The UK Brexit vote to leave the EU

[greybeard]

David Cameron says second Brexit referendum cannot be ruled out
Evening Standard James Morris,Evening Standard

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/david-came...163900999.html

David Cameron pictured in Downing Street following the 2016 referendum. The former Prime Minister has refused to rule out a second poll: Daniel Leal-Olivas/PA

Former Prime Minister David Cameron has said a second Brexit referendum cannot be ruled out.

In an interview with The Times, he said: "I don’t think you can rule it out because we’re stuck.”

Mr Cameron - who called the 2016 referendum and campaigned for Remain - said that while he wasn't backing a second EU poll, it remains a possibility "because you’ve got to find some way of unblocking the blockage".

He also said he opposed Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament until mid-October: "I think proroguing parliament – pretending it doesn’t exist – I think that would be a bad thing.”

And with Mr Johnson insisting the UK will leave the EU on October 31 with or without an agreement, Mr Cameron said no-deal would be a "bad outcome" for the country and that "I don't think it should be pursued".

Of Mr Johnson, who Mr Cameron accused of "trashing" the government during the 2016 campaign, he added: "Look, he's got a very clear strategy and plan. It's, you know, not the approach that I would have taken, but I want him to succeed."

He also told the paper he did not support the removal of the whip from numerous Tory MPs for rebelling against Mr Johnson's progogation plans.

He said: "Of course, as a new Prime Minister, I wished Boris well. I wanted him to get a deal from the EU that would have passed in the House of Commons.

"If that was to happen, I would have been elated. But clearly, while he started out down that road, the strategy has morphed into something quite different.

"Taking the whip from hard-working Conservative MPs and sharp practices using prorogation of Parliament have rebounded. I didn't support either of those things."

Mr Johnson, who was today angrily confronted on a walkabout in Doncaster and heckled during a speech in Rotherham, said he is "cautiously optimistic" of getting a Brexit deal.

The Prime Minister is preparing for talks with European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker on Monday. It will be their first meeting since Mr Johnson became Prime Minister in July.

[East Sun]

Follow the money....Where does his money, Mr. Cameron's, come from?
Always look at where the money comes from?

[greybeard]

Posted by East Sun (here)
Follow the money....Where does his money, Mr. Cameron's, come from?
Always look at where the money comes from?

Agreed and if not the money--look at agenda.
Boris taking a lot of flack and he has told quite a few porkers which have been exposed.
Why is he so single minded as to crash out without a deal if thats what it takes?
He may have a higher good motivation--
So many "respected" people telling him that no deal exit will be catastrophic.
Now that may be fear porn but my time in buisness tells me that its not going to be easy for any business after a no deal exit---sometime the devil you know is better than the devil you dont.
Chris

About David Cameron's book

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-memoirs.htmld

[Hervé]

The Dogs in the Street Know

by craig
12 Sep, 2019

There are some very obvious facts in British politics which nobody seems to be saying.

Joanna Cherry stated in her successful court case that “the dogs in the street know” that the real reason that Boris Johnson had prorogued parliament was to prevent parliament from having an effective say on the outcome of Brexit. The documents that the government was forced to produce to the Scottish Courts proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that was indeed Johnson’s motive.

So why are we expected to believe that what you knew and I knew, what Joanna Cherry knew, what the very dogs in the street knew, was not known to the Queen? Do we really believe that the Queen was “misled” and that she and her courtiers were the only people in the entire country who actually believed that Johnson just wanted the longest prorogation for 89 years to prepare a really good Queen’s speech? Are we really expected to believe that the Queen had not noticed that Brexit was at a crucial stage and the effect that prorogation would have on parliament’s say in the process?

This is obviously complete and utter nonsense. The Queen has better sources of information than any of us and knew exactly what was happening. She was not “misled” by Boris Johnson, she was his ally in a common purpose. She absolutely understood both the context and the effect of the prorogation. All this utter nonsense about the Queen being “lied to” and “misled” is part of this strange myth of the ultimate goodness of authority which is a recurring theme in human societies. Peasants died under the knout while building the Trans-Siberian railway thinking “if only the good Tsar knew.” The Queen is not a naive figure of Christ like innocence taken in by Boris Johnson, she is an ultra wealthy woman of very conservative views embedded in a social circle dominated by very rich and reactionary people.

To repeat what I have repeatedly explained, it was unconstitutional for the Queen to appoint Boris Johnson in the first place when it was plain as a pikestaff that he could not command a parliamentary majority. That initial crime (and I use the word advisedly) was compounded by the decision to prorogue parliament to enable her no majority Prime Minister to govern. In a sane world we should be getting out the pitchforks. Instead people are tut-tutting about the poor Queen being misled.

The next fact that is plain as a pikestaff is that Tom Watson is seeking to throw the election. One of the few true things Boris Johnson said in his knockabout performance in Parliament’s last sitting was that there were some on the Labour benches who were worried that Labour might win the next election.

