politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Case of the Missing Documents

another_richard said:

And then there are other things we have been told:

Saddam Hussein has WMD.
There will be no more than 13,000 migrants annually from Eastern Europe.
Nothing is happening in Rotherham (ditto others).
Stafford hospital is safe (ditto others).
Jimmy Saville is a wonderful person (ditto others).
HS2 will cost about X and be running by Y (ditto others).
The banks are safe.
Politicians expenses are honest.
Elections in Tower Hamlets are fair.
Kids Company is a deserving charity.

I'm sure the list can be added to.

All of these things are terrible, but we should be careful not to go down the cynical view that we should believe nothing, that is what manipulating extremists would like us to go. It leads to "we have had enough of experts" and ultimately leads to chaos and despotism.

Recidivist said:

HYUFD said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/Andrew_ComRes/status/1171672240238333953?s=20

54% now want to see the Leave vote respected and Brexit delivered ie more than the 52% who actually voted Leave

That figure was way higher previously. The legitimacy of the referendum result is leaking away.

Such a ridiculous example of TSE's thread about 'Acquiescence bias.'

Foxy said:

On the subject of private phones being scrutinised, Cummings has recent form:

https://twitter.com/nataliesedacca/status/1171307167921639425?s=19

She gave consent.

As the hard-right headbangers are awake I'm going to take my bow. However I'd like to add this before I go.

Much as I think there's probably an issue about the prorogation and, yes, it was all cack-handed and playground behaviour etc etc ...

... the legal action does rather feel a little bit like the ERG nutters who were variously claiming that the extension was illegal and even Bill Cash in a parallel universe where we had actually left the EU.

There are better arguments to be had.

G'day all.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Overnight there is talk of Boris moving towards an all Ireland solution and seeking to heal wounds with the mps he sacked indicating he expects it will be the ERG coming for him when he agrees the deal in mid October

May I take this opportunity of painting a scenario before I go and leave it there to see if this develops and finally resolves the 31st October exit

Boris agrees a superficial change with the EU over the Irish backstop and then declares the agreement in a joint UK-EU conference at the summit alongside Tusk and Junckers/ Von der Leyen. Lots of congratulations and declarations of relief from Merkel, Macron and others.

The agreement is based on the 'Kinnock' amendment and the adjustments to Ireland and Boris declares he will put it to a vote in the HOC on Friday 18th October

At the EU press conference the EU state that the WDA has to pass by the 31st October with this new deal or it will be no deal as the commission will not allow any futher extensions, as all discussions and possible solutions have been exhausted

The HOC then have their choice and remainers are able to stand at the next GE campaigning to re-join

Of course in all of this time will be needed to pass the legislation but hopefully Boris and the EU will address this with a technical extension whilst we still leave on the 31st October

Fantasy or answer to prayer

I leave it with you folks

I still doubt a rehashed Withdrawal Agreement would pass absent a Tory majority, as ERG hardliners and the DUP would still vote against.

It would need about 30 Labour and Independent MPs to commit to vote for it to pass

There are 24 already declared and of course Rory Stewart and Norman Lamb are sponsoring it as well

Proof of their intent will be in the delivery. Some of them would back a Boris deal when they didnt the May deal?

Not that the proposer should matter, its about the merits, but thats how some acted before.

ydoethur said:

TGOHF said:

Foxy said:

On the subject of private phones being scrutinised, Cummings has recent form:

https://twitter.com/nataliesedacca/status/1171307167921639425?s=19

Cummings didn’t go to court or waste parliamentary time on it though. He was after a leaker who was being disloyal to the team.

I think you'll find he did waste legal resources on it by having her ejected from the building by police.

And since he is himself a fluent, serial leaker and disloyal backstabbing liar, forger and loser, he is also a hypocrite for doing that.

It's more than a bit worrying to see so many Tories become also Corbynista in their tribalism.

See you this evening.

The duty policeman @ydoethur . You’d struggle to make a case for that being a waste of resources as there would be zero marginal cost

Nigel_Foremain said:

Charles said:

Scott_P said:

FF43 said:

As far as I understand it, no-one much disputes the Queen nominally having the legal right to derogate parliament as she wills. The implication, I think, is that the government and her privy councillors lied to the Queen about the purpose of the derogation. This would be a constitutional breach, and if it comes out into the open a political issue.

