***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 86 *****
IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ
Before discussions start in this thread, I would like to point out that any petty arguments, personal attacks, or any other infringement of house rules, etc. will be deleted where we feel fit from now on.
We will not give notice that we have deleted something. Nor will we enter into discussion why something was deleted. That will also be deleted.
It seems that discussion about Brexit brings out the worst in some people.
Be nice, Play nice, and control your temper. Your co-operation would be appreciated.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 12 Sep 19 at 10:31
|
I do believe the sticky stuff just hit the whirly thing....
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49570682
Conservative MP Philip Lee has defected to the Liberal Democrats ahead of a showdown between Boris Johnson and Tory rebels over Brexit.
Mr Lee, the MP for Bracknell, took his seat on the opposition benches as the PM addressed the Commons.
His defection means that Boris Johnson no longer has a working majority in the Commons.
He said the government was "pursuing a damaging Brexit in unprincipled ways", putting lives and livelihoods at risk.
Speaking in the Commons, Mr Johnson told MPs he wanted a negotiated exit from the EU and insisted there had been progress in the talks.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 4 Sep 19 at 10:30
|
And just for the record, he is the MP for Bracknell.
Bracknell voted LEAVE
Votes for Remain were: 29,888
Votes for Leave were: 35,002
The turnout was: 76.1 per cent
|
What are actual numbers now?
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) has the whip suspended as he's awaiting trial on sexual offence allegations. Doesn't count as a Tory but still likely to follow party line on most matters.
|
So 15 'independents' including Elphicke who can be relied on to vote Tory. Jared O'Mara is not sitting and may be about to resign. The rest seem to be a mix of those who've not gone anywhere after the 'Tiggers' fell apart, and odd bods who've lost Labour whip over Anti Semitism or resigned 'cos they're out of sympathy with Jezza - eg Frank Field. Lady Hermon was always independent.
There are also 7 abstentionist Sinn Fein members.
I may be wrong but I don't think Phillip Lee's action today is a game changer.
Bearing how large the North of Ireland features here I am surprised that the SF people haven't organised themselves. Even if their principles (and I appreciate swearing loyalty to the Queen is a big no no) are not bendable it's long been suggested they could resign in favour of 'trusties' who could attend Westminster before standing down at next election.
|
>>I may be wrong but I don't think Phillip Lee's action today is a game changer.
Oh I think it is. It's broken a seal.
It's not that it's made a difference in and of itself, but insofar as what comes then I think it is a most significant move.
It'll change people's feelings of safety, danger and what they feel about their next move. It will scare some and embolden others.
|
>>
I may be wrong but I don't think Phillip Lee's action today is a game changer.
I see Jennie Rigg just quit the Lib Dems quitting in response. That'll have some repercussions
|
It's a mess isn't it?
We probably don't have a lot [more] to lose by leaving on 31st October without a deal if that is how it falls now.
What matters then is what happens afterwards.
What some people still don't appear to have brought into their thinking is that we are as far from a 'forever' deal as we were in 2016. The May deal was only a transitional one. In effect, if we leave with no deal it makes a mess but at least we'd have found the bottom and that would, hopefully, be an alternative transitional state.
Given the likely improbability of getting any material change to the WA, we might as well, as you say, get on with it with or without a deal, into one transitional state or the other. To the extent that the EU was ever going to be motivated by the prospect of no-deal, it will cease to be a bluff and become reality. As will our own wounded foot.
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 3 Sep 19 at 17:33
|
I don't know Pjillip Lee, but clearly he is a low life of the first order.
He is on TV now saying that he has left the Conservative party because he wants to do the best for his constituency and for his voters.
Bracknell voted leave. Lee's own and local conservative Association passed a vote of no confidence in Lee citing his stance on Brexit.
Yet another self-serving bottom feeder.
|
>> I don't know Pjillip Lee, but clearly he is a low life of the first
>> order.
Why? Let's take a view from other end....
He says the Tory Party has left him. He's far from alone. The only mystery is why other 'one nation' Tories are not leaving in number saying same thing.
Frank Field left Labour on similar grounds. There's a mystery about why others have not followed. Field has always been a loner/outlier and the Jess Phillips and Stella Creasey type MPs of this world still hope Labour is recoverable.
It seems quite reasonable for Lee to conclude can do better for his constituents, all of them not just the Tories, released from the bounds of the Tory Whip. Bracknell was leave but not on the Boston scale; maybe 45/55. Not seen a psephologist's analysis but suggestion is a few wards swung it.
Frankly any Tory who expresses doubt about Brexit is vulnerable to local party activists who may have been augmented by entryism from UKIP. If Lee or any other Tory is not committed to Brexit at any cost then no confidence votes are a real possibility.
If he was a bottom feeder out to keep his own nest feathered he could have played along with the 'let's get it done at any cost' brigade and retained endorsement of local CCP.
I don't think (a) he'll capture Bracknell for LDs or (b) get the sinecure of a safe LD seat.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 3 Sep 19 at 18:41
|
I think your political bias colours your thoughts all too frequently, I think you missed my point.
You will notice that it was not his migration that irritated me, it was the interview he gave a little while after setting himself up as a martyr motivated solely by his wish to deliver what his local party and voters wanted, never mind the self serving drama of how he played it in The House.
|
>> I think your political bias colours your thoughts all too frequently, I think you missed
>> my point.
TBH I think your point is shallow in extreme.
You describe him as a 'low life of first order'. If that's based not on substance of his migration but on irritation of a few words and fact he chose to show up PM by visibly crossing floor then your judgement of him is badly skewed.
Maybe he's saying that seizure by an unrepresentative cabal features in his local party as well as nationally. Voters, or more accurately the population of Bracknell are a different thing.
I agree it would be better not to conflate/confuse those two groups.
|
You think my opinion is shallow????
ha ha ha ha ha ha. Go back over the years and see how your position varies depending on the political orientation of the person concerned.
My opinions are rarely shallow.
There is no point in telling me how I described him. I already know. I was there when I did it.
And yes, a low life of the first order. You don't have to agree, but there's little point in telling me I shouldn't hold that opinion, or that I'm basing it on the something you don;t think is sufficient. You've tried that before and it's never gone well.
But you make up whatever motivation for him you like if it helps you. Perhaps you might want to worry about whatever evidence you use.
As far as I am concerned I stand by my opinion of someone who quit rather than doing the job he promised to do within an organisation he promised to be within and then to portray himself as a martyr whilst grandstanding in front of the TV cameras.
A pity he doesn't give as much concern to the country as he does to his own fame.
And there the matters is best left. Carry on if you choose, you rarely leave the last word elsewhere.
|
>> And there the matters is best left. Carry on if you choose, you rarely leave
>> the last word elsewhere.
My way or the highway. I'm sure its a necessity in your profession but it doesn't play so well in debate.
I'm not telling you stuff; I'm contributing to a discussion.
Trying to put myself in their shoes I'd guess being an MP and crossing the floor from government to opposition or vice versa is Big Thing and involves a lot of wrestling with one's conscience. It's not a career move; the vast majority who do it are never heard of again. The handful who've progressed afterwards moved opposition to government and were rewarded with safe seats and office. Reg Prentice (Daventry and Education) and Shaun Woodward (St Helens and N Ireland) are standalone examples. It doesn't happen to those bailing from governing party.
I give Lee the benefit of any doubt. The Tory party he joined in Major's era and was elected for under Cameron and May is now beyond recognition. The party has moved, he has not. Just as Labour had for Reg Prentice all those years ago. I guess he tried to fight his corner but was overwhelmed. If the organisation he promised to be within has been bombed beyond recognition by party machinations over Brexit he's right to quit and find another political home.
Maybe it's difficult to justify physically crossing the floor during the PM's speech but I'm sure we've made misjudgements in our lives. Johnson, or more particularly those he's chosen to align himself with to advance his project of No10 or bust, have made life hell for decent 'one nation' Tories. A gesture of contempt, even a misjudged one, is not surprising.
Nick Boles, another defector, has just made a very moving speech on his own route from follower of the Whip to Independent.
