The UK Brexit vote to leave the EU [Archive] - Page 4 - The Project Avalon Community Forum

greybeard

28th August 2019, 08:05

EU ready to look at 'realistic' backstop plans from Johnson
The Guardian Jennifer Rankin in Brussels and Jessica Elgot,The Guardian

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/eu-ready-look-apos-realistic-171138181.html

EU officials are ready to look at “realistic” proposals from Boris Johnson on the Irish backstop – the main obstacle to a Brexit deal – but are pessimistic about his government’s chances of coming up with workable ideas.

Downing Street’s optimism over an apparent shift in the EU’s willingness to negotiate could be scuppered by a new Irish push to reinforce the importance of the insurance policy against a hard border on the island of Ireland.

Johnson’s Europe envoy, David Frost, is due to return to Brussels on Wednesday for meetings with officials as both sides strive to avoid a no-deal Brexit on 31 October.

Related: Brexit: No 10 optimistic over EU 'shift' but Ireland presses for backstop

After the G7 summit and meetings with Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron in Berlin and Paris, the EU is taking the prime minister more seriously as a dealmaker. EU officials now think he is genuine about wanting an agreement, but are sceptical he can bring his party with him.

One senior EU official told the Guardian the sequence of meetings in Berlin, Paris and Biarritz had introduced a new dynamic: “While we are not in a situation where we are thinking that Johnson is really serious about a deal, at least there is that possibility that he might be and that is a big change.”

“The political arithmetic hasn’t changed, the political timetable hasn’t changed. But we have to listen and we have to look [at his ideas],” the official added.

Johnson spoke to the president of the European commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, on Tuesday evening. A commission statement said that in the call “President Juncker repeated his willingness to work constructively with prime minister Johnson and to look at any concrete proposals he may have, as long as they are compatible with the withdrawal agreement. A ‘no-deal’ scenario will only ever be the UK’s decision, not the EU’s.”

A Downing Street source said that there was still not a substantive “openness to action” despite a “shift in rhetoric” from EU leaders. No 10 believes the EU27 must consider whether to approve a new negotiating mandate, something hinted at by Juncker in his call with Johnson. “That would be a sign they are serious about this,” a source said.

The EU sees a chance to reach a deal after Johnson declared in Berlin last week that he was more than happy to accept a “blistering timetable” of 30 days to find a compromise. This U-turn from his previous refusal to talk unless the EU scrapped the backstop was seen as an important shift in the UK accepting the onus of finding the solution.

What is the original 'backstop' in the Withdrawal Agreement?

Variously described as an insurance policy or safety net, the backstop is a device in the Withdrawal Agreement intended to ensure that there will not be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, even if no formal deal can be reached on trade and security arrangements.

It would mean that if there were no workable agreement on such matters, Northern Ireland would stay in the customs union and much of the single market, guaranteeing a friction-free border with the Republic. This would keep the Good Friday agreement intact.

Both the UK and EU signed up to the basic idea in December 2017 as part of the initial Brexit deal, but there have been disagreements since on how it would work.

The DUP have objected to it, as it potentially treats Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the UK, creating a customs divide in the Irish sea, which is anathema to the unionist party.

Hardline Tory Eurosceptics also object to it, as they perceive it to be a trap that could potentially lock the UK into the EU's customs union permanently if the UK & EU cannot seal a free trade agreement. That would prevent the UK from doing its own free trade deals with nations outside the bloc.

What was added to May's withdrawal agreement?

Joint interpretative instrument

A legal add-on to the withdrawal agreement was given to Theresa May in January 2019 to try and get her deal through the UK parliament. It gives legal force to a letter from Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk, the presidents of the commission and council. This stated the EU’s intention to negotiate an alternative to the backstop so it would not be triggered, or, if it was triggered, to get out of it as quickly as possible.

Unilateral statement from the UK

This set out the British position that, if the backstop was to become permanent and talks on an alternative were going nowhere, the UK believes it would be able to exit the arrangement.

Additional language in political declaration

This emphasises the urgency felt on both sides to negotiate an alternative to the backstop, and flesh out what a technological fix would look like. However, it failed to persuade the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, who said that while it 'reduces the risk' of the UK being trapped in a backstop indefinitely, it does not remove it.

What happens next?

Prime minister Boris Johnson declared the Northern Ireland backstop “dead” during his leadership campaign, and promised to throw it out of any deal he re-negotiated with the EU. The EU has repeatedly stated that it will not re-open the Withdrawal Agreement for re-negotiation.

Daniel Boffey, Martin Belam and Peter Walker

“The ball is in London’s court,” said an EU diplomat. “Boris Johnson hasn’t tabled a concrete plan, but there is certainly a slight hope that a solution can be found.”

It is understood No 10 believes there has been a “rhetorical shift” from the EU compared with a month ago when the backstop and withdrawal agreement were considered sacrosanct.

This subtle change has been signalled by the EU chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, who said the bloc was ready to analyse British proposals that were “realistic, operational and compatible with our principles”.

Diplomats have pointed out that the backstop is written as a protocol, separate to the withdrawal agreement. Although this interpretation is not shared by all Brussels insiders, such nuances could open the way to a face-saving compromise.

Legal niceties aside, all EU officials stress that any alternative to the backstop must do the same job. “A withdrawal agreement … without having an insurance policy is not going to work,” said another EU diplomat. “We are quite serious about looking at proposals from the UK side to do it differently.”

The diplomat said they were “not optimistic” Johnson could deliver. “We haven’t seen anything from the UK yet that gives an indication of where they want to go and therefore there is nothing we can entertain.”

Johnson is expected to meet Ireland’s taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, in Dublin early next week, a meeting that a Downing Street source described as “clearly crucial”.

Ireland’s deputy prime minister, Simon Coveney, started a five-city Brexit tour of EU capitals on Tuesday to reinforce the importance of the backstop and Good Friday agreement for Ireland’s economic and social stability, in a challenge to the perception that the EU is showing signs of flexibility on the measure.
Simon Coveney addresses the media in Prague
Simon Coveney addresses the media in Prague on Tuesday. Photograph: Petr David Josek/AP

The narrow landing ground for a deal was illustrated by the cool reaction in Brussels to an alternative backstop plan drafted by a British former commission official and two academics. Jonathan Faull, who led the commission taskforce during David Cameron’s renegotiation, and his colleagues said they had come up with “an offer the EU and UK cannot refuse”.

The plan would allow different regulatory standards in Northern Ireland and Ireland while avoiding the need for a sea border. It would require the UK and Ireland to make it a criminal offence to knowingly export goods across the frontier that breached standards on either side. The proposal has attracted “considerable interest”, the authors told Politico.

But the senior EU official said it was a retread of Theresa May’s doomed Chequers plan, rejected by Brussels partly because it required the EU to outsource customs controls to the UK. “It is magical thinking written in very polite and crisp English,” the source said.

Related: 'Democracy will win through': readers on the cross-party no deal statement

Even if Johnson comes up with proposals that have eluded the British government for the last three years, he may have run out of time to pass them through parliament, where he has a majority of one.

EU insiders are also unconvinced that Johnson’s advisers or the Conservative party would support a compromise. “Is no deal better to secure his [Johnson’s] own position?” asked one diplomat. “Yes, because anything else will lead to the breakup of the Tory party. I do not see this Tory government going for a deal. That is what troubles me.”

A UK government spokesperson said: “We are ready to negotiate in good faith an alternative to the backstop with provisions to ensure the Irish border issues are dealt with where they should always have been: in the negotiations on the future agreement between the UK and the EU.

“The UK government is working at pace to find a wide range of flexible and creative solutions to the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland.”

greybeard

28th August 2019, 09:27

Boris Johnson set to ‘suspend Parliament in September’ to block no-deal Brexit revolt
Yahoo News UK Ross McGuinness,Yahoo News UK

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boris-johnson-set-to-suspend-parliament-in-september-to-block-nodeal-brexit-revolt-082532144.html

Boris Johnson is set to suspend Parliament in September in an effort to block a no-deal Brexit revolt among MPs, it has been reported.

The BBC said the prime minister will ask the Queen to suspend Parliament days after MPs return to the chamber and just weeks before the Brexit deadline.

He wants prorogation of Parliament from September 10, meaning the government can hold a Queen’s Speech on October 14 to lay out its plans.

Crucially, MPs are unlikely to have time to pass laws that could prevent Mr Johnson taking Britain out of the EU without a deal on October 31.

A Number 10 source told the BBC: "It's time a new government and new PM set out a plan for the country after we leave the EU."

The move by Mr Johnson means a likely Brexit showdown in the House of Commons next week, as MPs against no-deal try to block the plans.

After cross-party talks led by Labour's Jeremy Corbyn on Tuesday, MPs against no deal promised to thwart Mr Johnson’s plans by passing new legislation when the Commons returns from its summer break next week.

But if Parliament is suspended on September 10 as the government plans, they will only have days to mount a challenge.

Tory MP and Remain campaigner Dominic Grieve said it was ”an outrageous act”.

He warned it could lead to a vote of no confidence in Mr Johnson.

"This government will come down,” he said.

Deputy Labour leader Tom Watson tweeted: "We do not have a 'new government'. This action is an utterly scandalous affront to our democracy. We cannot let this happen."

Scotland First Minister Nicola Sturgeon tweeted: "So it seems that Boris Johnson may actually be about to shut down Parliament to force through a no deal Brexit.

“Unless MPs come together to stop him next week, today will go down in history as a dark one indeed for UK democracy."

In response to the report, Independent Group for Change MP Chris Leslie wrote on Twitter: "If true, this undemocratic manoeuvre to try and shut down Parliament must be fought every step of the way.

"How totally underhanded of Boris Johnson to make the Queen sign off on this plot it in a secret ceremony up in Balmoral. The House of Commons must assemble and veto this."

After it was reported that the government could suspend Parliament from mid-September, Conservative Party chairman James Cleverly tweeted: "Or to put it another way: Government to hold a Queen's Speech, just as all new governments do."

Green MP Caroline Lucas said on Twitter: "Wasn't this meant to be about 'taking back control'?

"The act of a cowardly Prime Minister who knows his reckless No Deal Brexit will never gain the support of MPs. A constitutional outrage which Parliament and the people will oppose."

Liberal Democrats Brexit spokesman Tom Brake tweeted: "@BorisJohnson's just thrown down the gauntlet to Parliamentary democracy.

"The mother of all Parliaments will not allow him to shut the #PeoplesParliament out of the biggest decision facing our country.

"His declaration of war will be met with an iron fist."

Labour MP and former Government minister Yvette Cooper tweeted: "Boris Johnson is trying to use the Queen to concentrate power in his own hands - this is a deeply dangerous and irresponsible way to govern."

Former Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston, who recently joined the Lib Dems, tweeted: "Johnson behaving like a tin pot dictator.

“Time for ministers to resign & Conservative MPs to cross the floor rather than be tainted with this outrage."

Independent Group for Change leader Anna Soubry, herself a former Tory MP, tweeted: "Outrageous that Parliament will be shut down at a moment of crisis as we face crashing out of the EU with no deal & for which there is no mandate.

"Our democracy is under threat from a ruthless PM elected by less than 100K Con members. Email your MP now & demand Parliament sits."

Hilary Benn, Labour MP and chairman of the Brexit Select Committee, tweeted: "Whatever views one holds on Brexit, it is completely unacceptable that Parliament should be prevented from holding the Government to account at this absolutely crucial time for our country and its future."

greybeard

28th August 2019, 11:31

Does the end justify the means?
A year from now or less we might be thanking Boris or not as the case might be.
Exciting times.
There will be a movie made about this no doubt.

Chris

silvanelf

28th August 2019, 16:05

Oops ...

Queen Agrees to Suspend Parliament In Brexit Dispute But Speaker Calls it 'Constitutional Outrage'

The Queen has granted Boris Johnson's request to suspend Parliament next month as the government seeks to stymie efforts to thwart a no-deal Brexit.

Downing Street says the Queen's Speech will take place on 14 October, only two weeks before the Brexit deadline.

Opposition leaders are up in arms as they say MPs would then have little time to pass laws which would prevent Mr Johnson taking Britain out of the EU on 31 October.

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201908281076658935-uk-government-to-ask-queen-to-suspend-parliament-until-14-october-to-deliver-brexit---reports/

Baby Steps

28th August 2019, 16:18

welcome to a possible scenario where millions of british snowflakes, gawd bless 'em, are about to learn what the difference is between a citizen and a subject.

wakey wakey republicanism....

greybeard

28th August 2019, 16:30

welcome to a possible scenario where millions of british snowflakes, gawd bless 'em, are about to learn what the difference is between a citizen and a subject.

wakey wakey republicanism....

Wow thats smart and possibly oh so true.
Thanks
Chris

greybeard

28th August 2019, 16:39

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157

Petition Do not prorogue Parliament

Parliament must not be prorogued or dissolved unless and until the Article 50 period has been sufficiently extended or the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU has been cancelled.

Over half a million signatures already.

Chris

greybeard

28th August 2019, 17:02

I signed the petition as I believe the action to close down parliament un democratic.
Now here is the thing.
I received an e mail to confirm my signature--my e mail is frozen
I cant confirm.
skulduggery?
Smiling
Chris

greybeard

28th August 2019, 17:26

Ok Can confirm signature now
The Gov petition site probably over loaded.
Chris

greybeard

29th August 2019, 06:16

I get why Boris is doing what he does.
Its unlikely that Parliament would pass any thing concerning Brexit--so divided.
His way would bring the matter to a close.
Only other way is another referendum--people change their minds.
But maybe not.
Chris

greybeard

30th August 2019, 08:47

Boris Johnson vows to 'step up the tempo' of Brexit talks
Sky News Rob Powell and Greg Heffer, political reporters,Sky News

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boris-johnson-vows-step-tempo-brexit-talks-213200688.html

Boris Johnson has said talks with the European Union will be stepped up in the coming weeks in a bid to secure a new Brexit deal.

UK negotiators will now meet their EU counterparts twice a week, a significant increase on the current rate.

The prime minister had previously suggested there would be little point to discussions until the EU accepted the needs for changes to the existing agreement.

But writing overnight, Mr Johnson said he was "encouraged" by the reaction from EU leaders, adding that it was "now time for both sides to step up the tempo" ahead of the 31 October Brexit deadline.

The prime minister met with his European counterparts in Paris and Berlin last week and at the G7 summit over the weekend.

Downing Street indicated the two sides remained some distance apart on key issues but said the talks would include discussions about the Irish backstop, which Mr Johnson wants removed.

Ireland's foreign minister Simon Coveney said "nothing credible" had yet to be presented by the UK government in terms of alternatives to the backstop.

Arriving for talks on Friday with his EU counterparts in Helsinki, Finland, he said: "There is no country that wants a deal more than Ireland.

"But that deal has to be based on the withdrawal agreement and has to be consistent with that."

He added: "If there are alternatives to the backstop that do the same job, well then let's hear them.

"And if we can work out a deal on that basis, so be it. But it's got to be credible.

"It cannot simply be this notion that we must have the backstop removed and we'll solve this problem in the future negotiations, without any credible way of doing that. That's not going to fly."

However, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps told Sky News that Mr Coveney's claim was "just not true", adding: "We are putting forward ideas".

"No country which has voted to leave the EU can accept as part of that deal an anti-democratic backstop - in this case applied to Northern Ireland - which means that not all of the country would leave Europe at the same time and in the same way," he said.

"This is a very basic, fundamental fact - no self-respecting sovereign state could accept that."

He added: "We are putting forward alternatives.

"Between the Republic [of Ireland] and Northern Ireland we already have, if you think about it, different legal systems, different political systems, different economic systems, different money in these different countries.

"So the idea that, suddenly, you tick over to 1 November and everything is change and it's all impossible to handle is already untrue because you've already got two different systems.

"We've put forward ideas about trusted trader schemes using the technology that's already available to do this.

"So it's a cover when they keep saying 'you're not putting forward ideas'. We are putting forward ideas."

:: Listen to All Out Politics on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker

The ramping up of negotiations with the EU will be seen as an effort to quell concern among some in the Conservative Party about the prime minister's Brexit strategy.

Conservative former ministers have said they are prepared to take action next week to stop a no-deal Brexit.

Speaking to Sky News, Tory grandee Kenneth Clarke went further and said he "probably would" vote for Jeremy Corbyn to become a caretaker prime minister if it meant avoiding no-deal.

In a further sign of a unified approach among critics of the government, six opposition parties have signed a joint statement calling for the suspension of parliament to be reversed and saying there is "no mandate" for no-deal.

It comes as the Department for Transport said it would invest £30m in ports, road and rail links to help them get ready for Brexit.

The money will come from a £2bn pot allocated by the Treasury earlier this year for additional Brexit preparations.

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said the money will "boost capacity and efficiency".

Labour has said the amount is "nowhere near enough" given the scale of the challenge faced by ports after Brexit.

BMJ

31st August 2019, 04:16

Bronwyn Bishop former Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives, (Australia being under the Westminster System like the UK), discuss the process of suspension and also means by which labour could subvert the no deal brexit.

'If I were Boris, I would prorogue the parliament too'

MMo4H4VuKSI

Sky News Australia
Published on Aug 29, 2019
UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has suspended the British Parliament from September 10 to October 14, weeks out from the October 31 Brexit deadline.

Matthew

31st August 2019, 09:55

Mahyar Tousi again talking about current Brexit workings and the concerns of remainers

Love his calm informative style

The EU in Meltdown Over Boris Preparing No Deal Brexit

vIhB8GnzXaw

greybeard

1st September 2019, 07:07

Brexit: Fresh doubts over Boris Johnson’s commitment to deal after extension ruled out
The Independent Jon Stone, Benjamin Kentish,The Independent Fri, 30 Aug 18:51 BST

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/brexit-fresh-doubts-raised-over-175126159.html

Fresh doubts have been cast over Boris Johnson’s commitment to securing a Brexit deal after the government said it would not delay the UK’s departure from the EU even to give parliament time to approve a new agreement.

Mr Johnson’s chief Brexit negotiator, David Frost, ruled out a so-called “technical extension” during talks in Brussels this week, according to a leaked diplomatic memo seen by The Independent.

It raises the prospect that parliament could run out of time to ratify a Brexit deal even if the prime minister manages to secure a new agreement with Brussels.

Mr Johnson claimed on Friday that Remainers were wrecking Britain’s chances of leaving the EU with a deal by making Brussels officials believe that Brexit could be stopped.

But MPs warned that approving any deal would be “impossible” in just a few days after the PM’s move to suspend parliament, fuelling fears that Britain is heading for a no deal even as the government insists it is intensifying talks with the EU.

The Institute for Government think tank also said it would be “very tricky” for parliament to approve a deal in time, prompting Labour MPs to claim that Mr Johnson was not serious about negotiating a new agreement and was instead simply “telling people what they want to hear”.

Downing Street has suggested any deal could be ratified by 31 October, even if MPs had to work through the night.

Next week, ministers will launch a £100m “Get Ready” campaign urging businesses and members of the public to prepare for a no-deal Brexit. New concerns about the impact of no deal were raised after warnings that the UK could run out of flu vaccines.

MPs will launch a last-ditch bid to block a no-deal Brexit when parliament resumes next week after its summer break. Mr Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament from early September until just two weeks before 31 October gives opponents of no deal only days to act.

They were dealt a blow yesterday when a court ruled that the suspension, known as prorogation, could continue, despite a group of MPs and peers urging judges to declare it unconstitutional.

Mr Johnson has insisted he wants the UK to leave the EU with a deal, and on Friday claimed that MPs trying to block no deal were making it harder for him to secure an agreement.

He said: “I’m afraid that the more our friends and partners [in Europe] think, at the back of their mind, that Brexit could be stopped, that the UK could be kept in by parliament, the less likely they are to give us the deal that we need.”
image

Read more

Public to be urged to 'get ready' for no-deal in £100m ad blitz

However, Mr Frost is understood to have told EU officials that this must be agreed and ratified by the 31 October deadline, even though most commentators expect any breakthrough to come only at a European Council summit in 17 October – just two weeks before the UK is due to leave.

The diplomat is said to have assured Brussels that ratification of a deal would be possible in the second half of October, even though Mr Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament has cut the time available for MPs to debate Brexit.

But Maddy Thimont Jack, senior researcher at the Institute for Government, told The Independent: “It will be very tricky to get a deal through parliament after the European Council. The only real way to do it is to have the legal text ready so that you’re ready to transfer it to UK law straight away, and then pass the Withdrawal Agreement Bill in an expedited way.

“Johnson has said there will be votes on the Queen’s Speech on 21 and 22 October so from that time until the 31 October there are only six sitting days, which is barely any time.

“There will be a delay if the legal text is not ready, if they agree something last minute and it’s not ready to be transferred into law. That’s the challenge.”

Ms Thimont Jack said the Withdrawal Agreement Bill, which is needed to turn the exit deal into law, was a “hugely complex bill that will have a significant impact on UK law” and should not be rushed through parliament.

She said: “If they do rush it through the Commons they avoid scrutiny, so it’s not a good way to legislate for something that momentous.”
http://players.brightcove.net/624246174001/default_default/index.html?videoId=6078330791001
Boris Johnson confirms prorogation of parliament

Former cabinet minister Sir Oliver Letwin also warned yesterday that Britain would be on course for a disorderly departure even if Mr Johnson returns from the European Council meeting with a new agreement, because MPs would not have enough time to ratify it.

He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “There’s an irony here, which is if he does get a deal, as a matter of fact, he is going to need an extension anyway because it’s impossible to take from the late October stage, a deal which is sort of written down but not solemnised, and implement it in just a few days. So in practice, the government would need to seek an extension.”

Labour MP Alex Sobel, a supporter of the People’s Vote campaign, said Mr Frost’s message to the EU showed Mr Johnson was not being genuine in claiming to want a deal.

He said: “The prime minister tells the British public and MPs that he’s doing everything to get a deal with the EU, but in his communications with the EU he’s saying he won’t delay even for a minute, even if a deal is done but extra time were needed for implementation. It’s the same old Boris Johnson, telling people what they want to hear.”

He added: “An extension to the Article 50 process may well be needed to avoid the disaster of no deal. Boris Johnson’s government do not have the right to impose this catastrophe on the country without public consent, and without the proper time to consider the implications.

“The claim we can get a deal and pass the massive amount of legislation needed to make it work in just a fortnight is an insult to democracy. Laws passed in a hurry are almost always bad laws because without proper scrutiny they contain untested assumptions and reflect ministerial prejudice rather than robust policy. So even if he got a deal under these circumstances, the laws we’d get would make the Poll Tax look like a policy masterpiece.”
http://players.brightcove.net/624246174001/default_default/index.html?videoId=6079312633001
Jeremy Corbyn says he will try to politically stop Boris Johnson shutting down parliament

MPs are set for a series of dramatic showdowns next week when Mr Johnson’s opponents spring into action to try to block a no-deal Brexit. The rebel leaders, including former Tory cabinet ministers Phil Hammond and Dominic Grieve, have remained tight-lipped about their plan for fear of alerting No 10 to their intentions, but are expected to try to rapidly push through a law that would rule out no deal.

While they work on masterminding a parliamentary plot to stop no deal, other MPs are focusing their attention on the courts.

Yesterday, the Court of Session in Scotland refused a request from a group of 70 MPs and peers to block the suspension of parliament until their appeal had been heard in full. Another case will be heard in London next week after being filed by a group including campaigner Gina Miller, former prime minister Sir John Major and Labour’s deputy leader Tom Watson. A third legal bid is under way in Northern Ireland.

As MPs opposed to no deal use the weekend to finalise their strategy, the government is putting the finishing touches to its own plans to encourage businesses and consumers to prepare for the UK crashing out of the EU.

The “Get Ready” advertising campaign has been drawn up by Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove, who is responsible for no-deal planning, in close conjunction with No 10.

It will include printing mugs and T-shirts with the “Get Ready” slogan, paying for billboard adverts across the country and launching a new government web page.

Ministers have insisted repeatedly that the UK will be prepared to leave without a deal on 31 October, but further doubt was cast on the claims after doctors warned that such an outcome could result in a shortage of flu vaccines.

Around a million doses of the vaccines are likely to need to be imported into the UK after the Brexit deadline, just as Britain is faced with a particularly virulent strain of the illness.

Andrew Goddard, the president of the Royal Colleague of Physicians, told BBC Newsnight: “I can’t sit here and say ‘don’t worry, no deal will be fine, no one is going to come to any harm, no one is going to run out of medicines’.

“What we can see is we’re likely to not have enough flu vaccine, we are likely not to have the flu vaccine coverage that we’ve had in previous years, and that is likely to have an impact on the NHS.”
Drugs manufacturer Sanofi UK said shortages would be likely after Brex

greybeard

1st September 2019, 08:09

Brexit latest: Philip Hammond hits back at claims Tory MPs who vote to block no-deal could be sacked
Evening Standard Jacob Jarvis,Evening Standard

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/brexit-latest-philip-hammond-hits-142200817.html

Former Chancellor Philip Hammond has hit out at suggestions Tory MPs who vote against a no-deal Brexit could be sacked.

Mr Hammond responded to reports which suggest Conservative rebels could be forced out should they defy the Government in a touted Commons show down next week.

The Sun reported that those who do defy the whip will be banned from sitting for the party in their seats at the next general election.

Writing on Twitter, Mr Hammond said: "If true, this would be staggeringly hypocritical: 8 members of the current cabinet have defied the party whip this year.

"I want to honour our 2017 manifesto which promised a “smooth and orderly” exit and a “deep and special partnership” with the EU.

"Not an undemocratic No Deal."
Boris Johnson has said no-deal must not be ruled out despite insisting he wants a deal (Sky News)

Mr Hammond has been a prominent opponent to Boris Johnson's stance on no-deal, calling a hard Brexit a "betrayal of the referendum", despite the PM's insistence it should not be ruled out despite also stating he wants a deal.

His latest comments come as Boris Johnson faced a continued backlash on his plans to prorogue Parliament.

The Queen agreed to the suspension from no earlier than September 9 and no later than September 12 to October 14.

Earlier today, Mr Hammond's successor as chancellor Sajid Javid backed the PM's move.

Despite insisting during the Tory leadership campaign he thought proroguing Parliament was a bad idea, Mr Javid has now said the Government needs time to focus on its agenda in the run-up to outlining plans in October's Queen's Speech.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "It is quite usual this time of year, Parliament goes into what's called a conference recess and it doesn't usually sit for some time in September and early October.

"It's right because we are focusing on the people's priorities."

Pressed on his comments during the Tory leadership battle that prorogation could be seen as "trashing" democracy, the Chancellor said: "I wasn't being asked about a Queen's Speech, a Government setting an agenda, that was a question around suspending Parliament for the sake of it for months on end in order to avoid debate."

While health secretary Matt Hancock has similarly addressed comments he made in his own leadership bid.

greybeard

2nd September 2019, 09:15

Johnson could sacrifice majority by withdrawing whip from rebel MPs
The Guardian Jessica Elgot Chief political correspondent,The Guardian

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/johnson-could-sacrifice-majority-withdrawing-210027663.html

Boris Johnson is prepared to blow up his own parliamentary majority and withdraw the whip from dozens of Conservative MPs if they back plans to stop no-deal Brexit, Tory whips have warned potential rebels, in an extreme move by Downing Street that would pave the way for an imminent general election.

As hostilities escalated, Johnson also signalled how serious his intention is to follow through the threat of deselection by abruptly ripping up plans for a meeting with rebellious former ministers, including Philip Hammond and David Gauke, that had been billed as a last-ditch effort to limit support for the action in parliament.

Hammond was offered a one-to-one meeting with the prime minister which he declined, calling it “discourteous” to cancel on the group.

“There has been very little attempt at engagement with us, but these people were going in seeking proof of genuine attempts to get a Brexit deal,” one source close to the MPs said. “The fact it had been cancelled at short notice suggests there isn’t a proper negotiation going on. The next point of engagement will be in the voting lobbies.”

The former cabinet ministers supporting a cross-party bid to stop no deal fought back on Sunday night, telling MPs they must be prepared to take the government to court if it defied any law passed by rebel MPs in parliament.

The threat was prompted by a suggestion from Michael Gove that the government may not feel bound by the legislation.

Related: Brexit: Gove refuses to rule out ignoring any law passed to stop no deal

Ahead of a historic week in parliament, a fierce briefing war erupted across the Conservative party as whips convened for Sunday lunch with Johnson at the prime minister’s country retreat at Chequers, agreeing that any Conservative MP who voted on the rebel legislation would have the whip withdrawn and become ineligible to stand for the party.

“The whips are telling Conservative MPs today a very simple message – if they fail to vote with the government on Tuesday they will be destroying the government’s negotiating position and handing control of parliament to Jeremy Corbyn,” said a senior source in the whips’ office source. “Any Conservative MP who does this will have the whip withdrawn and will not stand as a Conservative candidate in an election.”

Prorogation is the official term that marks the end of a parliamentary session. After being advised to do so by the prime minister, the Queen formally prorogues parliament. This takes the form of an announcement in the House of Lords on the Queen’s behalf. It is a speech, written by the government, which usually describes the bills that have been passed during that session and summarises what has been achieved.

It means that all work on existing legislation stops, and MPs and Lords stop sitting. Prorogation also automatically kills any bills, early day motions or questions to ministers going through parliament.

Parliament can then be reopened a few days later with a fresh slate of legislation intentions, set out in a new Queen’s speech at the formal state opening of parliament.

No 10 believes the nuclear threat of deselection, and its unprecedented consequence of removing the whip of a former chancellor and justice secretary just weeks after they left government, has a serious chance of spooking MPs and wiping the majority for any no-deal legislation in parliament.

Government sources conceded that the practical reality of removing the whip from a significant number of MPs could inevitably lead to a general election.

Without more than 20 MPs currently planning to vote against the government, it would be impossible for Johnson to manage in minority government.

“For a government that has a majority of one which has repeatedly said it does not want an election, to then threaten to deselect 20 MPs, well it suggests that it is not the case,” one prominent rebel said.

The whips’ office source said the seriousness of the threat was to underline that MPs would be deliberately scuppering the chance of a Brexit deal. “There is a chance of a deal on 17 October only because Brussels realises the prime minister is totally committed to leaving on 31 October,” the source said.

Ex-ministers, including Hammond and Gauke, voiced outrage at the threat, calling it hypocrisy that a cabinet with eight former rebels at its heart could then threaten MPs with deselection.

A source close to the MPs under threat of deselection said they would not be deterred: “This is sheer hypocrisy. Almost a quarter of the current cabinet have voted against the party whip. But this is about the national interest, and we’ve moved beyond the point where threats will persuade people to abandon their principles.”

The suggestion by Gove that the government could defy the law also sparked fury from MPs, including one former Tory minister who said it showed democracy was under threat from Johnson’s government.

One source close to the group of ex-ministers said Gove’s comments underlined the urgency of passing the bill this week, to allow time for legal action if the government rejected the new law or if Johnson refused to follow its direction to seek an extension to the Brexit deadline.

“This legislation will need to be taken to the courts if the government decides not to abide by it,” a senior source close to the Conservative rebels said. “That is precisely why we have to act next week. In October, we will not have enough time. It is literally now or never.”

A bill which would mandate another extension of article 50 has been drafted which senior sources said would go into more detail about the length of an extension – unlike the previous law passed by Yvette Cooper and Oliver Letwin which did not specify a timeframe.

Letwin is expected to lead the bill’s presentation, though the effort has been closely coordinated with the shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer and the Labour frontbench. On Tuesday, MPs are expected to immediately ask the Commons Speaker, John Bercow, for an emergency debate under the standing order 24 rule, debates which traditionally end with a neutral motion.

However, rebels hope the Speaker will allow a vote on a motion to set aside Wednesday for MPs to take control of the Commons order paper to pass a bill through all stages in the Commons.

Corbyn will convene a meeting of the shadow cabinet on Monday to outline the plans, saying Labour will do “everything necessary to pull our country back from the brink”.

Starmer said the bill would be “a very short, simple exercise designed to ensure we don’t crash out without a deal,” saying the length of an extension was a “secondary” concern.

“It will be as simple as it possibly can be,” said one source close to the cross-party talks. “That is the only way to keep the coalition together.”

In an interview with the BBC, Gove repeatedly refused to rule out the possibility that the government could ignore any law passed by parliament to stop a no-deal Brexit. “Let’s see what the legislation says,” he said. “You’re asking me about a pig in a poke.”

Starmer called for Johnson to make an urgent statement on Gove’s comments. “For ministers not to confirm that this government will accept and comply with legislation lawfully passed is breathtaking,” he tweeted.

The Conservative MP Guto Bebb, a supporter of the People’s Vote campaign for a second referendum, said Gove had shown the “our very democracy is now under threat from Boris Johnson and his government”.

MPs who have been now been denied the meeting with Johnson said they had planned to challenge the prime minister on the need to devise a concrete proposal for a new deal and demanded a positive reaction from the EU in order to be convinced of Johnson’s sincerity.

“We are now less than three weeks away from the 30-day deadline for an alternative to the backstop,” said a source close to the group. “This is a group who are all reconciled that the best outcome is a Brexit deal. They genuinely want to see helpful signs – so is the prime minister able to give them new, concrete evidence that a deal is in play?”

Speaking on Sky News, Gauke said he hoped that Johnson would not follow through with threats to withdraw the whip but suggested it would not change his mind.

Related: ‘Get Ready for Brexit’: government launches information blitz

“Sometimes there is a point where ... you have to judge between your own personal interests and the national interest. And the national interest has to come first,” he said.

“But, I hope it doesn’t come to that, and I hope cooler and calmer heads will look at this and think that trying to split the Conservative party in this way is not a sensible way forward for the Conservative party, or indeed for the country.”

Former Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt and former health minister Stephen Hammond – both of whom have made clear they will vote for measures to stop no deal – also voiced fury at the threat.

Burt said he had “loyally supported” Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement and voted three times to leave the EU, unlike members of the current cabinet like Jacob Rees-Mogg. “Why am I now being threatened and not them?” he tweeted.

greybeard

2nd September 2019, 10:43

The sheer scale of the crisis facing Britain’s decrepit constitution has been laid bare
The Guardian Will Hutton,The Guardian Sun, 1 Sep 08:00 BST

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/sheer-scale-crisis-facing-britain-070010014.html

Representative democracy is never easy. It’s been obvious for decades that the eight-word British constitution established in 1689 – what the crown assents in parliament is law – is a decaying, time-worn construct on which to protect and advance today’s democracy. It may have seemed “glorious” in the 17th century to hit upon the-then revolutionary notion that the crown can continue, but only if it delegates its monarchial sovereignty to whoever commands a majority in parliament. But it’s a wheeze that today too easily collapses into a highly centralised executive acting dictatorially because of its monarchial authority – and becomes toxic if that dictatorial dimension becomes legitimised by the “will of the people” in a referendum. A constitution with a bias to being an elective dictatorship, as Lord Hailsham famously characterised it, too easily slides into dictatorship by referendum.

It is only unwritten, uncodified understandings that protect the body politic from regressing to government with minimal checks, balances and accountability. They in turn depend upon a political class that, whatever its differences, accepts common rules of the game, especially making sure that any recourse to direct democracy by referendum is firmly subordinated to rule by parliament.

But any residual acceptance of common rules has been exploded by the passionate Brexiter conviction that their referendum victory empowers them to use any ruse available to achieve their goal, even a no-deal Brexit, against the scrutiny of a “Remain” parliament.

Last week, the scale of the weakness of Britain’s constitutional apparatus to obstruct gerrymandering was exposed to all. To prorogue parliament for no better reason than to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of a no-deal Brexit may have been an intolerable abuse of power, and an affront to democracy, but in Britain it is constitutionally possible. As a result, for all the threats of judicial review and court actions, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to challenge.