Make no mistake, the Tories are in trouble. They need to pile on millions of votes in Northern English Labour constituencies before they actually start to win any, and they have thrown away existing liberal Tory support in London and southern England in order to pursue that goal. First Past the Post is very capricious, and once the leading party falls to 35% results become fickle even where there is a decent plurality. Regional concentration is actually an advantage in FPTP and in effect the Tories are in danger of evening out their support across England too much. They will certainly be down to a maximum of two seats in Scotland. They will have large losses to Labour and Lib Dems in London and the South West. All that is before we get in to the campaigning period and Jeremy Corbyn’s ability to solidify the Labour vote.

So with the prorogation row, the parliamentary defeats, the lost court cases and the Yellowhammer documents, Boris Johnnson was looking on sticky ground. The Labour Party had finally arrived at an apparently workable stance on Brexit: a general election followed by a second EU referendum with options of a viable deal and remain. Jeremy Corbyn, who had succeeded in helping build an opposition consensus on parliamentary tactics, has been looking in his strongest position for some time.

At this crucial moment enter Tom Watson with an entirely uncalled for intervention before a luvvies conference on the creative industries, trailed for all it was worth by the Blairite publicity machine. It was boosted to all the media specifically as Tom Watson taking on Jeremy Corbyn, and given wall to wall media coverage, carried live on the major broadcast news channels. What Watson had to say was simply a reiteration of Tony Blair’s article in the Evening Standard three days earlier; that there should be an EU referendum before a General Election.

What was the point of this Watson intervention? The first thing to say is that the real point was not the apparent purpose stated in the speech. Tom Watson knows full well there is no chance whatsoever of a new EU referendum ahead of a general election. The current parliament will never agree it. The expelled Tory rebels were almost all supporters of May’s deal and have almost all specifically ruled out a second referendum. At least 30 Labour MPs, led by figures like Stephen Kinnock, John Mann and Caroline Flint, would not agree to it. The DUP would never agree. It is a complete non-starter.

Why then would Watson deliver it? And not just deliver it quietly as a think piece, but deliver it with all the media hullabaloo that could possibly be mustered? The answer is quite simple. At Blair’s behest, Watson did it quite simply to damage Corbyn. At a time when the government was in deep trouble, when Corbyn had just addressed the TUC conference to applause with a finally coherent Brexit position, Watson’s aim was simply to damage Corbyn.

Watson sought to damage Corbyn in two ways. To damage him by staking out a more extreme Remainer position that might put a wedge between Corbyn and the new expanded Labour Party membership. And to damage Corbyn by giving headlines about Labour splits, taking the heat off the Tories and cutting at Labour’s standing in the polls just as it looked set to improve.

Because the one thing the Blairites detest most of all is the prospect of a Labour victory and a Corbyn government, implementing comparatively left wing policies that might prove popular and cause a real change in political discourse in England and Wales. Because that would be the death knell for the Blairites and their corporate sponsors.

Just as we are supposed to believe that the Queen is a naive waif innocent of Johnson’s schemes, we are supposed not to notice that Tom Watson seeks to damage Labour and ensure Corbyn does not come to power. We live in times when the media and the political class inhabit a world of polite pretence; a world where outsiders like me have a duty to point to the actual glaring facts, whether people listen or not.
——————————————

[greybeard]

Thanks for your post Herve
The onlooker sees most of the game.
I agree with what you are saying.

There is no way that the Queen is unaware--mislead-it would be a brave person who tried to mislead her.
Politicians and the media love drama---notice me!!!
Grab attention--never mind distortion of truth till it is unrecognizable.

I dont think in normal circumstances that Corbyn would be elected--he has sat on the fence too long.
There are others in his party who would be more likely to pull in votes

The Liberal Democrats have come a long way.
It might be a good thing if they trounced the other parties and got a majority--for sure a change is needed.

Trying to be fair--I think the Queen has little choice in not allowing what a PM asks.
This is regardless of her own thoughts what ever they maybe.
These days she cant say--"Off with their heads" though I suspect she is tempted.


Chris

[greybeard]

'I am giving up on the Conservatives': Boris Johnson faces election gamble as voters desert him over Brexit
The Independent Agencies,The Independent Fri, 13 Sep

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/am-giving-...134127952.html


Voters are questioning Boris Johnson's ability to deliver Brexit on 31 October

James Bowkett is one of a growing number of Brexit voters who is considering abandoning the Conservative Party in the next election.

The 58-year-old businessman, speaking in Lincoln more than three years after the referendum result, says he is fed up of waiting for the UK to leave the EU.

“I am giving up on the Conservatives,” he said. “There are too many people in that party who don’t want to listen to the public.”

“I am beginning to doubt that Brexit will happen, and I don’t think the Conservatives can deliver it alone.”

Mr Bowkett is just the sort of voter Boris Johnson needs if he is to win an election following parliament’s rejection of a Brexit deal agreed by his predecessor, Theresa May.