Do you hold him in similar contempt?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 3 Sep 19 at 20:59
|
|
That’s an informed and insightful post.
|
He (Lee) can't be all bad:
To defect while BoJo is speaking suggests the utter contempt he has for the PM.
Sounds reasonable.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 3 Sep 19 at 21:14
|
|
Boris is divisive, Its always been thus, he creates it, deliberately, throughout his career. There is no middle ground to be found around him, so its revel or rebel in any situation, not a good situation where consensus and persuasion is required.
|
|
Seems to be taking Tellers a while to get sorted.
|
>> An election it is then.
Not sure he'll get the required two thirds majority. Opposition parties quite reasonably say he's got us up sh!t creek. Now he can paddle out agian
|
>> >> An election it is then.
>>
>> Not sure he'll get the required two thirds majority. Opposition parties quite reasonably say he's
>> got us up sh!t creek. Now he can paddle out agian
I'd be surprised if Labour don't, JC has spoken of nothing but having an election. The answer to every question has been 'lets have an election' but perhaps now the chance has finally turned up he's got cold feet.
|
>> I'd be surprised if Labour don't, JC has spoken of nothing but having an election.
>> The answer to every question has been 'lets have an election' but perhaps now the
>> chance has finally turned up he's got cold feet.
Not cold feet. Election is BoJo's get out clause, maybe even his initial goal. Refuse him that plan and he is scuppered, placed on the fast boat to ridicule. Dont forget BoJo now has a -21 majority thanks to throwing the crew overboard, who can now tangle the propellors.
Corbyn now has the whip hand, far more than if he went to the country (where blindly he still thinks he can win) and from news reports, his advisors have managed to get his lucky position through his thick dogmatic skull.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 4 Sep 19 at 10:15
|
|
I'm not so sure about that. What's his end game, how does this get him into number 10?
|
>> I'm not so sure about that. What's his end game, how does this get him
>> into number 10?
He's in No 10, he wants to cement it for 5 years. The Cons are 13% ahead in the polls. If he's "forced" to have an election, job done.
Unfortunately for him it looks as if Labour have spotted this, although Corbyn looked confused for a bit.
Unfortunately for us, there is a way of getting an election without the need for a 2/3 majority by losing a confidence vote which might be why nobody has talked about firing that bullet.
In theory Johnson could fire it himself but it would be truly desperate to initiate a vote of confidence in himself hoping he loses.
|
>> Unfortunately for us, there is a way of getting an election without the need for
>> a 2/3 majority by losing a confidence vote which might be why nobody has talked
>> about firing that bullet.
Boris has cocked up badly by firing the rebellious 21. They are all experienced grizzled old hands at the parliamentary game, canny with the process, and able to keep Bozo in powerless power for quite some time.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 4 Sep 19 at 10:11
|
>> Unfortunately for us, there is a way of getting an election without the need for
>> a 2/3 majority by losing a confidence vote which might be why nobody has talked
>> about firing that bullet.
>>
>> In theory Johnson could fire it himself but it would be truly desperate to initiate
>> a vote of confidence in himself hoping he loses.
Just to expand on that (I've found a reference):
"Under the Fixed Term Parliament Act (FTPA), MPs would have 14 days after a no-confidence vote to pass a vote of confidence either in the existing government or a newly formed one, otherwise a general election would be triggered."
Lord Lisvane explained this on Newsnight last night.
Now what are the chances of an alternative government led by Labour winning a confidence vote? Election then.
|
>> "Under the Fixed Term Parliament Act (FTPA), MPs would have 14 days after a no-confidence
>> vote to pass a vote of confidence either in the existing government or a newly
>> formed one, otherwise a general election would be triggered."
>>
>> Lord Lisvane explained this on Newsnight last night.
>>
>> Now what are the chances of an alternative government led by Labour winning a confidence
>> vote? Election then.
The floating 21 can probably muster enough support to give BoJo a win in a non confidence vote, keeping him in place, but also muster enough support to stymie anything else bojo wants to do. He could end up a puppet.
|
>> I'm not so sure about that. What's his end game, how does this get him
>> into number 10?
>>
He has finally grasped that he won't get into no 10 while all this is going on, the polls say he is on a for a pasting if bojo calls a snap election.
|
>> the polls say he is on a for a pasting if bojo calls
>> a snap election.
The polls said same thing in April 2017 hence May's 'snap'. That worked out well for her.....
|
Sorry, got confused there, thought Sooty was referring to Johnson for some reason.
Johnson must feel he has a safety net while Corbyn is in post and the 'loony' left run Labour.
But TM was 20% ahead in the polls when she called an election. Boris is +13%. And if parliament blocks no-deal, the Brexit party would probably not cooperate. If Farage put up a candidate in every constituency and split the swivel-eyes vote, even Corbyn might be able to pull it off.
|
He has finally grasped that he won't get into no 10 while all this is
>> going on, the polls say he is on a for a pasting if bojo calls
>> a snap election.
>>
That's a huge leap for him, it's something that he's wanted for some period of time and said so publicly and repeatedly. Getting a general election is something that is quite obviously important to him. He's going to give that chance up for some unspecified point in the future when he might not even get the chance.
He'd be chaining himself to minority zombie government.
|
>> An election it is then.
I can't think Corbyn wants to be in charge of Brexit even if he could win it. And whilst I think Labour could, I'm pretty sure Corbyn couldn't. .
I would think labour would be after taking control as soon after Brexit as possible given the time they'll need to get shot of Corbyn.
The Lib Dems will only win if a gazillion Remain supporters switch to them.
I can see the Conservatives might go for an election.
They either get a mandate or someone takes the mess away from them and subsequently gets blamed for what happens, giving them the way back in.
So I'd assume that we would not get an election now.
|
So let's say they also have the numbers to carry tomorrow and block no deal exit.
That means that the EU can put anything they like on the table and say "take it or stay in the EU".
Ok in all likelihood it'll remain May's transition deal. But there will be no reason, never mind incentive, for the EU to offer anything. Why should they?
If you want Brexit you will have NO choice other than to support the transition feal that you have already rejected several times.
I wonder how the people who objected to the terms of the transition deal will deal with that.
|
At least Boris voted for May's deal so he'll have no problem with it ;-)
As for a GE - pretty much all of the remainers I know (other than a couple of SNP diehards) will vote Lib Dem, even the lifelong Labour/Tory voters.
Presumably Conservatives and Brexit party will split the swivel-eyed little Englander vote.
I smell a very messy hung parliament.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 3 Sep 19 at 22:42
|
Good point.
Farage seems quiet. But I guess this is all a bit complicated for him.
|
>> That means that the EU can put anything they like on the table and say
>> "take it or stay in the EU".
I'm not persuaded that the threat of a UK no deal crash out has the value as a bargaining chip that is being suggested.
It's no more than the 'respectable' version of the they need us more than we need them BS. The EU might suffer some collateral damage after 31-10 but it's a small biting thing in a large pool while UK jumps into a pond full of starving piranha.
May cocked up the negotiation with silly pre-conditions (out of Single Market/Customs Union etc and a robotic obsession with ending free movement once and for all) and by playing the control freak throughout the process. In the end she got a deal. One that was tailored to her need to keep the DUP onside hence the backstop rather than a virtual border in Irish Sea.
The NI border matters because the Belfast Agreement's constructive ambiguity. The Loyalists have a border, a line in the ground, to show they're in UK. Irishmen can treat it in same way as any other provincial divide on the island of Ireland. If it becomes a boundary between EU and rest of world that dynamic changes and you need infrastructure - even if it's only facilitative. The infrastructure is a red rag to Irish people in NI.
May's deal was perhaps the best we could get. Now it is dead. Boris has said so. He cannot bring it back even if he dresses it up as something completely different. He MIGHT have captured Rees-Mogg (and what made him thin using the front bench as a Chaise-Longue was rational) but the rest of the ERG will not let it pass.
Is there ANY reputable account of his progress to the deal he's after?
Ex Ministers like Hammond say he's doing nothing. The EU say much same. Cummings says it's a sham.
All Boris wants is to be the PM who delivered Brexit on whatever terms and however harmful they are to the rest of us.
|
|
Reports emerging that BoJo has removed whip from the 21 rebel MPs.
|
>> Reports emerging that BoJo has removed whip from the 21 rebel MPs.
