
Whining about it, won't alter that. It's been an absolute electoral disaster so far, hasn't it?
Boris is playing a simple game, but one seemingly too complicated for MPs. I say I will do this, but I'm completely thwarted by the opposition who don't want it. Am I then a liar?
There's more than a hint of childishness about all this. Na-na-na, we stopped you, and your granny smalls of piss.
Most people want Brexit sorted (see the polls) So not allowing that to happen will make you popular? Really?
Boris has always ducked scrutiny, and when he is cornered, his replies are usually irrelevant or ambiguous. And very occasionally, he fibs. Has anyone bought one of Boris's bus paintings at a Tory fundraiser?
So I shall not be basing my betting on what "Downing Street" might or might not have said to "Scottish Tories".
Is today the day they finally all agree to hold an election?
Working the Blues' numbers, I make it that there are 27 MPs sitting in Parliament who were elected as Tories but are now not.
The non-independents (5):
Soubry (TIG) Lee (LD) Wallaston (LD) Gymah (LD) Allen (LD)
Of these perhaps only Wallaston stands a decent chance of retaining her seat and even then MarkyMark thinks not. Soubry's seat is a toss up of course but seems unlikely she'll be the winner herself.
I would say Heidi Allen is by far the most likely to hold her seat.
Maybe yeah. 62% odd Remain seat. But then again the Lib Dem candidate was still 13% behind Lansley in the 2010 Cleggasm election.
She's a popular incumbent, the libdems have s good local organisation, and a number of prominent local conservatives have stuck with her. If she'd stood as an independent, with the LDs remaining neutral, then I think she'd be a clear favourite. As it is, I'd make her a 50/50 shot.
Remarkable, really, since from the first day she arrived in the Commons after GE2015 she didn’t really act like a Conservative.
I honestly have no idea why she joined.
The seat encompasses two liberal Cambridge colleges (Homerton and Girton) and an increasing proportion of overflow Cambridge tech workers and academics. In the last twenty years, it's gone from wealthy agricultural seat, to Cambridge and London tech overflow.
It's the kind of seat that would be trending libdem in normal times.
Go to Cambridge: end up soaking wet.
Give me a redbrick any day.
It takes all sorts to make a nation. Just red bricks, just Hampstead-ites, just conservatives, just liberals, just anything make for a dull and failing state.
We need it all, even if it makes us uncomfortable some times.
And how they often come from organisations with perhaps not the best record of accurate forecasting and commented on by PBers with not the best record of economic forecasting themselves
I suspect Foxy is correct then trend growths have fallen in the western world and this was I suspect inevitable, after all very low levels of economic growth were the norm throughout most of human history.
And perhaps lower levels of economic growth are no bad thing regarding the environment and also if it forces us to look at what we want the economy 'to do'.
BTW the cumulative loss of GDP if the 2008-9 recession hadn't occurred and the economy had continued to grow at 2% per year has now gone past 100% and will be increasing at over 10% every year onwards.
Eh? Growth as a concept is really only meaningful for the last 250 years or so. Before the agricultural revolution, long term growth was basically nil. Historical times go back thousands of years. Humanity goes back hundreds of thousands of years. Economic growth is a pretty new concept.
What surprises me is that some leavers seem not to have worked out even now that the country is waiting for them to come up with a plan which delivers on the fantasy they outlined in 2016. Three years on and we have finally, in the last month, had an insight into what Brexit actually is. The Johnson deal is the first time we have actually been given any idea of what 'real' Brexit might look like.
The problem is that the Johnson deal is a million miles from the fantasy on the big red bus. It creates a border in our own country and it creates different classes of UK 'citizens' some with more right than others.
It is no wonder that he has been trying to force it through without any scrutiny. It will be interesting to see how it goes with the public. I suspect that many will not see through it until it is too late but those I talk to are pretty clear that it is a really bad deal. So the election may not be as easy as the Tories think.
Quite. Johnson's deal will now be scrutinised in an election campaign rather than in parliament and it is not likely to survive the experience.
johnt said: "Three years on and we have finally, in the last month, had an insight into what Brexit actually is. The Johnson deal is the first time we have actually been given any idea of what 'real' Brexit might look like."
Yes, indeed. A real brexit - i.e. one that Brexiteers feel that their 2016 win implied - involves damage to the union. We now know this. This clearly (I`m not even going to say IMO) means that the 2016 referendum is no mandate for what is being proposed.
The truth, at bottom, is that leaving the EU is incompatible with the Good Friday Agreement.
@HYUFD how are you going to increase spending and lower taxes without increasing the deficit?
Please answer without using the phrase “laffer curve”.
By the laffer curve of course but Boris does not care about deficits, he is a Reagan or Berlusconi or George W Bush populist conservative anyway. Plus Corbyn does not care about deficits either anyway
Do you know what our particular laffer curve looks like and where we are on it? If not how do you know whether we are on or past the point of reduced returns?
Excellent header. But unfortunately not one the average voter would be capable of processing. We therefore must turn it into a slogan. I think I have one -
@HYUFD how are you going to increase spending and lower taxes without increasing the deficit?
Please answer without using the phrase “laffer curve”.
By the laffer curve of course but Boris does not care about deficits, he is a Reagan or Berlusconi or George W Bush populist conservative anyway. Plus Corbyn does not care about deficits either anyway
Do you know what our particular laffer curve looks like and where we are on it? If not how do you know whether we are on or past the point of reduced returns?
What surprises me is that some leavers seem not to have worked out even now that the country is waiting for them to come up with a plan which delivers on the fantasy they outlined in 2016. Three years on and we have finally, in the last month, had an insight into what Brexit actually is. The Johnson deal is the first time we have actually been given any idea of what 'real' Brexit might look like.
The problem is that the Johnson deal is a million miles from the fantasy on the big red bus. It creates a border in our own country and it creates different classes of UK 'citizens' some with more right than others.
It is no wonder that he has been trying to force it through without any scrutiny. It will be interesting to see how it goes with the public. I suspect that many will not see through it until it is too late but those I talk to are pretty clear that it is a really bad deal. So the election may not be as easy as the Tories think.
Quite. Johnson's deal will now be scrutinised in an election campaign rather than in parliament and it is not likely to survive the experience.
Presumably there would be a scare story a day about what the deal meant during the election campaign. Judging by the Brexit Secretary's preparedness, this would be met with a flat-footed response.
What surprises me is that some leavers seem not to have worked out even now that the country is waiting for them to come up with a plan which delivers on the fantasy they outlined in 2016. Three years on and we have finally, in the last month, had an insight into what Brexit actually is. The Johnson deal is the first time we have actually been given any idea of what 'real' Brexit might look like.