The prime minister wants an election to strengthen his mandate for pulling Britain out of the EU after his Conservative government lost its majority over his handling of Brexit. Opponents refuse to endorse an early election unless he rules out leaving the EU without a deal, which could cause a disorderly Brexit, but a snap poll is likely sooner or later.

It is a risky move. If Johnson fails to carry out a pledge to leave the EU on Oct. 31, frustrated Brexit supporters like Bowkett could be driven into the arms of the Brexit Party founded this year by eurosceptic Nigel Farage, polls show.

Johnson could lose power, the main opposition Labour Party could enter government and Brexit might never happen.

Even if Johnson can persuade the EU to accept a revision of the deal reached by Theresa May, it is unlikely to be enough to appease voters like Bowkett.

“If that happens, all this fighting will have been pointless,” Bowkett said. “We will be the laughing stock of the world.”

To win a majority in a general election, Johnson will be banking on winning in places such as Lincoln, a cathedral city that was an important settlement in Roman times and lies 120 miles (193 km) north of London.

The constituency, narrowly held by Labour, has been a bellwether of national trends in all but one election since 1979.

It voted 57 per cent in favour of quitting the EU in the 2016 Brexit referendum – compared to the nationwide margin of 52-48 – and the Brexit Party finished top in local voting in European elections in May, as it did in the national vote.

[greybeard]

Liberal Democrats launch campaign to cancel Brexit
Evening Standard Harriet Brewis,Evening Standard

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/liberal-de...062949765.html

Jo Swinson will join party members in Bournemouth today: AP

The Liberal Democrats will today launch a campaign to cancel Brexit when the party meets for its autumn conference.

Leader Jo Swinson will urge the party faithful to back plans to revoke Article 50 – the formal process to leave the EU – as the only solution to get out of this “mess”.

Until now, the Lib Dem Brexit policy has been to campaign for another referendum, in which it would campaign for Remain.

But as delegates meet on Bournemouth's seafront this morning, Ms Swinson will ask them to commit to cancelling the UK’s divorce from Brussels without the need for a second referendum, should the party gain power in the next general election.

She has said: "We got into this mess as a result of having a referendum in the first place and that [revoking Article 50] is the only satisfactory way out of it."

Revoking Article 50 would effectively undo the legal mechanism under the EU's Lisbon Treaty that sparked Britain's withdrawal process from the EU.

Lord John Kerr, the British diplomat who was involved in drafting the article, has publicly said the clause is reversible.

If Lib Dem members back their leader's move, the revocation would be written into the party's next election manifesto.

Ms Swinson is due to take questions from conference attendees at the Bournemouth International Centre on Sunday, following a speech by her predecessor Sir Vince Cable.

It is likely to be Mr Cable's last conference as a Lib Dem MP, as he has said he will not contest his Twickenham seat at the next election.

Ms Swinson, the East Dunbartonshire MP, will close the four-day conference with a speech on Tuesday, following a tribute to former leader Paddy Ashdown, who died in December.

The new party leader has played an active part in convincing MPs to switch allegiance and join the Lib Dems.

She is now is looking to take her party into the next election as the most unequivocally in favour of staying in the EU.

Chuka Umunna, who joined the Lib Dems under Sir Vince's leadership, will address party members on Monday in his role as Treasury and business spokesman.

The Lib Dems currently have 17 MPs, having been boosted by a victory in the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election and defections from both Labour and the Conservatives since the summer.

Ps
I think this is a very smart move by the Lib Dems.
Now you have a clear choice between the Brexit Party and Remain = Lib Dems.
The Labour Party trying to please all by sitting on the fence have misread the situation--Those for exit are not going to change their minds--why should they.
Unlikely the Conservatives will pass any leave bill.
So you are left with Brexit party or the remain party Liberal Democrats.
Whatever hapens Im fine with though it would be good to get away from the Tory Party vs Labour Party.
If remain wins then Scotland may well continue to be part of UK
If leave wins the S.N.P will be knocking on the door of Europe.
Chris

[greybeard]

Tories extend poll lead to 12% despite week of political chaos
The Guardian Tali Fraser,The Guardian

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/tories-ext...191839820.html


The Conservatives have pushed further ahead of Labour in the latest Opinium/Observer poll – despite yet another turbulent week for Boris Johnson.

The latest poll shows the Tories on 37%, up two since last week, while Labour is unchanged on 25%. The Liberal Democrats whose conference opens this weekend in Bournemouth are on 16% (down one), and the Brexit party is also unchanged on 13%.

The polling – conducted after Johnson shut down parliament for five weeks last Tuesday, and Scottish judges subsequently ruled his action to have been unlawful – shows the Conservatives are continuing to consolidate their support among leave voters.
State of the parties

Among this group, 55% said they would now vote Conservative in a general election, the highest figure since February. Almost a fifth (19%) of Labour leave voters are now intending to vote Conservative, suggesting views on Brexit are determining voters’ choice more than traditional party loyalties.

The poll suggests many voters are unclear about Labour’s Brexit stance while the Liberal Democrats are seen as having an unambiguous policy.