For the prime minister controls everything, from the business of the House of Commons to the ability to prorogue it. He or she is lent monarchial sovereignty, the same sovereignty that Charles 1 tried to justify because the monarch was supposedly God’s representative on Earth: the divine right of kings, now transmuted into the divine right of Boris. Part of the-then cleverness of the 17th-century deal was that it co-opted the crown into being the above-the-fray, holder-of-the-ring of proper parliamentary procedure and process. But today, that capacity has evaporated.

So when Jacob Rees-Mogg travelled to Balmoral last week to ask the Queen to prorogue parliament, there was virtually no prospect of her refusing – as an elected head of state might have done. She did have the option of saying that on such a controversial use of prerogative power she wanted to go beyond the minimum quorate of three for a privy council meeting (the chief whip and leader of the House of Lords accompanied Rees-Mogg on a separate plane to Balmoral to avoid suspicion) and call for a full meeting including former ministers from other parties, purportedly the constitutional forum to advise her on use of the royal prerogative. But that would have been seen as a political act. She folded. Exposed as a constitutional cipher, the case for an elected head of state has suddenly become unanswerable.

It is but one of the many constitutional earthquakes triggered by Brexit whose aftershocks will be felt for decades. Even the character of the referendum itself is testament to our lack of a constitution. No super-majority was required for this fundamental change in Britain’s relationship with Europe, any more than it was for the Scottish referendum: amazingly, a 42-year and a 300-year union could be ripped apart by a majority of one citizen’s vote. There were no requirements for Leave to spell out its case, the policing of how money was raised was feeble and there were no sanctions for outright misrepresentation.

Those countries that use referendums a lot, Switzerland and Ireland, for example, have elaborate rules for how they are conducted. In Britain, typically, there are no pre-agreed rules, just ad-hoc legislation arising from the particular power conjuncture of the day: the Cameron government on the run before its rightwing Eurosceptic zealots.

What is happening is the culmination of a rightwing coup that has deployed the weakness of Britain’s constitution to drive through toxic, divisive change, the manipulated will of the people trumping representative democracy. Yes, there were deep-set economic, social and cultural reasons behind the Leave vote, but it was British democratic arrangements that framed both the fact and character of the referendum.
Protest against Boris Johnson proroguing parliament in Trafalgar Square, London, on 31 August.
Protest against Boris Johnson proroguing parliament in Trafalgar Square, London, on 31 August. Photograph: Matthew Chattle/REX/Shutterstock

The citizenry had become disillusioned with the parliamentary process, so that direct democracy seemed more democratic. And there were no obstacles to creating a rules-free, simple majority referendum.

To win then and now, those in favour of EU membership needed to recognise they had to trump the narrative of an undemocratic Europe by recognising more profound democratic failings at home. Balking at such radicalism, Remain instead found itself the advocate of a hard-to-justify status quo; an archaic state, a decaying democracy and rampant social inequality inflamed by fears of immigration. Leave was allowed to blame it all on the EU – cover for their ultra-rightwing ambitions.

A wholesale change of mindset was needed. Remain should have stood for a re-democratised Britain that put power in the hands of the people and for transformative economic and social change that would make Britain better, not worse. To leave the EU, it should have said, would be to abandon that prospect.

To succeed with this message required the Labour party to take it to its heart. It had to understand that Brexit was an ultra-rightwing project, to own EU membership, to understand the necessity of fashioning a fit-for-purpose constitution and to marry that with a powerful case for remaking economy and society to benefit the mass of the British. All combine to make the Remain case.

But the British left has never owned the case for a constitutional reset. Jeremy Corbyn can’t authentically criticise the divine right of Boris when he wants to be a no less divine Jeremy, legislating to create British socialism with little or no constraint, one of the reasons even liberal anti-no-deal Tories are so terrified of making common cause with him. In the left wing conception constitutions, after all, are bourgeois constructs to serve the interests of the ruling class. The world of checks, balances, organising a federal Britain to keep Scotland in the union, electing our head of state, creating a fair voting system and pre-agreeing the terms on which referenda are held are dismissed as the preoccupations of liberal, middle-class intellectuals. The 2017 Labour manifesto’s call for a constitutional convention, only to “consult” and “consider the option of a more federalised country”, feels and was but an afterthought.

Last week demonstrated that instead the constitution is fundamental. Corbyn was right: in the British system, the only surefire way to stop a no-deal Brexit is to establish an interim government in control of parliament and its agenda, extend the 31 October deadline and then hold an election paving the way for a referendum in which Remain will be an option. Abandoning that strategy and attempting to muster a Commons majority legislating against no deal – although the best option if there is no guarantee of winning a vote of no-confidence – is second best and full of risk.

After last week’s events, which enraged the bravest and best in the Tory party, Corbyn has a chance to build on the emerging coalition for legislation and make his offer again, but copper-bottoming it constitutionally as an alternative to Johnson. As interim prime minister, he will exercise no prerogative power, introduce no new policies, wholly respect every constitutional protocol and commit to hold a fully-fledged constitutional convention after the election.

He needs no more than a dozen Conservative MPs to agree – and such commitments may give them the cover they need. Ken Clarke is almost there; others are close. As the government tomorrow launches its £100m prepare for no deal national advertising campaign, alerting the public to the prospect of imminent mayhem, it is make-up-your-mind time for everyone. The atmosphere will darken. Johnson and Cummings thought proroguing was a clever wheeze. Instead, it has given the opponents of no deal the opening not just to block no deal by law, but oust the divine charlatan and his rancid cabal. The opportunity must be seized.

• Will Hutton is an Observer columnist

greybeard

2nd September 2019, 16:39

Tony Blair: 'I'd vote for Jeremy Corbyn to stop Brexit'
Yahoo News UK Jimmy Nsubuga,Yahoo News UK

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/tony-blair-id-vote-for-jeremy-corbyn-to-stop-brexit-111634136.html

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has said he is prepared to vote for Jeremy Corbyn in a general election if it means stopping Brexit.

Mr Blair said he did not agree with some of the current Labour leader’s policies but was still willing to back him for the good of the country.

“That’s a really difficult question,” he said when asked if he’d vote for Labour during a speech at the Institute for Government in London on Monday.

He added: “Because of the struggle I have with other aspects of Labour policy.

“There are some huge problems with the Labour Party. I personally believe so strongly on Brexit that I would do virtually anything to stop it.”

Pushed if that “included voting for Jeremy Corbyn”, he said: “Yeah, including that.”

He added: “The dilemma I have expressed to you very honestly is the dilemma of a lot of people are faced with.”

But Mr Blair warned against the UK holding an election before Brexit was delivered and described it as an “elephant trap” for the Labour party.

He said he feared Mr Corbyn could lose because the electorate did not think he’d make a good prime minister.

Mr Blair advised Mr Corbyn to reject a general election if he was offered it by the Tories because he felt they were preparing for one and wanted to make it seem as if they were pushed.

He added: “Boris Johnson knows that if no-deal Brexit stands on its own as a proposition it might well fail but if he mixes it up with the Corbyn question in a general election he could succeed despite a majority being against a no-deal Brexit because some may fear a Corbyn premiership more.”

Asked if Labour could win a general election, Mr Blair said “it is conceivable” but added: “Look at the polling.

“If I was polling at 20% when I was leader of the opposition, I would have had people knocking at my door.”

Johnson has pledged to deliver Brexit on October 31 whether he agrees a new deal with the European Union or not.

Opposition MPs - and a contingent from Johnson’s Conservatives from Tuesday - will try to legislate this week to stop the possibility of no-deal.

Johnson has threatened to expel rebel Conservative lawmakers if they thwart his Brexit plans by voting with the opposition, a move that would eradicate his already slim majority and make his ability to govern very difficult.

He could then seek an election to break the deadlock.

samildamach

2nd September 2019, 18:29

Corbyn said no to tony

greybeard

2nd September 2019, 18:54

Corbyn said no to tony

Corbyn wants to be PM regardless, as far as I can see.
If he really put his party and the country first I think he would abdicate.
There are some in his party who would be more likley to get the public vote in a general election I suspect.

It will be interesting to see what the next few days bring.

Exciting times.
Ch

greybeard

3rd September 2019, 21:32

MPs have voted to take control of Parliament in a bid to stop a no-deal Brexit.

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-09-03/mps-vote-to-take-control-of-parliament-in-a-bid-to-stop-no-deal-brexit/
Lawmakers secured 328 votes for the amendment, whilst 301 voted against it - giving a majority of 27.

The prime minister has confirmed he will now table a motion for an early general election.

The vote, following a motion put down by Tory rebel Sir Oliver Letwin, means parliamentarians opposed to a no-deal departure from the European Union will be able to dictate the order of business for Wednesday in the Commons.

The hope is to push through legislation which would ultimately delay the UK leaving the EU until a deal can be agreed and signed off by both Brussels and Westminster, or MPs vote for a no-deal exit.

What is going to happen now?
PA
Prime Minister Boris Johnson is likely to push forward a General Election. Credit: PA

Following the vote, Boris Johnson said Parliament was “on the brink of wrecking any deal” with Brussels after voting to give a cross-party alliance control of the Commons agenda on Wednesday in a bid to block a no-deal Brexit on October 31.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said he now plans to send Britain to the polls in a general election, which the House of Commons will have to approve.

Under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, introduced by the Cameron administration eight years ago, two-thirds of MPs (434) must agree to back a general election for Britain to head to the ballot box.

It doesn't matter how many people vote in total - the Act means that 434 MPs voting for an election must be reached for polling stations to open.

scanner

4th September 2019, 07:50

So a second referendum through the back door. Every politician who wants the UK to be a vassal state of the EU should be in Jail, alongside the mass murderer Tony Blair, war criminal. 17.4 million just ignored, proof no point in voting, all you get is the illusion your vote makes a difference. It clearly does not.

greybeard

4th September 2019, 08:31

Which is why I havent voted since I was 18 scanner.
Chris
Ps I dong quite get why there is fear of another referendum seeing as so much has been made of the first one.
Yes people are free to vote the same or change their mind and of course there are more young people of voting age---its their future.
There is also now a lot more information about the benefits and otherwise of leaving.

Some other countries have a percentage system--which seems fair to me.
Here one vote over 50% can give the result that almost half have not voted for.
Ch

scanner

4th September 2019, 09:22

You are quite right Chris, it is the future of our Children. That is exactly why I'm a staunch and proud Brexiteer. My Grandfather fought in WWI and my Father in WWII, for our alleged democracy. I was also in the Military and was led to believe I was helping protect our Country. Clearly, all BS, and when one realizes the truth it makes you very angry and somewhat bitter. However, I don't want my Children/Grandchildren growing up in a EU Dictatorship. Run by unelected, unaccountable faceless Eurocrats. Forcing their will on our Children/Grandchildren.

At least, I can look my Children/Grandchildren in the eye, and tell them, "I fought with every breath in my body, to make your future the best I could ". If we stay in the EU, you will no longer be a Scot, I will no longer be English, we will be Europeans and trading in Euros. All our history lost. Our Magna carter and constitution gone. No more common Law, which we have enjoyed and protected us. Laws, we'll be forced to obey, by foreign, to us Police, do we truly want this? It will be an occupation forced upon us, which we have defended against for hundreds of years.

greybeard

4th September 2019, 09:32

I have no problem with leaving with a deal scanner.
Home rule for Scotland would remove the dominance of an "English" parliament.
However I am certainly not for a border between Scotland and England--madness.
Home rule ok if both England and Scotland are out or in the common market.
However I take your point about European rules.

We will just have to wait and see where all this goes.
I suspect that ultimately we will remain in the Common Market.

Chris

scanner

4th September 2019, 09:57

greybeard

4th September 2019, 13:40

greybeard

4th September 2019, 13:44

Corbyn will refuse a general election, so there's only one way through this crisis – a second Brexit vote
The Independent Sean O'Grady,The Independent Tue, 3 Sep 08:59 BST

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/corbyn-refuse-general-election-theres-075900048.html

At last. After years of disappointment, Jeremy Corbyn has done the right thing, for the right reason, at the right time. He has not fallen, we’re led to believe, for what Tony Blair accurately called Boris Johnson’s “elephant trap” of an early election. He has, according to the briefings, decided to put killing off no-deal first, and an election second.

This is very much a principled move, in the national interest and (for a change) it is a Labour parliamentary manoeuvre that will succeed.

As it happens, with a persistent 10-point opinion poll deficit against the Tories, dodging a general election is also very much in his party’s interests – socialism is not about kamikaze politics, surely – it is about and those of the people Labour seeks to protect.

If we want Brexit plus five years of radical free market government by Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings, Michael Gove and Dominic Raab, then the best way to secure it – as the gangsters in Downing Street well know – is accommodate what Corbyn rightly calls a “smash and grab” raid on the constitution now. The NHS, schools and local council services will be at their mercy; it would be the 1980s, or the 1930s, all over again – but worse. Not a good legacy for the Corbyn-McDonnell era.

So he is right, on principle, not to play ball with Boris Johnson and right, as matter of low political calculation, to resist the urge to pick up the gauntlet.

Which only leaves the question of what happens next. That’s easy to answer: more deadlock.

A proud man, despite is charming self-deprecation, Johnson is not going to obey the will of parliament and ask for an Article 50 extension or dilute his “do or die” mission in any way. He will whinge, and drag his feet, and pull faces, and mutter like a naughty Eton schoolboy beings sent to the House Master’s study for some disciplinary action. He’d rather abscond than go and talk to Tusk.

Matthew

4th September 2019, 18:57

I didn't vote to start a debate on if we should leave with a deal. I voted to leave, repeal the 1972 act on the 23rd June 2016. The very next day 24th, article 50 should have been implemented, anything else is and was treason to the 17.4 million votes. It's hardly been a common market for decades Chris.

I'm sadly inclined to agree with your last comment Chris, a bitter pill indeed for me to swallow.

Don't take greybeards opinions and hopes of remain to heart. Scottish independence had lost their referendum legitimately, and the Scottish people still vote SNP in time after time; this sets a democratic precedent for a further Scottish independence referendum for Scotland, and they will get their next referendum at some point because they are not letting go of it.

Considering leavers won the EU independence referendum the precedents for British independence is too overwhelming to go away. Even if the MPs betray the clear will of the people, as you put it scanner: 'I didn't vote to start a debate on if we should leave with a deal'. Shame on anyone that has worked to sabotage the democratic will of the people, MP's doubly so, and including anyone that put their email to a petition against.

I hope nothing tries to sabotage future independence referendums including Scotland - for the sake of fairness, and English quality that is much underrated.

As I've explained, and Boris has explained, and anyone who lives as an adult in the real world knows: a no deal underpins any fair negotiation, and without a no deal on the table, then that is a warning sign of possible tyranny. Without 'no deal' a negotiation simply can't happen. The worst thing is, significant amount of remainers know this and are happy to play shenanigans to the point of deceit

greybeard

4th September 2019, 19:27

Yo Yo Yo with respect I have never said that I am for remain.
I certainly don't hope for that.
I could honestly argue for exiting but not without some sort of deal.
I could argue for home rule for Scotland using exactly the same arguments.

True-- trade relations can be arranged after exit with no deal---however in the time spent getting deals with various countries I suspect that some firms would go to the wall.

I really get why Boris has done what he has done.
The situation has gone on for far too long but the collateral damage of exiting without a deal could be something else.

At one point in time I was Chairman of the local ranch of The Federation of Small Businesses.
I was self employed virtually all my life so I know how fragile any business is and I have no reason to support the endless rules and regulations imposed by Bureaucrats abroad and at home.
Most have no idea of business--yet its accepted that small businesses are the backbone of UK

Chris

Matthew

4th September 2019, 19:39

...
As I've explained, and Boris has explained, and anyone who lives as an adult in the real world knows: a no deal underpins any fair negotiation, and without a no deal on the table, then that is a warning sign of possible tyranny. Without 'no deal' a negotiation simply can't happen. The worst thing is, significant amount of remainers know this and are happy to play shenanigans to the point of deceit

We all wanted a deal but walk away is when the other side doesn't get it. If the other side doesn't get it then no deal is the threat by which amicable negotiations then open up. It takes some maturity to understand, and best one does if they want to get free from tyranny

scanner

5th September 2019, 08:14

I accept fully that you knew what you wanted and voted accordingly and you have not got what you expected.

Scanner In a way Scots have similar feelings to you.
They feel ruled by a Government they did not vote for and cant really influence.
In a way I can see that is just a side effect of the small population of Scotland---as many people in Greater London to be considered.
Hence the popularity of SNP
Scotland is Labour orientated in nature.

ChrisI know Chris, I love Scotland with a passion. Before I became sick, I visited every year for many years. Ise of Mull was my favourite place to visit. I had many discussions with dear friends over Scotlands Political problems. I was gobsmacked when the vote for your independence went the other way.

But I feel this is more than leaving the EU, it's about imho, the NWO and the regionalizing of the World. It is their aim to have regions and the EU is one of those regions. So you see this is about yours and our Sovereignty. So in truth, we're fighting to keep that Sovereignty. Scotland, can have many tries for Independence, but not if you become European. Bit of a moot point at the moment though. The charade continues.

greybeard

5th September 2019, 14:37

The brother of Boris has left the cabinet and the conservative party--Et Tu Brutus!
Claims he is putting the country ahead of family.
Chris

greybeard

6th September 2019, 07:43

I must admit I feel some sympathy for Boris.
So not posting current Yahoo comments as they are some what personal.
We are all saints and sinners
Chris

greybeard

6th September 2019, 11:08

Voters fear Jeremy Corbyn in Number 10 more than a no-deal Brexit, poll shows
Yahoo News UK David Harding,Yahoo News UK

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/voters-fear-jeremy-corbyn-in-number-10-more-than-a-nodeal-brexit-poll-shows-092001395.html

Britons are more worried about Jeremy Corbyn in Number 10 than a no-deal Brexit, according to a new opinion poll.

Almost half of all voters would rather Britain left the European Union without an agreement rather than see the Labour leader in Downing Street, the poll from Politico claims.

The poll found that 43% of voters would favour the UK crashing out of the EU while just 35 per cent would prefer Corbyn as Prime Minister.

A further 22% did not want either, seeing them as equally bad options.Images)

The poll also found that voters also believe that Boris would be a better PM than Corbyn – with 40% backing him as leader with just 18% putting their faith in the Labour leader.

The latest research comes in a bruising week for the PM.

Mr Johnson lost three votes in the House of Commons, with MPs seeking prevent a no-deal Brexit and an early general election.

He was criticised for his purge of more than 20 MPs who refused to back his government, then saw his brother Jo quit his administration over the PM’s stance on Brexit.

The Prime Minister has said Britain will leave the EU by October 31.

On a visit to Scotland on Friday, Mr Johnson told reporters “we’re going to get out” of the EU.

His government has tabled another vote for a general election on Monday, but Mr Corbyn has said his party will not back the motion and is arguing for a no-deal Brexit to be taken off the negotiating table.

Labour leaders have said that preventing a no-deal was their “first priority”.

There has been speculation that the Prime Minister could ignore any vote by Parliament to rule out a no-deal.

greybeard

6th September 2019, 15:52

No-Deal Brexit Bill Designed To Extend Article 50 Passed By House Of Lords
HuffPost UK Ned Simons,HuffPost UK

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/no-deal-brexit-bill-designed-143831938.html

The legislation designed to force Boris Johnson to delay Brexit beyond October 31 in order to avoid no-deal has been passed by the House of Lords.

The European Union (Withdrawal) (No.6) Bill is now awaiting royal assent to become law.

It comes after Jeremy Corbyn and other opposition leaders agreed not to approve the PM’s plan to hold a snap general election before the EU summit on October 17.

Any extension to Article 50 would need to be signed off by EU leaders at the upcoming gathering.

Johnson has said he would rather “die in a ditch” before asking Brussels for another delay. But under the terms of the bill, the government would legally have no choice.

The PM’s demand for an election on his own terms has become increasingly unlikely.

Corbyn spoke with leaders of the main opposition parties on Friday to discuss their resistance to holding a vote before the prospect of a no-deal Brexit on October 31 is eliminated.

Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNPs and Plaid Cymru are all understood to be planning on voting against or abstaining from the Fixed-Term Parliament Act when it returns to the Commons on Monday.

Opposition leaders including the Lib Dems’ Jo Swinson, the SNP’s Ian Blackford and Plaid Cymru’s Liz Saville Roberts discussed tactics on Friday morning as Johnson returned to the campaign trail of the election he is yet to successfully trigger.

Labour said the leaders discussed efforts to prevent a “damaging” no-deal Brexit and to hold an election “once that is secured”.

SNP Westminster leader Blackford said he was “desperate for an election”, but it could not be until an extension to Article 50 was secured.

He told PA Media: “It’s not just about our own party interests, it’s about our collective national interests.

“So we are prepared to work with others to make sure we get the timing right, but the timing right on the basis of securing that extension to Article 50.”

But he did anticipate that an election would be successfully called “over the course of these weeks”.

A Lib Dem spokeswoman said: “The Liberal Democrat position for a while now is that we won’t vote for a general election until we have an extension agreed with the EU. I think the others are coming round to that.

“As a group we will all vote against or abstain on Monday.”

The development came a day after the PM suffered a torrid day in which his brother resigned from government while describing being torn between family and “the national interest”.

The PM has said he wants polling day to be October 15, but in order to call the snap election he needs a two-thirds majority in the Commons and opposition parties do not trust him to stick to that date.

They also have concerns about whether he will comply with the cross-party legislation due to be passed by the House of Lords on Friday which would require him to seek a delay to Brexit if there is not a deal in place by October 19.

Johnson used a rambling press conference on Thursday to say he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than ask for a further delay.

On Friday, during his visit to Scotland, he declined to rule out resigning if he fails to deliver Brexit on the current deadline.

“That is not a hypothesis I’m willing to contemplate. I want us to get this thing done,” Johnson said.

There were also further signs of unease within the Tory ranks about the uncompromising Brexit stance which saw Johnson boot 21 senior Conservatives - including former chancellors Ken Clarke and Philip Hammond - out of the party in the Commons by removing the whip.

Former defence secretary Sir Michael Fallon, who is standing down as Tory MP in Sevenoaks, said he hoped an appeal mechanism would be put in place for his former colleagues.

He added: “I also worry that it sends the wrong message to remainers - particularly in my party.”

greybeard

7th September 2019, 07:23

Tony Blair: A simple referendum will solve Brexit — not a chaotic general election

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/tony-blair-a-simple-referendum-will-solve-brexit-not-a-chaotic-general-election-a4230651.html

What the dysfunctional state of Conservative politics is now poised to perpetrate on the British people is the final chapter of Brexit madness: to oblige them to resolve whether we leave the EU in the most extreme form — no deal — in a general election.

This is wrong in principle, against the national interest, against the self-interest of many MPs, and born of political calculations that are highly suspect.

Strip out all the political noise and thunder and there is one basic question: is a no-deal Brexit mandated by the June 2016 vote? Many, including those who accept we should leave the EU, say it isn’t, and that during the referendum campaign the winning side consistently argued there would be a deal.

The Brexiteers say it is so mandated, because the people voted for Brexit, and that means on whatever terms.

There is no way of clarifying who is right on this point; except, plainly, by asking “the people” to clarify.

"Another referendum does seem to me the most sensible way forward for reasons given above.
True some people new what they were voting for but a lot believed and were influenced by the stories they were told.
They were mislead.
A referendum now with a clear picture of what is involved might produce the same result or not but it would give an answer to the question of leaving without a deal.
Then no one can claim Oh no deal was not implicit in the original.
Chris"

greybeard

7th September 2019, 16:02

If Boris Johnson really wants to become a hero, he should change his mind on Brexit
[The Independent]

Prime Minister Johnson insists he will refuse to ask for any delay with Brexit. “I think the British public really want us to get out. They don’t want more dither and delay.”

May I respectfully remind him that 17.4 million people is not the same as “the British public”. It is just over a quarter of the population of 66 million. If he was bringing less belligerence to the debate he would add, "But I also understand that almost half the British public do not want us to get out. They want us to remain in the EU.”

Dominic Cummings (you’d think) would be the first to advise him that the most powerful thing he could do right now (and become a hero in the eyes of the majority) would be to let the people decide, as parliament has not been able to, after three years.

The government should bring in a bill for a second referendum with three clear options on the polling card: leave with no deal; leave with a deal; remain.

Alison Hackett
Co Dublin, Ir

greybeard

8th September 2019, 06:17

Amber Rudd quits cabinet and Tories over Boris Johnson's Brexit 'political vandalism'
Sky News Sky News

Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd has quit the cabinet and the Conservatives, dealing a fresh setback to Boris Johnson's government.

Ms Rudd hit out at the prime minister over his decision to kick out 21 Tory MPs and ban them from standing for the party at a general election - attacking the move as an "act of political vandalism".

The rebels had the Tory whip removed after they voted last Tuesday with the Opposition in their attempts to stop the UK leaving the European Union without a deal on 31 October.

Ms Rudd, who was seen as a leading pro-European voice in the government, wrote: "I cannot stand by as good, loyal moderate Conservatives are expelled."

She said in her resignation letter: "This short-sighted culling of my colleagues has stripped the party of broad-minded and dedicated Conservative MPs.

"I cannot support this act of political vandalism."

She called it an "assault on decency and democracy" after the prime minister sacked 21 "talented, loyal One Nation Conservatives".

And she also said she thought a no-deal Brexit was now the government's key aim.

While she had accepted the need to keep no-deal as an option, the now Independent MP said she "no longer believed leaving with a deal is the government's main objective".

The 21 rebels voted to give Opposition MPs control of the order paper and start the process of blocking a no-deal.

They included two former chancellors Philip Hammond and Ken Clarke as well as Sir Winston Churchill's grandson Sir Nicholas Soames.

On Twitter, Hastings and Rye MP Ms Rudd, who was also minister for women and equalities, said: "I have resigned from cabinet and surrendered the Conservative whip.

"I have spoken to the PM and my association chairman to explain.

"I remain committed to the One Nation values that drew me into politics."

A No 10 spokesperson reacted by saying: "We are disappointed to learn that Amber has chosen to leave government and the party.

"She was a talented welfare minister but all ministers who joined the cabinet signed up to leaving the EU on 31 October come what may, delivering on the referendum result as the public were promised. That has not changed."

A senior government source said: "As the polls show, the public do not back attempts by some MPs to cancel the referendum.

"Resignations to chase headlines won't change the fact that people want Brexit done so that government can deliver on the domestic priorities people care about like more police, new hospitals and great schools."

Meanwhile, Health Secretary Matt Hancock tweeted: "So sorry to see Amber resign - a first-rate minister, genuinely wonderful person, and someone I'm proud to call my friend.

"The Conservative Party has always been a broad church shaped by those within it. Gutted to see Amber leave - but hope other One Nation Tories will stay and fight for the values we share."

David Gauke, the former secretary of state for justice and lord chancellor who was among the 21 rebels, tweeted: "I'm sure this has not been an easy decision. But it is brave and principled and is all about putting the national interest first."

:: Listen to the All Out Politics podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, tweeted: "Johnson government falling apart. He's being totally found out..."

Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage tweeted: "Why did Boris give ministerial posts to all these Remainers in the first place? Confused thinking to say the least."

It has been a bruising week for Mr Johnson in which he has suffered four damaging parliamentary defeats over Brexit and an early general election and seen his own brother Jo quit his government as well as backbencher Phillip Lee defecting from the Tories to the Liberal Democrats.

The prime minister, who is still pushing for an election, has said he would "rather be dead in a ditch" than delay Brexit past the 31 October deadline.

But the former director of public prosecutions Lord MacDonald has told Sky News that Mr Johnson could go to prison if he refuses to delay the UK's departure from the EU in the face of court action.

The PM has said he will not agree an extension, despite parliament passing a law forcing him to do so.

Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, former Conservative turned rebel Justine Greening, Labour MP Caroline Flint and Baroness Chakrabarti will be appearing on Sky News' Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme from 8.30am this morning.

greybeard

8th September 2019, 10:40

I suspect that the majority of "leave without a deal" proponents have a safe income or are retired.
With the experience I have of being self employed (little security and no holiday pay) I doubt that those in that category will be enthusiastic about an instant exit---no transitory period.

I dont mind because Im safe from the results--73 years of age and just enough to satisfy my requirements.

Chris

greybeard

8th September 2019, 11:10

France: EU won't approve Brexit delay amid major no-deal prep underway
Lianna Brinded,Yahoo Finance UK

https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/france-says-eu-wont-approve-brexit-delay-amid-major-nodeal-prep-underway-093156344.html

France declared that it, as well as the European Union, will not allow Britain to have an extension beyond the 31 October Brexit deadline.

In an interview with Europe 1 radio, France’s foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said: “It’s very worrying. The British must tell us what they want. We are not going to do (extend) this every three months.”

Britain was originally meant to leave the EU on 29 March this year, but former prime minister Theresa May secured an extension with the bloc to try and push her Brexit deal through parliament. That extension was until 31 October this year.

However, during the period from 29 March until now, she suffered several rejections in parliament for her deal and subsequently stepped down as leader of the Conservative party and therefore as prime minister.

Boris Johnson was then voted in as leader of the Conservatives — by members of the party, not the public — and thereby became the new prime minister.

The EU has repeatedly said that it will not renegotiate the deal it sealed with May — the deal Johnson has now inherited. For any extensions or deals to go forward, all remaining 27 nations in the EU have to agree unanimously.

Johnson is a staunch Brexiteer who has campaigned to leave the EU since the announcement of the referendum. He has been the most willing Conservative to drag the UK out of the bloc without a deal.

Next week MPs will vote again on whether the UK will have another general election. Earlier this week, politicians blocked UK prime minister Boris Johnson’s bid to call a snap election after he suffered a brutal defeat at the hands of members of parliament who tried to block a no-deal Brexit. They are also seeking to delay Brexit if a deal cannot be reached before the current deadline.

The current climate between MPs is that they don’t like the deal on the table but they don’t want a no-deal Brexit.

However, even if UK politicians say they will block Johnson from a no-deal Brexit and vote to extend the Brexit deadline — it comes down to whether the EU will grant those actions.

This weekend, former Brexit secretary and now foreign secretary Dominic Raab said the government will "test to the limit" a new law designed to force it to seek an extension to the Brexit deadline if a deal is not reached by 19 October. Prime minister Johnson was earlier warned he could face legal action if he defied the law.

Last month, the UK government issued a veiled threat over French fishing rights in British waters, as a minister called for more “generous” rights for Brits in France after Brexit.

Meanwhile, over the last couple of months countries, especially France due to it’s infrastructure ties with Britain like the Eurotunnel, has stepped up no-deal preparations.

At the end of August, it was announced that tens of thousands of French firms trading with Britain will face a one-month “dress rehearsal” for a no-deal Brexit.

greybeard

8th September 2019, 11:18

The Nigel Farage Show: 8th September 2019 - LBC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrvh7ABEW3Y

greybeard

8th September 2019, 13:31

Nigel Farage claims election pact will lead to a 100-strong Conservative majority
George Martin
Yahoo News UK8 September 2019

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nigel-farage-claims-election-pact-will-lead-to-a-100-strong-conservative-majority-114706153.html?.tsrc=bell-brknews

Nigel Farage is set to offer Boris Johnson an election pact which he claims will win the Conservatives a 100 seat majority.

The Brexit Party leader has reportedly proposed a “non-aggression pact” under which he will not field candidates against the 28 hardline Tory MPs of the European Research Group (ERG).

Mr Farage also promised to stand aside in several other seats in exchange for the Toris not fielding candidates in dozens of Labour seats that voted leave.

“If we get an election, an alliance between Boris and myself done intelligently, with a clear message, I think we’ll be unstoppable,” Mr Farage told The Sunday Times.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson during a visit to Darnford Farm in Banchory near Aberdeen to coincide with the publication of Lord Bew's review and an announcement of extra funding for Scottish farmers.
View photos
Mr Johnson called for an election last week after suffering a series of defeats in the House of Commons. (PA)

“If Boris decides the only way forward, to get Brexit delivered, is through a general election offering people a clean break, in those circumstances, I’m 100 per cent behind him wanting to win the election, there would be a non-aggression pact.”

He added: “We have done a huge amount of research and analysis on this that will say to Boris Johnson’s team, ‘If you do this, between us we’ll have a majority of between 70 and 100 seats’.”

Mr Farage’s latest comments come as Sajid Javid refused to rule out a pact with the Brexit Party in a general election, but insisted the Conservative Party does not “need” electoral alliances.

Sajid Javid has refused to rule out a pact with the Brexit Party in a general election, but insisted the Conservative Party does not “need” electoral alliances.

silvanelf

8th September 2019, 21:32

The whole article is excellent, here is just a snippet:

-- snip --

Joining them on the podium of contempt is the Labour Party. You only need to watch the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Emily Thornberry’s ludicrous performance on BBC’s Question Time this week to see this. Not only has her Party just refused to vote for the election they’ve been incessantly calling for, but when she was asked by the Question Time presenter, Fiona Bruce, about how she would proceed if her Party won an election and negotiated a deal with the EU, she reached what may well be peak insanity — although it’s up against some pretty stiff competition of late — with the following extraordinary exchange:

Fiona Bruce: “Are you going to campaign for your deal, assuming you get one, or will you campaign for remain, against your own deal?”

Emily Thornberry: “Personally, I will campaign to remain.”

Bruce: “Even if you’ve negotiated the deal?”

Thornberry: “I will negotiate to the best of my ability, a deal which will look after jobs and the economy. But the best way to protect our economy is for us to remain.”

I’m not making that up. It really did happen. The shadow Foreign Secretary really did pledge to campaign against the deal she pledged to negotiate (you can give yourself a good laugh by looking at it here).

-- snip --

http://www.theblogmire.com/brexit-as-explained-to-the-bemused-and-befuddled/

greybeard

9th September 2019, 06:46

Corbyn is the culprit--he is sitting on the fence.
I listened to that program and what I got was.
As a person Emily wants to stay but as a member of the Labour party she would toe the line and follow policy and if it came to the point that the party went for leave she would put her personal choice aside and negotiate the best deal possible.
Such is life.
The Ex Pm May wanted to stay but had to negotiate a leave deal.
Is that not crazy.
Its all madness.
Im probably biased but the SNP man came across well in that program.
Thanks for taking the time to post silvanelf.

Chris

greybeard

9th September 2019, 12:16

Now the TUC has come out against no deal.

Chris

greybeard

9th September 2019, 15:22

Tearful John Bercow announces his resignation as Speaker

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9893756/remainer-speaker-john-bercow-quits-after-tories-plot-to-oust-him-over-brexit/

A TEARFUL John Bercow today announced he is quitting as Speaker after enraging the Tories over his handling of Brexit.

Remainer Bercow – known for his eccentric outbursts in the Commons – choked up as he told the chamber he will also quit as a Tory MP if Boris Johnson gets a national poll...

BYE BYE BERCOW

However, if they do not back the vote Bercow said he will resign on October 31 - the Brexit deadline.

Crucially, this means arch Remainer Bercow, who proudly showed off a 'b******s to Brexit car-sticker, could still be in position for next month’s crucial votes on leaving the EU.

An emotional Bercow, watched on by his wife Sally in the public gallery, broke down in tears as he revealed he was standing down.

The controversial Speaker has enraged Tories and the PM was set to field a candidate against him in his Buckingham seat in revenge for what he sees as anti-Government bias.

At the 2017 election I promised my wife and children that it would be my last. This is a pledge I intend to keep if the house votes tonight for an early general election my tenure as Speaker and MP will end when this Parliament ends.

Speaker John Bercow Bercow told MPs: “At the 2017 election I promised my wife and children that it would be my last.