He has. Those 'unwhipped' and their constituencies are:
Guto Bebb, Aberconwy
Richard Benyon, Newbury
Steve Brine, Winchester
Alistair Burt, North East Bedfordshire
Greg Clark, Tunbridge Wells
Kenneth Clarke, Rushcliffe
David Gauke, South West Hertfordshire
Justine Greening, Putney
Dominic Grieve, Beaconsfield
Sam Gyimah, East Surrey
Philip Hammond, Runnymede and Weybridge
Stephen Hammond, Wimbledon
Richard Harrington, Watford
Margot James, Stourbridge
Sir Oliver Letwin, West Dorset
Anne Milton, Guildford
Caroline Nokes, Romsey and Southampton North
Antoinette Sandbach, Eddisbury
Sir Nicholas Soames, Mid Sussex
Rory Stewart, Penrith and The Border
Edward Vaizey, Wantage
All I think are the sort of politicians who come over in broadcasts as sound sensible people. Burt was on PM last night making some excellent points and doing a compare/contrast with number of members of current cabinet who'd defied the whip before.
Soames and Ken Clarke are both veterans. Soames has said he won't stand again and Clarke had originally decided to call it a day at end of 2015 Parliament bit stood in 2017 as no alternative had been selected. Justine Greening had announced yesterday that she was leaving a party in which she was no longer at home.
Rory Stewart, a leadership candidate two months ago, was on Today this morning but I didn't catch full item.
|
Hammond is my MP. Even tho his constituency voted leave* he is very good with local matters** and well liked and if given the chance the local party would probably re select him. And now, if they did, despite my earlier avowed intent to vote liberal, I would vote for him again.
*its swivelled eye loon heartland, hypocritically employing (exploiting?) a gazzilion Eastern Europeans with cash in hand building, gardening, landscaping, cleaning jobs, yet demanding to take back immigration control.
** suddenly when he became a member of the cabinet, a fantastic looking brand new spanking Walton Bridge appeared after decades of "it would cost too much" delay.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 4 Sep 19 at 09:03
|
>> Hammond is my MP. Even tho his constituency voted leave* he is very good with
>> local matters** and well liked and if given the chance the local party would probably
>> re select him.
Not entirely sure how it works but from what I've read the central Con party can deselect potential candidates and overide the local parties. Apparently they've done it before when DC was PM.
|
>> Not entirely sure how it works but from what I've read the central Con party
>> can deselect potential candidates and overide the local parties. Apparently they've done it before when
>> DC was PM.
I'm sure I've read somewhere that he has been re-selected since the Boris started threatening rebels. As you say though there is a mechanism for Central Office to bar/veto candidates. IIRC it was set up to allow Cameron to defenestrate the main offenders in the expenses scandal.
It notably wasn't used to prevent a convicted criminal from standing in the Brecon and Radnor by election.
|
Dr Lee was interviewed on Newsnight with Nick Soames and Ken Clarke. He seemed rational to me, and I can't see what he did as a career move.
Johnson is using sackings to humiliate and threaten. Lee knew he would be thrown out so he got his retaliation in first and grabbed a headline for his point of view. I hope I would have done the same.
I do not believe Johnson is sincere. The first clue was when he virtually tossed a coin to decide which side of the referendum he was going to be on. That and the fact that he is demonstrably an habitual liar.
I understand Johnson's supposed tactics although it's hard to see them working even if he he isn't blocked by parliament. He has as good as announced that they are a big bluff that will turn into a suicide bomb if it doesn't work, but the worst of it is the collateral damage to the country in the cynical pandering to nationalism and populism.
The sooner and further he falls the better. No good can come of him.
|
>
>> The sooner and further he falls the better. No good can come of him.
He will, back to the states probably. You can't go wading in shooting and beating everyone up, that's the fastest way to get a knife in the back I know. Specially in politics, there are more two faced ruthless assassins than him around.
|
Specially in politics, there are more two faced ruthless assassins than him around.
>>
Who are you thinking of?
|
>> Who are you thinking of?
Cometh the hour, almost any of them!
I think Mogg has a nasty streak. He was sneering with his entire body in his speech last night.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 4 Sep 19 at 10:22
|
>> I think Mogg has a nasty streak. He was sneering with his entire body in
>> his speech last night.
He is an utter disgrace. Listen to this:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-49557123/dr-david-nicholl-challenges-rees-mogg-over-no-deal-brexit-plan
|
|
I saw him lying down on one the benches in the Commons, for someone who bangs on about respect of the house and then to treat it like some sort of student doss house. Disgraceful.
|
>> I saw him lying down on one the benches in the Commons, for someone who
>> bangs on about respect of the house and then to treat it like some sort
>> of student doss house. Disgraceful.
The humourists on Twitter etc have been all over it; some versions are funny others downright wicked....
|
>> The humourists on Twitter etc have been all over it; some versions are funny others
>> downright wicked....
>>
I loved the photo of Bojo and HM .......
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49511731
With the word bubble from Bojo
" Sign this love and shut parliament. I've got photos of Andrew !"
|
>> It's a mess isn't it?
I think any accurate description has to begin with the letter 'f'.
>> We probably don't have a lot [more] to lose by leaving on 31st October without
>> a deal if that is how it falls now.
Certainly nothing like as much as we have by first asking for another delay and then leaving with no deal in six months time anyway.
>>if we leave with no deal it makes a mess but at least we'd have found the bottom and that
>> would, hopefully, be an alternative transitional state.
We do need to find the bottom.
Why don't the politicians insist on voting on the final position and not on trying to run and/or hamper the negotiation.
|
Why don't the politicians insist on voting on the final position and not on trying
>> to run and/or hamper the negotiation.
>>
>>
Didn't they try that with the indicitive votes?
|
>> Why don't the politicians insist on voting on the final position and not on trying
>> to run and/or hamper the negotiation.
>>
Because no significant group can say what they DO want the final position to look like
Any more, I guess than any significant percentage of the population know.
The only ones who "know" what they want are the leavers who want out even if, as we have discussed here many times in the last few years, they haven't a clue what that will actually give them.
"Mess" is a giant understatement
|
Scottish Court judges that Johnson's use of prorogation not unlawful.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49568760
Appeal to be heard soon, but I can't see the judiciary getting mired in this shizzle.
In other news, some wag noted the government's defeat was 52% to 48%
One for BBD - tinyurl.com/yx9tzp9b
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 4 Sep 19 at 12:07
|
>> Scottish Court judges that Johnson's use of prorogation not unlawful.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49568760
>>
>> Appeal to be heard soon, but I can't see the judiciary getting mired in this
>> shizzle.
One of the applicants, Jolyon Maugham QC, has described the first round as a pre-season friendly. They're off to the Inner House later this week and it looks as though there's a provisional booking for the Supreme Court later in the month.
I would expect that by then the cases in the English and Northern Irish courts will have been heard and will leapfrog to the Supreme Court where they can all be dealt with together.
I think the bar for the Claimants is a high one for reasons already enunciated by Lord Doherty today; essentially its a matter of policy and political judgment. Full decision here:
www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2019csoh70.pdf?sfvrsn=0
OTOH given the Bo and Dom act's behaviour and antecedents I wouldn't rule out there being something so egregious as to be unlawful.
|
>> Appeal to be heard soon, but I can't see the judiciary getting mired in this
>> shizzle.
Scots have put a cat in with the pigeons. Inner House of Court of Session has unanimously ruled prorogation advice unlawful. Not seen detail yet just tweets from Joanna Cherry.
English court's reasons for rejecting application in that jurisdiction due to be published at noon.
Action now moves to Supreme Court.
|
A summary of the judgement has been published but the website of Scottish Judiciary is struggling to serve demand to see it!
Copies are though around in social media and press. Looks like a very robust lijne taken by court:
Lord Brodie considered that whereas when the petition was raised the question was unlikely to have been justiciable, the particular prorogation that had occurred, as a tactic to frustrate Parliament, could legitimately be established as unlawful. This was an egregious case of a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour of public authorities. It was to be inferred that the principal reasons for the prorogation were to prevent or impede Parliament holding the executive to account and legislating with regard to Brexit, and to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no deal Brexit without further Parliamentary interference.