Despite losing six consecutive votes in the Commons in the past fortnight Johnson has a far higher net approval rating for his handling of Brexit than Jeremy Corbyn. While 37% approve of the prime minister’s handling of Brexit against 43% who disapprove, only 17% approve of Corbyn’s handling of the issue, against 60% who disapprove.

Asked for their view about whether Johnson had been right to suspend parliament for five weeks, voters were split. Some 34% said they supported the prime minister’s move, while 35% opposed it.
Disapproval of Jeremy Corbyn's response on Brexit has risen from 55% to 60% over the past week

Adam Drummond, head of political polling at Opinium, said despite the judgement from Scottish judges which suggested Boris Johnson had misled the Queen over prorogation, the effect on his reputation among voters appeared to have been minimal.

“The Tories’ mission to mop up the leave vote at a faster rate than they lose liberal remain-leaning voters is continuing to show dividends with the largest lead over Labour since the 2017 election,” he said.

Among Brexit party voters, he said approval of Boris Johnson was far higher than Jeremy Corbyn at 71% compared with 2%. While among Liberal Democrat voters, approval of the Labour leader was only marginally better than the prime minister at 13% compared with 6%.

[greybeard]

EU officials reject Boris Johnson claim of 'huge progress' in Brexit talks
[The Guardian]
Jennifer Rankin and Daniel Boffey
The Guardian15 September 2019


https://uk.yahoo.com/news/eu-officia...132327273.html


EU officials have rejected Boris Johnson’s claim that “a huge amount of progress” is being made in Brexit talks, as Jean-Claude Juncker warned that time is running out.

Juncker, who will stand down as European commission president on 31 October, is expected to ask Johnson to spell out his ideas for replacing the Irish backstop when the pair meet over lunch in Luxembourg on Monday.

Johnson told the Mail on Sunday there were “real signs of movement” in Berlin, Paris and Dublin on getting rid of the backstop, the persistent stumbling block to a Brexit agreement. “A huge amount of progress is being made,” he said.

But EU officials involved in talks with Johnson’s envoy, David Frost, have dismissed his upbeat account.

“No, in fact people are a bit dismayed,” said one EU source, describing the mood after the latest talks. “I am not even going to call them negotiations – the last session on Friday did start touching on content – that’s actually quite a step forward … but we still should have been there a long time ago and [an end result] is still quite far away.”

The lunch meeting with Juncker comes 26 days after Johnson met Angela Merkel in Berlin and declared he had 30 days to persuade the EU there was a viable alternative to the backstop.

That meeting in Berlin, followed by others with EU leaders in Paris and Biarritz, raised hopes that the prime minister was serious about a deal. But optimism in Brussels rapidly dissipated, after Johnson prorogued parliament and stepped up his no-deal rhetoric, while failing to put any proposals on paper.

A spate of recent reports from London analysts that a deal was becoming more likely were dismissed as “completely wrong” by one senior EU official.

Johnson’s latest rhetorical fancy – that, like the Incredible Hulk, the UK would break out of its “manacles” on 31 October – has further fuelled EU scepticism about his sincerity.

Describing the language as “not very surprising”, the EU source said: “It all makes it look like it’s a bit of a joke. We are talking about something extremely serious. The consequences of no deal will be extremely serious and it looks like this is being treated as a game in which you are the hero sort of story rather than [dealing] with real lives.”

Juncker said a no-deal Brexit would be a mess and take years to resolve. Speaking to Deutschlandfunk, he said patriots in the UK “would not wish your country such a fate”.

He said the EU knew what the British did not want, but were still waiting for alternative backstop proposals: “I hope we can get them, but time is running out.”


The British government’s version of Brexit involves the UK ultimately leaving the single market and customs union, requiring the return of a range of checks on goods crossing the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The “backstop” is intended as a standstill placeholder to ensure such checks do not have to be imposed between Brexit happening with a deal, and the start of a new free trade agreement yet to be negotiated between the UK and the EU.

Theresa May's withdrawal agreement proposed keeping the whole of the UK in a shared customs territory with the EU during this period. An alternative idea involves only Northern Ireland staying in the EU’s customs territory. That would place a customs border in the Irish Sea. May described it as a threat to the constitutional integrity of the UK, but the new prime minister, Boris Johnson, has opened the current talks by proposing an all-Ireland agri-food zone. The suggestion is that he will seek to quietly build on that with further NI-only arrangements.

Given an NI-only backstop was an EU proposal in the first place, the U-turn would be warmly welcomed in Brussels, although attempts to give the Northern Ireland assembly a veto on its continuation would not be acceptable, and the DUP would be unlikely to support the prime minister in such a move in parliament.

If there is a no-deal Brexit, then there is no backstop.

[scanner]

We've all been scammed, according to this reporter. They didn't delay all this for nothing.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=P80hZh7WlDw

[Pieman]

I see that Greybeard mentions David Cameron "Not ruling out a second referendum" in post#821 above.
Perhaps it would be timely to quote his words from 2016 just prior to the referendum taking place:

And ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum that I promised and that I will deliver. You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision. So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave… …would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay… …I say think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.

