Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Brussels ups the the ante over the Johnson/Cummings EU deal ov

123457»

Comments

  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460

    welshowl said:

    Oh no not Maroš Šefčovič. Whenever Maroš Šefčovič gets upset then heads will roll. Look out everyone Maroš Šefčovič is on the rampage.

    Who is Maroš Šefčovič?

    That’s what a loss of status means. You need to get used to politicians you’ve never heard of calling the shots.
    Lol. The reason for leaving in a sentence.
    If you think being in the EU is bad, wait until you try not being in the EU.
    Well we’re going to find out. However, not having Verhofstadt, that Belgian Green MEP Phillipe something, Juncker, Loiseau , Nesl Richmond, Coveney, and of course Barnier, and their supporting cast appearing on my TV screen at depressingly regular intervals, because we will have definitively foxtrotted oscar will add to to the pleasure of my existence greatly.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 541
    Foxy said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    BBC News - Coronavirus: France sets daily record with almost 10,000 new cases
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54111209

    It's almost like the lockdown which has wrecked the world economy never actually happened.
    More like many nations squandered the time that had been bought by lockdown. The UK is (for once) one of the less serious offenders in this regard, although we're doing our level best to do so in the last week. Test and Trace is badly implemented but it is working well enough to provide some mitigation. We have lots of (but probably still not enough) testing capacity and the system of local lockdowns seems to have been working reasonably well until now. Spain was too desperate to get the tourists back and France seems to have been somewhat less than sharp on local lockdowns. Both have less home working than we do as well.

    The less said about the US the better.


    Saving lives is not incompatible with saving an economy.
    I'm with you most of the way there. There are lots of secondary impacts beyond the obvious and primary loss of life and misery to the family. You lose institutional knowledge if your 55 year director of engineering dies or is crippled by the Covid. If a family loses a parent then the person becomes less productive as they have to juggle childcare and work. However, I think that the deaths is a second order indicator in itself. If you lock down hard and early, and then open carefully when you have cases down in the single figures per 100k you can contain the outbreak with a good contact tracing system. That lets you reopen carefully and manage the outbreak until a treatment or vaccine can be found. That strategy leads to less deaths by default and less economic harm since you should be able to blunt the peak more quickly. Of course, you also need to not do stupid things like opening nightclubs and inviting all the tourists to them (looking at you Spain).
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,926
    FF43 said:

    One titbit from below article is that the Control Center have been working on this plan since July. Presumably decided now was their Falklands moment. A Galtieri Falklands moment

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/10/governments-top-legal-advisers-divided-over-move-to-override-brexit-deal

    There is an interesting subtext to this which is the distinction between what Parliament can do, and what Ministers of the Crown can ask Parliament to do.

    Bearing in mind that International treaties have always been (and i believe continue to be) signed under the Royal Prerogative. It is only relatively recent convention that generally requires Treaty obligations to be written into domestic law before they can be signed. However, as we know (and the Withdrawal Act is no different) Parliament and what parliament agrees cannot unilaterally amend treaties.

    Of course it follows that whilst parliament, as the sovereign body in the UK, can seek to write legislation contrary to International treaties, ministers of the Crown cannot support this. Because ministers act on behalf of the Queen under the Royal Prerogative so are compelled to uphold her authority in all circumstances. Which is why parliament can seek to rewrite the application of treaties in domestic law, but ministers can't.


  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 18,324

    BBC News - Coronavirus: France sets daily record with almost 10,000 new cases
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54111209

    It's almost like the lockdown which has wrecked the world economy never actually happened.
    I'm old enough to remember when Covid Sceptics thought the 'insights' of Isaac Ben-Israel were worth sharing.
  • ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.

    Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.

    This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.

    The problem is there is no satisfactory Brexit for everyone.

    Diehard Remainers stlll oppose Brexit completely and want to rejoin the EU. Moderate Remainers and moderate Leavers may accept an EEA or EEA style FTA compromise which is the most the EU will give us but most Leavers would prefer No Deal WTO terms Brexit to that
    There never was going to be a satisfactory outcome for everyone. That is the nature of politics. But this has nothing to do with that. This is all about personal aggrandisement by Johnson.
    Hi Richard

    I know we have very different views on Cummings, although we agreed over his eye test. You’re a big admirer. I’m not.

    I have to say I see Cummings’ hand in this. It’s exactly the sort of thing he’s done before. Come up with an idea that sounds incredibly brilliant in isolation, and will never survive contact with reality, and then drive it through to show you can. Prorogation springs to mind. (I should mention I thought that was legal, although I also thought it was a very bad idea.)

    I speak from my experience of working in a sector he tried to reform, with disastrous results. You, on the other hand, have a much more detailed knowledge of his written work than I do.

    Do you think Cummings has anything to do with this? I’m genuinely interested in hearing your views. Because if he did, he will surely have to quit if the government is defeated - and if he didn’t, it suggests he’s lost a lot of personal influence although his style clearly remains intact.
    I would like to think not but I suspect that even if he didn't come up with the idea he must have at least agreed to it and game played it.

    As I said, although it is of course pure speculation, I see the driving force here being Johnson. I think he is desperate for this to be a fight rather than a negotiation and for him to come out as the conquering hero. He believes that whatever fallout there might be will be ancient history by the time the next election comes around. He also has a well deserved reputation for being scornful of the law, whether it is international or domestic. I assume this stems from a horrendous sense of privilege.

    So yes I think Cummings must have had something to do with this but unlike the previous 'wheezes' I think the driving force and the origins of this one lie firmly with Johnson.

    As an aside is Cummings even back at Number 10 at the moment? I know he was out because of his much delayed operation at the start of the month.
    The driving force of this is not Cummings or Johnson, its Farage.

    The tories don;t fear Roger irrelevant Keir Starmer.

    They fear a revival of the Brexit party, powered by a 'stab in the back' brexit and a mounting list of conservative voter grievances.

    A bad brexit or a cave in finishes Johnson's government, and it finishes the tories for a generation or more.
    The Tories would have done us all a favour if, years ago, they had tossed the ERG out on their ear and then stood moderate candidates.

    But they lacked the courage and the nerve to do it.
    You really don't get this democracy lark do you. The views of the ERG types reflect the views of a section of the electorate. Quite a large one it seems even if I don't agree with them.

    It was because so many MPs, particularly the party leaderships, failed to recognise this point and failed to represent the views of their voters that we ended up with Brexit and subsequently a Johnson majority.

    I do get this democracy lark - if the Tories had ejected the ERG they could have sat as independents and stood against moderate conservatives at the next election. The electorate would still have had a choice and the Tories would have removed the ERG knife from their jugular and probably given Farage a headache.

    They could have done this in either 2001 or 2005 when they never had a cat in hell's chance of being the govt. It would have been the perfect time to clear to the extremists and remain a moderate centre-right party.

    But they failed to do it and today they are paying the price.
    Had they done so they would never have got close to getting back into power. The main opposition now would be UKIP.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,649

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.

    Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.

    This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.

    The problem is there is no satisfactory Brexit for everyone.

    Diehard Remainers stlll oppose Brexit completely and want to rejoin the EU. Moderate Remainers and moderate Leavers may accept an EEA or EEA style FTA compromise which is the most the EU will give us but most Leavers would prefer No Deal WTO terms Brexit to that
    There never was going to be a satisfactory outcome for everyone. That is the nature of politics. But this has nothing to do with that. This is all about personal aggrandisement by Johnson.
    Hi Richard

    I know we have very different views on Cummings, although we agreed over his eye test. You’re a big admirer. I’m not.

    I have to say I see Cummings’ hand in this. It’s exactly the sort of thing he’s done before. Come up with an idea that sounds incredibly brilliant in isolation, and will never survive contact with reality, and then drive it through to show you can. Prorogation springs to mind. (I should mention I thought that was legal, although I also thought it was a very bad idea.)

    I speak from my experience of working in a sector he tried to reform, with disastrous results. You, on the other hand, have a much more detailed knowledge of his written work than I do.

    Do you think Cummings has anything to do with this? I’m genuinely interested in hearing your views. Because if he did, he will surely have to quit if the government is defeated - and if he didn’t, it suggests he’s lost a lot of personal influence although his style clearly remains intact.
    I would like to think not but I suspect that even if he didn't come up with the idea he must have at least agreed to it and game played it.