Does that mean Boris lied to the Queen?
Wonder what a fly on wall at Balmoral (or is she back in london now?) might hear?
|
This will not be a total surprise to the government which is one reason that Johnson and Mogg in their speeches remained straight-faced and insisted that the prorogation was normal, and related only to the conference window and the Queen's Speech.
The question of whether Johnson (Cummings) can find a legal loophole in the no-deal bill is more interesting, as is what Johnson will do. Even if there is a helpful technicality, if Johnson ignores the law he will still have knowingly defied a parliamentary majority which, it seems to me, is the essence of the situation.
He's in a cleft stick, but it was his own hubris that put him there. I expect he'll lose some more friends soon.
Labour's position of not backing either remain or leave could be inspired. It dilutes the 'betrayal' of their leaver-supporters, gives hope to the remainer ones, and leaves the Conservatives to hang themselves however they choose. It's also entirely consistent with Corbyn's hobby of perching on fences.
|
I find the those supporting Leave or Remain blindly and dogmatically equally irritating.
However, the " we won the vote, democracy, voice of the people" s*** does give the leavers even more justification in their own mind for outrage.
Reading the comments sections on various reports there seems to be considerable support amongst the vocal for Johnson's "we shall leave on 31/10 and damn the constitutional consequences"
I wonder if it is enough to worry their own MPs. Obviously not in the case of Bracknell, but I think it will be in some places.
I don't think Johnson is damaging himself in the eyes of many. Not being int he UK it is very difficult to get a sense of how the general public is feeling, especially the less vocal members.
The dogmatic on either side seem unconcerned about anything other than forcing their chosen path through.
So long term damaging to the country.
|
>> This will not be a total surprise to the government which is one reason that
>> Johnson and Mogg in their speeches remained straight-faced and insisted that the prorogation was normal,
>> and related only to the conference window and the Queen's Speech.
The conference window/Queen's Speech bit was, picking up my Dad's line again, all my eye and Betty Martin.
The difference between the English and Scottish Court decisions is interesting and a real conundrum
The English High Court has said the issue is, under English Law, not justiciable - not our concern so we don't need to decide whether Boris mislead the Queen.
The Inner House of the Court of Session has said that under Scottish Law it is justiciable and goes on to decide the government's actions were egregious and misleading to Her Majesty.
The difference arises because certain precedents that bind the English Courts don't apply in Scotland.
If the Supreme Court upholds both judgements then what?
>> Labour's position of not backing either remain or leave could be inspired. It dilutes the
>> 'betrayal' of their leaver-supporters, gives hope to the remainer ones, and leaves the Conservatives to
>> hang themselves however they choose. It's also entirely consistent with Corbyn's hobby of perching on
>> fences.
His proposition, I think, is to have a withdrawal deal that can be presented as an advance on May's and to put that to country with remain as alternative and with no 'official' position adopted by HMG.
There will be campaigns both ways and collective responsibility will be, at least officially, suspended.
In other words more or less what Wilson did in 1975 adapted mutatis mutandis for where we are now.
|
No to no-deal and extension bill has passed the commons. One amendment to the bill passed by default when the government teller failed to turn up. Johnson said the house had surrendered to the EU, he wouldn't do it, and moved for an election on Oct 15. Motion failed to achieve 2/3 of house voting for it, so failed. Bad day for Bozo.
The Conservative lords have tabled over 100 amendments to the "surrender bill" as Conservative Central Office calls it, for the obvious purpose of talking it out.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 4 Sep 19 at 21:56
|
Do any of us believe that there us any realistic course of action left other than accepting May's transition deal?
I simply don't see anything else.
Staying in the EU won't work.
Neither a GE or a 2nd Referendum will work
No deal is no longer possible
The EU maintain they will not renegotiate
What else is there?
|
>>
>> What else is there?
>>
A civil war?
Seriously though, I reckon there will be a general election and the extremes will come out on top, I.e. the Brexit Party or Labour
|
>What else is there?
Doesn't Her Maj. need to sign legislation before it comes into effect? What happens if it isn't signed because she's in Benidorm for a few weeks?
|
|
Her Maj has to do what's she's told, that's what the first civil war was about
|
>Her Maj has to do what's she's told, that's what the first civil war was about
It seems that Her Maj and even Chuck take "advice" from Ministers on whether to veto or not. Most recently used in 1999 to scupper a Private Members Bill to transfer power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from her to parliament. Presumably on the "advice" of Tony Blair.
www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills
|
>> Do any of us believe that there us any realistic course of action left other
>> than accepting May's transition deal?
>>
>> I simply don't see anything else.
>>
>> Staying in the EU won't work.
>> Neither a GE or a 2nd Referendum will work
>> No deal is no longer possible
>> The EU maintain they will not renegotiate
I'm not sure.
The last is certainly right, at least while the UK's red line is removal of the backstop. Unless of course Boris can afford to throw the DUP under a bus and revert to plan A where NI remained in CU etc with a border in the Irish Sea.
The no deal can has, subject to the Lords and absent a deal (see above), been kicked down the road until January. Unless Gove's plan to ignore today's bill/act comes to pass.
Staying in is theoretically possible if a GE, which seems almost certain now, confounds polls/pundits by putting the Tories in opposition. Dependent on the outcome that may involve another referendum.
It's intriguing though that Stephen Kinnock's amendment to put re-introduction of May's Withdrawal Agreement Bill into today's legislation got through. Apparently it was an accident because some of the tellers 'got lost on their way to the lobby'.
I don't buy that. There's jiggery pokery going on.
I would be interested in your rationale for points 1-3; 4 is self evident.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 5 Sep 19 at 00:52
|
mobile.twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1169497424206934017?s=08
The tweet is funny but the poll is also interesting, no deal is more popular than JC?
|
>> The tweet is funny but the poll is also interesting, no deal is more popular
>> than JC?
The poll is interesting in itself but not just because of the headline result. Not got time or numerical fluency to explore but once you poll on multiple co-dependant questions you get odd answers.
Meanwhile the machinations over an election go on. HAving said consent under fixed term parliament act would be forthcoming once the 'Prohibition of No Deal Act' had Royal Assent the opposition parties now seem to be wavering. Not just Labour. The SNP's spokesman was on the Today programme just after seven o'clock news this morning. He wasn't saying, as they were earlier, lets go for it. Bottom line is they don't trust Boris to honour his commitments or to abide by convention.
Ken Clarke, in what was within a cigar wrapper's width of unparliamentary language, said similar in the House yesterday.
And here's the wonderfully expressive Jess Phillips's view:
www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2019/sep/04/jess-phillips-accuses-boris-johnson-of-playing-a-bully-boy-game-video
I freely admit to being biased where Ms Phillips is concerned, one of my favourite politicians (though not in way BBD might think), but you've got to admit she has a point.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 5 Sep 19 at 08:46
|
> Meanwhile the machinations over an election go on. HAving said consent under fixed term parliament
>> act would be forthcoming once the 'Prohibition of No Deal Act' had Royal Assent the
>> opposition parties now seem to be wavering. Not just Labour. The SNP's spokesman was on
>> the Today programme just after seven o'clock news this morning. He wasn't saying, as they
>> were earlier, lets go for it. Bottom line is they don't trust Boris to honour
>> his commitments or to abide by convention.
And that's fair enough, however if they were worried about him not honouring his commitments they should have said 24-48 hours ago.
Seems a bit hypocritical to break a pledge because your worried the other side might do as well.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 5 Sep 19 at 09:27
|
The SNP can't swing it anyway, at least not in a motion under the Fixed Term Parliament Act if Labour votes against it.
The opposition is clearly right not to trust Johnson. He and his ministers (e.g. Mogg on Tuesday night) have continued to assert with straight faces that shutting down parliament for 5 weeks, preventing it from completing scheduled work which will now be swept aside, is "normal" and not designed to prevent parliament from passing a bill material to the government's plans for which time is of the essence and which the government opposes.