Since the 2016 referendum, I personally, have found myself appalled and disgusted at the behaviour of our elected politicians. Particularly those who were elected on manifestos declaring that the referenduim result would be honoured and those that choose to change to another political party without having a by-election in the area in which they were originally elected.
When I look at the recent antics in the Houses of Parliament I have what I call my "Hiccup" moment I have seen better behaviour in a schoolyard to be honest:
H= Hypocrites
I = Incompetence
C= Corrupt
C= Cronyism
U= Unpatriotic
P= Parasites
I happen to think that we have already had one referendum in which Leave won so any referendum thereafter should not have remain on the ballot paper.

Just my thoughts on this very divisive subject
cheers Andrew

[Franny]

Brexit and Lord Blackheath

From Joseph Ferrel on Sept. 12.

Lord Blackheath is back to set the record straight on Brexit but is warned off in the House of Lords and threatened. The goal of the EU is to safely tuck the entire British military and intelligence apparatus under the complete control of the EU, ending British sovereignty. That includes MI5, MI6 and Five Eyes, technology, military and troops; the German Deep State plan since before WW1. Britain would have no voice or control over their own military or intelligence services.


Back to Brexit, or rather, back to Lord Blackheath and some statements he made in the House of Lords concerning Brexit, a pan-European military, and some very revealing words from fromer German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen:

Hero of Brexit' Lord James of Blackheath Threatened over EU Defence Union

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=v8kpSunOShE

[greybeard]

Its good to see people posting on this thread.

I watched the David Cameron Interview and he certainly was not given an easy time of it quite the reverse.
He accepted full responsibility and apologized repeatedly.
He is still of the opinion that we are better of in the market---warts and all.
Bu he hopes that Boris pulls off leaving with a deal.
Its a program worth watching on replay.

ITV 8 pm Monday the 16th September 2019.

Will probably appear on u tube at some point in time

Chris

[samsdice]

Someone said follow the money....

While the Prime Minister defies the law and insists Britain will leave the European Union on 31 October, his backers stand to make billions out of the disaster.



https://bylinetimes.com/2019/09/11/b...leave-backers/

[greybeard]

Posted by samsdice (here)
Someone said follow the money....

While the Prime Minister defies the law and insists Britain will leave the European Union on 31 October, his backers stand to make billions out of the disaster.



https://bylinetimes.com/2019/09/11/b...leave-backers/

This makes sense samsdice--thanks.
Boris is economical with the truth that is fact.
In the Cameron interview footage was shown of Boris on the referendum campaign trail, admitting that the Red Bus saving for NHS was grossly over estimated.
People got sold a load of other misinformation prior to referendum vote and now.
What negotiation for an exit deal?

As repeatedly said I dont vote---frankly its a lack of trust.
One politician said "A well told story is not necessarily true" How we love promises of something better.
Boris is charismatic and I suspect uses NLP in his talks--the unusual delivery holds the attention.
I donr mind which way this goes but I respect integrity and there does not seem to be a lot of in the current situation.

A reality check is needed.
Parliament can not pass any deal that endangers the fragile peace in Northern Ireland.
Any hard border between North and South will not get through Parliament.
Its not what the Brexit leavers voted for either--is it?
Our soldiers back in NI being killed?
Innocents being killed by car bombs--its not that long ago and some recent killings.
if there is Brexit with no deal that's a very possible end result--the end justifys the means--oh yes!!!
Many believe that.
End of the UK--
Britannia rules the waves!!
Reality its an English Parliament--that's the numbers.
It tries to be fair for all of UK but the number of voters in England rules, thats life.
Majority wins--thats democracy.

Chris

[greybeard]

Brexit: Legal loophole 'would allow Boris Johnson to deliver no-deal on 31 October'
The Independent Benjamin Kentish,The Independent


https://uk.yahoo.com/news/brexit-leg...074500718.html

Boris Johnson could bypass a law stopping him delivering a no-deal Brexit by exploiting a major loophole in the legislation, a legal expert has claimed.

Jolyon Maugham, a barrister and anti-Brexit campaigner, said there was "a flaw" in the so-called Benn Act, passed by parliament earlier this month, that could force MPs opposed to no-deal to take "counter-measures".

The loophole means that the prime minister would be able to legally entitled to take Britain out of the EU without a deal even if MPs had voted for an agreement, Mr Maugham said.

Under the terms of the Benn Act, Mr Johnson must ask the EU for a further delay to Brexit if MPs have not approved an exit deal by 19 October. If a deal is approved, the obligatio to request an extension would be overridden.

However, there is no obligation on the government to actually implement the terms of the deal, even if MPs have approved it. Mr Maugham suggested that Mr Johnson could therefore simply refuse to bring forward the Withdrawal Act, which is needed to implement the deal in law.