    As I said, although it is of course pure speculation, I see the driving force here being Johnson. I think he is desperate for this to be a fight rather than a negotiation and for him to come out as the conquering hero. He believes that whatever fallout there might be will be ancient history by the time the next election comes around. He also has a well deserved reputation for being scornful of the law, whether it is international or domestic. I assume this stems from a horrendous sense of privilege.

    So yes I think Cummings must have had something to do with this but unlike the previous 'wheezes' I think the driving force and the origins of this one lie firmly with Johnson.

    As an aside is Cummings even back at Number 10 at the moment? I know he was out because of his much delayed operation at the start of the month.
    The driving force of this is not Cummings or Johnson, its Farage.

    The tories don;t fear Roger irrelevant Keir Starmer.

    They fear a revival of the Brexit party, powered by a 'stab in the back' brexit and a mounting list of conservative voter grievances.

    A bad brexit or a cave in finishes Johnson's government, and it finishes the tories for a generation or more.
    The Tories would have done us all a favour if, years ago, they had tossed the ERG out on their ear and then stood moderate candidates.

    But they lacked the courage and the nerve to do it.
    You really don't get this democracy lark do you. The views of the ERG types reflect the views of a section of the electorate. Quite a large one it seems even if I don't agree with them.

    It was because so many MPs, particularly the party leaderships, failed to recognise this point and failed to represent the views of their voters that we ended up with Brexit and subsequently a Johnson majority.

    I do get this democracy lark - if the Tories had ejected the ERG they could have sat as independents and stood against moderate conservatives at the next election. The electorate would still have had a choice and the Tories would have removed the ERG knife from their jugular and probably given Farage a headache.

    They could have done this in either 2001 or 2005 when they never had a cat in hell's chance of being the govt. It would have been the perfect time to clear to the extremists and remain a moderate centre-right party.

    But they failed to do it and today they are paying the price.
    What price?

    The price of an 80 seat majority? Oh noes, the horror.
    Learn to read Philip - in 2001 and 2005 they did not have ANY majority
    I know that, but you said "today they are paying the price."

    Today we have an 80 seat majority, some price to be paid.

    Hope we're paying a comparable price after the next election.
    After this week, you will be lucky if they ever get an 80 seat majority in your lifetime.

    They might even be doing well to get to 2024 given the internal dissent they are busy stoking up
  • eekeek Posts: 9,606

    alex_ said:

    Who does Philip think would have the upper hand in a bilateral trade negotiation between the UK and Luxembourg?

    Since Luxembourg don't engage in trade negotiations on their own moot. If they did, they would.
    Do you think we should adopt Singapore’s regulations? They have the upper hand, right?
    Singapore absolutely have the upper hand over the EU, 100% they do.

    That is why the EU are terrified at the prospect of us becoming a Singapore on the Atlantic.
    Any actual evidence to back up those words?
  • alex_ said:

    Who does Philip think would have the upper hand in a bilateral trade negotiation between the UK and Luxembourg?

    Since Luxembourg don't engage in trade negotiations on their own moot. If they did, they would.
    Do you think we should adopt Singapore’s regulations? They have the upper hand, right?
    Singapore absolutely have the upper hand over the EU, 100% they do.

    That is why the EU are terrified at the prospect of us becoming a Singapore on the Atlantic.
    What's the evidence that the people of the UK are any more enthusiastic about the prospect of becoming Singapore on the Atlantic? High GDP per head, sure, but high export / high saving / low consumption, lots of state-owned housing, lots of immigrants to do the low-cost jobs...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 35,066
    welshowl said:

    welshowl said:

    Oh no not Maroš Šefčovič. Whenever Maroš Šefčovič gets upset then heads will roll. Look out everyone Maroš Šefčovič is on the rampage.

    Who is Maroš Šefčovič?

    That’s what a loss of status means. You need to get used to politicians you’ve never heard of calling the shots.
    Lol. The reason for leaving in a sentence.
    If you think being in the EU is bad, wait until you try not being in the EU.
    Well we’re going to find out. However, not having Verhofstadt, that Belgian Green MEP Phillipe something, Juncker, Loiseau , Nesl Richmond, Coveney, and of course Barnier, and their supporting cast appearing on my TV screen at depressingly regular intervals, because we will have definitively foxtrotted oscar will add to to the pleasure of my existence greatly.
    You know it has an off switch?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 19,566

    alex_ said:

    Who does Philip think would have the upper hand in a bilateral trade negotiation between the UK and Luxembourg?

    Since Luxembourg don't engage in trade negotiations on their own moot. If they did, they would.
    Do you think we should adopt Singapore’s regulations? They have the upper hand, right?
    Singapore absolutely have the upper hand over the EU, 100% they do.

    That is why the EU are terrified at the prospect of us becoming a Singapore on the Atlantic.
    The probability that we become Singapore in the Atlantic is lower than the chance of me winning a gold medal at the next Olympics.

    Not least because Singapores success is substantially due to its position as an entrepot to a region, while we are removing ourselves from that position.
  • eek said:

    alex_ said:

    Who does Philip think would have the upper hand in a bilateral trade negotiation between the UK and Luxembourg?

    Since Luxembourg don't engage in trade negotiations on their own moot. If they did, they would.
    Do you think we should adopt Singapore’s regulations? They have the upper hand, right?
    Singapore absolutely have the upper hand over the EU, 100% they do.

    That is why the EU are terrified at the prospect of us becoming a Singapore on the Atlantic.
    Any actual evidence to back up those words?
    Which bit are you struggling with?

    That Singaporeans have literally double the income per capita? Or that the EU are terrified of us becoming the same?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 21,937
    edited September 10
    Whilst I still believe this whole debacle over the last few days is basically because of Johnson and his ego, I do wonder if there is something a bit simpler going on here.

    I wonder if the UK negotiating team and therefore the Government have realised that in fact the EU is has no intention of seeking an acceptable deal. Perhaps Frost has communicated to Number 10 that the EU are simply not serious about a deal for a hundred different possible reasons and are just going to let the clock run down. In that case would it make sense to make clear that whatever concessions have been made to Brussels so far via the WA to legally get us out of EU are now going out of the window?

    I am not sure I believe there is any validity in this idea but I still find it hard to believe that even someone as stupid as Johnson would do something so likely to derail all of our other non EU relationships without an extremely good reason....

    .... but in the end I still think he is that dumb and this is all about him wanting a glorious victory.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460

    welshowl said:

    welshowl said:

    Oh no not Maroš Šefčovič. Whenever Maroš Šefčovič gets upset then heads will roll. Look out everyone Maroš Šefčovič is on the rampage.

    Who is Maroš Šefčovič?

    That’s what a loss of status means. You need to get used to politicians you’ve never heard of calling the shots.
    Lol. The reason for leaving in a sentence.
    If you think being in the EU is bad, wait until you try not being in the EU.
    Well we’re going to find out. However, not having Verhofstadt, that Belgian Green MEP Phillipe something, Juncker, Loiseau , Nesl Richmond, Coveney, and of course Barnier, and their supporting cast appearing on my TV screen at depressingly regular intervals, because we will have definitively foxtrotted oscar will add to to the pleasure of my existence greatly.
    You know it has an off switch?
    Yes but the list I gave apparently doesn’t. Not unless we pull the plug, which of course we voted to do over four years ago.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,606
    Here is a more interesting question.

    For the Tories to win the next election they need to retain the Red Wall seats and that means retaining and creating jobs in those seats.

    So why is Boris focusing on a pointless Brexit (last year's) battle rather than this year's battle.
  • People going on about how important the rule of law is and then completely ignoring what the Attorney General has said seems rather contradictory.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,926

    alex_ said:

    Who does Philip think would have the upper hand in a bilateral trade negotiation between the UK and Luxembourg?

    Since Luxembourg don't engage in trade negotiations on their own moot. If they did, they would.
    Do you think we should adopt Singapore’s regulations? They have the upper hand, right?
    Singapore absolutely have the upper hand over the EU, 100% they do.

    That is why the EU are terrified at the prospect of us becoming a Singapore on the Atlantic.
    I think you are missing the point in all this. In the context of trade negotiations the issue isn't necessarily which is the richest or the poorest of the negotiating parties. It is which has the more to gain from access to the other's market. Sometimes being rich (however defined) is important - the richer countries have more to buy and less to gain from selling their wares to the poorer market.