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1171666465289887745

So something he said 9 months ago is ironclad evidence of his motives for actions last month?

And she calls herself a QC?

Hmm, I guess she knows a little more about the law and constitutional matters than you or I though! Unless you are a QC or Professor of constitutional law by any chance? Oh, of course, is it you just don't like that she has raised questions about the Lounger-in-Chief Jacob Rees Mogg?

PS. She doesn't call herself a QC, that is conferred on merit.

Nigel_Foremain said:

CD13 said:

Surprisingly, Stephen Kinnock in conjunction with Norman Lamb, Rory Stewart and Caroline Flint are trying to resurrect the EU/May deal in the Guardian's CiF, arguing that the LD's plans are anti-democratic.

They're correct of course, but they fail to understand that the extremist Remainers care nothing for democracy. When you have an exaggerated sense of your own superiority, democracy is unnecessary. Its the fault of fascists and communists alike.

Personally, I think that the May deal will probably lead to us staying, but it could be a temporary fix, and would show just how little MPs actually care about voter's opinions.

'We can't leave, it's too complicated' also applies to the Scottish independence aspirations. After all, we've been entangled for 300 years not less than fifty. But this is about democracy now. As an ex-LD voter, I can't understand how this "I know better than you, so you don't count,' came from. Perhaps a current LD voter can explain?

Well, I am not a LD, but I will be voting for them next time, so I will attempt to explain. First, I must admit, I am not in favour of revoke. I will be voting LD as their position is closest now to my own since my old party, the one that used to be called Conservative, was taken over by revolutionaries.

So, in answer to your question. If 52% of the public vote for something, (a very small majority) it does not mean that individuals, or parties, who opposed that position should suddenly drop all opposition. Such individuals have a moral and democratic responsibility to continue to oppose, and if necessary reverse the position. It is up to those that persuaded the 52% to continue to represent the views of the 52% (this is extremely arguable in the case of Brexit) and then fight for the decision to be upheld.

Leavers seem fond of war analogies, so here is one. Imagine there was a referendum in war time to persuade the public that the Geneva Convention should be ignored, that it was a foreign device, and our soldiers should be allowed to use their discretion on how to treat prisioners. If 52% voted in favour I think it would be a moral and democratic duty to persuade them of their error.

Therefore in summary, the LDs position is not in any way undemocratic. they have a right to represent a view that seeks to correct what they consider a gross error by an electorate that was misled. To oppose that right is very undemocratic

Where they cross the line is they are trying to prevent the implementation of the referendum result

It would be entire legitimate to have a Rejoin position

Nigel_Foremain said:

Charles said:

Scott_P said:

FF43 said:

As far as I understand it, no-one much disputes the Queen nominally having the legal right to derogate parliament as she wills. The implication, I think, is that the government and her privy councillors lied to the Queen about the purpose of the derogation. This would be a constitutional breach, and if it comes out into the open a political issue.

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1171666465289887745

So something he said 9 months ago is ironclad evidence of his motives for actions last month?

And she calls herself a QC?

Hmm, I guess she knows a little more about the law and constitutional matters than you or I though! Unless you are a QC or Professor of constitutional law by any chance? Oh, of course, is it you just don't like that she has raised questions about the Lounger-in-Chief Jacob Rees Mogg?

I just criticised Charles but your retort makes even less sense. She thought the case should be won initially but the court said no so her being a QC didnt prevent her being wrong then, nor can it be assumed therefore she knows the law on this point.

Of course perhaps the judge himself erred, and she will be vindicated, but top lawyers still get basic things wrong given some challenges which are comprehensively dismissed, so we cannot take a QC on either side thinking something as proof in itself. Government lawyers thought they knew the law on A50 and were wrong, as much as a majority of the court decided.

Wee Dan running about screeching and hyperventilating/hyperbolising.
Again.

https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1171393463579041801?s=20

AlastairMeeks said:

CD13 said:

Mr Meeks,

As a lawyer, I expected a more nuanced argument from you. How is the LD view for revocation democratic?

The Leave prospectus has been shown to be unimplementable. So the advice in the advisory referendum should be set to one side.