The problem is that the Johnson deal is a million miles from the fantasy on the big red bus. It creates a border in our own country and it creates different classes of UK 'citizens' some with more right than others.
It is no wonder that he has been trying to force it through without any scrutiny. It will be interesting to see how it goes with the public. I suspect that many will not see through it until it is too late but those I talk to are pretty clear that it is a really bad deal. So the election may not be as easy as the Tories think.
Quite. Johnson's deal will now be scrutinised in an election campaign rather than in parliament and it is not likely to survive the experience.
Opposition parties will say it's terrible, the Tories will say it is brilliant, Farage will say it is not "real" Brexit. Noone's going to try to understand it personally.
The hard line leavers want an election because they know it is the only way a No Deal Brexit can be delivered on as little as 35% of the votes with the opposition split.
Once Johnson has an overall majority anything he has said to get there will count for nothing.
So we could end up leaving without a deal based on a government elected on 35% of the votes with every other MP in parliament opposed. That of course will be seen as perfectly "democratic" by some
With a fair electoral system No Deal would have zero chance of ever being agreed.
johnt said: "Three years on and we have finally, in the last month, had an insight into what Brexit actually is. The Johnson deal is the first time we have actually been given any idea of what 'real' Brexit might look like."
Yes, indeed. A real brexit - i.e. one that Brexiteers feel that their 2016 win implied - involves damage to the union. We now know this. This clearly (I`m not even going to say IMO) means that the 2016 referendum is no mandate for what is being proposed.
The truth, at bottom, is that leaving the EU is incompatible with the Good Friday Agreement.
Leaving the EU will split this country in half - the advantage is that it does give the opposition a simple line of attack but that gets destroyed by the SNP insisting on leaving.
So I don't think the line of attack actually works things are messed up.
I should, of course, have said that Boris' cunning plan was to call an election on 'Who runs Britain? MPs or the voters?' But you knew that, didn't you?
Whining about it, won't alter that. It's been an absolute electoral disaster so far, hasn't it?
Who are MPs representing when most MPs do not have majority support in their seats? Our system is not one where MPs are supposed to be mouthpieces of the people who elect them. We are supposed to elect people to use their personal judgement on our behalf, because they are supposed to be doing this for a living. We have the opportunity to leave the machinations of state to those who wish to participate, and they take that role. Just like a plumber or electrician, we delegate to them a skill we don't want to learn ourselves.
If you want a direct democracy, fine, it has benefits and issues different to our system. But that isn't what we have.
MPs are, for better or worse, supposed to be the people who run the country. The electorate vote for, talk to and lobby their MPs in how they think it should be done.
Was the 2017 election illegitimate? No. MPs have their mandate. They can use that mandate to call another election if they wish, but they were elected for 5 years to use their judgement to do politics on our behalf. I dislike that, sometimes, but I don't claim it is an illegitimate demos or political body. I think it needs massive reform, but to be like "pffft, we dislike parliament, they should do whatever the current executive says because I agree with them" is highly problematic.
If Corbyn becomes PM of a minority Labour government, would you want him to have the same power / mandate you think Johnson should have? Would ANY version of Brexit Corbyn presents be acceptable to you, because Brexit wasn't defined on the ballot, so as long as it is some kind of Leave the democratic mandate is fulfilled? Would you be happy with a Corbyn WAB to get 3 days of discussion in parliament?
These are the reasons we have the rules we do; they constrain those you disagree with as well as those you agree with. Rules that only bind one side does not a functioning democracy make.
The truth, at bottom, is that leaving the EU is incompatible with the Good Friday Agreement.
And politicians should have said so, when explaining why they weren't holding a referendum, instead of thinking they could win a referendum and not have to confront that truth.
It's easy to blame Cameron - and I do - but almost all politicians are culpable. It was the Lib Dems who first advocated an in/out referendum as some sort of clever tactical ruse
I may be in an echo chamber (as we all may be), but what I've noticed is the slow corrosion in the trust of MPs. When Brexit dies a slow death (as I've said will happen on here a few times), the remaining feeling will be the that MPs aren't on our side at all. They have their own agenda and will only pay lip service to the voters' wishes.
when they say "we need more time to go through the deal and make amendments", they mean "Oh, goody, another chance to delay and leave a few people to pick out bits they don't like and complain. We can keep these extensions going for another year or two until the voters lose interest."
It may have begun to bore the Remainers, but the machinations are now irritating many Leave voters. I accept having my vote ignored, I'm used to that, but the transparent lies are another matter.
Which lies are those, precisely?
Parliament has voted to Exercise A50, and indeed has now voted to progress the Withdrawal Act.
This, despite the fact May failed to win a majority and Boris has conspired to make his worse.
The lie - and I accept that it is causing widespread corrosion of trust - is that Brexit would be immediate and easy.
No pro-Brexiter in the public eye has ever had the balls or honesty to say it by necessity must be long and difficult.
What surprises me is that some leavers seem not to have worked out even now that the country is waiting for them to come up with a plan which delivers on the fantasy they outlined in 2016. Three years on and we have finally, in the last month, had an insight into what Brexit actually is. The Johnson deal is the first time we have actually been given any idea of what 'real' Brexit might look like.
The problem is that the Johnson deal is a million miles from the fantasy on the big red bus. It creates a border in our own country and it creates different classes of UK 'citizens' some with more right than others.
It is no wonder that he has been trying to force it through without any scrutiny. It will be interesting to see how it goes with the public. I suspect that many will not see through it until it is too late but those I talk to are pretty clear that it is a really bad deal. So the election may not be as easy as the Tories think.
That is the point. Boris understands the paradox. The aspiration of Brexit is popular; the fact of Brexit will not be.
Boris is not trying to force through Brexit. Boris is trying to force an election before Brexit's economic dislocations sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street, while giving the impression of trying to force Brexit.
The hard line leavers want an election because they know it is the only way a No Deal Brexit can be delivered on as little as 35% of the votes with the opposition split.
Once Johnson has an overall majority anything he has said to get there will count for nothing.
So we could end up leaving without a deal based on a government elected on 35% of the votes with every other MP in parliament opposed. That of course will be seen as perfectly "democratic" by some
With a fair electoral system No Deal would have zero chance of ever being agreed.
The idea Johnson is going to chuck the UK into economic chaos leaving with "No Deal" after say winning an election is absolutely preposterous.
If you think MPs throwing their weight around merely to score points is good for democracy why not have a GE and reap the benefits?