    Sometimes GDP per Capita will be a factor. If a country is so poor that their population has little disposable income to offer additional buying power then they have very little to offer, however big their GDP overall. Although this can be misleading if there is huge wealth inequality meaning that they actually have a lot of buying power within a wealthy elite despite a largely impoverished population.

    On the other hand sometimes GDP per capita is worth little, particularly for small countries. They simply offer little in the way of buying power to generate interest from a larger country. So Singapore really have little to offer in a trader agreement with the EU.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 14,624
    Alistair said:

    BBC News - Coronavirus: France sets daily record with almost 10,000 new cases
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54111209

    It's almost like the lockdown which has wrecked the world economy never actually happened.
    I'm old enough to remember when Covid Sceptics thought the 'insights' of Isaac Ben-Israel were worth sharing.
    He'd probably been listening to President Pinnochio:

    "It’s going to disappear. One day – it’s like a miracle – it will disappear.”"
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 2,634

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.

    Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.

    This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.

    The problem is there is no satisfactory Brexit for everyone.

    Diehard Remainers stlll oppose Brexit completely and want to rejoin the EU. Moderate Remainers and moderate Leavers may accept an EEA or EEA style FTA compromise which is the most the EU will give us but most Leavers would prefer No Deal WTO terms Brexit to that
    There never was going to be a satisfactory outcome for everyone. That is the nature of politics. But this has nothing to do with that. This is all about personal aggrandisement by Johnson.
    Hi Richard

    I know we have very different views on Cummings, although we agreed over his eye test. You’re a big admirer. I’m not.

    I have to say I see Cummings’ hand in this. It’s exactly the sort of thing he’s done before. Come up with an idea that sounds incredibly brilliant in isolation, and will never survive contact with reality, and then drive it through to show you can. Prorogation springs to mind. (I should mention I thought that was legal, although I also thought it was a very bad idea.)

    I speak from my experience of working in a sector he tried to reform, with disastrous results. You, on the other hand, have a much more detailed knowledge of his written work than I do.

    Do you think Cummings has anything to do with this? I’m genuinely interested in hearing your views. Because if he did, he will surely have to quit if the government is defeated - and if he didn’t, it suggests he’s lost a lot of personal influence although his style clearly remains intact.
    I would like to think not but I suspect that even if he didn't come up with the idea he must have at least agreed to it and game played it.

    As I said, although it is of course pure speculation, I see the driving force here being Johnson. I think he is desperate for this to be a fight rather than a negotiation and for him to come out as the conquering hero. He believes that whatever fallout there might be will be ancient history by the time the next election comes around. He also has a well deserved reputation for being scornful of the law, whether it is international or domestic. I assume this stems from a horrendous sense of privilege.

    So yes I think Cummings must have had something to do with this but unlike the previous 'wheezes' I think the driving force and the origins of this one lie firmly with Johnson.

    As an aside is Cummings even back at Number 10 at the moment? I know he was out because of his much delayed operation at the start of the month.
    The driving force of this is not Cummings or Johnson, its Farage.

    The tories don;t fear Roger irrelevant Keir Starmer.

    They fear a revival of the Brexit party, powered by a 'stab in the back' brexit and a mounting list of conservative voter grievances.

    A bad brexit or a cave in finishes Johnson's government, and it finishes the tories for a generation or more.
    The Tories would have done us all a favour if, years ago, they had tossed the ERG out on their ear and then stood moderate candidates.

    But they lacked the courage and the nerve to do it.
    You really don't get this democracy lark do you. The views of the ERG types reflect the views of a section of the electorate. Quite a large one it seems even if I don't agree with them.

    It was because so many MPs, particularly the party leaderships, failed to recognise this point and failed to represent the views of their voters that we ended up with Brexit and subsequently a Johnson majority.

    I do get this democracy lark - if the Tories had ejected the ERG they could have sat as independents and stood against moderate conservatives at the next election. The electorate would still have had a choice and the Tories would have removed the ERG knife from their jugular and probably given Farage a headache.

    They could have done this in either 2001 or 2005 when they never had a cat in hell's chance of being the govt. It would have been the perfect time to clear to the extremists and remain a moderate centre-right party.

    But they failed to do it and today they are paying the price.
    What price?

    The price of an 80 seat majority? Oh noes, the horror.
    Learn to read Philip - in 2001 and 2005 they did not have ANY majority
    I know that, but you said "today they are paying the price."

    Today we have an 80 seat majority, some price to be paid.

    Hope we're paying a comparable price after the next election.
    After this week, you will be lucky if they ever get an 80 seat majority in your lifetime.

    They might even be doing well to get to 2024 given the internal dissent they are busy stoking up
    Were you making predictions of similar quality at the time of the Prorogation Crisis last year?
  • eekeek Posts: 9,606

    eek said:

    alex_ said:

    Who does Philip think would have the upper hand in a bilateral trade negotiation between the UK and Luxembourg?

    Since Luxembourg don't engage in trade negotiations on their own moot. If they did, they would.
    Do you think we should adopt Singapore’s regulations? They have the upper hand, right?
    Singapore absolutely have the upper hand over the EU, 100% they do.

    That is why the EU are terrified at the prospect of us becoming a Singapore on the Atlantic.
    Any actual evidence to back up those words?
    Which bit are you struggling with?

    That Singaporeans have literally double the income per capita? Or that the EU are terrified of us becoming the same?
    Any evidence as to how we get to that sort of position - because we've just screwed up the first reason Singapore is wealth, people trust them with their wealth and we are no longer trustworthy...
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,649
    eek said:

    Here is a more interesting question.

    For the Tories to win the next election they need to retain the Red Wall seats and that means retaining and creating jobs in those seats.

    So why is Boris focusing on a pointless Brexit (last year's) battle rather than this year's battle.

    Because he is an idiot.

    (OK - longer answer... if things are going badly, create a patsy/bogeyman. Covid and the economy are not going well, but the EU has always worked as a whipping boy, so.......)
  • eek said:

    Here is a more interesting question.

    For the Tories to win the next election they need to retain the Red Wall seats and that means retaining and creating jobs in those seats.

    So why is Boris focusing on a pointless Brexit (last year's) battle rather than this year's battle.

    Getting Brexit done now is the best thing for the UK's future prosperity.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,649

    .... but in the end I still think he is that dumb and this is all about him wanting a glorious victory.

    On that we agree. He appears to be vanity politician.
  • SandraMcSandraMc Posts: 160
    edited September 10
    I have just attended a Zoom meeting of the local Parish Council. The Boris/Cummings planning changes proposed are going down like a cup of cold sick with the local Conservative councillors.

    Boris seems to be alienating so many in his party.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,926

    eek said:

    Here is a more interesting question.

    For the Tories to win the next election they need to retain the Red Wall seats and that means retaining and creating jobs in those seats.

    So why is Boris focusing on a pointless Brexit (last year's) battle rather than this year's battle.

    Because he is an idiot.

    (OK - longer answer... if things are going badly, create a patsy/bogeyman. Covid and the economy are not going well, but the EU has always worked as a whipping boy, so.......)
    He's been trying to goad Labour into moving off their criticism of the COVID response onto ground they feel more certain on. Starmer is steadfastly refusing to play ball.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,606

    eek said:

    Here is a more interesting question.

    For the Tories to win the next election they need to retain the Red Wall seats and that means retaining and creating jobs in those seats.

    So why is Boris focusing on a pointless Brexit (last year's) battle rather than this year's battle.

    Getting Brexit done now is the best thing for the UK's future prosperity.
    Relative to the 500,000 +jobs that Covid has destroyed and the millions more about to go.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 11,317

    People going on about how important the rule of law is and then completely ignoring what the Attorney General has said seems rather contradictory.

    Explain
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 3,031
    edited September 10
    eek said:

    Here is a more interesting question.

    For the Tories to win the next election they need to retain the Red Wall seats and that means retaining and creating jobs in those seats.

    So why is Boris focusing on a pointless Brexit (last year's) battle rather than this year's battle.

    They still seem to think it's '19, and that they can pick up more votes by being seen to take on, simultaneously, party grandees, institutions, Brussels, and parliament.

