Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westministenders: Is Boris going to give us one ?

999 replies

BigChocFrenzy · 07/09/2019 09:50

A General Election that is

Well, only when Corbyn lets him, not when BJ wants it.
So far as PM, BJ has lost 4 votes to zero wins - which is a record

BJ has been spraying around promises of billions in spending,
like a tomcat drunk on catnip, spraying the Magic Money Tree

SPADs have been forbidden to take holiday before 31 October
and of course that coup / prorogue to force No Deal and wank off the authoritarian vote

The prorogue also robs him of 5 more weeks time in which he could have forced a GE.
Whoops

BJ / Cum would ideally want a GE right after Brexit
to have achieved their No Deal, maximise their votes from the Faragist
.... all before the No Deal chickens come home to roost

Of course, as PM, BJ - or is Cummings the real PM ? - could change any pre-Brexit date that the naive think they have agreed

The Rebel Alliance have options to stop him:

BJ has sacked 21 MPs, so if the Alliance unite, they outnumber Con+DUP
Another Whoops
However, they have different aims and find it difficult to compromise
Some might prefer No Deal rather than the bogeyman Corbyn, because they don't do compromise

They could use a VoNC to replace BJ by Corbyn,
who would then ask for an extension and call a GE before Brexit
Stopping No Deal that way depends on Corbyn winning the GE - a HUGE gamble

Maybe he can use the slogan
"Brexit is the Tory project to make you forget the other Tory project: Austerity"

while to appeal to some pp, the Tories can use
"Vote to protect the bonuses of rich bankers"

Or if nothing happens by 19 October, MPs can vote for the WA, which would definitely stop No Deal
But that would require the HoC to make a decision - and it has spent several months avoiding that

Tick tock, No Deal is coming

Meanwhile, talks are ongoing for a Tory-Brexit party pact.
Reportedly, the hedge-fund donors won't fund a Tory GE campaign unless there is a pact:

www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/revealed-election-pact-between-johnson-and-farage-edges-closer/

How much money does it take to buy the UK governing party ? 🤔

OP posts:
Thread gallery
33
chomalungma · 07/09/2019 15:04

Indeed, and they’re fed up of us faffing around already.

They are fed up of the Conservatives faffing around. The Conservatives who didn't talk to other parties. Who didn't involve all sides. Who failed to even compromise with the British people.

A different approach with an alliance of MPs from a range of parties is far better than everything that has gone on before.

We all know they want a close relationship with us. And vice versa. The backstop will still be there and they know that a deal will get through with the backstop there - if a majority of MPs agree to that.

Far better than No Deal.

Peregrina · 07/09/2019 15:15

They are fed up of the Conservatives faffing around. The Conservatives who didn't talk to other parties. Who didn't involve all sides. Who failed to even compromise with the British people.

I agree here. The EU negotiators will have seen Boris bluffing and lying. They will have seen Rees-Mogg lying indolently across the front benches. He hasn't made himself look good, he's made himself look a boorish fool. At the same time they will have seen long serving Tory MPs, who clearly do believe they have the country's best interests at heart, booted out of the party they have served diligently for many years, some with tears in their eyes. They will know who has wasted the time, and they will see that others are trying to find a constructive way forwards.

Myriade · 07/09/2019 15:20

PMK

placemats · 07/09/2019 15:24

Why have another General Election (GE) when another referendum could solve the issue?

Can someone please answer.

Peregrina · 07/09/2019 15:29

What if you get a Referendum which gives the same sort of 50:50 split, or 52:48 to Remain? You are no further forward. A GE might shake up the Parliamentary arithmetic - if a bunch of Leavers get in then No Deal. You have to assume that's what the country wants and will accept it. (Perhaps!) If the arithmetic tends towards Remainers then they will be better minded to negotiate properly with the EU. If the Tories lose control then even with Brexit in mind, May's red lines can be scrapped, and talks towards a CU/SM commenced.