"Throwing their weight around merely to score points"
This is massively disingenuous. Exceptionally so.
The Conservative party stood on a manifesto outlining the kind of Leave they wanted. They were not gifted a majority be the electorate, therefore their brand of Leave was not democratically endorsed. So, logic suggests, that the governing party should look to find consent with other duly elected representatives. This they did not do. May and now Johnson were secretive, combative, untruthful and generally evasive of scrutiny. If that is "throwing weight around merely to score points" you just don't care about democracy, you care about your team "winning".
No doubt economic models will tell us that the economy is a percent or so smaller than it might have been but as the comparator does not exist in the real world none of us will really notice that either.
The impact of the latest Boris Johnson deal is projected to be a cumulative 7% or so - nearly as bad as no deal.
That's the equivalent of a very severe recession that the Conservatives are going to inflict on us. Nor is there any reason to expect Britain to rebound from that, since Britain is weighing itself down with more anti-competitiveness by distancing itself and putting barriers in the way of trading with its biggest market. Fuck business, as our Prime Minister said.
As a bonus, the Conservatives have sought to trash the constitution along the way at every stage.
The whole thing is a complete disaster anyway you care to look at it.
It's 7% after 10 years. That's the equivalent of shaving off 0.68% of growth a year. If our growth is normally around 2% year, we would lose one third of it. That's significant, but it's not a severe recession.
Why do you think Britain's growth rate is around 2% a year?
What surprises me is that some leavers seem not to have worked out even now that the country is waiting for them to come up with a plan which delivers on the fantasy they outlined in 2016. Three years on and we have finally, in the last month, had an insight into what Brexit actually is. The Johnson deal is the first time we have actually been given any idea of what 'real' Brexit might look like.
The problem is that the Johnson deal is a million miles from the fantasy on the big red bus. It creates a border in our own country and it creates different classes of UK 'citizens' some with more right than others.
It is no wonder that he has been trying to force it through without any scrutiny. It will be interesting to see how it goes with the public. I suspect that many will not see through it until it is too late but those I talk to are pretty clear that it is a really bad deal. So the election may not be as easy as the Tories think.
That is the point. Boris understands the paradox. The aspiration of Brexit is popular; the fact of Brexit will not be.
Boris is not trying to force through Brexit. Boris is trying to force an election before Brexit's economic dislocations sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street, while giving the impression of trying to force Brexit.
I don't buy this. Boris came up with a fair deal (against the odds) and parliament essentially blocked its progress, those saying he should try and push it through have obviously been asleep for the last few months. Do they really think the whipless Tories, Labour rebels and Independents will vote it through at every stage rather than tacking on wrecking amendments?
These actions are incredibly transparent to the public and explain why Boris's deal has such backing from leave voters. A general election may not do much in the way of a Tory majority but it will at least help get rid of the many ex Tories who reneged on their manifesto pledge and only seek to needlessly prolong the Brexit process.
What surprises me is that some leavers seem not to have worked out even now that the country is waiting for them to come up with a plan which delivers on the fantasy they outlined in 2016. Three years on and we have finally, in the last month, had an insight into what Brexit actually is. The Johnson deal is the first time we have actually been given any idea of what 'real' Brexit might look like.
The problem is that the Johnson deal is a million miles from the fantasy on the big red bus. It creates a border in our own country and it creates different classes of UK 'citizens' some with more right than others.
It is no wonder that he has been trying to force it through without any scrutiny. It will be interesting to see how it goes with the public. I suspect that many will not see through it until it is too late but those I talk to are pretty clear that it is a really bad deal. So the election may not be as easy as the Tories think.
Quite. Johnson's deal will now be scrutinised in an election campaign rather than in parliament and it is not likely to survive the experience.
Presumably there would be a scare story a day about what the deal meant during the election campaign. Judging by the Brexit Secretary's preparedness, this would be met with a flat-footed response.
Indeed.
In years to come I think we may look back on the past few days as peak Brexit. Had Johnson won the MV on Saturday we might now be on the way to leaving with his deal, but now there will be a general election and it is quite likely that this will result in no Brexit at all. Any result other than a Tory majority will mean either revocation or a second referendum, and despite the optimism of many Tories on here I doubt they will win. The deal will be torn to shreds when the detail begins to emerge and Johnson will be forced to defend what will be seen to be indefensible. His character will become an issue and, judging by his cowardly performance during the Tory leadership campaign, he will melt in the heat of a general election.
IDS on radio 4 suggesting the gov may need to VONC in itself. This seems very possible to me, with agreement from SNP and LibDems (who want an election) will produce 50% + for it to pass.
If this happens, this needs an additional 14 days and assuming no alternative gov is formed we are into a 2020 election. Too late for 12/19, which is good for my bets!
The SNP want an election soon. The Lib Dems do not.
I am neither convinced nor impressed by the "we're so clever" reluctance to call for elections that affects a number of opposition parties.
The SNP want an election so long as it's to Westminster, where the FPTP system usually makes a leading party's seat totals exaggerate its voteshare and this applies too to a party which benefits from highly concentrated support in one geographical region. They conduct themselves as if they hold a mandate for another indyref when the reality is that in 2017 their voteshare at Holyrood fell to 37% and they lost their majority. They only won as many votes as they did because there was a kind of continuing euphoria combined with a "we was robbed" feeling among some of their non-core supporters who voted in the Scottish GE when otherwise they would have abstained. (There has always been a lower turnout in Scotland for Holyrood than for Westminster.) The SNP only remain in office because they are propped up by the Greens. They haven't got the guts to call for a Scottish GE. I have never found cowardice pleasant to observe.
I am not convinced of the Labour leadership's wisdom either in having kept such a wreck of a Tory government in office for so long. So what if they would have lost a VONC or even several? Keep on calling them until you win one. Make any independents or "Tory rebels" who back the government look spineless and as if they are standing against the tide.
A few weeks ago a cabinet minister at the despatch box said "Set a date". I don't recall who it was - perhaps it was Geoffrey Cox or maybe it was Boris Johnson himself. He didn't say it with a flourish and perhaps the challenge slipped out without having been prepared. Jeremy Corbyn or whoever was leading for Labour should have jumped to his feet and proposed a date right there and then. Seize the frame the opponent is offering you and say "Here you go - now YOU jump through it."
Almost everyone agrees the government is a shambles, but so far all main parts of the opposition have been doing a cr*p job too. To mix metaphors, the government is a shambles but it's not on its back foot. That's a failure of the opposition, and it's not just down to whether or not as shown in the visual aids they can get 320 souls through the Aye lobby.