Like Bromp I'm still wondering what the absence of tellers for the no lobby at the division on Stephen Kinnock's amendment was about. It was not an accident, it now seems clear.
There is probably no limit to the extent of the dirty work that Johnson and the unelected Cummings will sanction if they think they can get away with it.
www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/09/what-just-happened-stephen-kinnocks-amendment-and-what-does-it-mean
|
>> The SNP can't swing it anyway, at least not in a motion under the Fixed
>> Term Parliament Act if Labour votes against it.
There is a suggestion that Boris will table a one line bill along lines of 'notwithstanding the Fixed Term Parliament Act there shall be a General Election on (say) 15 October. That would only need a simple majority.
The issue with Johnson's dishonesty is that it's a moving target. We all know the basics about his lies to employers, both wives, mistresses etc and that he had a dodgy relationship with the truth while Mayor. Since he's been PM and sitting on the Front Bench as such his Trumpian respect for fact has become more apparent - see PM Questions yesterday.
Not it's not just Labour calling him for this.
I think Corbyn could do surprisingly well to play the part of the forensic observer speaking fact and truth in plain English including on the real costs of brexit. This will show up Boris for the pathological liar and (insert latin term?) he undoubtedly is.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 5 Sep 19 at 11:05
|
Latest news:
PM's brother Jo Johnson resignsas Minster and MP citing conflict between political and family loyalty.
|
>> The opposition is clearly right not to trust Johnson. He and his ministers (e.g. Mogg
>> on Tuesday night) have continued to assert with straight faces that shutting down parliament for
>> 5 weeks, preventing it from completing scheduled work which will now be swept aside
Legal press confirm that both the Domestic Abuse Bill and the Divorce Bill were lost at prorogation. Sacrificed for ego of Boris and his chums.
Both were truly valuable pieces of reform.
The first prevented those defending allegations of domestic abuse from questioning in person their alleged victim about their personal lives and sexual activity. In effect giving them same protections as those alleging rape etc in a criminal context.
The second changed grounds for Divorce so as to remove the blame element where petitioner has to allege desertion, adultery or unreasonable behaviour in order to get a divorce without waiting two or maybe five years.
May the fleas of a thousand camels.....
|
>> Seems a bit hypocritical to break a pledge because your worried the other side might
>> do as well.
I'm not sure labour pledged to anything. Assuming legislation taking no deal of the table was a condition precedent. While Corbyn seemed to say yesterday that he might support one after Royal Assent I don't think, however much Johnson might wish it so, that was a solid commitment.
The trust issue is a growing and moving issue. John McDonnell said this earlier today:
The problem that we had is that we couldn’t determine the date of the election. Of course, Boris Johnson might come along say” ‘I promise you it will be such and such a date.’ But he’s not renowned ... for delivering on what he says ... We can’t trust him. It’s not just me; it’s his own side.
There's a lot to be said, in practical terms, for letting no deal legislation actually take effect so we've got three months A50 extension in which to hold a properly thought through election. The implications of a result with a hung parliament 14 days before A50 expires don't need spelling out.
If that course is followed there is no bar to leaving in January, deal or not. It also means that what looks increasingly like a caretaker government follows the appropriate convention of maintaining the status quo so that decisions with long term implications fall to the incoming government.
|
I'm not sure labour pledged to anything. Assuming legislation taking no deal of the table
>> was a condition precedent. While Corbyn seemed to say yesterday that he might support one
>> after Royal Assent I don't think, however much Johnson might wish it so, that was
>> a solid commitment.
>>
Mr Corbyn has said - on the record and in the official party statements - he will back a general election once the legislation to exclude the possibility of leaving without a deal has landed on the statute book.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49588182
seems clear to me.
|
|
Mogg is at it again now, making literally incredible statements about the reasons for prorogation and the as yet non-forthcoming election. He mocks parliament, he is a disgrace.
|
>> Mr Corbyn has said - on the record and in the official party statements -
>> he will back a general election once the legislation to exclude the possibility of leaving
>> without a deal has landed on the statute book.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49588182
I'll take Laura K's statement at face value for now.
Corbyn's working with a moving target. The Govt. front bench's arrogance and disregard for fact and process seems to grow exponentially - see Manatee's comment on Mogg's latest statement.
We're in territory nobody foresaw even as late as Monday. Th Johnson administration has literally crash landed into a House that half of them seem to have not the slightest respect for. Boris is so far out of his depth that Corbyn can make himself look like a statesman.
As I've said repeatedly I'm no Corbynite and indecision is one of the reasons he failed to knock May into the waiting Cocked Hat. Now though when you look at his team compared to Johnson's which looks more like a competent government?
|
>> Th Johnson administration has literally
>> crash landed into a House that half of them seem to have not the slightest
>> respect for.
>>
Pedant Corner.
Use of the phrase "Literally" crash landed.
www.thefreedictionary.com/crash+landing
Perhaps you mean "Metaphorically crash landed"?
The country may be in a mess, but that is no excuse for sloppy writing.
|
Am I reading this right, are the Leave team having a second go at getting Parliament to have an early election because the first outcome didn't suit them?
Well there's a thing... :-)
Last edited by: smokie on Thu 5 Sep 19 at 17:23
|
You need to keep up with the definition of literally, Duncan.
www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-literally
I prefer not to use it that way. It will gradually rob the word of its literal meaning.
|
>> You need to keep up with the definition of literally, Duncan.
>>
>> www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-literally
>>
>> I prefer not to use it that way. It will gradually rob the word of
>> its literal meaning.
>>
Pah!
That is an American site that you quote. Not worth the keystrokes.
|
>> Pah!
>>
>> That is an American site that you quote.
That's as may be. My 1993 Chambers also says it is frequently used merely to reinforce a metaphor. So you are well out of date!
|
> Corbyn's working with a moving target. The Govt. front bench's arrogance and disregard for fact
>> and process seems to grow exponentially - see Manatee's comment on Mogg's latest statement.
>>
>> We're in territory nobody foresaw even as late as Monday. Th Johnson administration has literally
>> crash landed into a House that half of them seem to have not the slightest
>> respect for. Boris is so far out of his depth that Corbyn can make himself
>> look like a statesman.
If he thought it was fine on Monday knowing what the PM is like, there's no sudden change in character. He said he'd keep his side of the agreement and he hasn't. He's now shifted on what he wants because he thinks he'll do better politically and that's fine. That's what he wants, to be PM. But let's not pretend it's some sort unforeseen circumstances or some form of altruism.
|
Corbyn's working with a moving target. The Govt. front bench's arrogance and disregard for fact
>> and process seems to grow exponentially - see Manatee's comment on Mogg's latest statement.
>>
>> We're in territory nobody foresaw even as late as Monday. Th Johnson administration has literally
>> crash landed into a House that half of them seem to have not the slightest
>> respect for. Boris is so far out of his depth that Corbyn can make himself
>> look like a statesman.
He made an agreement on something he's wanted for a long time. Do x and I'll do y, the PM hasn't changed in character in since Monday. If it was fine then it's fine now. If he had issues he should have said beforehand.
He's got what he wanted but isn't prepared to put up his side of the bargain because he thinks it's in his interest to do so, it puts him closer to being PM fair enough to a certain extent. That's what he's said publicly he wants for a long time and that's fine he's a politician with ambition.
But let's not pretend there's some huge shift in what the PM is like or its some form of altruism.
|
I'm sorry Sooty but I think you've got the end of the wrong stick here.
I should add that it's a common view on labour side that Laura K is not impartial, hence my septicism when she was produced as evidence. At best she's looking for 'CV stuff' rather than reporting dispassionately.
>> He made an agreement on something he's wanted for a long time. Do x and
>> I'll do y,
With whom did he make this agreement and what were x and y?
The Fixed Term Parliaments act means that Johnson needs a 2/3 majority in Commons to call an election. He cannot do that without Labour support (which May did get for her 'snap). As a matter of Labour strategy/tactics there would be no support for an election until the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill received Royal Assent. He may, I'm not sure, have stated support would be forthcoming but I don't think that was a commitment to vote for a fresh electoral motion should JRM move it next week.