Try telling them that:

https://twitter.com/Andrew_ComRes/status/1171687350147190785?s=20

Nigel_Foremain said:

another_richard said:

And then there are other things we have been told:

Saddam Hussein has WMD.
There will be no more than 13,000 migrants annually from Eastern Europe.
Nothing is happening in Rotherham (ditto others).
Stafford hospital is safe (ditto others).
Jimmy Saville is a wonderful person (ditto others).
HS2 will cost about X and be running by Y (ditto others).
The banks are safe.
Politicians expenses are honest.
Elections in Tower Hamlets are fair.
Kids Company is a deserving charity.

I'm sure the list can be added to.

All of these things are terrible, but we should be careful not to go down the cynical view that we should believe nothing, that is what manipulating extremists would like us to go. It leads to "we have had enough of experts" and ultimately leads to chaos and despotism.

The issue is 15+ years old and I see no sign that politicians / government / establishment are concerned about the lack of trust.

Instead I think they would prefer to keep things better covered up than have government act with honesty and integrity.

FrankBooth said:

What about a bridge to the Isle of Wight? It can't be more than half a kilometre from the mainland.

More than that, and the Solent is quite shallow, but in Island surveys about 50% oppose it. Caulkheads* like being an Island, and don't just want to be a commuter suburb of Portsmouth and Southampton, even if regular visitors like me are keen.

*Those born on the Isle of Wight.

Mr Charles, Incorrect. They still have a legitimate and democratic right to attempt to frustrate it. If it is democratically implemented properly and proportionately they will not prevail, but the only reason they have made any progress is the mission creep of the Leave side. If the ERG et al had been prepared to look at a type of Brexit that reflected the miniscule majority then we would have left by now and the LDs would have been able to do nothing about it.

Charles said:

alex. said:

noneoftheabove said:

alex. said:

Streeter said:

alex. said:

Streeter said:

alex. said:

Re: another

Remainers would boycott such a referendum. Ridiculous.

I

Because it would contain a Leave option...

And my referendum contains a (potential) Remain option. One of the main criticism of the original referendum, and current Govt policy is that it sets a hard dividing line between leave and remain. If you supported leave then you must support no deal in the absence of a deal. If you voted Remain then you must oppose all forms of leave.

Suppose your preference is 1) deal 2) remain 3) no deal. Are you pro leave or pro remain? Should you have voted Leave because you wanted 1) or Remain because your feared 2)?

My referendum simply gives the public a chance to vote for a compromise that Parliament can’t agree on. If they reject it then they might get a future Remain majority govt committing to revoke, or a future leave majority govt committing to no deal. But they would have a chance to END IT!

(I think) It would have passed parliament and the country back in January if May had proposed a referendum along the lines of your suggestion, "do you prefer to leave the EU under the WA agreement negotiated by HMG, or do you prefer to extend for 12 months?"

As no-one likes the idea of extension it makes people reflect on the value of compromise, without removing any options from them. It also would have helped deliver govt policy with legitimacy so is hard for parliament to justify blocking.

The problem with it now is that the govt is against the WA, and we would be in the same situation as when Cameron did the first ref.

The equivalent for this govt would be "Do you prefer to leave the EU with no deal on 31 Jan (assuming extension granted, not time to do it before) or extend for 12 months?". Even as very much anti no deal myself, this would be far more legitimate than crashing out based on a 1.8% support at the last GE.

Slightly better expressed and formulated than me, thank you.

Wonder if anybody thought of it at the time/it was considered?

They considered it but the Remainers threatened to amend it so it was deal vs revoke

But would the amendments have passed? I think there would have been a lot of Labour votes against.

And are you sure? I recall lots of discussion about a deal vs no deal (aka deal vs disaster) referendum not so much about deal versus (eg.) 12 month extension. The latter would have been easily consistent with Labour policy (a renegotiated deal) the former emphatically not.

HYUFD said:

Recidivist said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

A Brexit Deal based on an NI only backstop would be giving the EU exactly what it wants. It would be a total victory. I would love to see the ERG and BXP reaction to that.

It would take GB out of the single market and customs union and once a technical solution for the Irish border is found would no longer apply but yes it is unlikely to pass absent a clear Tory majority

How do you feel Leadsom advocating more immigration from around the world on the radio this morning will help win over Brexit Party supporters?

Immigrants from around the world will only be admitted on merit via a points system, not through open door free movement as is the case with EEA migrants now

Not the policy being discussed this morning is it?

Foxy said:

FrankBooth said:

What about a bridge to the Isle of Wight? It can't be more than half a kilometre from the mainland.