“This is a pledge I intend to keep if the house votes tonight for an early general election my tenure as Speaker and MP will end when this Parliament ends.

“If the house does not so vote I have concluded that the least disruptive and most democratic course of action would be for me to stand down at the close of business on Thursday October 31.”

Traditionally, the main political parties do not stand against the Speaker whose office is meant to be impartial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LbMOR5b8I

silvanelf

9th September 2019, 15:31

As a person Emily wants to stay but as a member of the Labour party she would toe the line and follow policy and if it came to the point that the party went for leave she would put her personal choice aside and negotiate the best deal possible.
Such is life.
The Ex Pm May wanted to stay but had to negotiate a leave deal.
Is that not crazy.
Its all madness.

Thanks, all that 4D chess went right over my head:

There are a number of parties. One of them wants to take us out, but there are some within that party that didn’t want to take us out, so they were kicked out by the man who just came in. In order to get us out, the man who just came in tried to get himself out, so that he could then get back in, in order to take us out. But he was thwarted by the other parties, who despite wanting him out, kept him in because they fear that if he gets out, he will then get back in and will then take us out. But if they can keep him in long enough, and prevent him from taking us out, they figure that soon after he has failed to take us out, they will be able to get him out and get themselves in. And then after he gets out and they get in, they may try to take us out or they may try to keep us in. It’s anyone’s guess. Then again, it’s entirely possible that if they do get in, they might try to get us out, then campaign against their deal for taking us out to try and keep us in. It really is that simple.

http://www.theblogmire.com/brexit-as-explained-to-the-bemused-and-befuddled/

greybeard

9th September 2019, 16:17

silvanelf I was totally confused too--
and these people Govern the UK
They think they are still in the playground playing kids games.
Chris

greybeard

9th September 2019, 17:17

Ruth Davidson in stinging attack on Boris Johnson for expelling 21 Tory MPs
Evening Standard Sophia Sleigh, JOE MURPHY, NIcholas Cecil,Evening Standard

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/ruth-davidson-stinging-attack-boris-093228731.html

Ruth Davidson today launched a stinging attack on the “big risk” Boris Johnson took when he booted 21 Tory MPs out of the parliamentary party.

The former Scottish Conservative leader, inset, breaking her silence exclusively in the Evening Standard , said the hardball tactic could backfire in the general election because it would drive away millions of voters.

“Kicking 21 Conservatives — many very senior and well known by the public — out of the party makes us less of a broad church and, in voters’ minds, less representative of the country as a whole,” she writes.

Ms Davidson’s intervention — her first since she stepped down two weeks ago saying Mr Johnson had personally assured her he was seeking a Brexit deal — came as the Prime Minister was ambushed by Irish premier Leo Varadkar on his first visit to Dublin and lectured about the importance of the controversial backstop to peace between the “old foes”.

Mr Varadkar delivered a blunt lecture warning that “no backstop is no deal for us”. In a withering speech standing beside Mr Johnson, he said: “We are open to alternatives but they must be realistic ones, legally binding and workable. We have not received such proposals to date.” Mr Johnson hit back by warning that not agreeing a new Brexit deal would be a “failure of statecraft for which we would all be responsible”.
Ms Davidson has said that Mr Johnson's hardline tactic could backfire (AP)

In other key developments:

Former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption warned that the Prime Minister would break the law if he tried to sabotage an extension of Article 50 behind the scenes. The judge said that if Mr Johnson wrote to the EU asking for a Brexit delay but then wrote again to overturn the request, it would be “plainly, a breach of the Act” passed by MPs last week.

Northern Ireland Secretary Julian Smith doused reports that he was on the cusp of joining Amber Rudd by resigning from the Cabinet, tweeting: “Media speculation about me doing anything other than continuing to represent & work flat out for Northern Ireland is v wide of mark.”

New figures suggested the economy is flatlining, with no growth over the three months to July. However, the Office for National Statistics said growth had resumed in July, lowering the risk of a recession. Writing in tonight’s Standard, Ms Davidson said her experience as the most successful Conservative campaigner in Scotland for a generation had taught her that parties needed to present themselves as “broad churches” to win support.

“To be a truly national party, you have to look and sound like the country you seek to represent,” she writes.

“So for every Nicholas Soames — former Eton educated army officer and grandson of Winston Churchill, beloved in his Mid Sussex constituency — you need a Guto Bebb, the Welsh-speaking nephew of a rugby international, representing Aberconway in North Wales.”
Boris Johnson and Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson embrace a debate on the EU Referendum (PA)

Ms Davidson stepped down saying she wanted to spend more time with her family and baby son Finn .

In Dublin, Mr Johnson was forced to listen as Mr Varadkar delivered a criticism of UK policy and questioned the Prime Minister’s policies on Brexit and free trade.

“Prime Minister, negotiating FTAs [free trade agreements] with the EU and the US, and securing their ratification in less than three years, I think is going to be a Herculean task for you,” he said.

Mr Varadkar warned: “If there is no deal it will cause severe disruption for British and Irish people alike, not so much on the Continent.” He said there was “no such thing as a clean break”.

“And whatever happens, we will have to get back to the negotiating table quite quickly ... and when we do first items on the agenda will be citizens’ rights, the financial settlement and the Irish border — all issues which we had resolved in the withdrawal agreement made with your predecessor, an agreement made in good faith by 28 governments.”
Mr Johnson and Leo Varadkar shake hands in Dublin (Getty Images)

No deal would simply mean a post-Brexit deal, which would be “very tough” get get agreed by all 28 governments, he warned. “But we do want to be your friend and your ally, your Athena in doing so.

“I’m ready to listen to any constructive ways in which we can achieve our agreed goals and resolve the current impasse. But what we cannot do and will not do is agree to the replacement of a legal guarantee with a promise.”

Mr Varadkar added: “In the absence of agreed alternative arrangements, no backstop is no deal for us. All it does is kick the can down the road for another 14 months.”

Mr Johnson has said he would “overwhelmingly” prefer Britain to leave the EU with a deal. He insisted it was possible to get a new agreement by October 18, after an EU summit. “I want to find a deal. I have looked carefully at no-deal. Yes, we could do it, the UK could certainly get through it, but be in no doubt that outcome would be a failure of statecraft for which we would all be responsible,” he said.

“I would overwhelmingly prefer to find an agreement. I do believe that a deal can be done by October 18, so let’s do it together.”
Mr Johnson has insisted he will work out a deal before the October 31 deadline. (PA)

Asked about the situation in the Commons, the PM said: “We will come out on October 31 ... I’m absolutely undaunted by whatever may take place in Parliament. I think what the British people want us to do is to deliver a deal and to get on and take us out on October 31.”

Mr Johnson said today that it was essential that Britain left the EU by the deadline of October 31.

Speaking alongside Mr Varadkar, he said it should be possible to do so while preserving the unchecked movement of people and goods across the Irish border, maintaining the Good Friday Agreement and protecting the economic unity of the island of Ireland.

“I think we can achieve these things while allowing the UK to withdraw whole and entire from the EU,” he said.

“Strip away the politics and at the core of each problem you find practical issues that can be resolved with sufficient energy and a spirit of compromise.”

He insisted that the Government had an “abundance” of proposals to break the Brexit deadlock but stopped short of giving any precise details on how they would work.

Matthew

9th September 2019, 17:58

silvanelf I was totally confused too--
and these people Govern the UK
They think they are still in the playground playing kids games.
Chris

The ones who are playing games are the remain side, who on one hand call for a second referendum (ignoring the first) and yelling till they're blue in the face calling for general election. But then block a general election.

Who's playing games greybeard?

The problem is remainers, the ones who lost the fair and well attended referendum, they didn't give their Losers’ Consent.... in doing so they are acting like stubborn kids who know they have been naughty but refuse to accept reality. Sooner or later, one way or another, reality will crash down around them

:sun:

greybeard

9th September 2019, 18:51

I wish May's deal had been accepted in a way--then it would be job done.
It was far short of ideal but probably as good as it gets--or not as the case might be.
Chris

greybeard

10th September 2019, 04:49

The reality of no-deal Brexit can no longer be distorted
The Guardian William Keegan,The Guardian

It was characteristically shrewd of the European Union’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, to place an assessment of the real state of play in last weekend’s Sunday Telegraph.

It was in the Sunday Telegraph over the years that Boris Johnson, when he was based in Brussels, devoted his so-called reporting to consistently misleading stories about what our membership of the EU was really about.

Persistently negative, Johnson revelled in distorting reality. He was so lazy that he often had to ask the Guardian’s John Palmer what was really going on – before then distorting it. In the past week the true nature of this charlatan has been available for all to witness on television as he has squirmed his way through a series of welcome parliamentary defeats, brought upon himself, with the aid of his chief “strategist”, one Dominic Cummings.

Among other things in last weekend’s article, Barnier pointed out that the arrangement by which the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland would remain open, via the continuation of a UK-wide customs union – the so-called backstop – was negotiated at the UK’s request (my italics). It is this that our egregious prime minister has been trying to dispense with, in a way that would risk a return of the Troubles and undoing the patiently negotiated Good Friday agreement.

Of course, alas, distortions in the British media’s reporting of anything to do with “Brussels” are not confined to the Telegraph. This is the weekend of the Ambrosetti forum, at the Villa d’Este, Lake Como. Here, two years ago, I witnessed a speech by Barnier that was thoroughly reasonable but widely misreported in the British media – including, I regret to say, by the BBC.

When I returned to London I could hardly believe the way Barnier had been reported. The theme was that the rest of the EU were out to punish us. What he actually said was that there would be consequences, for us and them, if we went ahead with Brexit.

By the way, I have no idea what the outcome of this farce is going to be, but I do know that many of us Remainers regret that over the years we ourselves were not more positive about the advantages of belonging to a powerful customs union, with more than 70 trade agreements, and a single market that has brought many good things to our daily lives, to say nothing of all the environmental and safety benefits, as well as freedom of movement – often confused with the separate issue of immigration.

When the deluded army of Brexiters goes on about the British people having spoken, I start counting the spoons

The reason why there is so much sudden interest in warding off the no-deal, “let’s get on with it” scenario is that any form of Brexit would be bad news – but no deal would be the worst of the lot.

As Barnier says: “The EU cannot prevent the UK from choosing a no-deal scenario. I would fail to understand the logic of that choice, though, as we would still need to solve the same problems after 31 October” – or later, as may now be the case.

As Sir Ivan Rogers, our former ambassador to the EU, recently pointed out, courtesy of that den of Brexiters, the Spectator: “The central problem with no deal is that it is being heavily (mis)sold as providing certainty, finality – a ‘clean break’ – when it would manifestly do nothing of the sort.”

The short-term shock would be bad enough – well outlined in No Deal Brexit, a publication from the thinktank The UK in a Changing Europe. But as Rogers writes: “The reality of no deal is that it would leave all the most intractable issues about our future relationship with the EU unresolved … It would, in other words, be just the start, not the end.”

We have reached the stage where, at a time when economic indicators suggest that the British economy may already be in recession, it is reported as good news that the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, now says that the short-term impact of no deal would be “only” a fall of 5.5% in gross domestic product, not the Bank’s original 8%, on account of the precautionary measures already taken.

Such a fall would far outweigh the deleterious impact of the 1979-82 and 1990-92 recessions, which went down in history as the worst since the Great Depression of the interwar years. Enough said?

Now, when the deluded army of Brexiters goes on about the British people having spoken, I start counting the spoons. Let the British people speak again, on a basis of much more information.

As House of Commons briefing paper 07212 sets out in respect of the 2016 referendum: it was “consultative”. It continues: “The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implimented

Phoenix1304

10th September 2019, 07:01

Hello All

I always wondered why we were given a Referendum in the first place. We weren’t given a choice, for example, in having our pensions taken away for six years and being required to pay in almost a thousand pounds a year for the extra time...A very sore subject for me. So I found the whole thing entirely suspicious. Then I heard that the EU was planning to introduce legislation to tax those with offshore bank accounts, since that includes most of the higher echelons of government Cameron called the referendum. Hmm. Maybe. Clearly 17 million of us considered an unelected bureaucracy in Brussels ruling over us as unacceptable and, given the chance, voted to regain Britain’s sovereignty. Laughable, when you look at the baying hounds in government that rule over us, democracy seems like nothing more than a soundbite. But I’ll spare you any more of my tired cynicism and just share something I received in my email yesterday that you might find interesting and maybe comment on.

“WHY IS NOBODY TALKING ABOUT THE LISBON TREATY, THE TREATY THAT COMES INTO FORCE 2020, ITS WORSE THAN THE SO CALLED DEAL, IF 99% OF THE BRITISH THINK TERESA MAYS DEAL IS BAD, JUST LOOK AT THE LISBON TREATY. PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW, LEAVERS AND REMAIN
..“What will actually happen if we stay in the EU” is a question no remainer will ever answer but here it is warts and all.
Check it out if you wish ——>>
1: The UK along with all existing members of the EU lose their abstention veto in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon Treaty when the system changes to that of majority acceptance with no abstentions or veto’s being allowed.
2: All member nations will become states of the new federal nation of the EU by 2022 as clearly laid out in the Lisbon treaty with no exceptions or veto’s.
3: All member states must adopt the Euro by 2022 and any new member state must do so within 2 years of joining the EU as laid down in the Lisbon treaty.
4: The London stock exchange will move to Frankfurt in 2020 and be integrated into the EU stock exchange resulting in a loss of 200,000 plus jobs in the UK because of the relocation. (This has already been pre-agreed and is only on a holding pattern due to the Brexit negotiations, which if Brexit does happen, the move is fully cancelled - but if not and the UK remains a member it’s full steam ahead for the move.)
5: The EU Parliament and ECJ become supreme over all legislative bodies of the UK.
6: The UK will adopt 100% of whatever the EU Parliament and ECJ lays down without any means of abstention or veto, negating the need for the UK to have the Lords or even the Commons as we know it today.
7: The UK will NOT be able to make its own trade deals.
8: The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade tariffs.
9 The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade quotas.
10: The UK loses control of its fishing rights
11: The UK loses control of its oil and gas rights
12: The UK loses control of its borders and enters the Schengen region by 2022 - as clearly laid down in the Lisbon treaty
13: The UK loses control of its planning legislation
14: The UK loses control of its armed forces including its nuclear deterrent
15: The UK loses full control of its taxation policy
16: The UK loses the ability to create its own laws and to implement them
17: The UK loses its standing in the Commonwealths
18: The UK loses control of any provinces or affiliated nations e.g.: Falklands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar etc
19: The UK loses control of its judicial system
20: The UK loses control of its international policy
21: The UK loses full control of its national policy
22: The UK loses its right to call itself a nation in its own right.
23: The UK loses control of its space exploration program
24: The UK loses control of its Aviation and Sea lane jurisdiction
25: The UK loses its rebate in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon treaty
26: The UK’s contribution to the EU is set to increase by an average of 1.2bn pa and by 2.3bn pa by 2020
This is the future that the youths of today think we stole from them?
They should be on their knees thanking us for saving them from being turned into Orwellian automatons!
Forget Deals no deals its time for remainers and brexiteers to unite and see whats coming before its to late. This is the whole reason they are dragging brexit out. So we can get to 2020 then we have no choices anymore.”

greybeard

10th September 2019, 07:40

Phoenix1304
Well that sure is interesting and worthy of thought.
At the moment we have the extremes of remaining or leaving without a deal.

Suspect the best that can be hoped for is leaving with a deal.
Cant see that happening.
Hope im wrong
I dont mind leaving but I dont like the way that Boris an Co are going about it.
Chris

greybeard

10th September 2019, 16:05

Sabrina

10th September 2019, 16:28

The European Defence Union is the thing that no politician or main stream media journalist will talk about. May wanted us signed in - and perhaps we already are secretly. In theory, only no deal is our escape route. Intriguing article from the UK Column here on Lord James of Blackheath being threatened in the House of Lords for raising the subject. True Mandela effect as I thought he was dead, and was cover in a very old thread I've just revived.
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/hero-brexit-lord-james-blackheath-threatened-over-eu-defence-union

Phoenix1304

11th September 2019, 07:36

The Libson Treaty

The UK’s independent factchecking charity

https://fullfact.org/europe/viral-list-about-lisbon-treaty-wrong/

A large number of our readers have asked us to factcheck a list of claims about the Lisbon Treaty, or “what will actually happen if we stay in the EU”, which has gone viral on social media.

The list has appeared in numerous versions across different platforms since mid-December. The text at the beginning and end is often different, but the central list of claims is virtually identical across most of the versions we’ve seen.

Much of it is wrong. The list is a mixture of false claims, and claims that have some truth but could be misleading given the context.

That’s partly because many recent versions of the text wrongly say that everything on the list is due to the “Lisbon Treaty”. However, the earliest version of the list we’ve been able to find only says that some of the things on it are due to the Lisbon Treaty.
The Lisbon Treaty

Many recent versions of the list begin with this (or similar) text, which wasn’t present in earlier versions:

WHY IS NOBODY TALKING ABOUT THE LISBON TREATY, THE TREATY THAT COMES INTO FORCE 2020, ITS WORSE THAN THE SO CALLED DEAL, IF 99% OF THE BRITISH THINK THIS THE DEAL IS BAD JUST LOOK AT THE LISBON TREATY. PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW, LEAVERS AND REMAIMERS..“What will actually happen if we stay in the EU” is a question no remainer will ever answer but here it is warts and all.

The Treaty of Lisbon is an agreement which made alterations to some of the key treaties setting out how the European Union operates.

It’s wrong to say that the Lisbon Treaty comes into force in 2020. It was agreed by all EU member countries in 2007 and came into force in 2009, and has been in place ever since. If the UK were to remain in the EU beyond March 2019 for any reason then the Lisbon Treaty wouldn’t suddenly change things.

More on the link.
So much propaganda and untruth.

Chris

https://fullfact.org/europe/viral-list-about-lisbon-treaty-wrong/

https://www.britannica.com/event/Lisbon-Treaty

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/5/the-treaty-of-lisbon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon

Thanks for the links, Chris. Propaganda and untruths seem to have been the hallmarks of the entire circus from the start. There’s so much anger about it all in UK as I’m sure you’re aware. People sit down and compose these emails to have a rant and have their say, plucking their information from a plethora of sources. Who is going to spend a year of their life reading every page of the Lisbon Treaty or May’s deal? We want to take someone’s word for it, someone that has the time and comprehension of the likely Chaucerian language that so many legal docs are couched in (to justify solicitors outrageous fees to interpret). So someone tries to simplify it and gets some details wrong, or focusses on pet hates. Let’s hope the authors at full fact UK have done all that reading and are experts on the matter with no axe to grind.

Personally, I wanted to retire to Spain and Brexit stuffs that for me, but I still feel decentralisation of power is better. These behemoths of control, peopled by plutocrats, are never good for the people or the planet imo, and as we know, all part of a greater sinister plan.

In or out, doesn’t make much difference methinks, we still face corrupt leadership, lining their own pockets at the expense of the taxpayers, big pharma, big agriculture etc. I’d like to see it all go local, where communities decide what’s best for them. Come Armageddon, I guess that’s how it will be. Meanwhile, the best I can do is try and build my little bubble of safety and sanity in the midst of it all and tolerate the impositions of government as best I can.

greybeard

11th September 2019, 08:13

Yes Phoenix1304.
I appreciated your post.
The only thing that the "EU" has for sure brought is no war between us and Germany or Russia--it really is not that long in terms of human "civilization" that WW2 ended.
S.N.P. are going to have a field day in Scotland when the election gets here.
The situation for people who retire to Spain etc is not clear if we leave, especially if there is no deal.

If we "escape" without a deal life will be made difficult for UK---cant have countries leaving the EU---so an example will be made of us.

I dont get that Boris a Co have a sense of accountability for the consequences of a no deal exit.
My way or no way--no matter what, is not statesman ship to my mind.

Some in Labour party would now support an amended May deal--by coincidence that is still held to be a possibility--bet she is smiling.
In fairness I think she believed that this is as good as it gets.

Chris

greybeard

11th September 2019, 10:17

Scottish judges rule Boris Johnson's suspension of parliament unlawful
The Guardian Severin Carrell Scotland editor,The Guardian

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/scottish-judges-rule-boris-johnson-090911888.html

Scottish appeal court judges have declared Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament in the run-up to the October Brexit deadline is unlawful.

The three judges, chaired by Lord Carloway, Scotland’s most senior judge, overturned an earlier ruling that the courts did not have the power to interfere in the prime minister’s political decision to prorogue parliament.

Lawyers acting for 75 opposition MPs and peers argued Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament for five weeks was illegal and in breach of the constitution, as it was designed to stifle parliamentary debate and action on Brexit.

The judges failed to issue an interdict, or injunction, ordering the UK government to reconvene parliament, prompting a row over whether the decision meant MPs could go back to the House of Commons.

The court issued an official summary of its decision declaring the prorogation order was “null and void”, but Carloway said they were deferring a final decision on an interdict to the UK supreme court, which will hold a three-day hearing next week.

Jolyon Maugham QC, the legal campaigner whose Good Law Project funded the legal action, said he and Aidan O’Neill QC, the group’s lawyer, believed this meant prorogation was suspended with immediate effect unless the UK government won a court order reinstating it.

The UK government will appeal at the UK supreme court against the latest ruling, which also contradicts a decision in Johnson’s favour by senior English judges last week.

The supreme court has already scheduled an emergency hearing on both the Scottish and English cases for 17 September, alongside a third challenge brought in the courts in Belfast.

The three Scottish judges, who will issue their own reasonings in full on Friday, said the prorogation was unlawful “because it had the purpose of stymying parliament”.

Parliamentary scrutiny of the executive was “a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution”.

The court’s summary concluded Johnson’s prorogation request to the Queen and her decision to accept it “was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect”.

Maugham said: “Our understanding is that unless the supreme court grants an order in the meantime, parliament is unsuspended with immediate effect.

“I’m relieved that my understanding of the functioning of our democracy – that allows parliament to exercise its vital constitutional role – has been vindicated by Scotland’s highest court.

“This is an incredibly important point of principle. The prime minister mustn’t treat parliament as an inconvenience.”

A UK government spokesperson said: “We are disappointed by today’s decision and will appeal to the UK supreme court. The UK government needs to bring forward a strong domestic lgislative agenda. Proroguing parliament is the legal and necessary way of delivering this.”

Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, said: “I welcome the court’s judgement. No one in their right mind believed Boris Johnson’s reason for shutting down parliament.

“I urge the prime minister to immediately recall parliament so we can debate this judgement and decide what happens next.”

House of Commons authorities had no immediate response when asked if the Speaker would be able to declare parliament is back in session, with a spokeswoman saying the ruling was being looked into.

The Liberal Democrat leader, Jo Swinson, tweeted: “Scottish judges have found in favour of 75 MPs (including me and other Liberal Democrats). We argued that Boris Johnson’s parliament shutdown is illegal, and designed to stifle parliamentary debate and action on Brexit.”

greybeard

11th September 2019, 20:49

Boris Johnson 'deceived Queen and should resign'
Yahoo News UK Jimmy Nsubuga,Yahoo News

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boris-johnson-deceived-queen-and-should-resign-172441326.html

If Boris Johnson is found to have deceived the Queen he should quit, a former Tory MP has said.

The Prime Minister will have no choice but to resign if a court upholds a decision he misled the royal when giving her reasons why Parliament should be prorogued, according to ex-Conservative Attorney General Dominic Grieve.

The former Tory MP, who was sacked by the PM when he went against him on a Brexit vote, was joined by Labour’s David Lammy in demanding he leaves should he lose an appeal over a decision made by three senior Scottish judges on Wednesday.

The judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh concluded the prorogation was “improper” and “unlawful”and had been done with “the purpose of stymying Parliament” and therefore was “null and of no effect”.

Mr Grieve told BBC News: “It is absolutely central to our constitution that the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Queen is one of the utmost confidentiality and the utmost good faith.

“If it were to be the case that the Government had misled the Queen about the reasons for suspending Parliament and the motives for it – that would be a very serious matter indeed.

“Indeed in my view, it would then be the moment for Mr Johnson to resign – and very swiftly.”

Mr Lammy wants both Mr Johnson and his advisor Dominic Cummings to leave.

greybeard

11th September 2019, 21:14

Impact of no-deal Brexit revealed in Government documents
PA Media: UK News By Shaun Connolly, PA Political Correspondent,PA Media: UK News
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/impact-no-deal-brexit-revealed-192303735.html

A no-deal Brexit could trigger major hold-ups at channel ports, electricity price increases, shortages of some foods and delays to medicine imports, Government documents reveal.

HGV delays of between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half days would occur at Dover and public disorder could increase, according to Operation Yellowhammer “reasonable worst case planning assumptions” released in response to MPs voting for it to happen.

The document says: “There are likely to be significant electricity (price) increases for consumers.”

On food, it warns that some fresh supplies will decrease and that “critical dependencies for the food chain” such as key ingredients “may be in shorter supply”.

It says these factors would not lead to overall food shortages “but will reduce the availability and choice of products and will increase price, which could impact vulnerable groups”.

The document also says: “Low-income groups will be disproportionately affected by any price rises in food and fuel.”

The analysis says the flow of cross-Channel goods could be reduced to 40% of current rates on day one, with “significant disruption lasting up to six months”.

“Unmitigated, this will have an impact on the supply of medicines and medical supplies,” it says.

“The reliance of medicines and medical products’ supply chains on the short straits crossing make them particularly vulnerable to severe extended delays.”

The release of the document came as Prime Minister Boris Johnson was facing furious demands for the immediate recall of MPs to Westminster after the suspension of Parliament was ruled unlawful by Scotland’s highest civil court.

In a dramatic judgment, the Court of Session in Edinburgh found ministers had stopped MPs from sitting for the “improper purpose of stymying Parliament”.

It said advice given by ministers to the Queen which led to the five-week prorogation was therefore “unlawful and is thus null and of no effect”.

The Government immediately announced it was lodging an appeal against the ruling with the Supreme Court, with a hearing set for Tuesday.

The document’s assumptions are “as of August 2” this year, and it notes that day one after the scheduled EU exit on October 31 is a Friday, “which may not be to our advantage” and may coincide with the end of the October half-term school holidays.

It adds: “Protests and counter-protests will take place across the UK and may absorb significant amounts of police resource.

“There may also be a rise in public disorder and community tensions.”

The Government dossier says that on day one of a no-deal Brexit “between 50-85% of HGVs travelling via the short Channel Straits may not be ready for French customs.

“The lack of trader readiness combined with limited space in French ports to hold ‘unready’ HGVs could reduce the flow rate to 40-60% of current levels within one day as unready HGVs will fill the ports and block flow.

“The worst disruption to the short Channel Straits might last for up to 3 months before it improves by a significant level to around 50-70% (due to more traders getting prepared), although there could continue to be some disruption for significantly longer.”
Brexit
Part of the document was redacted (UK Government/PA)

The document says UK citizens travelling to and from the EU “may be subject to increased immigration checks at EU border posts” causing delays.

The analysis indicates that the aim of avoiding a hard border in Northern Ireland may be “unsustainable”.

The document is very similar to one leaked last month, which the Government insisted was out of date.

The leaked information was marked a “base case” scenario, but the information released by the Government, part of which was redacted, was labelled a “worst-case scenario”.

The document was released following a Commons motion put down by former Tory attorney general Dominic Grieve.

greybeard

12th September 2019, 13:46

Operation Yellowhammer unveils horror for UK economy in no-deal Brexit
Lianna Brinded,Yahoo Finance UK

https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/project-yellow-hammer-unveils-the-horror-for-the-uk-economy-in-nodeal-brexit-072843087.html

Everything that was classed as “Project Fear” — a smear campaign against those who support staying in the European Union — will come true in a no-deal Brexit, according to the details from the government’s Operation Yellowhammer contingency plan.

MPs forced the government, which is led by staunch Brexiteer prime minister Boris Johnson, to release documents related to how it predicts a no-deal Brexit will affect the UK and what it will do to prepare for those consequences. It is classed as a series of "reasonable worst case assumptions" if Britain exits the EU without an agreement in place.

The report detailed how food prices will rise, that there will be a reduction in the availability of medical supplies and other essentials, which would also lead to riots and other civil unrest.

Other major issues cited in the report reveal a nightmare scenario for the UK, which will impact the economy, including how some businesses will cease to trade, leading to the growth of a black market.

Imports and exports will also be severely disrupted as lorries could have to wait more than two days to cross borders due to the absence of rules and regulations.

The shadow Brexit secretary from Britain’s main opposition Labour, Keir Starmer, said in a statement: "These documents confirm the severe risks of a no-deal Brexit, which Labour has worked so hard to block.

"It is completely irresponsible for the government to have tried to ignore these stark warnings and prevent the public from seeing the evidence."

Meanwhile, MPs also voted for all internal correspondence and communications between people advising the government related to Brexit to be handed over for scrutiny. This includes WhatsApp messages and emails.

However, one of Boris Johnson’s most senior cabinet colleagues said that ministers were ultimately responsible and accountable for actions parliament take, so, therefore, it is "inappropriate in principle, and in practice, would on its own terms, purport to require the government to contravene the law, and is singularly unfair to the named individuals” to release those communications.

greybeard

13th September 2019, 08:36

John Bercow: I’ll stop Boris Johnson breaking the law on Brexit
The Guardian Rowena Mason and Owen Bowcott,The Guardian

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/bercow-warns-pm-not-defy-190420719.html

John Bercow has threatened Boris Johnson that he will be prepared to rip up the parliamentary rulebook to stop any illegal attempt by the prime minister to take the UK out of the EU without a deal on 31 October.

In a direct warning to No 10, the Speaker of the House of Commons said he is prepared to allow “additional procedural creativity” if necessary to allow parliament to block Johnson from ignoring the law.

“If we come close to [Johnson ignoring the law], I would imagine parliament would want to cut off that possibility … Neither the limitations of the existing rulebook or ticking of the clock will stop it doing so,” he said, delivering the annual Bingham lecture in London. “If I have been remotely ambiguous so far, let me make myself crystal clear. The only form of Brexit that we have, whenever that might be, will be a Brexit that the House of Commons has explicitly endorsed.”

He also proposed a written constitution to stop “executive malpractice or fiat”, which could potentially have avoided the constitutional crisis that the UK has found itself in over Brexit.

Bercow’s dramatic intervention will be one of his last as Speaker, as he has announced that he will stand down at the end of October just two weeks after parliament is due to return from its current state of suspension.

Johnson faced yet another difficult day on Thursday as he was forced to deny having misled the Queen over his reasons for proroguing parliament, which was judged unlawful this week by a Scottish court. The full ruling of three appeal court judges was published on Thursday, in which they agreed unanimously it was to prevent proper parliamentary scrutiny of his Brexit strategy, and for no other reason.

Lord Carloway, the Lord President, said prorogation was sought “in a clandestine manner” during a time when Downing Street knew that 75 MPs and peers were taking the government to court to block prorogation.

Speaking after an event about shipbuilding, Johnson said it was “absolutely not true” that he lied to the monarch in advising her to suspend parliament, insisting it was a decision taken to facilitate a Queen’s speech in mid-October. The prime minister, who is due to give a speech in the north of England on Friday, highlighted a differing judgment by the high court in London and said it was for the supreme court to make a final adjudication next week.

Johnson also sought to play down a row about the role of Scottish judges in ruling prorogation unlawful after the business minister, Kwasi Kwarteng, claimed “many people” thought judges were biased in relation to Brexit.

With his options narrowing, Johnson appears to be increasing efforts to secure a deal with the EU, possibly by moving more towards a watered-down form of Northern Ireland-only backstop. However, he maintains that a no-deal Brexit on 31 October is still possible and sought to minimise the significance of the Operation Yellowhammer documents published by order of parliament on Wednesday. These set out the threat of food and medicine shortages, travel disruption and public disorder in a worst-case no-deal scenario.

The prime minister has pledged to abide by the law in general but he has also said he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than ask the EU for another Brexit extension and suggested in a letter to Tory members that he is only bound by the legislation forbidding a no-deal exit on 31 October “in theory”. His top adviser, Dominic Cummings, is said to believe that the law does not make the government bound to secure a delay from the EU, but various options – such as sending a contradictory letter to Brussels – have been dismissed as illegal by experts. Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, has suggested Johnson could be a “Brexit martyr” if he holds out against requesting an extension.

In his speech Bercow lambasted the idea that Johnson could even consider ignoring legislation passed by MPs, which mandates the prime minister to seek a three-month Brexit delay if no deal is struck by mid-October.

He went on to compare any attempt by Brexit advocates to ignore the law in pursuit of what they believe to be a higher cause to “robbing a bank on the basis that the cash stolen would be donated to a charitable cause immediately afterwards”.

“Not obeying the law must surely be a non-starter. Period. Surely. In 2019, in modern Britain, in a parliamentary democracy, we parliamentarians, legislators, cannot in all conscience be conducting a debate as to whether adherence to the law is or is not required,” Bercow said.

“What conceivable moral force do the public’s representatives have in seeking to tackle antisocial behaviour, in seeking to prosecute the fight against knife crime and seeking to argue the state should protect itself against all sorts of nefarious illegality if we are to treat for a moment the proposition it might be in order in the name of some higher cause to disregard … It is astonishing that anyone has even tried to entertain the notion. It would be the most terrible example to set to the rest of society.”

Bercow, who is standing down after 10 years in the Speaker’s chair, said the “Brexit maelstrom” had exposed weaknesses in the country’s political framework.

“I have been a sceptic in the past about the desirability of a written constitution for the UK,” he said. “I have come to the conclusion that it’s worth establishing a royal commission or a Speaker’s conference to explore [the options].”

It should aim to ensure, he said, that the authority of the House of Commons is “never distorted by executive malpractices or fiat ... We must consider whether a written constitution is what we need.”

Three outcomes, Bercow explained, were most likely when parliament returns on 14 October: a new withdrawal agreement supported by parliament, a no-deal Brexit backed by a Commons majority, or a request by the government to Brussels for a future temporary extension of the UK’s membership of the EU.

Bercow has become a vilified figure among Brexiters who believe he has been complicit in thwarting efforts to leave the EU.

Addressing his critics, Bercow said he believed he had never bent or broken the rules of the House of Commons.

He condemned those “bigots” who conduct personal attacks on MPs. Portraying MPs such as Dominic Grieve in newspapers as “enemies of the people” is a dangerous development, he said. And using such terms as “Go back” is noxious and repellent, he added.

greybeard

13th September 2019, 11:19

The Brexit Party takes control of council in Hartlepool
George Martin
Yahoo News UK13 September 2019

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/brexit-party-hartlepool-council-conservative-092856981.html?.tsrc=bell-brknews

The Brexit Party has taken over the running of its first council in the north-east of England.

Hartlepool Borough Council said nine independent councillors had formed a pact with the Brexit Party on Thursday night.

The party itself later announced that it had formed a pact with three Conservatives, in a move which it said "put country before party".

The new group will replace the Independent Union and Conservative Group which had previously been running the council.
Brexit Party chairman Richard Tice applauds during a Brexit Party rally in London, Tuesday, May 21, 2019. Some 400 million Europeans from 28 countries head to the polls from Thursday to Sunday to choose their representatives at the European Parliament for the next five years. Farage's Brexit Party is leading opinion polls in the contest for 73 U.K. seats in the 751-seat European Parliament. (AP Photo/Frank Augstein)
View photos
Brexit Party chairman Richard Tice hailed the new coalition as part of an attempt to 'respect the Brexit vote'. (Getty)

The Brexit Party-Conservative coalition now has 13 councillors on the 32-seat council, compared with Labour’s 10.

News of the takeover is seen as a significant blow to Labour, which considers the north-east a safe area.

Labour lost overall control of the council in May, with the council’s former leader blaming “a divided party”.