>>the PM hasn't changed in character in since Monday. If it was
>> fine then it's fine now. If he had issues he should have said beforehand.
>> He's got what he wanted but isn't prepared to put up his side of the
>> bargain because he thinks it's in his interest to do so, it puts him closer
>> to being PM fair enough to a certain extent.
The PM's character, in it's most egregious form, is emerging by the minute. His commitment today that, European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Act 2019 notwithstanding, he wont seek an A50 extension is one example. The fact that he used a speech in Wakefield, which he attended ex fficio as PM to make a tub thumping political/electoral appeal is another. So is the language he's used on the front Bench.
>>That's what he's said publicly he
>> wants for a long time and that's fine he's a politician with ambition.
>> But let's not pretend there's some huge shift in what the PM is like or
>> its some form of altruism.
Nobody would deny that that JC is a politician who aims to be elected (though I sometimes wish he'd show more ambition!). One might have assumed, antecedents notwithstanding, that he'd adopt the conventions of his office. After a week it's clear he's doing the opposite.
His model is Donald Trump.
|
>> Nobody would deny that that JC is a politician who aims to be elected (though
>> I sometimes wish he'd show more ambition!). One might have assumed, antecedents notwithstanding, that he'd
>> adopt the conventions of his office. After a week it's clear he's doing the opposite.
>>
>>
>> His model is Donald Trump.
Messed up a pre-post edit there. For clarity bolded text refers to BoJo and not Corbyn.
Account of his performance at Wakefield is here:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/05/boris-johnson-rather-be-dead-in-ditch-than-agree-brexit-extension
More Trump behaviour and it seems he's got a frosty response from Police bodies......
|
> I should add that it's a common view on labour side that Laura K is
>> not impartial, hence my septicism when she was produced as evidence. At best she's looking
>> for 'CV stuff' rather than reporting dispassionately.
First time I've heard that, from what I read most think she gives labour a bit of an easy ride.
I'll leave the rest, I think it'll go round and round. We obviously see the same situation differently.
|
>> First time I've heard that, from what I read most think she gives labour a
>> bit of an easy ride.
There have been complaints and petitions both ways. There was a change.org petition complaining about her anti labour bias and the Telegraph spent some time and effort pushing the the other way. A compliant to the BBC about her reporting of Corbyn's comments on 'shoot to kill' policy for terror suspects was upheld. My own minor gripe was the waste of time in an interview with Corbyn where she spemt half the time pressing him on whether he's kiss the Queen's hand on his accession to the Privy Council.
>> I'll leave the rest, I think it'll go round and round. We obviously see the
>> same situation differently.
Fair enough though I'm still curious as the nature of and parties to the deal he's said to have resiled from.
|
"Ms Phillips is concerned, one of my favourite politicians (though not in way BBD might think)"
And I like her in the way you wouldn't think I think. She has a contralto voice and I really like that. If you ever listen to Beth Rigby on Sky News, you'll see (or hear) what I mean. Think Karen Carpenter. Fantastic. Sends me weak at the knees.
And back to politics...
|
|
Bojo is a cock and getting worse. In times of trouble he thinks weak comical knock-backs (chlorinated chicken and girls blouse fir example) will see him through as tho its some kind of Eton mess hall (see what i did there) playfight, and with Mogg lazing around the benches like Flashman calling his fag I think thats what the tory front benches have become.
|
>> Bojo is a cock and getting worse. In times of trouble he thinks weak comical
>> knock-backs (chlorinated chicken and girls blouse fir example) will see him through as tho its
>> some kind of Eton mess hall (see what i did there) playfight, and with Mogg
>> lazing around the benches like Flashman calling his fag I think thats what the tory
>> front benches have become.
>>
Unfortunately many people resonate with his quips for some reason, hitting back at the politically correct lot perhaps?
|
BoJos Scottish Bull S
Reportedly taking his fight to Scotland, in the Telegraph he said
Writing in the Telegraph newspaper ahead of his visit to the north east of Scotland, the prime minister said he found it difficult to comprehend why anyone would wish to "break apart a successful country, tear the cross of St Andrew out of the Union Flag and draw an international frontier across our island".
You dont need to tell us you fail to comprehend, its patently obvious you have no idea about the current state of the union and your actions upon it.
And he said there was "no greater responsibility" for any prime minister than "safeguarding and strengthening our Union and all it represents".
Is that before or after you die in a ditch trying to break it up?
Mr Johnson added: "People across the world see a country that stands for freedom, democracy and the rule of law. They admire the institutions we have created and nurtured."
Rubbish, they now see an unelected petty dictator who is trying to subvert democracy and stated he would break the laws of parliament and they see a country held up to ridicule
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 6 Sep 19 at 11:52
|
>> BoJos Scottish Bull S
He goes from one sound bite to the next with no interlinking strategy.
Part of his speech at Wakefield police HQ yesterday involved the pre interview caution. His comic timing as a stand up is excellent, just a pity he doesn't stick to that.
|
I surely cannot be the only one who wishes they would just get on with it, regardless of a deal or no deal?
This has gone on far too long.
I couldn't care less what the final outcome is. What will be, will be. We are survivors, and will bounce back if things go belly up.
The winning vote was to leave. Just get on with it and stop all the faffing about.
|
>> I surely cannot be the only one who wishes they would just get on with
>> it, regardless of a deal or no deal?
>>
>> This has gone on far too long.
I agree with the fact it has gone on for far too long. It's massively detrimental to our country that so much time money and effort is devoted to Brexit. Future gnerations will curse is for the opportunities Brexit has let us miss or waste.
However the idea that we should just get it over with and 'hang the consequences' is grossly irresponsible. I don't know what your line of work is. As a Civil Service Pensioner and Benefit Advisor I guess no deal would have little effect on me though I might find a lot more people needing advice.
It's astonishingly callous to say to those at Mini, Vauxhall, Airbus and millions of others, including Zippy and Runfer of this parish who's livings depend on the goods/services provisions of the Customs Union/Single Market that they'll just have to survive and bounce back.
|
>>
>> It's astonishingly callous to say to those at Mini, Vauxhall, Airbus and millions of others,
>> including Zippy and Runfer of this parish who's livings depend on the goods/services provisions of
>> the Customs Union/Single Market that they'll just have to survive and bounce back.
As far as cars are concerned, are you suggesting that Europe will refuse to accept our cars? Because if they do, then surely we will refuse to accept their cars?
Confusion in the short term, certainly, but we may have to get used to buying British built cars, rather than imports.
|
>> As far as cars are concerned, are you suggesting that Europe will refuse to accept
>> our cars? Because if they do, then surely we will refuse to accept their cars?
What can and cannot be sold is (probably) a red herring as we can build to each others standards or even a common one. Whether it's worthwhile building them here based on trans Europe supply chains and just in time delivery when tariffs and regulatory costs/dealys are factored in is the real question.
>> Confusion in the short term, certainly, but we may have to get used to buying
>> British built cars, rather than imports.
Bit like the East Germans had to buy Trabants?
|
>> As far as cars are concerned, are you suggesting that Europe will refuse to accept
>> our cars? Because if they do, then surely we will refuse to accept their cars?
Wont be a problem, if we leave we no deal we wont be making ANY cars.
|
>>
>> As far as cars are concerned, are you suggesting that Europe will refuse to accept
>> our cars? Because if they do, then surely we will refuse to accept their cars?
>>
>> Wont be a problem, if we leave we no deal we wont be making ANY
>> cars.
>>
If there was any prospect of a deal being agreed I would agree with you Z, however all we are seeing is a stop no deal campaign in favour of another spell of dithering, which is every bit as bad for industry and commerce as a no deal would be.
At least with no deal we can start to rebuild from the bottom, yes a lot of people will suffer, a lot of jobs will be lost and/or have to change, and sadly it is the weak who will really suffer, not the likes of most of us on here. But the Brexit shambles has been down to a lot of people, Boris is just the latest to add his particular brand of cr*p politics to the mix.
|
It is difficult to know how bad No-Deal Exit would be. Though one can assume that it will be pretty bad. Not so much in sensational shortages and disruption on day one, but the ongoing and fundamental impact to our country economy which will continue for years.