More than that, and the Solent is quite shallow, but in Island surveys about 50% oppose it. Caulkheads* like being an Island, and don't just want to be a commuter suburb of Portsmouth and Southampton, even if regular visitors like me are keen.

*Those born on the Isle of Wight.

It would still be 15 miles to Southampton and 40 miles to Portsmouth. Only about 12 to Bournemouth from what I can see.

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/dongsho/status/1171679959015940097?s=21

Thats good

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/Andrew_ComRes/status/1171672240238333953?s=20

Yes, wonderful. But present public with options on how to respect and they splinter, as your own poll quoting has shown. So the theoretical number who want to respect it is less than the number in practice.

52% back the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop with Survation, most vote oppose further extension in the same poll and with Yougov too

Thanks for proving my point since the WA minus the backstop is currently only s theoretical option.

CD13 said:

Surprisingly, Stephen Kinnock in conjunction with Norman Lamb, Rory Stewart and Caroline Flint are trying to resurrect the EU/May deal in the Guardian's CiF, arguing that the LD's plans are anti-democratic.

They're correct of course, but they fail to understand that the extremist Remainers care nothing for democracy. When you have an exaggerated sense of your own superiority, democracy is unnecessary. Its the fault of fascists and communists alike.

Personally, I think that the May deal will probably lead to us staying, but it could be a temporary fix, and would show just how little MPs actually care about voter's opinions.

'We can't leave, it's too complicated' also applies to the Scottish independence aspirations. After all, we've been entangled for 300 years not less than fifty. But this is about democracy now. As an ex-LD voter, I can't understand how this "I know better than you, so you don't count,' came from. Perhaps a current LD voter can explain?

I'm a sometimes LD voter (GEs 2001-2010 & 2017*, some local elections, not often, if ever, in Euros). For what it's worth I think the policy to revoke is wrong - the only legitimate route to remain is, I think, through another referendum.

It wouldn't necessarily stop me voting LD as they clearly won't get a majority and actually implement this. As always, I'll decide on policy.

I would support revoke for the purposes of doing the Brexit decision right - i.e. revoke, spend some time debating (citizen's assembly, whatever) what form of Brexit would be on the table and then have a referendum between that and remain. That could also be done within a long extension if offered. I'd support revoke if no extension was offered, but only to implement the above leading to a second referendum.

I can also happily live with a soft Brexit, although I think it would make sense to ask the question again between a specific Brexit and remain. We've learned a lot in the past few years and the cake and eat it Brexit sold first time clearly doesn't exist. If the country still wants Brexit, so be it.

*2015 I lived somewhere my vote actually mattered and LD would have been a waste. I wasn't particularly outraged by the coalition, but I voted for chaos with Ed Milliband, partly because I thought a Brexit referendum would be divisive and suck all attention away from more important things - but I never imagined it would be this bad!

Recidivist said:

HYUFD said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/Andrew_ComRes/status/1171672240238333953?s=20

54% now want to see the Leave vote respected and Brexit delivered ie more than the 52% who actually voted Leave

That figure was way higher previously. The legitimacy of the referendum result is leaking away.

On what polling?

kamski said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Overnight there is talk of Boris moving towards an all Ireland solution and seeking to heal wounds with the mps he sacked indicating he expects it will be the ERG coming for him when he agrees the deal in mid October

May I take this opportunity of painting a scenario before I go and leave it there to see if this develops and finally resolves the 31st October exit

Boris agrees a superficial change with the EU over the Irish backstop and then declares the agreement in a joint UK-EU conference at the summit alongside Tusk and Junckers/ Von der Leyen. Lots of congratulations and declarations of relief from Merkel, Macron and others.

The agreement is based on the 'Kinnock' amendment and the adjustments to Ireland and Boris declares he will put it to a vote in the HOC on Friday 18th October

At the EU press conference the EU state that the WDA has to pass by the 31st October with this new deal or it will be no deal as the commission will not allow any futher extensions, as all discussions and possible solutions have been exhausted

The HOC then have their choice and remainers are able to stand at the next GE campaigning to re-join

Of course in all of this time will be needed to pass the legislation but hopefully Boris and the EU will address this with a technical extension whilst we still leave on the 31st October

Fantasy or answer to prayer

I leave it with you folks

Possible, but maybe allows Johnson to claim enough of a political victory to win a majority and five years to carry out his agenda. Which I think he has made very clear by his cabinet appointments, his admiration of Trump, and his behaviour. It will be a fundamentalist government, cutting regulations, removing rights, allowing unscrupulous super-rich people to make even more fast bucks no matter the cost to everyone else and the world we all depend on.