READ MORE FROM YAHOO NEWS UK:

Boris Johnson rules out general election pact with Nigel Farage's Brexit Party
Farage opens door to ‘unstoppable’ Brexit Party pact with Tories and Johnson
Sajid Javid praises Nigel Farage for ignoring 'thugs and racists'

Divisions have emerged since the EU referendum in 2016 when 70 per cent of the Hartlepool electorate voted Leave.

Party chairman Richard Tice told the BBC: "Regardless of the shenanigans in Westminster, Brexiteers in the North East are pushing to take back control so they can respect the Brexit vote."

"Hartlepool has long been a target for UKIP and now the Brexit Party in Westminster elections.

"With 12 councillors the Brexit Party and Conservative coalition would be the biggest group in the 33 seat Hartlepool council."

While Councillor Tom Cassidy, who has joined The Brexit Party, said: "I could no longer sit back and witness the 70% of people who voted here in 2016 being ignored by MPs in Westminster.

"Joining The Brexit Party as one united team is the only way we can stand up to the establishment and Labour Party who now back Remain.

“Local Labour MP Mike Hill no longer represents the people of Hartlepool. With The Brexit Party now in full swing, he and his Labour colleague’s days are now numbered.

Hartlepool becomes the first council under the control of the Brexit party in the north-east of England, where Nigel Farage is fighting hard to make inroads.

Matthew

13th September 2019, 17:34

This thread is an alternative forum travesty

greybeard

13th September 2019, 17:50

This thread is an alternative forum travesty

YoYoYo
There is nothing preventing you posting all you can find on alternative view point.
Chris

greybeard

13th September 2019, 18:16

David Cameron told Michael Gove: ‘You’re either a team player of a w****r’
Yahoo News UK Joe Gamp,Yahoo News UK

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/david-cameron-boris-johnson-michael-gove-170327170.html

David Cameron has savaged Boris Johnson and Michael Gove in an interview to promote the launch of his new autobiography.

The former Prime Minister, who quit office after the EU referendum result in June 2016, is about to release his eagerly awaited book.

In an interview with The Times, Mr Cameron criticised Mr Johnson and Michael Gove’s behaviour during the EU referendum, saying: “I say in the book: Boris had never argued for leaving the EU, right?

“They were trashing the government of which they were a part.

“There was a moment when I think it was Penny Mordaunt said on a Sunday morning show: “We have no power to stop Turkey joining the EU.’ It’s just not true.

“The issue of whether or not we had a veto over Turkey, and over the issue of the £350 million on the bus, I think they left the truth at home.”

In the book, the former Tory leader describes why he decided in 2014 to demote him from education secretary to chief whip.

Apparently Cameron said: “You are either a team player or a wanker.”

When asked if he told Mr Gove in person, he replied: “I think I put it in a text.”

In the interview Mr Cameron was asked of his decision to call the Eu referendum in 2016.

He continued: “I understand that, but the country was divided whether we should be in the EU before the referendum. Some people passionately wanted to leave; some people passionately wanted to stay.

“Some people were very angry that they’d been promised referendums and never had them delivered.

”But this feels like the worst of times. I totally recognise the uncertainty has been painful and difficult.

“It’s been difficult for all sorts of people in all sorts of walks of life.”

He was then asked how he felt about the UK voting to leave the EU and triggering the Brexit process.

He answered:“I think about this every day. Every single day I think about it, the referendum and the fact that we lost and the consequences and the things that could have been done differently, and I worry desperately about what is going to happen next.

“I think we can get to a situation where we leave but we are friends, neighbours and partners. We can get there, but I would love to fast-forward to that moment because it’s painful for the country and it’s painful to watch.”

Chris

greybeard

13th September 2019, 19:55

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

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/david-cameron-says-second-brexit-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

13th September 2019, 22:58

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

greybeard

14th September 2019, 06:10

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/article-7458129/RICHARD-KAY-asks-just-expect-David-Camerons-hotly-anticipated-memoirs.htmld

Hervé

14th September 2019, 12:24

The Dogs in the Street Know (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/09/the-dogs-in-the-street-know/)

by craig (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/author/craigm/)
12 Sep, 2019 (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/09/12/)

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

Joanna Cherry stated (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/sep/09/brexit-latest-news-eu-no-deal-bill-royal-assent-boris-johnson-parliament-politics-live?page=with:block-5d7689ca8f08143ee1ae317b) 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 (https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/tony-blair-a-simple-referendum-will-solve-brexit-not-a-chaotic-general-election-a4230651.html) 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

14th September 2019, 13:04

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

14th September 2019, 15:21

'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-conservatives-boris-johnson-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

14th September 2019, 16:25

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

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/liberal-democrats-launch-campaign-cancel-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

15th September 2019, 17:04

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

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/tories-extend-poll-lead-12-191839820.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

16th September 2019, 07:03

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-officials-reject-boris-johnson-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

16th September 2019, 08:15

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

P80hZh7WlDw

Pieman

16th September 2019, 18:28

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

16th September 2019, 18:58

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 (https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/hero-brexit-lord-james-blackheath-threatened-over-eu-defence-union)

v8kpSunOShE

greybeard

16th September 2019, 19:34

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

17th September 2019, 07:06

greybeard

17th September 2019, 09:14

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/brexit-disaster-capitalism-8-billion-bet-on-no-deal-crash-out-by-boris-johnsons-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

17th September 2019, 09:23

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-legal-loophole-allow-boris-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

17th September 2019, 12:37

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

18th September 2019, 10:45

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-vows-put-apos-sensible-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

19th September 2019, 17:20

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-claude-juncker-deal-brexit-happen-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

21st September 2019, 08:21

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-johnson-deliver-brexit-deal-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

Cara

22nd September 2019, 05:44

Interesting comments on Brexit and the anti-democratic response of the EU bureaucracy from the Italian MEP Marco Zanni in the EU parliament:

v2H7I8IKpxU

Published on Sep 20, 2019
Italian MEP Marco Zanni launched a scathing attack against the European Union over the institutions' treatment of the UK during the Brexit talks, branding Brussels' attitude as deplorable.

Lega Party MEP Marco Zanni warned the European Union may soon well see the end of the European project due to the "deplorable" attitude the bloc adopted towards Britain during Brexit negotiations.

Mr Zanni insisted the British decision to quit is a "demonstration of the errors of the past" the EU committed through the years as he demanded Brussels respect British voters.

Addressing colleagues in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, the Italian MEP said: "We have to look at the deep-rooted roots that have led to decisions such as this, why citizens want to leave the European Union.

greybeard

22nd September 2019, 07:40

Andrew Marr on BBC1 9am will prove interesting as usual.
Ch

greybeard

22nd September 2019, 17:39

General Election, a thought.
Labour in a mess--Boris likely to loose the legal judgment.
Tories elderly supporters are very Queen and country so they may be unhappy at The Queen being drawn into this.
So come the Genera Election if the Liberal Democrats continue to do well they may form the next Government
People may feel a change is due.
The SNP at the moment is a remain party so if the Liberals are short of a working majority it may well be that it would suit SNP, time being, to enter into a coalition and the other remain parties might follow suit.
Even if SNP get another referendum and Scots vote for Home Rule that cant happen over night..
All of a sudden it does not seem impassible for another Female to be PM and why not?
All this just a wild guess.

Chris

Letty

23rd September 2019, 02:03

scanner

23rd September 2019, 08:45

Hi John,

I understand why you would see Brexit as "ill-informed parochialism."

But England will do just fine without the EU.

Historically it's the financial centre of the world and every country stores its gold in the City of London.

Many people think that Wall Street holds the purse - this is not the case, it's The City of London.

The US has the might, England has the purse.

The British Empire never died.

It's a bumpy ride and it will certainly get more sinuous, but the English will quickly land on their feet.

They always do.

Cheers,

Letty

Although I agree, England will be fine. I think you'll find it's Switzerland who hold the economic power. That's why, in two World wars, it was always neutral, UK is just the admin/holders. US is heading for a hard crash, Fed pumping two trillion dollars in to their banking system until 10/10/19. Not being well reported, but it's happening. Boris and all the rest are screwing us, as usual, all smoke and mirrors by the NWO elites. Crash the unsustainable banking system. Take all property and land held as securities. Move to a one World currency, one World Gov, one World religion, I'm led to believe that's their agenda, checkmate.

greybeard

23rd September 2019, 08:57

Channel 4 Wed 25th "The Tories at war" may be worth a look.
the review below is pretty bare knuckle.
Think a lot of people are disillusioned and more will be.
No matter your choice --your screwed.
Chris

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/tories-war-review-lack-restraint-105440993.html

greybeard

23rd September 2019, 19:24

I honestly cant see Jeremy Corbyn's logic.
It might have been ok before the Liberal Democrats surged but now I suspect he has given them a lot of labour remain votes.
If I was of the mind to vote the whole thing would be doing my head in.
Chris

greybeard

24th September 2019, 09:49

The verdict of the supreme court was clear and easily understandable.
The decision by the Government was unlawful.
Parliament will resit.
Chris

scanner

24th September 2019, 11:31

greybeard

24th September 2019, 11:50

The verdict of the supreme court was clear and easily understandable.
The decision by the Government was unlawful.
Parliament will resit.
ChrisI note the wording is, Government was unlawful and not Boris Johnson.

My quick post was misleading scanner.
Parliament is all the members the government is Boris and members of the cabinet.
So action of Boris was unlawful.
Chris

greybeard

24th September 2019, 12:23

Boris Johnson loses historic ruling after Supreme Court finds suspension of Parliament was unlawful
Ross McGuinness

Yahoo News UK24 September 2019

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-ruling-boris-johnson-parliament-suspension-unlawful-094210047.html

Supreme Court judges unanimously rule Boris Johnson’s suspension of Parliament was unlawful

Parliament will reconvene on Wednesday morning

John Bercow calls on Parliament to ‘convene without delay’

Labour MPs urge Prime Minister to resign

Pound jumps as prorogation declared void

MPs will return to Westminster tomorrow after Boris Johnson lost a historic Supreme Court case after judges unanimously ruled that his advice to the Queen to suspend Parliament was unlawful.

The panel of 11 justices decided the five-week prorogation of Parliament was designed to prevent Parliament from carrying out its duties, and was therefore “void and of no effect”.

The decision is a devastating blow for the Prime Minister, who was accused in court last week of an unlawful “abuse of power”.

Mr Johnson immediately faced calls to resign from Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

The judges sided with a previous decision in a Scottish court that Mr Johnson’s prorogation decision was unlawful because it was “motivated by the improper purpose of stymieing Parliament”.

greybeard

24th September 2019, 12:32

Boris Johnson Supreme Court ruling: Judgment in full
Yahoo News UK Yahoo News UK 2 hours 25 minutes ago

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-boris-johnson-judgment-in-full-100348777.html

Here is a link to the judgment in full. Below is the summary provided to assist in understanding the Court’s decision. It does not form part of the reasons for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document.
Supreme Court ruling summary

In giving the judgment of the Court Lady Hale said:

We have before us two appeals, one from the High Court of England and Wales and one from the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. It is important, once again, to emphasise that these cases are not about when and on what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union. They are only about whether the advice given by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty the Queen on 27th or 28th August, that Parliament should be prorogued from a date between 9th and 12th September until 14th October, was lawful and the legal consequences if it was not. The question arises in circumstances which have never arisen before and are unlikely to arise again. It is a “one-off”.

Briefly, the Scottish case was brought by a cross party group of 75 members of Parliament and a QC on 30th July because of their concern that Parliament might be prorogued to avoid further debate in the lead up to exit day on 31st October. On 15th August, Nikki da Costa, Director of Legislative Affairs at No 10, sent a memorandum to the Prime Minister, copied to seven people, civil servants and special advisers, recommending that his Parliamentary Private Secretary approach the Palace with a request for prorogation to begin within 9th to 12th September and for a Queen’s Speech on 14th October. The Prime Minister ticked ‘yes’ to that recommendation.
Lady Hale of the Supreme Court of the UK. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)
Lady Hale of the Supreme Court of the UK. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

On 27th or 28th August, in a telephone call, he formally advised Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament between those dates. On 28th August, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Privy Council, Mr Mark Harper, chief whip, and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, Leader of the House of Lords, attended a meeting of the Privy Council held by the Queen at Balmoral Castle. An Order in Council was made that Parliament be prorogued between those dates and that the Lord Chancellor prepare and issue a commission for proroguing Parliament accordingly. A Cabinet meeting was held by conference call shortly after that in order to bring the rest of the Cabinet “up to speed” on the decisions which had been taken. That same day, the decision was made public and the Prime Minister sent a letter to all Members of Parliament explaining it. As soon as the decision was announced, Mrs Miller began the English proceedings challenging its lawfulness.

Parliament returned from the summer recess on 3rd September. The House of Commons voted to decide for themselves what business they would transact. The next day what became the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act passed all its stages in the Commons. It passed all its stages in the House of Lords on 6th September and received royal assent on 9th September. The object of that Act is to prevent the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement on 31st October.

On 11th September, the High Court of England and Wales delivered judgment dismissing Mrs Miller’s claim on the ground that the issue was not justiciable in a court of law. That same day, the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland announced its decision that the issue was justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliamentary scrutiny of the Government, and that it, and any prorogation which followed it, were unlawful and thus void and of no effect.

Mrs Miller’s appeal against the English decision and the Advocate General’s appeal against the Scottish decision were heard by this court from 17th to 19th September. Because of the importance of the case, we convened a panel of 11 Justices, the maximum number of serving Justices who are permitted to sit. This judgment is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.

The first question is whether the lawfulness of the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty is justiciable. This Court holds that it is. The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries. As long ago as 1611, the court held that “the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”. However, in considering prerogative powers, it is necessary to distinguish between two different questions. The first is whether a prerogative power exists and if so its extent. The second is whether the exercise of that power, within its limits, is open to legal challenge. This second question may depend upon what the power is all about: some powers are not amenable to judicial review while others are. However, there is no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power. All the parties to this case accept that.

This Court has concluded that this case is about the limits of the power to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament.

The second question, therefore, is what are the limits to that power? Two fundamental principles of our Constitution are relevant to deciding that question. The first is Parliamentary sovereignty - that Parliament can make laws which everyone must obey: this would be undermined if the executive could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament from exercising its power to make laws for as long as it pleased. The second fundamental principle is Parliamentary accountability: in the words of Lord Bingham, senior Law Lord, “the conduct of government by a Prime Minister and Cabinet collectively responsible and accountable to Parliament lies at the heart of Westminster democracy”. The power to prorogue is limited by the constitutional principles with which it would otherwise conflict.

For present purposes, the relevant limit on the power to prorogue is this: that a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In judging any justification which might be put forward, the court must of course be sensitive to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister and proceed with appropriate caution.

If the prorogation does have that effect, without reasonable justification, there is no need for the court to consider whether the Prime Minister’s motive or purpose was unlawful.

The third question, therefore, is whether this prorogation did have the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. This was not a normal prorogation in the run-up to a Queen’s Speech. It prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional role for five out of the possible eight weeks between the end of the summer recess and exit day on 31st October. Proroguing Parliament is quite different from Parliament going into recess. While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither House can debate Government policy. Nor may members ask written or oral questions of Ministers or meet and take evidence in committees. In general, Bills which have not yet completed all their stages are lost and will have to start again from scratch after the Queen’s Speech. During a recess, on the other hand, the House does not sit but Parliamentary business can otherwise continue as usual.

This prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme.

No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken is the memorandum from Nikki da Costa of 15th August. This explains why holding the Queen’s Speech to open a new session of Parliament on 14th October would be desirable. It does not explain why it was necessary to bring Parliamentary business to a halt for five weeks before that, when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queen’s Speech is four to six days. It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and recess. It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated

legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31st October. It does not discuss what Parliamentary time would be needed to secure Parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the Court should grant. The Court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful.

The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect. The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a “proceeding in Parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament.

It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end.

This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.

It is for Parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next.

Unless there is some Parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court.

It follows that the Advocate General’s appeal in the case of Cherry is dismissed and Mrs Miller’s appeal is allowed. The same declarations and orders should be made in each case.

scanner

24th September 2019, 12:49

Thanks for the clarification and the subsequence post with links. Does this mean BOJO will be lodging in the Tower ? ;)

greybeard

24th September 2019, 17:07

If you were to write this as a play it would not be considered believable.
Boris seems to be in denial.
Certainly it may appear as film some day--twists all the way up to the end.
Whatever that is.
A liberal government--home rule for Scotland--well all thats not too far fetched now, is it????

Chris

Cara

25th September 2019, 08:20

Alexander Mercouris (a strong supporter of Brexit) analyses and discusses the Supreme Court decision. Its implications are vast and go beyond Brexit to the constitution of the UK.

Discussion starts a few minutes in.

95aRljx2lnw

greybeard

25th September 2019, 09:03

I listened as the "verdict" was read out and cant fault the logic of how they came to that conclusion, logical and well thought out.
I can see that those who cant see past Boris would have a problem with it.
A lot of Hippocraticy If anyone else other than the golden boy had that track record--the far right Tory members would have been in "Hang them, shoot them " mode.
The end justifies the means seems to apply to that kind of thinking.
Regardless of for or against Brexit I think the verdict was fair and unbiased.
Chris

greybeard

25th September 2019, 16:08

Cant help but think that Michael Gove would have been a better choice to lead the Government.
He is articulate, clear and convincing.
Chris

scanner

26th September 2019, 07:25

Do you mean Gove, self-confessed Zionist and drug taker ?

greybeard

26th September 2019, 07:54

Do you mean Gove, self-confessed Zionist and drug taker ?

I meant for the conservative party not me.
He is a more convincing liar than Boris Lol
Im biased but the leader of the SNP at Westminster comes across really well.

Im just watching the whole thing with amazement--do these people actually believe what they are saying or just out to score points anyway they can?
Though Im not involved--I do have concern for people who are being adversely affected now and in the future no matter which way it goes.
Chris

scanner

26th September 2019, 08:15

greybeard

26th September 2019, 08:27

The damage, all of these politicians have done and are still doing, is irreversible. People, I talk to, say what's the point of voting, they ignored us and more importantly, our vote. It's going to be very interesting at the next general election and the turn out numbers.

I agree scanner--I think people were mislead by Boris Johnston prior to the vote --unreal expectation of life after Brexit--however for whatever reason the vote was to leave.
I value your input on this scanner.
Chris

greybeard

26th September 2019, 10:21

As a law professor, I can see Boris Johnson hasn't committed a crime – he's done something far worse than that
The Independent Thom Brooks,The Independent Tue, 24 Sep 14:53 BST

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/lawyer-see-boris-johnson-hasnt-135322634.html

Three years ago, Boris Johnson argued Britain should vote Leave, taking back control and “freeing” the UK from the European Court of Justice to make the British Supreme Court its top judicial body. Today, that same Supreme Court has given Johnson the most devastating verdict issued in a generation, and it’s left his premiership in tatters.

Johnson's government prorogued parliament for five weeks. They argued that the extended suspension was simply needed to put together a new legislative agenda for a Queen's Speech next month, and that this was a political decision beyond review of the courts, meaning that any such intervention would be an act of judicial interference.

In its landmark decision, the Supreme Court has found the government wrong on all points. Its damning, unanimous verdict is that "it is impossible for us to conclude on the evidence … that there was any reason – let alone a good reason – to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament for five weeks". Lady Hale, president of the Supreme Court, declared that Johnson's actions were "unlawful, void and of no effect".

The legal implications are clear: when Black Rod came to the House of Commons to suspend it, the order was a mere "blank piece of paper" as its words had no lawful effect. Parliament was not technically suspended, and should now be reconvened immediately in a manner to be determined by the speakers of each house.

The repercussions of this verdict are profound, and given the unanimous verdict, they will run deep. The prime minister has been declared to have made an unlawful request to the Queen to silence parliament in order to pursue a policy agenda that parliament was trying to block. This is not simply undemocratic in that it gags Britain’s elected representatives; it's also unconstitutional.

Amongst lawyers and legal commentators, it was widely expected the government would lose. The executive simply cannot avoid unwelcome scrutiny by parliament, to which it is accountable, by suspending it in order to get its way by other means. The UK may have an "unwritten" constitution insofar as its central rules and conventions are not set out in one document as they are in the US, but its rules and conventions are no less real and form the basis for the rule of law.

So what now? There is a clear convention to be followed by senior government officials when found to have breached the law: to resign immediately. Johnson may not have committed a criminal offence, but in committing an offence against our constitution and the rule of law, he has arguably done something even worse – not only damaging the office of the prime minister, but dragging the Queen into his Brexit mess.
http://players.brightcove.net/624246174001/default_default/index.html?videoId=5837728067001
Support free-thinking journalism and attend Independent events

Johnson's time is now up. He has made a serious error of legal judgement, and he must face the consequences. Clinging onto his office will not improve his position, whether in parliament or in trying to represent the country abroad as he tries to secure a new Brexit deal.

Whether one supports Leave or Remain is irrelevant; the rule of law was always going to prevail. In spite of the of the prime minister’s constitutional vandalism, it has done so triumphantly. Johnson must now pay the price and become the UK's shortest serving occupant of 10 Downing Street. And the sooner, the better.

Thom Brooks is Professor of Law and Government at Durham University.

greybeard

26th September 2019, 17:58

Boris Johnson's sister says his language was 'tasteless'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jutYLDL08TQ

rgray222

26th September 2019, 23:47

greybeard

27th September 2019, 06:19

Thanks for your post rgray222
You reminded me that the vote to leave won but a substantial number voted to remain.
When Brexit is done with people will revert to normal priorities--providing for self and family.
So all will be well--there will be winners and losers no matter which way it goes.
Thats life but it does seem that in many areas of life violence is seen as a way of settling things.
Be it verbal or knife crimes--there seems increased polarity--the good verses evil.
Respect out the window.
Nothing goes on for ever Brexit will come to an end.
Chris

greybeard

27th September 2019, 06:40

In Scotland it would seem that the people and their MPs are in agreement--dont leave.
National identity seems a prime mover in England and in Scotland but with different results.
Scotland is more reliaiant on European free trade perhaps and has done quite well out of being "part" of Europe.
Anyway the whole finance situation is quite complex and it boils down to what is the best financial deal for the majority of the people, whatever that may be.
Chris

greybeard

27th September 2019, 08:25

It seems to me that if England does not leave the EU they will be one step away from anarchy. If people "feel" that their votes do not matter it would make the validity and effectiveness of the government almost nonexistent.

I saw this today and it seemed to put things into perspective.

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/71698574_2304431036322069_6287043007002705920_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_oc=AQl-nJFg3mr0BYl0WcMtEJ45kDLvsZxHIlubkGhz57RLX893XxR7RoFdn4-wDSHIUsI&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=581f6b37af6ba12050d69f3e2610f5ef&oe=5DFB6AD4

Looking once again at the figures
There is just over a million more voted to leave---its not a landslide victory for leave.
The media is all about the people voted leave end of story--fair enough leave won.
However the rest of the figures dont make sense in proportion to the actual numbers voted remain--vs --leave
The % for leave in the votes cast is far far lower than the rest of the statistic which does have a massive % for leave apart from the no of MPs for remain.
Statistics statistics.
Chris

greybeard

27th September 2019, 08:35

Boris Johnson knows exactly what he's doing. The angrier Britain is, the better for him – and Trump showed him how
The Independent Sean O'Grady,The Independent

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boris-johnson-knows-exactly-hes-090808770.html

No one listening to Brendan Cox’s interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning could fail to be touched by what he was saying about the way Jo Cox’s name and memory has been used and abused in the House of Commons. The contemptuous manner in which Boris Johnson dismissed others MPs’ distress and fears of death threats as “humbug” was unusually offensive, even by his standards.

It was ludicrous for him to make out that the best way to honour Jo Cox’s memory would be to “get Brexit done", breathtaking in its audacity, and the emotional responses to that remark were visceral. After all, Jo Cox was assassinated while campaigning for Remain during the 2016 referendum – and event which, for a time, stopped the clock.

Her widower has appealed for some calm, and for everyone to recall Jo's abiding testament: “We are far more united, and have far more in common with each other, than things that divide us”. He regrets that the Brexit debate has descended into a “bear pit of polarisation”.

Brendan is right about that, but the political polarisation he refers to – and the exploitation of it – is quite deliberate, and has not yet peaked. Johnson will see to that.

The polarisation of the debate is intensified by the prime minister all the better to mobilise his own “base” of support: increasingly embittered and frustrated Leavers. He wants them to turn out and vote for him on some dank evening in November. He wants to get them angry.

Thus, he actively wants to be seen battling with parliament – and especially opposition MPs – in the name of “the people”; that is, Leavers. The optics, as they say, suits him fine.

Johnson is battling, or rather wishing to appear to be battling, valiantly against a vast “Remain Establishment” conspiracy, a “zombie parliament”, terrorist-sympathising Labour leaders, the mainstream media including what he’s termed the “Brexit Bashing Corporation”, and, now, the judiciary. If he thought he could get any traction with it, no doubt he’d chuck the Queen under the bus as well.

“Dog whistle” politics are nothing new for the man who used to write about “picanninies" with "watermelon smiles” and Muslim women wearing “letter box” veils. He knows what he is doing, and what he has been doing for some time now is following the ruthless advice of Dominic Cummings and Lynton Crosby. Their trade is division and their currency hate. When a turbaned Labour MP, Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, savaged the PM in the Commons for his racism, a lot of Johnson’s supporters would take Johnson’s side. Liberals have to realise that.

So when Brendan Cox, and well-meaning figures such as Amber Rudd and Stephen Kinnock, start talking about reaching out, building consensus and reaching compromise they have Johnson’s electoral tactics plain wrong.

Boris Johnson says the best way to honour Jo Cox is to get Brexit done

On Brexit – as John Curtice as pointed out, and the current atmosphere also speaks for itself – there is no middle ground to appeal to in the traditional Left-Centre-Right spectrum of conventional politics. The bell curve has been replaced by twin peaks; the votes are found in the extremes (and that is one reason why Labour's Brexit compromises fail to get much support).

This is a polarised culture war. The only way to win a war like that is to make the other side as angry as your own side in a sort of perverse process of political symbiosis. You need to start fires, and watch them spread.

Seeing Johnson wind up the Remainers and insult these venerable justices and flail the “surrender act”, the “collaborators”, “traitors” and Brussels is just what he needs to recruit these voters – many of them Labour, ex-Labour, ex-Ukip or Brexit party sympathisers – into the Conservative camp. The politics of division thrives on discord and division. It abhors harmony and enjoys the insult.

Brendan Cox wishes us to believe that Johnson is not “evil”, which is admittedly not exactly lavish praise, but then again Johnson is not exactly St Francis of Assisi either. The short word for it is “populism”.

Welcome, in other words, to the new politics. Remind you of anyone?

Obviously Johnson, more or less self-consciously, seeks to be the British Trump, or, as Trump once put it himself, “Britain Trump”. Both men like to have the last word, enjoy upsetting their moments, insult anyone and any institution that gets in the way, double down when they are criticised or attacked, and never, ever apologise or show contrition. They never display “weakness” – or, I should clarify, what they regard as weakness.

Matthew

27th September 2019, 11:41

Hi John,

I understand why you would see Brexit as "ill-informed parochialism."

But England will do just fine without the EU.

Historically it's the financial centre of the world and every country stores its gold in the City of London.

Many people think that Wall Street holds the purse - this is not the case, it's The City of London.

The US has the might, England has the purse.

The British Empire never died.

It's a bumpy ride and it will certainly get more sinuous, but the English will quickly land on their feet.

They always do.

Cheers,

Letty

This is a nice calm respite from the fear that comes from the media

Another calm voice: Mahyar Tousi

MP's abusing their seats has not gone unnoticed. The remain side are so desperate they failed to be inconspicuous about their motivations, which was always to stop Brexit

Majority of British People Back Boris as Remain Parliament Block Democracy

pJcCp2RUBy0

Matthew

27th September 2019, 16:00

While I'm at it, here's some more of Carl Benjamin's crusade to get the truth out

mW9TuyIXs0g

17.4 million

https://textanim.com/g-gif-update.php?r000=606

greybeard

27th September 2019, 16:09

Keep posting please YoYoYo
Different perspectives are necessary.
Regards Chris

Bill Ryan

27th September 2019, 18:11

Keep posting please YoYoYo
Different perspectives are necessary.
Regards Chris

Well, they're vital. The British media (and general mainstream) perspectives can't be trusted. They're deeply in bed with, and supporting, the EU agenda. That's just so obvious.

So I for one would really welcome alternative views. If I want to know what the BBC says, I'd just go to bbc.com (http://bbc.com). We can all do that ourselves! It's the other informed commentary I really value.

Gemma13

27th September 2019, 20:57

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/09/27/in-defence-of-the-people/

IN DEFENCE OF THE PEOPLE

ARTICLE EXTRACTS: When I began to study democracy over a dozen years ago, few of the so-called cultural elite were in a rush to argue against it as a form of government. After all, practising democracy was what made them the ‘goodies’. Yes, they may have made a lot of mistakes, they may have lied once or twice, but when the other options were dictatorship and Communism, all they had to say was the magic word ‘democracy’ and the grumbling over these indiscretions would quickly subside.

Not only did the elite at this time not question the value of democracy — they actively promoted it as the self-evident, one, true path. It was seen as the end of history. The very word possessed such talismanic power that you could even get away with attacking whole countries and killing all kinds of people just so the ones who survived could have democracy.

Then these gatekeepers of good manners lost a referendum (Brexit) and an election (Trump) and decided that democracy was totally passé. The volte-face they performed was rather breathtaking in its coordination, like a little shoal of well-disciplined fish avoiding troubled waters with mindless accuracy.

[…]

Britain’s Leave vote may be the result of a jumble of factors, but it wasn’t just some irrational, ill-informed bad-hair day. Commentators should really have been tipped off by the fact that more than 3.8million voters (12.6 per cent of those who cast a ballot) supported UKIP in the 2015 national election, and over five million (30 per cent) supported the Brexit Party in the 2019 European election. That is a pretty resilient vote spanning four years, and holding up in the face of a persistent media barrage focusing on the negatives of Brexit.

But while elites have been strong on the negatives of what they don’t like, they haven’t spent much time on why their preferred option – in this case remaining in the EU – is so great. Instead, like their American counterparts so frequently do, they insist on offering a relatively bad package that doesn’t fully take account of underlying preferences.

People aren’t opting out, because they are ignorant of the consequences of their actions, but rather because ‘elites’ have decided they don’t need to make a compelling case for why their ideas are good ones, as one would need to do in a democracy. They believe their ideas simply are good and people who don’t agree with them need to be cancelled.

[…]

I could say that what elites really need to do is get people on board with their programme, but most people never will be on board with it, for the good reason that it isn’t in most people’s interests.

Changing your electricity company every 12 to 18 months to avoid being shafted is a right pain in the neck that no one gets around to – not in most people’s interests. Corporate forum-shopping for low wages isn’t in most people’s interests. Gutting health services – not in most people’s interests. Sky-high property prices that set off a real-life game of Monopoly – not in most people’s interests.

There’s a big, unbridgeable disconnect between the average person’s interests and elite interests. And in a direct democracy that would be settled quite quickly, in the interests of the average person.

It’s not because the average person is too stupid and can’t identify his or her own best interests that elites are so down on direct democracy – it’s because we are too smart.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/09/03/today-was-a-very-dark-day-for-british-democracy/

TODAY WAS A VERY DARK DAY FOR BRITISH DEMOCRACY

ARTICLE EXTRACTS:

Don’t believe for one minute the self-aggrandising claims of the Remainer establishment and its noisy cheerleaders in the media. Tonight’s vote by MPs to seize control of the parliamentary agenda in order to prevent a No Deal Brexit is not, as they claim, a wonderful assertion of parliamentary sovereignty against a dictatorial executive led by Boris Johnson.

No, it is an assertion of the political elite’s arrogant authority over the people. If MPs have seized power from anyone this evening, it is from us, the public, the millions who voted to leave the EU. This is not parliament vs the executive – this is parliament vs the people, and it opens up one of the greatest, most troublesome constitutional crises of modern times.

[...]

Probably their most perverse and insulting claim is that they are standing up for parliamentary sovereignty. This is the opposite of the truth. They are ravaging parliamentary sovereignty. These are the people who over the past 40 years have green-lighted the outsourcing of huge swathes of parliament’s authority to Brussels, and whose very efforts to destroy Brexit run counter to parliament’s own handing of that decision to us, the people, and its insistence that it would respect the decision that we made.

[...]

The elite’s claim to be defending democracy is a brazen lie. It is crushing democracy. It is revolting against the people and the decision we made in 2016. How grotesque for Jeremy Corbyn to say this evening that parliament has struck a blow for the idea that ‘sovereignty rests’ in the people. It has done no such thing. In fact it has elevated the political authority of an out-of-touch and increasingly hysterical elite over the largest democratic decision ever made by the British people.

greybeard

28th September 2019, 09:12

Psychic Predictions for UK General Election and Brexit 2019
6 Sep 2019

Craig Hamilton-Parker
53.4K subscribers
General Election Predictions by the psychic medium Craig Hamilton-Parker and the Brexit Crisis. More on our predictions page: https://psychics.co.uk/blog/predictions/

Psychic Medium Craig Hamilton-Parker makes his psychic predictions about the British General Election. Craig has had a lot of success with his predictions and has been hailed by the media as ‘The New Nostradamus’. In this video, he uses his Nostradamus inspired psychic skills to make prophecies about Boris Johnson, The upcoming General Election, and Brexit.

A General Election has still not been called but the seer predicts that it will happen very soon. The result will have a major effect on the outcome of Brexit. Keep watching this channel as new videos are planned and coming soon. These will include Psychic Predictions for 2020, American Psychic Predictions, Psychic Predictions for the UK and many more clairvoyant insights. In this video, you are given a taster of upcoming events.

Craig and his wife Jane used to work on the Channel 4 program ‘The Big Breakfast’ where they were the resident psychics. Every week they would predict ‘next week’s news today.’ They would predict the coming week’s news headlines. Now you can enjoy these intriguing predictions online.

If you have any predictions that you would like to hear, please leave a message in the comments below. Craig will be making more videos in the coming weeks so please leave your requests. The more specific the better. Topics can include anything you would like. Craig makes psychic predictions for the UK but also makes World Psychic Predictions as well as Predictions for the USA.

What will happen with Brexit? Who will win the next General Election? Will Boris Johnson deliver Brexit? Will there be a General Election? Come and get the answers here. And remember, you heard it here first!!

Graig Hamilton- Parker may well have it right.
Well worth a listen
Thought a really different perspective would be helpful.
Chris

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V70jt2Nw1M

sunwings

29th September 2019, 07:46

The problem with Brexit is NOT Europe it is Britain. It is Britain and its Prime Minister who has lost 7 out of 7 votes, lost a bi-election quicker than any other PM, lost in the supreme courts, lied to the Queen and lost his majority in the house. The referendum took place under a strong Conservative government who rallied to remain. Now the Conservatives in power have savagely forced out anyone who disagrees that No Deal Brexit is a good idea.

This non-political referendum has come political. Jon snow of channel 4 news recently tweeted "In all my 45 years of reporting - I cannot remember a more chaotic, divided, and disturbing period in British politics."

The language of Brexit has also become a hot topic and this clip of Farage suggesting we will take a Knife to all the Civil Service after BREXIT is DONE is very alarming! But look who is there, who is clapping in the audience:whoo::whoo::whoo:. This new generation will decide what will eventually happen in Britain, maybe not today but tomorrow!

obKhaYKO9K0

greybeard

29th September 2019, 08:40

What I have observed is a blindness as to the nature of Boris which is well documented.
Yes media hypes, dramatizes that's what they do.
But looking behind and beyond the hype is some undeniable truth.