    I don't think it's going to work. Most people believed the negotiation part of the Brexit process to be somehow "over", and I think, instead, particularly if the current posture continues, Tory backing will start heading down to the bedrock 33-35% over the next few weeks, particularly also if the winding down of the furlough scheme coincides with tory internal strife and in-fighting.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,988

    Whilst I still believe this whole debacle over the last few days is basically because of Johnson and his ego, I do wonder if there is something a bit simpler going on here.

    I wonder if the UK negotiating team and therefore the Government have realised that in fact the EU is has no intention of seeking an acceptable deal. Perhaps Frost has communicated to Number 10 that the EU are simply not serious about a deal for a hundred different possible reasons and are just going to let the clock run down. In that case would it make sense to make clear that whatever concessions have been made to Brussels so far via the WA to legally get us out of EU are now going out of the window?

    I am not sure I believe there is any validity in this idea but I still find it hard to believe that even someone as stupid as Johnson would do something so likely to derail all of our other non EU relationships without an extremely good reason....

    .... but in the end I still think he is that dumb and this is all about him wanting a glorious victory.

    If that's the case, then Boris should stand up and say so.

    In those circumstances, most people would understand us our behaviour.

    But the current situation, where we introduce a Bill that is incompatible with the Withdrawal Agreement (and various other treaties were are signatories to), and then stick our tongue out is just odd.

    Either man up, and walk away from the Withdrawal Agreement on the basis the EU has not stuck to their side of the bargain. Or stick with what you agreed.

    Just don't do something that is going to get everyone's backs up for no reason.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 541
    SandraMc said:

    I have just attended a Zoom meeting of the local Parish Council. the Boris/Cummings planning changes proposed are going down like a cup of cold sick with the local Conservative councillors.

    Boris seems to be alienating so many in his party.

    Underestimating the power of NIMBYs is dangerous in the extreme. Although I will say, those planning changes were in the manifesto and were pretty well trailed. If you're going to vote for the Leopards Eating Faces Party...
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 15,170
    Scott_xP said:
    Waugh doesn't sound as though he really believes in the rebellion - giving Parliament the power to break international law instead of Ministers sounds much the same, and will be equally unacceptable to the EU. The basic EU question is whether Britain is serious at all, and at present it appears not.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,735
    A "tired and emotional" looking Gove on BBC News at 10.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,626

    eek said:

    Here is a more interesting question.

    For the Tories to win the next election they need to retain the Red Wall seats and that means retaining and creating jobs in those seats.

    So why is Boris focusing on a pointless Brexit (last year's) battle rather than this year's battle.

    Getting Brexit done now is the best thing for the UK's future prosperity.
    It's done Phil, we're out.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 541
    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    Here is a more interesting question.

    For the Tories to win the next election they need to retain the Red Wall seats and that means retaining and creating jobs in those seats.

    So why is Boris focusing on a pointless Brexit (last year's) battle rather than this year's battle.

    Getting Brexit done now is the best thing for the UK's future prosperity.
    It's done Phil, we're out.
    Sadly for everyone else, certain Brexiteers will sit in their gardens yelling at clouds forever.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,649
    edited September 10
    rcs1000 said:

    But the current situation, where we introduce a Bill that is incompatible with the Withdrawal Agreement (and various other treaties were are signatories to), and then stick our tongue out is just odd.

    If once is odd, what is twice?

    I believe there is another bill - a finance one - on the way that will also breach treaties.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,606
    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    Here is a more interesting question.

    For the Tories to win the next election they need to retain the Red Wall seats and that means retaining and creating jobs in those seats.

    So why is Boris focusing on a pointless Brexit (last year's) battle rather than this year's battle.

    Getting Brexit done now is the best thing for the UK's future prosperity.
    It's done Phil, we're out.
    We left in January with an oven ready deal - why hasn't it been signed?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,988
    Singapore is a high regulation, high levels of immigration country that owes its wealth to its geographical location, among the fastest growing countries on earth. (With which it has, by and large, excellent relations.)

    Singapore's economic model is to suppress domestic consumption, so as to boost exports.

    If you were to look at which European country looked most like Singapore, you would almost certainly say Germany.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,624
    rcs1000 said:

    Whilst I still believe this whole debacle over the last few days is basically because of Johnson and his ego, I do wonder if there is something a bit simpler going on here.

    I wonder if the UK negotiating team and therefore the Government have realised that in fact the EU is has no intention of seeking an acceptable deal. Perhaps Frost has communicated to Number 10 that the EU are simply not serious about a deal for a hundred different possible reasons and are just going to let the clock run down. In that case would it make sense to make clear that whatever concessions have been made to Brussels so far via the WA to legally get us out of EU are now going out of the window?

    I am not sure I believe there is any validity in this idea but I still find it hard to believe that even someone as stupid as Johnson would do something so likely to derail all of our other non EU relationships without an extremely good reason....

    .... but in the end I still think he is that dumb and this is all about him wanting a glorious victory.

    If that's the case, then Boris should stand up and say so.

    In those circumstances, most people would understand us our behaviour.

    But the current situation, where we introduce a Bill that is incompatible with the Withdrawal Agreement (and various other treaties were are signatories to), and then stick our tongue out is just odd.

    Either man up, and walk away from the Withdrawal Agreement on the basis the EU has not stuck to their side of the bargain. Or stick with what you agreed.

    Just don't do something that is going to get everyone's backs up for no reason.
    The reason is the culture war* Cummings and Johnson think it will play to their advantage.

    * Clues include NI secretary drawing attention to the illegality; Johnson being peeved that Starmer didn't bring up the IM Bill during PMQs
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,649
    alex_ said:

    eek said:

    Here is a more interesting question.

    For the Tories to win the next election they need to retain the Red Wall seats and that means retaining and creating jobs in those seats.

    So why is Boris focusing on a pointless Brexit (last year's) battle rather than this year's battle.

    Because he is an idiot.

    (OK - longer answer... if things are going badly, create a patsy/bogeyman. Covid and the economy are not going well, but the EU has always worked as a whipping boy, so.......)
    He's been trying to goad Labour into moving off their criticism of the COVID response onto ground they feel more certain on. Starmer is steadfastly refusing to play ball.
    Good for Starmer!

    Let Boris stew in his own juice.
  • alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Who does Philip think would have the upper hand in a bilateral trade negotiation between the UK and Luxembourg?

    Since Luxembourg don't engage in trade negotiations on their own moot. If they did, they would.
    Do you think we should adopt Singapore’s regulations? They have the upper hand, right?
    Singapore absolutely have the upper hand over the EU, 100% they do.

    That is why the EU are terrified at the prospect of us becoming a Singapore on the Atlantic.
    I think you are missing the point in all this. In the context of trade negotiations the issue isn't necessarily which is the richest or the poorest of the negotiating parties. It is which has the more to gain from access to the other's market. Sometimes being rich (however defined) is important - the richer countries have more to buy and less to gain from selling their wares to the poorer market.

    Sometimes GDP per Capita will be a factor. If a country is so poor that their population has little disposable income to offer additional buying power then they have very little to offer, however big their GDP overall. Although this can be misleading if there is huge wealth inequality meaning that they actually have a lot of buying power within a wealthy elite despite a largely impoverished population.

    On the other hand sometimes GDP per capita is worth little, particularly for small countries. They simply offer little in the way of buying power to generate interest from a larger country. So Singapore really have little to offer in a trader agreement with the EU.
    We are not a small country though, we are a wealthy country.

    Some people seem to think that having a large market makes you better off - it doesn't, it just means you have a larger market. What makes you better off is having something worthwhile.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 37,624
    OnboardG1 said:

    SandraMc said:

    I have just attended a Zoom meeting of the local Parish Council. the Boris/Cummings planning changes proposed are going down like a cup of cold sick with the local Conservative councillors.

    Boris seems to be alienating so many in his party.

    Underestimating the power of NIMBYs is dangerous in the extreme. Although I will say, those planning changes were in the manifesto and were pretty well trailed. If you're going to vote for the Leopards Eating Faces Party...
    If these parish councillors get too uppity then Cummings will abolish them, along with the District councils.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,626


    We are not a small country though, we are a wealthy country.

    Some people seem to think that having a large market makes you better off - it doesn't, it just means you have a larger market. What makes you better off is having something worthwhile.

    What would you say our most valuable assets are.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,606

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Who does Philip think would have the upper hand in a bilateral trade negotiation between the UK and Luxembourg?