I doubt self-VONCing will be allowed by the Speaker, because if you haven't got confidence in yourself you should resign. But that it's even being discussed shows how pathetic the "opposition" is.
That thread is very interesting, and well referenced. We know BoZo doesn't do detail, but possibly he simply doesn't understand what he is pushing through.
Watching him bluster and fail over this during an election campaign could be quite amusing.
Some of it is misleading
For instance he says we aren’t getting 100% control of fisheries because there is an intention into enter into an agreement
That’s just wrong: we are getting control and we don’t have to enter agreement but if it is mutually beneficial we will. That’s the sort of option that control implies - under the CFP we had no option
I should, of course, have said that Boris' cunning plan was to call an election on 'Who runs Britain? MPs or the voters?' But you knew that, didn't you?
Whining about it, won't alter that. It's been an absolute electoral disaster so far, hasn't it?
Who are MPs representing when most MPs do not have majority support in their seats? Our system is not one where MPs are supposed to be mouthpieces of the people who elect them. We are supposed to elect people to use their personal judgement on our behalf, because they are supposed to be doing this for a living. We have the opportunity to leave the machinations of state to those who wish to participate, and they take that role. Just like a plumber or electrician, we delegate to them a skill we don't want to learn ourselves.
If you want a direct democracy, fine, it has benefits and issues different to our system. But that isn't what we have.
MPs are, for better or worse, supposed to be the people who run the country. The electorate vote for, talk to and lobby their MPs in how they think it should be done.
Was the 2017 election illegitimate? No. MPs have their mandate. They can use that mandate to call another election if they wish, but they were elected for 5 years to use their judgement to do politics on our behalf. I dislike that, sometimes, but I don't claim it is an illegitimate demos or political body. I think it needs massive reform, but to be like "pffft, we dislike parliament, they should do whatever the current executive says because I agree with them" is highly problematic.
If Corbyn becomes PM of a minority Labour government, would you want him to have the same power / mandate you think Johnson should have? Would ANY version of Brexit Corbyn presents be acceptable to you, because Brexit wasn't defined on the ballot, so as long as it is some kind of Leave the democratic mandate is fulfilled? Would you be happy with a Corbyn WAB to get 3 days of discussion in parliament?
These are the reasons we have the rules we do; they constrain those you disagree with as well as those you agree with. Rules that only bind one side does not a functioning democracy make.
You've totally misunderstood the role of an MP. It's very simple. MPs from seats that voted Leave are duty bound to do what their constituents wanted three years ago. MPs from seats that voted Remain are duty bound to do what the country wanted three years ago.
What surprises me is that some leavers seem not to have worked out even now that the country is waiting for them to come up with a plan which delivers on the fantasy they outlined in 2016. Three years on and we have finally, in the last month, had an insight into what Brexit actually is. The Johnson deal is the first time we have actually been given any idea of what 'real' Brexit might look like.
The problem is that the Johnson deal is a million miles from the fantasy on the big red bus. It creates a border in our own country and it creates different classes of UK 'citizens' some with more right than others.
It is no wonder that he has been trying to force it through without any scrutiny. It will be interesting to see how it goes with the public. I suspect that many will not see through it until it is too late but those I talk to are pretty clear that it is a really bad deal. So the election may not be as easy as the Tories think.
Quite. Johnson's deal will now be scrutinised in an election campaign rather than in parliament and it is not likely to survive the experience.
The deal may not in an avalanche of he said vs someone else said. However the image of him 'trying to achieve a deal' will.
That is a positive image. The latter of these is the one that is easier to see and has more resonance, as they say, actions speak louder than words.
Well yes this is why Johnson has gauged his deal may not get through. How many of the 19 MPs were serious.
If the Tories and indies hold firm he needs 5 or 6 of them to mean it. 4 are nailed on, so we are looking at a couple needing to mean it
I fear the Indies will not hold firm. I understand why people don't trust Boris but given their voting record why would anyone trust Gauke, Rudd or Hammond? I think their personal vendetta against Boris PM is more important to them than respecting the referendum. I hope I am wrong though.
The Remain side similarly took aim at its own foot by saying the main drawback of Brexit was that wages would go up.
Eh? I confess I missed that nugget. Where? Who? When?
Wages will rise if Britain votes to leave the European Union and the number of EU migrants coming to the UK falls, the head of the “in” campaign has admitted.
Lord Rose, the former head of Marks & Spencer who is leading the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign, told MPs on Wednesday that if a British exit leads to restrictions on EU migrants, then “the price of labour will, frankly, go up”.
The hard line leavers want an election because they know it is the only way a No Deal Brexit can be delivered on as little as 35% of the votes with the opposition split.
Once Johnson has an overall majority anything he has said to get there will count for nothing.
So we could end up leaving without a deal based on a government elected on 35% of the votes with every other MP in parliament opposed. That of course will be seen as perfectly "democratic" by some
With a fair electoral system No Deal would have zero chance of ever being agreed.
You have this completely backwards.
The only way No Deal arrives is if nothing is agreed.
The truth, at bottom, is that leaving the EU is incompatible with the Good Friday Agreement.
The "Good Friday Agreement" is not the "Permanent UK Membership of the EU Agreement", much as those wishing that to be so have chosen to interpret its clauses in the most extreme way in order to serve their own ends.
And if I am wrong, why then was it not acknowledged as amounting to as much at the time with those clauses being made subject to ratification in a referendum extending across the whole of the UK?
And how they often come from organisations with perhaps not the best record of accurate forecasting and commented on by PBers with not the best record of economic forecasting themselves
I suspect Foxy is correct then trend growths have fallen in the western world and this was I suspect inevitable, after all very low levels of economic growth were the norm throughout most of human history.
And perhaps lower levels of economic growth are no bad thing regarding the environment and also if it forces us to look at what we want the economy 'to do'.
BTW the cumulative loss of GDP if the 2008-9 recession hadn't occurred and the economy had continued to grow at 2% per year has now gone past 100% and will be increasing at over 10% every year onwards.
Eh? Growth as a concept is really only meaningful for the last 250 years or so. Before the agricultural revolution, long term growth was basically nil. Historical times go back thousands of years. Humanity goes back hundreds of thousands of years. Economic growth is a pretty new concept.
That was my point.
Steady and significant economic growth is not the norm throughout economic history.
And perhaps that period of steady and significant economic growth is coming to an end in the western world.
IDS on radio 4 suggesting the gov may need to VONC in itself. This seems very possible to me, with agreement from SNP and LibDems (who want an election) will produce 50% + for it to pass.