Sacking respected conservatives even if you dont agree with them lessening your majority--is insane.
Boris, Sister, Brother, ex employer, ex cabinet members deciding to resign, ex Prime ministers are they all wrong?
Sister implies that he is backed by those who have bet millions on exit without a deal--Philip Hammond more direct.
The very language of Boris, Betrayal etc is very similar to the language used in Northern Ireland during the height of the troubles.
Denying the impartial wisdom of the supreme court.
Boris claims anti-democratic a wrong decision.
Affairs.
The list goes on.
We are all human but none of the above is setting a good example to my mind.
All im saying is be careful what you wish for-----
This is an investigative forum and its true that the remain camp has an agenda--by the same token surely the exit without a deal camp has too.
My only concern is the well being of people.
Chris

greybeard

29th September 2019, 10:45

One thing I do agree with is that Brexit has gone on far too long.
I suspect that a referendum might be the ultimate answer.
Quite a high percentage actually voted for remain so I have a challenge with "The people voted to leave" thats a blanket statement. More accurate--leave won the vote.

Now one of the remains complaints is that people were misled.

Well people now have a lot more information.
So if a new referendum says leave then the remainers have lost a major part of their argument.
General elections come and go and there is the fail safe of various part members elected thats democracy.
This may be a once in a life time jump so a second referendum just to be sure might be a good idea.

If the referendum is held first then a general election can be held with the question of brexit out of the way and then who ever is elected can get on with normal business.
I dont think electing a government on one issue is a good idea and it would come down to people voting for a leave or stay party.

Chris

Flyswim

29th September 2019, 11:58

I thought this article, and youtube video, about how hedge funds made huge profits off the Brexit vote was worth putting in the mix. It details how said financiers made money just before the referendum result was (being) announced & whether Farage/they had inside knowledge (or in Farage's case 'pretended' to conceed defeat).

Article https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-25/brexit-big-short-how-pollsters-helped-hedge-funds-beat-the-crash

12 minute videoHt40yrt3VrY

Make you wonder who is making money out of the current no deal/deal debacle!

Matthew

29th September 2019, 12:40

samildamach

29th September 2019, 20:52

greybeard

30th September 2019, 10:25

Boris Johnson Threatens To Block Nicola Sturgeon From UN Climate Change Summit
HuffPost UK Rachel Wearmouth,HuffPost UK

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boris-johnson-threatens-block-nicola-073545737.html

Boris Johnson has threatened to block Nicola Sturgeon from attending a UN summit on climate change in Glasgow.

The prime minister looks to be on a collision course with the Scottish First Minister after telling Tory activists on Sunday night he did not want her “anywhere near” the COP26 event next year.

A spokeswoman for the FM hit back calling Johnson “childish” while SNP MP Joanna Cherry called the PM “a bad loser”.

The UN summit will see more than 30,000 delegates from around the world descend on the Scottish city to discuss how to tackle the ongoing global climate emergency.

It is not clear that the British prime minister has any power to stop the FM from from attending.

The SNP-led government in Holyrood has made climate change a key plank of its policy agenda and Johnson’s bid to refuse Sturgeon a seat at the table is likely to enrage the FM.

According to The Scottish Sun, Johnson told activists at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester he wanted to see Union flags at the event and just “a Saltire or two”.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon delivers her statement, in response to the Supreme Court ruling, at the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh.

He said: “The leaders of the entire world will come to Glasgow for the COP26 climate change summit.

“I guess I don’t mind seeing a Saltire or two on that summit but I want to see a union flag - I don’t want to see Nicola Sturgeon anywhere near it.

“The Scottish Nationalist Party didn’t secure that summit in Glasgow, it was the United Kingdom government.”

A spokeswoman for the FM told HuffPost UK Johnson had proved himself “incapable” of tackling climate change, adding: “Boris Johnson certainly sounded like he was enjoying himself at the Tory drinks reception – but out in the real world people will be deeply embarrassed to hear their Prime Minister acting so childishly.

“It is right that COP26 should come to Scotland given our leadership in climate action – we were one of the first countries in the world to acknowledge the global climate emergency and the Scottish Government has introduced the toughest targets in the UK and amongst the toughest legislative targets in the world to ensure our action matches the scale of our climate ambitions.

“When it comes to issues of common concern such as climate change, the SNP Government are proud to play our part and work in partnership with other governments – something that Boris Johnson seems completely incapable of doing.”

Edinburgh South West MP Joanna Cherry QC, who led attempts in the Court of Session to defeat the government’s case for proroguing parliament, said: “Boris Johnson is a bad loser.

“He’s obviously very sore that it was Scottish politicians through the Scottish courts who thwarted his attack on parliamentary democracy. I’m sure the international delegates attending the climate change summit will be far more interested in hearing from the lead of the Scottish Government given its leading record on climate change.

“Indeed, I would be surprised if he’s still around by then.”

It comes just days after Sturgeon slammed the Prime Minister for his “violent” language following yet another heated debate on Brexit in the Commons on Wednesday.

Johnson was criticised for dismissing MPs’ concerns about their safety as “humbug” and for saying that the best way to honour the late Jo Cox is to “get Brexit done”.

Ex-Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson stood down in August, the day after Johnson announced he would prorogue parliament.

Since then, polls then have pointed to them losing potentially every one of their 13 MPs at the next election.

The shutdown of parliament was later ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court.

Matthew

30th September 2019, 11:44

https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/hero-brexit-lord-james-blackheath-threatened-over-eu-defence-union
Summary
Lord blackheath was shut down for asking questions,on the u.k armed forces a long with mi6 being handed over to Brussels.
Do they get the nukes to?
The eu empire is in sight the stakes are high

It gets scary; good find samildamach

From https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/hero-brexit-lord-james-blackheath-threatened-over-eu-defence-union:

...
It goes beyond this. They are to take control of our intelligence services, the whole core of Five Eyes. They will have MI6 and the Cheltenham monitoring centre, and we will be completely excluded from it under the new arrangements and have no access either to the

greybeard

30th September 2019, 11:49

I used to think Boris Johnson could get a Brexit deal. Not after last week
The Guardian Simon Jenkins,The Guardian

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/used-think-boris-johnson-could-151311072.html

I cannot recall a more critical week in British politics. It will decide whether parliament, the law and public opinion can hold the prime minister, Boris Johnson, to account, or whether a new poison has entered public life. We need constantly to remember that Britain faces no menace to its security or prosperity. It could by now be outside the EU with agreed terms of trade. This crisis is entirely the outcome of one man’s device to seize control of his party.

From the moment Johnson began his final climb to power, his appeal has been crudely populist. He has discarded the core Tory tradition of fiscal probity with a welter of spending pledges and tax cuts, plus plans for immigration control and toughness on crime. On Brexit, he has distorted a near trivial “freedom to trade with the rest of the world” with claptrap about vassalage, sovereignty and patriotism. The idea that Brexit will bring a new dawn of national wealth is absurd. It is simply how Johnson became prime minister.

Now I wonder if perhaps Johnson’s legacy may be just a bad dream, a sick and expensive Bullingdon brawl

So far, so familiar. What is novel about the current upheaval is the attempted disruption of political convention. This has little to do with Johnson but with his bizarre aide, Dominic Cummings, whose control over his seemingly disoriented boss appears total. Cummings’ tactic is brittle, divisive and implacable, though its effectiveness cannot be underrated. Polls showed scant support for Johnson over his supreme court defeat, but his party remains a full 13 points ahead of Labour.

Johnson’s theatrical belligerence – which he absurdly told the Andrew Marr Show on Sunday was “misunderstood … a model of restraint” – is a trope borrowed from US politics, seen most vigorously in the antics of Donald Trump. It goes back to the tactic adopted by the McCarthyites in the 1950s, when any victim of Joseph McCarthy and his young lawyer Roy Cohn would be assailed with wildly repetitive accusations of communism and homosexuality. Cohn’s tactic was “to bring out the worst in my enemies; that’s how I get them to defeat themselves”. He would “go after a man’s weakness, and never threaten unless you mean to follow through to the end”. Cohn went on to advise Richard Nixon and ended as personal lawyer to none other than the young Trump, clearly an avid pupil.

One Cohn method was the relentless recitation of a damaging falsehood. Trump incanted “crooked Hillary” at every turn and eventually wore her down. Cummings, as portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch on screen, would order Brexit campaigners to ignore any facts and just keep saying “£350m for the NHS”. Likewise, Johnson, when pinned down by Marr over his dismissal of threats of violence against MPs as “humbug”, robotically repeated “get Brexit done” and accused opponents of surrender. The maxim is: never back down, never apologise.
Dominic Cummings.
‘An obsession with antagonism and belligerence, with the creative power of chaos.’ Dominic Cummings. Photograph: David Mirzoeff/PA

At his party’s conference in Manchester this week, Johnson’s audience is not parliament. It is a distant and exasperated electorate that he hopes despises parliament, the metropolis, remainers and judges alike. This is pure Cohn: “I don’t want to know what the law is; I want to know who the judge is.” A populist needs an identifiable elite against which to champion “the people”. The BBC plays along, with ridiculous vox pops each evening asserting the establishment is “out to stop Brexit”.

Britain’s present parliament, for all the insults being hurled at it, has spent three agonising years trying to implement the knife-edge 2016 Brexit referendum. Then, the nation did not speak, it mumbled. It left parliament to disentangle the meaning of how to seek a new relationship with the rest of Europe. With a nation clearly and evenly split, that search still continues. That is why the Johnson/Cummings talk of capitulation and surrender is so crass. A democracy means a 48% minority has some rights, and parliament’s duty is to honour them with compromise.

Last Wednesday Johnson’s response to the supreme court judgment suggested he had no interest in compromise. He shouted, offended, flannelled and played to gallery guffaws. He relished watching the hapless Jeremy Corbyn fall into his trap. Rather than rise to the occasion as a conciliator and national leader, Corbyn tried merely to out-rant Johnson. A meticulous dignity could have been lethal.

Until now, I had thought Johnson’s tactics were at least shrewd. I assumed that, once Manchester was over, he would change gear and become the embodiment of pragmatism and national unity. He would patch up the May deal, meet Dublin’s concerns over a future border and achieve EU withdrawal by 31 October. He would secure cross-party approval for the deal in parliament, leaving only a handful of diehard remainers and no-dealers in denial. He would have delivered. A Tory election victory would be near certain.

Related: Tory MPs beware: if you whip up an angry mob, they may end up angry with you | Marina Hyde

I had reckoned without Cummings. Analysis of his limited writings in last week’s New Statesman shows an obsession with antagonism and belligerence, with the creative power of chaos. He seems a true revolutionary. When he and Michael Gove engineered the firing of David Davis as Tory chairman, they cited Al Capone: “Find the toughest guy in the room. Embrace him like a brother. And then slam his head against the wall.”

Johnson was in full Capone mode last week. He must have known he would need cross-party support for any deal. So why treat the Commons as he did? The answer is, Cummings sees his boss as the perfect bull in a china shop. Backed by an embittered and estranged electorate, he will smash institutions and conventions, and lead people into some new dawn, even if it is merely another hung parliament, a delayed Brexit and yet more rancour.

I am an incurable optimist. Just now I wonder if perhaps Johnson’s legacy may be just a bad dream, a sick and expensive Bullingdon brawl. Theresa May failed to leave the EU, and so perhaps might Johnson. After all the sound and fury, some new dawn will arrive, leaving nothing behind but a stale smell of the night before.

• Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist

¤=[Post Update]=¤

There’s a lot wrong with this viral list about the Lisbon Treaty

A large number of our readers have asked us to factcheck a list of claims about the Lisbon Treaty, or “what will actually happen if we stay in the EU”, which has gone viral on social media.

The list has appeared in numerous versions across different platforms since mid-December. The text at the beginning and end is often different, but the central list of claims is virtually identical across most of the versions we’ve seen.

Much of it is wrong. The list is a mixture of false claims, and claims that have some truth but could be misleading given the context.

That’s partly because many recent versions of the text wrongly say that everything on the list is due to the “Lisbon Treaty”. However, the earliest version of the list we’ve been able to find only says that some of the things on it are due to the Lisbon Treaty.
The Lisbon Treaty

Many recent versions of the list begin with this (or similar) text, which wasn’t present in earlier versions:

WHY IS NOBODY TALKING ABOUT THE LISBON TREATY, THE TREATY THAT COMES INTO FORCE 2020, ITS WORSE THAN THE SO CALLED DEAL, IF 99% OF THE BRITISH THINK THIS THE DEAL IS BAD JUST LOOK AT THE LISBON TREATY. PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW, LEAVERS AND REMAIMERS..“What will actually happen if we stay in the EU” is a question no remainer will ever answer but here it is warts and all.

The Treaty of Lisbon is an agreement which made alterations to some of the key treaties setting out how the European Union operates.

It’s wrong to say that the Lisbon Treaty comes into force in 2020. It was agreed by all EU member countries in 2007 and came into force in 2009, and has been in place ever since. If the UK were to remain in the EU beyond March 2019 for any reason then the Lisbon Treaty wouldn’t suddenly change things.
The list

KNOWN OUTCOMES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN AGREED AS TRUE BY ALL SIDES:

1: The UK along with all existing members of the EU lose their abstention veto in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon Treaty when the system changes to that of majority acceptance with no abstentions or veto’s being allowed.

This is wrong. The Lisbon Treaty did make changes to how EU law gets passed which reduced the scope of states’ veto ability, but it did not abolish veto powers; and these changes are already in effect, rather than coming into force in 2020. The term “abstention veto” is not a part of European Union law (as you can see by the fact that most Google results for the term are references to this list.)

EU legislation has to be approved by the Council of the European Union, which is made up of ministerial representatives of the governments of all EU member states.

Depending on the type of issue it is voting on, it has three different standards for passing laws—a simple majority (where 15 out of the 28 states must agree); “qualified majority” (where laws must be approved by at least 55% of states, that have to represent at least 65% of the EU’s population); and a unanimous vote (where all voting states must agree, which therefore gives any single government a veto over the law.)

The Lisbon Treaty changed a large number of policy areas from being ones that needed unanimity (thus giving states a veto) to ones that were decided by qualified majority. At the same time, the Lisbon Treaty changed how qualified majority voting worked—this actually gave the UK slightly more voting power than it had before through the link with a country’s population, which is widely seen as having benefited large countries such as the UK, France and Germany.

The UK also doesn’t have to participate in EU legislation relating to justice and home affairs, but can choose to opt-in if it wants to.

It’s not clear what is meant by the claim that the Lisbon Treaty would see states losing their “abstention veto”. On issues that require unanimity, it’s the case that simply abstaining from a vote does not stop it passing (the Lisbon Treaty did not change this), but states can still veto by voting against.

2: All member nations will become states of the new federal nation of the EU by 2022 as clearly laid out in the Lisbon treaty with no exceptions or veto’s.

This is not something contained in the Lisbon Treaty or in any other EU agreements.

While some European politicians have spoken about their desire for a more federal European system, akin to the United States of America, there are currently no developed plans for this to happen.

The Lisbon Treaty only uses the term “federal” when describing the Federal Republic of Germany and (on one or two occasions) Austria and Belgium too. At no point does the Treaty mention the year 2022.

3: All member states must adopt the Euro by 2022 and any new member state must do so within 2 years of joining the EU as laid down in the Lisbon treaty.

At the moment, 19 of the 28 EU members are part of the ‘Euro area’. Both the UK and Denmark have “opt-outs” to joining. The UK’s opt-out, which says that the UK “shall be under no obligation” to adopt the Euro, is explicitly referenced in the Lisbon Treaty.

The treaty does reference the ultimate goal of “the euro becoming the currency of all Member States of the Union”, but that doesn’t override the UK’s opt out, and it does not set a time limit on that goal.

The seven EU member states that do not currently use the Euro, and do not have an opt-out, are expected to join the Euro, but only when they meet certain conditions. These criteria include: inflation (the way prices change over time) and long-term interest rates in that country must be within a certain distance of the three “best performing” countries in the EU, public finances must be “sound and sustainable”, exchange rates must be stable. The Lisbon Treaty says that countries not meeting these requirements will not have to adopt the euro.

A similar claim, based on a prediction in an opinion piece in the Telegraph from 2014, has been circulating recently, claiming that all EU members will have to adopt the Euro after 2020. The UK’s opt-out means that it, and any other countries with opt-outs, do not have to do this.

4: The London stock exchange will move to Frankfurt in 2020 and be integrated into the EU stock exchange resulting in a loss of 200,000 plus jobs in the UK because of the relocation. (This has already been pre-agreed and is only on a holding pattern due to the Brexit negotiations, which if Brexit does happen, the move is fully cancelled - but if not and the UK remains a member it’s full steam ahead for the move.)

The London Stock Exchange (LSE) and Deutsche Börse (its German equivalent) announced in February 2016 that they had proposed a merger to combine their activities. (This merger was not set out in, or related to, the Lisbon Treaty.)

However the merger was blocked by the EU in March 2017, on the grounds that it risked creating a monopoly.

Under the terms of the proposal, the two businesses would have continued to operate under their existing brand names and would not have merged into an “EU stock exchange”—nor does any such stock exchange exist. There was discussion of some level of job losses as a potential result of the merger, but nothing close to the 200,000 scale, and the LSE denied that there was any planned relocation to Frankfurt.

Separately, in January 2017, Xavier Rolet, the Chief Executive of the London Stock Exchange, told a committee of MPs that over 200,000 UK jobs—across the country—could be at risk if the terms of Brexit meant financial “clearing” jobs had to leave the UK. This was not linked to the proposed merger with Deutsche Börse, and was explicitly spoken of as a possible result of Brexit, rather than a result of staying in the EU.

5: The EU Parliament and ECJ become supreme over all legislative bodies of the UK

EU law has to be approved by the European Parliament (made up of elected MEPs from all EU member states) and the Council of the EU (comprising relevant government representatives from each EU country). The Lisbon Treaty put the European Parliament’s power to approve law on an equal footing with the Council, and widened the number of areas over which they could make laws.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the highest court on matters of EU law.

For all EU member countries, EU law takes “supremacy” over domestic law—to ensure that rules are applied uniformly throughout the EU. The UK has accepted the supremacy of EU law for some time—since parliament passed the European Communities Act in 1972—so it’s not as a result of the Lisbon Treaty.

EU law doesn’t cover all aspects of UK law. In areas where no EU law is applicable, the UK parliament and courts are the supreme bodies for making and judging law.

6: The UK will adopt 100% of whatever the EU Parliament and ECJ lays down without any means of abstention or veto, negating the need for the UK to have the Lords or even the Commons as we know it today.

As discussed earlier, the UK also has some ability to veto EU laws, and has opt-outs from certain EU policies.

As we explained above, it’s correct that the UK (as an EU member) must adopt any EU laws that are passed—but there are many areas of UK law not covered by the EU. This has been the case for decades, during which time the House of Commons and Lords have continued to function and pass UK law.

7: The UK will NOT be able to make its own trade deals.

The next few items on the list largely describe the status quo of EU membership.

It’s correct that the UK can’t strike its own trade deals if we remain in the EU, as this has to be done at an EU-wide level. But we would be a part of (and have influence over) all the deals that the EU negotiates. For the most part this isn’t related to the Lisbon Treaty. Even before the Treaty came into force EU member countries couldn’t agree their own trade deals and the EU had largely exclusive powers over trade. The Lisbon Treaty expanded these powers slightly.

8: The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade tariffs.

It’s correct that under the rules of the EU’s customs union, all EU countries have to set the same tariffs on imports from outside the EU. There are no tariffs on trade between EU countries. This is not related to the Lisbon Treaty.

9: The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade quotas.

The EU applies a number of “tariff quotas” (where tariffs are reduced or removed on a certain amount of trade in particular goods). As a member state, the UK follows these and can’t set its own quotas. This is not related to the Lisbon Treaty.

10: The UK loses control of its fishing rights

As a member of the EU, the UK is part of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which originated back in the 1970s. Under this policy, the EU sets a limit on the number or tonnage of each species of fish that can be caught by each country in a year.

Fishing vessels registered in the EU have equal access to EU waters, with two exceptions. At the moment EU member states are allowed to place limits on who can fish in their territorial waters, and up to 100 nautical miles fishing is restricted to those who traditionally fished there, but the legislation covering this expires in 2022. Whether it will be replaced is a matter for the politicians to determine.

We’ve written more about this here.

The Lisbon Treaty sets out that the EU has powers over “the conservation of marine biological resources” as part of the CFP and shares power with member countries over the rest of fisheries policy.

11: The UK loses control of its oil and gas rights

Within the EU, national governments have control over where companies can search for and produce oil and gas in their countries, and over granting licenses to companies. In the UK, onshore oil and gas licensing powers are devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So remaining in the EU wouldn’t mean losing these rights.

There are EU rules which govern how licensing must occur. The government has said these EU licensing rules, and rules on environmental protections, will continue to operate even if there is a no deal Brexit.

(The Lisbon Treaty does discuss the broad goal of a more integrated European energy policy, but states that “such measures shall not affect a Member State's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply”.)

12: The UK loses control of its borders and enters the Schengen region by 2022 - as clearly laid down in the Lisbon treaty

This is false. The Schengen area is a group of 22 EU countries and four non-EU countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) which don’t have internal border controls.

Six EU countries aren’t part of Schengen, including the UK.

The UK has an opt-out from Schengen and hasn’t signed the Schengen agreement. The agreements setting out the UK’s opt-out also can’t be removed without the consent of the UK. If the government did want to get rid of the opt-out and join the Schengen area there would need to be a referendum on this.

It doesn’t say anywhere in the Lisbon Treaty that the UK has to join the Schengen system by 2022, or by any other date.

The UK does take part in some elements of the Schengen system, for example those relating to criminal law and policing rules. These special circumstances, and the ability of the UK to ‘opt-in’ to parts of Schengen are reflected in the Lisbon Treaty.

13: The UK loses control of its planning legislation

This is false. Member states have to follow EU laws on some aspects of planning. But EU laws on town and country planning must be unanimously supported by member states. This means the UK can effectively veto EU planning legislation as a member of the EU.

14: The UK loses control of its armed forces including its nuclear deterrent

This is false. The EU doesn’t have its own army, although some key players are supportive of the idea. The Lisbon Treaty sets out that the EU’s “common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy.”

But unlike in other areas of EU decision-making, the European Commission can’t propose laws about security and defence. And it can’t implement common defence policies unless the European Council unanimously approves. This effectively gives the UK a veto on any EU defence policies.

UK law also states that no such common EU defence powers can be handed from the UK to the EU without the approval of parliament and a referendum on the decision.

The Lisbon Treaty does not say anything about the UK’s nuclear deterrent. The House of Commons Library says: “Decision making on the use of British nuclear weapons is a sovereign matter for the UK. There is no requirement to gain the approval of the United States or other NATO allies for their use and only the Prime Minister can authorise an instruction to fire.”

15: The UK loses full control of its taxation policy

The EU does not have a direct role in raising taxes or setting tax rates, and the EU also has no say in how countries spend their tax revenues.

However, the EU does oversee national tax rules, in order to ensure they are consistent with relevant EU policies.

For instance, all member states have to have broadly similar rules and minimum rates on VAT, and taxes on petrol, tobacco and alcohol.

Elsewhere, the EU aims to ensure that its members' tax policies conform to EU principles such as non-discrimination and free movement. It also wants a coordinated EU approach on tax evasion. The Lisbon Treaty led to some small changes to tax policy—but most of the examples listed above pre-date it.

EU decisions on tax matters require unanimous agreement from all member countries, so the UK effectively has a veto on them.

16: The UK loses the ability to create its own laws and to implement them

False. See answers to claims 5 and 6.

17: The UK loses its standing in the Commonwealths

The UK is a member of the Commonwealth—“a voluntary association of 53 independent and equal sovereign states”, where “all members have an equal say—regardless of size or economic stature”.

The UK’s membership of the Commonwealth is not affected by Brexit or by membership of the EU, and there is nothing in the Lisbon Treaty about the Commonwealth.

Commonwealth countries aren't a collective trading bloc, but the UK might seek to do trade deals with Commonwealth countries after Brexit (something it can’t pursue on its own as part of the EU). There is some debate as to how feasible and valuable these would be.

18: The UK loses control of any provinces or affiliated nations e.g.: Falklands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar etc

This is not stated anywhere in the Lisbon Treaty, nor would it happen as a result of the UK remaining in the EU.

The future of the UK’s relationship with Gibraltar has previously proved a sticking point in Brexit negotiations. The government has set out a “Memoranda of Understanding” on matters relating to Gibraltar, stating that this does “not imply any modification of the respective legal positions of the Kingdom of Spain or of the United Kingdom with regard to sovereignty and jurisdiction in relation to Gibraltar”. However, some new processes will be established (in areas like police and customs) to ensure cooperation between the UK and Spain after Brexit.

If the UK remained in the EU, its relationship with Gibraltar would presumably remain as it is now.

19: The UK loses control of its judicial system

False. See answers to claims 5 and 6.

20: The UK loses control of its international policy

False. See answer to claims 7-9, and 14.

21: The UK loses full control of its national policy

That depends on what you mean by “full control”. The Lisbon Treaty widened the number of areas over which the EU parliament could pass laws, but there are many areas of UK law which are not covered by EU regulations. We explain this more in the answers to claims 5 and 6.

22: The UK loses its right to call itself a nation in its own right.

This isn’t true.

23: The UK loses control of its space exploration program

The UK has its own space agency that’s part of the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. It is responsible for leading on UK civil space policy and “its contribution to European initiatives”, coordinating investment and regulating UK civil space activities, among other things.

The Lisbon Treaty says that the EU has powers in “the areas of research, technological development and space … in particular to define and implement programmes”, but it also says that this isn’t at the expense of member countries also having powers in these areas.

It also says that the EU can draw up a European Space policy and “promote joint initiatives, support research and technological development and coordinate the efforts needed for the exploration and exploitation of space.” It also gives the European Parliament and the Council powers to create a European space programme. But excluded from this is the power to ‘harmonise’ the laws and regulations of member countries—or make them all the same on the issue.

The UK is a member of the European Space Agency (ESA), which sent astronaut Tim Peake into space in 2016. The ESA is not an EU body, so whether we stay in or leave the EU our membership of the ESA won’t be affected. Brexit will affect the UK’s ability to participate in some collaborative space programs such as the Galileo satellite navigation system.

24: The UK loses control of its Aviation and Sea lane jurisdiction

The EU has significant influence over the UK’s transport policy. Its rules on aviation cover a number of areas including licensing and safety. Most of these regulations were set out in Treaties which pre-date the Lisbon Treaty.

Shipping rules in the UK are governed by the UK’s membership of a number of international organisations including the International Maritime Organisation, the OECD, and the UN Commission on International Trade law; as well as the EU. The Lisbon Treaty says nothing specific about shipping. National vetoes over EU laws on shipping and aviation were dropped in the 1980s.

25: The UK loses its rebate in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon treaty

The UK, like several other EU members, gets a “rebate” which reduces the amount it pays into the EU budget.

The EU has proposed that we would lose our rebate if we stayed in the EU as a full member beyond 2020.

This is in line with an EU proposal to get rid of all the rebates it gives to its members—including Denmark and the Netherlands—over the course of the next budget.

The proposed removal of the rebate would be part of the “Multiannual financial framework” (the EU’s long-term budget) which requires unanimous agreement among member states, so the UK could potentially block it.

The Lisbon Treaty doesn’t mention the rebate at all.

26: The UK’s contribution to the EU is set to increase by an average of 1.2bn pa and by 2.3bn pa by 2020

The Office for Budget Responsibility, the UK public spending watchdog, has forecast that the UK will contribute around €16 billion to the EU budget in 2018, €17.2 billion in 2019 and €18.5 billion in 2020. That’s after any rebate or discount the UK receives, but before any money is spent in the UK by the EU.

In pounds that works out at around £14.1 billion in 2018, £15.2 billion in 2019 and £16.3 billion in 2020, based on the latest exchange rates, or an increase of around £1 billion per year.

2020 is the last year the UK would contribute towards the EU budget, assuming that the UK exits the EU and a withdrawal agreement is passed by parliament. It is also the year in which the EU’s current budget comes to an end (these generally run in seven year blocs and the rules around them were amended by the Lisbon Treaty—though not any specific amounts to be paid).

We’ve written more about the UK’s contributions towards the EU budget here.

With thanks to UK in a Changing Europe and Professor Steve Peers for their help with reviewing this factcheck.

This article is part of our work factchecking potentially false pictures, videos and stories on Facebook. You can read more about this—and find out how to report Facebook content—here. For the purposes of that scheme, we’ve rated this claim as a false because most of the claims are incorrect.

greybeard

30th September 2019, 12:50

Be careful what you believe.
Dont take any ones video--viewpoint as truth
Investigate --follow the money.
This is an investigative forum--im not capable of in depth search.
There must be some here capable of unbiased investigating.

"The moment a point of view is held know that you are identifying with an illusion."
Now that from A Course In Miracles but it may be relevant here.
Im comfortable taking the middle ground but I don't appreciate lies an distortions were peoples future is at stake. That applies to both Leave without a deal and Remain.
In balance which is the more truthful--don't ask me.
Up to the voting public

Chris

Bill Ryan

30th September 2019, 15:21

greybeard

30th September 2019, 18:22

Anything the Sun says pro exit, deal or no deal.
So where does the truth sit?
Chris
Ps I don't mind if Boris has a love of women--only can he be trusted to be truthful as PM--has he really the best interest of the voters at heart?

greybeard

30th September 2019, 19:55

He'll be out in five minutes': Queen will fire Boris Johnson if he refuses to seek Brexit extension, former attorney general says
The Independent Andrew Woodcock,The Independent

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/hell-five-minutes-queen-fire-104800867.html

The Queen would dismiss Boris Johnson as prime minister if he refused to comply with a law requiring him to seek an extension to Brexit talks, leading Remainer Dominic Grieve has said.

The former attorney general said the PM would be “out in five minutes” if he tried to defy a Supreme Court order to go to Brussels.

Mr Grieve said he expected current attorney Geoffrey Cox and lord chancellor Robert Buckland would resign, while the civil service would withdraw co-operation with a prime minister openly flouting the law in this way.

A cross-party group of anti-no deal MPs passed legislation known as the Benn Act, earlier this month,which requires Mr Johnson to seek an extension to the Article 50 Brexit extension, delaying the date of withdrawal to the end of January, if he has not secured parliamentary approval for a deal or a no-deal outcome by 19 October.

Mr Johnson has branded the legislation a “surrender act” and insists that despite its provisions he will not ask Brussels for an extention beyond the scheduled Brexit date of 31 October.

But Mr Grieve said that would lead to an instant legal challenge which would reach the Supreme Court within days, where judges would issue a rarely-used order known as “mandamus” requiring a public official to carry out a non-discretionary responsibility.

“He would be taken to court and a writ of mandamus would be issued against him and he would be told that he had, as a matter of law, to write the letter,” Mr Grieve told Sky News.

“I suspect the courts could deal with it very quickly.”

Mr Grieve added: “At that stage, the cabinet secretary and civil service will refuse to work for him. I assume the attorney general and lord chancellor would have resigned, because it is such a flagrant breach of the law.”

Even though Mr Cox has been a vocal supporter of Mr Johnson’s approach to Brexit, Mr Grieve said he was “a good enough lawyer to know you can’t support a prime minister who is breaking the law of the land”.
(EPA)

Pressed on whether Mr Johnson would face further legal action if he refused to comply with the court order, Mr Grieve said: “There is no question of putting the prime minister on trial.

“The Supreme Court - Her Majesty’s judges - telling the prime minister that as a matter of law he has to do something? He will be gone in five minutes. He will be dismissed.”

Asked if it was the Queen who would dismiss Mr Johnson in these circumstances, Mr Grieve replied simply: “Yes.”

The former attorney general insisted that it was a “hypothetical position”, but added: “If he intends to continue behaving in this completely ludicrous fashion, yes, perhaps.”

happyuk

30th September 2019, 21:08

I used to think Boris Johnson could get a Brexit deal. Not after last week
The Guardian Simon Jenkins,The Guardian

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/used-think-boris-johnson-could-151311072.html

Anything about Brexit in Guardian articles will be pro EU and anti national independence.

I think you're probably right.

Eddie Dempsey the pro-Brexit trade union activist from South East London has just been ‘No-Platformed’ by middle class (self-proclaimed) socialists for his views on the issue. These great Guardianista defenders of democracy are all for free speech... as long as you agree with them.

Our televisions are awash with the middle class Remainer militants throwing their toys out of the pram. I saw one with a placard that read: ‘Save democracy! Stop Brexit!’ – absurd when all the Remainers have done for three years is try to undermine the biggest democratic vote in British history. What we’re seeing are Britain’s liberal elite (the BBC, media, civil service, big business, academia) demonstrate their contempt for the popular will and the ever-demonised working class.

greybeard

30th September 2019, 21:33

Most of this is emotional on both sides.
I would like to see hard economic facts (as far as that's possible)
How much will the average person benefit from leaving without a deal?
No benefit--no leave and I appreciate there is more than money involved.

The current promises made by the Chancellor--where is the money coming from?
All the answers seem very vague.
All things for all people---since when did politicians keep pre- election promises?
Regardless of the bias of various papers --can the truth be found?

Chris

Bill Ryan

30th September 2019, 21:37

Most of this is emotional on both sides.
I would like to see hard economic facts (as far as that's possible)
How much will the average person benefit from leaving without a deal?
No benefit--no leave and I appreciate there is more than money involved.

Right: it's not about economics, personal or otherwise. It's about the creeping power of the EU, as what David Icke calls The Totalitarian Tiptoe — a model for the North American Union, and the four other 'Unions' that are planned prior to the ONE super-union of the singular global superstate.

greybeard

30th September 2019, 21:49

A ONE super-union of the singular global superstate is never going to happen Bill.
Too many different cultures.
Nothing is permanent everything transient--that may be a spiritual perspective but its true.
Impermanence a major statement by The Buddha.

So we can say to the ordinary person as much as we like that the globalists are taking over the world but if they, having had a good income,are facing being jobless and loosing their house and car, they would not see fighting Globalism as a priority.

Chris

Bill Ryan

30th September 2019, 21:54

A ONE super-union of the singular global superstate is never going to happen Bill.
Too many different cultures.But look at Europe, and the EU.

You could say exactly the same thing.

Baby Steps

30th September 2019, 22:03

The economic reasoning behind these blocs is sound. Just imagine what various African nations could gain if they could organise a common currency and utilise the heft of an entire continent to try to extract concessions from our corporate hegemons. The African one will be easy.

The eu can still be presented if required as a success for most of its citizens. It’s an economic argument , just look at the industrial development and investments occurring in Eastern Europe - that is why Ukraine is so keen to join,

The eu is acknowledged to be deficient in democracy and transparency. It was ready to sign us up for TTIP with its secret courts etc without hesitation.

Once similar groupings are predominant it will be easy to exert centralised power over them without us even hearing about it.

That is the global dictatorship that is being built.

In Germany the word ‘nationalism’ is being demonised by being conflated with nazism. People generally do not accept that the eu is building a new nation, so effectively the eu is nationalist, but lacks as many democratic checks and balances as the nations being disempowered and subsumed

See the following from 'Full Fact.org (https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-democracy/)':

Compared to a country, the EU has democratic shortcomings

Seen in that light, there are a number of key democratic shortcomings or failings, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Usherwood:
The European Council and the Council of Ministers (the two bodies where member countries meet) still hold many sessions in private or only partly make their records public, which makes it difficult to always know who has said what, or how individual countries have voted;
Much implementation of EU laws still happens under the opaque ‘comitology’ system, although it has been changed recently;

The European Parliament lacks some of the powers normally associated with national parliaments. It cannot formally propose new laws or raise taxes, for example;
There is no clear alternation of power. While different groups might gain more seats in the European Parliament, this is not necessarily matched by similar changes in the ‘executive’ branches of the EU—the European Commission, and the national governments in the Council;
The complexity of the system also makes it hard to ensure that EU funds are not misspent;
Perhaps most significantly, most EU citizens do not identify strongly with the EU, so some will argue that it doesn’t have the same legitimacy that national systems enjoy.
There are still questions about the right balance to strike
There is a tension that might be obvious from this list. The remedies that would most simply address them would also mean a considerable strengthening of EU powers, making it look even more like a state.
This dilemma has been seen most clearly with the increasing powers given to the European Parliament—which has nonetheless seen declining turnout for elections.
In the absence of a shared European community of the kind found within countries, it might not be possible—if at all desirable—to build a system that unifies people like many nation states have done. But this does not of itself mean that some form of democracy is impossible.
Dr Hagemann and Professor Usherwood say that the question is how to get the best balance in a system which seeks to address the needs of both states and peoples in Europe, especially within an EU that handles both mundane technical regulations and highly political questions.

greybeard

30th September 2019, 22:23

A ONE super-union of the singular global superstate is never going to happen Bill.
Too many different cultures.But look at Europe, and the EU.

You could say exactly the same thing.

We are talking world wide Bill.
Look at it this way.
Crusaders set out to have one religion throughout the world--Christianity.
Human nature --people die for an ideal-- their chosen way of life--religion, politics, football team.
Too much coming out about Boris for it all to be untrue or made up by the papers.
The blanket assumption that all journalists are in the pay of or under the control of--whatever -whoever.
Or blanket blaming--its the middle class--yesterday it was the elite--the employers--always some one to blame.

Whilst Im on it --how come Germany saved the wing of Thomas Cook and UK would not even consult with them--why not?--banks saved, others saved-- This Government has agenda--and its right wing in the extreme as far as I can see.

I hope im wrong in my assumptions but leaving without a deal is just a bad idea for the working people an those small businesses that employ them

Chris

araucaria

1st October 2019, 07:38

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91509-The-UK-Brexit-vote-to-leave-the-EU&p=1314363&viewfull=1#post1314363

This is an astonishing performance from Joseph Farrell, both in form and content. Form: he loudly states that he is not trying to sell his book, then states even more loudly that we absolutely must buy his book, the only source for material such as quotes from… Hansard, the public record of UK Parliamentary business. Duh! There was a time when new books and conspiracy theories were based on material not available elsewhere…

Content: the EU supposedly intends to annex the British military and secret service. This info makes Brexit a totally desirable outcome. But there is simply no way this can be squared with the major fact, namely that throughout the three years that the country has been deeply divided, Brexit sympathizers/executors have been in charge. They could at any time have achieved overnight national consensus in favour of Leave simply by making public what Farrell is touting as alternative media news. There would be no security risk involved; on the contrary, there would be a huge security risk in saying nothing. Most Remainers would become Leavers. Catering to the “we won the war” mentality would have been a surefire way to avoid three years of division: why has it not happened? Because the division, not Brexit per se, has been the purpose (or effect) all along, and the perpetrators are in Westminster, not Brussels. Or, to put in another way, any old Brexit, soft or hard, was not good enough, it was always going to be the chaotic No Deal version. Consider: the post-referendum election gave May a slim majority to vote an exit; the opposition was mathematically too weak to prevent it. Her deal was thrown out three times by the no-dealers on her own benches. This election, which might be viewed as a second referendum (the way parliament votes the same legislation several times over), showed that there was already no majority for a hard Brexit, let alone a No Deal Brexit. “Brexit” has always meant too many different things to be a workable concept.

Back to Farrell: the only conventional way of stealing someone’s army is to defeat it in war. Presumably the secret service and the army would be aware of any danger long before Joseph Farrell and would have taken any necessary steps. After all, defence through self-defence is what they are there for; if they can’t do that, good riddance. Not to do so would be treasonous and would amount to admitting that the UK is governed by clandestine pro-Europeans. In which case, why bother at all with the whole rigmarole? If word came out, most Leavers would become Remainers, for what would be the advantage over being bona fide active Europeans? Combined with most Remainers becoming Leavers, as stated above, you would have everyone wondering whether they are coming or going. Which is precisely the current state of the nation, the afore-mentioned “major fact” that any theory needs to explain.

Then there is the supposedly nefarious mention of Africa as let’s say an area of concern. Of course Africa is an area of concern. There are problems in Africa that everyone would like to see fixed, including immigration. Here in Normandy, the only category trying to board UK-bound trucks at the ferry terminal are young Somalians etc., i.e. Africans, not middle easterners. Instead of fixing this end of the problem, why not fix things at their end so that they don’t want to leave in the first place? Let’s have more remainers instead of more leavers! Take John Le Carré: no one takes him to task for transferring his spy novels from Checkpoint Charlie (the Smiley books) to Kenya (The Constant Gardener): the world has moved on, and so unfortunately has the “nefarium”. As our perceptions expand at an increasingly faster rate, the world is getting smaller, at an increasingly faster rate. Britain is now on Africa’s doorstep and has been in Africa’s living-room for much longer. The only way for people to cope is to let more and more things slide, by showing increasing tolerance, and active tolerance, which is helpfulness. However, what we are seeing wherever we look is increasing intolerance, e.g. by applying today’s tougher standards to yesterday’s behaviour. Making mountains out of molehills instead of making molehills out of mountains. Making noise about noise does not improve the signal.

Joseph Farrell is a case in point. As a long-serving alternative Nazi-hunter, he is carrying on where Simon Rosenthal, down to the last one or two centenarians, is forced to leave off. The destructive forces behind historical Nazis are more active than ever, and spreading, which only goes to prove that there has to be another better way to deal with the new threats that they pose. Already armies are irrelevant since they are allegedly being picked off by politicians… Confrontation and elimination are so twentieth century. These are options that are thankfully outdated: in other words, we no longer need to kill each other to defend our interests. We are making progress even when all the signs point the other way. But chasing or playing catch-up is no longer an option: the only way is to get in front and stand in the way.

One of these new threats is the existence of hedge funds, whereby the system can be milked of billions and billions simply by betting on failure. Destruction is so much easier than construction and betting on failure is so much more lucrative when you can arrange to ensure it happens. So when the former chancellor Philip Hammond claims hedge funds stand to gain hugely from a no-deal Brexit, then you begin to understand why it has to happen, and how without resistance from parliament and the courts, and ultimately the people, it will be made to happen. The next step being to introduce rioting – for it certainly won’t be a spontaneous popular revolt.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/28/boris-johnson-backers-benefit-from-no-deal-brexit-inquiry

The upshot of this is that bona fide Brexit supporters should be worried whether their ideas did not actually originate with these people. The leading proponents of Brexit are not your friends. A few examples. Johnson is a former classics scholar: he knows that Cato the Elder liked to begin his speeches with “Delenda Carthago est” (Carthage must be destroyed) – not a reasoned policy, just a mantra: it will be done. Here Johnson is in a league of his own, saying "Get Brexit done" every other sentence: not a mantra, a reasoned policy?? Delenda Britannia est?
Michael Gove: "The answer... is to reflect on what Yogi Berra, the American baseball coach said, which is 'One should never make predictions, especially about the future'". Newspeak for populists. Whatever happened to serious plans, promises and government manifestoes: “we will do this, we will do that”? They are reduced to mantras.
“Toby Young, an associate editor of the Spectator, laughed off the [groping] allegation. He told an event at conference: “Back then at the Spectator, in those raucous days, people complained if Boris didn’t put his hand on their knee. Times really have changed.” OK, one thing is sure from this: Boris was groping people all the time. Another thing is less sure: people (everyone) liked it. So basically he is confirming the allegation.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/30/boris-johnson-groping-allegation-haunts-tory-conference

The closer we focus on a problem, the bigger the problem becomes: so, we try the opposite and find it works better. We should understand by now that “being the change we want to see” involves more friendship and cooperation, not more confrontation and isolation. This notably means giving the conspiracy theories a rest; instead of constantly accusing people, we might put it all down to the zeitgeist: the information revolution and the resulting explosion of contradictory data; the money-grabbing on an unbelievable new scale and the resulting explosion of chaos and hardship. We don’t need alternative news, what we need it alterative news, meaning “having the tendency to produce alteration” (improved health, OED), perhaps through making light of alterity or otherness – other people’s and our own.

When everyone wants to make themselves heard over the din, the wiser course may be to create a silence by saying very little and maybe using a bit of old-fashioned discernment. Would you buy a secondhand car from Boris Johnson? Not likely. Would you welcome him as a forum member with his views and inflammatory statements? I don’t think so. So he’s somewhere at the lower end of the trustworthiness scale. Maybe that’s because he answers fairly closely the description of the sociopath who rises to power. What does that say about this Brexit/anti-EU thing he is trying to sell you? If he were a family member, would you be close, or would you shun him? And if you are just one of the people, whyever place your trust in that spoilt child of the over-privileged? Democracy, if it ever happens, is rule of the people by the people; right-wing populism is rule of the people by the elite in people’s clothing. Hence the biggest illusion of all is to stop at the (not untrue) idea that Johnson is the puppet of Dominic Cummings: the more important fact of the matter is that Dominic Cummings is Johnson’s puppet.

greybeard

1st October 2019, 09:15

Thank you araucaria for an excellent post.
I suspect there is s a lot of truth in your post as there was in the one exposing the lies about the Lisbon Agreement.
No army gives up control of its forces without a big uproar,
I believe a lot of MP's are honest and serve the nation which is I suspect why a damaging no deal exit is fought.
It good to see some debate happening here.

Chris

Matthew

1st October 2019, 10:56

...
We should understand by now that “being the change we want to see” involves more friendship and cooperation, not more confrontation and isolation. This notably means giving the conspiracy theories a rest; instead of constantly accusing people, we might put it all down to the zeitgeist: the information revolution and the resulting explosion of contradictory data; the money-grabbing on an unbelievable new scale and the resulting explosion of chaos and hardship. We don’t need alternative news, what we need it alterative news, meaning “having the tendency to produce alteration” (improved health, OED), perhaps through making light of alterity or otherness – other people’s and our own.

When everyone wants to make themselves heard over the din, the wiser course may be to create a silence by saying very little and maybe using a bit of old-fashioned discernment. Would you buy a secondhand car from Boris Johnson? Not likely. Would you welcome him as a forum member with his views and inflammatory statements? I don’t think so. So he’s somewhere at the lower end of the trustworthiness scale. Maybe that’s because he answers fairly closely the description of the sociopath who rises to power. What does that say about this Brexit/anti-EU thing he is trying to sell you? If he were a family member, would you be close, or would you shun him? And if you are just one of the people, whyever place your trust in that spoilt child of the over-privileged? Democracy, if it ever happens, is rule of the people by the people; right-wing populism is rule of the people by the elite in people’s clothing. Hence the biggest illusion of all is to stop at the (not untrue) idea that Johnson is the puppet of Dominic Cummings: the more important fact of the matter is that Dominic Cummings is Johnson’s puppet.

I hear you say we should get along more, and not trust Boris. I don't trust him, except it's good to hear him call Theresa May's deal the 'surrender bill', as it's too bad to be a deal, but has parity with surrender treaties.

The Brexit referendum has already been had, and the point of no deal is it enables an honest negotiation if you have the threat of no deal on the table. But it's past that now, democracy has been cheated by Bercow who was meant to be unbiased (he abused SO24 emergency debates), betrayed by opposition MP's who rejected a general election (FFS!), and the supreme court (set up by Tony Blair) who are not elected and this is possibly the most worrying abuse of democracy. Democracy is at risk, you don't seem to understand.

Nothing any of us can do about it - it's past that, but it's sad to see them wangle out of a very clear 17.4 million strong leave vote, in the biggest turnout for a democratic exercise in our country's history. It was super clear, and only remainers argue it was not clear. Part of the many shenanigans that helped them steal our democracy

greybeard

1st October 2019, 11:39

People believe that they made an informed decision---informed by who?
For what reason?
I believe that Boris attempted to steal democracy when he got parliament shutdown.
Parliament, faults and all prevents a dictatorship and is a democracy as is the law of the land there to protect democracy
No one above the law, that's democratic
The judges verdict I believe was fair and proper.

I also get the frustration of this Brexit situation unresolved for years.
The will of the people--no it was not a landslide victory to leave--more information available now.
There is a saying "You can tell the character of a man by the fruits of his endeavours"
As was said would you buy a used car from Boris?
Sanctioning him as PM seems like the end justify s the means--no matter what.

Had tea with my daughter just now.
Her husband has a Male clothes business where most of his products come from abroad.
They are concerned for their future and their children, whom they are having to finance going through University at the moment.

His Parents voted leave as they though they might get a bigger pension--he and my daughter think they were selfish. My daughters words--They wont be around to see the long term affects of leaving without a deal--the children of today will be

At least now we are having a debate about this important subject.
Chris

Matthew

1st October 2019, 12:00

People believe that they made an informed decision---informed by who?
For what reason?

...

The same old remainer shenanigans - remainers say this a lot, we've had this same discussion, we're going round in circles thanks to the minority of remainers promoting what they thing leavers knew or didn't know

...
I believe that Boris attempted to steal democracy when he got parliament shutdown.
Parliament, faults and all prevents a dictatorship and is a democracy as is the law of the land there to protect democracy
No one above the law, that's democratic
The judges verdict I believe was fair and proper.

...

Is this because he called for a general election, and was stopped implementing the democratic will of the people in a huge and famous democratic exorcise.

You drink too much Kool-aid

...

I also get the frustration of this Brexit situation unresolved for years.
The will of the people--no it was not a landslide victory to leave--more information available now.
There is a saying "You can tell the character of a man by the fruits of his endeavours"
As was said would you buy a used car from Boris?
Sanctioning him as PM seems like the end justify s the means--no matter what.

Had tea with my daughter just now.
Her husband has a Male clothes business where most of his products come from abroad.
They are concerned for their future and their children, whom they are having to finance going through University at the moment.

His Parents voted leave as they though they might get a bigger pension--he and my daughter think they were selfish. My daughters words--They wont be around to see the long term affects of leaving without a deal--the children of today will be

At least now we are having a debate about this important subject.
Chris

Be concerned for the future of democracy for these children too, and perhaps fairness with foreign trade which the EU is not promoting but the UK is - no deal is the starting premise, the truth of the trade dynamic, and what is fair comes after that. But i probably put democracy above the latter, both are for the children's sake imho

Matthew

greybeard

1st October 2019, 12:21

Matthew I have agreement with some of what you say.
Saying leaving without a deal has not as yet pressurized the EU negotiators into a major shift.
The bottom line for them is the Irish border--the backstop.

I really cant see that democracy is in any danger--now.

You may well have voted leave knowing what you were voting for but the information given out by Boris and friends before the referendum has been proven to be inaccurate.
So many voted believing this information to be true--would they vote the same way now?

There does not seem to be much disagreement about leaving with a deal and I think that's really what people expected.

So, as I have said, I think it fair for people to have a chance to vote the same or have a change of mind.

An election really is a separate issue with lots of thing to vote on, a referendum is about one thing.

If my grand children end up having to leave University I dont think they would find much solace in me sayiig "Its for the good of democracy" they have worked for years as have many others to get to Uni.
Their parents worked years , took risks to build their business it would have been easier to work for a boss, not that that's safe these days either.
Chris

Matthew

1st October 2019, 12:49

Matthew I have agreement with some of what you say.
Saying leaving without a deal has not as yet pressurized the EU negotiators into a major shift.
...

It's been blocked by hook or by crook by those wanting to ignore the direct democracy of the people and instead are motivated, fanatically, to go against that and remain. They knew no deal was pivitol and they stopped it.

...
The bottom line for them is the Irish border--the backstop.
...

The UK have said all along they will never put a hard border there. I have yet to see who will put a hard border their, because it will never be the UK. The EU have said they won't have a hard border. It's this kind of thought experiment of fear that has been pushed, when the de facto solution is to work off trust. Hard borders rise up to accommodate problems, you don't start with a hard border. Nobody starts with hard boders, nobody has said they will put up a hard border. We already operate between Ireland and the UK with different currency, different tax rates, because of trust it works. Look at the hard border of Israel; it didn't start a hard border, and grew around actual problems. Yet again another discussion already had, the same fear

...
I really cant see that democracy is in any danger--now.
...

17.4 million may disagree with you.

...

You may well have voted leave knowing what you were voting for but the information given out by Boris and friends before the referendum has been proven to be inaccurate.
So many voted believing this information to be true--would they vote the same way now?

There does not seem to be much disagreement about leaving with a deal and I think that's really what people expected.

So, as I have said, I think it fair for people to have a chance to vote the same or have a change of mind.

An election really is a separate issue with lots of thing to vote on, a referendum is about one thing.

If my grand children end up having to leave University I dont think they would find much solace in me sayiig "Its for the good of democracy" they have worked for years as have many others to get to Uni.
Their parents worked years , took risks to build their business it would have been easier to work for a boss, not that that's safe these days either.
Chris

Not sure which democracy you are talking about. I'm talking about the direct democracy in a referendum, which was brought about because people voted in the parties which had an independence referendum as key to their manifesto, and the speaker Bercow had to use SO24 to go against this and be hugely non-impartial, and Boris called for a general election to turn over a parliament which no longer represents the people, and the oposition strangely blocked it. Boris called for the opposition to give him a vote of no confidence (which would trigger a general election) and again they abuse their right to sit on the green benches. Who do they think they are? UK democracy is possibly already dead, any hope is in the next few weeks

greybeard

1st October 2019, 13:03

The reason that the opposition parties would not go for an election at this moment is because they fear that Boris could sneak through exit without the democratic approval of parliament while we are in an election situation.
Many in parliament are for exit but not without a deal.
There has to be a border somewhere after exit because of there will be different tarrifs after exit.

Son in laws shop had the busiest Friday last week of all time --why- because customers suspect rightly that prices will go up dramatically on the clothes--many from Italy--if no deal Brexit happens.

There are no trade agreements of any note with other countries.
On a no deal Brexit the maximum tariff on incoming goods will apply.
The yellow hammer document produced by the Government does not make pretty reading.
People in favour of no deal exit are probably financially secure.

Chris

Matthew

1st October 2019, 13:12

No greybeard, the reason was to stop the UK leaving the EU. Humans adapt very quickly, and trade is ancient - you can't stop it, and the border control at Calais came out and rebuked the claims of problems in a no deal situation

Former Port Chief Says No Deal Border ‘Chaos’ Widely Exaggerated
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/09/10/former-port-chief-says-no-deal-border-chaos-widely-exaggerated/

One example from many...

...and yet outside the UK there are rumours of shenanigans:

NO DEAL, NO CALAIS France threatens to block Calais port to the UK if we refuse to pay £39bn divorce bill in a No Deal Brexit scenario
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7566620/france-block-calais-no-deal-brexit-threat/

The democratic approval of Parliament as you put it relies on the democratic approval of the people, and Boris called for a general election, and the remainers blocked it. Going round in circles again with this discussion

greybeard

1st October 2019, 13:25

Im listening to Remain--Leave with a deal--Exit no deal.
The dangers of leaving without a deal are coming from many including those who wish to leave with a deal.
Yes there is media hype--thats what they do, but underneath that all only the leave without a deal hard core ignore the consequence sor brush it aside with--we will cover that financially.
With who's money? Not theirs.
And then where is the funding for the new hospitals coming from--a money tree?
They cant get enough nursing staff as it is--European nurses leaving UK.

A smooth exit was promised--leaving without a deal and the consequences there in was not highlighted prior to the referendum.

Cool logic required.
Chris

Matthew

1st October 2019, 13:47

The no deal was for negotiations but the only thing the EU would settle for outside no deal has been coined the surrender act, and not wtihout good reason. It's dubbed the worst deal in history.

So now a no deal should kick in because the so called deal May and the EU cooked up is beyond awful. In the event of no deal we would continue to trade as we have unless the other side choose to stop.

What are you talking about nursing staff? Nobody ever talked about stopping migration, the UK has a proud history of immigration before the EU, and since joining we have gradually cut immigration from countries of previous generations of immigrants. Have you noticed how diverse The Brexit party is? Immigration would continue, the UK has a proud history of immigration why would that stop?

The UK is one of the stronger economies in the region, they need us just as much as we need them deal or not. Somehow we will find a way to continue to trade. The mindset is de facto vs de jure

greybeard

1st October 2019, 13:48

Matthew, discussion is good because it brings others into this important debate and more information comes up for open minded to consider
I dont expect you, or anyone else, to agree with what I am saying.

Yet again to be clear I dont mind if the end result is stay or exit as long as its done in an orderly fashion.
I agree that this country is resilient but no need to make it more difficult than it need be.
Chris

araucaria

1st October 2019, 13:53

I hear you say we should get along more, and not trust Boris. I don't trust him, except it's good to hear him call Theresa May's deal the 'surrender bill', as it's too bad to be a deal, but has parity with surrender treaties.

The Brexit referendum has already been had, and the point of no deal is it enables an honest negotiation if you have the threat of no deal on the table. But it's past that now, democracy has been cheated by Bercow who was meant to be unbiased (he abused SO24 emergency debates), betrayed by opposition MP's who rejected a general election (FFS!), and the supreme court (set up by Tony Blair) who are not elected and this is possibly the most worrying abuse of democracy. Democracy is at risk, you don't seem to understand.

Nothing any of us can do about it - it's past that, but it's sad to see them wangle out of a very clear 17.4 million strong leave vote, in the biggest turnout for a democratic exercise in our country's history. It was super clear, and only remainers argue it was not clear. Part of the many shenanigans that helped them steal our democracy

Thank you YoYoYo. I have a few comments if I may.

it's good to hear him call Theresa May's deal the 'surrender bill' With respect, you have never heard any such thing. Each of those thousands of references is to the Benn Act obliging Johnson to request an extension to prevent no deal. That much I would have thought was clear. To describe this hard exit deal a surrender sounds like a no-dealer talking (excuse me, I don’t know your actual position).

the point of no deal is it enables an honest negotiation if you have the threat of no deal on the table. Not if this emptyish threat is further blunted by highlighting the UK as an undesirable partner, refusing to pay its 39 billion bill etc. Many in Europe now just want Britain out, deal or no deal it really makes no difference.

But it's past that now Why did the honest negotiation come to nothing? Because it was a hollow threat that did not work, maybe because making threats is not a particularly honest negotiating tactic.

democracy has been cheated by Bercow who was meant to be unbiased Blaming the referee is usually a poor argument. Why? Because in this case Theresa May's deal was defeated by voting members only (NOT the Speaker). The Tories scored a spectacular own goal with no outside help.

betrayed by opposition MP's who rejected a general election Opposition MPs don’t betray the other side; they are not there to help but to hinder; they simply do their job of opposing, using all the legal options open to them. The best way to enact legislation is still to have a parliamentary majority agreeing to it, without relying on the opposition. Unfortunately the first thing May was to squander hers, and Johnson has done likewise.

the supreme court (set up by Tony Blair) Blaming the referee 2. The supreme court is not an ad hoc arrangement but does valuable work in all kinds of fields. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_Supreme_Court_cases

who are not elected and this is possibly the most worrying abuse of democracy. No, magistrates are not elected but appointed on merit, for which you would surely be grateful if ever you had to deal with them. The judiciary is thankfully separate from the legislative arm. And if I may add, neither is the monarch elected, and it was perhaps a “worrying abuse of democracy” to involve her in this.

Democracy is at risk, you don't seem to understand. Democracy is indeed at risk when the illegality of government action is played down and the authority of the judiciary undermined. There would be no point in having checks and balances that never checked and never balanced. The risk is compounded when the illegality involves shutting down Parliament, i.e. the voice of the people. When you vote in a general election, you are electing Parliament, not the government. Prorogation had the effect of laying off your representative, and everyone else’s as well. Oh yes, democracy is/was at risk.

It was super clear, and only remainers argue it was not clear. Part of the many shenanigans that helped them steal our democracy Since you are into shenanigans, you need to look at the whole picture, including those that led to a referendum result that was far too close for Farage to call – wasn’t he conceding defeat for several hours? Such overlooked shenanigans cast the later ones in a rather different light.

Things like the 350 million per week saving for the NHS. No need to dispute the figure and no need to hark back to 2016. The government has unveiled its plans which “include a £2.7bn investment for six hospitals over five years”, 70 million here, 100 million there, and 200 million elsewhere, totaling a shade over three billion – again no need to dispute the figures.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49867376
That represents the spending over five years of a sum saved in about nine weeks! Wow! I think anyone supporting this government ought to feel scandalously betrayed over the way it is delivering Brexit. The 350 million figure may have been inflated, but at the same time it inflated by an equal amount those politicians’ commitment to fund the NHS. By their own count they should be spending upwards of 18 billion a year, 91 billion over five years. Has anyone asked what they intend to do with the surplus? Call it dishonesty, call it sheer incompetence, total unfitness to govern, but please don’t call it stolen democracy. And, as I said, Leave voters should be furious with Johnson over this, which is merely the first example that came to mind.

Matthew

1st October 2019, 14:20

...
Yet again to be clear I dont mind if the end result is stay or exit as long as its done in an orderly fashion.
...

The result has been in for a few years already, it was to leave - to have a fair orderly negotiation, that could only have happened if both parties had their own no deal on the table to start with, both parties need to be able to walk away... that's called a fair negotiation. However, the European Commission does not want no deal, can't cope with a no deal plan; they grew their empire too fast, too quickly

greybeard

1st October 2019, 14:20

Logically I can only see two end results--a no deal exit or remain.
I just can not see any deal being reached.
There is no way that the Government will agree to the backstop--no way EU will agree to divorce without the backstop.
Logic says that remain will be the end result.
Logic may not win.

Just having a general election would probably produce roughly the same problem--not enough leave members--not enough remain MP's .

If remain collective parties gets a win in a General Election--then they would probably have a challenge getting remain voted for in Parliament.
For exactly the same reason if an exit collective gets in, it may struggle.
Collectives disagree on the small print.

So having a referendum before a General Election might make more sense.
Then there is a clear vote based on current information and a General election can focus on other issues.

Im pleased to see viewpoints from people with more knowledge that I emerging.
Chris

Matthew

1st October 2019, 14:23

...
With respect, you have never heard any such thing. ....

I certainly have.. here look:

https://metro.co.uk/2019/09/03/boris-johnson-slams-surrender-bill-make-no-deal-brexit-illegal-10678653/

...Not if this emptyish threat is further blunted by highlighting the UK as an undesirable partner, refusing to pay its 39 billion bill etc. Many in Europe now just want Britain out, deal or no deal it really makes no difference.
What do you mean emptyish threat, it's called a serious negotiation and has the concept of 'best alternative to negotiated agreement' (BATNA go look it up) and is the bedrock for fair negotiations, it's not a threat it's the way negotiations work or should work and if the BATNA is not there, it's not a fair negociation

Why did the honest negotiation come to nothing? Because it was a hollow threat that did not work, maybe because making threats is not a particularly honest negotiating tactic.

Blaming the referee is usually a poor argument. Why? Because in this case Theresa May's deal was defeated by voting members only (NOT the Speaker). The Tories scored a spectacular own goal with no outside help.

The referee is not impartial, that's the point - and used a Special Order 24 to have an emergency session to force an extension; abusing his impartial position of power

One of the sides seems to have bought the ref.

betrayed by opposition MP's who rejected a general election Opposition MPs don’t betray the other side; they are not there to help but to hinder; they simply do their job of opposing, using all the legal options open to them. The best way to enact legislation is still to have a parliamentary majority agreeing to it, without relying on the opposition. Unfortunately the first thing May was to squander hers, and Johnson has done likewise.

what do you mean they are their to hinder? they are their because they got voted in by democracy and then refuse a general election (to get voted out) when they go against their promise to the people, it's so clear

...

The referendum happened, and there are more leaves today than there were in 2016. Even if it was still 17.4 million today the majority voted for leave back then, the problem can be summed up as: lack of looser consent

araucaria

1st October 2019, 16:36

...
With respect, you have never heard any such thing. ....

I certainly have.. here look:

https://metro.co.uk/2019/09/03/boris-johnson-slams-surrender-bill-make-no-deal-brexit-illegal-10678653/
Erm, this is exactly what I am saying. The title, “… ‘surrender bill’ which would make no-deal Brexit illegal” means the Benn Act. The May bill would have made no-deal Brexit impossible: she was seeking to sign a deal. Further down, Johnson is pretty explicit: “It’s Jeremy Corbyn’s surrender bill”. And Hilary Benn is making my own point: “There’s a growing number of members who have come to the conclusion that what he [Johnson] really wants, is a no-deal Brexit.”

it's not a threat it's the way negotiations work The word “threat” was yours, not mine. You are contradicting yourself again. If you don’t like the word, then you should not have used it. But since you did, better admit to having used it improperly than accuse me.

The referee is not impartial, that's the point That is precisely what is meant by “blaming the ref”. Which is usually (not always) an excuse for an otherwise inadequate performance.

what do you mean they are their to hinder? they are their because they got voted in by democracy They are there to oppose what needs to be opposed as conscientious representatives of their constituents on whose behalf they act. They are not “voted in by democracy”, whatever that is supposed to mean, they are elected by a majority of local people for their personal qualities, which include greater familiarity with the business of parliament, independence of mind and other things which are never going to please all the people all the time. They are not required suddenly to all align themselves behind slightly over half of the electorate of three years ago. Democracy means entitlement to disagree and reach consensus by properly airing those disagreements. It is a process, and the quality of any final consensus depends on the observance of that process.

The referendum happened, and there are more leaves today than there were in 2016. Even if it was still 17.4 million today the majority voted for leave back then, the problem can be summed up as: lack of looser consentThis is just one voter’s opinion such as has been swamping the media. As such, it is bound to be ineffective precisely because it is outside of the above-described “process”. Voters are possibly frustrated at being only represented by individual MPs who are inevitably unable to pander to all their personal wishes. Maybe a more direct form of citizen participation would be in order some day, but right now we can safely say it is not going to work, notably because of this lack of loser consent you mention.

At this time, I am fairly confident the process being followed by Parliament will reach a conclusion which, as Greybeard says, would be acceptable either way. Tell me, can you agree with that? Or would you maybe suffer a bit of the lack of loser consent yourself? You see, the thing about democracy is that up to 49% of the population can be on the wrong side of a given argument. We are going to have to give up on this idea of losing because there is far too much of it embedded in the process. We should none of us be losing if democracy is winning. If democracy is winning, government by the few for the few will cease just as soon as voters stop voting for them. What I see Brexit doing is exactly the opposite of that: getting the ordinary citizen and the underprivileged to keep a flagging bunch of old Etonians and their cronies in power.

greybeard

1st October 2019, 17:07

If the believers in leave are so sure that their numbers are increasing how is it that they are so against another referendum?
Parliament is a democracy which is why other parties are called the opposition.
Only a one party or decisions making situation would be a dictatorship.

This why it is absolutely necessary that the Government can not do as it pleases--it has to get any proposal through parliament.
The fact that May could not get her deal through Parliament was not because Parliament is anti Brexit but because they did not like the deal.
If a deal had been produced without a backstop and continuing in part membership--then it would have gone through first go.
This blame Parliament--blame the speaker-- blame the judges, is all to get people to believe its all about the will of the people and the aforementioned being the traitors and standing in the way of the peoples will.
That's promoting anarchy.
Its continuous N.L.P. (Neuro, Linguistic, Programming)
Hypnotic repeating key phrases.
The blaming--the propaganda.
One of Hitlers Generals said "If you repeat something often enough people will believe it
Them and us.
We are for the people--how many freedom fighters regretted supporting whoever.

Chris

samildamach

1st October 2019, 17:57

How many times would you like a revote if you lose again?

greybeard

1st October 2019, 18:15

How many times would you like a revote if you lose again?

I did not loose because I did not vote.
I want truth and so many lies were told in the run up to the referendum--the result was built on a false premise.
That being that there would be an easy exit and we would be living in a land of milk and honey.
We would not pay the divorce bill.
NHS would benefit greatly.
Look at all the prominent people who said Borois was incapable of telling the truth.
Ex employers--David Cameron--Sister-- Brother ex members of his cabinet--Amber Rudd
All they all part of a conspiracy against Brexit--I dont think so.
Look at what is coming to light now--conveniently disregarded by Brexit supporters.
So this is the man that you want to trust to lead us out of the EU.
Where is the integrity?
A man who sacks long standing cabinet members and leading Conservatives.
An Ex chancelor who got the countries debt greatly reduced.
Where is the statesmanship in words like betrayal--is this going to unite the party members far less the country.
People are being stirred up on purpose I suspect.
I suggest examine all the available facts from all perspectives with an open mind.
Chris

Matthew

1st October 2019, 18:43

...

it's not a threat it's the way negotiations work The word “threat” was yours, not mine. You are contradicting yourself again. If you don’t like the word, then you should not have used it. But since you did, better admit to having used it improperly than accuse me.

To use the word threat like you did, 'Not if this emptyish threat is further blunted by highlighting the UK as an undesirable partner, refusing to pay its 39 billion bill etc.' that's not how I used the word to describe negotiations. Negotiations have an implicit threat, but you don't call a negotiation 'a threatening' - yet deconstruct a typical negotiation and threats are in there - that was when I used the word threat. You called it 'emptyish threat' but it's how fair negotiations happen

...

The referee is not impartial, that's the point That is precisely what is meant by “blaming the ref”. Which is usually (not always) an excuse for an otherwise inadequate performance.

It's widely argued that Bercow is NOT impartial, but were're all entitled to our opinion

...

what do you mean they are their to hinder? they are their because they got voted in by democracy They are there to oppose what needs to be opposed as conscientious representatives of their constituents on whose behalf they act. They are not “voted in by democracy”, whatever that is supposed to mean, they are elected by a majority of local people for their personal qualities, which include greater familiarity with the business of parliament, independence of mind and other things which are never going to please all the people all the time. They are not required suddenly to all align themselves behind slightly over half of the electorate of three years ago. Democracy means entitlement to disagree and reach consensus by properly airing those disagreements. It is a process, and the quality of any final consensus depends on the observance of that process.

It's much simpler than that, our MPs are our representatives. They no longer represent the people and BLOCK a general election. They aren't fit for opposition

...

The referendum happened, and there are more leaves today than there were in 2016. Even if it was still 17.4 million today the majority voted for leave back then, the problem can be summed up as: lack of looser consentThis is just one voter’s opinion such as has been swamping the media. As such, it is bound to be ineffective precisely because it is outside of the above-described “process”. Voters are possibly frustrated at being only represented by individual MPs who are inevitably unable to pander to all their personal wishes. Maybe a more direct form of citizen participation would be in order some day, but right now we can safely say it is not going to work, notably because of this lack of loser consent you mention.

you said
"MPs who are inevitably unable to pander to all their personal wishes. "

It's more than that, how you shrug this off... MPs are going against their pledge to honour the referendum result, it's that simple, its not that MPs arn't pandering to individual wishes... I can;t believe I read that

greybeard

2nd October 2019, 08:22

This thread "Should I comment" by enfolded blue might be helpful.
Chris

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?108735-Should-I-comment&p=1316547&viewfull=1#post1316547

greybeard

2nd October 2019, 08:49

Are hedge funds driving Boris Johnson’s Brexit plans? | Peter Jukes

"Follow the money"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLH-wXNCtEA

greybeard

2nd October 2019, 16:55

MPs have been accused of ‘collaborating’ with Brussels. But why on earth shouldn’t they?
The Independent Letters,The Independent

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/mps-accused-collaborating-brussels-why-122105448.html

MPs should be collaborators with Brussels, for that is exactly what the democratic will of the people was, as expressed in the 2017 general election, a more recent and much better informed democratic exercise than the 2016 referendum.