    Since Luxembourg don't engage in trade negotiations on their own moot. If they did, they would.
    Do you think we should adopt Singapore’s regulations? They have the upper hand, right?
    Singapore absolutely have the upper hand over the EU, 100% they do.

    That is why the EU are terrified at the prospect of us becoming a Singapore on the Atlantic.
    I think you are missing the point in all this. In the context of trade negotiations the issue isn't necessarily which is the richest or the poorest of the negotiating parties. It is which has the more to gain from access to the other's market. Sometimes being rich (however defined) is important - the richer countries have more to buy and less to gain from selling their wares to the poorer market.

    Sometimes GDP per Capita will be a factor. If a country is so poor that their population has little disposable income to offer additional buying power then they have very little to offer, however big their GDP overall. Although this can be misleading if there is huge wealth inequality meaning that they actually have a lot of buying power within a wealthy elite despite a largely impoverished population.

    On the other hand sometimes GDP per capita is worth little, particularly for small countries. They simply offer little in the way of buying power to generate interest from a larger country. So Singapore really have little to offer in a trader agreement with the EU.
    We are not a small country though, we are a wealthy country.

    Some people seem to think that having a large market makes you better off - it doesn't, it just means you have a larger market. What makes you better off is having something worthwhile.
    Like laws the world trust and a finance industry built upon that trust.

    And as I stated yesterday, years, heck, decades of trust can be destroyed with a single comment - just ask Gerald Ratner
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 38,315
    The UK does not hold all the cards. The EU does not hold all the cards.

    The UK holds about 25-45% of the cards depending on the issue.

    So the EU has to compromise. We have to do a compromise a bit more. That's the negotiation.

    On balance we've had to favour their timing and process, consistently, but the compromises have only broken about 40:60 in the EU's favour, which isn't bad given it's us against the whole bloc.

    If the ticking clock wasn't present it'd be more like 45-55.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 38,315

    A "tired and emotional" looking Gove on BBC News at 10.

    He's drunk?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 38,315
    rcs1000 said:

    Whilst I still believe this whole debacle over the last few days is basically because of Johnson and his ego, I do wonder if there is something a bit simpler going on here.

    I wonder if the UK negotiating team and therefore the Government have realised that in fact the EU is has no intention of seeking an acceptable deal. Perhaps Frost has communicated to Number 10 that the EU are simply not serious about a deal for a hundred different possible reasons and are just going to let the clock run down. In that case would it make sense to make clear that whatever concessions have been made to Brussels so far via the WA to legally get us out of EU are now going out of the window?

    I am not sure I believe there is any validity in this idea but I still find it hard to believe that even someone as stupid as Johnson would do something so likely to derail all of our other non EU relationships without an extremely good reason....

    .... but in the end I still think he is that dumb and this is all about him wanting a glorious victory.

    If that's the case, then Boris should stand up and say so.

    In those circumstances, most people would understand us our behaviour.

    But the current situation, where we introduce a Bill that is incompatible with the Withdrawal Agreement (and various other treaties were are signatories to), and then stick our tongue out is just odd.

    Either man up, and walk away from the Withdrawal Agreement on the basis the EU has not stuck to their side of the bargain. Or stick with what you agreed.

    Just don't do something that is going to get everyone's backs up for no reason.
    The principle should be: do not fire unless fired upon.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 37,624
    At least the pretence is over.

    Cummings/Gove/Johnson* will engineer No Deal and they want to be able to blame the EU as much as possible.


    * listed in order of seniority.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,926

    The UK does not hold all the cards. The EU does not hold all the cards.

    The UK holds about 25-45% of the cards depending on the issue.

    So the EU has to compromise. We have to do a compromise a bit more. That's the negotiation.

    On balance we've had to favour their timing and process, consistently, but the compromises have only broken about 40:60 in the EU's favour, which isn't bad given it's us against the whole bloc.

    If the ticking clock wasn't present it'd be more like 45-55.

    Well it didn't help when we rejected their compromises and chose to double down on 0-100 in their favour instead.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 37,624

    A "tired and emotional" looking Gove on BBC News at 10.

    He's drunk?
    on power.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,735

    A "tired and emotional" looking Gove on BBC News at 10.

    He's drunk?
    I certainly wouldn't make such an assertion, neither would I suggest that he looked like he might have self medicated in any other way either. He just looked like he had experienced a tough day..
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 38,315
    SandraMc said:

    I have just attended a Zoom meeting of the local Parish Council. The Boris/Cummings planning changes proposed are going down like a cup of cold sick with the local Conservative councillors.

    Boris seems to be alienating so many in his party.

    He's only 55 letters away from a vote.

    And 183 Tory MPs are enough to oust him in a secret ballot.

    He should have that stapled to his wall.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 37,624

    SandraMc said:

    I have just attended a Zoom meeting of the local Parish Council. The Boris/Cummings planning changes proposed are going down like a cup of cold sick with the local Conservative councillors.

    Boris seems to be alienating so many in his party.

    He's only 55 letters away from a vote.

    And 183 Tory MPs are enough to oust him in a secret ballot.

    He should have that stapled to his wall.
    They should get rid before him and Cummings burn the party to the ground. Neither of them is a conservative.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,606
    On e again any evidence for what Henry says - the only visible evidence of dummies being spat out is coming from Boris's pram
  • eek said:

    On e again any evidence for what Henry says - the only visible evidence of dummies being spat out is coming from Boris's pram
    We have the contempt Barnier has been treating the UK with.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 38,315
    alex_ said:

    The UK does not hold all the cards. The EU does not hold all the cards.

    The UK holds about 25-45% of the cards depending on the issue.

    So the EU has to compromise. We have to do a compromise a bit more. That's the negotiation.

    On balance we've had to favour their timing and process, consistently, but the compromises have only broken about 40:60 in the EU's favour, which isn't bad given it's us against the whole bloc.

    If the ticking clock wasn't present it'd be more like 45-55.

    Well it didn't help when we rejected their compromises and chose to double down on 0-100 in their favour instead.
    Just to be clear: even in an ultra toxic No Deal situation it still wouldn't be 0-100 in their favour.

    I'm not trying to invoke Godwin here but that's what Germany in May 1945 looks like - total surrender and occupied.

    We'd probably be back down to 25% ish because they'd want the market and for us not to spin out of the European security orbit but, not at any price.

    If it was weathered for several years, and we recovered economically and politically, we'd be back up to 40-45% again.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,463
    edited September 10

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.

    Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.

    This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.

    The problem is there is no satisfactory Brexit for everyone.

    Diehard Remainers stlll oppose Brexit completely and want to rejoin the EU. Moderate Remainers and moderate Leavers may accept an EEA or EEA style FTA compromise which is the most the EU will give us but most Leavers would prefer No Deal WTO terms Brexit to that
    There never was going to be a satisfactory outcome for everyone. That is the nature of politics. But this has nothing to do with that. This is all about personal aggrandisement by Johnson.
    Hi Richard

    I know we have very different views on Cummings, although we agreed over his eye test. You’re a big admirer. I’m not.

    I have to say I see Cummings’ hand in this. It’s exactly the sort of thing he’s done before. Come up with an idea that sounds incredibly brilliant in isolation, and will never survive contact with reality, and then drive it through to show you can. Prorogation springs to mind. (I should mention I thought that was legal, although I also thought it was a very bad idea.)

    I speak from my experience of working in a sector he tried to reform, with disastrous results. You, on the other hand, have a much more detailed knowledge of his written work than I do.

    Do you think Cummings has anything to do with this? I’m genuinely interested in hearing your views. Because if he did, he will surely have to quit if the government is defeated - and if he didn’t, it suggests he’s lost a lot of personal influence although his style clearly remains intact.
    I would like to think not but I suspect that even if he didn't come up with the idea he must have at least agreed to it and game played it.

    As I said, although it is of course pure speculation, I see the driving force here being Johnson. I think he is desperate for this to be a fight rather than a negotiation and for him to come out as the conquering hero. He believes that whatever fallout there might be will be ancient history by the time the next election comes around. He also has a well deserved reputation for being scornful of the law, whether it is international or domestic. I assume this stems from a horrendous sense of privilege.

    So yes I think Cummings must have had something to do with this but unlike the previous 'wheezes' I think the driving force and the origins of this one lie firmly with Johnson.

    As an aside is Cummings even back at Number 10 at the moment? I know he was out because of his much delayed operation at the start of the month.
    The driving force of this is not Cummings or Johnson, its Farage.