If this happens, this needs an additional 14 days and assuming no alternative gov is formed we are into a 2020 election. Too late for 12/19, which is good for my bets!
I’d love to see the Tories No Confidenci v themselves and Labour et al propping them up to prevent an election!
There won’t be an election in 2019 I don’t think. A campaign at Christmas would be a farce, so I think we are probably looking at Feb or March. That’s my best guess anyway.
RIchard Burgon wants an election before Christmas and claims Corbyn thinks the same.
So what? Burgon is a moron and Corbyn hasn't been in control of the party for months.
I'm looking at a chart that shows Britain's growth rate only exceeded 2% for a brief period in the last 12 years and otherwise has been consistently below, and sometimes well below, that level. What are you looking at?
There won’t be an election in 2019 I don’t think. A campaign at Christmas would be a farce, so I think we are probably looking at Feb or March. That’s my best guess anyway.
RIchard Burgon wants an election before Christmas and claims Corbyn thinks the same.
So what? Burgon is a moron and Corbyn hasn't been in control of the party for months.
Are you predicting a December election?
Corbyn is the leader isn't he. I think it's 50/50 as to whether a December election happens.
The SNP want an election so long as it's to Westminster, where the FPTP system usually makes a leading party's seat totals exaggerate its voteshare and this applies too to a party which benefits from highly concentrated support in one geographical region. They conduct themselves as if they hold a mandate for another indyref when the reality is that in 2017 their voteshare at Holyrood fell to 37% and they lost their majority. They only won as many votes as they did because there was a kind of continuing euphoria combined with a "we was robbed" feeling among some of their non-core supporters who voted in the Scottish GE when otherwise they would have abstained. (There has always been a lower turnout in Scotland for Holyrood than for Westminster.) The SNP only remain in office because they are propped up by the Greens. They haven't got the guts to call for a Scottish GE. I have never found cowardice pleasant to observe.
What in god's name are you on about? First of all, check your Holyrood figures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Scottish_Parliament_election Secondly, who on earth is talking about a Holyrood election? I don't see why that's necessary or even relevant right now. What problem would it solve? Third, the SNP's lead in Holyrood polls is pretty steady compared to the 2016 result. They've lost a few percentage points, but so have Labour and the Tories. Fourth, if the Greens prefer to support the largest party rather than a rainbow coalition of other parties, so what? Do you think the Greens are incapable of choosing the path that suits them better?
No doubt economic models will tell us that the economy is a percent or so smaller than it might have been but as the comparator does not exist in the real world none of us will really notice that either.
The impact of the latest Boris Johnson deal is projected to be a cumulative 7% or so - nearly as bad as no deal.
That's the equivalent of a very severe recession that the Conservatives are going to inflict on us. Nor is there any reason to expect Britain to rebound from that, since Britain is weighing itself down with more anti-competitiveness by distancing itself and putting barriers in the way of trading with its biggest market. Fuck business, as our Prime Minister said.
As a bonus, the Conservatives have sought to trash the constitution along the way at every stage.
The whole thing is a complete disaster anyway you care to look at it.
It's 7% after 10 years. That's the equivalent of shaving off 0.68% of growth a year. If our growth is normally around 2% year, we would lose one third of it. That's significant, but it's not a severe recession.
Why do you think Britain's growth rate is around 2% a year?
I agree that per capita GDP is a better measure, and when you knock off the richest 1% it is not hard to see what is driving political dissatisfaction and Populism of Right and Left.
The truth, at bottom, is that leaving the EU is incompatible with the Good Friday Agreement.
The "Good Friday Agreement" is not the "Permanent UK Membership of the EU Agreement", much as those wishing that to be so have chosen to interpret its clauses in the most extreme way in order to serve their own ends.
And if I am wrong, why then was it not acknowledged as amounting to as much at the time with those clauses being made subject to ratification in a referendum extending across the whole of the UK?
The answer is because there was no incentive for either side, Leave or Remain. In the specific case of how DUP politicians campaigned for Brexit in NI, it was because sectarian rage doesn't make for clear observation: they only oppose the EU because they think it's Catholic.
It is not so much leaving the EU that breaches the GFA: it's leaving the SM and the CU. A BINO could comply with the GFA, so long as it's a BINO for the whole of Britain.
There won’t be an election in 2019 I don’t think. A campaign at Christmas would be a farce, so I think we are probably looking at Feb or March. That’s my best guess anyway.
RIchard Burgon wants an election before Christmas and claims Corbyn thinks the same.
So what? Burgon is a moron and Corbyn hasn't been in control of the party for months.
Are you predicting a December election?
With a 31st Jan extension it has to be in December for it to be useful.
There won’t be an election in 2019 I don’t think. A campaign at Christmas would be a farce, so I think we are probably looking at Feb or March. That’s my best guess anyway.
RIchard Burgon wants an election before Christmas and claims Corbyn thinks the same.
So what? Burgon is a moron and Corbyn hasn't been in control of the party for months.
Are you predicting a December election?
Corbyn is the leader isn't he. I think it's 50/50 as to whether a December election happens.
John McDonnell now has control of the party's strings from all recent reports.
I have no idea how it pans out and I certainly am not in the HYUFD camp of a landslide for Boris but there is no path to Brexit in this HOC
3 month extension is what is written in the Benn letter so it will be given surely by the EU (After some sabre rattling by Macron) ?
I think 1 month initially would suit their interests better, they want the deal signed off. They would of course extend further if needed later on. The main difficulty for that approach is the ambiguity of how long is actually needed for the deal to pass.
I do wonder how long the Tories will be able to hold on to the argument that the liberal democrat position of revoke is undemocratic given that the Brexit deal that they have negotiated with the EU is so clearly not the Brexit Vote Leave advocated in 2016 (unless someone can point out to me where it was said that Brexit was about dividing the UK into parts with borders within the country and creating different classes of citizens). The reality is that there is no available form of Brexit which meets the criteria of being the Brexit people voted for so the Lib Dems can at least argue that 48% of the people voted for 'remain', while we have no idea how many people wanted the Johnson deal (although I suspect the answer is vanishingly small).
It will be interesting to see the Lib Dem tactics. Personally I wonder if they will try to take the approach that they are the only party that will solve Brexit on day one and be able to move on to the NHS, education and the other priorities which people have in the UK. The reality is that the Labour approach of renegotiate and then recommending rejection of the deal they have done in a referendum will take months and the Tory approach of do the Johnson deal and then move on to negotiations about trade, travel, cooperation on security, the environment etc will take many years. While it may work the Tory campaign strategy of being the party that will 'get Brexit done' may rebound if people see the full implications of what they are actually suggesting.