Plenty of reasons for the opposition to still vote against the deal, unless it includes legal guarantees of maintaining environmental regulations and workers' rights, which an extreme rightwinger like Johnson is unlikely to put on the table. For people like Johnson and the ERG the whole point of Brexit is to trash everything, they'd rather no Brexit than a Brexit that keeps environmental and social protections in place.

One problem may be that Johnson's behaviour over the past few weeks has been so appalling that some people may feel less inclined to say "Fair enough, if he can engineer a deal he deserves to govern."

I feel his instincts are terribly anti-democratic. More so that I'd expected. Does anyone else feel like that?

MattW said:

Two questions:

1 - What is the basis for the Court of Session to make rulings concerning the UK Parliament, given that it is not based in Scotland? I am thinking that it is some historic power under common law.

2 - Was Cummings actually declared in Contempt of Parliament? I have the Committee of Privileges report; however I thought it was down the Commons to do the deed, and I cannot find any motion etc. making it happen.

I have 2 down more to tantrumming by Mr Grieve to cover his own embarrassment - imo Select Committee Chairs hardly cover themselves with glory these days eg Margaret Hodge using the Treasury Committee as a platform for abusing witnesses. Ditto Frank Field.

Where parliament is based is not to the point. It is the parliament of NI, Scotland, England and Wales. Scotland and England have independent and equal legal systems so Scottish courts have the same jurisdiction over the matter as English. The Supreme Court, where all this could end, has jurisdiction over the whole of the UK.

TGOHF said:

Caroline Flint talking a lot of sense on R5 - difficult to trust Hilary Benn - his extension is purely to stop Brexit not to get a deal.

Och well, at least we know that Caroline will escape the fate of Jo Cox.

Of all the tedious nonsense spouted about Brexit the idea people are entitled to have things just because they voted for them is surely the most ludicrous. As Sir Humphrey observed Neville Chamberlain was very keen on peace. I'd like to find a winning EuroMillions ticket hanging on the end of Chris Hemsworth's Mjolnir. However it'll take more than a 3.8% winning margin in an advisory referendum to make it happen.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Charles said:

Scott_P said:

FF43 said:

As far as I understand it, no-one much disputes the Queen nominally having the legal right to derogate parliament as she wills. The implication, I think, is that the government and her privy councillors lied to the Queen about the purpose of the derogation. This would be a constitutional breach, and if it comes out into the open a political issue.

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1171666465289887745

So something he said 9 months ago is ironclad evidence of his motives for actions last month?

And she calls herself a QC?

Hmm, I guess she knows a little more about the law and constitutional matters than you or I though! Unless you are a QC or Professor of constitutional law by any chance? Oh, of course, is it you just don't like that she has raised questions about the Lounger-in-Chief Jacob Rees Mogg?

Sancho Panza to Jolyon's Don Quixote.

El_Capitano said:

TGOHF said:

https://twitter.com/jack_blanchard_/status/1171662465245044736?s=21

"The Brexit Party have taken out a full wraparound advert on the front page of the Daily Express this morning"

How does this differ from every other day of the Daily Express?

Presumably a lot of money changed hands.

Plus, purple. I see Farage is making a move to reclaim one of the UKIP colours.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Charles said:

Scott_P said:

FF43 said:

As far as I understand it, no-one much disputes the Queen nominally having the legal right to derogate parliament as she wills. The implication, I think, is that the government and her privy councillors lied to the Queen about the purpose of the derogation. This would be a constitutional breach, and if it comes out into the open a political issue.

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1171666465289887745

So something he said 9 months ago is ironclad evidence of his motives for actions last month?

And she calls herself a QC?

Hmm, I guess she knows a little more about the law and constitutional matters than you or I though! Unless you are a QC or Professor of constitutional law by any chance? Oh, of course, is it you just don't like that she has raised questions about the Lounger-in-Chief Jacob Rees Mogg?

PS. She doesn't call herself a QC, that is conferred on merit.