Lisette1940 · 07/09/2019 15:31

Pmk

placemats · 07/09/2019 15:34

But what if you get a 56 remain and 44 leave?

placemats · 07/09/2019 15:36

And what does a general election solve exactly?

placemats · 07/09/2019 15:39

It feels like a shoe horn into leave either way.

Democracy is now lost in England/Wales.

wrongsideofhistorymyarse · 07/09/2019 15:42

Pmk

placemats · 07/09/2019 15:44

Leavers voted for sovereignty:

supreme power or authority.
"the sovereignty of Parliament"
synonyms: jurisdiction, supremacy, dominion, power, ascendancy, suzerainty, tyranny, hegemony, domination, sway, predominance, authority, control, influence, rule;

But they already had this within the EU.

So what was the impetus for all those people who never voted before and have never voted since to vote leave?

TokyoSushi · 07/09/2019 15:49

PMK, from bloody beavers camp, please sound a claxon if anything particularly dramatic happens!

Bodoni · 07/09/2019 15:51

This Frenchwoman had me in tears - retweeted by Brendan May and Simon Schama - twitter.com/bmay/status/1169625744231862272 - I don’t know who the MP is but he’s loathsome.

Hasenstein · 07/09/2019 15:52

I have finally and ultra-grudgingly come to the view that we have to leave the EU. It breaks my bloody heart, but I can't see any other way to resolve this intractable problem we've allowed ourselves to be caught up in (ther reasons for which I won't even go into; little point in rehashing all the old arguments).

As many others have said, the WA, flawed as it is, is only the starting point in establishing our relationship with the EU. Everything that really matters will be decided over the coming years (expect more extensions after the 2-year transition period) and it leaves everything still to play for in the PD stage. If we can finally drop as many as possible of those silly and overhastily imposed red lines, there is so much flexibility available to us.

I could reluctantly live with a CU and as close to SM as possible; I think the shorthand version is Norway ++. We'll have left the EU, which I shall forever regret, but can then at least try to mitigate the inevitable damage as much as possible. And the EU's Anti Tax Avoidance Directive will continue to apply in full, thus lancing the shameful boil of the global tax dodging the UK has facilitated for too long.

The intransigent pursuit of stupid and arbitrary red lines has already harmed our relations with the EU and our standing in the world. Hardcore Remainers (which I always thought I was, but ...) and hardcore Brexiteers are going to have to swallow their pride and agree on a compromise for the sake of national harmony.

I hate it, will always regret it and wish I could fall back on my full Remainer instincts, but then we'd never see an end to the strife, when there are huge deficiencies in the way our country is run which urgently need action sooner rather than later.

But then compromises are always painful to both sides, as that Calvin & Hobbes strip upthread admirably expresses.

prettybird · 07/09/2019 15:55

I have to admit that part of me agrees with Bear Shock (BlushWink): even though I want and hold for Remain, I do on occasion think that the UK needs No Deal in order to understand just what a clusterfuck it would be. And for them to understand that it is not the EU's fault Hmm The Conservatives and Hard/No Deal Brexiters need to own the consequences except many of them will have made the necessary millions to allow them to escape Angry

And that's not me musing with my Indy supporting head; that's me musing with my "What's best for the UK as a whole" head Sad

But I fear that even though Scotland might have an "out" (and get an "In" back into the EU, or at least EFTA Wink), the damage to FUKD is too great a cost.

Ironically, an independent Scotland recovering thriving as a member of the EEA might actually help demonstrate that the English Leave voters were wrong to believe the siren calls of UKIP/the Turquoise Party/Vote Leave/Trump/the ERG/the disaster capitalists.

My dad yesterday (as we were driving across to watch Scotland beat Georgia Smile) told me off for being so cynical and pessimistic about the ability of the English voters to see through BJ-Cummings' propaganda, which might lead to another Conservative majority.