I should, of course, have said that Boris' cunning plan was to call an election on 'Who runs Britain? MPs or the voters?' But you knew that, didn't you?
Whining about it, won't alter that. It's been an absolute electoral disaster so far, hasn't it?
Who are MPs representing when most MPs do not have majority support in their seats? Our system is not one where MPs are supposed to be mouthpieces of the people who elect them. We are supposed to elect people to use their personal judgement on our behalf, because they are supposed to be doing this for a living. We have the opportunity to leave the machinations of state to those who wish to participate, and they take that role. Just like a plumber or electrician, we delegate to them a skill we don't want to learn ourselves.
If you want a direct democracy, fine, it has benefits and issues different to our system. But that isn't what we have.
MPs are, for better or worse, supposed to be the people who run the country. The electorate vote for, talk to and lobby their MPs in how they think it should be done.
Was the 2017 election illegitimate? No. MPs have their mandate. They can use that mandate to call another election if they wish, but they were elected for 5 years to use their judgement to do politics on our behalf. I dislike that, sometimes, but I don't claim it is an illegitimate demos or political body. I think it needs massive reform, but to be like "pffft, we dislike parliament, they should do whatever the current executive says because I agree with them" is highly problematic.
If Corbyn becomes PM of a minority Labour government, would you want him to have the same power / mandate you think Johnson should have? Would ANY version of Brexit Corbyn presents be acceptable to you, because Brexit wasn't defined on the ballot, so as long as it is some kind of Leave the democratic mandate is fulfilled? Would you be happy with a Corbyn WAB to get 3 days of discussion in parliament?
These are the reasons we have the rules we do; they constrain those you disagree with as well as those you agree with. Rules that only bind one side does not a functioning democracy make.
You've totally misunderstood the role of an MP. It's very simple. MPs from seats that voted Leave are duty bound to do what their constituents wanted three years ago. MPs from seats that voted Remain are duty bound to do what the country wanted three years ago.
And how they often come from organisations with perhaps not the best record of accurate forecasting and commented on by PBers with not the best record of economic forecasting themselves
I suspect Foxy is correct then trend growths have fallen in the western world and this was I suspect inevitable, after all very low levels of economic growth were the norm throughout most of human history.
And perhaps lower levels of economic growth are no bad thing regarding the environment and also if it forces us to look at what we want the economy 'to do'.
BTW the cumulative loss of GDP if the 2008-9 recession hadn't occurred and the economy had continued to grow at 2% per year has now gone past 100% and will be increasing at over 10% every year onwards.
Eh? Growth as a concept is really only meaningful for the last 250 years or so. Before the agricultural revolution, long term growth was basically nil. Historical times go back thousands of years. Humanity goes back hundreds of thousands of years. Economic growth is a pretty new concept.
That was my point.
Steady and significant economic growth is not the norm throughout economic history.
And perhaps that period of steady and significant economic growth is coming to an end in the western world.
Sorry, I misread your point completely, to the extent that I reversed its meaning. My error.
There won’t be an election in 2019 I don’t think. A campaign at Christmas would be a farce, so I think we are probably looking at Feb or March. That’s my best guess anyway.
RIchard Burgon wants an election before Christmas and claims Corbyn thinks the same.
So what? Burgon is a moron and Corbyn hasn't been in control of the party for months.
Are you predicting a December election?
Corbyn is the leader isn't he. I think it's 50/50 as to whether a December election happens.
Brexit man is now waving a poster in front of Sky with the words
'Get ready for civil unrest'
He has lost it
A lot of these Brexit nutters want civil unrest so they can say "told you so". What the thickheads don't seem to have worked out is that their hobbyhorse means that there is just as likely to be civil unrest form the other side, who are generally younger and therefore more likely to vent their frustration. Having a 2% lead in a dodgy referendum 3 years ago doesn't cause the other lot to say, "oh I had better not demonstrate because the other lot have won".
The hard line leavers want an election because they know it is the only way a No Deal Brexit can be delivered on as little as 35% of the votes with the opposition split.
Once Johnson has an overall majority anything he has said to get there will count for nothing.
So we could end up leaving without a deal based on a government elected on 35% of the votes with every other MP in parliament opposed. That of course will be seen as perfectly "democratic" by some
With a fair electoral system No Deal would have zero chance of ever being agreed.
With fair voting many bad things would never have happened!
"those enraged by FoM for Turks or Syrians with German nationality", struggling to understand what this means - is it code for racists?
Could just be that people are fed up with anybody and everybody , legal , illegal etc being able to get into UK and never having to leave. Far too many for the system to assimilate and hence the issues. Not an issue in Scotland where we could do with many more.
"those enraged by FoM for Turks or Syrians with German nationality", struggling to understand what this means - is it code for racists?
Could just be that people are fed up with anybody and everybody , legal , illegal etc being able to get into UK and never having to leave. Far too many for the system to assimilate and hence the issues. Not an issue in Scotland where we could do with many more.
Does the SNP not have a plan for wooing the large number of Scots back who are currently living and working down south?
"those enraged by FoM for Turks or Syrians with German nationality", struggling to understand what this means - is it code for racists?
Could just be that people are fed up with anybody and everybody , legal , illegal etc being able to get into UK and never having to leave. Far too many for the system to assimilate and hence the issues. Not an issue in Scotland where we could do with many more.
But funnily enough migrants don't share that view, and don't fancy being north of the border the same way..
Former French Europe Minister saying this is the moment and if a few days are needed for a technical extension that woukd be granted but anymore she asks why should the EU have a British Commissioner in the EU
Comments
The SNP position is my own conjecture based on public statements.
I can only see the Lib Dems voting for an election if they think it's going to go through already, and they don't want the optics of having been dragged into one.
https://twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1186884262273916930
Boris is playing a simple game, but one seemingly too complicated for MPs. I say I will do this, but I'm completely thwarted by the opposition who don't want it. Am I then a liar?
There's more than a hint of childishness about all this. Na-na-na, we stopped you, and your granny smalls of piss.
Most people want Brexit sorted (see the polls) So not allowing that to happen will make you popular? Really?
Instead they decided to set 6 impossible tests before breakfast and just say no to whatever the Tories proposed. Now they're like a reluctant passenger on the People's vote bus.
Do you believe we will leave the EU? Yes or No?