    The tories don;t fear Roger irrelevant Keir Starmer.

    They fear a revival of the Brexit party, powered by a 'stab in the back' brexit and a mounting list of conservative voter grievances.

    A bad brexit or a cave in finishes Johnson's government, and it finishes the tories for a generation or more.
    The Tories would have done us all a favour if, years ago, they had tossed the ERG out on their ear and then stood moderate candidates.

    But they lacked the courage and the nerve to do it.
    You really don't get this democracy lark do you. The views of the ERG types reflect the views of a section of the electorate. Quite a large one it seems even if I don't agree with them.

    It was because so many MPs, particularly the party leaderships, failed to recognise this point and failed to represent the views of their voters that we ended up with Brexit and subsequently a Johnson majority.

    I do get this democracy lark - if the Tories had ejected the ERG they could have sat as independents and stood against moderate conservatives at the next election. The electorate would still have had a choice and the Tories would have removed the ERG knife from their jugular and probably given Farage a headache.

    They could have done this in either 2001 or 2005 when they never had a cat in hell's chance of being the govt. It would have been the perfect time to clear to the extremists and remain a moderate centre-right party.

    But they failed to do it and today they are paying the price.
    Had they done so they would never have got close to getting back into power. The main opposition now would be UKIP.
    Indeed, we saw what happened when May failed to deliver Brexit, her vote went en masse to the Brexit Party at last year's European elections and the Tories came 5th behind Farage's Party, Labour, the LDs and even the Greens.

    If all the ERG types had been kicked out and gone to the Brexit Party leaving the Tories only with May and Hammond and Hunt and still not having delivered Brexit or committed to do it with or without a deal then the Tories would have faced the fate of the Tories in Canada and been down to only a handful of seats and no longer the main party of the right, with the Brexit Party being the UK version of Canada's Reform Party
  • eekeek Posts: 9,606

    eek said:

    On e again any evidence for what Henry says - the only visible evidence of dummies being spat out is coming from Boris's pram
    We have the contempt Barnier has been treating the UK with.
    Contempt it's a negotiation that requires preparation and it seems that our negotiation team are following Boris's wing it approach.

    Which you can't do when the documents may have consequences that require research to avoid embarrassment
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,463

    SandraMc said:

    I have just attended a Zoom meeting of the local Parish Council. The Boris/Cummings planning changes proposed are going down like a cup of cold sick with the local Conservative councillors.

    Boris seems to be alienating so many in his party.

    He's only 55 letters away from a vote.

    And 183 Tory MPs are enough to oust him in a secret ballot.

    He should have that stapled to his wall.
    Unless Labour takes a clear poll lead Boris is safe whatever he does
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 38,315
    HYUFD said:

    SandraMc said:

    I have just attended a Zoom meeting of the local Parish Council. The Boris/Cummings planning changes proposed are going down like a cup of cold sick with the local Conservative councillors.

    Boris seems to be alienating so many in his party.

    He's only 55 letters away from a vote.

    And 183 Tory MPs are enough to oust him in a secret ballot.

    He should have that stapled to his wall.
    Unless Labour takes a clear poll lead Boris is safe whatever he does
    Watch this space.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,463
    SandraMc said:

    I have just attended a Zoom meeting of the local Parish Council. The Boris/Cummings planning changes proposed are going down like a cup of cold sick with the local Conservative councillors.

    Boris seems to be alienating so many in his party.

    They allow zones for protection and zones for development
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 15,170
    eek said:

    eek said:

    On e again any evidence for what Henry says - the only visible evidence of dummies being spat out is coming from Boris's pram
    We have the contempt Barnier has been treating the UK with.
    Contempt it's a negotiation that requires preparation and it seems that our negotiation team are following Boris's wing it approach.

    Which you can't do when the documents may have consequences that require research to avoid embarrassment
    Contempt seems a perfectly reasonable view of our negotiating stance, frankly.
  • A "tired and emotional" looking Gove on BBC News at 10.

    He drinks to forget that he's Michael Gove, as any sensible person would.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,860
    IanB2 said:

    MY view is that the Cummmings/Johnson move to flout international law was actually a wheeze to screw Starmer - only the LAB leader didn't play ball. They wanted him to launch high handed attacks on their plan but got instead silence. I can't think of any other explanation.

    Quite right Mike. Apparently Boris was absolutely furious when Sir Keir destroyed him at PMQs - was shouting and screaming at minions etc. - so was probably out for revenge. However anger is not a suitable emotion from which to launch a political manoeuvre, hence the poor judgement and shambolic execution.
    Is that what this government has reduced us to? Trashing our international reputation and, by the look of it, our currency and credit rating, purely as a political gimmick aimed at an opposition that so far doesn’t even command a poll lead?

    I expected Boris to be bad, having personal experience to bring to bear, but never that bad.
    With a majority of 80 and years until the next election.

    Not bad; abyssal.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,926

    alex_ said:

    The UK does not hold all the cards. The EU does not hold all the cards.

    The UK holds about 25-45% of the cards depending on the issue.

    So the EU has to compromise. We have to do a compromise a bit more. That's the negotiation.

    On balance we've had to favour their timing and process, consistently, but the compromises have only broken about 40:60 in the EU's favour, which isn't bad given it's us against the whole bloc.

    If the ticking clock wasn't present it'd be more like 45-55.

    Well it didn't help when we rejected their compromises and chose to double down on 0-100 in their favour instead.
    Just to be clear: even in an ultra toxic No Deal situation it still wouldn't be 0-100 in their favour.

    I'm not trying to invoke Godwin here but that's what Germany in May 1945 looks like - total surrender and occupied.

    We'd probably be back down to 25% ish because they'd want the market and for us not to spin out of the European security orbit but, not at any price.

    If it was weathered for several years, and we recovered economically and politically, we'd be back up to 40-45% again.
    Apologies CR I think you’ve missed the subtext which was the U.K. voluntarily “renegotiating” the NI backstop to be the EU’s opening negotiating position, have previously negotiated a compromise position approaching parity.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,649

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.

    Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.

    This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.

    The problem is there is no satisfactory Brexit for everyone.

    Diehard Remainers stlll oppose Brexit completely and want to rejoin the EU. Moderate Remainers and moderate Leavers may accept an EEA or EEA style FTA compromise which is the most the EU will give us but most Leavers would prefer No Deal WTO terms Brexit to that
    There never was going to be a satisfactory outcome for everyone. That is the nature of politics. But this has nothing to do with that. This is all about personal aggrandisement by Johnson.
    Hi Richard

    I know we have very different views on Cummings, although we agreed over his eye test. You’re a big admirer. I’m not.

    I have to say I see Cummings’ hand in this. It’s exactly the sort of thing he’s done before. Come up with an idea that sounds incredibly brilliant in isolation, and will never survive contact with reality, and then drive it through to show you can. Prorogation springs to mind. (I should mention I thought that was legal, although I also thought it was a very bad idea.)

    I speak from my experience of working in a sector he tried to reform, with disastrous results. You, on the other hand, have a much more detailed knowledge of his written work than I do.

    Do you think Cummings has anything to do with this? I’m genuinely interested in hearing your views. Because if he did, he will surely have to quit if the government is defeated - and if he didn’t, it suggests he’s lost a lot of personal influence although his style clearly remains intact.
    I would like to think not but I suspect that even if he didn't come up with the idea he must have at least agreed to it and game played it.

    As I said, although it is of course pure speculation, I see the driving force here being Johnson. I think he is desperate for this to be a fight rather than a negotiation and for him to come out as the conquering hero. He believes that whatever fallout there might be will be ancient history by the time the next election comes around. He also has a well deserved reputation for being scornful of the law, whether it is international or domestic. I assume this stems from a horrendous sense of privilege.

    So yes I think Cummings must have had something to do with this but unlike the previous 'wheezes' I think the driving force and the origins of this one lie firmly with Johnson.

    As an aside is Cummings even back at Number 10 at the moment? I know he was out because of his much delayed operation at the start of the month.
    The driving force of this is not Cummings or Johnson, its Farage.

    The tories don;t fear Roger irrelevant Keir Starmer.

    They fear a revival of the Brexit party, powered by a 'stab in the back' brexit and a mounting list of conservative voter grievances.