Given that he's not always that optimistic (he didn't think that apartheid could be very overthrown without a bloodbath), maybe I should trust him Grin

BirdandSparrow · 07/09/2019 16:00

PMK

NoWordForFluffy · 07/09/2019 16:02

PMK.

Thanks, BCF.

I've spent the afternoon so far chopping back brambles and weeds. It's actually very cathartic! Just a shame we can't rid politics of the prickly problems so easily.

I really agree with what BCF is suggesting. The country needs to move on from this Brexit-crippled state it's in. We need to try to solve the issues which led to the Brexit result as was, and it's not going to happen by going round and round with extension after extension. So many people from both sides 'just want it over', which is why another vote probably won't help, IMO.

But I really don't think we should be saying that the UK should experience no deal to appreciate what they've wanted. Not when people could die. No deal needs avoiding at all costs.

ListeningQuietly · 07/09/2019 16:09

Sad Place Mark wondering when the world will come to its senses

prettybird · 07/09/2019 16:11

Forgot to state explicitly (although I have said it before): I do keep on suppressing that part of me that thinks "Fuck It. No Deal then and then you'll understand what it means" - because I don't want the UK to suffer the unavoidable consequences Confused.

But I can see where Bear is coming from.

DeRigueurMortis · 07/09/2019 16:11

The issue as I see it with another referendum is that remain or leave is that it doesn't solve the issue.

If the result is leave we are still where we are now.

If the result is remain then Brexit supporters can (imho legitimately) claim that this result is no more "binding" than the previous one unless the vote is overwhelmingly in favour (60% plus) which I just can't see happening.

The country and politics remain just as divided with the next GE still being fought on the basis of who is honouring the will of the people - a Tory GE campaign (especially after the purge of the moderates) could still be run on a leave premise even after a second PV on the basis the first vote was the one that "mattered".

There is also the question of what would a PV be on? A rinse and repeat of the previous simple remain/leave or something more nuanced?

A PV that is more specific might be a way forward but the questions asked would need to be very carefully considered.

Do you say the choice is leave/remain but also have a secondary question asking if the vote is leave would you accept a) no deal b) May's deal? There is no option c because there's nothing else on the table.

It's also (for remainers and those favouring a soft Brexit) a risky plan. It is very possible you would get a Leave/No Deal result after which your hands are really tied.

As stands there is the chance (admittedly small) of a soft Brexit by arguing that the referendum didn't mandate for No Deal.

On the other hand a GE has the opportunity to shake up Parliament in such a way as to enable Boris to get a majority and press no deal or even with a hung parliament garner enough impetus to get on with the job and get a deal through the commons via a coalition.

Just like the public the MP's are also suffering from Brexit fatigue. The idea that we are still in the same place in 12 months on isn't an outcome they want either.

JustAnotherPoster00 · 07/09/2019 16:12

For the first time in my life, I'm frightened to be Jewish
And non-Jews attacking the Labour party aren't helping

David Graeber

I am 58 years old, and for the first time in my life, I am frightened to be Jewish.

We live in a time when racism is being normalized, when Nazis parade in the streets in Europe and America; Jew baiters like Hungary's Orban are treated as respectable players on the international scene, “white nationalist” propagandist Steve Bannon can openly coordinate scare-mongering tactics with Boris Johnson in London at the same time as in Pittsburg, murderers deluded by white nationalist propaganda are literally mowing Jews down with automatic weapons. How is it, then, that our political class has come to a consensus that the greatest threat to Britain's Jewish community is a lifelong anti-racist accused of not being assiduous enough in disciplining party members who make offensive comments on the internet?

For almost all my Jewish friends, this is what is currently creating the greatest and most immediate sense of trepidation, even more than the actual Nazis: the apparently endless campaign by politicians like Margaret Hodge, Wes Streeting, and Tom Watson to weaponize antisemitism accusations against the current leadership of the Labour party. It is a campaign – which however it started, has been sustained primarily by people who are not themselves Jewish – so cynical and irresponsible that I genuinely believe it to be a form of antisemitism in itself. And it is a clear and present danger to Jewish people.