Her Twit handle says "QC". So she does call herself one, unless she is going to claim that it has been hacked and someone else is trying to pretend she is to be taken seriously.

:-o

El_Capitano said:

TGOHF said:

https://twitter.com/jack_blanchard_/status/1171662465245044736?s=21

"The Brexit Party have taken out a full wraparound advert on the front page of the Daily Express this morning"

How does this differ from every other day of the Daily Express?

Heh

TGOHF said:

https://twitter.com/jack_blanchard_/status/1171662465245044736?s=21

Clever Farage. If Johnson accepts the pact, it will be seen as humiliating himself in front of the more decisive politician. If he rejects, Johnson can no longer claim the Brexit Party mantle.

Incidentally, fascist imagery and aggressive and disrespectful language.

Lol

https://twitter.com/bbcnormans/status/1171699730881110017?s=21

TGOHF said:

https://twitter.com/jack_blanchard_/status/1171662465245044736?s=21

TBH, it is entirely necessary for the Express to let its readers know that the front page is not part of their newpaper, because otherwise it would be the sort of front page you would routinely expect the Express to run.

https://twitter.com/PhilC273/status/1171457615676637185

https://twitter.com/GdnPolitics/status/1171701800203767809

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kamski said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Overnight there is talk of Boris moving towards an all Ireland solution and seeking to heal wounds with the mps he sacked indicating he expects it will be the ERG coming for him when he agrees the deal in mid October


Fantasy or answer to prayer

I leave it with you folks

Possible, but maybe allows Johnson to claim enough of a political victory to win a majority and five years to carry out his agenda. Which I think he has made very clear by his cabinet appointments, his admiration of Trump, and his behaviour. It will be a fundamentalist government, cutting regulations, removing rights, allowing unscrupulous super-rich people to make even more fast bucks no matter the cost to everyone else and the world we all depend on.

Plenty of reasons for the opposition to still vote against the deal, unless it includes legal guarantees of maintaining environmental regulations and workers' rights, which an extreme rightwinger like Johnson is unlikely to put on the table. For people like Johnson and the ERG the whole point of Brexit is to trash everything, they'd rather no Brexit than a Brexit that keeps environmental and social protections in place.

The Kinnock amendment does just that on workers rights and environment protection. I disagree with Boris on brexit but he is no right winger. He is on the liberal side of the conservative party and his policies avoy to that

If the above goes through it sidelines the spartans

Is Johnson going to whip for the Kinnock amendment?

Johnson pretended to be somewhat liberal when he though it was good for his career (just like Trump used to, does anyone still think Trump is liberal?). I'm pretty sure Johnson's political ideology (beyond personal ambition) is fundamentalist "de-regulation" "greed is good" capitalist. Plus willingness to stoke ethnic division if he thinks it will win him votes.

I see the betting markets are finally starting to move (a little bit) on a GE2019.

I can’t see anyone going for one this side of Christmas if they’re only doomed to return with almost precisely the same number of MPs all round, except more ideological.

Freggles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kamski said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Overnight there is talk of Boris moving towards an all Ireland solution and seeking to heal wounds with the mps he sacked indicating he expects it will be the ERG coming for him when he agrees the deal in mid October


Fantasy or answer to prayer

I leave it with you folks

Possible, but maybe allows Johnson to claim enough of a political victory to win a majority and five years to carry out his agenda. Which I think he has made very clear by his cabinet appointments, his admiration of Trump, and his behaviour. It will be a fundamentalist government, cutting regulations, removing rights, allowing unscrupulous super-rich people to make even more fast bucks no matter the cost to everyone else and the world we all depend on.

Plenty of reasons for the opposition to still vote against the deal, unless it includes legal guarantees of maintaining environmental regulations and workers' rights, which an extreme rightwinger like Johnson is unlikely to put on the table. For people like Johnson and the ERG the whole point of Brexit is to trash everything, they'd rather no Brexit than a Brexit that keeps environmental and social protections in place.

The Kinnock amendment does just that on workers rights and environment protection. I disagree with Boris on brexit but he is no right winger. He is on the liberal side of the conservative party and his policies avoy to that

If the above goes through it sidelines the spartans

He's liberal on social issues and happy to borrow more for eye catching schemes. I'm not sure I've seen any evidence that he is liberal on workers' rights.

Edit : or business regulation

Is he reliably liberal on social issues? He once compared same sex marriage to bestiality.