In that situation, MPs would have approved a deal but it would not have been formally ratified through law, meaning the UK would effectively leave the EU on 31 October without a deal in place.

The suggestion prompted speculation that Mr Johnson could tell Eurosceptic Tory MPs in the European Research Group (ERG) to vote for a deal while privately promising that he would not implement it. The prime minister hosted a dozen Tory at Chequers on Friday.

Mr Maugham said that, the 2018 EU Withdrawal Act places "further obligations" on the government, including a new law implementing, before the deal can be fully ratified.

He wrote: "Summing up, if the Commons approves the Withdrawal Agreement but these further obligations are not satisfied before 31 October 2019, then two consequences follow. First, the Benn Act will not apply to require the PM to request an extension from the EU. And, second, we will leave with No Deal.

"So, imagine the PM says privately to the ERG ‘support my Withdrawal Agreement and I will deliver no-deal.’ In those circumstances, with the help of some Labour MPs, the Commons might approve even Theresa May’s WA.

"The PM would thus have escaped the obligation in the Benn Act to request an extension and could deliver No Deal."

It follows reports that Dominic Cummings, Mr Johnson's top adviser, had told government aides that the government could suspend parliament again in October if the Supreme Court, which will hear an appeal this week, rules that the original suspension was unlawful. No10 insisted the comment was "quite clearly a joke".

But Mr Maugham speculated that Mr Johnson could suspended parliament again once MPs had voted in favour of a Brexit deal, thereby bypassing the Benn Act but depriving rebels of the opportunity to pass further legislation blocking no-deal.

The barrister said he had discussed the loophole with MPs and urged them to take "counter-measures". This should include refusing to vote for any Brexit deal before 19 October, he suggested, saying: "Those who want the Withdrawal Agreement should refuse on the basis that, by voting for it, they may well be delivering No Deal."

He said Mr Johnson would then be forced to request an extension, leaving plenty of time for the withdrawal agreement to be approved and fully ratified, if MPs agreed to it.

[greybeard]

Boris is smiling through it all.
I suspect that no matter what happens, Boris is getting what he wants.
It may have very little to do with the Brexit outcome.
Am I being conspiracy theorist minded?

The current situation makes no sense.

Boris declaring he is all up for a deal but nothing being put on the table.
Parliament not able to ask awkward questions--and there are many exit MPs.
As far as I can see getting a deal with or without the back stop through Parliament is just not possible.
So I get that crashing out regardless is very attractive.

To my mind getting this to an end there are only two real options.
Leaving no deal or not exiting.
I may be wrong but this has gone on more than long enough.

Chris

[greybeard]

Jeremy Corbyn: I’ll stay neutral and let the people decide on Brexit
The Guardian Rowena Mason Deputy political editor,The Guardian

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/corbyn-vow...183113093.html

Jeremy Corbyn has set out the four pillars of a “sensible” Brexit deal he would negotiate with the EU, as he pledged to carry out whatever the people decide in a second EU referendum as Labour prime minister.

The Labour leader set out how he would go into an election offering to negotiate a Brexit deal involving a customs union, ahead of next week’s party conference where activists will launch a bid to shift the party’s position towards campaigning to remain in the EU.

At the annual gathering in Brighton, some members will attempt to force a conference vote on the issue, with the aim of getting a promise to campaign for remain in the party’s next general election manifesto. Senior shadow cabinet figures – John McDonnell, Emily Thornberry, Tom Watson and Nick Brown – have all said they would want to campaign to stay in the bloc regardless of any Brexit deal negotiated by Labour.

However, Corbyn’s statement is the strongest sign yet that he will resist demands to pick a side and would opt to stay out of campaigning in a second referendum on a Labour-negotiated Brexit deal, allowing him to pitch himself as the neutral referee who pledges to carry out whatever the public decides.

This would help avoid the situation David Cameron found himself in as prime minister in 2016, when he resigned from No 10 after ending up on the losing side.

Related: Only Labour will give the people a final say on Brexit

Writing in the Guardian, Corbyn laid down a marker of his determination to seek a better Brexit deal from the EU, which the party believes it could negotiate quickly based on conversations already undertaken with Brussels.

“A Labour government would secure a sensible deal based on the terms we have long advocated, including a new customs union with the EU; a close single market relationship; and guarantees of workers’ rights and environmental protections,” he said. “We would then put that to a public vote alongside remain. I pledge to carry out whatever the people decide, as a Labour prime minister.”

This would form the basis of what Corbyn describes as a “credible leave option” which would be offered at a referendum against the option of remaining in the EU.

Corbyn also positioned Labour as “the only UK-wide party ready to put our trust in the people of Britain to make the decision”, after the Liberal Democrats changed their position to campaigning for a revocation of article 50 in a bid to attract remain voters.

He said: “Johnson wants to crash out with no deal. That is something opposed by business, industry, the trade unions and most of the public – and even by the Vote Leave campaign’s co-convener, Michael Gove, who said earlier this year: ‘We didn’t vote to leave without a deal.’