To any of these politicians who may be reading this, I am begging you: if you really do care about Jews, please, stop this.

One might ask how this happened? Here I feel I must tell a somewhat brutal truth. Orginally this scandal has very little to do with antisemitism. It is in its origins a crisis of democratization in the Labour Party.

Let me hasten to emphasize: this is not because bigoted attitudes towards Jews do not exist in the Labour Party. Far from. But Antisemitism can be found on almost every level of British society. As a transplanted New Yorker, I'm often startled by what can pass in casual conversation (from “of course he's cheap, he's Jewish” to “Hitler should have killed them all.”). Surveys show that antisemitic attitudes are more common among supporters of the ruling Conservative party than Labour supporters. But the latter are in no sense immune.

What makes Labour unique however is that for four years now, Jeremy Corbyn and his allies have been spearheading an effort to democratize the internal workings of the party. It has inspired hundreds of thousands of new members to join, and turned once rubber-stamp branches into lively forums for public debate. Momentum, a mass action group, has been created to try to turn the party back into a mass movement, which it has not really been since the 1930s. All this has been anathema to a large number of MPs on the party's right, who, having been placed in their positions under Tony Blair as effective MPs-for-life, are by now so out of step with their Constituency Labour Parties that they would almost certainly lose their seats if anything like an American-style primary system were put in place. And many Corbyn supporters have been campaigning for exactly that.

Still, a politician can't very well say they're against democratization. So over the past four years, they've tried throwing practically everything else they can think to throw at Corbyn and his supporters. Tolerance of antisemitism was the first to really stick. The reason is that any process of democratization, opening the floor to everyone, will necessarily mean a lot of angry people with no training are going to be placed in front of microphones. (This is the reason why few parallel scandals come out of the Tory side, despite the wider prevalence of antisemitism—not to mention other forms of racism and class hostility — no one without media training gets anywhere near a microphone. When the Tories briefly flirted with the idea of creating their own Momentum-style youth group, the project had to be quickly abandoned because participants began to call for the poor to be exterminated.) In a society as rife with anti-Jewish attitudes as Britain, opening the floor to everyone means some are, inevitably, going to say outrageous things. As I can well attest, this can be startling and appalling, but if one is actually interested in purging antisemitic views from society, one is also aware it’s not ultimately a bad thing. It's only by bringing forms of unrecognized racism out in the open that they can be challenged and minds changed. There is evidence that in the first two years under Corbyn (2015-2017), this is exactly what was starting to happen: the prevalence of antisemitic attitudes among Labour supporters were sharply declining.

Still, superficially, this democratizing process does result, initially, in more antisemitic comments being made in public, which is precisely what made Corbyn and his followers vulnerable. By all indications, the right wing of the party made a conscious choice to turn this process for their own advantage. In a way it was a political masterstroke. If one accuses one's opponents of promulgating antisemitism, almost any reply they make can itself be treated as antisemitic. It’s no surprise that some Jews, both right-leaning elements in the Jewish community, and Labour supporters, who began looking nervously over their shoulders, have allowed themselves to be drawn into what can only be described now as a tragic spiral. The process is designed to feed on itself. Still, it’s important to note that most of the protagonists were not Jewish and many if not most had never before taken any particular interest in Jewish issues. By all appearances, it was pure, cynical, political calculation. But it worked.

The problem is that exploiting Jewish issues in ways guaranteed to create rancor, panic, and resentment is itself a form of antisemitism. (This is true whether or not the architects are fully aware of what they're doing.) It creates terror in the Jewish community. It deprives us of our strongest allies. If one were actively trying to create ill-feeling towards Jewish people on the left, then surely purges, sensationalized denunciations in the media, wild exaggerations, and the endless twisting around of words (a skilled propagandist can after all prove anything – if I wanted to cherry-pick quotes, I'm sure I could demonstrate that Margaret Thatcher was a Communist or the Pope is anti-Catholic), would be the best way to go about it.