In 2017, the party associated with hard Brexit and non-negotiable “red lines” lost its majority. Most people voted for parties that were promising to “collaborate” with Europe to get a soft Brexit deal, or even to remain. The parliament that was then elected still exists and, in making a no-deal Brexit illegal and working with Europe, it is doing no more or less than enacting the will of the people.

Adrian Cosker

greybeard

2nd October 2019, 17:04

The Latest: EU nations to ‘engage actively’ on Brexit offer
Associated Press Associated Press

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/latest-johnson-rejects-border-checks-110002969.html

MANCHESTER, England (AP) — The Latest on Brexit and British politics (all times local):

5:30 p.m.

The European Union presidency says that the 27 member states are ready to look at British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s proposals “constructively.”

Finland, which currently holds the EU rotating presidency, said that the European Commission led by Jean-Claude Juncker will assess the proposals “and is ready to engage actively.”

The statement added that “the EU 27 will stay united” during the upcoming negotiations.

___

5:05 p.m.

EU Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker has welcomed British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s “determination” to advance Brexit talks and said negotiations on Johnson’s new withdrawal deal proposal would take place “over coming days.”

Despite a yawning gap between the two sides, the European Commission said Juncker “acknowledged the positive advances” in some of the proposals Johnson submitted on Wednesday.

At the same time, the commission said “the president noted that there are still some problematic points that will need further work in the coming days.”

If there is to be any divorce deal before the U.K. leaves the EU as scheduled on Oct. 31, both sides have said they would need to reach an agreement by the time an EU summit set for Oct. 17-18 EU summit ends.

Johnson said in his letter to Juncker that his proposals “provide a basis for rapid negotiations.” In his reply, Juncker has left the door open for a solution to be found that resolves remaining differences.

___

greybeard

2nd October 2019, 18:01

Boris Johnson To Prorogue Parliament, Number 10 Confirms
HuffPost UK Rachel Wearmouth,HuffPost UK

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boris-johnson-prorogue-parliament-number-172340809.html

Prime Minister Boris Johnson delivering his keynote speech on the final day of the Conservative Party Conference

Parliament will be suspended for six days, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has confirmed.

The prorogation will start on Tuesday and will allow the government to bring forward a new domestic agenda in a Queen’s Speech on October 14, Number 10 has said.

It comes after Johnson’s longer five-week shutdown of parliament was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court.

Johnson said: “I want to deliver on the people’s priorities.

“Through a Queen’s Speech, the government will set out its plans for the NHS, schools, tackling crime, investing in infrastructure and building a strong economy.

“We will get Brexit done on 31 October and continue delivering on these vital issues.”

Matthew

2nd October 2019, 19:40

samildamach

2nd October 2019, 19:48

avid

2nd October 2019, 20:00

Express... the duplicitous tabloid equivalent for the last 40 years, a travesty of fake news and weather, fear-porn, totally untrustworthy.

samildamach

2nd October 2019, 20:29

Express... the duplicitous tabloid equivalent for the last 40 years, a travesty of fake news and weather, fear-porn, totally untrustworthy.

Please watch the video before you comment.i could get you the same video from the official conference.
Yes it's longer lots of smooching but the words are exactly the same.
I watched the speech live so no it's not the express it's me

greybeard

2nd October 2019, 20:38

greybeard

2nd October 2019, 20:45

Matthew

2nd October 2019, 21:41

This thread "Should I comment" by enfolded blue might be helpful.
Chris

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?108735-Should-I-comment&p=1316547&viewfull=1#post1316547

Chris - when you post cut and pasted main stream lies, I am triggered each and every time! That's not your problem, why on earth should I post if I am triggered?

There's nothing wrong with kicking back against the main stream lies, someone has to Chris and it's not you so give me a break

Matthew
I have no desire to offend you or your decision to be for Brexit--leaving deal or no deal.
Your choice is your right.

Genuinely I am interested in truth and I accept that some of the articles I have posted are suspect but thats for people to discern--me too.
However there are too many questioning leaving without a deal and possible consequences for it just to be media hype.

If Boris comes up with a deal that is accepted I will be the first to applaud him.

Where we are in agreement is that farce has gone on far too long and we dont want another period of the same.

I just repeat that the Boris integrity- his reasons for his actions are commented on by His Sister, Brother, two ex PMs--ex Chancellor --other respected "high ups" in the Tory Party--surely they cant all be wrong.

Now the ways of Boris may be quite separate from the possible validity of leaving without a deal.

Chris

There's no easy way to say this: you post too much cut and pasted mainstream news on this thread! This is my opinion, and life goes on; nothing really is lost either way, but it's sad to see it passed as 'the truth' and there's too much to keep up, it's not just the mainstream content, it's also the frequency. Sure let it slide, but as others have said on this thread: the mainstream lies. Most of this thread is cut and pasted mainstream, as I've said I think it's a shame because it's easy to find already, hard to avoid. But as I've also said in this sentance: life goes on, I'm glad to bring this up again.

I may have gotten confused about the 'surrender act', and the 'surrender treaty' but the previous PM's reheated deal, created by May, but with a backstop tweak will still tie us in as badly as the first three times May tried to pass it. May's deal was a new constitution - Farage argues it's possibly worse than staying in

If we left without a deal, we would have to negotiate another deal based on things like the actual trade dynamic between the UK and the EU, rather than the empire building project the EU is desperately trying to fund, and the army it's trying to build etc

greybeard

2nd October 2019, 22:11

Matthew I dont have a problem with you saying that I post too much--because its true.
Retired on my own--I have too much time to pass and the subject interests me--changing moment by moment, and I agree that this too will pass--my words--life goes on--and as nothing is permanent--the EU will come to an end too.

Best wishes
Chris

Matthew

3rd October 2019, 00:15

For some reason that helps, thank you, I'm glad to have moaned about it - even if like I said I doubt it would matter either way

But I won't get mad, I'll get even by peddling my own repetition: Carl Benjamin ranting, I may have even posted it already... but Carl expresses it so well, with Geoffrey Cox's speech at the start

But this video is about a week old now, and big news today is Boris has shared his deal proposal.. I should post Nigel Farage, on LBC radio, giving his analysis of it and his analysis of Verhofstadt initial response, but I'll stick with a week old rant

mW9TuyIXs0g

greybeard

3rd October 2019, 09:49

Its easy for me Matthew as I dont have an investment in the end result.
I am interested in the whole process --the spin--the manoeuvring.
However Im aware its not a game and I do prefer that there is an end to this uncertainty and a result that is beneficial to the great majority --realizing that nothing will benefit all.

One reason that I post a lot here and elsewhere is that it may save people time.
I had hoped tht there would be more posts with a variety of opinions.

I suppose there are not a lot of UK members on Avalon
If this was an American issue the thread would be crammed with opposing views.

Chris

greybeard

3rd October 2019, 10:04

Nigel Farage Reacts to Boris Johnson’s Brexit Speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox6iEYR-tTQ

samildamach

3rd October 2019, 19:24

https://youtu.be/8v3xruukans
Empire reference starts from eight minutes

Matthew

3rd October 2019, 21:03

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1178125/Brexit-news-Guy-Verhofstadt-Liberal-Democrat-Party-conference-European-Empire
Brussels openly declares the end of nation states in favour of empire.
This short speech at the lib dem conference spells out were the eu is heading.
To great applauds we usher in the beginning plays of empire

It makes a change that they are openly declaring it. Reminds me of the days when the European Commission said they weren't going to have a national anthem or an army. Give people the lies they want to hear then do what you want anyway... They think they are getting away with it, but places like this forum can shine a light on this behaviour - great to see this truth brought to light - :clapping: :clapping: samildamach

Take the Scottish National Party (SNP) - they are pro-remain, and yet the dissolving of national identity would seem to go against the idea of a 'National' party. And I don't think people quite understand the ambition of the European Commissions main players - they want national identity to go, for their benefit, and they're in a desperate hurry...

greybeard

3rd October 2019, 21:27

Fact check: does the EU want a European super-army?

https://www.theweek.co.uk/98495/fact-check-does-the-eu-want-a-european-super-army

writes in The Daily Telegraph: “So chaotic has become the process of Brexit that one can sometimes forget why the British public voted to leave the European Union.”

But in the past month, a controversial French-led proposal to create an EU army has resurfaced - a prospect that many Brexiteers “loathe”, according to The Independent.

In November, French president Emmanuel Macron warned that Europeans cannot be protected without a “true, European army” to defend the EU from China, Russia and even the US.

Clark insists that such a proposal “shows we made the right decision” to leave the EU, while Nigel Farage told EU leaders that for the UK “leaving the European Union is now indeed a liberation” as it had become “an empire, a militarised European Union”.

There is more on the link.
Chris

greybeard

3rd October 2019, 21:36

Sir John Redwood MP - Speech to The Bruges Group at Conservative Conference 2019

John Redwood has been described as the Greatest Chancellor of the Exchequer that the UK never had. His grasp of both broad economics and his detailed understanding of commerce and industry is extraordinary, as anyone who follows his regularly updated blog will testify.

In this passionate speech to the Bruges Group at the Conservative Conference he challenges some of the most cherished misrepresentations of the Remain campaigners. He says:

“We voted Leave because we wanted to leave the bureaucratic institution that is the European Union. We wanted to leave its Single Market and it’s Customs Union.”

“We do not like asymmetric and one-sided rules which have damaged our economy, undermined our fishing industry, done considerable bad-things to our farming industry and were always asymmetric because they deregulated industry, where they were strong, and they didn’t allow us the same access in services, where were strong..”

“So we knew exactly what we doing when we voted to Leave. And if Remain are in any doubt they should go back to their own statements because they told us, when we said we wished to leave, that it would mean leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union..”

“They thought that was a threat… and we took it as a promise!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8UPn18jjOY

araucaria

4th October 2019, 07:58

The other day’s little philosophical discussion I found time-consuming and energy-draining and somewhat futile: it didn’t really get anywhere. Our exchange would appear to mirror what has been going on in Brussels for years. No wonder they are coming round to Brexit there: they’ve had enough. Stepping back from the content to the mechanics of political interactions, I want to explore this paradoxical idea of what is going on in the mind of a pro-Remain thinker deciding that all things considered Leave is the better option, and conversely how a Leaver might change their mind in the opposite direction. After all, the purpose and usual outcome of debate over any undecided issue is that some people are going to change their mind. The problem of course is that one has to be open-minded to do that, and the closed-minded will tend to view it as a victory for them. If so, the new status quo will also be problematic from the outset.

Some preliminary remarks if I may. We need to resolve the deadlock without creating these problems further down the line. Being open-minded is not a weakness, it is a vital quality in all of us. So what we can say for certain is that enough people need to change their minds. As I suggested earlier, this happened way back in the 2017 election when practically the same electorate as the previous year produced an incompatible outcome. Compare what happens in France with a new incoming president: if he hasn’t got a working majority, he holds an election, gets a majority and then implements his campaign promises. May tried that, and it backfired. So, in the minds of the very same voters, the referendum result was not so clear after all. Note that Johnson is doing something different: he has been campaigning in Parliament for a deal that he hasn’t even negotiated, on the basis of a majority that he doesn’t possess, which can only be won through a now impossible election originally timed to validate no deal.

The difference with a forum thread is of course that, beyond philosophical discussions, the pragmatists in Brussels have a huge international community to run on modern, non-imperial lines, i.e. learning as they go along. (I have already addressed the issue of imperialism creeping in.) This question of scale is hugely important in my view: the larger it gets, the more clear-headed thinking and nuts-and-bolts pragmatism is required. On the smallest scale, I have seen a young couple muddle through life on a day-to-day basis, but when they tried to arrange their wedding for all the family with little or no serious organizational input from themselves, it was pretty disastrous. Now scale this up to a whole continent…

On current form – if it wasn’t clear before 2016 it certainly is now – I would say the UK – or should I say Westminster – definitely needs to downscale. The EU smorgasbord is just not its cup of tea. It is even apparent that a UK-wide scale is itself way too big, and southeast England alone is clearly the best fit. Which is why EU enlargement was probably the wrong way to go in the first place, for the people in Westminster that is. And it explains why the supposedly united kingdom is united no longer. Scotland, Wales and possibly Northern Ireland know what’s good for them; their union is holding strong – within the EU. The problem is northern England, which is caught between two stools: English in name, but geographically outside the area effectively governed from London.

This is where it gets complicated and the flipflopping occurs. Normally speaking, northern Englanders voting in their own interest ought to have sided with the Scots and voted Remain. For example, Sunderland, who voted 61% Leave, stands to lose most (7000 jobs) when Nissan pulls out. They didn’t realize that Japan was a part of Europe, and yet in the very big picture Japan is closely tied up with Europe. Just ask Nissan: they have a factory in Sunderland because and as long as it is a part of Europe. (Granted, there is also a leftwing case for Leave: e.g. in order to recover the right to nationalize certain industries. There again, that is something that from that standpoint would also be desirable in France and elsewhere, so really the issue needs to be resolved in Europe through pressure from the European left.)

Meanwhile, down in London, for the above-mentioned reasons (the need to downscale) they really should have been voting Leave. Why they did not probably boils down to the economic benefit notably from doing business with Europe, money that was not being evenly shared. Take the NHS figures I gave the other day: since they don’t add up, huge sums are apparently being creamed off somewhere along the line. So what seems to be happening is that the north has been thinking, “What is good for London (Remain) must be bad for us: let’s vote Leave”. Arguably a big mistake.

Now what has happened since the referendum was first announced is that Westminster has turned over to Leave. Johnson was pro-Remain until he became pro-Leave, May was pro-Remain until she became pro-Leave... Now all MPs are allegedly pledged to getting Brexit done. That is not true but it is how things are being presented. The lengthy holdup has been caused by this wholesale but discreet changing of sides. The only way this new position is going to get through Parliament is by keeping northern England onside. What they don’t want is for them to keep thinking “What is good for London must be bad for us”, because that would mean changing their minds too. Hence the mantra is Get Brexit done; it is not about taking care of the underprivileged north and others.

This issue of being able to change your mind has repercussions way beyond the UK and Brexit. It is how we operate all the time, constantly upgrading old ideas that were not necessarily wrong but are no longer valid. The word reactionary can be used to describe the attitude of someone whose ideas are not fluid enough to keep up; so as life speeds up this tendency is likely to increase.

Here is an example from a science-fiction novel by the astronomer Fred Hoyle. When an intelligent interstellar black cloud enters the solar system, a scientist tries to pick its brain and download some new knowledge, which contradicts just about everything he thought he knew. People once thought the Sun was a big ball of fire; now we “know” it is a giant nuclear power station; tomorrow that “knowledge” will be refined into something else; you get the idea. Too much foreign information coming in too quickly; he literally has no time to think, so he adopts a groundrule: systematically accept all the new extraterrestrial data and overwrite the old earthbound ideas. Still he cannot cope and it eventually kills him. This is a good analogy for what we are all experiencing today. The way to survive is neither to try and take everything in nor to refuse it all en bloc. We need to stem the information flow and work from a few principles. Principles are more stable, less ephemeral things and can be used to triage all kinds of detail flooding in. The principle here would be to remember that this is the process behind how we reach an opinion in the first place: you stick to your principles in a way you don’t stick to your opinions. Obviously our earthbound ideas are a mixed bag and require scrutiny, but again, there is far too much for any one person to filter, which is why democracy is not about everyone being at the top but about relying on trustworthy representatives.

Right now we have rather too many people playing prime minister. This is a natural consequence of people wising up, because democracy has benefited from more news and more analysis. As accountability increases, trustworthiness appears to decrease, which leads to higher standards until trust is restored on a higher level. As I see it, this seems to be working well, albeit uncomfortably so – that is what we mean by a crisis: a moment of danger but also of opportunity. Hence another principle would be to keep a watchful eye on things, without getting too involved or over-excited. There is a technical aspect to the whole business that calls for expert handling. We the public can only express overall desires. When you have a house built, you can dictate how you want it to look, but you need an architect to tell you if it is even possible and a builder to do the actual construction work. We definitely don’t want a DIY solution to this issue. Scrapping the backstop would be nice, but if it can’t be done it can’t be done. This is no more a matter of opinion than saying your walls need foundations.

This brings me back to Nissan in Sunderland. Japan-by-Europe is a counter-intuitive fact that will be presented as a lie. But try building on the fact, instead of building on the lie. Sunderland-in-Europe becomes an attractive place for Japan-by-Europe and probably other non-European countries as well, countries that are supposed to make up the alternative market. We then realize that people changing their mind on Brexit are not actually changing their mind at all: simply the referendum question has been reframed. For Nissan workers, the question they are answering has now become, “Do you prefer to stay in work or lose your job?” Those workers have not changed, they will continue to put their own interests first (understandably), only to find the have changed sides in this particular debate.

From the viewpoint of Leaver London, for whom Sunderland-in-or-out-of-Europe is a dump, the hedge funders and their beneficiaries can boast that they are steadfast in their opinions. But what has actually happened is exactly the same as above, only for them the question has not changed. It was and still is, “Do you prefer to win or lose an obscene amount of money?” and they will continue to put their own interests first. Just as there is no harm in changing one’s mind, there is sometimes no virtue in not doing so.

Where is this all heading? No psychic readings required, the logical outcome of this comes from the simple arithmetic behind the democratic, demographic process, i.e. sheer numbers. Many more people will be changing their minds/answering a different question than will be insisting on the previous result/answering the same question. Hence in the event of a second referendum, the overall result will likely show that the country has changed its collective mind. No chicanery involved, everyone just putting their own interests first as they always have done. Is anyone putting the collective interest first? Ultimately it doesn’t matter. Democracy would seem to be strong enough to withstand the most partisan leadership, which is cause for huge optimism – and don’t we just need some of that.

greybeard

4th October 2019, 08:40

araucaria thanks for this well thought out post.
I go with what you say.
The ethical and honest way is to put your own interests first.
Scotland does reasonably well out of the EU
I cant say for other parts.
Whatever--it will be as it is.
I suspect another referendum would overturn the results of the last one--as you state people change their minds particularly when faced with unemployment and thats not fear mongering.
Staying will suit some--leaving will suit others--that is not right or wrong just a basic fact.

Watched a program on BBC last night--one member --American-- pointed out the strong ties USA has with Ireland and that if there is a border of any kind between North and South any trade deal that UK hopes for after Brexit just will not happen--it will be blocked by Pro Ireland members.

The Irish (South)) have long memories and not England's best friend.

Chris

greybeard

5th October 2019, 09:42

Nigel Farage Talk of the Week #2 - Extension Rebellion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SodBcsQDQI

Matthew

7th October 2019, 11:43

News is emerging that prime minister Boris Johnston is prepared to take his Brexit case to the supreme court
Jeff Taylor

Extract:

... What they don't seem to realise is that the public has seen, and understands the diametrically opposed ways that the, now politicised court, deal with these cases, depending on whether they are pro-brexit or anti-brexit. ...

8di3OCfCyoQ

Bill Ryan

7th October 2019, 14:14

News is emerging that prime minister Boris Johnston is prepared to take his Brexit case to the supreme courtWow. He may be trusting the Supreme Court WAY too much.

Matthew

7th October 2019, 17:34

News is emerging that prime minister Boris Johnston is prepared to take his Brexit case to the supreme courtWow. He may be trusting the Supreme Court WAY too much.

Yes, the Supreme Court (set up by Tony Blair) has shown it's gleeful bias in Lady Hale's gloating.

But Boris doing this might force the constitutional crisis to a head, bringing to light the problems with an unaccountable Supreme Court with their own personal political agendas, mucking about with Parliament politics.

This Supreme Court, set up by Tony Blair, needs some reform for the sake of our democratic constitution

That said, alternatively it could also be...
Perhaps this is one of many actions Boris is pulling, and one designed to take the publicity. The Court has already un-suspended Parliament after Boris suspended it, and when Parliament were recalled nothing of value was debated, just a lot of whinging and ...well, humbug. So I wonder if Boris suspended Parliament, that time, to take the reactive heat from resisting remainers.

I wonder if he is pulling this stunt for the same reason, and if I didn't know better, I'd think he has other plans* The remain side are very reactionary right now - leaping on anything in any disruptive way possible. (Anything to thwart the break up of their empire, and try to crush 'populism' especially one from a direct democratic vote such as the leave result)

Matthew

7th October 2019, 23:05

Carl Benjimin explains how the Supreme Court's involvement is constitutionally dodgy

Relevant ranting starts at 10:45 (direct link (https://youtu.be/lbfsWJLsZ0Q?t=642))

#Brexit: The Remainers Are Out For Blood
Published 5 Oct 2019

lbfsWJLsZ0Q

*edit*
I found a more detailed video that Carl had made about this a few weeks ago:
Britain's Activist Supreme Court, published 25 Sep 2019 (https://youtu.be/Fu4LRZh_Hn8)

greybeard

8th October 2019, 11:00

Brexit latest: Chances of deal with Boris Johnson 'essentially impossible'
Yahoo News UK Victoria Bell,Yahoo News UK

Boris Johnson has been told a Brexit deal is “overwhelmingly unlikely”.

According to Downing Street, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke to Mr Johnson this morning and made clear the EU’s objection to the UK’s current proposal.

Merkel said she would not support a deal unless Northern Ireland stayed in a customs union and would have full alignment with the EU forever.

greybeard

8th October 2019, 11:27

Brexit blame game begins: Brexit deal is impossible, British source says
Reuters By Guy Faulconbridge, Elizabeth Piper and William James,Reuters 3 hours ago

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/uk-source-unless-eu-compromises-072310852.html

By Guy Faulconbridge, Elizabeth Piper and William James

LONDON (Reuters) - The Brexit blame game began on Tuesday when a source in British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's office blamed German Chancellor Angela Merkel for scuppering any chance of an exit deal with unacceptable demands about the future of Northern Ireland.

With just 23 days before the United Kingdom is due to leave the bloc, the future of Brexit remains deeply uncertain and both London and Brussels are positioning themselves to avoid blame for a delay or a disorderly no-deal Brexit.

EU leaders reacted coolly to Johnson's last-ditch proposals to bridge the impasse. Merkel and Johnson spoke on Tuesday morning and she made clear that a deal was "overwhelmingly unlikely", a Downing Street source said.

Merkel said that for a deal, Northern Ireland would have to stay in the EU's customs union and full alignment with the EU forever, the source said. A spokesman for the German chancellor declined to comment on the phone call.

"If this represents a new established position then it means a deal is essentially impossible not just now but ever," the Downing Street source said.

"It also made clear that they are willing to torpedo the Good Friday Agreement."

The 1998 agreement bought peace to Northern Ireland after three years of sectarian and political violence which killed about 3,600 people. The EU has previously stated any Brexit deal must safeguard the accord.

Such abrupt remarks from London indicate the Brexit blame game has begun in earnest, and that now both London and European capitals are preparing for an acrimonious and potentially chaotic Brexit which neither side wants to be held responsible.

"This is yet another cynical attempt by Number 10 to sabotage the negotiations," said Labour's Brexit spokesman Keir Starmer, adding that the British parliament needed to unite to stop him.

"Boris Johnson will never take responsibility for his own failure to put forward a credible deal. His strategy from day one has been for a no-deal Brexit."

Sterling fell to a one-week low of $1.2225, before recovering a little to $1.225 as of 0950 GMT -- down 0.3% on the day.

BREXIT BLAME GAME

A separate Downing Street source told Reuters that unless the European Union compromises and does a Brexit deal shortly, then the United Kingdom will leave without a deal.

"If the EU doesn't do a deal shortly, then we leave without a deal," the source said. "We are leaving the European Union."

Johnson has consistently said the United Kingdom will leave the EU on Oct. 31 with or without a deal, though a law passed by parliament demands he write a letter to the EU asking for a delay if he cannot strike an exit deal by Oct. 19.

He has said he would abide by the law but Britain would leave the EU by the end of the month, without explaining that contradiction. He has also repeatedly demanded an election but parliament has refused to grant one.

The Spectator magazine quoted an unidentified source in Downing Street as saying that Britain would take an aggressive stance towards the EU if Brexit talks break down, possibly even by withholding security cooperation.

"The negotiations will probably end this week," the Spectator magazine quoted an unidentified source in Downing Street as saying. The source added that those who hoped that Merkel would help London were "deluded".

"This government will not negotiate further so any delay would be totally pointless," the source was quoted as saying. "We'll either leave with no deal on 31 October or there will be an election and then we will leave with no deal."

(Writing by Guy Faulconbridge; editing by Michael Holden and Angus MacSwan)

Matthew

8th October 2019, 13:29

How the EU is taking over the UK's Defence and Intelligence Capabilities
By Lt General Riley, published 20 Sep 2019

extract:
[The UK's armed forces and our intelligence architecture] could all be directed and controlled, put in harms way, by a body that could not be brought to account for it's actions ...

UkPNfR3Z5Yo

greybeard

9th October 2019, 10:30

(Reuters) - British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is facing a fresh rebellion in his cabinet, with a group of ministers poised to resign due to concerns that he is leading the country towards a no-deal Brexit, The Times newspaper reported on Wednesday.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/five-uk-ministers-resignation-watch-020304465.html

Culture Secretary Nicky Morgan, British Minister for Northern Ireland Julian Smith, Justice Secretary Robert Buckland, Health Minister Matt Hancock and Attorney General Geoffrey Cox are all on a "resignation watch list", according to The Times report.

An unnamed cabinet minister cited by the newspaper said that a "very large number" of Conservative members of parliament will quit if it comes to a no-deal Brexit.

The Times said that ministers had warned Johnson in a cabinet meeting about the "grave" risk of the return of direct rule in Northern Ireland and raised concerns about Dominic Cummings, Johnson's top adviser.

"Cabinet will set the strategy, not unelected officials. If this is an attempt to do that then it will fail", the report quoted another cabinet minister as saying.

While the Times newspaper did not specify how many Conservative lawmakers oppose a no-deal scenario, the Financial Times reported early on Wednesday that at least 50 members of parliament from the party will revolt against a general election manifesto pledging to pursue a no-deal Brexit.

Certain lawmakers from the party are considering running on a softer individual Brexit platform or even standing aside altogether as a Tory candidate, the FT report added.

The media reports come as the European Union accused Britain of playing a "stupid blame game" over Brexit after a Downing Street source told Reuters a deal was essentially impossible because German Chancellor Angela Merkel had made unacceptable demands.

With just over three weeks before the United Kingdom is due to leave the European bloc, the future of Brexit remains deeply uncertain as both London and Brussels position themselves to avoid blame for a delay or a disorderly no-deal Brexit.

Chris says
"A no deal exit in reality would cause hardship for a lot of people, to say nothing of a hard border being necessary between North and South Ireland.
Anyone who thinks otherwise has their head in the sand.
That is not fear mongering--its a reality check.

Matthew

10th October 2019, 16:20

Two pieces of news today as reported by Jeff Taylor:

Boris Johnson to use second letter to avoid Brexit Extension?!

Kuk_Fu3pJpY

Jeremy Corbyn Promises a Second EU Referendum!

6OC7SSW3kJQ

greybeard

10th October 2019, 19:40

Brexit deal can be done by October 31, Ireland says after 'positive' Johnson meeting
Reuters By Elizabeth Piper and Peter Powell,Reuters

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/last-chance-brexit-saloon-british-065624234.html

THORNTON MANOR, England (Reuters) - A Brexit deal could be clinched by the end of October to allow the United Kingdom to leave the European Union in an orderly fashion, Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said after what he called a very positive meeting with Boris Johnson.

With just three weeks to go before the United Kingdom is due to leave the world's biggest trading bloc, it remains unclear on what terms it will leave or indeed whether it will leave at all.

After Brexit descended into a public row between London and Brussels earlier this week, Johnson, the British prime minister, met Varadkar at Thornton Manor in Cheshire on Thursday in a last ditch bid to avert an acrimonious divorce or another delay.

"I think it is possible for us to come to an agreement, to have a treaty agreed, to allow the UK to leave the EU in an orderly fashion and to have that done by the end of October," Varadkar told Irish reporters.

"But there's many a slip between cup and lip and lots of things that are not in my control," he said.

When asked about who made concessions to break the impasse, Varadkar said: "I don't think this should be seen in the context of who's making concessions, or who the winners and losers are, I don't think that's the game any of us want to play."

In a joint statement, the two leaders said they "could see a pathway to a possible deal" and that the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier would meet his British counterpart Steve Barclay in Brussels on Friday.

Sterling shot up 1.5% to $1.2387. British 10-year government bond yields recorded their biggest one-day rise in nearly four years.

To get a done deal, Johnson must master the complexities of the Irish border before getting the approval of Europe's biggest powers and then sell any deal to the British parliament in which he has no majority and which he suspended unlawfully last month.

Johnson, the face of the 2016 Brexit campaign, made no further comment on the meeting with Varadkar. The details of what, if anything, had been agreed were unclear.

Ireland holds the key to any deal. It will have to consent to any solution to the hardest Brexit riddle of all: how to prevent the British province of Northern Ireland becoming a backdoor into the EU's markets without having border controls.

The EU fears controls on the 500-km (300-mile) Irish border with Northern Ireland would undermine the 1998 Good Friday Agreement which ended three decades of sectarian and political conflict that killed more than 3,600 people.

Although Johnson has insisted Britain will leave the EU on Oct. 31 even if no agreement is reached, the British parliament has passed a law saying he must request a delay.

IRELAND

Hopes of a Brexit deal were dented earlier this week when a Downing Street source said agreement was essentially impossible because German Chancellor Angela Merkel had made unacceptable demands. The EU said Johnson was playing a stupid blame game.

Ireland is the biggest issue of disagreement.

The Irish border has been largely invisible since army checkpoints were taken down after the 1998 peace deal largely ended the violence between the region's pro-British majority and an Irish nationalist minority.

Politicians have warned that the re-imposition of physical infrastructure on the border when it becomes the EU's external frontier would anger Irish nationalists in Northern Ireland who aspire to unification with the Republic of Ireland, and help militants opposed to the peace deal to recruit new members.

To get around the problem, the EU agreed an insurance policy - known as the backstop - last November with Johnson's predecessor Theresa May.

The Withdrawal Agreement that May struck says the United Kingdom will remain in a customs union "unless and until" alternative arrangements are found to avoid a hard border.

Johnson said that was undemocratic, undermined the unity of the United Kingdom and would keep it trapped in the EU's orbit for years to come.

Last week he proposed an all-island regulatory zone to cover all goods. Northern Ireland would leave the EU's customs area along with the rest of the United Kingdom and the province's institutions would be able to opt to exit the regulatory zone - a step too far for Ireland and the EU.

Johnson and Varadkar said they had discussed consent and customs.

Though Ireland is only about an eighth of the size of the United Kingdom's $2.8 trillion economy, Dublin is backed by the rest of the EU whose economy - minus the United Kingdom - is worth $15.9 trillion.

While Ireland would be very badly affected by a no-deal Brexit, the relative importance of Ireland in the negotiations up-ends centuries of history in which it has had a much weaker hand than London, both before and after winning independence from Britain.

The EU's two most powerful leaders, Germany's Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron, will meet at the Elysee Palace on Sunday ahead of next week's summit.

"We want to reduce the negative effects, even if there is a disorderly Brexit, in both countries," Merkel said.

Macron said on Thursday Britain would have to pay the price should it decide to proceed with a position over Brexit that is unacceptable for the other 27 EU countries.

"If they don't want to make any move or make something which is not accepted, they will have to take the responsibility," he said.

(Additional reporting by William James; Writing by Guy Faulconbridge; Editing by Alistair Smout Janet Lawrence)

greybeard

11th October 2019, 12:13

EU, British negotiators hold 'constructive' meeting on Brexit deal as departure date nears
Reuters By Gabriela Baczynska and Jonas Ekblom,Reuters

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/brexit-breakfast-eu-uk-negotiators-070736883.html

By Gabriela Baczynska and Jonas Ekblom

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The British and European Union chief Brexit negotiators held a "constructive" meeting in Brussels on Friday, both sides said, as efforts to secure a deal by Britain's scheduled departure date of Oct. 31 intensified.

EU negotiator Michel Barnier and his British counterpart Stephen Barclay met over breakfast following a burst of optimism after the British and Irish prime ministers said on Thursday they had found "a pathway" to a possible deal.

The United Kingdom is due to leave the world's biggest trading bloc on Oct. 31 and despite the flurry of activity, it remains unclear on what terms it will leave or indeed whether it will do so at all.

"Be patient," Barnier told reporters as he left the meeting and went on to brief the 27 EU states who will stay on. "Brexit is like climbing a mountain. We need vigilance, determination and patience."

The British government also said the meeting was constructive.

An EU spokeswoman said they were working towards a deal. No details were immediately disclosed, however.

Earlier on Friday in the Cypriot capital Nicosia, European Council President Donald Tusk said he had received "promising signals" from Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar that a deal was still possible.

But he tempered this by saying: "Of course, there is no guarantee of success and the time is practically up. But even the slightest chance must be used."

DOWN TO THE WIRE

Sterling see-sawed on the various pronouncements, which came at the end of a tumultuous week in which Brexit negotiations have shifted wildly, starting with a public row between London and Brussels.

Both sides are anxious to avoid taking the blame should the deadline for Britain's departure arrive with no deal secured.

Tusk said he had previously told British Prime Minister Boris Johnson that unless a workable solution came from London by Friday Oct. 11, he would announce that a deal was all but impossible at a summit of EU leaders next Thursday and Friday.

Varadkar told Irish reporters on Thursday after his meeting with Johnson: "I think it is possible for us to come to an agreement, to have a treaty agreed, to allow the UK to leave the EU in an orderly fashion and to have that done by the end of October."

In a joint statement, the two leaders said they could "see a pathway to a possible deal", though officials on both sides were silent about what compromises - if any - had been made to break the Brexit deadlock over Ireland's border.

To get a deal done, Johnson must overcome the complexities of the Irish border before getting the approval of Europe's biggest powers - and then sell any deal to the British parliament, which he suspended unlawfully last month and where he has no majority.

Parliament has passed a law saying that Britain cannot leave the bloc without a deal. Johnson, the face of the 2016 Brexit referendum campaign, insists the country will leave on Oct. 31 with or without an agreement but he has not explained how that will be possible without defying parliament.

The Brexit issue has deeply polarised the country and many businesses fear they will be hit badly by a disorderly break with the EU in just a few weeks a time.

Education minister Gavin Williamson on Friday restated the government's line that Britain would leave the EU on Oct. 31, come what may, telling ITV: "We need to see the European Union shift."

Ireland is crucial if a deal is to be done to avert a potentially disorderly Brexit that would hurt global growth, roil financial markets and could even split the United Kingdom.

Dublin will have to consent to any solution to the hardest Brexit riddle of all: how to prevent the British province of Northern Ireland becoming a backdoor into the EU's markets without having controls at the border.

The Irish border has been largely invisible since British army checkpoints were taken down after a 1998 peace deal largely ended the violence between members of the region's pro-British majority and an Irish nationalist minority.

(Editing by Angus MacSwan)

Matthew

11th October 2019, 16:01

Jeff Taylor with a summary on where we are 20 days before Brexit day

TL;DR
British MP's in favour of 'remain' (contrary to the referendum result) will probably block a general election again... (for obvious reasons!)

Brexit Negotiations go into 'The Tunnel'

News is developing that the UK and EU have had some form of Brexit breakthrough, as Michel Barnier has been given the green light to get the talks into the intense 'Tunnel' phase.
...