“And now the Liberal Democrats want MPs to overturn the referendum result by revoking article 50 in a parliamentary stitch-up. It is simply undemocratic to override the decision of a majority of the voters without going back to the people.

“Labour is the only party determined to bring people together. Only a vote for Labour will deliver a public vote on Brexit. Only a Labour government will put the power back into the hands of the people. Let’s stop a no-deal Brexit – and let the people decide.”

Corbyn’s decision to set out his stall in favour of negotiating a Brexit deal and then putting that to a referendum presents a challenge to conference delegates over whether to back his stance or a more pro-remain position if it comes to a vote.

An effort to change Labour’s Brexit position will start on Saturday in Brighton, where delegates will discuss 80 motions submitted by local parties in favour of campaigning to remain in a second referendum.

After a process called “compositing”, one or two motions will emerge to be voted on by the wider conference later in the week. This may end up as a battle between largely remain-supporting activists and trade unions who favour Corbyn’s position, unless the two sides can agree on a compromise motion that avoids a public row.

A majority of the Brexit motions submitted have been put forward either by Another Europe is Possible (AEP) or two other groups, Labour for a Socialist Europe and Open Labour.

Michael Chessum, from AEP, said: “Labour has already crossed the Rubicon in promising a public vote with an option to remain. It would be utterly absurd, in those circumstances, for Labour not to campaign for remain when 90% of its members want to stay in the EU. Trying to prevent Labour from backing remain is a dead end for Corbyn – it will inevitably fail and it risks the morale of our base at at a crucial moment.”

Last week, Watson, the party’s deputy leader, used a speech to argue that Labour should “unambiguously and unequivocally back remain” and also seek a second Brexit referendum before a general election. The idea was swiftly rejected by Corbyn, who called it “Tom’s view”.

In his article, Corbyn promised that he would back a general election as soon as Boris Johnson’s threat of a no deal Brexit is avoided through an extension to article 50.

[greybeard]

Jean-Claude Juncker: 'We can have a deal' and 'Brexit will happen'
Sky News Adam Parsons, Europe correspondent,Sky News

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/jean-claud...170000164.html

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has told Sky News that "we can have a deal" on Brexit.

Mr Juncker said a no-deal Brexit would have "catastrophic consequences" and said he was doing "everything to get a deal".

And he said he was prepared to get rid of the so-called backstop from a withdrawal agreement, so long as "the objectives are met - all of them".

In a UK exclusive interview with Sky's Sophy Ridge, Mr Junker confirmed that he has been sent documents by Prime Minister Boris Johnson outlining draft ideas for a new Brexit deal.

Mr Juncker, however, said they had arrived late on Wednesday night, and he had yet to read them.

The 64-year-old, who spent nearly two decades as the prime minister of Luxembourg, became president of the commission five years ago. His term finishes on 31 October, the same day that the United Kingdom is due to leave the European Union.

Earlier this week, he met the PM in Luxembourg - the first time the two men have met since Mr Johnson took over in Number 10. They spoke for two hours over a working lunch before Mr Johnson went off for his ill-fated meeting with Luxembourg's Prime Minister Xavier Bettel.

"I had a meeting with Boris Johnson that was rather positive," Mr Juncker said.

"I think we can have a deal. I am doing everything to have a deal because I don't like the idea of a no-deal because I think this would have catastrophic consequences for at least one year.

"We are prepared for no-deal, and I hope Britain is prepared as well - but I'm not so sure."

Asked if he had received the proposals from the British government, he said they had arrived "yesterday night" but had received no opportunity to read them yet. But he added that he had spoken to Mr Johnson on the phone "without knowing the content of the British proposals".

But Mr Juncker did confirm to Sky News that he was now prepared to get rid of the controversial backstop plan, designed to prevent the return of a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, but widely criticised as having the potential to tie Britain to European Union rules for an indefinite amount of time.

Mr Juncker agreed that a deal would revolve around the idea that Northern Ireland would follow EU rules on food and agriculture, with other checks being done away from the border.

"It is the basis of a deal. It is the starting and the arrival point," he said. "The internal market has to be preserved in its entirety."

Britain's new proposals are believed to revolve around a collection of ideas, known as the alternative arrangements, designed to offer a suite of separate guarantees that would satisfy politicians in Brussels and London, while avoiding the need for infrastructure on the border.

Mr Juncker said: "I was asking the Prime Minister the other day to make concrete proposals as far as so-called alternative arrangements are concerned, allowing us and Britain to achieve the main objectives of the backstop. I don't have an emotional relationship to the backstop. If the results are there, I don't care about it."

Asked if that meant that the backstop could go, he answered: "if the objectives are met - all of them - then we don't need the backstop. It was a guarantee, not an aim by itself."

He remains hopeful that a deal can be done before he leaves office.

"Brexit will happen," said Mr Juncker.