One could argue that none of this matters too much, since, as far as dangers to the Jewish community is concerned, internal left politics will always be a bit of a sideshow. In a sense this is true. There is no conceivable scenario in which admirers of the ideas of Rosa Luxemberg or Leon Trotsky are going to start shooting up synagogues, or Momentum (an organization three of whose four co-founders were Jewish) is going to make anyone wear yellow stars. That's what Nazis do. And Nazis are on the rise. But in another way, this makes the damage even more pernicious. As the racist right gains power and legitimacy across Europe, the very last thing we need is to leave the public with the impression the Jewish community are a bunch of hypersensitive alarmists who start screaming about Auschwitz the moment they disagree with the exact wording of policy statement. It's crazy to cry wolf while real wolves are baying at the door. It's even crazier when those you're crying wolf about are the very people most likely to defend you against them. Because anyone who knows Jewish history also knows this is how it begins. And history from Cable Street to Charlottesville teaches us when the brownshirts do hit the streets, police tend to prove useless or worse, and it's precisely the “hard left” that is willing to stand by us. If that day comes, I know that Jewish left intellectuals such as myself are likely to be first on their list, but I also know that Corbyn and his supporters will be the first to place their bodies on the line to defend me. Will Tom Watson, the current purger-in-chief of purported antisemites in the Labour party, be there with them? Why do I doubt this?

Such scenarios might seem an impossible fantasy, but so, not so long ago, was a President Trump.

All I can do is plead to anyone involved in promulgating this campaign, in politics and media: please, stop. My safety is not your political chess piece. If you actually want to help, you could work with the party leadership, instead of using it as yet another way to seize power that you’ve repeatedly failed to win by legitimate, electoral means: If you’re not capable of actual constructive behaviour, then at the very least, stop making things worse. Because what you are doing in the name of “protecting” me is driving us all to disaster. And for the first time in my life, I am genuinely afraid.

www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/first-time-my-life-im-frightened-be-jewish/

chomalungma · 07/09/2019 16:20

It's also (for remainers and those favouring a soft Brexit) a risky plan. It is very possible you would get a Leave/No Deal result after which your hands are really tied

And

On the other hand a GE has the opportunity to shake up Parliament in such a way as to enable Boris to get a majority and press no deal or even with a hung parliament garner enough impetus to get on with the job and get a deal through the commons via a coalition

So how do you get No Deal off the table - and avoid this gamble?

We do have a deal already. We might get a better deal. But I do think we need to avoid the gamble.

Technically it's still the same Parliament as before when the current WA was voted on.

I have no doubt all this has gone through the minds of MPs.

What happens if a PV just delivers Remain?
What question is a PV going to have?

No Deal needs to be avoided.

But it would be hypocritical of people who have called for a PV because the people need to be given the final choice to change their mind if they think that the people might vote for No Deal

And it would be hypocritical of all those people who said that there shouldn't be a PV to change their mind if it looks like Parliament would vote for the current WA.

prettybird · 07/09/2019 16:27

I am still in favour of a PV (and hope that my dad is right to trust the electorate not to be manipulated Wink) but I'm going to be controversial and say that if Scotland again delivers a significantly different result to the rest of the UK, then that in itself should trigger automatically permission for a Section 30 notice.

JeSuisPoulet · 07/09/2019 16:33

Ah, those lax controls we are so desperate to be allowed - UK vapers safe from US lung disease

JeSuisPoulet · 07/09/2019 16:35

I still think we will end up with WA. If BoZo resigns or we can get a GNU I think that would be the most sensible and obvious way forward. It minimises damage and allows everyone to win and lose.

I wanted to ask, did we ever sort out the financial passports in the end? I thought nothing had been finalised but quite possibly missed something.

Swipe left for the next trending thread