To make things easy, I would define leaving the EU as paying no further money. I would define not leaving the EU as paying the same money as we do now. Unless, you have a different definition.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/09/15/the-bad-boys-of-brexit-a-review/
Except maybe there are three camps:
1) sovereignty (the old-time Tory Eurobores and some on the Labour left)
2) immigration (Farage, or at least his supporters)
3) free market extremists and their hedgw fund mates.
As Banks notes, it was unhelpful to the Leave cause to tell voters the main benefit of Brexit will be to close their factories. The Remain side similarly took aim at its own foot by saying the main drawback of Brexit was that wages would go up.
And how they often come from organisations with perhaps not the best record of accurate forecasting and commented on by PBers with not the best record of economic forecasting themselves
I suspect Foxy is correct then trend growths have fallen in the western world and this was I suspect inevitable, after all very low levels of economic growth were the norm throughout most of human history.
And perhaps lower levels of economic growth are no bad thing regarding the environment and also if it forces us to look at what we want the economy 'to do'.
BTW the cumulative loss of GDP if the 2008-9 recession hadn't occurred and the economy had continued to grow at 2% per year has now gone past 100% and will be increasing at over 10% every year onwards.
Yeah - If sense prevailed MPs wuld grow some balls and Revoke and insist with EU that we are entitled to apply an emergency brake on free movement. If they had agreed this when Cameron tried to get reforms the referendum result would probably have been different and we wouldn`t be in the mess we are now.
I would be the last to argue that the remain campaign was a masterpiece of strategic accomplishment.
What surprises me is that some leavers seem not to have worked out even now that the country is waiting for them to come up with a plan which delivers on the fantasy they outlined in 2016. Three years on and we have finally, in the last month, had an insight into what Brexit actually is. The Johnson deal is the first time we have actually been given any idea of what 'real' Brexit might look like.
The problem is that the Johnson deal is a million miles from the fantasy on the big red bus. It creates a border in our own country and it creates different classes of UK 'citizens' some with more right than others.
It is no wonder that he has been trying to force it through without any scrutiny. It will be interesting to see how it goes with the public. I suspect that many will not see through it until it is too late but those I talk to are pretty clear that it is a really bad deal. So the election may not be as easy as the Tories think.
I mean, I don't know what people who voted Leave thought they meant by "take back control" but our elected representatives are holding the executive to account as best they can (badly) and not just letting the minority government do as it pleases (as in a Government from a party that failed to win a democratic election, therefore it can't pass all the policies it stood for during that election).
To me, that is the epitome of "Take Back Control". What doesn't scream functioning democracy is the minority executive claiming that the duly elected representative and legislative body lacks legitimacy because said legislative body wants to... scrutinise legislation.
People can say "3 years have gone by and parliament have had time to do it's job" but actually, no they haven't. Because every time they try to do their job the executive, May previously and Johnson now, refused to be scrutinised. Hence the need for procedural trickery. They wanted to get this WAB through in 3 days. Legislation on preventing animal cruelty in circus performances, 4 days. Maastricht, 23 days (if I remember rightly). The complete disentanglement from almost 40 years of law and economic union? 3 days.
I understand the strain on populism that distrusts politicians and "just wants to leave". But if we did, and it all crashes around peoples' ears, there will be cries of "whose fault is all this"? And right now, no one wants to be introspective and suggest, just maybe, it was our fault all along. Leavers and Remainers, Tory and Labour, left and right. We went about this all the wrong way, and we will pay the price. Except, at times of national strain, economic downturn and populism turned nativism turned "we was betrayed" the people who actually pay the price are usually the weakest amongst us...
https://twitter.com/SimonJonesNews/status/1186924570042867712
Whining about it, won't alter that. It's been an absolute electoral disaster so far, hasn't it?
So I shall not be basing my betting on what "Downing Street" might or might not have said to "Scottish Tories".
Historical times go back thousands of years. Humanity goes back hundreds of thousands of years. Economic growth is a pretty new concept.
Yes, indeed. A real brexit - i.e. one that Brexiteers feel that their 2016 win implied - involves damage to the union. We now know this. This clearly (I`m not even going to say IMO) means that the 2016 referendum is no mandate for what is being proposed.
The truth, at bottom, is that leaving the EU is incompatible with the Good Friday Agreement.
If you think MPs throwing their weight around merely to score points is good for democracy why not have a GE and reap the benefits?
Brexit - make the Tories own it.
I’m glad this puts abeta back on the table
Ultimately this is going to be an abeta-tau combo market, in my view, but will take time to get there
Screwing up a futility analysis though. Stellios will be stomping around like a grumpy bear 😂😂
Once Johnson has an overall majority anything he has said to get there will count for nothing.
So we could end up leaving without a deal based on a government elected on 35% of the votes with every other MP in parliament opposed. That of course will be seen as perfectly "democratic" by some
With a fair electoral system No Deal would have zero chance of ever being agreed.
So I don't think the line of attack actually works things are messed up.
If you want a direct democracy, fine, it has benefits and issues different to our system. But that isn't what we have.
MPs are, for better or worse, supposed to be the people who run the country. The electorate vote for, talk to and lobby their MPs in how they think it should be done.
Was the 2017 election illegitimate? No. MPs have their mandate. They can use that mandate to call another election if they wish, but they were elected for 5 years to use their judgement to do politics on our behalf. I dislike that, sometimes, but I don't claim it is an illegitimate demos or political body. I think it needs massive reform, but to be like "pffft, we dislike parliament, they should do whatever the current executive says because I agree with them" is highly problematic.
If Corbyn becomes PM of a minority Labour government, would you want him to have the same power / mandate you think Johnson should have? Would ANY version of Brexit Corbyn presents be acceptable to you, because Brexit wasn't defined on the ballot, so as long as it is some kind of Leave the democratic mandate is fulfilled? Would you be happy with a Corbyn WAB to get 3 days of discussion in parliament?
These are the reasons we have the rules we do; they constrain those you disagree with as well as those you agree with. Rules that only bind one side does not a functioning democracy make.
It's easy to blame Cameron - and I do - but almost all politicians are culpable. It was the Lib Dems who first advocated an in/out referendum as some sort of clever tactical ruse
Boris is not trying to force through Brexit. Boris is trying to force an election before Brexit's economic dislocations sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street, while giving the impression of trying to force Brexit.
39 bodies found in a trailer in Waterglade park in a lorry from Northern Ireland which came through Holyhead. Driver arrested
Shocking, words fail me
Of course the tin eared galoot is now for BJ's deal.
Edit: Ffs, I see he is now Lord Rose.
This is massively disingenuous. Exceptionally so.