    A bad brexit or a cave in finishes Johnson's government, and it finishes the tories for a generation or more.
    The Tories would have done us all a favour if, years ago, they had tossed the ERG out on their ear and then stood moderate candidates.

    But they lacked the courage and the nerve to do it.
    You really don't get this democracy lark do you. The views of the ERG types reflect the views of a section of the electorate. Quite a large one it seems even if I don't agree with them.

    It was because so many MPs, particularly the party leaderships, failed to recognise this point and failed to represent the views of their voters that we ended up with Brexit and subsequently a Johnson majority.

    I do get this democracy lark - if the Tories had ejected the ERG they could have sat as independents and stood against moderate conservatives at the next election. The electorate would still have had a choice and the Tories would have removed the ERG knife from their jugular and probably given Farage a headache.

    They could have done this in either 2001 or 2005 when they never had a cat in hell's chance of being the govt. It would have been the perfect time to clear to the extremists and remain a moderate centre-right party.

    But they failed to do it and today they are paying the price.
    Had they done so they would never have got close to getting back into power. The main opposition now would be UKIP.
    If they had done it early enough (2001 say) they would have had at least a decade and two more elections to get sorted.

    And even if UKIP were the main opposition, at least it would be honest, unlike pretending that today's Conservative Party are still Conservatives.

    But we cannot re-run history, so we will never know, will we?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,860
    MaxPB said:

    In the same way a Lannister always pays his debts, the UK government has always respected rule of law. The government is changing the nature of how businesses and investors see us as a nation. That is an intangible loss which will hurt us for years to come. Tory MPs must stand up and be counted and they need to rouse opposition benches, it hurts a future Labour government as well.

    Quite - and I don’t think it would do Labour any harm at all to vote against this abomination of a bill.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,735
    HYUFD said:

    SandraMc said:

    I have just attended a Zoom meeting of the local Parish Council. The Boris/Cummings planning changes proposed are going down like a cup of cold sick with the local Conservative councillors.

    Boris seems to be alienating so many in his party.

    He's only 55 letters away from a vote.

    And 183 Tory MPs are enough to oust him in a secret ballot.

    He should have that stapled to his wall.
    Unless Labour takes a clear poll lead Boris is safe whatever he does
    I hope you are right. That gives us almost another year of Johnson, by which time he will have totally trashed the Conservative brand.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,649
    Nigelb said:

    MaxPB said:

    In the same way a Lannister always pays his debts, the UK government has always respected rule of law. The government is changing the nature of how businesses and investors see us as a nation. That is an intangible loss which will hurt us for years to come. Tory MPs must stand up and be counted and they need to rouse opposition benches, it hurts a future Labour government as well.

    Quite - and I don’t think it would do Labour any harm at all to vote against this abomination of a bill.
    Labour should play this bill as a power grab and irrelevant to Brexit. We are out and their only concern is the sovereignty of Parliament.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,463

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.

    Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.

    This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.

    The problem is there is no satisfactory Brexit for everyone.

    Diehard Remainers stlll oppose Brexit completely and want to rejoin the EU. Moderate Remainers and moderate Leavers may accept an EEA or EEA style FTA compromise which is the most the EU will give us but most Leavers would prefer No Deal WTO terms Brexit to that
    There never was going to be a satisfactory outcome for everyone. That is the nature of politics. But this has nothing to do with that. This is all about personal aggrandisement by Johnson.
    Hi Richard

    I know we have very different views on Cummings, although we agreed over his eye test. You’re a big admirer. I’m not.

    I have to say I see Cummings’ hand in this. It’s exactly the sort of thing he’s done before. Come up with an idea that sounds incredibly brilliant in isolation, and will never survive contact with reality, and then drive it through to show you can. Prorogation springs to mind. (I should mention I thought that was legal, although I also thought it was a very bad idea.)

    I speak from my experience of working in a sector he tried to reform, with disastrous results. You, on the other hand, have a much more detailed knowledge of his written work than I do.

    Do you think Cummings has anything to do with this? I’m genuinely interested in hearing your views. Because if he did, he will surely have to quit if the government is defeated - and if he didn’t, it suggests he’s lost a lot of personal influence although his style clearly remains intact.
    I would like to think not but I suspect that even if he didn't come up with the idea he must have at least agreed to it and game played it.

    As I said, although it is of course pure speculation, I see the driving force here being Johnson. I think he is desperate for this to be a fight rather than a negotiation and for him to come out as the conquering hero. He believes that whatever fallout there might be will be ancient history by the time the next election comes around. He also has a well deserved reputation for being scornful of the law, whether it is international or domestic. I assume this stems from a horrendous sense of privilege.

    So yes I think Cummings must have had something to do with this but unlike the previous 'wheezes' I think the driving force and the origins of this one lie firmly with Johnson.

    As an aside is Cummings even back at Number 10 at the moment? I know he was out because of his much delayed operation at the start of the month.
    The driving force of this is not Cummings or Johnson, its Farage.

    The tories don;t fear Roger irrelevant Keir Starmer.

    They fear a revival of the Brexit party, powered by a 'stab in the back' brexit and a mounting list of conservative voter grievances.

    A bad brexit or a cave in finishes Johnson's government, and it finishes the tories for a generation or more.
    The Tories would have done us all a favour if, years ago, they had tossed the ERG out on their ear and then stood moderate candidates.

    But they lacked the courage and the nerve to do it.
    You really don't get this democracy lark do you. The views of the ERG types reflect the views of a section of the electorate. Quite a large one it seems even if I don't agree with them.

    It was because so many MPs, particularly the party leaderships, failed to recognise this point and failed to represent the views of their voters that we ended up with Brexit and subsequently a Johnson majority.

    I do get this democracy lark - if the Tories had ejected the ERG they could have sat as independents and stood against moderate conservatives at the next election. The electorate would still have had a choice and the Tories would have removed the ERG knife from their jugular and probably given Farage a headache.

    They could have done this in either 2001 or 2005 when they never had a cat in hell's chance of being the govt. It would have been the perfect time to clear to the extremists and remain a moderate centre-right party.

    But they failed to do it and today they are paying the price.
    Had they done so they would never have got close to getting back into power. The main opposition now would be UKIP.
    If they had done it early enough (2001 say) they would have had at least a decade and two more elections to get sorted.

    And even if UKIP were the main opposition, at least it would be honest, unlike pretending that today's Conservative Party are still Conservatives.

    But we cannot re-run history, so we will never know, will we?
    Remember John Steven's Pro Euro Conservative Party which stood against Hagues' Tories? No, there is a reason for that
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,926
    Nigelb said:

    MaxPB said:

    In the same way a Lannister always pays his debts, the UK government has always respected rule of law. The government is changing the nature of how businesses and investors see us as a nation. That is an intangible loss which will hurt us for years to come. Tory MPs must stand up and be counted and they need to rouse opposition benches, it hurts a future Labour government as well.

    Quite - and I don’t think it would do Labour any harm at all to vote against this abomination of a bill.
    “At a time when the Govt should be devoting all it’s (non Covid) time to preparing and negotiating for an orderly exit from the transition on 1st January, this government is looking to waste time renegotiating an agreement upon which they won an election and signed into law 8 months ago, whilst trashing the country’s international reputation and credibility in the process”.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 5,777
    Given how popular Sunak is, the PCP would be as well to knife Boris now and supplant him with the Chancellor. It wouldn’t be in my party political interests to do that - however, it would be infinitely better for the country.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,649
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.

    Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.

    This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.

    The problem is there is no satisfactory Brexit for everyone.

    Diehard Remainers stlll oppose Brexit completely and want to rejoin the EU. Moderate Remainers and moderate Leavers may accept an EEA or EEA style FTA compromise which is the most the EU will give us but most Leavers would prefer No Deal WTO terms Brexit to that
    There never was going to be a satisfactory outcome for everyone. That is the nature of politics. But this has nothing to do with that. This is all about personal aggrandisement by Johnson.
    Hi Richard

    I know we have very different views on Cummings, although we agreed over his eye test. You’re a big admirer. I’m not.

    I have to say I see Cummings’ hand in this. It’s exactly the sort of thing he’s done before. Come up with an idea that sounds incredibly brilliant in isolation, and will never survive contact with reality, and then drive it through to show you can. Prorogation springs to mind. (I should mention I thought that was legal, although I also thought it was a very bad idea.)