However, dithering and extending is also having an enormous impact on the economy. Surely the days have passed when anybody thinks it will be a successful move. I see even the most fervent Brexiteers have changed from "It'll be great" through "it'll be alright" to now "We don't care how bad it will be".
Brexit is ruining our country. The way it has been dealt with is shameful and the "we don't care we just want to leave" brigade are reprehensible and will, I believe, be reviled in years to come.
However, they are so obsessed that I do not believe they will ever leave it alone. Reading the comments on a BBC article illustrates how deeply the belief is held by the most stubborn and ill informed.
They will undermine the future and ensure that confidence is never regained in our stability within the EU by either investors or other countries.
Consequently I believe we have no choice to leave,
If that is the case, then now is better than later and no deal, whilst awful, is less awful than a rolling delay.
They are determined to drive the country to the bottom. So let's go there now so we can start climbing back out.
|
we have to leave with no deal, if there is a deal the Brexit rabble will claim its a sell out, and because there is no major fall out, project fear was just that, and Brexiteers will continue to find some euro thing to moan about.
if there is no deal, we have left, the Brexit rabble get shut up, the pain will follow "I told you so" can be employed, tho the removers will be blamed because they didn't make it work or sabotaged it.
we have to leave with no deal, suffer and rebuild to a stable place somewhere below where we were
|
Do you give your children what they want if they scream long enough and hard enough, just to shut them up?
Why should we give a minority, which I would estimate at 30% of the voting population going on the European Election results, that which they demand, just to placate them, when it is detrimental to the rest of us? And detrimental to them come to that, even if they don't realise it.
The only Brexit I'd accept is a Norway/EEA/EFTA model. Every leave voter I've ever spoken to has said that's what they expected when they voted leave. And that's pretty much what Vote Leave. However, I still argue for remain and will vote accordingly in any GE or referendum.
No, No Deal must not be allowed unless expressly authorised by Parliament or a referendum.
|
Welcome back Alanovich.
You've made the point I've had in mind since various 'let them have it' posts advocating Hard Brexit appeared over the weekend. I'd not thought of the screaming toddler analogy but idea of letting Mogg and co have their way and jump off a cliff to avoid the uncertainty of standing near edge seems wrong while other options remain.
It may be at some point in future that it's the jump or nothing but we're not there yet.
Johnson has backed himself into a corner. He's been denied an election on his own terms; exactly the sort of mischief the Fixed Term Parliament Act was meant to stop. He's thrown his majority under a bus and alienated a whole swaithe of 'One Nation Tories' by sacking Ken Clarke et al. Unless he can pull a deal from the hat in next four weeks, and I can't see a re-warm of May's deal making the cut, then the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 requires him to request and extension of Article 50 deadline.
He's already playing fast/loose with convention like his role model Trump but surely he's not going to dice with jail by refusing to do what the above act requires? Has Dominic Cummings put something else up his sleeve he can pull out while parliament is prorogued?
In absence of those what can he do?
The Guardian's Andrew Rawnsley has written on the subject:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/08/like-macbeth-johnson-too-steeped-in-blood-to-turn-back-what-next
Conclusion is that he could resign as PM and effectively invite Corbyn to form a government. Corbyn will do that or support formation of an emergency government under Clarke or A N Other. BoJo can then fight an election from opposition and based on Corbyn being the man who 'surrendered to the EU'.
Sounds ridiculous but as Rawnsley says, when you eliminate the impossible what's left is what happens....
|
The populist Johnson fans must be very confused. Demanding an immediate no-deal Brexit even though Johnson publicly says he is determined to get a deal.
They blather on about delivering democracy while objecting to another referendum with some better defined options. Surely that would be democratic? Young Benn made the this point today - the people started it, only the people can finish it. Otherwise, whatever the outcome is, a majority will probably feel they have been robbed.
I think Johnson is confused too. If a deal is the vastly preferred option as he professes, why go through with no deal? Surely it would be better to have it right when can be got right rather than wrong immediately, and for an indefinite period?
I realize this is wrapped up with trying to use no-deal as a threat, but that what lacks credibility. What is Johnson's plan if he simply can't get another deal from the EU or get it through Parliament?
Of course a lot of dissenting and opposition MPs are playing games as well. Under the flag of wanting a deal, they are in fact trying to avoid Brexit - of that there is no doubt.
Norway would be my preferred option from here if Brexit can't be abandoned. It's clearly beyond any of them to execute it effectively.
Incidentally, I think Johnson's and his acolytes' avowed intention to find a way round the 'no-deal' law is contemptible. Even if they can find a technicality, it is still a wilful and deliberate defiance of parliament.
Further incidentally, is 'Alanovich' the original? The style seems not to match.
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 10 Sep 19 at 13:45
|
>> Further incidentally, is 'Alanovich' the original? The style seems not to match.
Posting history corroborates.
|
It's me. Promise.
Oh, and when I say every Leave voter I've spoken to, I mean both of them.
Last edited by: Alanovich on Tue 10 Sep 19 at 14:00
|
>> It's me. Promise.
>>
>> Oh, and when I say every Leave voter I've spoken to, I mean both of
>> them.
You're starting to sound authentic.
|
AI is fast to learn these days.
(That's a capital i, not a lower case L.)
Last edited by: Alanovich on Tue 10 Sep 19 at 14:35
|
>>He's already playing fast/loose with convention like his role model Trump but surely he's not going to dice with jail by refusing to do what the above act requires? Has Dominic Cummings put something else up his sleeve he can pull out while parliament is prorogued?
This is my current concern.
I think it's getting to the point where Bozo will stop at pretty much nothing to get his way and I worry about what he might try over the next few weeks.
|
Gina Miller's challenge to prorogation has failed but permission granted to 'leapfrog' straight to supreme court.
Reasons for decision to follow early next week.
|
|
Should we end up with an extension to Jan 2020. What does parliament plan to do with it?
|
|
Waste it, like they have with other extensions
|
|
Should we end up with an extension to Jan 2020. What does parliament plan to do with it?
|
|
I don't know, but I bet I know Zero's response to this question.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 6 Sep 19 at 17:22
|
>I surely cannot be the only one who wishes they would just get on with it, regardless of a deal or no deal?
Vote Monster Raving Loony.
Their official Brexit stance is:
"We will Send Noel Edmonds to negotiate Brexit because he understands Deal or No Deal."
|
>> "We will Send Noel Edmonds to negotiate Brexit."
Along with a couple of bankers.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 6 Sep 19 at 19:12
|
Anyone care to make an educated guess as to the effect of No Deal on London's financial centre?
I presume it will decay over years and much will shift to Germany and France?
|
Without EU financial passporting rights, it will decline quickly.
There will only need to be three, maybe four financial centres. One European, One American, One - or two - Far Eastern.
|
>> Anyone care to make an educated guess as to the effect of No Deal on
>> London's financial centre?
>>
>> I presume it will decay over years and much will shift to Germany and France?
Decaying over years is what it will do as a result of Brexit. As a result of no deal it will be fewer years.
|
>> Decaying over years is what it will do as a result of Brexit. As a
>> result of no deal it will be fewer years.
My employer has already shifted tens of billions to EU countries which are likely to be lent to companies there and not here! :-€
Some of our best sales guys have gone recently as there is no money for their deals!
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 7 Sep 19 at 18:54
|
>Anyone care to make an educated guess as to the effect of No Deal on London's financial centre?
That's an interesting question.
I attended a presentation by an american company trying to flog us some fancy ethernet cards optimised for transatlantic submarine fibre links. The sales drone said that they were selling lots of them to financial traders on both sides of the pond because they reduced transaction latency by at least 10%.
Most transatlantic cables terminate in the UK before being routed to the rest of Europe which adds a few extra millisecs.
www.submarinecablemap.com/#/
|
Saw an article in The Register the other day. In effect, it suggested a no deal Brexit means we are outside the EU so Europe can no longer share personal data with us. Transactional nightmare.
They think this isn't being addressed.