Freggles said:

TGOHF said:

https://twitter.com/jack_blanchard_/status/1171662465245044736?s=21

Look at the body language on the photos they have chosen. Facing off against each other, Farage aloof and determined, Johnson seems to be asking a question.
They could have chosen one of them appearing to stand side by side. Seems like setting the scene for Johnson to refuse

I think you must be right. If the Brexit Party fights every seat and takes enough votes to deprive the Tories of a majority and so ends Brexit altogether, they have simply got to have a plausible 'it wasn't us guv' story.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/GdnPolitics/status/1171701800203767809

I actually do not think that it serves people well to see what is the absolutely worst thing that could happen. The worst thing that could happen to me is I could walk out of here and get run over. It is not a prediction, but it is something that could happen...

Don't bother the public's little minds with consequences - it might put them off stepping out into the traffic.

Casino_Royale said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PhilC273/status/1171457615676637185

https://twitter.com/GdnPolitics/status/1171701800203767809

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PhilC273/status/1171457615676637185

https://twitter.com/GdnPolitics/status/1171701800203767809

Not necessarily true, actually.

Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance would do a lot of heavy lifting for any public response to it.

I suspect the dial would tack just a tiny little bit more, but not decisively.

One of the many logical inconsistencies in the government's position is the assertion that the threat of the damage no deal would cause is so serious that it will bring the EU to the table but at the same time the UK could easily cope as all it would lead to only "a few bumps in the road."

Recidivist said:

Freggles said:

TGOHF said:

https://twitter.com/jack_blanchard_/status/1171662465245044736?s=21

Look at the body language on the photos they have chosen. Facing off against each other, Farage aloof and determined, Johnson seems to be asking a question.
They could have chosen one of them appearing to stand side by side. Seems like setting the scene for Johnson to refuse

I think you must be right. If the Brexit Party fights every seat and takes enough votes to deprive the Tories of a majority and so ends Brexit altogether, they have simply got to have a plausible 'it wasn't us guv' story.

I’m sorry to say I currently expect the following two things as more likely than the alternatives:

(1) Boris’s Deal, when it emerges, will go crashing down to a defeat just as serious as Theresa May’s. He is risking making himself untrusted and disliked by all, all round.

(2) If the “clean” Brexit some in the BXP and ERG seem to think he can/will deliver doesn’t look like it will materialise a few of them will break cover to say, “we’d be better off staying in the EU!”, which will lead to us staying in the EU.

Rather than pandering to the BXP and Spartans and chasing them ever further to the right, and then trying to pursue their votes in a GE, he’d have better luck putting a compromise deal to the HoC to resolve Brexit that’s reasonable to middle-ground voters.

If the HoC votes it down (it would) he puts that and revoke to the British people in a straight choice referendum and advocates his Deal, saying there’s no alternative.

I believe a soft Brexit would clearly win, and then he goes back to governing. When he calls a GE if that doesn’t work out he’d be more fortunate in pulling back votes from Lib Dems and Ex-Tories than he would BXP, which would anyway diminish a bit once a Brexit (any Brexit) had been delivered.

MattW said:

Two questions:

1 - What is the basis for the Court of Session to make rulings concerning the UK Parliament, given that it is not based in Scotland? I am thinking that it is some historic power under common law.

2 - Was Cummings actually declared in Contempt of Parliament? I have the Committee of Privileges report; however I thought it was down the Commons to do the deed, and I cannot find any motion etc. making it happen.

I have 2 down more to tantrumming by Mr Grieve to cover his own embarrassment - imo Select Committee Chairs hardly cover themselves with glory these days eg Margaret Hodge using the Treasury Committee as a platform for abusing witnesses. Ditto Frank Field.

Did you not get taught at school that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom

Pulpstar said:

Anyone hear the vox pop segment from Dudley on the radio this morning.

i) Always vote Labour
ii) Voted "Brexit", never vote again
iii) "Boris for Brexit" Who will you vote for then "Brexit party"

It's worth hearing if you wanted prejudices and stereotypes confirming.

I was driving so only half listening, but the standouts for me were 'Burn them all' (mps) and 'Boris, he's a knob' (from someone who voted for Brexit I think).