The Conservative party stood on a manifesto outlining the kind of Leave they wanted. They were not gifted a majority be the electorate, therefore their brand of Leave was not democratically endorsed. So, logic suggests, that the governing party should look to find consent with other duly elected representatives. This they did not do. May and now Johnson were secretive, combative, untruthful and generally evasive of scrutiny. If that is "throwing weight around merely to score points" you just don't care about democracy, you care about your team "winning".
'Get ready for civil unrest'
He has lost it
1956-1965 2.5%
1966-1975 2.2%
1976-1985 2.3%
1986-1995 2.3%
1996-2005 2.7%
2006-2015 0.5%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/n3y6/qna
These actions are incredibly transparent to the public and explain why Boris's deal has such backing from leave voters. A general election may not do much in the way of a Tory majority but it will at least help get rid of the many ex Tories who reneged on their manifesto pledge and only seek to needlessly prolong the Brexit process.
In years to come I think we may look back on the past few days as peak Brexit. Had Johnson won the MV on Saturday we might now be on the way to leaving with his deal, but now there will be a general election and it is quite likely that this will result in no Brexit at all. Any result other than a Tory majority will mean either revocation or a second referendum, and despite the optimism of many Tories on here I doubt they will win. The deal will be torn to shreds when the detail begins to emerge and Johnson will be forced to defend what will be seen to be indefensible. His character will become an issue and, judging by his cowardly performance during the Tory leadership campaign, he will melt in the heat of a general election.
What a shock (!)
The SNP want an election so long as it's to Westminster, where the FPTP system usually makes a leading party's seat totals exaggerate its voteshare and this applies too to a party which benefits from highly concentrated support in one geographical region. They conduct themselves as if they hold a mandate for another indyref when the reality is that in 2017 their voteshare at Holyrood fell to 37% and they lost their majority. They only won as many votes as they did because there was a kind of continuing euphoria combined with a "we was robbed" feeling among some of their non-core supporters who voted in the Scottish GE when otherwise they would have abstained. (There has always been a lower turnout in Scotland for Holyrood than for Westminster.) The SNP only remain in office because they are propped up by the Greens. They haven't got the guts to call for a Scottish GE. I have never found cowardice pleasant to observe.
I am not convinced of the Labour leadership's wisdom either in having kept such a wreck of a Tory government in office for so long. So what if they would have lost a VONC or even several? Keep on calling them until you win one. Make any independents or "Tory rebels" who back the government look spineless and as if they are standing against the tide.
A few weeks ago a cabinet minister at the despatch box said "Set a date". I don't recall who it was - perhaps it was Geoffrey Cox or maybe it was Boris Johnson himself. He didn't say it with a flourish and perhaps the challenge slipped out without having been prepared. Jeremy Corbyn or whoever was leading for Labour should have jumped to his feet and proposed a date right there and then. Seize the frame the opponent is offering you and say "Here you go - now YOU jump through it."
Almost everyone agrees the government is a shambles, but so far all main parts of the opposition have been doing a cr*p job too. To mix metaphors, the government is a shambles but it's not on its back foot. That's a failure of the opposition, and it's not just down to whether or not as shown in the visual aids they can get 320 souls through the Aye lobby.
I doubt self-VONCing will be allowed by the Speaker, because if you haven't got confidence in yourself you should resign. But that it's even being discussed shows how pathetic the "opposition" is.
For instance he says we aren’t getting 100% control of fisheries because there is an intention into enter into an agreement
That’s just wrong: we are getting control and we don’t have to enter agreement but if it is mutually beneficial we will. That’s the sort of option that control implies - under the CFP we had no option
MPs from seats that voted Leave are duty bound to do what their constituents wanted three years ago.
MPs from seats that voted Remain are duty bound to do what the country wanted three years ago.
That is a positive image. The latter of these is the one that is easier to see and has more resonance, as they say, actions speak louder than words.
I have no idea how it pans out and I certainly am not in the HYUFD camp of a landslide for Boris but there is no path to Brexit in this HOC
Lord Rose, the former head of Marks & Spencer who is leading the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign, told MPs on Wednesday that if a British exit leads to restrictions on EU migrants, then “the price of labour will, frankly, go up”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12181385/Wages-for-British-workers-will-rise-in-the-event-of-a-Brexit-head-of-in-campaign-says.html
https://youtu.be/HyKrXB4i9Ag
The only way No Deal arrives is if nothing is agreed.
Then time runs out and No Deal happens
And if I am wrong, why then was it not acknowledged as amounting to as much at the time with those clauses being made subject to ratification in a referendum extending across the whole of the UK?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:UK_GDP_year-on-year_growth_rates.png
Steady and significant economic growth is not the norm throughout economic history.
And perhaps that period of steady and significant economic growth is coming to an end in the western world.
Are you predicting a December election?
First of all, check your Holyrood figures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Scottish_Parliament_election
Secondly, who on earth is talking about a Holyrood election? I don't see why that's necessary or even relevant right now. What problem would it solve?
Third, the SNP's lead in Holyrood polls is pretty steady compared to the 2016 result. They've lost a few percentage points, but so have Labour and the Tories.
Fourth, if the Greens prefer to support the largest party rather than a rainbow coalition of other parties, so what? Do you think the Greens are incapable of choosing the path that suits them better?
It is not so much leaving the EU that breaches the GFA: it's leaving the SM and the CU. A BINO could comply with the GFA, so long as it's a BINO for the whole of Britain.
Very helpful!
Boris will call a GE the minute he has the confirmation and with labour confirming it we will have an election this year
Conservatives
We have the deal and we leave on the 31st December taking no deal off the table
Labour
We will renegotiate a deal with the EU and put it in a referendum and campaign against our deal for remain
Lib Dems
Revoke
Labour are in a very difficult place for an early December election
It will be interesting to see the Lib Dem tactics. Personally I wonder if they will try to take the approach that they are the only party that will solve Brexit on day one and be able to move on to the NHS, education and the other priorities which people have in the UK. The reality is that the Labour approach of renegotiate and then recommending rejection of the deal they have done in a referendum will take months and the Tory approach of do the Johnson deal and then move on to negotiations about trade, travel, cooperation on security, the environment etc will take many years. While it may work the Tory campaign strategy of being the party that will 'get Brexit done' may rebound if people see the full implications of what they are actually suggesting.
Yes - but a BINO (as implied in the name) doesn`t satisfy the result of the referendum. My original post stands.
No Thatcher
No Brexit.
Not an issue in Scotland where we could do with many more.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44481439
Looks like the French may cause a real problem