Any truth in that? No idea myself, out of the game now.
www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/05/brexit_no_deal/
Or is this just another:
youtu.be/lCZCv98XKFs
|
>>>it suggested a no deal Brexit means we are outside the EU so Europe can no longer share personal data with us. Transactional nightmare.<<<
Probably explains why the French are now actively pursuing speeding fines for UK reg cars direct to UK registered addresses. It appears that a discount is available for prompt 14 day payment. So if the offence occurred on your outward journey of a 3 week stay, it maybe waiting on your return!
I am waiting to see if historical offences are being pursued, it has been said that they are, but no hard evidence yet.
|
>> Probably explains why the French are now actively pursuing speeding fines for UK reg cars
>> direct to UK registered addresses.
After Brexit, no deal, l they can go whistle
|
>> www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/05/brexit_no_deal/
>> Or is this just another:
>> youtu.be/lCZCv98XKFs
It is usually ok to send data to other countries outside of the EU if they have equivalent data protection laws.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 7 Sep 19 at 18:54
|
>> Most transatlantic cables terminate in the UK before being routed to the rest of Europe
>>
>> www.submarinecablemap.com/#/
Thats always been the case since Marconi first started taping his morse key, about the only thing that won't be affected after a no deal Brexit is the physical internet* Miliseconds wont matter.
Stuff that runs over it, that's a different matter, who knows.
* Spying, tapping, diverting and subverting the physical marine cables is a little known but fascinating area of Cold War, or hot war espionage. Been going on for years.
|
|
Milliseconds certainly matter in automated financial dealing.
|
|
Amber Rudd has quit cabinet AND the Tories.
|
"Labour said her resignation showed the government was "falling apart". "
Difficult to argue with that.
|
>>Amber Rudd...
Interesting to read the comments on her departure in the Telegraph.
I think some of them would like to burn her as a witch!
|
>> I think some of them would like to burn her as a witch!
I've worn my politics on my sleeve for years so fact I'm not a fan of Tories will be self evident.
I was heavily critical of Amber Rudd's time as Home Secretary. Windrush is an example of the egregious outcomes when policy is driven by headlines. I'd no sympathy when she had to go.
However I respected her efforts at DWP. My work is intimately involved with DWP in general and Universal Credit in particular. Ms Rudd has shown a real understanding of UC's issues and has moved things on albeit limited by treasury etc.
After the 'mare that was Esther McVey she was a real change.
Next question is who BoJo appoints in her place.
|
>> Next question is who BoJo appoints in her place.
>>
My money is on Vlad the Impaler.
:-)
|
>> Interesting to read the comments on her departure in the Telegraph.
>>
>> I think some of them would like to burn her as a witch!
It seems she initially ignored her reservations and accepted Boris's statements that he wanted a deal with EU.
She's now concluded he has no such intention. He's pretending to want to negotiate a deal but in reality he just wants to be the Tory who achieved Brexit. Doing so via a deal involves a strategy and some serious graft to implement it.
Trouble is that strategy is beyond him and he's far too lazy to do the grafting.
Much easier to pretend to negotiate, let the talks fail and then let us be out by default.
|
|
London is NOT a major financial centre because the transatlantic cable is in a shed in Cornwall and milliseconds ahead of Frankfurt and to drag that into the Brexit argument is every bit as disingenuous as any thing the Brexit rabble have said to date
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 7 Sep 19 at 21:40
|
Financial institutions don't use the internet for trading transactions Zero. They rent their service from dedicated cable companies. That includes private transatlantic cables with guaranteed bandwidth and low latency levels often costing millions per year. They don't want Little Jonnie's Pr0nhub downloads delaying multimillion dollar currency or share transactions.
London is a major financial hub because of it's history and established infrastructure. It remains a major hub precisely because we have that shed in Cornwall that provides quicker transatlantic links to the world's two largest stock exchanges (NYSE & NASDAC). The proposed merger (takeover) of LSE by Deutsche Börse (vetoed by EU regulators) recognised that a substantial presence would have to remain in London to support High Frequency Trading.
And if that "Brexit rabble" comment was aimed at me, I can assure you that I did not vote for Brexit. I spent a large part of the last 20yrs working at a pan-European (non-EU) organisation and have seen firsthand the success of European cooperation.
Last edited by: Kevin on Sun 8 Sep 19 at 00:38
|
No matter how bad things may be in the Govt., I don't think anyone can prepare us for this:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-Syo86gsHk
I think I may pop over and see what the Farts make of all the recent Brexit shenanigans.
|
>> No matter how bad things may be in the Govt., I don't think anyone can
>> prepare us for this:
>>
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-Syo86gsHk
I wonder why this guy focussed on Diane Abbott?
Clue; read the comments below the line.
|
>> Financial institutions don't use the internet for trading transactions Zero. They rent their service from
>> dedicated cable companies. That includes private transatlantic cables with guaranteed bandwidth and low latency levels
>> often costing millions per year. They don't want Little Jonnie's Pr0nhub downloads delaying multimillion dollar
>> currency or share transactions.
Having been on the team that consolidated and relocated Merryl Lynches London IT data centres, and the team that moved and consolidated BP's futures trading platforms, I am fully aware how the the physical comms infrasture is provided and stitched together, having at one time used all the available dark fibre in London for a period of time.
And I still say that Latency is NOT the primary driver of London's trading location. Its merely part of the capacity, resilience and redundancy matrix For example in one instance the backup recovery datacenter was placed next to the very unassuming building that has the UK's main internet* hub on the isle of dogs**, not the primary centre. Latency is a small part of the total money making money process.
London is (was?) the primary banking and trading centre because of history, and cemented its recent place because of regulation. Rather lack of it. The "light' touch of the FCA since Maggie deregulated the financial markets has been key, pretending to police the market but actually allowing a freehand back door over european banking and finance.
London finance is on the slide, not least because of the money shift to the Far East*** and mostly because of Brexit, deal or no deal its going to go down the pan slowly or quickly depending on what happens.
>> And if that "Brexit rabble" comment was aimed at me,
It wasn't, I was merely warning against actually being guilty of Project fear.
*I used the term "internet' because that's a concept most people understand when it comes to connecting stuff together. They no not nor care what TCP, IP or UDP is.
** Ironically one of the major European routing centres is on the isle of dogs, comms until recently going over one bridge only, and subject to flooding in the event of a North Sea surge.
***One of the primary reasons to remain within the EU is to be in a consolidated group to shield again the rise of the Far East (china) or the protectionista hawks of the US.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 8 Sep 19 at 21:23
|
>> www.conservativewoman.co.uk/my-questions-for-the-remainers/
For those who cavil at clicking on the link it's John Redwood with questions for remainers.
Unfortunately like so much of Redwood on subject of EU he's so far up his own swivel eyed opinion that the 'questions' are Brexiteer statements. The phraseology is rooted in his paradigm of the EU.
If you reject the paradigm they're just statements with a strong flavour of 'have you stopped beating your wife'.
|
3 years ago, pre referendum it might have had been a discussion point. But neither here nor there now. We are leaving the question is when and how.
Pointless worrying about stuff that had relevance years ago.
|
I see none of those as a: fact or uncoloured statements, or b: issues.
Next?
|
|
We are past that point anyway, the brexiteers have screwed up our place or authority in Europe (probably the world to be honest) so we need to leave, with no deal, and ensure those who asked for it get as much pain as possible, for unless they do they wont see things clearly.
|
It does rather sum up the mentality though. Leaving is too difficult to understand, to difficult too work out, so they simply resort to rehashing the leave / remain fight, the very limit of their comprehension.
You'll also note the reference to the ECJ. That rules out any Norway-type solution.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 10 Sep 19 at 18:50
|
One of my engineering customers (larger end of the SME scale with turnover of almost £100m) has just been bidding on a new £10m contract with a customer in the USA and an extension of their current £3m contract.
All was going swimmingly, competitive pricing, good product, no language barrier etc. until security of supply and other similar issues came up.
The customer then removed the engineering firm from their approved supplier list as they believe that once out of the EU the UK would not have a trade agreement to sell to the US and spare parts / servicing would become an issue.
The current £3m contract is looking iffy now as the new supplier will no doubt look to get access to it.
|
Brexit Discussion - Volume 84 - No FM2R
