Westminstenders: Brace Yourself It's Gonna BeBoris

[RedToothBrush]

It seems inconceivable that Hunt can beat Johnson. And whilst we are all considering the horrors that Prime Johnson can bring...

Let's not forget Brexit, whats Brexit?

Already there is talk that Boris has gone soft on 31st Oct as an absolute. But he's also promised the earth to the ERG.

So what suits Boris best?

What does his ego demand?

What does Boris want his legacy to be?

Our fate rests on Boris's whims and personal desires.

And if you are Scottish, Muslim or otherwise not rich, white and male you might have reason to be concerned.

Surely we cannot have No Deal on a PV? That would impact on the GFA.

{God you're really not very nice leclerc.}

Just for suggesting you need to look at reality, not some weird fantasy that the HoC are going to overturn the EU?
Eventually if the UK is leaving the WA or very similar will be signed.
If I wanted a 'fan club' I certainly wouldn't come on MN.

mother Parliament have also rejected No Deal

and No Deal makes no sense when we either have to agree to the 3 main WA terms afterwards anyway

It is obvious who can hold out the longest:

The EU is 50% of our trade and another 20-30% of our trade is via EU deals with other countries
BUT
the Uk is only about 10% of EU trade

and then there are the essential agencies, certifications etc

In order to avoid the default position of No Deal, would you choose:
A) WA, or
B) Remain?

Masterful! It even leaves the option open for no dealers to spoil the ballot by scribbling 'we want the default' - and all those spoiled ballots will be counted and noted.

The W.A can be on a ballot even though parliament has rejected it because it is all there is on offer, right now; it is all there will ever be on offer and we are fast running out of time. They can alter the P.D if it suits them to - but any deal is via the W.A. even with a change in government. The EU have been very clear on that - and it is not in parliament's gift to offer anything else.
They have rejected it because it is shit. It is considerably worse than what we already had and when it came to the crunch, they were too frightened to sign their names to something which they knew would make their constituents poorer and worse off (apart from the disaster capitalist - who rejected it because it curtailed their ability to loot). But, unable to offer any other route to a deal, it is the only thing they can put on a ballot - and if the people choose it they can pass it with impunity. Most of them think the whole of brexit is a mistake- but they voted to hold the ref and they voted to trigger article 50. They will vote for this too if we give them the nod.

If it's not going to be no deal, then there is the W.A or revoke. They are the only options there are out there. Everyone needs to understand that - including the wannabe PMs pretending they can renegotiate.
If parliament want to avoid no deal and don't dare choose between the W.A and revoke, themselves - then that is why they need to ask the people.
But they cannot offer something that is not on offer. And there is no deal on offer except the W.A.

What are the terms of WA that are so awful for so many?

People need to know that WA may not be the worst thing ever.

So convince me as to why WA is so awful, and why it has been rejected so often by Parliament.

pretzels Yep

Any Brexit, even Norway ++ is not as good as EU membership

The WA isn't any shittier - other than expat rights - than we'd have if May had tried for Norway++ from the beginning:

• with the ERG fanatics & Faragists lurking,

the EU would always have required a border guarantee, both while the future trade deal was being negotiated and after it had been signed

The problem is that England conquered another country 800 years ago and then hung onto a bit of it even after independence
Empire 1.0 strikes back

So convince me as to why WA is so awful, and why it has been rejected so often by Parliament

Removes sovereignty, we accept rules on which we have no say, Blind - in that anything could be the end result.

Unacceptable to DUP (who keep the tories in power) as it, potentially, keeps them in a CU/SM arrangement with EU but much of these regs will not apply to to the UK.. effectively splitting off NI.

Payment of £39billion.. for as they see it, nothing, unacceptable to many in the ERG.

Agree with BCF. That would be playing their game, manna from heaven.
No, let's have well behaved marches, just 2 or 3 times the size of the last one.

Thanks to everyone who explained about the steel wheel rims. I've led a very sheltered life.

outsomnia The problem for the HoC and for mother is that they don't want the NI-only backstop,
because it treats NI differently to GB

NI would be fine and GB could do the trade deal it wants, but it is feared this would split the UK

If the backstop is all-UK instead of NI-only, then if it is activated, it keeps all the UK in a much worse trade position than now,
at least until there is a new trade deal and the backstop is deactivated again.

imo, rather than activating the backstop, transition would be extended anyway

Everyone is going to suffer from No Deal.. I don't want it. Not the chaos, needless job losses or deaths. But I don't get a say in it, being just a remainer. However, if it's going to happen, let the true awful magnitude be seen quickly, instead of a poisonous drip-drip, quietly killing everything off.

At this stage, Johnson can strut around naked with a pumpkin on his head and still get elected as its just "a joke" for the party faithful and he has promised No Deal .

