Has Boris been outmanoeuvred?

[CommanderShepard]

From a guardian comment:

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

there is no plan news.sky.com/video/1717859/islam-there-is-no-brexit-plan

sorry - cross-post

This from BBC News re NS:
Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson says she has taken advice from a constitutional lawyer who said that blocking Brexit "was not within the power of Holyrood".

Ms Davidson suggests First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was "either slightly misinterpreted this morning or slightly over-reached herself this morning" with the claim that the Scottish Parliament could try to block the UK's exit from the EU.

She says her current job as opposition leader in the Scottish Parliament is "an incredibly important one for keeping our country together".

She argues that the rest of the UK is a bigger market for Scotland "than the EU ever was" and the task now is to "get the best trade deal" outside the EU.

Ms Davidson adds that she thought it was "disappointing" that Nicola Sturgeon's first announcement following the EU referendum result was that she had "officials working on a second independence referendum".

BBC Scotland Editor Sarah Smith says that what Nicola Sturgeon meant when she said Holyrood could possibly block a Brexit is that it could refuse to pass a legislative consent motion on the decision - but it would then be up to Westminster to decide how it would respond to that.

The silence is becoming really quite alarming.

Great thread, it's getting very interesting isn't it.

I can't see the logic in Sturgeon both vetoing Brexit and callling an Indyref2.

She has said that the UK going through with Brexit would materially alter the UK such that they would be justified in calling an Indyref.

So vetoing Brexit would by definition maintain the UK as it is - thus negating her justification for calling Indyref 2.

That said, I think Scottish independence is her ultimate priority. So she has a dilemma now - veto Brexit for the good of Scotland, but lose her chance of independence... or allow Brexit to happen, then inevitably win the Indyref vote and ride the risk that that would entail.

As a Remain voter, I would like to see her do the former, and emerge stronger and with more integrity than any of the rest of this shower of shite in Westminster.

I also agree with pp that it is irresponsible of Labour to be calling a leadership debate right now. Labour should be stepping into this astonishing void which has been left wide open by the lack of leadership - Corbyn should be all over this. Instead his party are infighting, and his deputy is larging it up in Glastonbury!!

No actually her postion is quite logical. If Scotland get independant BEFORE the UK goes out of the EU, then I imagine it will much easier for Scotland to stay in the EU (I susopect she hopes it will be automatic) whereas if she does AFTER the UK is out, then it will mean fully joining the EU as new member.

Whether Scotland would automatically join the EU if it was to get independent remains to be seen of course.

So in that case NS would block Brexit (thus over ruling the will of the majority of the UK democratically expressed in one referendum), and push for Scottish independence (thus ignoring the will of the majority of Scotland democratically expressed in the previous referendum).

So she would essentially be saying that the majority of Scots who voted to stay in the UK, and the majority of Brits who voted to leave the EU were wrong.

Personally, I'd love to see her use her position to push for DevoMax, and stay with the UK.

Not very appealing now because of Brexit
The UK is dead I'm the water. It's about salvaging what she can for Scotland.

I 100% would vote for her now (if I lived in my homeland). Would never have considerednit before.
Still early days but my respect for her has increased tenfold

She can hope all she likes, but I highly doubt the EU will seriously consider Scotland until the Brexit is complete, and then they'll have to apply. I think the EU will engage her in talks, and she will foolishly, in her wish to get an independent Scotland in the EU, give them all the info the EU needs to then submarine the UK in their negotiations to exit.

Sorry, but I think her desire for an independent Scotland blinds her sometimes to the bigger picture.

Nicky Morgan - evil Nicola Murrey.

Murray!

I think if the Conservatives put Nicky Morgan in as leader, they could guarantee to lose. She's hated by a LOT of people.

As far as NS blocking Brexit, the BBC article does say this though: Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson says she has taken advice from a constitutional lawyer who said that blocking Brexit "was not within the power of Holyrood".

It sounds like she couldn't actually do it anyway.

Nicky Morgan is delusional. And that's being kind.

That Sky News "There's no plan" video is a shocker eh?
I know leave would have had no firm plans without mandate, but u would assume they had a proposed plan to put in front of DC on day 1 saying, we want a steering committee with X, y, z on, we propose invocation of Article 50 on date X.. Etc etc

But hey, the news programmes instead busy obsessing over Corbyn /shadow cabinet, because that's the really important thing right now eh?

The situation in Scotland, with a clear Remain vote, as opposed to the unexpected Leave vote In England and Wales, nevertheless presents a constitutional crisis.

The problem is that if Leave put together too detailed a plan and made it public, the government itself could say "nope, we're not doing that now, we're not doing that" and the public would be upset saying they lied about the timescale. It should be the government that is putting out plans for the public about what they need to do first, and maybe next, with a few long term goals/timelines thrown in, so people have some type of direction. But since Cameron is pouting and not in view, we're just left dangling.

Liney I don't really think it does present a constitutional crisis. It was a UK-wide vote over a situation that affects the entire UK.

I do note the irony that Scotland is saying they didn't vote to Leave, it was majority for Remain, so they don't think the rest of the country should be able to make that decision, but had the results been reversed, the argument would have gone the other way instead. I think breaking it down into "Scotland voted remain, England voted leave," and such is incredibly unhelpful and divisive.

Bottom line IMO is that the UK voted, the UK deals with the results. As a whole unit, because that's how it was presented and voted on.

Where the actual fuck ARE our leaders!!??

Bullshit, GingerIvy.

You campaign to Leave, you're an MP who would be PM, you have a plan.

If you're PM that has put forward a referendum to Leave, you also have a plan. Where's the plan from the government? Where's the government, for that matter??

I would venture that the Leave campaign actually has some semblance of a plan, but are unwilling to put it forward at this point, because they are not running the government. It truly is up to the government to step up at this point and sort out things until we know who is going to be taking over. THEN it should be fine tuned with them and the government, and presented to the public in more detail.

GingerIvy it's freaky... Is there really no-one from the Cabinet going to come out with any statement before business starts tomorrow?
Are they all just pouting, scrambling for their own leadership bids or what?
No Govt response on Scotland... The only Cabinet minister I've seen is Hammond who said, Leave needed to explain how they intend to get
Free Trade without free movement of labour .. So he only posed questions had no "steady the ship" message...

Ginger but they could at least have had an idea of whether they wanted to be totally out of the EU or actually be part of the free trade zone or whatever.
To be able to have a time scale, you need an idea of what you want to acheive, which they don't. (Eg the idea of the Australian type of system has already out etc etc). So hiow on earth do you want anyone to say 'Ok so we are doing xx and then yy'??

The reality is that the PM will have the EU in front of him next week and will have to come with some sort of answers. because he might keep quiet here but he won't be able to in front of them. They will DEMAND answers.

No one wants to lead such a batshit decision.