Casino_Royale said:

Recidivist said:

Freggles said:

TGOHF said:

https://twitter.com/jack_blanchard_/status/1171662465245044736?s=21

Look at the body language on the photos they have chosen. Facing off against each other, Farage aloof and determined, Johnson seems to be asking a question.
They could have chosen one of them appearing to stand side by side. Seems like setting the scene for Johnson to refuse

I think you must be right. If the Brexit Party fights every seat and takes enough votes to deprive the Tories of a majority and so ends Brexit altogether, they have simply got to have a plausible 'it wasn't us guv' story.

I’m sorry to say I currently expect the following two things as more likely than the alternatives:

(1) Boris’s Deal, when it emerges, will go crashing down to a defeat just as serious as Theresa May’s. He is risking making himself untrusted and disliked by all, all round.

(2) If the “clean” Brexit some in the BXP and ERG seem to think he can/will deliver doesn’t look like it will materialise a few of them will break cover to say, “we’d be better off staying in the EU!”, which will lead to us staying in the EU.

Rather than pandering to the BXP and Spartans and chasing them ever further to the right, and then trying to pursue their votes in a GE, he’d have better luck putting a compromise deal to the HoC to resolve Brexit that’s reasonable to middle-ground voters.

If the HoC votes it down (it would) he puts that and revoke to the British people in a straight choice referendum and advocates his Deal, saying there’s no alternative.

I believe a soft Brexit would clearly win, and then he goes back to governing. When he calls a GE if that doesn’t work out he’d be more fortunate in pulling back votes from Lib Dems and Ex-Tories than he would BXP, which would anyway diminish a bit once a Brexit (any Brexit) had been delivered.

Once more you are operating in an echo chamber. He doesn't have to put anything to the HoC or the UK. He needs to understand that the WA, negotiated by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in good faith with the European Union, is the only deal on the table.

He needs to understand also, although it seems this might finally be dawning upon him, that it is in the subsequent political declaration and intentions over the future trade agreement that he might be able to do some persuading.

Labour candidate in Finchley and Golders Green suddenly withdraws as PPC.

https://twitter.com/JewishChron/status/1171688681373163522

https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1171710617734012929?s=21

TOPPING said:

Casino_Royale said:

Recidivist said:

Freggles said:

TGOHF said:

https://twitter.com/jack_blanchard_/status/1171662465245044736?s=21

Look at the body language on the photos they have chosen.e

I think you must be right.

I’m sorry to say I currently expect the following two things as more likely than the alternatives:

(1) Boris’s Deal, when it emerges, will go crashing down to a defeat just as serious as Theresa May’s. He is risking making himself untrusted and disliked by all, all round.

(2) If the “clean” Brexit some in the BXP and ERG seem to think he can/will deliver doesn’t look like it will materialise a few of them will break cover to say, “we’d be better off staying in the EU!”, which will lead to us staying in the EU.

Rather than pandering to the BXP and Spartans and chasing them ever further to the right, and then trying to pursue their votes in a GE, he’d have better luck putting a compromise deal to the HoC to resolve Brexit that’s reasonable to middle-ground voters.

If the HoC votes it down (it would) he puts that and revoke to the British people in a straight choice referendum and advocates his Deal, saying there’s no alternative.

I believe a soft Brexit would clearly win, and then he goes back to governing. When he calls a GE if that doesn’t work out he’d be more fortunate in pulling back votes from Lib Dems and Ex-Tories than he would BXP, which would anyway diminish a bit once a Brexit (any Brexit) had been delivered.

Once more you are operating in an echo chamber. He doesn't have to put anything to the HoC or the UK. He needs to understand that the WA, negotiated by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in good faith with the European Union, is the only deal on the table.

He needs to understand also, although it seems this might finally be dawning upon him, that it is in the subsequent political declaration and intentions over the future trade agreement that he might be able to do some persuading.

One of the many weird ironies about this is that we are essentially arguing about how to spend a two year transition period, not the ongoing relationship. We have now spent three years negotiating and arguing how to manage that two year period, during which we have just left things as they are. We are planning to extend the three years into another year.

Surely it is far more logical to leave things as they are for a further two years and use the time to negotiate the future relationship not the transition.

The EU won the argument around sequencing so clearly that the only politician arguing for this is Farage! The EU also won it so cleanly that it may end up costing themselves as the UK seemingly cannot navigate a path through (or back out of) the maze.

dr_spyn said:

More coming.

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1171711198569672709

What the heck happens now?