5Vin69URKSw

My own thoughts:
The remainer MPs talk of a second referendum also known as a 'peoples vote' when we had a peoples vote with the original referendum, and if they want to give the people a vote they should stop blocking a general election. Again, a blatant slight against democracy. Bring on a general election cowards

greybeard

12th October 2019, 10:12

It's impossible to ‘succeed’ in the Brexit talks – this is one of the stupidest things a country has ever done
The Independent Tom Peck,The Independent

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/impossible-succeed-brexit-negotiations-one-152855148.html

There appears to be a slight sense of jubilation emerging, even among sensible people, that the very worst of Brexits might be avoided.

Ireland and the EU, though not the UK, just yet, are intimating that a Brexit deal could be done. What that would mean for British people is that the very worst impacts of Brexit – the ones that involve food shortages, fuel shortages, medicine shortages and widespread civil unrest (and this is the government’s own analysis) – would not come to pass.

Hallelujah! Appears to be the word of the hour. What rubbish.

That there is even a glimmer of a chance that Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Dominic Cummings and the rest deserve any kind of credit for narrowly avoiding the worst iteration of a crisis that is 100 per cent their fault is obscene.

We have, we are told, moved in to the “tunnel” phase of the negotiations. A wondrously apt phrase, except that, by comparison, the tunnel in which we have spent the last three years has been fairly well illuminated, and the destination at the end is only darkness.

If UK leaves the EU in three weeks time – still very much an “if”, at this stage, despite the “no ifs, no buts” drivel Gavin Williamson and other government ministers are prepared to spout on the radio – it should do absolutely nothing to conceal the self-evident fact that Brexit represents the most colossal failure of statecraft in this country’s history.

That should not be a controversial statement, not even for Brexiteers. Of course, for Brexiteers, Brexit is a success, against the odds. But it is nevertheless still true that the UK will have been taken out of the European Union by accident, by a government led by a prime minister, David Cameron, who didn’t want it to happen.

Whether Boris Johnson actually wanted to win the referendum is a much debated point. It is certainly true that he didn't think he would, and didn't consider losing an obstacle to his career (there would still have been a Tory leadership election in 2019. He would have been in a very strong position to win it).

And it is certainly true that, should we leave the EU on 31 October, we will do so on terms that will be orders of magnitude more economically harmful than anyone ever promised. “I am a fan of the single market, I would vote to stay in the single market,” Johnson said before the referendum.

We will not be staying in the single market. We will be putting up barriers to trade with the largest free trade bloc in the world, which also has the immense advantage of being our geographical neighbours.

The contours of the deal that appears to be forming is one that leaves Northern Ireland effectively within the EU’s customs union, but also able to benefit from any future trade deals the UK might strike. "Benefit" is a word used very loosely indeed. All sensible analysis indicates that barriers to trade that will come in to force by leaving the EU will shrink GDP by up to seven percent by 2030. And new trade deals with other countries could mitigate those losses by 0.5 per cent. That forecast is unlikely to come to pass with any real precision, but the idea it could be out by the kind of degree that makes Brexit economically worthwhile is absurd.

Asked exactly what the deal meant, all Johnson would say is this: “I can certainly tell you we will not see anything that prevents the whole of the United Kingdom from taking full advantage of the opportunities of Brexit.”

It remains to be seen whether the DUP and the ERG support the deal, if this is what it looks like and should it ever come before the commons. They have been scathing of similar-looking deals in the past.

In the medium-to-long term, the real risk such a deal poses to Brexit is altogether different.

The best hope for Brexiteers, and the outcome forecasted by all major investment banks, is that a negotiated Brexit will not lead to an economic cliff edge but instead open a slow puncture. The latter is arguably more harmful. What Jacob Rees-Mogg and the rest hope is that the slow depletion of the British economy will be slow enough to obscure any real discernible point at which people notice their economic prospects and life chances have diminished.

A cliff edge is a call to action. A slow puncture is not.

But special status for Northern Ireland is potentially problematic. If a small part of the United Kingdom in effect retains the economic benefits of EU membership despite having left, and flourishes while the rest of the UK declines, it will serve as a remain call to arms. This is a highly likely outcome. It is why most Northern Irish businesses loved the backstop. For them, it was the best of both worlds. Only a small band of Union Jack-waving unionist politicians disliked it.

There is a very real prospect that, in the coming decade, a resurgent Belfast will serve as a living, breathing testament to Brexit – one of the stupidest things any major country has ever done. It will be a reminder that will pose significant problems for Johnson, Gove and the rest, whose last best hope is that the people never quite work out what was taken from them, for no cause beyond their own crushing vanity.
Read more

Johnson hints at major Brexit climbdown over customs union

Live: EU gives green light for secret negotiations on PM’s plan

Pound surges against dollar and euro as brexit deal talks intensify

Hate crime surged during Brexit ‘surrender’ bill debates in parliament

Major boost for Boris Johnson as EU agrees to intensify Brexit talks

Matthew

12th October 2019, 11:24

We've only started negotiating, and this is because Boris played his own 'no deal by proxy' - by playing hard-ball. This meant the EU Commission started to realise a few home truths... Strangely since that day (8th October 2019) actual talking seems to have been happening.

Who knows what the next few days holds. The behaviour of the EU Commission has been laid bare and the ultimate court is the court of public opinion. A general election would have sorted this out at any of the points Boris called for one.

Too many precedents have been broken, it's non stop breaking of Parliamentary precedents, in days when a backbench bill passed through with an SO24 overturns a a record turnout direct democratic vote, and a confirmatory general election was expected when Boris called for them, and would have been situation normal, but instead our elected representatives don't want to check if it's OK for them to go back on their promise of upholding the referendum result

Boris' hard-ball started the first hint we had of 'good negotiations', even though the EU Commission ultimately does not want to negotiate, it wants to build an empire (in a dreadful hurry to unite Europe) - anyone who understands the difference between tyranny and negotiation will understand how this works. Boris starting with the difficult truth means he is being honest, and honestly working towards a deal in good faith.

The EU commission want territory under their rule, their flag, their army, their national anthem. All but the flag were ambitions they strongly denied, and the argument is that Remain didn't know what they were voting for

Here is the point Boris started being honest that we want to leave

Published 8th October 2019
Boris Goes Nuclear, We Will Revoke Entire Eu Legal Order Without Further Talks & Leave

Warning: this video presenter uses strong vulgar language throughout

The really interesting bit of the video is at 1:05, here is a link to jump to that bit (https://youtu.be/OdCsLzf4ScU?t=65)

https://youtu.be/OdCsLzf4ScU?

Who knows what will happen, but I believe the mainstream is pushing what they want, rather than what is/has been going on

Matthew

12th October 2019, 11:52

Here is a (complex) summary from Jeff Taylor of where we are 19 days to Brexit day

TL;DR
Boris has to work towards a deal in good faith or leave with no deal on Oct 31st or he risks going down in the polls just before our (overdue) general election

This could be a high risk Brexit strategy!
24sNP8BPdSg

greybeard

12th October 2019, 12:03

Well hope he pulls it off.
This has gone on for far too long.
Chris

greybeard

13th October 2019, 10:55

Sturgeon: I’ll request consent for indyref2 by the end of the year
PA Media: UK News By Lucy Christie, PA Scotland,PA Media: UK News

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/sturgeon-ll-request-consent-indyref2-100045221.html

Nicola Sturgeon has said she will request UK Government consent for another referendum on Scottish independence before the end of the year.

Scotland’s First Minister revealed she will ask Downing Street for a Section 30 order “over the next matter of weeks” as she presses ahead with plans to hold a vote in the latter half of 2020.

The Referendums (Scotland) Bill, which makes provision for such a vote, was produced by the Scottish Government in May.

The SNP leader told the Andrew Marr show: “I’m putting legislation through the Scottish Parliament right now, to put the rules and regulations in place.

“As that legislation progresses we will make that request for a Section 30 order.”

Asked if she will request the order this year, Ms Sturgeon replied “yes”.

Asked if it will be this month, she said: “We will do it at an appropriate moment when the legislation is passing.

“It is likely to be over the next matter of weeks. It is coming soon.

“Of course we don’t yet know who is likely to be in Downing Street, the situation is very fluid.”

As the SNP annual conference opened in Aberdeen on Sunday, the First Minister reiterated her view that holding a legal referendum is the only route for Scotland to secure independence.

Some party activists want a “plan B” option for independence if the UK Government continues with its opposition to granting a Section 30 order, such as holding a Catalonian-style wildcat poll or taking winning a majority of seats at Westminster as a go-ahead for independence negotiations.

In an article in the Sunday Mail, Mrs Sturgeon wrote: “I will not fall into the trap that our unionist opponents want me to, by deviating from our current path of ensuring the next independence referendum is legal and constitutional.

“We don’t need to be talking about plan B when we have a perfectly good plan A – especially when any plan B is exactly the route many opponents of independence would like us to go down.

“If we were to try to hold a referendum that wasn’t recognised as legal and legitimate – or to claim a mandate for independence without having demonstrated majority support for it – it would not carry the legal, political and diplomatic weight that is needed.”

Matthew

13th October 2019, 13:33

greybeard

13th October 2019, 14:45

Police across country put on standby for London’s million-plus protest day
The Guardian Mark Townsend,The Guardian.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/police-across-country-put-standby-081306067.html

Police forces in England and Wales are on standby for what could be one of the biggest public protests in British history, the anti-Brexit march due to take place in central London on Saturday 19 October.

As MPs gather in the House of Commons for an emergency weekend sitting to discuss Brexit, more than a million people are expected to mass outside parliament for a People’s Vote march, while Extinction Rebellion climate campaigners launch the finale to a near fortnight of continuous protest.

Scotland Yard confirmed it was expecting a huge event and was liaising with the National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC), which is responsible for the deployment of officers from across the UK to assist during large-scale events.

Deputy assistant commissioner Laurence Taylor, who is in charge of policing Saturday’s march, said: “We have considered what the event may entail and we will continue to monitor the resource level that we have. UK policing, let alone the Met, has very significant capacity and capability and if we need to draw on that, we will certainly do.”

Tom Baldwin, director of communications for People’s Vote, said that despite the special parliamentary sitting, the Met had signalled it would allow the march to Parliament Square, where Extinction Rebellion protesters are camped.

Talks over which group controls Parliament Square on the actual day indicate that Extinction Rebellion is likely to surrender its prime spot to accommodate the anti-Brexit protest, which could form the biggest public rally Britain has ever witnessed.

To date, the two largest public protests have been the Iraq war rally in 2003 and the last People’s Vote march held six months ago, which both drew more than a million people.

Baldwin added: “It does look like it’s going to be a very, very large event, without any doubt one of the largest protests this country has ever seen.”

For next weekend’s People’s Vote march, its third in the capital, 172 coaches have so far been booked from across the country, compared to 130 last time.

The number of individuals who have signed up to say they will attend the latest march is also already significantly higher. A campaign to raise funds for Saturday’s event reached its target of £500,000 with a week to spare.

Baldwin added: “Boris Johnson wants to run a campaign of the people versus the politicians. On Saturday you’re going to get politicians like Boris Johnson sitting inside the Houses of Parliament trying to force a form of Brexit on the British people and the people will be outside parliament demanding a final say.”

It is not yet apparent what form the Extinction Rebellion protest on 19 October will take, other than that it is scheduled to be the climax of 13 days of protest that have so far seen more than 1,100 people arrested since they began last Monday.

The rate of arrest – described by a spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion as an “astonishing number” – has even prompted speculation that the group might struggle to fulfil its protests for another week.

“We are still assessing what [the October 19 policing plan] is going to look like and how that works in conjunction with any Extinction Rebellion protest, if indeed the Extinction Rebellion protest is still ongoing,” said Taylor.

greybeard

13th October 2019, 15:03

...
Take the Scottish National Party (SNP) - they are pro-remain, and yet the dissolving of national identity would seem to go against the idea of a 'National' party. And I don't think people quite understand the ambition of the European Commissions main players - they want national identity to go, for their benefit, and they're in a desperate hurry...

It's not my country, and if another country want independence from something, as I've said time after time, they should get what they want - rightly so.

I hope for their sake their referendum is honoured.

I bump the above because nationality gets in the way of the EU empire, even though it's easy to think it will never happen to you, the signs of the Commission want to dissolve national identity get stronger

Agreed YoYoYo
If you look at the history of Scots in sport apart from a select few. Always when victory is in sight it alludes.
There seems to be a self put down--Dont deserve to winn--not good enough or whatever inbuilt psychology is in there.
We are brought on self effacing sayings . What make you think you can!!! No better than they should be!! rising above their station!! the list is endless, so when push to comes to shove, I dont think home rule will happen.
However!!!
Scotland has close ties to both the South and North of Ireland and is well aware that the south has done well out of the EU--so if a Boris deal does not suit Scotland then who knows what will happen.
Im not actually a great fan of nationalism--its contributed to conflict--great and small.
At least we have had no war with Europe since the last one and the trade between has helped to keep the peace.
Its a multifaceted situation-- pro and con for Brexit or stay.
Ether way there will be benefits.
Winners and losers.

Chris

Matthew

13th October 2019, 15:30

Nationalism is historically bad, but when strong nationalism becomes a global ambition ...the problems happen then.

The recent trend in nationalism is much more about a backlash to globalism; like nationalism to stop our country's mucking about in foreign issues.

Here national boundaries become the antidote to global empire building, because the EU is trying to grab land. Nationalism stops it. The EU has left a trail of national independence stirring, unrest and possibly (so the rumours are) a war in the Ukraine. The UK is simply the latest in their land grab ...we need a trade deal, not a constitution where we hand our army over/

If you think you have a shot at fairness with the EU, I wish I could convince you otherwise. Under the EU there will be so little voice, civil unrest could possibly start and with a military force, my worst fear is you may find an armed force from another of the EU countries imposing rule. - How would the EU have dealt with Greece a few years ago if it had an 'EU army' - I don't share my own fears often but some might see my point of view

greybeard

13th October 2019, 16:09

Oh yes I see your point of view YoYoYo.
So a rebellion is staged and foreign troops brought it to quell it.
Most times we have been the foreign troops
UK has a bloody past with Scots being on the front line--cannon fodder so to speak.
We are supposed to be a "human" race civilized.
Accepting that the last world war against Nazi was probably fought for the right reason and its as well we won.
However we only have armies because we have fear of an oppressor. Who???
In this day and age an army should not be necessary.
Bit off topic
But I certainly dont disagree with your take YoYoYo
Chris

greybeard

14th October 2019, 10:26

Watching the pomp and ceremony for the Queens speech.
No body does it better.
Chris

BMJ

14th October 2019, 15:07

Watching the pomp and ceremony for the Queens speech.
No body does it better.
Chris

Speaking of which

Queen delivers speech outlining post-Brexit plans
4HUgR704RvI
Sky News Australia

Agape

14th October 2019, 18:12

I’m looking at things from slightly bigger perspective now as I’m in India, in the heart of Tibetan refugee community, above all but India itself offers large spectrum of perspectives on what ways is this world shaping into future world, culturally, economically, legally and so forth.
Indian PM Narendra Modi was recently visited by Chinese president Xi Ji who then travelled to Nepal.

From what I’ve seen all around the world including Europe, South America and Asia, China has almost “imperial” kind of economical power crushed to everything from plastic toys ,cloth and milk powder, every second product in your supermarket was produced or coproduced in China.

Hand in hand with its trade power are also traded security and legal protocols. I fear the future of the world commonly falling under the spell of such One World Order economy and policies which is the ultimate goal of communist manifesto possibly anyway.

Back to the topic of Brexit though.

I’m still of the opinion that pushing decisions by brute force will bring only more disaster that will destabilize both economies of Great Britain and the EU,
there’s lots more people struggling economically or living from poor subsidies than governments care to admit and forceful decisions will result in more people starving.

Wise farmer plans his actions carefully for year ahead,
prepares the soil, saws the seeds in right time.
If he does not do that the odds for good crops are left to a chance.

So also taking any “exit” without it actually meaning powerful and positive step ahead, economic stability and advancement with less stress on borders
is foolish in my opinion and under the cross of international crisis
we are standing under together as humanity,

the whole argument of Brexit looks like childish game.

People still look to England as good old example of culture and morals, teacher and a guide.

I may be wrong but it seems to me, the time is short now...

and the state of human crisis that has globally many fundamental factors to be addressed and resolved including those of human rights and abuse, environmental and health care issues, human rights and freedoms needs to talk and deescalate stress instead advancing to state of bigger chaos we won’t be able to control.

But that’s my opinion anyway. Prices of fruits and vegetables have gone up steeply and further increase to be expected.
🙈🙉🙊

🙏🌟🙏

Matthew

14th October 2019, 19:11

Here's Jeff Taylor's analysis of todays events 17 days to Brexit day

st8BDSivbGA

Agape... childish? foolish? I beg you look again! Some things are worth fighting for, and the EU political project is worth fighting against. The EU project is a globalist, power-mongers dream come true. Have a closer look: here's David Icke giving his own take (in a 26 April, 2019 interview). Go to 30:55, just for a few minutes. Not everyone is going to agree with what he says about this, but I do. Here is a link to David Icke's interview on Brexit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaUKOQ4rsdQ) (it's at 30:55)

Jayke

15th October 2019, 09:57

Just a quick anecdote...

I was at a hypnotherapy training 3 years ago. It was more of an esoteric training, a blend of Solomonic ceremonial magic combined with an NLP technique called 'Stacking anchors', highly effective techniques for deep changework. The guy leading the training however was talking about spirits and festivals and how festivals are conducted to invoke different spirits, like the spirit of Christmas is invoked by the rituals of gift giving, decorating homes and putting up trees.

He then went on to say that the spirit of Christmas is actually on the decline and in the future Halloween will become the greatest spirit, with the greatest festivals of the year, and that "Christmas isn't based on anything real anyway". Utter madness I thought to myself, firstly its based on the winter solstice tradition, a very real and important part of the solar calender, plus there's too many vested interests that greedily feed on the spirit of consumerism that Christmas evokes. There's no way Halloween will ever knock Christmas off its perch as top festival of the year.

Later on in the training we got talking about secret societies and the trainer divulged to the group, during a dinner break chat, that he was a card carrying member of OTO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordo_Templi_Orientis) (Ordo Templi Orientis), which if anyones knows anything about the City of London, is one of the more favoured Secret Societies among the London elites.

How does this relate to Brexit?

If we leave the EU on October 31st (Halloween) and the day subsequently becomes a bank holiday, some kind of 'EU independence day', wouldn't that help OTO and the Crowley'ites in London further their agenda of making 'the day of the dead' a more important festival in the English calender?

Speculation on my part, but could be worth considering.

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hellomagazine.com%2Fimagenes%2Froyalty%2F2014110321700%2Fprince-charles-camilla-mexico-day-of-the-dead%2F0-114-630%2Fcharles2--z.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

greybeard

15th October 2019, 10:36

Thanks Jake for your post.
Dates seem very important to some.

Ive given up on trying to work out who are the bad guys--are there an good guys?
Or what is for the best for the general UK public.
On the whole I think that most MP's are genuinely there for the right reasons.
They are as easily mislead as the rest of us.
No wonder my main interest/priority is non-duality
The only way to achieve peace etc to my mind is through spiritual practise--every other way has been tried an only leads to more conflict.

Chris

Tintin

15th October 2019, 11:12

With his enormous experience and insider connections Craig Murray shares the following from his blog. It is, as always, well worth digesting in its entirety. Several large helpings of food for thought, at such an early hour of the day (for some), may negate breakfast.

——————————————

Bad Faith Negotiation
15 Oct, 2019 in Uncategorized by craig (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/bad-faith-negotiation/)

I seldom comment on Brexit, largely because I neither see leaving the EU as a panacea nor the EU itself as a Utopia, and am alienated by the over-extravagant passions and claims on both sides. In addition to that, the FCO is largely excluded from Brexit negotiations, being perceived by the Tories as a nest of remainers, so I seldom get any interesting information fed to me by ex-colleagues.

I should admit at this point that my apparently effortless expertise on myriad subjects is something of a fake, because often posts are prompted and informed (and very rarely, even written) by someone on the inside, and sometimes it is not possible to tell you that. But sometimes I can tell you, and today this knowledge comes from the inside.

The Legal Advisers of the FCO remain the UK government’s source of expertise on public international law. When the Attorney General publishes his view on such a matter, it has been drafted by FCO Legal Advisers or at the least is based on a minute from them.

The sole exception to this of which I know was when Blair’s Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, received formal advice from FCO Legal Advisers that to invade Iraq would be an illegal war of aggression. Goldsmith then flew to Washington on instruction from Blair and Goldsmith’s final advice that the war was legal was based on drafting, not from FCO Legal Advisers, but from George Bush’s Legal Advisors.
That is one of those incredible facts that I often find hard to understand do not lead to active public outrage. I wish I was a more religious man and could be sure that Hell awaits Goldsmith. I comfort myself with the thought that Goldsmith might himself be religious and cowering.

There is currently considerable alarm in the FCO that Legal Advisers have been asked about the circumstances constituting force majeure which would justify the UK in breaking a EU Withdrawal Agreement in the future. The EU did not fall for Johnson’s idea that a form of Northern Irish “backstop” would only come into effect with the future sanction of Stormont, as this effectively gives a hardline unionist veto, and Barnier was not born yesterday.

The situation that Johnson and Raab appear now to contemplate is agreeing a “backstop” now to get Brexit done, but then not implementing the agreed backstop when the time comes due to “force majeure”.

There are two major problems with this line of thinking.

The first is that it will give unionists an incentive to foment disorder in order to justify breaking the backstop agreement – indeed there is a concern that might be the tacit understanding Johnson is reaching with the DUP. Remember the British state conspired with the same people to murder the lawyer Pat Finucane and destroyed the evidence as recently as 2002 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49963689).

The second problem is one of bad faith negotiation, and this is what is troubling the diplomats of the FCO. To negotiate an agreement with the secret intention of breaking it in future is a grossly immoral proceeding, and undermines the whole principle of good international relations.

I should like to be able to say that I am sure this cannot be the intention. But when I look at Johnson, Raab and Cummings, I am really not so sure at all. It is possible that Johnson will succeed in the apparently insurmountable challenge of securing a deal all parties can agree, by the simple strategy of promising some parties he has no intention of honouring it.

——————————————

kfm27917

15th October 2019, 15:33

breaking newa
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/eu-touts-brexit-breakthrough-ho

greybeard

15th October 2019, 15:47

breaking newa
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/eu-touts-brexit-breakthrough-ho

Its saying page can not be found.
Chris

Matthew

15th October 2019, 17:45

Jef Taylor continues his daily update, 16 days to Brexit day

Could Boris Johnson Really Clinch This Brexit Deal?!

Against all the odds Boris is managing to keep the Brexit negotiations with the EU on some sort of track, but also, just as importantly, he is slowly winning over support from both wings of the Brexit debate.

Wr8riN_G3zQ

My own thoughts might not come as a surprise to anyone: for remainers to accept a true 'Brexit deal' (that isn't just 'Brexit in name only') they will need to swallow losers consent. Until they do, they will carry on trying to stop Brexit exactly the same as they have over the last three years. We should have had general elections when Boris called for them over the previous few months. Remainer MPs will push for a second referendum when they famously blocked a general election... I'd call it hypocrisy but they know the dirty tricks they are playing, there's no sanctimony, just plain old lies

Agape

15th October 2019, 17:54

I also think that they should work on improving all trade routes within Europe and the Islands since they’re comparatively short routes, the most frequented and practical to keep going.
Really what are the benefits of importing costly fruits from South Africa and New Zealand and cutting ties with Spain ?
Isn’t that snobbish and vane if we all benefit from affordable citruses in winter?

It seemed to me for some reason that trade rules are established or broken only once in fiscal year. There should be such a liberty of trade and business rules enabling revision of trade agreements every year, internationally and without prejudice or huge financial sanctions.
Thus useless agreements and businesses could be reviewed and replaced by home fair.

Same legal system of free trade should be adopted by all states who agree with it.

We see the opposite happening within the EU of course, more laws, more controls imposed on everybody in the name of global security etc.

I almost see a twighlight zone in front of my eyes sending us 60 years back in time.

Sure that can’t be accurate

🙏🛎🙏

Matthew

15th October 2019, 18:22

...

Bad Faith Negotiation
15 Oct, 2019 in Uncategorized by craig (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/bad-faith-negotiation/)

...
The second problem is one of bad faith negotiation, and this is what is troubling the diplomats of the FCO. To negotiate an agreement with the secret intention of breaking it in future is a grossly immoral proceeding, and undermines the whole principle of good international relations.

...

Bad faith negotiations? In the last few weeks we've seen the only thing approaching good faith negotiations in all of Brexit. This was since Boris played the 'no deal by proxy' (here is a link to a post about this (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91509-The-UK-Brexit-vote-to-leave-the-EU&p=1318322&viewfull=1#post1318322))

I don't understand why remainers don't ever talk about the Northern Ireland Assembly and the need to get it working again, because it's where the people of Northern Ireland need to make their own choices and control their own destiny. Everyone else seems to want to speak for them

Matthew

15th October 2019, 19:14

Possibly things are moving fast... either forward into the light, or it's not a light it's an oncoming train. It might be we have hours before deal or no deal or dead in a ditch

Jeff Taylor an hour ago:

Are we on the verge of a Brexit deal?

Earlier today, Brussels gave the UK until midnight tonight to get the full Brexit deal in place. But the latest news is that Eurocrats will now set up an emergency EU27 summit, if that deadline is missed.

6Ljky8sXfYw

Edit:
Not a deal, but a serious proposal for a deal. It won't be legally binding, it would be a headline proposal agreed by all parties so far

greybeard

15th October 2019, 19:48

About time YoYoYo
Hopeful the end is in sight
Chris

Matthew

15th October 2019, 19:59

For me, it's will it be the end, or the start of a new longer fight. It will depend on what it is, and all I have is some sense of anxiety ... but however on the bright side there is little I can do between my mouth, my typing fingers and my :ohole.

So...... anyone else want to go to a happy place?

voilà...

ftgcwsBqS0U

greybeard

16th October 2019, 06:51

Seems that UK is making concessions rather than EU.
Getting any deal through parliament is another story though.
Cant see that a General Election would solve anything.
It scuppered May's chances of getting her deal through.
I think history would repeat.
Best bet, perhaps, is to have a referendum now to give parliament clear instruction---once again!!!
Then an election can be held on normal vote for the party not Brexit.
Which ever is elected then would have to carry out the will of the people.
Chris

araucaria

16th October 2019, 08:35

I mentioned earlier the need to give pro-Brexit conspiracy theories a rest. What we have here is the potential for the Tory gang being hoist by their own petard. If conspiracy is collusion among several individuals for nefarious ends, then political activity itself is the first to fall under that category whenever ethical standards slip in government. Such malfeasance dates back at least to the buying off of the minority DUP by Theresa May: the mainstream media gave the price as a couple of billion. Apparently the cheque-book is out again to the tune of billions more.

There are multiple reports that the DUP is being offered a significant cash deal alongside the Brexit pact.
The Financial Times is reporting sources as saying the DUP were being offered “billions not millions” as a sweetener.
The Irish Times also noted the offer of “a multimillion-euro package of investment funded by the EU, London and Dublin”. They are reporting indications that “political agreement had been reached on the main points and precise details were being worked through”. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/oct/16/brexit-boris-johnson-races-the-clock-as-deadline-for-deal-looms-politics-live While normal political alliances operate on a quid pro quo basis, at some stage it becomes bribery plain and simple. It is a win-win-win situation for the DUP: not only the cash, the huge political clout in the Brexit business, but also the possibility of punching above their weight in years to come. All of this is of course both corrupt and undemocratic. So is the behaviour inferred in the following comments, which can be assessed by looking at the strange goings-on that suddenly come into focus.

…
Bad Faith Negotiation
15 Oct, 2019 in Uncategorized by craig (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/bad-faith-negotiation/)

...
There are two major problems with this line of thinking.

The first is that it will give unionists an incentive to foment disorder in order to justify breaking the backstop agreement – indeed there is a concern that might be the tacit understanding Johnson is reaching with the DUP. Remember the British state conspired with the same people to murder the lawyer Pat Finucane and destroyed the evidence as recently as 2002 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49963689).

The second problem is one of bad faith negotiation, and this is what is troubling the diplomats of the FCO. To negotiate an agreement with the secret intention of breaking it in future is a grossly immoral proceeding, and undermines the whole principle of good international relations.

I should like to be able to say that I am sure this cannot be the intention. But when I look at Johnson, Raab and Cummings, I am really not so sure at all. It is possible that Johnson will succeed in the apparently insurmountable challenge of securing a deal all parties can agree, by the simple strategy of promising some parties he has no intention of honouring it.

——————————————

Johnson’s entire strategy of illegal time-wasting followed by a last-minute burst of negotiation and back-pedalling now makes some sense, as does the dramatic reconciliation with dissidents in his own party in the Queen’s speech debate; as does the long drawn-out issue of refusing to send a letter to Brussels in the event of no deal while claiming to take the UK out of the EU on October 31st. There is a perverse truthfulness in all of this: he is delivering his promises, including the Queen’s speech as a programme of action – the opposition is barking up the wrong tree in describing it as an electoral manifesto. It all falls into place when one factors in the one suspicion voiced here, namely “bad faith negotiation”.
Johnson’s Churchillian posturing is not limited to the “We shall never surrender” meme; he is also playing a variation on the “riddle wrapped up in an enigma” theme whereby the dishonesty is shrouded in this form of honesty – which goes a long way to explaining his popularity. If he is willing to go back on his word whenever it suits him, it doesn’t really matter what sort of deal he does; the intention all along has been to strike a deal – any deal – while brandishing the red herring of No Deal. Which is why, counter-intuitively, No Deal is the only viable option at this stage – but with no exit.

greybeard

16th October 2019, 10:49

Looking at all this from a business point of view.
Leaving makes no sense.
The EU is our nearest customer and our best.
The tariffs--are a good deal.
Foreign car manufacturers attracted to UK as a point of entry into the big EU market.
We leave we are in competition with EU.
Biggest has the most clout and tends to win.

People who wish to leave and those who wish to remain need only ask one question--Why do I want to leave--or why do I want to stay??
In other words, whats in it for me and mine?
Yes forget the conspiracy theories for the moment.

Chris

scanner

16th October 2019, 10:59

From a business point of view, it makes very much sense to Brexit. We can trade with the World and not just a handful of Countries. We can decide what comes through our borders and Customs. We can set our own tariffs and have our fishing rights back. And we can still trade with the EU if we wish, or not. We will become a great trading nation once again, not some vassal state of the EU.

greybeard

16th October 2019, 11:01

Respectfully scanner--Have you ever been self employed?
Chris

scanner

16th October 2019, 11:05

Respectfully scanner--Have you ever been self employed?
ChrisI've been running my own business for forty years Chris. The only people who want to stay in the EU is the people with vested interests in there.

greybeard

16th October 2019, 11:08

Angela Merkel is right. The UK is now the EU’s ‘competitor.’ It is not a fight the UK can hope to win

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/angela-merkel-uk-now-eu-122200229.html

Whether the UK leaves the EU by Boris Johnson’s artificial deadline of 31 October only matters only if you are interested in the terrifying egos of Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings.

But the clearest sign that the exit is nearing, be it on that day or by way of some kind of technical extension, came from Angela Merkel on Sunday.

“With the departure of Great Britain, a potential competitor will of course emerge for us,” she said. “That is to say, in addition to China and the United States of America, there will be Great Britain as well.”

It is a reminder that, once Brexit happens (if Brexit happens), it will return again to the beginning.

When a referendum on EU membership began to feel imminent, in the autumn of 2015, around pub tables and lunch tables and in the corridors and ante rooms of Westminster, MPs, analysts, civil servants, think tankers, journalists and indeed everyone all made, almost in unsion, the single most important argument in favour of remaining.

They will punish us. They will make an example of us. They will not allow a British exit to incentivise others to do the same.

The following spring and summer it was, perhaps, unfortunate, that this argument was not made by the Remain campaign with the force that it should have been. You can understand why.

“They will screw us if we leave,” is a difficult way to make the case for remaining in a union with, well, the would-be screwers.

If the UK does indeed leave in the next few weeks or months, what is not clear is whether the public conversation will move on. The trade talks will be brutal, and of crucial importance for national prosperity, but they are also knotty, dull and whole orders of magnitude more complex than anything like the Irish backstop.

There are many Westminster watchers who think the subject will, comparatively speaking, go away.

But the truth of the matter will remain. The EU will indeed have a competitor, right on its doorstep. The EU is ruthless at protecting its interests. It is a powerful union. It is through the power of the EU that little old Ireland now gets to tell the UK what to do. A novel experience.

Merkel’s comments have been received, in the usual quarters, as an affront to Britain. Never mind that the EU, and Merkel in particular, have been paragons of diplomacy and restraint as the UK has had a very public nervous breakdown over the last three years, the House of Commons arithmetic making it impossible for the country to reach an agreed position on a question that has hopelessly divided it, and is likely to do so for decades to come.

The now prime minister, Boris Johnson, has on several occasions likened the European Union to Nazis, a staggeringly crass and unforgivably offensive thing for an aspiring statesman to say. Such remarks have been met, in the most part, with bitten lip.

But she is right. As the UK toys with threats about becoming “the Singapore of Europe,” deregulating and cutting taxes to lure business away from Europe, the EU would be mad not to consider the reality of a competitor on its doorstep.

She is also right to compare the UK with the US and China. The UK is dysfunctional, unreliable, unstable and untrustworthy. For months now, it has threatened the EU with no-deal Brexit. No deal threatens thousands of jobs, in France, in the Netherlands and elsewhere. It is not the EU’s decision.

In a few weeks time, the UK may elect a prime minister who, as recently as 2012, at the tender age of 63, wrote newspaper columns arguing for the UK to pull out of Nato, and has suggested Britain’s armed forces should be disbanded.

Just as Trump has abandoned Nato’s Kurdish allies to attack from Turkey, in a move in which Vladimir Putin is the only beneficiary, so too the UK has become a partner on whom the EU, and the world, cannot rely. It would be irresponsible of Angela Merkel, and others, to not consider how it should respond to such a reality.

Brexit is regularly sold by Brexiteers as the opportunity to “rekindle old friendships”, to return to the Commonwealth and, that imagined thing, the “anglosphere.” It is all unhinged, but even on the most generous reading, the facts of the matter are that, in the last 40 years, the world has moved on. Old friends, like New Zealand and Australia are far, far more interested in opening trading relationships with the EU’s colossal single market, than they are with the UK’s comparatively small one.

In my very humble opinion, the most fair minded, least contentious summary of the decision to leave the European Union is that the UK joined a trading trading bloc in the 1970s, and since then has watched it turn into an overtly political organisation, with a parliament, a president, a court and a mission statement for further integration. In June 2016, it chose a different path.

But it did so for political reasons. All of the pro-Brexit trade arguments are a red herring, dreamt up by longstanding Eurosceptics as a way to win a political argument. The idea the UK economy was somehow trapped or constrained by EU membership is daft.

Fair-minded Brexiteers should acknowledge there is no credible economic case for Brexit, certainly not in the short to medium term.

The problem, in the years ahead, is that the political case, as outlined above, was most keenly felt by a generation who watched that change happen. The younger generation, who will suffer most, in the short to medium term, from the inevitable economic consequences of Brexit, were also the least persuaded by the political gains.

This is a vicious problem the country will have to try and manage in the years ahead.

The EU has a new competitor. And it is not quite like the US or China. It is substantially smaller. It will be fighting a losing game, not least as it is a fight that at least 48 per cent of the country (drastically higher if you include the EU nationals that live in it, who did not vote), wants no part of.

The cards are stacked heavily in the EU’s favour. Life as the EU’s newest competitor, rather than its economic partner will be a far tougher fight than anything that has come to pass in the last three torturous years.