I genuinely can't think of anything that will change the narrative for the Brexiteers I know.

Any WA would be a blind Brexit,
because it can't make mandatory a particular future trade deal that will take 5 or 10 years to negotiate

No WA can legally bind future governments in the Uk or the EU to negotiate towards a particular kind of deal

We need to take control of the situation we have brought on ourselves. Ok maybe we can do a PV on the WA vs remain but it is unlikely to turn up with a convincing result one way or the other.

It doesn't need to be convincing! It just needs to answer the question!

There are currently three options - run down the clock to no deal, accept the W.A, or revoke. The W.A is not going to change - certainly not by October, but probably never - so hoping for that is just running the clock down to no deal. Holding a GE won't actually change the options on offer - even if it changes the parliamentary arithmetic, allowing them to pass.
But - assuming the impasse remains and no one in parliament is brave enough to make a decision, then either the clock runs out - or they have a P.V. They will only be holding the P.V because they don't know whether to vote W.A or revoke (assuming they have got it through their own thick skulls that renegotiation is not an option). Any majority on a PV - no matter how slim - gives them the nod on what to do next. That is all they need.

Their options are not running out. They have had precisely three options since they invoked article 50: accept the offer on the table, crash out or revoke. They are the options that remain. They are the options that will remain up until the 31st October. They have to choose one - and if they can't choose one, they have to ask us to choose one.
But they also need to realise that there is no point on voting down no deal and then refusing to either choose one of the other options or pass the choice back to us. Because that is still just running the clock down.

It is the opportunity to act which is running out. Not the options- they are the same as they have always been.

One problem is that if the UK wants to keep all its trading benefits, agencies etc in transition
then it has to obey alll EU rules - but it cannot vote on them

Again, this would be the case in any WA - only members can vote

The govt / HoC need to choose from the available options

The problem is that what they want is an unavailable option:

a Brexit that retains the major EU benefits of the SM, for both goods and services,
but without the obligations of FOM and ECJ

This is a basic problem with any form of Brexit:

Even if a future govt drops all red lines and goes immediately for Norway++
and this is then written as the future framework in the PD,

it could not be legally binding on a future UK government or a future EU to negotiate that

Hence the backstop would always be in a future WA too and hence we would always have a “blind faith” Brexit a few years later that could be totally different

More innovative building design is necessary to reduce electricity consumption for air cooling. Radiators used in 'reverse' perhaps where cool water is used to lower room temperature. Even the more widespread adoption of 'siestas' where people don't work in the hottest couple of hours in a day.

AC functions to make hotter temps bearable by reducing humidity. The problem with heat in many parts of the world is that it is accompanied by high humidity which makes normal activities like sleep well nigh impossible because your sweat doesn't evaporate in warm, saturated air. It also makes it too hot for computers to run. You could run a fan (on electricity) just to move the hot, humid air around, or get a punkah wallah to do it instead, I suppose.

Building design is probably the way to go.

Brexit is just a turd
and no matter how many tries the Uk gets at polishing it,
it will always be a turd

Why is US interference not perceived as a threat to our control?
LonelyPlanetMum

Because we have been fed a steady diet of 'Bad Russia', with a starter of 'Special Relationship'.

It took only a 4% win to commit to complete constitutional change. The idea that the win to reset and stick with the status quo has to, for some reason, be more decisive than that is undemocratic and nonsensical!

For the 4% Remain vote to be acceptable, there would have to be the political will.

In 1975 the political will was to stay in the then EEC with something like 60:40% as far as I remember. I don't really think it was much of an issue until 1990, or so. Commentators like to say that the European question brought Thatcher down but I would say with her it was really the Poll Tax which did for her. Major pulled off a surprise win in 1992 and that's when the anti-EU sentiment really began to get a grip of the Tory party. I assume because he was the man who shouldn't have won. Which has now brought down Cameron and May, and with any luck will also destroy Johnson, or Hunt. It would be nice if Philip Lee, Dominic Grieve and the others rumoured to be considering it, waited until Johnson's success was announced to jump ship. Whoosh, his majority gone before he is even appointed.

We need Labour to get off the fence and become committed to Remain, and given that I doubt they would win, be part of a grand coalition for Remain which could tell the extreme Leavers to get lost, and then concentrate on finding out what moderate Leave voters really wanted.

With the current Tory party, it has to be assumed that there are only Brexiters left within it, so if they won - full steam ahead for No Deal.
If somehow they have a personality transplant and decide to go for Remain, it would need a strong Leader to tell the ERG to take a running jump. I don't yet see anyone in the party who would qualify as a strong leader. Stewart might shape up in ten years time but he's still a work in progress.