    I speak from my experience of working in a sector he tried to reform, with disastrous results. You, on the other hand, have a much more detailed knowledge of his written work than I do.

    Do you think Cummings has anything to do with this? I’m genuinely interested in hearing your views. Because if he did, he will surely have to quit if the government is defeated - and if he didn’t, it suggests he’s lost a lot of personal influence although his style clearly remains intact.
    I would like to think not but I suspect that even if he didn't come up with the idea he must have at least agreed to it and game played it.

    As I said, although it is of course pure speculation, I see the driving force here being Johnson. I think he is desperate for this to be a fight rather than a negotiation and for him to come out as the conquering hero. He believes that whatever fallout there might be will be ancient history by the time the next election comes around. He also has a well deserved reputation for being scornful of the law, whether it is international or domestic. I assume this stems from a horrendous sense of privilege.

    So yes I think Cummings must have had something to do with this but unlike the previous 'wheezes' I think the driving force and the origins of this one lie firmly with Johnson.

    As an aside is Cummings even back at Number 10 at the moment? I know he was out because of his much delayed operation at the start of the month.
    The driving force of this is not Cummings or Johnson, its Farage.

    The tories don;t fear Roger irrelevant Keir Starmer.

    They fear a revival of the Brexit party, powered by a 'stab in the back' brexit and a mounting list of conservative voter grievances.

    A bad brexit or a cave in finishes Johnson's government, and it finishes the tories for a generation or more.
    The Tories would have done us all a favour if, years ago, they had tossed the ERG out on their ear and then stood moderate candidates.

    But they lacked the courage and the nerve to do it.
    You really don't get this democracy lark do you. The views of the ERG types reflect the views of a section of the electorate. Quite a large one it seems even if I don't agree with them.

    It was because so many MPs, particularly the party leaderships, failed to recognise this point and failed to represent the views of their voters that we ended up with Brexit and subsequently a Johnson majority.

    I do get this democracy lark - if the Tories had ejected the ERG they could have sat as independents and stood against moderate conservatives at the next election. The electorate would still have had a choice and the Tories would have removed the ERG knife from their jugular and probably given Farage a headache.

    They could have done this in either 2001 or 2005 when they never had a cat in hell's chance of being the govt. It would have been the perfect time to clear to the extremists and remain a moderate centre-right party.

    But they failed to do it and today they are paying the price.
    Had they done so they would never have got close to getting back into power. The main opposition now would be UKIP.
    If they had done it early enough (2001 say) they would have had at least a decade and two more elections to get sorted.

    And even if UKIP were the main opposition, at least it would be honest, unlike pretending that today's Conservative Party are still Conservatives.

    But we cannot re-run history, so we will never know, will we?
    Remember John Steven's Pro Euro Conservative Party which stood against Hagues' Tories? No, there is a reason for that
    Both the Tories and UKIP are established parties and were so back in 2001, so your comparison to a new party is meaningless
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,463

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.

    Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.

    This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.

    The problem is there is no satisfactory Brexit for everyone.

    Diehard Remainers stlll oppose Brexit completely and want to rejoin the EU. Moderate Remainers and moderate Leavers may accept an EEA or EEA style FTA compromise which is the most the EU will give us but most Leavers would prefer No Deal WTO terms Brexit to that
    There never was going to be a satisfactory outcome for everyone. That is the nature of politics. But this has nothing to do with that. This is all about personal aggrandisement by Johnson.
    Hi Richard

    I know we have very different views on Cummings, although we agreed over his eye test. You’re a big admirer. I’m not.

    I have to say I see Cummings’ hand in this. It’s exactly the sort of thing he’s done before. Come up with an idea that sounds incredibly brilliant in isolation, and will never survive contact with reality, and then drive it through to show you can. Prorogation springs to mind. (I should mention I thought that was legal, although I also thought it was a very bad idea.)

    I speak from my experience of working in a sector he tried to reform, with disastrous results. You, on the other hand, have a much more detailed knowledge of his written work than I do.

    Do you think Cummings has anything to do with this? I’m genuinely interested in hearing your views. Because if he did, he will surely have to quit if the government is defeated - and if he didn’t, it suggests he’s lost a lot of personal influence although his style clearly remains intact.
    I would like to think not but I suspect that even if he didn't come up with the idea he must have at least agreed to it and game played it.

    As I said, although it is of course pure speculation, I see the driving force here being Johnson. I think he is desperate for this to be a fight rather than a negotiation and for him to come out as the conquering hero. He believes that whatever fallout there might be will be ancient history by the time the next election comes around. He also has a well deserved reputation for being scornful of the law, whether it is international or domestic. I assume this stems from a horrendous sense of privilege.

    So yes I think Cummings must have had something to do with this but unlike the previous 'wheezes' I think the driving force and the origins of this one lie firmly with Johnson.

    As an aside is Cummings even back at Number 10 at the moment? I know he was out because of his much delayed operation at the start of the month.
    The driving force of this is not Cummings or Johnson, its Farage.

    The tories don;t fear Roger irrelevant Keir Starmer.

    They fear a revival of the Brexit party, powered by a 'stab in the back' brexit and a mounting list of conservative voter grievances.

    A bad brexit or a cave in finishes Johnson's government, and it finishes the tories for a generation or more.
    The Tories would have done us all a favour if, years ago, they had tossed the ERG out on their ear and then stood moderate candidates.

    But they lacked the courage and the nerve to do it.
    You really don't get this democracy lark do you. The views of the ERG types reflect the views of a section of the electorate. Quite a large one it seems even if I don't agree with them.

    It was because so many MPs, particularly the party leaderships, failed to recognise this point and failed to represent the views of their voters that we ended up with Brexit and subsequently a Johnson majority.

    I do get this democracy lark - if the Tories had ejected the ERG they could have sat as independents and stood against moderate conservatives at the next election. The electorate would still have had a choice and the Tories would have removed the ERG knife from their jugular and probably given Farage a headache.

    They could have done this in either 2001 or 2005 when they never had a cat in hell's chance of being the govt. It would have been the perfect time to clear to the extremists and remain a moderate centre-right party.

    But they failed to do it and today they are paying the price.
    Had they done so they would never have got close to getting back into power. The main opposition now would be UKIP.
    If they had done it early enough (2001 say) they would have had at least a decade and two more elections to get sorted.

    And even if UKIP were the main opposition, at least it would be honest, unlike pretending that today's Conservative Party are still Conservatives.

    But we cannot re-run history, so we will never know, will we?
    Remember John Steven's Pro Euro Conservative Party which stood against Hagues' Tories? No, there is a reason for that
    Both the Tories and UKIP are established parties and were so back in 2001, so your comparison to a new party is meaningless
    Had the Tories backed the Euro then though UKIP would have overtaken them, had Cameron never offered a referendum on the EU who knows what would have happened in 2015, he probably would not have won a majority as UKIP would have got 15 to 20% mainly from his former voters
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 35,436

    welshowl said:

    welshowl said:

    Oh no not Maroš Šefčovič. Whenever Maroš Šefčovič gets upset then heads will roll. Look out everyone Maroš Šefčovič is on the rampage.

    Who is Maroš Šefčovič?

    That’s what a loss of status means. You need to get used to politicians you’ve never heard of calling the shots.
    Lol. The reason for leaving in a sentence.
    If you think being in the EU is bad, wait until you try not being in the EU.
    Well we’re going to find out. However, not having Verhofstadt, that Belgian Green MEP Phillipe something, Juncker, Loiseau , Nesl Richmond, Coveney, and of course Barnier, and their supporting cast appearing on my TV screen at depressingly regular intervals, because we will have definitively foxtrotted oscar will add to to the pleasure of my existence greatly.
    You know it has an off switch?
    The EU was no supposed to have an off switch. Not one that we in the UK could press anyway.

    Oops. We pressed the off switch. Brussels still cannot comprehend that. Nor can the cadres of Remainers, still desperately groping for a back on switch that doesn't exist.


  • This sets such a bad precedent, I can't quite believe we're doing this.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 35,436
    The thing many will find very, very difficult to cope with is that the first lockdown coincided with an extraordinary period of beautiful weather and the nights obviously drawing out - the second will be the reverse, nights drawing in and most likley some horrible wet and windy weather.

    The effect of this will compound a feeling of hopelessness. I really fear for many people's mental health in a second lockdown.
This discussion has been closed.