Full interview in Sophy Ridge on Sunday at 8.30am

[greybeard]

Boris Johnson has to deliver a Brexit deal. And now he may be on track to do it
The Guardian Simon Jenkins,The Guardian

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boris-john...145216970.html

The good ship Brexit surges forward, jagged rocks and whirlpools on all sides. Non-papers are on the table. The president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, says: “We can have a deal.” The French and the Finns have given Boris Johnson until the end of the month to show “if his deal exists”. He wants to wait until after the Tory conference in two weeks, or even until the EU summit in four. What on earth is going on?

I still believe Johnson is on track to pull off a coup. He has an obvious problem, but with an obvious solution. Earlier this year he promised to leave the EU by 31 October “do or die … no ifs or buts”. This pledge was for no other purpose but to win the Tory leadership. It worked. Given his reputation as a liar, he really has no alternative but to deliver. Yet he needs help from Brussels. Otherwise he must endure the humiliation of a further Brexit delay.

Related: EU rejects Boris Johnson request to remove backstop

Enter problem number two. The only deal that enables the October deadline to be met is Theresa May’s deal that he himself supported last March. But it is – or was – anathema to much of his party and to Northern Ireland’s DUP, fused as the backbone of his support in the Commons. He cannot rely on Labour or the minority parties to back him should he revive May’s deal, especially given that they are now in the remain camp and think they have trapped him into further delay. So he needs his backwoodsmen onside, and they are still deferring to the DUP. Johnson is hamstrung by Northern Ireland. The curse of the “first” British empire is still alive and kicking.

Johnson’s strategy is to drive the Northern Irish to the limit. That is why the important meeting this week was not in Brussels or Luxembourg. It was between Dublin’s Leo Varadkar and the DUP leader, Arlene Foster. For months Foster has been nonsensically demanding that the UK leave the customs union with no hard border in Ireland and no border down the Irish Sea. It recalls the satirical Paisleyite demand that Britain rejoin Northern Ireland to the Scottish landmass as in prehistory, and rechannel the Irish Sea through Armagh and Lough Erne. This was revived last week in Johnson’s madcap suggestion of a bridge.

Foster has had a number of shocks recently. Her business community is appalled by the prospect of no deal and the loss of the EU single market. It could cost 40,000 jobs. The Police Service of Northern Ireland has warned that any hard border would be a “direct threat” to its members. More alarming, polls have shown that Northern Irish opinion is not only in favour of remain, but narrow majorities are now in favour of a customs union with the south rather than with Britain, and even in favour of Irish reunification. The DUP may be on the brink of becoming history.

Johnson would have to dress up his deal as May-plus or May-minus, but that is for wordsmiths

Challenged in Dublin on Wednesday about her intransigence, Foster confessed to “flexibility”, a word almost unknown in Northern Irish politics. She accepted that Northern Ireland’s geography meant distinguishing the Northern Ireland backstop from a “Northern Ireland-only deal”, involving a possible “special economic zone” in Ireland. That a restored Stormont should be “consulted” on such a zone was accepted by Brussels. The DUP appears to have drawn back from demanding a veto. No one is calling it a backstop. On such terminological niceties the rock of diplomacy sometimes rests.

It is now clear that Johnson’s lead negotiator, David Frost, has in his ring-file a form of words designed to offer long-term comfort to the EU and the Irish government. They are words that will be pressed on Foster and her colleagues – and on Tory backbenchers – as the deadlines approach. These words cannot be revealed to the EU or to parliament, since they can still frighten the horses. The EU is not yet the issue. Johnson can kiss and make up to the entire gang of 27, but that is no good if Churchill’s “dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone” still stand immutable. This is politics in the raw.

What now matters is timing. Johnson may have exasperated Brussels beyond endurance, but the EU must accept the crude realities of democracy – which it never does with good grace. I assume shrewder heads in the corridors of Brussels get the point. Deadlines are not for fun. They are part of the chemistry of politics. Johnson’s party conference is critical. He needs his ducks in a row.

Related: Boris Johnson calls for EU 'common sense' over Brexit backstop

People forget that what is being sought here is not a Brexit “deal” but rather a hiatus in a deal – a two-year pause in which to reach a new trade settlement, soft or hard, with the EU. What is needed is a form of words, in effect between Belfast and Dublin, ensuring that, should Britain eventually and stupidly leave the single market, special arrangements for Northern Ireland are feasible. They need only be feasible. If so, grownup EU negotiators need not obsess about a fixed backstop. An equilibrium of compromise is in the interest of both sides.

Johnson would have to dress up his deal as May-plus or May-minus, but that is for wordsmiths. His one need is to deliver formal Brexit on target. It would leave both Labour and the Liberal Democrats, now pledged to various forms of remain, up the electoral creek without a paddle. For Johnson it would be a real political coup, and set him up for an election.

Of course I could be wrong. But the alternative is beyond mad. It would require Johnson’s entire no-deal antics, in parliament and beyond, to be no more than a ghastly Bullingdon Club prank – a nation imposing a huge economic sanction on itself for nothing but its leader’s warped vanity. I cannot believe the prime minister wants that for his epitaph.

• Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist