The UK Brexit vote to leave the EU [Archive] - Page 5 - The Project Avalon Community Forum

greybeard

18th October 2019, 20:06

How new Brexit deal could hit UK economy, wages and public spending
Tom Belger,Yahoo Finance UK 7 hours ago

https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/new-brexit-deal-full-text-analysis-economic-impact-uk-boris-johnson-latest-parliament-vote-economy-125826293.html

UK trade with Europe could plummet by 25% under the kind of EU free trade deal planned by Boris Johnson, according to the British government’s own figures.

New trade barriers could wipe 4.9% off long-term economic growth, leave real wages 6.4% lower and see borrowing soar by at least £72bn just to maintain spending than if Britain remained in the EU.

Analysis by Yahoo Finance UK of official forecasts released last year suggests the UK prime minister’s Brexit proposals could also leave the UK worse off than under his predecessor Theresa May’s plans.

The government is under pressure from backbench MPs to confirm the figures are a valid reflection of Johnson’s proposals, or to swiftly update them before parliament votes on Saturday.

READ MORE: MPs demand Johnson come clean on Brexit hit to the UK economy

The figures predict greater freedom in striking trade deals outside Europe, one of Johnson’s key objectives, will add just 0.1% to growth over the next 15 years.

It indicates the benefits of such trade deals are likely to be far outweighed by the damage from tougher terms of trade between Britain and Europe in years to come.
The sectors hit hardest by a Johnson-style free trade deal

The negative impact is envisaged across many sectors of the economy and every region of the UK, with the north-east expected to be hit hardest.

Manufacturing, particularly pharmaceutical and car exports, could be battered the hardest, with the sector’s ‘gross value added’ (GVA) predicted to be 8% lower than if current trade rules continued.

The agri-food industry and financial services could take a 7% hit to GVA, while the UK’s dominant services sector could contribute 5% less to national growth.

The economic harm largely reflects increased barriers to business between Britain and EU countries, such as increased paperwork, checks and costs to ensure goods or services meet EU or UK standards, customs rules.

READ MORE: ‘We’ve been here before’: UK firms give deal a cautious welcome

A key difference with former prime minister Theresa May’s plans is the likelihood of new ‘rules of origin’ checks, forcing companies to prove where products and their parts have come from to avoid extra taxes.

“Higher trade barriers between countries would be expected to raise the cost of exports and imports and incentivise a focus on the domestic market,” officials noted.

But the report still said the economy would continue to grow in the long run under any Brexit scenario including a no-deal outcome.
Government under pressure to reveal latest Brexit analysis

The figures were included in the ‘EU Exit: long-term economic analysis’ briefing published under May’s government in November last year.

They estimate what the impact would be of a “hypothetical free trade agreement (FTA),” reflecting average FTA non-tariff costs such as being outside the EU customs union, regulatory barriers and other changes.

While May’s deal with Brussels pledged “as close as possible” trade terms with the EU on goods, Johnson pledged a looser “free trade agreement.”

A leading backbench MP wrote to the UK chancellor Sajid Javid on Friday urging him to confirm whether Johnson’s deal could therefore be fairly compared to the “hypothetical FTA” outlined in the earlier Brexit assessment.

Catherine McKinnell, a Labour MP and chair of the Treasury select committee, called on officials to immediately update the assessment if the Treasury no longer stood by the analysis ahead of parliament’s crunch vote this weekend.

She said the committee had asked for an update three months ago but still received no response.
Trade-offs between EU trade and deals with other countries
US President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson hold a meeting at UN Headquarters in New York, September 24, 2019, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP) (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)
US president Donald Trump and British prime minister Boris Johnson. Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

Simon French, chief economist at stockbroker Panmure Gordon, said revised estimates would be unlikely to significantly change the headline figure on its negative impact on GDP, saying it would still be “in the ballpark” of 4.9%.

But he said a fresher analysis by officials would be far more useful in revealing the likely trade-offs between a closer deal with the EU and greater “wiggle room” to secure better terms with other countries.

“We were told, and it’s right, that there are advantages to changing our regulatory system and doing trade with the rest of the world. But it comes at the cost of the depth and breadth of any FTA with Europe going forward,” he said.

“Will it allow EU fishing access to our waters in return for UK drug exports, say? What are the costs and benefits of having deep [EU] alignment or a third-country relationship?”

READ MORE: Pound hovers at five-month highs ahead of key Brexit vote
Talks on an EU trade deal have not even started

French said the past few years of divorce talks had revealed “almost nothing about the end state” of Britain’s future trading relationship with the EU, which will be negotiated during a post-Brexit transition period.

He also questioned Labour, other opposition parties’ and think tank warnings of a “race to the bottom” on workers’ rights, environmental standards and consumer protection under Johnson’s plans.

The IPPR think tank had said on Thursday the deal “opens the door to a decade of deregulation,” putting high regulatory standards and the NHS at risk in trade talks with US president Donald Trump’s administration.

But French said: “This deal provides the chance to take a different stance, but it doesn’t mean they will.”

He noted the EU could still insist on Britain accepting EU standards at a later date in exchange for a closer relationship.

A government spokesman said: “We will negotiate a comprehensive and ambitious FTA with the EU, which will be good for our economy and businesses.

“This stage of the negotiations has focussed on the withdrawal agreement rather than the future trade deal, the specific nature of which will be subject to the outcome of the next phase of negotiation.

“We will keep parliament updated throughout the negotiations, including providing analysis at appropriate times.”

greybeard

18th October 2019, 20:45

Its still a mess and who is to be believed?
Still Boris got this far so you never know.
Ch

Matthew

18th October 2019, 20:54

Jeff Taylor with his news 13 days till Brexit day

I'm board of doing this countdown, I'd rather be making quirky music. But dammit, there aren't very many days left

Anti Brexit Campaigners lose two court cases!

YwTCjBHgB90

Jeff is a little more peripheral than he typically is. Mayhar Tousi gives his more rounded report on YouTube : EU Reject Extension As Brexit Party Split Over Boris’ Deal (https://youtu.be/mZh5U27F50A)

Anyone having difficulty with the political intensity, such as myself and nobody else on the thread, try this Brexit Stress Remedy (https://youtu.be/3QDYbQIS8cQ)... enjoy!

scanner

18th October 2019, 21:06

The quickening.

greybeard

19th October 2019, 08:46

Brexit stress YoYoYo
Dear friend no need to feel any stress.
The outlook you have on this is valid and the out come will be as it is, we cant change that--so no need to take any of it onboard--life will go on regardless.
Its a divorce for "better or worse".
Its all gone on far too long though.

Chris

Matthew

19th October 2019, 11:47

You might choose to 'rise above it all' by not having an opinion either way greybeard, but in these critical few days, for anyone who chooses to care, it's on the edge of their seat. I'm hardly alone, and it's nice to joke about the tension. After all, lets not forget the Supreme court is being political, blocking democratic will, and most MPs blocked calls for general elections. Not surprising since they were going hell for leather against the direct democratic will of the people. Exciting times, you can not deny

greybeard

19th October 2019, 15:14

Boris Johnson defeated as MPs vote to delay Brexit
Yahoo News UK George Martin,Yahoo News UK 1 hour 20 minutes ago

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/mps-reject-letwin-amendment-boris-johnson-brexit-deal-135041450.html

Boris Johnson has suffered a significant defeat in the House of Commons vote after MPs voted to force him to seek a Brexit extension.

MPs voted by 322 to 306 in favour of an amendment brought by former Cabinet minister Sir Oliver Letwin, which withholds Parliament’s approval for the PM’s deal until legislation to implement it is in place.

In practice the amendment means the PM is now obliged by law to ask the EU for a delay to the Brexit deadline.

However, there is still a possibility - albeit a remote one - that the UK could still leave under the terms of Mr Johnson’s deal by Halloween.

MPs are likely to vote next week on the new Brexit deal instead of holding the crunch vote that had been expected to happen on Saturday evening.

Commons Leader Jacob Rees Mogg said the Government is planning to give MPs a chance to have a meaningful vote on Monday.

But he was accused of an “outrageous stunt” after tabling the same motion that had just been pulled.
General view of the House of Commons as parliament discusses Brexit, sitting on a Saturday for the first time since the 1982 Falklands War, in London, Britain, October 19, 2019, in this screen grab taken from video. Parliament TV via REUTERS
MPs passed the Letwin amendment in a crucial vote on Saturday. (Reuters)

Mr Johnson told the Commons he was not “daunted” by the result,

“I will not negotiate a delay with the EU and neither does the law compel me to do so.

He added: “Further delay would be bad for this country, bad for our EU and bad for democracy. So next week the Government will introduce the legislation needed for us to leave the EU with our new deal on October 31st and I hope that our EU colleagues and friends will not be attracted as the benches opposite are, or rather I should say the front bench, by delay.”

It is unclear how Mr Johnson intends to refuse to negotiate an extension without breaking the law.

greybeard

19th October 2019, 15:27

YoYoYo
I dont mind what the end result is--that does not mean I dont care.
One way or another people are suffering at the moment and will continue to suffer no matter which way it goes--such is life--that does not mean I condone suffering--I wish it was not so but it is.

Chris

Matthew

20th October 2019, 06:23

Carl Benjamin expresses the sentiment of the moment better than anyone else I'm following on YouTube

Boris is Forced to Send the Letter

BZTpn5hftzs

greybeard

20th October 2019, 10:35

The big flaw in Carl's video is that in fact the person who tabled the amendment leading to delay, is for Brexit--He has vote to leave three times already for the May agreement and has promised to vote for the Boris deal.
He is not a remain er as said by Carl.
He was interviewed on the Andrew Marr program this morning and was ultra clear as to his reasons and his on going support of the deal.
.
The only reason for the amendment, as stated by him, Sir Oliver Letwin, was to prevent crashing out by accident.
Nobody wants that surely!!!

Oliver Letwin Explains Why He Tabled His Brexit Amendment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouLXbm7dJLE
Chris

Matthew

20th October 2019, 13:41

Mays deal was a remainers deal, handing over slightly more than Boris'. The problem is as Carl said, that we should be in a good negotiating position but this has been sabotaged because otherwise we may become a major competitor (https://youtu.be/SK_2HO7EfO0)

Bill Ryan

20th October 2019, 13:53

One way or another people are suffering at the moment and will continue to suffer no matter which way it goes

I'd suggest we should all beware of Problem—Reaction—Solution.

In this case,

The government (UK or EU!) creates a problem.
The people are suffering, or seem to be, or say they are.
The government (UK or EU!) says: "Don't worry, trust us, we have the solution for you."

That's how come lobsters end up in the baited lobster pot. (In my strong personal opinion, the lobster pot = the EU.)

greybeard

20th October 2019, 15:39

I suspect getting in to the EU in the first place was a mistake, our economy would probably have been a lot stronger.
Getting out not the easy ride promised.

Chris

Matthew

20th October 2019, 17:03

happyuk

20th October 2019, 18:12

No losers consent made this difficult, and remainers blocking general elections when Boris called for them. Shame.... the MPs are there to represent the people, and we know what they were scared of with a general election. Notice they have been trying for a second referendum with only their options on, instead of a general election

But anyway, here's Mahyar Tousi with his round up:

Boris Refused To Sign Brexit Extension Letter

JtMT_XxUamc

My gut instinct is Boris’s new deal will end up being Theresa May’s Withdrawal Bill with added subterfuge around the Irish backstop.

The EU will never give an inch (sorry centimetre!) because they want to see the UK reduced to the status of little more than a colony. Brussels won’t negotiate a trade deal unless they can control our laws, precisely the petty-minded intransigence 17.4 million Brits voted against.

I reckon we’ve been goosed and Boris’s antics are just smoke and mirrors. I have always had reservations about his sincerity. Inevitably our safe, utterly predictable middle class "satirists" are happily siding with senior judges, Remainer Lords, multinational corporations etc – traditionally known as the ruling class. You never hear that Germany is teetering on the edge of a recession on The Mash Report or the BBC TV News; nor have I seen the EU’s high unemployment and economic under-performance mentioned even in passing.

Matthew

20th October 2019, 18:56

Here's a summary of the revised deal I was linked to:

https://www.brugesgroup.com/blog/the-revised-withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration-a-briefing-note

The Revised Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration: a briefing note

The Revised Political Declaration

Introduction

So far as we are aware the only material changes in the Withdrawal Agreement (Treaty) are to the NI Protocol, which means that the critical ECJ oversight and Art 184 link to the Political Declaration remain. I am told by UKREP that there are two changes to other Articles in the Treaty but they were unable to tell us which ones.

Executive Summary

The Treaty permanently restricts our military independence, demands payment of an unspecified sum, prevents independent arbitration, grants EU officials immunity from UK laws, leaves us with EIB contingent liabilities running into tens if not hundreds of billions and will impose punitive laws on the UK during a transition which is likely to be extended until mid 2022 (just a few months before the next General Election).

The Political Declaration is such that a future FTA with the EU is made unpalatable because it will restrict our foreign policy and military independence as well as policies in trade, tax, fishing, environment, social and employment, competition and state aid. Free movement is replaced with vague notions of "mobility" and "non discrimination".

Specific Provisions in which the Withdrawal Treaty:-

1.Restricts Parliamentary independence

Just as before, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) governs the entire Treaty and EU law takes precedence - binding future British Parliaments and requiring judges to overturn laws passed by the British Parliament if the ECJ considers them to be inconsistent with obligations in the Treaty. (Articles 4, 87, 89 and 127).

...

***UPDATE***
News just in, Nigel Farage Talk of the Week #4 - Mrs May's Deal Reheated is Not Brexit, Boris
Published 30 mins ago

whbMD1p7-KU

***UPDATE UPDATE***
I Interrupt this update to bring you an update
Mahyar Tousi sort of defends the deal, but he says he is not making excuses for it

He is currently live, here is a YouTube link (https://youtu.be/MWH9Y52RFvI)

greybeard

20th October 2019, 20:17

YoYoYo from what you have printed and my limited understanding it seems we are better off sticking with the current relationship-the new deal seems more interference possible than currently available to EU.
I may of course have completely misunderstood your last post.
Chris

Matthew

20th October 2019, 21:19

It can yet be deal/no deal or a 'dead in a ditch' extension as far as I can tell. Just more pieces being played

AutumnW

20th October 2019, 22:39

What do you think the monarchy most prefers? Do they care either way?

greybeard

21st October 2019, 07:04

Dont think the monarchy would approve of something that would lead to the Scotland leaving the UK but the SNP would wish the Queen to remain as Queen of Scotland as far as I remember.
Overall I suspect the monarchy is realistic and just accepts what it can do nothing about.

greybeard

21st October 2019, 08:21

Boris Johnson's deal is worse than Remain and worse than Theresa May's deal - John Reid

The Rt Hon. the Lord Reid of Cardowan believes Boris Johnson's Brexit deal "is worse than remain and worse than Theresa May’s deal".

Lord Reid of Cardowan pointed out his view during "Super Saturday" in the House of Lords:

"I will make three simple points. First, it will leave this country much weaker economically.

Secondly, it adds a threat to the stability of this United Kingdom.

My third point is one which is rarely mentioned: the strategic challenges which will face this country over the coming years. The world has changed dramatically, despite the post-imperial delusions of the Little Englanders who think we can do what we did 300 years ago".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUlg5HXFlF8

"Boris is charming and a bit economical with the truth (what ever that is).
So has he an agenda beyond wanting to leave?
He certainly wants the Conservatives to win the next election with himself as PM.
Im no wiser now than I was at the beginning of all this."
Chris

greybeard

21st October 2019, 09:03

I really would like to see a commentator on this issue who does not have an agenda--for or against.
Some are blatantly for or against with emotive language.
I dont like to see lack of respect for other view points, or other people.

I find the Andrew Marr show BBC 1 Sunday mornings helpful--he seems to be neutral and asks the kind of questions I want to see asked and he is single minded about getting an answer--when those politicians want to evade answering.
Chris

araucaria

21st October 2019, 12:11

The notion of the EU as lobster-pot is a massive oversimplification and too Manichean to bear serious scrutiny. If you insist on using Icke’s formula, it works both ways, and in more ways than one: a) it works on both sides of an argument, and b) it works in a non-conspiratorial sense as well. Life is full of problems arising – not necessarily created by anyone, and not necessarily with mischievous intent; such problems produce a reaction, and call for a solution. It’s called problem-solving. Often when someone is the cause of the problem (eg criminals, or children), the solution comes from a different quarter (the law, or the parents).

a) First, arguably the biggest example is the Brexit situation itself. In this view, Tory Eurosceptics led by Johnson created a problem: holding a referendum that no one really needed. The public reaction after demonizing the EU was a small Leave majority. And the solution is a poor/no deal Brexit. It has been such a laborious process precisely because too many people have been seeing it as a patently Ickean manoeuvre, although they would not describe it in those terms.

b) Here is the non-conspiratorial view: for decades Tory Eurosceptics led by Johnson created a problem with Europe (Daily Telegraph columns about straight bananas and all that nonsense), leading to a referendum that no one really needed except the Tories themselves; the reaction has led to a huge debate after, not before, the referendum. That was the problem. Like never before, the public has taken a huge interest in this aspect of community life, and particularly in the activity of parliamentarians and discovering the difficulties they face. The fact that the debate is still not over is testimony to the long-term deficit in such active democracy. What has been going on for three years has been a healthy eye-opener for many people. They now know that instead of the EU being the foreign bogeyman, their own MPs, government and Prime Minister are not all working with their interests at heart. This is a much more powerful and empowering discovery because it also includes the understanding that to some extent the same goes for Brussels and Europe and elsewhere. The world has a leadership crisis. Only when one has understood both these things can one avoid the next pitfall, namely exchanging the European model for the much worse American one. As Keir Starmer explained on Saturday, the only reason for diverging from Europe is in order to lower standards, simply because you don’t need to leave if you want to raise standards, you can do that now.

If you are going to talk about lobster-pots, you need to realize that there are a multitude of them; I think what we are seeing is a great many lobsters wising up to what is going on: the entire world is a highly dangerous place and we need to stick together. On the other hand, if conspiracy theorists focus just on this one issue, they fail to see how the huge American global corporations and/or deep state – which always used to be the major enemy – stand to make a huge killing. Hence they are fighting against their own proclaimed interests, working to achieve what they fear most. The immediate positive solution would therefore seem to be to have another referendum to see where the recent burst of serious debate and reflection has led people. Whatever the outcome, the referendum would carry additional weight for taking place after, not before, the debate. A confirmatory referendum would be addressing a more mature electorate. A vote to Leave would mean something very different and more enlightened than it did back in 2016. The same goes for a Remain vote. And either way, this would mean something different from backing the current deal being rushed through Parliament, which in light of the above, and – regardless of its content, merely with regard to the method being used – imposes a negative solution: another lobster-pot if you will.

Ernie Nemeth

21st October 2019, 12:23

But don't forget what Nigel Farage warned: Don't deliver on Brexit and the leave party will field candidates in the next general election.

I believe he could win such an election for the very reasons you mention: the built up skepticism of the public due to informed debate of the last several years.

sunwings

21st October 2019, 12:52

1185664196178042880

East Sun

21st October 2019, 13:04

I think that eventually in the long run, because of the globalist agenda, the UK will
have to become part of the EU. Just my two cents.

On the other hand I believe we need to do everything possible on a
worldwide scale to stop their agenda from ever happening.

scanner

21st October 2019, 14:31

Operator

21st October 2019, 14:55

I really would like to see a commentator on this issue who does not have an agenda--for or against.
---

Hi Chris,

Well, I am against the EU in general so I am in a way biased too ...
However, if there is one thing becoming very clear from this saga, it looks
like 'hotel California' ... you can enter but never leave.

The EU will obstruct with everything possible to prevent members from leaving.
Usage of words like 'competitor of the EU' sound similar to the words of Bush jr.:
If you're not with us, you're against us. It makes me sick ... :sick:

greybeard

21st October 2019, 16:46

The game rolls on!!!

Labour seeks new alliance to kill off Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal
The Guardian Rowena Mason Deputy political editor,The Guardian

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/labour-seeks-alliance-kill-off-200854058.html

Boris Johnson’s hopes of winning a clear majority for his Brexit plan faced a new threat on Sunday night as Labour declared that it would seek the backing of rebel Tories and the DUP for amendments that would force him to drop the deal – or accept a softer Brexit.

As both sides sought to gather parliamentary support after Saturday’s vote to force Johnson to seek a new delay to the UK’s departure from the European Union, Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, said Labour was prepared to talk to the prime minister’s former allies in the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) about forging a better deal.

The news raises the prospect that a new parliamentary alliance could form at the 11th hour – forcing the government into a softer departure from the EU or a confirmatory vote on whether to leave at all.

Related: PM's Brexit deal still on knife-edge despite claim he has the numbers

No 10 will resist any customs union amendments to the Brexit legislation, due to be published on Monday, arguing that the current offer from the EU is the only one on the table and that “wrecking amendments” could torpedo the fragile coalition that it is trying to assemble for a deal.

Johnson is planning to try to rush through all stages of the Brexit legislation this week, with parliament sitting through late nights and some of the weekend, before an EU summit pencilled in for early next week.

However, opposition and Tory MPs may reject the rushed timetable for the legislation in a vote on Tuesday, and some believe there is enough cross-party support for a customs union amendment and giving parliament a say over extending the transitional period.

Johnson will attempt to win parliamentary backing for his Brexit deal in a straight yes or no vote on Monday. This would be a move to show support for his EU withdrawal agreement before MPs have the chance to scrutinise the full legislation and attach amendments that could be problematic for the government.

He is thought to be very close to securing a majority for approving his deal, having the support of around eight Labour MPs and a handful of independents, along with most former Tories from whom he withdrew the whip.
vote intentions graphic

But Labour party sources said they expect the Speaker, John Bercow, to prevent Johnson holding another “meaningful vote” on the deal on Monday, because the prime minister tried and failed to do so on Saturday.

Johnson was thwarted in his efforts to pass a meaningful vote on Saturday, because Oliver Letwin, the former Tory MP, managed to amend the motion so that parliament withholds support until MPs are able to pass the full Brexit legislation and properly scrutinise the deal. The amendment forced Johnson to send a letter to the EU requesting a three-month extension to article 50, which Brussels is now considering.

MPs are now suspicious that Johnson is trying again to hold a meaningful vote so that he can withdraw the letter requesting an extension if it passes.

On Sunday, Starmer accused the prime minister of “being childlike” for sending his letter to the EU along with a further letter saying the government did not want an extension after all.

Starmer said his party would work hard with other parties to make Johnson’s deal better, telling the DUP: “I say to any MP, but particularly the DUP, if you want to work with us to make this situation better, our door is open.” The DUP rejected Johnson’s deal because it entails a border in the Irish Sea, but a UK-wide customs union could solve that problem.

In a statement on Sunday, Sammy Wilson, the DUP’s Brexit spokesman, dismissed the idea of supporting a second referendum, but hinted that it could be open to working with parliament to get changes to Johnson’s deal.

“DUP MPs supported the Letwin amendment as the only avenue available to properly scrutinise the deal on offer and attempt to secure changes that could address some of the concerns we have. It was a situation that could have been easily avoided had the prime minister kept to words he penned to Jean-Claude Juncker just a matter of two weeks ago,” Wilson said. “The DUP does not seek a second referendum; merely implementation of the first.”

Any attempt to get a customs union added to Johnson’s deal would probably need to involve former Tory MPs as well as the DUP. A source close to the group of 21 former Tories suggested they might be more interested in the deal being amended to make sure the UK does not crash out on no-deal terms. Most in the group are also keen to make a deal work rather than opt for a second referendum.

However, speaking to the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Starmer said he believes a second referendum was still possible. He also suggested Labour could vote for Johnson’s deal if a second referendum was added to the withdrawal agreement bill, despite the party’s fundamental objections to the terms of the UK’s proposed departure from the EU.

This went much further than his party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who has previously said that Labour could not vote for Johnson’s deal even with a second referendum attached.

“We will see what that looks like, but it makes sense to say that by whatever means we get that referendum. The spirit of this is clear. We offered this to Theresa May. We said, ‘We don’t think your deal is very good, but if it’s up against the safeguard of being able to remain then we will allow it to proceed in that way.’”

He added: “The position we have adopted is whatever the outcome, whether it’s Boris Johnson’s bad deal or a better one which could be secured, it has got to go to a referendum up against remain.”
explainer flowchart

Starmer said Labour would have to look at the specific circumstances before deciding how to vote and the party would try to amend Johnson’s deal to prevent a no-deal departure and allow the UK to have a closer relationship with the EU in future.

“We will put down amendments to make sure the future destination is a close economic relationship with the EU,” he said. “We’ve been arguing for a very long time for a customs union with the EU and single market alignment.

“There are other amendments that are important because there is a trapdoor to no deal at the end of 2020 that we need to deal with and close and we can do that in the legislation. And of course we need an amendment saying whatever deal gets through should be subject to a referendum.”

Dominic Raab, the foreign secretary, was optimistic that Johnson had enough support to get his deal passed. “We seem to have the numbers in the House of Commons. Why hasn’t parliament pushed this through? That’s what we’re going to do this week,” he told the Marr show. “We’ve got a deal. Why would we have a second referendum?”

Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister in charge of no-deal planning, insisted that the UK would be leaving on 31 October that and an extension would not be necessary.

greybeard

21st October 2019, 16:49

Brexit news latest: EU 'to grant three-month Brexit extension if Boris Johnson fails to get deal through Commons this week'

Evening Standard Rebecca Speare-Cole,Evening Standard

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/brexit-news-latest-eu-grant-180300804.html

The European Union will delay Brexit until February 2020 if Boris Johnson is unable to get his deal past MPs this week, according to reports.

Diplomatic sources quoted by The Times said a delay would be "fungible" - meaning Britain could leave on select earlier dates if the PM's deal is ratified by then.

A decision on granting an extension to the October 31 deadline will not be made until EU governments have assessed the chances of the deal getting through Parliament before Tuesday this week, according to the publication.

Its sources said the EU’s most likely option is to decide that the three-month extension in the Benn act - until January 31 2020 - is a purely “technical extension”.
Boris Johnson in the Commons (UK PARLIAMENT/AFP via Getty Imag)

Meanwhile, EU diplomats and officials said on Sunday that, depending on the next developments in London, extension options range from just an additional month until the end of November to half a year or longer.

It comes after the Prime Minister was required by law to ask the EU for an extension after MPs voted in favour of Sir Oliver Letwin's amendment in the Commons yesterday.

But in a move which sparked a major backlash, Boris Johnson got a senior diplomat to send an unsigned photocopy of a letter asking for an extension.

Meanwhile, Michael Gove insisted earlier on Sunday that Britain would leave the EU by Halloween.

Mr Gove told Sky News's Sophy Ridge On Sunday: "We are going to leave by October 31st. We have the means and the ability to do so and people who - yesterday we had some people who voted for delay, voted explicitly to try to frustrate this process and to drag it out.

"I think actually the mood in the country is clear and the Prime Minister's determination is absolute and I am with him in this, we must leave by October 31st."

The Chancellor to the Duchy of Lancaster said the Government will trigger Operation Yellowhamer, their contingency plan to handle a no-deal Brexit.

Matthew

21st October 2019, 17:44

Back to the Brexit day countdown with Jeff Taylor

10 days to Brexit day

A UK 'Logan Act' would have stopped Remainers in their tracks!

NJtC9afvxMI

Meanwhile here's the charming, handsome Mahyar Tousi with his more rounded update - YouTube link 'EU Says No To Brexit Extension Unless Boris Gives Good Reason' (https://youtu.be/XiFguDmDNFs)

greybeard

22nd October 2019, 08:11

Brexit secretary under fire after admitting Northern Ireland firms will be forced to fill out export forms when sending goods to Britain
The Independent Ashley Cowburn,The Independent

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/brexit-secretary-under-fire-admitting-174050121.html

Stephen Barclay is under fire after revealing Northern Ireland businesses will be forced to fill out export declaration forms when sending goods to Britain under Boris Johnson's Brexit deal.

The Brexit secretary's admission led to claims the government was breaching its commitments to allow "unfettered access" to the GB market for firms in Northern Ireland with new bureaucracy.

Appearing in front of the House of Lords European Union committee, Mr Barclay initially said he did not believe the forms would be necessary as trade would be "frictionless".

But clarifying himself minutes later, he told peers: "Just to be clear, exit summary declarations will be required in terms of NI to GB".

Responding to the remarks, the DUP's Brexit spokesperson Sammy Wilson, said it was a "clear breach" of the government's commitment to "allow unfettered access to GB market for NI businesses".

"How can any Conservative & Unionist MP argue this does not represent a border in the Irish sea?!" Mr Wilson added.

Nigel Farage, the Brexit Party leader, also weighed in, adding: "It is now clear Boris Johnson is prepared to wreck the United Kingdom to get this EU treaty through. No wonder the DUP are unhappy."

After quizzing Mr Barclay on the exit declarations, Labour peer Stewart Wood told Politico: "The Brexit secretary of state has made clear that there will be a very commercial border between Northern Ireland Great Britain under the government's Brexit proposal.

He said it was "fanciful" that Northern Ireland companies would continue to enjoy unfettered access, adding: "In conceding all firms will need to complete declarations when their good travel to Great Britain, he has revealed that trade inside the UK will be subject to new rules and new paperwork."

People's Vote supporter and Labour MP Ian Murray said Mr Barclay's comments represented a "shocking admission".

He added: "This would mean extra costs and bureaucracy for businesses in Northern Ireland, which will cost jobs. The DUP are just the latest people to learn that Boris Johnson's relationship with the truth is extremely flexible, to say the least."

"Regardless of New world order ---Im concerned as to how all his will affect the average person in the street, here and now."
Chris

greybeard

22nd October 2019, 09:05

Copied from the great quotes thread.
Thanks to raregem
Chris

"If you have to lie, cheat, steal and bully to get your point across then, it must not be a point capable of surviving on its own merit." - An Actor

araucaria

22nd October 2019, 09:56

No, the true agender of the EU is, the UK would become a powerful competitor to the EU. Merkel has already stated this. This brings into play NWO and their agender, this is not conspiracy, as the EU is just one of the one World Governments regions. If, the UK come out with no deal this would put a fly in the NWO agenda.

As I said earlier, this is not about you and me: neither is it about Macron or other such individuals. Macron wants no more extensions: he is going to be overruled. If you are going to talk about the “NWO", you need to explain the entire situation, and notably why a bunch of old Etonians of the worst kind are supposed to be fighting this organization on behalf of ordinary people. You need to explain why the EU has been so accommodating every step of the way with the very people who are trying to make the UK would become a powerful competitor to the EU. (Johnson needed a deal in a matter of days: he got what he wanted in a matter of days. If I were in Brussels, I would be trying to help the other side.) And you need to explain how “a fly in the NWO agenda” is supposed to have any effect at all.

In my previous post I used the word Manichean, and did so advisedly. It refers to the idea that evil is an entity and one that is separate from and obviously foreign to the human experience. Satanism being the end result. This is an illusion and the bigger the illusion, the more powerful the non-existent Satan becomes. Call it the NWO if you like, this is what we are talking about.

How does evil come into the world? Take the simple case of a guy whose mother died in childbirth and who gets it into his head that he killed her. There is no way there can be any truth to such an idea, not even psychological: no one has been doing any killing. This is not even the imaginings of a barely formed mind, it is derived from the bodily distress of an infant deprived of the one near absolute necessity: its mother’s physical presence. One would expect such an experience to lead to some psychological issues later in life. This is just an extreme instance of the baggage we all carry with us which can easily go very bad if not handled with great sensitivity. In this particular case, deaths in childbirth are still a huge problem in many poor parts of the world. The only way to tackle the problem is of course to fight poverty: if you are not doing that, then you are advancing the cause of “evil”. So the one question we need to ask of the Brexit camp is, Is it doing anything at all to improve people’s lives generally, e.g. by fighting poverty? Sadly, all the signs would to point to the answer No: what they are doing is fighting a crusade against a monster of their own making (with others helping). It is not so much a unicorn they want, but an evil chimaera they want rid of. These are people with massive issues of their own who are in no position to achieve what is really needed.

The chimaera in question is this “New World Order” at the opposite end of the same spectrum, where the “evil” syndicate has become very nearly all-powerful. Certainly no “fly” is going to have any effect on it – at least not directly, and not singly. We are all “flies” and need to be acting separately and together on their level to achieve whatever “flies” can achieve. That is the level from which we are being diverted, thereby making the NWO a self-fulfilling prophecy, and explaining Juncker’s latest remark, to the effect that Brexit is a huge waste of time and energy. We have expressions for this: fiddling while Rome burns; rubbernecking gone viral...

sunwings

22nd October 2019, 10:26

Just so I'm clear:

We have a Chancellor who hasn't analysed the economic impact of Brexit plan!

A Trade Secretary who hasn't done any trade deals!

A Brexit Secretary who doesn't know customs arrangements within UK itself!

What a bunch of comedians.

The deal is around 900 pages. It is not a novel, it needs to be understood fully and scrutinised.

Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales did not vote for Brexit. In 2016 nobody knew what Brexit was about, now the people do. This is why we have elections every four years because public opinion changes.

1185843026930950144

greybeard

22nd October 2019, 11:42

Eventually the Truth will out---I hope!!
Observing all the goings on I cant help but think that leaving the EU becoming more unlikely and that leaving for the average person is going to be a bad deal.
A good analytical look at why people want to leave and why people want to stay would be helpful.
Basically whats in it for the individual.

I can afford to be neutral as being elderly retired and living on state handouts --its not going to make much difference.
Statistics seem to show that young voters are more for staying in the market--its their future.
The ones afraid of another referendum are possibly scared they may loose it--why else be against one?
As pointed out we have General Elections regularly--people have the right to change their minds and new voters come into the system.
Exciting times.

Chris

Bill Ryan

22nd October 2019, 11:44

I can afford to be neutral as being elderly retired and living on state handouts --its not going to make much difference.

Chris, it's NOT about personal economics. Larger issues are at stake. The EU was a NWO experiment, a beta-test for what's planned to follow: the North American Union, the African Union, the Asian Union, and the rest.

In my very strong opinion, this really matters. If the EU fails, it's a step towards more freedom.

greybeard

22nd October 2019, 12:07

Oh yes Bill I get all that--However the writing is on the wall for the EU as far as I can see.
However it seems sensible to be in a big trading group time being---tariffs-tariffs- tariffs.
Being neutral its possible to look at the different sides with an open mind.
Each to their own perspective.

greybeard

22nd October 2019, 13:16

Andrea Leadsom blasts business leaders over response to Brexit deal
Ben Gartside,Yahoo Finance UK
https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/andrea-leadsom-blasts-business-leaders-over-response-to-brexit-deal-121704387.html

Andrea Leadsom has blasted business groups over their response to the government’s Brexit deal, sources at a meeting between the groups have told Yahoo Finance UK.

Business secretary Andrea Leadsom and junior minister Kelly Tolhurst met with members of the five most influential business groups on Monday evening, where members were attacked for not getting behind the government’s latest Brexit proposals.

A source in the room described Tolhurst as “shaking with rage” while rebuking the business leaders, who face suspicion from Boris Johnson’s administration due to their close relationship with ex-business secretary turned Brexit-rebel Greg Clark.

The five groups consists of the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), Institute of Directors (IoD), Confederation of British Industry (CBI), Make UK, and the British Chamber of Commerce (BCC).

READ MORE: Major business lobby group: Brexit 'damage already done'

One business leader told Yahoo Finance UK: “Business meetings with the business department should be business-like. From all accounts, yesterday was very different, an attempt to hector the UK business community. It won’t work.”

Yahoo Finance UK understands that the FSB were largely absolved from criticism, but the CBI and Make UK were the main targets for the government’s ire.

Sources say Make UK were admonished for their close relationship with the Labour Party and Rebecca Long-Bailey, who quoted them in her closing statement in the debate over the Withdrawal Agreement.

Long-Bailey quoted Make UK’s concerns over the lack of close agreement in the Government’s deal regarding trade of goods, and the effect of the deal towards the abilities of firms to plan ahead.

READ MORE: Pound hovers as new Brexit deal faces another crunch vote

The CBI also faced criticism for stating their “serious concerns” over the future relationship between the UK and EU, which was also quoted by Long-Bailey.

Leadsom and Tolhurst blamed the groups for a lack of support for the Brexit deal, and claimed they didn’t go far enough to support the Government.

Arch-Brexiteer Leadsom also raised the issue of government planning, and demanded one group retract a diagram showing Brexit preparedness, which the business secretary claimed misrepresented the level of preparation achieved by the government.

A spokesperson from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said:

“Businesses all over the country have said that they want to end the uncertainty. The new deal ensures that we take back control of our laws, trade, borders and money without disruption, and provides the basis of a new relationship with the EU based on free trade and friendly cooperation. Of course we want businesses to back it, and we are pleased that many businesses and business representative organisations already have.

“Our number one priority has been getting ready to leave the EU on 31 October, implementing the democratic mandate of the British people. Meeting with businesses has been a crucial part of this, and we have made £108m in funding available to support businesses in getting ready.”

A government source also disputed that Kelly shook with rage during the meeting on Monday.

Commenting on the story, Bill Esterson MP, Labour’s shadow minister for business and international trade said:

“Yet again ministers are saying they know better than people running businesses and their workers. The government must listen to businesses and trade unions who know just how damaging and dangerous this policy will be for jobs, workers rights and the economy. This is a bad deal for our country and it is a disgrace that Boris Johnson’s ‘F Business’ attitude has permeated across his whole government.”

scanner

22nd October 2019, 14:44

If, as you say Chris, you have no horse in this race. You come across as a remainer. It is undemocratic to just keep voting, until you get your way, it's just does not work like that. 17.4 million voted to leave, not with a deal or to start negotiating a deal, just leave. The majority were Labour supporters. They've been sold out, by the very people they voted for. The CON-servatives have never been trustworthy, proven time and again. One would argue, like Blair and the rest of his ilke, are all fully paid up members to the big NWO club. So this is a fight against the one World Government, Bush, Blair and Brown kept telling us about. This isn't just about leaving the EU, this is about the Worlds freedoms. Even if you're a retired gent or lady or not. This issue will affect, everyone.

If you did some research, into human trafficking, you'll find we are just chattel for them. It's all connected, this is the bigger picture. I read today, 550 children have gone missing from Child protection in America, alleged to have been trafficked. It also happens here in the UK, our own politicians embroiled in scandal after scandal. Much being hidden from the public, by the prestitutes. I don't want that future for my kids/grand kids. Imho, we have to start again and look after ourselves, for now. Then, we'll start looking after others when the time is right to help.

greybeard

22nd October 2019, 15:32

Im not disagreeing with your take scanner--tho we dont need any assistance to traffic kids--its been going on since forever in the UK, its just highlighted now.

Where I have a challenge is the lying threatening--bullying going on and as far as I can tell the Government is more active in this, than remainers.
Also I look at the number of people who know Boris, family included, who have come out against him.
Can this man be trusted to honestly look after this Nation?

Normally in some democratic countries the vote has to be quite a bit more than just over 50% to win--a lot of people voted against leaving--Scotland is being carried forward against its will, and through this, we may well see the break up of the UK--once Great Britain.
Im neutral on home rule too but I certainly would not want to see a hard border between Scotland and England and that's where Boris policy is ultimately taking us.
Welsh Farmers non too happy either.
Northern Ireland up in arms.
All thats a bigger picture too.
I also get that this situation has gone on longer than enough and it was started with a referendum--it might end with one --or crash out.
You may get what you wish for.

A general Election should not be about Brexit- a GE is about many things.
Chris

Matthew

22nd October 2019, 18:41

I'll lead with Mahyar Tousi today

Remain Parliament’s Final Chance To Delay Brexit

SRad5eWoXUc

Guess what everyone?
There's a faction of British MP's who blocked calls for general elections, ignored the historical referendum result and continue to think it's appropriate to call for a second referendum, a 'peoples vote'. Strange because I thought the first referendum was a peoples vote, and general elections are peoples votes. The worst thing is: the remain MPs know what they're doing and why; they want to remain under the influence of the EU Commission against the will of the people - general elections are their enemies lol. They had better take our vote clean away or they know what will happen soon.

It's very healthy this general election will have huge focus on Brexit, because too many MPs have disrespected democracy in this issue

***UPDATE***
Oh here's Jeff Taylors usual daily report 9 days to Brexit day
YouTube link - Boris Johnson to call general election if Brexit deal fails in the House! (https://youtu.be/6Ki3bfFQOiQ)

Matthew

22nd October 2019, 21:06

Newsflash
MPs have voted for more delay

Jeff Taylor gives the news again, again

Brexit has not dented the Tory Poll lead!

Despite Boris Johnson being forced to send the Article 50 extension letter, the Conservative Party has not suffered in the polls.

XR4MvYIM6ec

Matthew

22nd October 2019, 22:20

What do you think the monarchy most prefers? Do they care either way?

Hi AutumnW! I just noticed this question so thought I'd combine a hello with my own mis-informed opinion, and bad spelling.

I imagine the monarchy would like the UK independent because I guess EU nationality threatens their existence. For example, in Brexit negotiations the UK had to fight a clause that made UK armed forces swear alligance to the EU, instead of the Queen.

But state-wise, the current Queen would respect the sovereignty of the people, which our MPs are meant to represent. They currently, famously, don't.

The Supreme Court, set up by Tony Blair, has directed Parliament in the way the monarchy used to, but dare not any more. 800 years and in the last couple of decades we get a Supreme Court made by a famous war-monger who switched his religion for politics and was up to no good. A big sarcastic thanks to Tony Blair

scanner

22nd October 2019, 22:25

Is this guy, Jeff Taylor, an undertaker :ROFL:

greybeard

23rd October 2019, 11:00

Ireland backs Brexit delay after Boris Johnson loses key vote on deal
Yahoo News UK Andy Wells,Yahoo News UK

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boris-johnson-pushes-for-general-election-as-eu-gets-ready-to-offer-three-month-brexit-flextension-064546581.html

Irish premier Leo Varadkar has given his support to a three-month Brexit extension after MPs blocked Boris Johnson’s planned timetable for his Brexit deal.

Mr Varadkar, an influential voice among EU leaders, confirmed his support after EU Council President Donald Tusk recommended an extension.

A statement from the Irish government said: “The Taoiseach confirmed his support for President Tusk’s proposal to grant the request for an extension which was sought by the UK.

“They noted that it would still be possible for the UK to leave before January 31st 2020 if the Withdrawal Agreement has been ratified in advance of that date.”

Yesterday Boris Johnson vowed to seek a general election after Parliament voted against his plan to rush his Brexit deal through.

The Prime Minister is hoping that the Commons finally votes for an election after the EU suggested it would offer a three-month ‘flextension’ which would allow Brexit to happen as soon as the deal is approved.

Labour signalled this morning that they would vote for an election if an extension is granted.

Shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon added to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “We’re not in the business of leaving the Conservatives in power.”

There was anger in Downing Street after MPs rejected Mr Johnson's plan to push through the legislation approving his deal with the EU in just three days by 322 votes to 308.

The development makes Mr Johnson's promise to take Britain out of the EU by October 31 "come what may" all but impossible to fulfil and means Brexit could be delayed until next year.

Matthew

23rd October 2019, 19:01

No surprises today:

Remainers deny democracy

Expert Claims Letwin Amendment Is Unconstitutional! Why Has It Been Allowed To Delay Brexit? (https://youtu.be/rA21bjHdxdI)

YouTube's user 'WE GOT A PROBLEM'

.

Remainer Plans to rig Brexit General Election (https://youtu.be/DzcMMl1NbnY)

YouTube's Jeff Taylor (8 days to Brexit day)

.

Remain Parliament Betray British Democracy As Brexiteers Prepare To March In Westminster (https://youtu.be/oyiPaBnYKqk)

YouTube's Mahyar Tousi

Here is a link to the article mentioned by WE GOT A PROBLEM, from the Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/10/19/letwin-amendment-unconstitutional/

The Letwin amendment is unconstitutional

VERNON BOGDANOR
19 OCTOBER 2019 • 5:00PM

The Letwin amendment is just the latest procedural move by MPs claiming to respect the outcome of the referendum who are, in reality, as Frank Field told the Commons, Remainers in Brexiteers’ clothing.

The amendment withholds parliamentary approval for the deal until the legislation needed to implement it has been passed by the Commons. It triggers the provision in the Benn Act requiring Boris Johnson to seek an extension to Brexit beyond 31 October.

...

greybeard

23rd October 2019, 20:32

Thanks for all the information you bring to the thread YoYoYo.
Chris

Matthew

23rd October 2019, 20:57

I guess but I have to comment your approval on behalf of the thread is somewhat unwarranted. Just like yourself, and everyone else on the forum I feel a compulsion to post, but in truth, myself, I don't enjoy it. What's wrong with hiding away?.This thread needs the bias I bring to balance it out, or at least that's my compulsion. There are things that could stop me, but it's not myself so far

:cocktail:

araucaria

24th October 2019, 09:34

I have to confess that my natural optimism may have been getting in the way of what I am trying to say about Brexit. At the end of his life (he died in 1961), CG Jung was extremely pessimistic and thought that humans’ inability to understand their own psyche (no external enemies involved) would lead before very long to catastrophe. I would now say that the Brexit saga – especially when seen as an attempt to save us from the New World Order – is one of many signs that as a psychiatric case, humankind generally is indeed approaching the stage where the patient is committing severe self-harm and possibly beyond help. Dreams sometimes come true after a lot of hard work from high achievers. Unfortunately the same goes for nightmares. A great deal of effort has been put into making this NWO bird fly, so it may well be a nightmare come true or coming true. Seen in these terms, the monster is fuelling both sides of this argument and cannot lose.

When you keep going round in circles while slipping downwards, topologically speaking you are in a maelstrom. There is a tale by Edgar Allan Poe (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?81354-Reclaiming-the-neutral-middle-ground&p=950214&viewfull=1#post950214) which describes how a maelstrom will destroy good people along with the bad, and the only way to survive is to stay calm and collected, watch what is happening, and then JUMP SHIP. This is basically what Greybeard for one has been doing on this thread.

If all this leads to the near total demise of humankind, it would not be the first time, we are told. But since it might not be the last time either, we need to understand what useful lessons we are to take away from this hugely traumatic experience. From my limited perspective, the point to note would concern the partial amnesia of the whole human experience. Souls come to Earth having forgotten who and what they are: that is a basic rule of the game; apparently things have gotten so bad that this rule is currently being broken, or so we are told by people like Dolores Cannon. However the amnesia is only partial, because bodies are born on Earth that appear to recall their past traumas all too well, from the smallest of accidents to those of the greatest end-of-the-world magnitude; this is what we mean by karma, except that karma is the individual guilt-ridden consequence of the collective misfortunes arising purely from humankind’s inability to forget the past and understand their own psyche.

So the notion of remembering who we are is only half of the story. The other half is that we need to forget where we physically come from. It may be that the Earth herself is not recovering properly from successive ecological batterings, and the only remedy for her would be to stop the human experiment here for the foreseeable future. It may be that the Earth herself has been caught up in all the madness and is too sick to stop… To take this broader view is metaphorically “jumping ship”, beyond optimism and pessimism. Some of the implications of this are explored in City, a collection of SF short stories by Clifford D Simak.
https://www.blackgate.com/2017/06/06/a-world-gone-to-the-dogs-city-by-clifford-d-simak/

greybeard

24th October 2019, 10:28

Yes araucaria--its a no win situation.
The NWO has deliberately set up an event to cause maximum, friction-separation, polarity--discontent.
Boris has lied to DUP about the agreement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww49z8tRTHo

Johnson pulling out of appearance before senior MPs ‘unacceptable ‘
PA Media: UK News By Catherine Wylie and Gavin Cordon, PA,PA Media: UK News

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/johnson-pulling-appearance-senior-mps-065039142.html

The Prime Minister’s decision to pull out of an appearance before senior MPs with less than 24 hours’ notice has been described as “extraordinary”.

Boris Johnson had been due to face questioning by the Commons Liaison Committee – made up of select committee chairmen – at Westminster on Thursday.

But in a handwritten note to the chairwoman, Sarah Wollaston, he asked for a new date to be arranged for “five or six months” on from when he became Prime Minister.

Dr Wollaston said the public would have to “draw their own conclusions” on whether he refused because he is running scared.

She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “This is the only select committee that can call the Prime Minister, and this is now the third time that he’s cancelled, despite having given a clear reassurance during the leadership campaign that he would come at an early opportunity.

“So I think that’s the point here. He knows that he’s been Prime Minister for months now, he’s only had two appearances at Prime Minister’s Questions, and again not facing this kind of detailed scrutiny, I don’t think it’s good enough, really.”

Asked if she thinks Mr Johnson is “scared”, she said: “I think people will have to draw their own conclusions, but I do think it’s extraordinary to have now cancelled on three occasions, and last time he cancelled he submitted himself to 14 minutes of Facebook live questions with pre-submitted questions.”

When it was put to Dr Wollaston that Mr Johnson has delivered long statements and taken a lot of questions lately, she said “the difference is you can bat off a one-off question”, and being subjected to “detailed questioning and follow-up” is a different matter.

greybeard

24th October 2019, 10:37

Boris Johnson Should Come Clean on His Brexit Deal

The costs could be enormous. The public needs an honest accounting — and another vote.
By Editorial Board

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-10-24/brexit-deal-boris-johnson-must-be-honest-and-allow-referendum

The U.K. Parliament has approved, in principle, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s exit deal with the European Union, but has refused to let him rush it into law. The question is where to go from here.

An election could be in the offing — or, because calling one would require the parliamentary majority that Johnson lacks, maybe not. Even if the bill survives lawmakers’ scrutiny and eventually passes, Johnson would face grueling new talks with the EU about the future trading relationship.

One certainty is that Britain will need more time. To an exasperated electorate, it may seem like the 1,217 days since the referendum has been time enough to work things out. But trade deals with the EU typically take years to complete (seven in Canada’s case); Johnson plans to have this one concluded and ratified in just 14 months. That simply won’t happen. Without a longer so-called transition period, another no-deal exit will loom. Johnson’s deal, if it moves forward, should be amended to allow more time for these further talks.

More important, it should also be amended to put Britain’s choice about its future in Europe back to voters in a second referendum. Granted, this would delay matters further. But it would confer democratic legitimacy on the course Johnson has set, give voters clarity that the first ballot lacked, and ease the negotiating process to follow.

The government, for its part, needs to be more transparent about exactly what its intentions are. Johnson is proposing a decidedly hard form of Brexit: He plans to leave the EU’s customs union and diverge from its single-market regulations, replacing a once seamless economic relationship with a bare-bones free-trade deal. Even done wisely, this process would add significant barriers to trade; done rashly, it could be a disaster for businesses.

In any event, the public deserves an honest accounting. A government analysis of the deal published this week is silent on just about every relevant expense, and no wonder: Even on optimistic assumptions, the added costs of new restrictions on trade with Europe could be immense — to say nothing of the complex system of checks and rebates that Johnson proposes for Northern Ireland. One recent analysis suggests that the total hit to public finances could exceed $60 billion a year, with all the added austerity that implies.

Less tangible costs will also need to be confronted head-on. The new trade system for Northern Ireland, for instance, may pose grave political risks. By ensuring that Great Britain and Northern Ireland diverge in key respects, it has left unionists feeling defensive, betrayed or worse. By allowing a simple majority to determine if the North exits the arrangement, it has undermined the principle of cross-community consent that has helped keep the peace there for more than 20 years.

The full consequences of these momentous decisions are anyone’s guess. But one thing is clear: Johnson’s insistence that the agreement will simply “get Brexit done” couldn’t be further from the truth. Brexit may never be done. If a deal passed Parliament tomorrow, it could entail years more of tortured negotiation, unhappy trade-offs, rising complexity, worsening friction and pervasive uncertainty, with no particular end date in sight.

Voters may yet judge that all this is worth it for the added sovereignty that Johnson’s deal notionally affords. But the choice should be theirs.

greybeard

24th October 2019, 16:40

Boris Johnson To Ask MPs For Snap General Election On December 12
[HuffPost UK]
Ned Simons
HuffPost UK24 October 2019

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/boris-johnson-ask-mps-snap-160211616.html?.tsrc=bell-brknews

Boris Johnson will ask MPs to allow him to hold a snap general election on December 12.

The prime minister said on Thursday he would give parliament more time to debate his Brexit deal, on the condition it voted in favour of an election before Christmas.

“The way to get this done, the way to get Brexit done, is, I think, to be reasonable with parliament and say if they genuinely want more time to study this excellent deal they can have it but they have to agree to a general election on December 12,” he told broadcasters.

The government is expected to table a motion under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act on Monday.

To force an election via that route, the PM needs to win the votes of two-thirds of MPs.

His previous two attempts to hold an election were thwarted after Jeremy Corbyn ordered Labour MPs to block it.

Make sense of politics. Sign up to the Waugh Zone and get the political day in a nutshell.

The Labour leader has said he will only vote for an election once the EU has offered an extension to Article 50, removing the threat of a no-deal Brexit on October 31.

EU leaders are expected to grant a delay, but have yet to announce how long will be given.

In a letter to Corbyn, Johnson said parliament had “refused to take decisions” after MPs derailed his attempt to push his Brexit deal through by the end of this week.

“It cannot refuse to let the voters replace it with a new parliament that can make decisions,” he said.

“Prolonging this paralysis into 2020 would have dangerous consequences for businesses, jobs and for basic confidence in democratic institutions, already badly damaged by the behaviour of parliament since the referendum. Parliament cannot continue to hold the country hostage.

“You have repeatedly said that once the EU accepts parliament’s request for a delay until 31 January, then you would immediately support an election.

He added: “I assume this remains your position and therefore you will support an election next week so the voters can replace this broken parliament.”

Corbyn has yet to respond to the PM’s election demand. But Momentum, the grassroots campaign group which propelled him to the Labour leadership, said: “Bring it on.”
Related...

greybeard

24th October 2019, 17:00

I do hope Boris gets his way and there is a General Election and one way or another, I hope it is not a hung Parliament --or Im afraid we might get more of the same.

Chris

greybeard

24th October 2019, 20:40

David Miliband: Brexit is wrecking British democracy
[The Guardian]
Patrick Wintour
The Guardian24 October 2019

Brexit has taken a wrecking ball to British democracy, with ministers counting on an outdated mandate to justify their decisions and the main parties in danger of turning into sects, former foreign secretary David Miliband has claimed.

In a lecture on Thursday night, Miliband cited the refusal of the chancellor, Sajid Javid, to produce an economic impact assessment of Boris Johnson’s deal on the grounds that it must be passed because it is “good for the fabric of our democracy”.

He warned that Javid and his colleagues have been reduced to one central argument that “Britain must press ahead with Brexit whatever the economic or political cost, because the danger to democratic health and confidence will be so great if we do not”.

Related: Boris Johnson to ask MPs to back election on 12 December

In the Martin Gilbert lecture, Miliband said: “It cannot be more democratic to plough on with a version of Brexit that was never presented to the public in 2016 than to consult them on whether they want to go ahead with this plan.”

He added: “The risks to democratic health of no further consultation are greater than allowing the public to decide, especially so when the plan does not represent the end of Brexit but in fact is only the beginning.

“If we leave the EU we will be ‘doing Brexit’, negotiating the consequences of Brexit, making up for Brexit, filling in the gaps left by Brexit, for at least the duration of the next parliament and most likely well beyond.”

And he said that he shudders “at what those convinced that Brexit can be ‘done’ this week will come to think when they realise it is not”.

On the same night that Boris Johnson that he would seek a general election on 12 December, Miliband argued that an election would be the wrong vehicle to settle the issue created by the 2016 referendum, an event he described as “a rush job with no explanation of what Brexit meant”.

Related: In Moscow, Riyadh and Washington, this is the age of the shameless lie

He argued that one reason many fear an election is because “an early 20th-century class-based structure is struggling to cope with 21st-century demands of identity politics pressed on it by Brexit.

“The party system is based on the idea that broad-church parties can represent coalitions of interest,” he said. “But when churches become sects, the system breaks down. The danger is now staring us in the face. It is one reason why many people fear the next election.”

He argued that events had also shown that British democracy itself needs a reboot. The attempt to prorogue parliament was a “near-miss event” for our democracy that should serve as a teachable moment, he said. Changes that should follow included the adoption of citizens assemblies, electoral reform, and a written constitution.

avid

24th October 2019, 21:03

Thanks for all this info/disinfo - who know’s?
Sick to death of Brexit - the deliberate death of a nation kicking against the pricks.

Thanks Chris for all your updates, what a giant farce this is turning out to be, a laughing stock that whoever challenges the globalists will be trashed. I still live in hope that common sense will prevail.

Matthew

24th October 2019, 21:41

Funny the remainer media still claiming the leave side are the lairs in the room. So many of the ambitions of the EU Commission were strongly denied beforehand.

The EU commission want territory under their rule, their flag, their army, their national anthem. Look at the EU's duplicitous behaviour about the British armed forces (see this post in this thread (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91509-The-UK-Brexit-vote-to-leave-the-EU&p=1317587&viewfull=1#post1317587) for more info.). Everything in that list but the flag were strongly refuted beforehand.

Turns out it was remain who didn't know what they were voting for.

This post is a big long old mess! I hope you enjoy :Avalon:

Two videos from Jeff Taylor 7 days to Brexit day

Where Now With Brexit?!

With a decision by the EU27 Council members on an Article 50 extension expected by the end of play tomorrow, what is likely to happen next?

Gn0sK2mKWsE

President Macron holds out for a short Brexit extension

It looks like President Macron of France wants the UK to have a very short Article 50 extension so as to concentrate parliament's mind on securing the Boris Johnson Brexit treaty.

SBNIf9SW5SU

Those who want a general election, well......

I don't know if you noticed, but democracy has been brazenly snubbed recently.

General election denied time after time after time. The SNP are wind-bag election cowards, same as Labour and Lib Dems. They're not fit for opposition.

I bet they will continue to deny a general election, pretending they are lords of the people instead of representatives. Mark my words but I hope I am wrong. I strongly recommend you treat your MP as if they are YOUR representative, not your lord and master because otherwise they get confused.

Here's Rees-Mogg with some words that are far too polite imho, but I have a lot to learn about such things!

J. Rees-Mogg savages Jeremy Corbyn as he storms off from Commons seat: 'Running away from election!'

Labour opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn stood up to leave the Commons just as Jacob Rees-Mogg accused him of running away after Boris Johnson said he will give MPs more time to debate his Brexit deal if they agree to an election.

3Aa-GJ5xODU

Off topic but here is Jacob Rees-Mogg meets Ali-G on YouTube. It's awkward but funny (https://youtu.be/03SiNNYJu3g)

greybeard

25th October 2019, 09:32

I tend to agree with what David Miliband said in the post above.
To my mind true democracy is being able to see both sides of the arguments presented and then being able to choose.
Fort his to work both sides should present truthfully and fairly.--thats has no happened.

People are not getting what they thought they were voting for.

Even if exit is the way to go it, was originally based on a selling campaign orchestrate by the PM's advisor.
Gross exaggeration of the benefits of leaving.

The current Chancellor has not given a costing of Brexit thats a red light to me.
Is Yellowhammer acurate?

Boris denied a committee their legal right to question him-several times.

The NWO will be delighted--people have fallen into a trap --taking sides and fighting.
Divide and conquer.
You can take a side--vote without fighting about it.

The first vote was on a false premise--the sell Brexit campaign left the truth at home according to David Cameron and others--hedge fund inverstor who supported Boris and funded the campaign in part, made a very big fortune out of the result--a killing.
These are facts not lies.
Follow the money.

Chris

greybeard

25th October 2019, 10:31

EU president Juncker says Boris Johnson lied during Brexit referendum
The Independent Jon Stone,The Independent
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/eu-president-juncker-says-boris-161600102.html

Jean-Claude Juncker has accused Boris Johnson of spreading “lies” during the Brexit referendum campaign, in his most strongly worded attack on the prime minister yet.

Speaking on Thursday evening the European Commission president said he “should have intervened” in the campaign to point out “bulls***” and falsehoods spread by “Boris Johnson and others”.

“They were saying things, some of them – lying. Telling the people things which have nothing to do with our day by day reality,” he told an audience at a think tank in Brussels.

“David Cameron asked me not to intervene in the referendum campaign because he said the European Commission is even less popular on the islands than on the continent ... That was a major mistake: I should have intervened, because nobody was denying, contesting the lies Boris Johnson and others were spreading around.”

But the commission president denied that it was the EU’s fault that the campaign had been lost, instead pointing the finger at the British press, in which the prime minister once worked as a Brussels correspondent.

“If for 46 years you are told day after day, and you are reading in your papers, that the place of the British is not really in Europe, but that they are there for economic and internal market reasons, and all the rest – it’s nonsense, bulls***, as they are saying in the European parliament – don’t be surprised if voters are asked to give their impression, some of them, a small majority but nevertheless a clear majority, is voting like a majority of the British sovereign people is voting,” he said.

Mr Juncker is not the first EU leader to lambast Leave campaigners in the strongest terms. In March this year Emmanuel Macron said Brexiteers were “anger-mongers backed by fake news” whose “lies and irresponsibility” had thrown Europe into danger.

Nobody was denying, contesting the lies Boris Johnson and others were spreading around

Jean-Claude Juncker, European Commission president

But last week the French president, who had stopped short of naming Mr Johnson in his earlier tirade, claimed he had not been taking about the prime minister, telling journalists at an EU summit: “I never described Boris Johnson” as such.

European Council president Donald Tusk also angered Brexiteers after he said in February that there was a ”special place in hell” for “those who promoted Brexit without even a sketch of a plan” of how to carry it out successfully.

During the same think tank speech, Mr Juncker, who is due to leave office at the end of the month, said: “Brexit could have brought the house down, acted as a catalyst for others, split Europe”. He added: “But it did not. Unity has prevailed. And one should not underestimate how many conversations and encouragements this took me and Michel Barnier. European resilience and strength has shone through.”

He added that Brexit was “a shame” and would not serve the interests of either the UK or EU.

The president’s comments show the strength of feeling about Brexit that still exists on the continent, with the decision bewildering many of Britain’s allies.

Last week the EU struck a new deal with Mr Johnson that would put a customs border down the Irish Sea and give Stormont a unilateral exit clause from arrangements to prevent a hard border. The British government now faces a long slog to get the plan through parliament, with EU ambassadors set to meet on Friday to decide how long an extension might be needed for the UK to ratify the agreement.

greybeard

25th October 2019, 10:49

Leave and Remain voters say violence against MPs and serious injuries to public ‘price worth paying’ to get favoured Brexit outcome
[The Independent]
Benjamin Kentish
The Independent24 October 2019

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/leave-remain-voters-violence-against-132900541.html

Voters on both sides of the Brexit divide believe that violence against MPs and members of the public is a “price worth paying” to secure their favoured outcome, a new study has found.

A majority of both Leave and Remain voters would be happy to accept attacks on politicians and violent protests in which members of the public are badly injured if it meant they got Brexit outcome they want, according to a new polls.

Researchers said they were “genuinely shocked” by the findings, which come amid concerns about threats against MPs.

The YouGov surveys found that 71 per cent of Leave voters in England, 60 per cent in Scotland and 70 per cent in Wales think violence against MPs would be a ”price worth paying” to deliver Brexit.

The figures are only slightly lower for Remain supporters, with 58 per cent of pro-EU voters in England, 53 per cent in Scotland and 56 per cent in Wales saying that politicians being attacked would be worth it Britain remained in the EU.

Voters would also be happy to accept members of the public being badly injured in protests if it meant they got their way on Brexit.

Among Leave voters, 69 per cent in England, 62 per cent in Scotland and 70 per cent in Wales think civilians being hurt would be a “price worth paying” for Brexit.

While Remain voters are slightly less willing to accept violence, 57 per cent in England, 56 per cent in Scotland and 57 per cent in Wales would still rather people were badly injured than Britain left the EU.

Bizarrely, around one in 20 voters said they wanted civilians to be injured in protests regardless of their views on Brexit.

The polls were conducted as part of the Future of England survey, which is carried out annually by academics at Cardiff University and the University of Edinburgh.

They also revealed a widespread belief that Brexit will trigger the break up of the UK. Fifty-two per cent of voters in England, 61 per cent in Scotland and 47 per cent in Wales think this is a likely outcome.

However, a majority of both Leave and Remain voters in all three nations polled believe that the break-up of the country would be worth it to get the Brexit outcome they want.

A majority of voters in all three nations also think Brexit will make the UK “substantially poorer”, although at least three-quarters of Leave voters in all three nations think it would be worth it to leave the EU.

Professor Ailsa Henderson of the University of Edinburgh, co-director of the study, said: “These findings demonstrate that Brexit is putting the union under considerable strain regardless of whether we stay or go. Both sides are prepared to fundamentally rewrite the rules of politics as we know it to get what they want. Staying in the EU will likely decrease faith in the union. Brexit could well change its borders.

“Individuals might profess an attachment to the union, but Brexit has revealed most in Britain to be ambivalent unionists who now see it as expendable to get their own way on Brexit. Because this holds for both Leave and Remain voters, it confirms just how much the Brexit debate has polarised the electorates in Britain. These findings show that polarisation is reshaping how we argue with one another, and what we argue about, but could reshape the union as well.”

Her co-director, Professor Richard Wyn Jones of Cardiff University, added: “It’s not often that one finds oneself shaken by research findings, but in this case it’s hard to not be genuinely shocked – not only by the fact that so many think that violence is a likely consequence of Brexit, but that so many on either side of the Brexit divide seem to think that such events might be ‘worth it’ in order to secure their preferred outcome.

“Given that we appear to be on the brink of another general election in which further polarisation could be a deliberate campaign strategy for some parties, these findings should give all of us pause for thought and underline the importance of responsible and measured debate.”

YouGov surveyed 1,594 people in England, 1,503 in Wales and 1,006 in Scotland between 27 September and 3 October.

"This why Im saying that The NWO will be delighted at what they have brought about.

Just possibly-- if the leave campaign had not exaggerated the benefits and had won the remainders would have accepted this--
Anything based an falsehood is bound to fail ultimately.
Truth--whatever that is--- will out."
Chris

Matthew

25th October 2019, 19:16

The bias from the 'remain-stream media' doesn't fool many people anymore; over the three years they've shot themselves in the foot with constant extreme, obtuse, bias

The mainstream avoid the subject of MPs blocking general elections, they ignore - nay - go directly against the first referendum result. And after all this we will see them push for a second referendum. If I'm wrong I'll be the happiest person to stand corrected.

For some reason the constant unmitigated 'remain stream media' bias hasn't won people to the remain side ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Here's a link to the usual YouTubers:

Mayhar Tousi

EU To Confirm No Deal Brexit Following Final Extension If Remainers Vote Against Election (https://youtu.be/gyP_2nParb4)

Jeff Taylor 6 days to Brexit day

Will Brexit be delayed - again?! (https://youtu.be/riy5WbN5nKU)

EU Indecision Over Brexit Extension Interferes In UK Politics

WE GOT A PROBLEM

Lg8QIl6okYw

greybeard

25th October 2019, 19:36

Brexit: UK will choose to rejoin EU after making 'colossal mistake' of leaving, says John Major
[The Independent]
Lizzy Buchan
25 October 2019

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/brexit-uk-choose-rejoin-eu-122710014.html

Leaving the EU would be a "colossal mistake" but the UK will one day decide to rejoin the bloc, Sir John Major has said.

The former Conservative prime minister said he believed young people would overturn Brexit and form a new alliance with European countries in the future, as the younger generation preferred "cooperation to separation."

His comments come amid fresh uncertainty over the Brexit process, as EU leaders consider whether to offer Boris Johnson another extension to the UK's departure from the bloc.

The prime minister is facing a choice between making another attempt to pass his Brexit deal legislation and pushing for an early general election amid speculation of a possible poll before Christmas.

Sir John, who has campaigned for a Final Say referendum, took part in a successful legal challenge against Mr Johnson's decision to suspend parliament for several weeks in September.

Speaking at the One Young World global forum for young leaders, he said: "Young people have been let down, they overwhelmingly wished to remain in the EU, whereas many of their elders did not.

"I have been a critic of Brexit, and I remain so. I think it's bad for the UK, bad for the EU and bad for Europe, and a colossal mistake. Other than that, I have no complaints about it."

Sir John went on: "Young people prefer cooperation to separation.

"Even the most powerful nations in the world require allies.

"In the end, the young are going to win because they will be here and the elderly won't.

"One day, I confidently predict, the young ones will re-enter the EU or form a new alliance with them.

"Who knows what lies ahead, but it certainly won't be conventional and it certainly won't be dull."

EU leaders are expected to decide on Friday on whether there should be another Brexit delay.

The bloc is expected to agree a "flextension" to the end of January - as set out in the prime minister's request - but with the option for the UK to leave before then if parliament approves the Brexit deal.

Mr Johnson was forced to write to EU leaders to ask for a delay due to a backbench law known as the Benn Act. However he refused to sign the letter, in an attempt to make clear it was parliament's request rather than his own.

As far as I can see its down to who you believe.
Boris or previous Prime Ministers, Chancellors.

The only reason that the opposition and some Tories want to postpone a General Election is that they want exit without a deal off the table--they cant trust Boris.

This is the man who believes the end result justifies the means.
He has shoved former cabinet ministers under the bus, the DUP and anyone else not agreeing with him.

For all that he is charming likeable and may be right-- for the greater good!!!
Chris

Matthew

25th October 2019, 20:12

...
The first vote was on a false premise--the sell Brexit campaign left the truth at home according to David Cameron and others--hedge fund inverstor who supported Boris and funded the campaign in part, made a very big fortune out of the result--a killing.
These are facts not lies.
Follow the money.
...

People will be making money off both sides, do you disagree? What do you think of this YouTube video titled 'Lib Dems and Jo Swinson Linked to EU Funding (https://youtu.be/E3K1u9psdME)' - but I'm not trying to defend either side here

Didn't know what they were voting for

It's crystal clear the remain side didn't know what they were voting for, because at the very least the lies about a European Army

Look at the video in this Guardian link, it starts at the 3:40 mark.

The Guardian

Debate for Europe: Nick Clegg takes on Nigel Farage in second debate - video highlights

Nick Clegg vs Nigel Farage! - The Great Brexit Debate First published on Wed 2 Apr 2014 before Brexit was a word

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2014/apr/02/debate-europe-nick-clegg-nigel-farage-second-debate-video-highlight

- - - - - - - - - - - -

And here is Nigel himself responding to the usual 'didn't know what they were voting for', as he is as sick of it as everyone - it's only remain who say leave didn't know what they were voting for.

LWIM6k1jb94

Didn't know what they were voting for. Yes, that's right; I didn't know my vote would be ignored

https://i.imgflip.com/3edb0x.jpg

greybeard

25th October 2019, 20:42

Listened and it is fair comment YoYoYo
I suspect the truth is some where in the middle
Remain good for some Brexit good for others.
Crash out bad for all as far as I can see.
I get why Boris does what he does as none of it is going anywhere at the moment and thats not good either.
Chris

Matthew

25th October 2019, 20:52

The main offending reason Boris is having so much trouble implementing the democratic result: MPs blocked all the calls for general elections

I like the sentiment you're expressing though Chris. Once we have general elections I think things will shift to some kind of settling

Bill Ryan

25th October 2019, 20:57

greybeard

25th October 2019, 21:16

Remain good for some Brexit good for others.
Chris, it's just not about personal economics! You're the one who started these threads. (Among many others! :highfive:)

Enlightenment and related matters. (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?860-Enlightenment-and-related-matters.)
Advaita Vedanta! (The Greatest Philosophy on Earth?) (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?108625-Advaita-Vedanta---The-Greatest-Philosophy-on-Earth--)
Responsiblity (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?2863-Responsiblity)
Awaken (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?75999-Awaken)

Ah yes Bill but its on two levels--ultimately "Self"- God - Brahman is not concerned--there is compassion--non judgment-yet not condoning just witnessing--awareness
So thats overall my point in this thread--however I dont condone lying.

Part of me does not like that there will be "victims" of this no matter which way it goes.
Part of me is just passing time waiting for "God"

Ive got the T shirt done a lot--my ego gets bored--frustrated by the limitations of body.

There is a fluctuation between whats left of ego and Self.

Many will affected by the economics and thats also where the compassion is

Self says--it is as it is.
"God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I can not change
Courage to change the things I can
Wisdom to know the difference"

I cant change the mess called Brexit but I can kind of enjoy the chess playing--the posturing and accept it.
As Mother Teresa said "They are all Christ in disguise"
Thats as best I can explain where I am but its not that accurate--its felt rather than thought
"I dont mind" thats a quote from KM when asked his secret.

So there you go.
Chris

Bill Ryan

25th October 2019, 21:41

greybeard

25th October 2019, 21:53

Oh yes out of chaos.
Havent listened to the video yet--downloading for later Bill.
In the "Power of Now" Eckhart Tolle speaks of the increased polarity--the friction--the bad becomes worse the good getting better--before change for the better--all current structures may well break down and out of the ashes rises "A New Earth" as defined in his book of that name.
Eckhart says The Universe brings everything about--not that many will believe that yet.
Brexit is part of it--no worries.
Ch

scanner

26th October 2019, 10:12

Ground hog day. The real people have their say in Barnsley, get it done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3929PUe0MKM

Matthew

26th October 2019, 10:30

It's pretty basic stuff: a general election so people choose. Labour have abandoned people power, as have other MPs with weak support in the population.

No way you can take no deal off the table since it is the foundation for fair negotiation. Here's my take on this (link to post in this thread (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91509-The-UK-Brexit-vote-to-leave-the-EU&p=1318322&viewfull=1#post1318322))

Negotiation basics

oVGjuUjr2YI

greybeard

26th October 2019, 10:31

Matthew

26th October 2019, 11:04

Leaving the EU doesn't imply a great empire again... the UK is a descended empire (past tense, its dropped and gone), and it's happy like that. The colonies we previously oppressed ... some of them are our friends now. Life goes on, and if one place does not have delusions of grandeur, it's modern UK.

The UK does has a relationship with the world that most European countries don't. Turns out India is our sister, America our younger, but bigger brother, and France and parts of northern Europe our mother and father. Brexit is more about stopping a growing empire of the EU, which they denied all along right up till recently

greybeard

26th October 2019, 11:13

You maybe right YoYoYo that an election only practical way out.
SNP will welcome election.
Referendum cant happen without Government finance--cant see that happening.
However because of Corbyn being leader of Labour--they will get trounced at the polls according to surveys.
If Labour get the guts to oust Corbyn, they might stand a chance other wise Boris will remain PM with increased majority--hi might have to take no deal off the table toget enough backing for an election though.
Exciting times.
Chris

Matthew

26th October 2019, 11:19

... SNP will welcome election. ...

I believe the SNP have blocked all calls for general elections. Also...

SNP and Labour consider pact to stop Boris Johnson calling early election

The Times
September 5 2019

Boris Johnson’s election hopes have been hit by an emerging deal between Labour and the SNP to block a poll before the next Brexit delay.

Jeremy Corbyn met Ian Blackford, the Scottish nationalists’ Westminster leader, today to agree that the election must take place only after Britain has secured another extension from the European Union.
...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-and-labour-consider-pact-to-stop-boris-johnson-calling-early-election-03jn0cxsf#

scanner

26th October 2019, 11:37

"This is why I say, scanner, that people should be very clear whats in it for their "individual" self.
This will serve the greater good.

Its to easy to get into group mode and vote for Britain to be great again, a world leader--or against NWO.
We assume we know what NWO is trying to achieve and yes it may be world domination but have they not got that through control of the media --banks -food-- power-- medicines etc?
Maybe they just want to cause unrest.

So to my mind looking at what serves the individual --serves the community, serves UK.
Simple logic.

Just too easy to get carried away with a particular well sold agenda--be it for or against Brexit,
In short will you have a better quality of live--short term and long term?

Or just sit back, stress free, and watch the whole thing unfold---a few surprises yet no doubt.

ChrisThe greater good, would only benefit the more wealthy in the Global society. 68% Voted to leave in Barnsley, that is obviously why they used it in the Video. The NWO is 100% elites, with no worry of where their next meal is coming from, or if they can afford their energy bills, just before Christmas. The majority of the population live in an, eat sleep work repeat existence. Little wonder they voted to leave, only to be told they are too dumb to understand the intricacies of the EU. What they/we do see is poverty in 21st century. Rich getting richer and poor just dying. Food and clothing banks in 2019. Britain is 5th richest country in the World, we have all this poverty and civil unrest.

Britain will only be great again, if we leave the EU. We would just be a vassal state and nothing more. Ruled by unelected bureaucrats, living high on the hog, off money we are forced to contribute. I voted for, the future of OUR children and grandchildren, they are our future. To put them into a system of, sit down shut up and do as you're told slavery, is imho absolutely outrageous and wrong.

Isn't that what happened in Nazi Germany 1940s, people sitting back stress free and doing nothing. Isn't this why they had the Nuremberg trials to stop any one nation controlling the rest of the World ? And yet remoaners, want exactly what millions Worldwide, fought against and lost their lives to stop in WWII. It has just changed its name to, EU nothing more, their agenda marches on with the blessing of the NWO elites.

Sometimes you just have to stand up and be counted for the greater good.

greybeard

26th October 2019, 11:48

I meant the greater good of UK scanner--not the elite.
Your ordinary every day person.
They outnumber the elite that's why I say they should look carefully at what the future holds.
Chris

Matthew

26th October 2019, 11:49

I'll cut in to bring Jeff Taylor while it's still new. These things get out of date fast

Jeff Taylor five days to Brexit day

Are we five days from a no deal Brexit?!

With five days to go to Brexit Day, MPs are all at home waiting to see what the European Union will do about it.

nSsXURkhqik

greybeard

26th October 2019, 11:54

Yes YoYoYo a runaway train--lunch time news soon--may change things yet again.

scanner

26th October 2019, 12:48

I meant the greater good of UK scanner--not the elite.
Your ordinary every day person.
They outnumber the elite that's why I say they should look carefully at what the future holds.
ChrisI'm referring Chris, to all human kind. It's my belief, if we don't leave the EU without a deal, the Elites have won. This is more than just leaving the EU, this is a message to tell the elites, we're not for sale, we are not your slaves to do as you wish.

All the Politicians both sides, as we all know, may have destroyed democracy returning to the UK. People
are just waiting for the end result, I dread to think what 17.5 million people will look like blocking London's streets in peaceful demonstration.

greybeard

26th October 2019, 13:23

You will never defeat the NWO--elite- illuminate- through negative emotions--anger- frustration- this has been on going since forever and none of that has come even close to getting rid of the "enemy"

When the human race commits, seriously, to spiritual principals then there will be the equality, the peace that people really want.
Till then its same old, same old.

Once this Brexit is done with then there will be something else. Unless!!!
Not condoning--not avoidance- not doing nothing--- but coming from a place of spiritual energy.

The Book by the late Dr David Hawkins "Power vs Force" spells it out--worth a read.
Meanwhile normal craziness continues.
Chris

sunwings

26th October 2019, 14:14

All the latest second referendum polls have suggested that Britain wants to remain in the EU, by a comfortable margin.

A collation of the latest polls by academic Matthew Goodwin reveals a firm pro-remain voting intention in Britain.

Looking at the polls an election is a complete waste of time. Leave and remain camps would have 45% of the votes each, leaving the DUP to be the decider.

1185513911812001792

Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg said at the start of this process "We could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed."

People, are divided by Johnsons deal or no deal or remain. A secondary referendum would allow for closure on a very sad chapter in British politics. I believe people are now informed on the consequences of Brexit and deserve to be heard again. Any other route I feel will cause a massive rift within Britain.

Matthew

26th October 2019, 14:25

Here's a post in this thread - link (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91509-The-UK-Brexit-vote-to-leave-the-EU&p=1320160&viewfull=1#post1320160) about another poll (published a few days ago) with slightly different results

scanner

26th October 2019, 14:51

I find it intriguing and confusing, how they have turned a leave vote, into lets have a three-year debate about a second referendum deal vote, very clever on their part. I'm not coming from any of those 3D emotions Chris, the spiritual is all that matters. The 3D construct will still be around when I've moved across. I, for my part, in the 3D have tried my best to help others as much as possible. But as the saying goes, you can take a horse to water etc.

greybeard

26th October 2019, 16:25

Brexit: Public turning against Boris Johnson’s deal and blaming him for latest delay, poll finds
The Independent Rob Merrick,The Independent

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/brexit-public-turning-against-boris-085441156.html

The public is turning against Boris Johnson’s deal and blaming him – rather than Labour – for the latest Brexit delay, a poll has found.

Only 19 per cent of voters believe the surprise agreement struck with Brussels last week is a good deal and only 3 per cent described it as “very good”.

The proportion not knowing enough about it to offer an opinion has fallen from 45 per cent to 34 per cent – with most who have made up their minds refusing to give their endorsement.

Furthermore, the survey suggested the prime minister has failed in his strategy of pinning the blame on Labour for the failure to deliver on his “do or die” pledge to leave the EU by 31 October.

One in five said that Mr Johnson and the Conservatives would be most responsible when Brexit fails to happen on Halloween, more than the 13 per cent who will blame Jeremy Corbyn’s party.

Over half the public blamed “MPs on all sides” suggesting the Tories will struggle to make the controversy a vote-winner in a general election.

Nevertheless, the poll, by YouGov for The Times, shows the Conservatives are maintaining their huge overall lead, holding out the promise of a Commons majority if the election is held.

It found 36 per cent of people planned to support the Tories, while only 23 per cent would back Labour, 18 per cent the Lib Dems and 12 per cent Nigel Farage‘s Brexit Party.

The election would also be dominated by Brexit, it seems, with 59 per cent citing leaving the EU as a priority in deciding how to vote, followed by health on 37 per cent and the economy on 29 per cent.

However, it appears unlikely to go ahead on 12 December, as Mr Johnson demanded, with opposition parties set to block a trigger motion on Monday.

A two-thirds majority is needed in the Commons to overturn the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which stipulates no election before May 2022 – meaning Labour has an effective veto.

The poll found that 28 per cent of voters consider the deal to be bad, up five points from last week, while 20 per cent thought it was neither good nor bad, up from 15 per cent when the agreement was struck.

Only 23 per cent cited leaving the EU on Mr Johnson’s terms as their preferred Brexit outcome, against 20 per cent wanting no deal and 37 per cent backing Remain.

But only 29 per cent said parliament should reject the deal, while 40 per cent thought MPs should vote to implement it.

YouGov questioned 1,634 voters between 24 and 25 October

greybeard

26th October 2019, 18:31

As usual Andrew Marr BBC1 9am Sunday will be watched--he does not give an inch--good questions.
Jo Swinson will be on.
chris

greybeard

27th October 2019, 10:09

Brexit referendum should never have been called, say majority of voters
[The Guardian]
Toby Helm
The Guardian26 October 2019

Twice as many people now think it would have been better never to have held a referendum on Brexit than believe it was a good idea, according to the latest Opinium poll for the Observer.

Asked to consider the difficulties the government has had in reaching an agreement, 57% of UK adults surveyed said that they believed it would have been better not to have had a public vote in June 2016.

This compares with 29% of voters who believe it was right to hold the referendum on whether the UK should stay in or leave the EU.

The findings reflect a growing sense of public weariness about arguments over Brexit, which have paralysed British politics and divided the country. People who voted to remain in the EU are overwhelmingly of the view that the referendum should not have taken place, with 87% agreeing and only 7% saying it was a good idea.

Those who voted to leave, however, still have a majority view – although a decreasing one – that it was right to have put the question to the people; 57% of this group said that they believed it was the correct decision, against 32% who now think the reverse.

Despite this, the poll gives the Tories under Boris Johnson, who led the campaign to leave, a commanding 16-point lead over Labour, which opposed leaving the EU in the referendum. As Johnson prepares to push for a 12 December general election in a Commons vote tomorrow, the Conservatives are up three points compared with a week ago, on 40%. Labour is unchanged on 24%, while the Liberal Democrats are down one point on 15%. The Brexit party is down two on 10%, the SNP up one on 5% and the Greens down one on 3%.

The Brexit deal that Johnson struck with Brussels 10 days ago is regarded by more people as bad for their own financial prospects and those of the UK economy than the proportion who think it will be beneficial. Around 40% of voters think it will be bad for the UK economy as a whole, compared with 26% who think it will be good.
Boris Johnson in Brussels, 17 October 2019.
View photos
Boris Johnson in Brussels, 17 October 2019. Photograph: Thierry Monasse/Getty Images

With the Brexit deadlock continuing in parliament, opinion among the public is divided on what should happen next. The most popular option, although only by a very narrow margin, is to hold a general election to sort out the impasse. This is backed by 31% of people as the best way forward; 42% of Conservative voters back a general election, compared with 31% of Labour voters who support this as the next step.

The next most popular option is to allow the House of Commons the necessary time to pass the Brexit legislation; this is backed by 27% of all voters, including 41% of Tory supporters and 24% for Labour.

The option of another referendum is supported by 23% of all voters. Only 5% of Tories support a second vote, against 35% of Labour voters who back one.

If there were to be another referendum, the poll suggests the result would be on a knife edge, with 43% of all voters saying they would back remaining in the EU, against 42% who would vote to leave.

Adam Drummond, head of political polling at Opinium, said that the latest results showed support for the Tories had continued to grow, although support for Johnson’s deal pointed to a more complex set of views on Brexit. “The Conservatives have hit the symbolically important 40% mark for the first time since before missing the [original] Brexit deadline back in March, and the reaction to Boris Johnson’s deal appears to be that the public are divided on whether it will be good for them and the economy.

“To the extent that there is a way out of the impasse, a general election is the most popular individual outcome, but if Johnson’s deal were put up against the option of remaining in the EU in a binary referendum, the country remains just as evenly split as it was last time we asked.”

"Seems the Liberal Democrats are tabling a motion to have a General Election at an earlier date than the one proposed by the Government.
An hour a long time in politics--me thinks"
Chris

greybeard

27th October 2019, 10:13

Lib Dems offer Johnson route to December election
The Guardian Michael Savage and Toby Helm,The Guardian

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/pm-says-labour-rejection-election-213307338.html

Boris Johnson has been offered a route to securing the pre-Christmas election that he has been seeking, through a plan that would only require the support of a simple majority of MPs.

With most Labour MPs still against the idea of a snap election, the prime minister looks set to lose his bid to secure a December poll on Monday in a vote that requires the backing of two-thirds of MPs. Other parties are also opposing an election until the EU has granted a three-month Brexit delay, although the DUP hinted on Saturday it could back the move.

However, in a sign that the coalition opposed to an election is under strain, the Liberal Democrats have drawn up a plan allowing Johnson to secure a December poll with a simple majority of MPs, with the support of Jo Swinson’s party and the SNP.

Under the one-page Lib Dem bill, the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act would be amended to state that the next election would take place on 9 December, three days earlier than under Johnson’s plans. It states that the new election date would be cancelled should the EU fail to grant a three-month Brexit extension.

The party is asking Johnson to adopt the bill and guide it through parliament between Tuesday and Thursday of this week, before dissolving parliament. It believes the timing of its plan means the prime minister would not be able to bring back his Brexit deal to the Commons before the election campaign starts – which he is currently threatening to do.

Swinson said last night: “Boris Johnson has missed his ‘do-or-die’ deadline and is now asking parliament to give him a general election and time for him to ram through his Brexit bill through parliament. That is a bad deal, and Liberal Democrats will not vote for it. We need to get Boris Johnson out of office, unlock the gridlock in parliament and give people the chance to vote to stay in the EU.

“A general election on our proposed timetable would take no-deal off the table, and give the public the chance to elect a Liberal Democrat government who will revoke article 50 or increase the number of MPs who support a People’s Vote.”

Party officials concede that the plan’s success lies in whether Johnson takes up the plan. However, it is a move that sees the Lib Dems shift support more clearly behind agitating for an early election.

Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader in Westminster, gave his blessing to the plan on Saturday night. “I’m very keen that we work together on a mechanism, whether that be with Jo’s bill that we will support or any other mechanism – such as a vote of no confidence – to bring parliament to a speedy end and have an election as early as is possible,” he said.

The Lib Dems and SNP are also writing to Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, calling on Brussels to offer Britain a Brexit extension to the end of January next year.

The news comes with an Opinium poll for the Observer suggesting the Conservatives have a 16-point lead over Labour, which is split over an election.

Jeremy Corbyn said on Saturday that his party would “be very happy to fight an election once all vestiges of a no-deal exit from the EU have been taken off the table”. However, it remains unclear how that can be achieved. Figures on the left of the party are pushing to go to the polls, but Nick Brown, Labour’s chief whip, has warned Corbyn that scores of MPs would disobey any order to vote through an election.

Johnson repeated his demand on Saturday night for Labour to back his Brexit deal and vote for an early election and suggested that Brexit could drag on well into next year. He called on Labour to say how much more time it wanted to scrutinise his Brexit bill.

“Instead of grabbing this great new deal with both hands and helping move our country forward, parliament chose to ask for more tunnel,” said Johnson. “They agreed the deal but then they threw out the timetable. Unbelievably, Jeremy Corbyn then handed over the decision on what happens next to Brussels, so parliament’s delay could take us to 31 January at least.

“My worry is this parliament will just waste the next three months like it’s wasted the last three years.

“Parliament cannot hold the country hostage any longer. Millions of businesses and people cannot plan their futures, this paralysis is causing real damage and the country must move on in 2020.”
Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson.

Matthew

27th October 2019, 11:36

I read on the BBC here (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50194685) Lib Dem and SNP are sanctimoniously calling for an election on the 9th Dec.

This means it finally looks like we will get our (much avoided) general election.

Lib Dems and SNP trying to counter Boris' already called for election on the 12 Dec: Lib Dems and SNP arguing the toss to bring it forward a few days fools no one, since Boris has called for several general elections already, and Lib Dem and SNP blocked them.

Here's Jeff Taylor again, 4 days to Brexit day

Brexit Boris Strengthens Poll Lead!

Much to the alarm of Remainer MPs, Boris Johnson continues to strengthen the Tory lead in the polls.

-uaDZRD7fuw

greybeard

27th October 2019, 12:49

Im almost sorry for politicians-- the situation changing so rapidly that if they seem to change their mind they get reminded of what they had said.
The Labour poiticions dont really want to say anything in case they contradict--policy which is changing moment by moment.
Liberal Leader Jo Swinson, is going to defend her Scottish seat rather than going for a safe one--she might regret that the way SNP are gaining ground in Scotland.
Chris

greybeard

27th October 2019, 13:07

Corbyn needs to be brave and tell Leavers they are wrong – Sadiq Khan
PA Media: UK News By Patrick Daly, PA Political Correspondent,PA Media: UK News Sat, 26 Oct 13:25 BST

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/corbyn-needs-brave-tell-leavers-120802239.html

Sadiq Khan said it is time for Jeremy Corbyn to be “braver” and start telling Leave voters they are “wrong” on Brexit.

The London Mayor was an early advocate for a fresh referendum, a position now backed by his party’s leader.

Yet there are frustrations with Labour’s attempts to appeal to both Remain and Leave voters, with critics voicing concern that the on-the-fence stance is losing them votes on both sides of the Brexit debate.

Mr Corbyn narrowly won a vote at conference last month, with members backing his policy of renegotiating a Brexit deal with the European Union and putting it to a public vote should he be victorious at the next election.

Remainers in the party had wanted Labour to ditch talk of supporting even a Labour-negotiated Brexit deal and come out in favour of staying in the European Union.

Mr Khan, in an interview with Italian newspaper La Repubblica, said it was time for Mr Corbyn to “provide leadership” on the issue and stop trying to be “all things to all people”.

He said, having seen the terms of Boris Johnson’s deal and analysis of a no-deal exit, that “all forms of Brexit are worse than remaining in the EU”.

A Remain stance would likely assist the former minister in his bid for re-election next year, given Londoners voted overwhelmingly to remain in Europe during the 2016 referendum.

“I’d like the Labour Party to be braver and provide leadership on this issue,” said Mr Khan, who will be vying for a second term at City Hall in May.
Jeremy Corbyn
Jeremy Corbyn wants the chance to renegotiate a Brexit deal if he becomes prime minister (Commons/PA)

“Sometimes, saying to people who may want to leave the EU, ‘Listen, I respect you, but let me explain to you (why) I think you’re wrong and why I think we should campaign to remain in the EU.

“’Let me explain to you why the problems you’re having with your school, with your health care, with your children’s education, with housing, is not because of EU’.

“It’s in fact because we’ve failed or not done enough. That’s the conversation we should be having rather than trying to be all things to all people.”

Mr Khan said he recognised that his party leader had been on a “journey” when it came to Britain’s relationship with Europe, having for decades been a Eurosceptic.

But he added: “I think he should go a bit further and be unequivocally pro-Remain and explain to those who are Brexiteers why he disagrees with them and have the argument.”

On Labour’s switch to back a referendum, the former MP said: “Better late than never.”

greybeard

27th October 2019, 21:46

General election: Boris Johnson reveals ‘plan B’ to force pre-Christmas poll if he loses Commons vote
The Independent Rob Merrick,The Independent

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/general-election-boris-johnson-reveals-161032566.html

The chances of a pre-Christmas general election are rising after Boris Johnson revealed a “plan B” to send the UK to the polls, if he suffers his expected defeat in the Commons on Monday.

For the first time, Downing Street said it is ready to explore “all options” – including new legislation – to persuade MPs to back a snap ballot, even if that means abandoning its own Brexit deal.

The shift came after the dramatic move by the Liberal Democrats and Scottish National Party to back an early election, provided the Withdrawal Agreement Bill is shelved and the threat of a no-deal Brexit removed.

Ministers rejected the Lib Dem-SNP proposal, a bill to trigger an election on 9 December, as a “gimmick”, but Downing Street later revealed it was warming to the idea of its own legislation.

“We will look at all options to get Brexit done, including ideas similar to that proposed by other opposition parties,” a No 10 source said.

Unlike Monday’s apparently doomed attempt to overturn the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, a bill would require only a simple majority in the Commons – not the support of two-thirds of MPs.

The prime minister had rejected putting forward a bill for fear of wrecking amendments, including an expected push to give the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds.

But the Lib Dems and SNP have now pledged to reject any amendments. “We need to pass this as it is drafted,” said Jo Swinson, the Lib Dem leader. “We do need to resolve this issue.”

Moving straight to an election could yet run into opposition in the cabinet, where some ministers want to bring back the withdrawal bill and give parliament the proper scrutiny it is demanding.

Nevertheless, the developments left Labour isolated in holding out against an early election – which Tony Blair and many others fear will end in a crash-out Brexit at the end of 2020.

MPs will be locked in a race against time to pass a bill for a 9 December election – three days earlier than Mr Johnson has proposed – because it would need royal assent by 31 October.

The latest Brexit dramas also saw:

* Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, call for the UK to stay in the EU customs union – increasing the chances of the bill being sabotaged, if it is brought back.

* The Lib Dems face Labour accusations of having “given up” on a Final Say referendum – after Chuka Umunna said it was now “quite clear” the Commons would not vote for it.

* Mr Blair suggest a simultaneous general election and a second referendum, saying: “You can deal with them both on the same day if you want.”

* Labour’s Diane Abbott suggest it would accept a no-deal Brexit was off the table if Mr Johnson would “categorically give parliament an undertaking” – despite repeatedly dismissing him as a liar.

All the opposition parties, except the Democratic Unionist Party, are still poised to inflict defeat on the government’s attempt to overturn the fixed-term parliaments on Monday.

Mr Johnson had threatened to bring back the vote every day – something John Bercow was unlikely to allow anyway – but switched tack after the Lib Dem-SNP proposal changed the debate.

The No 10 source said: “We can’t allow parliament to waste 2020 the way it has wasted 2019 – the country wants Brexit done so we can move on and focus the public’s priorities.

“Tomorrow MPs will vote on an election on 12 December so we can get a new parliament.

“If Labour oppose being held to account by the people yet again, then we will look at all options to get Brexit done including ideas similar to that proposed by other opposition parties.”

Bill Ryan

27th October 2019, 22:13

To those who may have totally lost the picture of what's happening in the UK, this may be helpful.

https://bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46393399

Brexit: What happens now?
24 October 2019

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said he will seek an early general election on 12 December. MPs have already twice rejected an election and are now expected to vote again on Monday.

Under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, two thirds of all MPs - 434 in total - have to back an early election for it to take place.

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/1366A/production/_109366497_brexit_flowchart_24_10_19-nc.png

If MPs vote for an election, Mr Johnson has said they would be given more time to consider the Brexit bill (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50125338). They would have until Parliament dissolved shortly after midnight on 6 November.

Some MPs have already complained it's not much more time than was being offered before, when they rejected the government's proposed timetable (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50146182).

It's also been pointed out that, legally, the prime minister could choose a different election date after MPs had voted.

If MPs vote against having an election, the government will not bring its Brexit bill back for MPs to debate.

The EU is expected to agree to the UK's request for a Brexit delay although it remains unclear whether the new date will be 31 January 2020.

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/893D/production/_108933153_snapelectionrightversion-nc.png

If MPs agreed to an election and if they also passed the Withdrawal Agreement Bill, which brings the Brexit deal into UK law, then Brexit could still take place before an election.

However it would be after the 31 October deadline that Mr Johnson was previously committed to. He said the UK would leave by then "do or die".

If MPs agree to the election but the bill doesn't get through all its stages before 6 November then the election would take place anyway - with the result influencing how Brexit was resolved.

What is the Withdrawal Agreement Bill? (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50125338)
What is Boris Johnson's new deal with the EU? (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50083026)
What are the PM's election options? (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49004486)

Extension request

The EU is currently considering the UK's extension request. All 27 EU nations must agree to it. If they agree to an extension until 31 January 2020 that will become the new date for Brexit.

If the EU proposes a date other than this, even a short "technical extension" of a few days, the prime minister must approve it unless a motion is put before MPs and they decide not to pass it.

If the EU refuses to grant the UK a delay then Brexit will happen on 31 October at 23:00 GMT.

Leaving without a deal (or withdrawal agreement) means the UK would immediately exit the customs union and single market - arrangements designed to make trade easier.

How would another Brexit delay work? (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47031312)
What is 'no-deal Brexit'? (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48511379)

Vote of no confidence

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/5946/production/_107245822_brexit_flowcharts_no_confidence_5june_640-nc.png

At any point the opposition could call a vote of no confidence in the government. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has previously said he would table such a motion.

If more MPs vote for the no-confidence motion than against it, there would then be a 14-day window to see if the current government - or an alternative one with a new prime minister - could win a vote of confidence.

If no-one does then a general election would follow.

What is a vote of no confidence? (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46890481)

Another referendum

There could also be another referendum although it would certainly require a Brexit delay and, most likely, a change of government first.

The referendum could have the same legal status as the one in 2016. It would be advisory, and the government would have to decide how to respond once the result was known.

An alternative would be to hold a so-called "confirmatory" referendum. That would be between a particular Brexit deal and remain - or possibly with no deal as an option. The result of this kind of referendum would be legally binding.

Either way, the new referendum would require legislation to be held. There would also have to be time for the Electoral Commission to consider the question wording - especially if it's a referendum with more than two options.

Experts at the Constitution Unit at University College London say it would take a minimum of 22 weeks.

Cancel Brexit

There is also the legal option of cancelling Brexit altogether by revoking Article 50.

But clearly, this is not something the current government is contemplating - so it's only really possible to imagine this outcome after a change of government.

The Liberal Democrats have said that if they won a majority in the House of Commons they would revoke Article 50 and cancel Brexit.

Can the UK revoke Article 50? (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47668466)

greybeard

28th October 2019, 09:39

EU agrees to postpone Brexit until January 2020 in blow to Boris Johnson
Yahoo News UK Yahoo UK Staff,Yahoo News UK

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/brexit-extension-092850418.html

The EU has agreed to delay Brexit until next year.

Donald Tusk announced that European leaders have agreed to Boris Johnson’s request for an extension until January 31, 2020.

The decision is a blow to the Prime Minister, who has said in the past he would prefer to be “dead in a ditch” than miss the October 31 deadline.

The focus now turns back to the prime minister’s attempts to get his Withdrawal Agreement Bill - the legal proposition that aims to put his Brexit deal into law - through Parliament.
So what happens next?

The announcement by the EU comes ahead of a vote by MPs on whether to back a December general election.

Mr Johnson has said he will give MPs until November 6 to debate his EU exit Bill – possibly providing enough time to pass it – but only if they agree to grant an election on December 12.

The Prime Minister’s election bid on Monday, to be made under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act (FTPA), requires a two-thirds Commons majority – 434 MPs – to agree to a snap election.

Labour is expected to vote down Boris Johnson's request for a snap election on Monday (Andrew Milligan/PA Wire)

Labour’s lack of support for the proposal means it is likely to be defeated when voted upon on Monday evening.

The PM will likely fail to secure “super majority” support for a December election – but knows he will require 100 fewer MPs to grant the same request just 24 hours later.

Mr Johnson has already had two requests for an election refused, but the Liberal Democrats and Scottish National Party have offered Mr Johnson a way out of the deadlock.

Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson and the SNP’s Westminster leader Ian Blackford have put forward a tightly-drafted Bill that would grant an election on December 9 – three days earlier than the PM’s suggested polling date – as long as the European Union grant an extension until January 31.

The draft law, currently scheduled for Tuesday’s sitting, would require a simple majority of 320 MPs to support it in order to dissolve Parliament – 114 fewer than under the FTPA “super majority” rules.

araucaria

28th October 2019, 10:45

The first 11-12 minutes of this video, posted by kfm27917 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/member.php?45202-kfm27917) here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?109031-Humanity-s-Phase-Shift-Daniel-Schmachtenberger), could be ALL about Brexit. It's very, very good indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQRzxEobWco
This excellent interview comes as a necessary response to my last post, thank you Bill. Man is facing extinction, yes, but while there’s life there’s hope.

My problem lies with the analogies used. It is not an evolution, he says, more of a kind of metamorphosis. The individual caterpillar is dying, and about to become a butterfly, but how did the caterpillar turn from being a species that ate and then died into one that gave back? Extinction is dying taken to the level of a whole species, and what we need to do is INVENT the next step. But where do we begin? And so on. Or he talks about a phase shift. Water has three, or apparently four, phases (see “The Fourth Phase of Water, beyond solid, liquid, and vapor” by Gerald H. Pollack). These are states of the same substance, H²O, with different properties. Is that where we are heading? Has water always had this 4th phase? Does it have it yet; or are we waiting for its “embodiments”, as they say in the language of patents? And might it have a 5th phase?...

My own thoughts take me away from analogy to hard science – the problem being… I am not a scientist. With that proviso, let’s see how far we can go with this while staying on topic on a Brexit thread! Actually I have two science-based lines of thought I shall split into two posts.

In Dolores Cannon’s four “Convoluted Universe” books, instead of reverting to past lives, her clients regress to various states of being that seem to be out of synch with Einstein’s famous equation establishing a relationship between mass and energy. There might be an overall theory whereby E = mx, where x is variable, and so E = mc² would be just one formulation of that. To take an extreme case, someone recalls having been pure energy, and the equation breaks down altogether (E=m x 0, therefore E=0). Other ethereal beings would appear to express this equation with fairly low values of x. E = mc², where one unit of mass is equivalent to 90 billion units of energy, would be at the other extreme. In this familiar situation, with so much energy crammed in, not only do we have barely stable (radioactive) material making it easy to make bombs, but ALL matter is potentially explosive. Being ourselves also made of this matter, we are all literally human bombs, as waves of terrorism, large and small, are proving every day.

The most massive concrete example of where this leads lies in the research of the astronomer, Thomas van Flandern. After working on satellite debris, he took the orbits of all comets, asteroids etc. in the solar system, taking them backwards in time, only to discover that some ten million years ago, they were all in the same place, between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, exactly where Bode’s law predicts a planet should be that we don’t have today. Did such a planet exist, only to explode? There is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence: flood myths, showers of live fish (see Charles Fort), the demise of Mars, which was presumably too close, and also to this day the life-threatening menace of near-earth asteroids. Since there is no natural explanation for this, we fall back on malevolent artificial use, involving knowledge of scalar physics and weaponry...

Hence my conclusion is that our human experience on planet Earth (the rest of the universe seen from here being some kind of optical illusion) is at the very limit of what is possible at the material end of the scale. Everything is volatile in the extreme, and it has nothing to do with humans per se, except inasmuch as we have signed up to test these extreme conditions. This is one reason why we are, none of us, doing too well, and need to refrain from criticizing anyone. We seem to be in one of the very densest of all possible universes. Although ourselves made of and using the lighter elements (carbon, oxygen…), we are mesmerized by the heavier atoms and molecules such as gold and diamond, uranium and plutonium. No wonder we have such a sense of doom and gloom: in one direction there is nowhere to go, just the void.

At this point, I will offer a lightish-hearted analogy of my own: the universe as one of many possible cocktails. Imagine energy is Evian water (E’) and matter is malt whisky (m’). A man may take half as much water as whisky: E’ = m’/2. He might give his old mother something weaker: E’ = m’ x 10; weaker still for the kids: E’ = m’ x 30. And if, heaven forbid, he puts a couple of drops in the baby’s bottle, you might get E’ = m’ x 90 thousand. So, reverting to Einstein’s equation, the universal cocktail contains only a homeopathic dose of the hard stuff, one part in ninety billion (c²): much less than the pollutants in the baby’s bottle. However, in my cocktail universe, man the materialist animal (m’’) sees only matter (m’’ = m’), so his experience as an alcoholic is like trying to drink himself under the table with 15 pints of this homeopathic preparation. This is not binge drinking, or a cocktail party, more like a meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Scientists maintain that they can only detect 4% of the stuff of the universe: this is hopelessly optimistic: like the couple of beers in your fridge when a hard drinker calls by, it is not going to last! So, counter-intuitively, in the face of imminent catastrophe, all of a sudden the problem facing humanity becomes minute: all that is required is that we skip the occasional drink, or add some water, have a coffee instead. If we could get that equation down just a little bit, the world would be our oyster. On the other hand, we don’t want to bring it down too far, because the value of the experiment we are in – the tastiness of the cocktail, if you will – lies precisely in the amount of energy that can be squeezed into matter. The opposite positive analogy would therefore be lacework; it takes many hours to embroider just a square inch of mostly holes, but the end result makes it extremely worthwhile, provided of course one is able to appreciate the work that was put in – to many it will just look vanishingly small and insignificant.

What does all this mean in concrete terms? That we become – ever so slightly – angelic beings. If that is still too hard to understand or aim for, it just means being just a tiny bit nicer and more tolerant towards our fellow human beings – empathy. And feeling a tiny bit lighter, less depressed, less bogged down. If you have ever emerged from depression and wondered how things could have been so bad, you will know that it takes next to nothing. What changed? A little burst of energy and effort after the apathy and inactivity. Hard work is easy and rewarding with a little practice. The shift that is about to happen (if it happens) is that easy (and that difficult), yet so unbelievable…

…And yet so finely poised. The alternative of course is to stick with our current understanding of Einstein’s equation, solely as it relates to matter. What you have to remember here is that it applies not just to the destructive force of the bomb. What happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was much worse than that. The chain reaction did not stop with the bomb: it spread to the whole city centre; every building and human being was caught up in the process. People’s shadows were caught on camera when they were already gone; worse than vaporized, they themselves were turned into lots more destructive energy, as were the buildings. Each of us has this hugely powerful human vehicle we simply must learn to drive. Like trying to reverse engineer a UFO, we need to start by realizing it is powered by the mind.

They say this is a planet of choice. Amid UK talk of a second (third?) referendum, the only valid referendum is the last (first?): are we collectively serious about this human experiment, or are we just playing around? At the moment, the outcome may be too close to call. One more extension would be helpful, but we need to get this done!

araucaria

28th October 2019, 10:51

The other idea is based on the ‘many worlds’ theory of an infinity of parallel universes being created every time we make a choice: the choice we don’t make here is taken and explored in this parallel reality. This theory is generally regarded as being conceptually hard to get one’s head around, but I think it is worth the try.

The ‘many worlds’ theory has a little evidence to confirm it: sometimes people appear to switch for a while with some other self. The ‘Mandela effect’ might also fit in here. Some of Dolores Cannon’s clients talk about parallel realities. She also reports on the exceptional case of some starving native Americans who hunted and ate a strange other-worldly beast, whose skull they kept as proof. However, such interactions are rare, and this last instance may possibly be based on the life-threatening situation. The question then arises, how this might work in the event of large-scale human disaster? Dolores Cannon is well known for her Two Earths concept, which she tentatively places within this many worlds theory – but I don’t intend to go that far here. What I am interested in is more to do with how these worlds are interrelated.

We usually consider many choices to be important affairs: there is a wiser option and a not so wise one, which is why such things are not decided by the toss of a coin (as in the novel The Dice Man). Staying on topic here, many smaller choices depend on the outcome of bigger choices. An unwise major choice will lead to endless predicaments of the I-wouldn’t-have-started-here type. In other words, poor choices tend to increase and multiply, as do good ones.

So there has to be one world where every poor choice we have ever made in ours is reversed. As such, it must be quite an idyllic place, and there will be many more slightly different ones we might aspire to as well. We need to see things from their point of view. These places have got into the habit of making judicious choices, and their discarded options are being played out somewhere else – in places where everything goes from bad to worse: places like our own reality! Our version of reality is so close to the bottom of the pile that it may disappear altogether at some stage, having become totally unviable. But before we start looking at how we can transport our consciousness to one of the other worlds, or alternatively clean up this reality – there is a huge choice to be made right there – we need to take a look at the overall situation.

There would appear to be some kind of sorting experiment going on, to find out what works best, carried out without discarding anything overhastily, no doubt to allow for the possible effects of enantiodromia, Jung’s term for when something flips over to take on the opposite value. For example, a bad choice might serendipitously turn out to have a positive outcome; this presumably is being explored in detail in the average middle-of-the-league universe where you win some, you lose some. What works best is presumably a world where everyone works efficiently together as a unit: none of your 1% lording it over everyone else. But of course in the greater scheme of things, you may say, such ideal worlds will be turning into an elite of their own, with other realities of their making such as ours being left behind. If we start making good decisions, doesn’t that mean that bad ones are going to emerge somewhere else? Better keep the bad stuff fenced off somewhere?

Such an attitude might indeed be the rationale or excuse for bad behaviour on this planet – a kind of antikarmic calculation – I can do what I want because it will all come out in the wash. But it fails to take into account the greater wisdom of more advanced realities where it is understood that we are all in this together across multiple universes. This is not a closed system with mechanistic consequences such as white automatically produces black. (What we are seeing currently are situations where neither choice is positive.) It is an open system where all of the parts evolve together. This means in concrete terms that even the less advanced worlds get to up their game. They do this by removing the element of choice altogether when one of the outcomes is too negative. For example they stop asking themselves: do we declare war? do I kill this man or not? It becomes second nature to live and let live. We develop finer instincts – which is what is actually what is being done on more successful worlds than ours: they are helping us along, not leaving us behind. We have to remember that these alternate realities involve the same personnel as ours: they are us! The people that know you best are not your family here and now, they are your other selves out there. So we know we can do better: we already are doing better.

So what does this means in practical terms? Yes, we do the things Daniel Schmachtenberger recommends in the video: we practise all the accumulated wisdom, we avoid karma and antikarma, we treat the Earth as a better place than it looks, and that is what it will become. We make major choices, like deciding that anyone who has a karmic debt towards us, doesn’t: we wipe the slate clean and wish them no harm. This is what I meant by forgetting. We weed out the cruder choices altogether. The Brexit referendum being one of the more egregious examples. It’s NOT the economy stupid: it’s about building up a human community, where for example we can forget about krauts and sons of Nazis and interact peacefully with the mostly nice Germans. We look for positive signs that things are indeed improving, and we find them.

sunwings

28th October 2019, 11:06

"Nobody voted for this mess. I blame the charlatans who peddled the falsehoods that Brexit would be easy, it would be cost free. I wouldn't trust them to run my bath, let alone the country." - Betty Boothroyd, former Speaker

1188131709532999685

greybeard

28th October 2019, 12:20

I cant help but think that Boris and friends through all the manoeuvring have actually ruined the chances of any form of Brexit.
In-spite of this the Conservatives seem likely to win the next General Election.
Dr David Hawkins said that the collective consciousness of a nation dictates--brings about the conscious level of their Government--so a caring society brings about a caring Government
Be care-- full what you wish for.
Chris

Chester

28th October 2019, 17:04

Caring can be expressed in many ways. For example, caring can be expressed by refusal to continuously enable another in their efforts to avoid personal responsibility.

I find it terribly difficult to admit to myself when what I think is "helping" another is actually enabling them in this way. Life is tricky.

sunwings

28th October 2019, 17:51

As UK heads into third Brexit extension, country looks forward to another three months of bickering, amateur dramatics and absolutely nothing being achieved before asking the EU for another one.

1188777686539345922

1188387694688243713

1188837718970818562

greybeard

28th October 2019, 18:20

Boris Johnson’s betrayal will leave the DUP with one option – to back remain
The Guardian Alex Kane,The Guardian

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/johnson-betrayal-leave-dup-one-154819626.html

Northern Ireland has long been viewed as a “place apart” within the United Kingdom. Now, unionists fear it is about to become a “place apart” outside the UK: separated from Great Britain by a new border in the Irish Sea, pushed closer to the EU and, eventually, into a united Ireland. That’s why they are unsettled right now, and indeed fearful.

Unionists have been here before. In 1972 their parliament at Stormont was prorogued, and direct rule imposed from Westminster. In 1973 the British and Irish governments, with limited input from unionists, concluded the Sunningdale agreement, which replaced majority rule with mandatory power-sharing and an “Irish dimension”. A little over a decade later the British and Irish governments signed the Anglo-Irish agreement, which unionism regarded as a form of joint sovereignty. And in 1993 the Downing Street declaration stated the British government has no “selfish strategic or economic interest” in Northern Ireland.

Each of these moments represented an enormous political and psychological blow to unionism. Each was accompanied by huge anger and enormous rallies. Yet while there was a fear that unionism was being pushed in a direction it didn’t want to go, Northern Ireland was still an integral and equal part of the UK. Similarly, while sections of unionism, including the DUP, initially rejected the Good Friday agreement in 1998, it was still possible to sustain the argument that Northern Ireland would remain fully within the UK until a majority of its citizens decided otherwise.

There is an anger across all sections of unionism unseen since 1985 and which may prove very difficult to contain

Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal is very different. If it emerges from the parliamentary debate and scrutiny stages with its Irish sections intact then Northern Ireland will cease to be a full and equal part of the UK. Yes, Johnson could still argue that it would require victory at a border poll for Northern Ireland to formally cease to be part of the UK, but unionists believe that beginning the process of easing the region out – as his deal does – makes it much easier for Irish nationalists to make their case for reunification.

This is a hammer blow for the DUP. It has propped up Conservative governments since June 2017 and its 10 votes have saved Theresa May and Boris Johnson on several occasions. The unionists, not surprisingly, believe they are “owed” for that confidence and expected Northern Ireland’s constitutional status to be protected come what may. May let them down with the notorious backstop. And now Johnson has let them down. Even the hardline Brexiters of the European Research Group have abandoned the DUP. What makes it immeasurably worse for Arlene Foster’s party is that it made such a song and dance about the influence it had with its friends in high places.

Related: Grassroots loyalists think this Brexit deal is a sell-out. That’s why tensions are running so high | Henry Patterson

It is a bigger hammer blow for the rest of unionism, raising the extraordinarily awkward question: if the DUP has been “betrayed” by the party it had kept in power (and whose key players, including Johnson, had come to Belfast to trumpet their loyalty to Ulster unionism) then whom can unionists now trust to protect their constitutional interests?

So far, that question remains unanswered. Which is why some elements of unionism/loyalism (and while they remain small in number, they have a worrying potential to grow) seem determined to send “some sort of message” to Johnson, the Irish government and the EU. But it is very difficult to send a strong message without damaging their own argument; because it is their own sovereign parliament, to which they are so loyally attached, that is ultimately responsible for their predicament. Put bluntly, it’s very difficult to bully your own national government into treating you “equally” when both your own government and, the evidence suggests, an overwhelming majority of your fellow citizens across Great Britain, seem to have no particular interest in sustaining a link with you.

It was very noticeable at the party conference on Saturday how much time during speeches and at a fringe event was devoted to the importance of the union and the lengths the DUP would be prepared to go to shore it up and maximise support for it. Indeed, this focus on the union was the clearest possible sign that the party recognises the dilemma unionism is currently facing.

There is today an anger across all sections of unionism which I haven’t seen since 1985 (one mass rally at the time sparked DUP leader Ian Paisley’s famous “Never! Never! Never!” speech). And, because Johnson’s deal brings the end of the union closer than has any previous pact, it is an anger which may prove very difficult to contain. Which leaves the DUP with some problems: how does it contain the anger, restore its credibility within unionism, block Johnson’s deal, and lessen the chances of an early poll on a united Ireland?

One thing it now knows for certain is that it cannot trust Johnson: even if the prime minister tries to appease it with a lorry-load of reassurances. The party’s priority must be to find a way of removing itself from the series of hooks it has placed itself on since June 2016, when it backed Brexit. And it will have to admit that the uber-unionist nonsense that accompanied its relationship with the ERG was a monumental miscalculation. For the DUP, as with all Northern Ireland unionist parties, the union eclipses every other issue.

I suspect the DUP knows all this. Which means it also knows what it needs to do. There is no enthusiasm for Johnson’s deal in Northern Ireland (the nationalists are hardly fans either – they strongly voted remain). Unionists will never agree to anything that changes the constitutional position so significantly. All of which can ultimately lead to only one conclusion: the DUP must now shift towards remain. It will have to – for its very survival.

• Alex Kane is a former director of communications for the Ulster Unionist party

greybeard

28th October 2019, 19:35

Brexit latest: Boris Johnson loses vote on snap general election
Yahoo News UK Matilda Long,Yahoo News UK 29
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boris-johnson-loses-vote-early-general-election-190105618.html

Boris Johnson has lost a vote to trigger a snap general election on 12 December - but immediately signalled he will try again to go to the polls before Christmas

The Prime Minister failed to secure the “super majority” required to approve the early vote under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act (FTPA).

Under the FTPA, two thirds of MPs (434) need to vote in favour in order for an election to happen less than five years after the last one.

Only 299 MPs voted in favour of the motion, with 70 voting against and hundreds more abstaining - leaving the prime minister well short.

Mr Johnson told MPs straight after the vote that the Government will table a Bill this evening calling for an election on December 12.

He has already had two requests for an election refused.
Britain's opposition Liberal Democrat party leader Jo Swinson speaks during the Brexit debate inside the House of Commons parliament in London Saturday Oct. 19, 2019. At the rare weekend sitting of Parliament, Prime Minister Boris Johnson implored legislators to ratify the Brexit deal he struck this week with the other 27 EU leaders. Lawmakers voted Saturday in favour of the 'Letwin Amendment', which seeks to avoid a no-deal Brexit on October 31. (Stephen Pike/House of Commons via AP)
Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson tabled a bill to trigger an election in December. (Stephen Pike/House of Commons via AP)

The Lib Dems and SNP have offered the PM a lifeline by tabling a bill that would grant an election on December 9 – three days earlier than the PM’s suggested date – as long as the EU grants an extension until January 31.

The EU confirmed today it would approve an extension, although the official legal process is yet to be completed.

The draft law, currently scheduled for Tuesday’s sitting, would require a simple majority of 320 MPs to support it.

The SNP and Lib Dems have said they are prepared to back a pre-Christmas election - but only if no deal is taken off the table completely. That means the Bill would be likely to pass even without Labour backing it.

Labour has also repeatedly refused to back an election until a no-deal Brexit has been taken off the table - though Jeremy Corbyn has not made clear exactly what needs to happen to satisfy his conditions.

After the vote, Mr Johnson stated that “no deal is off the table” - though opposition parties have said they don’t trust the prime minister to stick to his promises.

What they said after the vote:

Prime Minister Boris Johnson

“The leader of the Opposition literally and figuratively has run away from the judgment of the people.

“We will not allow this paralysis to continue, and one way or another we must proceed straight to an election.

“So later on this evening, the Government will give notice of presentation for a short Bill for an election on December 12 so we can finally get Brexit done.”

“This House cannot any longer keep this country hostage.

“Now that no-deal is off the table, we have a great new deal, and it’s time for the voters to have a chance to pronounce on that deal and to replace this dysfunctional Parliament with a new Parliament that can get Brexit done so the country can move on.”

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn

“I understand a Bill will be tabled tomorrow, we will obviously look and scrutinise that Bill and we look forward to a clear, definitive decision that no deal is absolutely off the table and there is no danger of this Prime Minister not sticking to his word because he has some form on these matters and taking this country out of the EU without any deal whatsoever, knowing the damage it will do to jobs and industries all across this country.”

SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford

“It is clear that there is a desire on the Opposition benches to bring forward a Bill that can give us an election. But we don’t trust this Prime Minister and we don’t trust this Prime Minister for good reason.

“So the Prime Minister, if he is going to bring forward a Bill, must give an absolute cast-iron assurance that up until the passage of that Bill and the rising of Parliament, that there will be no attempt to bring forward the Withdrawal Agreement Bill.”

Matthew

28th October 2019, 21:07

Jeff Taylor

Old news five hours ago:

So, we're just waiting for the formal paperwork from Brussels and then Boris Johnson will be required by the Benn Surrender Act to immediately accept the offer and immediately amend the Withdrawal Act 2018 via a statutory instrument to change the Brexit Day Date to January the 31st

Link to video on YouTube (https://youtu.be/NNj0HJOwX2g)

But this is the latest, and the previous video didn't know the latest news that....

guess what everyone? You won't believe it

Remain MPs block a general election

Anyway this is Jeffs latest

Boris Johnson loses Brexit General Election vote!

Well, what a surprise, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, has lost his legitimate call for a general election that might have gone some way to mending the public's view of our politicians.

aL4SxxTHYKg

Matthew

28th October 2019, 21:48

Here's the BBC news link about the denied election.

This one includes a count of the political party MPs who blocked an election. Note: you don't have to vote against to block, simply not voting is enough but has the added benefit you don't even have to get off your arse

How did my MP vote on triggering an early election?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50215171

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/15F30/production/_109440998_optimised-ftpa_20191028-nc.png

Bill Ryan

28th October 2019, 23:47

Another useful Brexit summary-so-far-in-case-you're-really-confused from the BBC, published 3 hours ago.

https://bbc.com/news/world-europe-50210441

Brexit: What just happened with UK election vote?
28 Oct, 2019

The UK parliament has just rejected Boris Johnson's bid to call a snap general election - for a third time - despite the prime minister arguing it would help "get Brexit done". But there remains a chance that the UK could have a pre-Christmas election.

So what just happened?

Does the UK really want another general election? (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50206341)

How did Johnson lose (again)?

Well - and this has an element of irony to it - the leader of the UK's governing Conservative Party cannot just choose to hold an early election.

As a legal requirement, Mr Johnson needs the support of two-thirds of MPs - at least 434 - but is short of seats in the House of Commons, making this tricky.

Without a majority, he has to convince members of the opposition to vote in his favour.

Monday's vote was rejected after the leader of the main opposition Labour Party said he did not trust Mr Johnson and would not agree to a poll until the prospect of a no-deal exit from the European Union had been definitively ruled out.

Labour MPs earlier complained that Mr Johnson's new deal, the Withdrawal Agreement Bill (WAB), contained plans to dilute workers' rights after Brexit.

Word 'adequate' removed from Brexit worker rights plan (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50199309)

It was also suggested that the prime minister could change the election date after MPs had approved a 12 December poll, enabling him to postpone until after the UK had left the EU, effectively forcing through the WAB.

Labour abstained in Monday's ballot, meaning that despite 299 MPs voting in favour and only 70 voting against, the bill failed to get the required 434 votes to pass.

What happens next?

Believe it or not, another vote on whether to have an election on 12 December.

That's right; Mr Johnson is refusing to give up on a pre-Christmas election.

On Tuesday, he will propose a new motion in the House of Commons calling for an early election that will require a simple majority of just one vote to pass in parliament.

He will seek the support of opposition Liberal Democrat and Scottish National Party (SNP) MPs by making the short bill "almost identical" to one proposed earlier by the two parties for an election on 9 December.

Mr Johnson's new motion, however, will be subject to amendments - which could draw out the process.

Will an election sort out Brexit though?

Not necessarily.

The Brexit deal agreed between Mr Johnson and the EU is in limbo after MPs voted against the three-day timetable to pass it through the Commons last week.

But while an election could restore the Conservative Party's majority and give the prime minister more leverage in parliament, an early election also carries risks for Mr Johnson and the Tories.

What is in the new Brexit deal? (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50083026)
Brexit: What happens now? (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46393399)

Leaving the EU by 31 October "do or die" was a key campaign promise in Mr Johnson's bid to become prime minister but he has since accepted an offer from EU leaders to - in principle - extend Brexit until 31 January 2020 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50205603).

As a result, voters could choose to punish him at the ballot box for failing to fulfil his campaign pledge.

A general election is supposed to take place every five years in the UK. The last election was in June 2017.

Is another referendum likely?

A new vote on Britain's EU membership is one possibility in breaking the stalemate over Brexit.

But organising another public vote would take a minimum of 22 weeks, according to experts at the Constitution Unit at University College London (UCL).

This would consist of at least 12 weeks to pass the legislation required to hold a referendum, plus a further 10 weeks to organise the campaign and hold the vote itself.

Also - and this is a recurring theme here - a government cannot just decide to hold a referendum. Instead, a majority of MPs and Members of the House of Lords would need to agree and vote through the rules of another public vote.

What about the Brexit extension?

EU Council President Donald Tusk said the latest agreed extension was flexible and that the UK could leave before the 31 January 2020 deadline if a withdrawal agreement is approved by the British parliament.

Katya Adler: Brexit dance goes on (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50205927)

The extension will need to be formalised through a written procedure among the 27 other EU nations following agreement from the UK.

An EU official said they hoped for the process to be concluded by Tuesday or Wednesday.

Is no-deal still possible?

Yes.

While Mr Johnson has formally accepted the EU's offer of a Brexit extension until 31 January 2020, it does not mean that a no-deal Brexit is off the table. Rather, it pushes the possibility further into the future.

No-deal Brexit: How might it affect the EU? Mr Johnson is likely to continue to try to push his deal through Parliament and if his efforts fail before the deadline for Britain's exit is reached, the UK could leave without a deal.

What is 'no-deal Brexit'? (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48511379)

Matthew

29th October 2019, 00:57

From the BBC quote above (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91509-The-UK-Brexit-vote-to-leave-the-EU&p=1321156&viewfull=1#post1321156), emphasis mine

.... A new vote on Britain's EU membership is one possibility in breaking the stalemate over Brexit....

As if general elections wouldn't have done that, but the BBC twist away the truth; this is the third blocked election, any one of which would have broken the stalemate.

The EU loves second referendums, if the first doesn't go their way, as has been shown with many other countries (when they tried not to join, then joined). The BBC favouring an 'EU second referendum' speaks volumes

greybeard

29th October 2019, 08:46

Brexit: Boris Johnson abandons bill in new push for December election
[The Guardian]
Rowena Mason Deputy political editor
The Guardian29 October 2019

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/boris-johnson-abandons-brexit-bill-213935489.html

Boris Johnson will abandon attempts to push his Brexit bill through this parliament in a bid to get the Liberal Democrats and the SNP to agree to an election before Christmas – although the parties are still in dispute over the potential date.

The prime minister failed on Monday to get the votes of two-thirds of MPs he needed to secure an election under existing laws, after opposition parties largely abstained.

However, he said he would table a short bill on Tuesday that would change the law in order to hold a poll on 12 December. He would only need a simple majority for this plan, so an election could be achieved with the backing of the Lib Dems or the Scottish National party.

Johnson told the House of Commons: “We will not allow this paralysis to continue, and one way or another we must proceed straight to an election. The government will give notice of presentation for a short bill for an election on 12 December so we can finally get Brexit done. This House cannot any longer keep this country hostage.”

Related: European leaders expected to grant Brexit delay

The idea first came from the Lib Dems, who have enjoyed a boost in the polls since backing a policy to revoke Brexit. The party has said its 19 MPs would support legislation for an election on 9 December if the prime minister abandoned his attempts to bring back the EU withdrawal bill.

A No 10 source said: “The withdrawal bill will not be brought back. This is the way to get Brexit done so the country can move on.”

On Monday night the Commons leader, Jacob Rees-Mogg, told MPs that all stages of legislation to trigger an early general election would go through the Commons on Tuesday, adding: “I can assure this House that we will not bring back the withdrawal agreement bill.”

Earlier Jo Swinson, the Lib Dem leader, said she was not happy with Johnson’s proposed date of 12 December, which is after many universities have broken up for Christmas and students have returned to their home towns.
She said: “Boris Johnson claims he wants a general election, but he also claimed he wouldn’t prorogue parliament or put a border down the Irish sea.

“If Boris Johnson wants a general election, then he could have supported our bill for a general election on 9 December. Instead, he has chosen to stick to his original plan for 12 December which we have already rejected.”

Swinson left the door open for a possible compromise, but there are fears among opposition parties about whether the prime minister really would abandon all efforts to pass the EU withdrawal agreement before the dissolution of parliament next Wednesday.

Related: Jeremy Corbyn keeps door open to backing December election

Ian Blackford, the SNP Westminster leader, said his party would need a “cast-iron guarantee” that the prime minister would not try to bring back his Brexit deal to parliament.

He told MPs: “It is clear that there is a desire on the opposition benches to bring forward a bill that can give us an election. But we don’t trust this prime minister and we don’t trust this prime minister for good reason.

“So the prime minister, if he is going to bring forward a bill, must give an absolute cast-iron assurance that up until the passage of that bill and the rising of parliament, that there will be no attempt to bring forward the withdrawal agreement bill.”

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, also suggested his party could be persuaded to back the idea, with the shadow cabinet convening on Tuesday to discuss its position.

“We will consider carefully any legislation on an early election,” he said. But Corbyn added that a date needed to be locked down in law to prevent Johnson trying to move it for his own advantage and also suggested he would want it to be earlier than 12 December,saying any plan would need to “protect the voting rights of all of our citizens”.

For a 9 December election, parliament would need to pass its legislation by Thursday this week, but for a 12 December election it could wait until the middle of next week.

A motion for a general election

Boris Johnson has three options to try and call a general election. Under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, an election may be called if it is agreed by two-thirds of the total number of MPs. Johnson presented motions for an election on 4 and 9 September and failed on both occasions when the majority of Labour MPs abstained. Johnson tried again on 28 October, and failed again.

scanner

29th October 2019, 09:09

Quote, " I'd rather be dead in a ditch, if I don't deliver Brexit on 31/10/2019" Unquote. Boris Johnson

greybeard

29th October 2019, 09:45

You know the story of the child that cried wolf (in its imagination) then when there really was a wolf it was disbelieved,
Same might happen with Boris.
So the pre-election promises that will be made, by all sides--can they believed or is it just a massive selling job?

I honestly dont think an election should be about Brexit and anyway it might result in a hung parliament.
If a referendum was held first that would get out of the way the suggestion that people did not know what they were voting for.
However thats not going to happen before an election.

The SNP want an election because probably they will get more SNP MP's elected--the Liberals want it for the same reason.
The last thing Labour wants at the moment is an election.
If they got brave and got Jeremy to step aside then that just might get a different result.
Boris may well win but that does not mean the public want the most recent Brexit plan or exiting without an agreement.
Without doubt he is charismatic to the point that the work done by previous Tory PM's and Chancellors to get UK back on a solid financial footing has been forgotten by the Tory Party "Faithful" Their opinion counts for nothing.

I reserve the right to be wrong--smiling
Chris

greybeard

29th October 2019, 11:50

Labour will back an early general election as Boris Johnson asks MPs for December poll
Yahoo News UK Ross McGuinness,Yahoo News UK

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/labour-early-general-election-boris-johnson-december-poll-110153542.html

Britain is on course for an early general election in December after the Labour Party said it will back an early poll.

Jeremy Corbyn told his shadow Cabinet on Tuesday morning it will support the call for an election before Christmas.

MPs are set to vote on a Government Bill today for an election on December 12, though it is not yet clear which date Labour will support.

Mr Corbyn said: "No Deal is now off the table so tonight Labour will back a General Election. We're launching the most ambitious and radical campaign for real change our country has ever seen.

“This is a once in a generation chance to build a country for the many, not the few. It's time.”

But Mr Corbyn’s move does not mean a December election is certain, with Labour expected to support amendments to the Bill that could lead to Mr Johnson pulling the vote.
Crucial vote today

Mr Johnson will attempt to convince the Commons to vote for a December 12 election later today.

He has already been defeated three times - including on Monday evening - but today’s vote will only require a simple majority of MPs to vote in favour.

However, a December election is not yet set in stone.

Not only could Labour table amendments that might prove unpalatable to the Government - such as extending the vote to EU nationals or lowering the voting age to 16 - but the Liberal Democrats and the SNP have also appeared reluctant to accept the 12 December date.

They fear it could still allow time for Mr Johnson to bring the Withdrawal Agreement Bill before MPs ahead of the start of the campaign.

They have previously signalled support for a poll on December 9, but could put forward a proposal for an election on December 11 - which the Government is likely to accept.

A Number 10 source told the Press Association: "If there's an amendment to the 11th we could accept."
What people said

Green MP Caroline Lucas, who has been working for a second referendum on Brexit, said Labour's decision to back an early general election was "hugely disappointing".

She tweeted: "Hugely disappointing if true. Why give Johnson exactly what he wants?

"Election - esp under First Past the Post - won't resolve Brexit.

"Many examples of majority Govt being returned on minority vote - real risk that the majority in favour of #PeoplesVote won't have voices heard."

Labour campaign group Momentum tweeted: "Labour are officially backing an election. This is the opportunity of a lifetime to put an end to the shambolic mess the Tories have made and return hope to millions. Let's do this."

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan tweeted: "The only answer to the Brexit mess is to give the public the final say. But if there is to be a general election first, then those whose future is most affected must be given a say - including 16 and 17 year olds and EU citizens living in the UK."

Ps Its the pantomime season--how appropriate.
Clowns to the left of me jokers to the right---stuck in the middle with you.
Stealers wheel.
Chris

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAIsqvTh7g

greybeard

29th October 2019, 14:50

UK Treasury on course to exceed this year's deficit target by £16bn
The Guardian Phillip Inman Economics editor,The Guardian

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/uk-treasury-course-exceed-apos-060110436.html

The government is on course to overshoot its deficit target this year by £16bn after a series of spending pledges, a slowdown in the economy and the spiralling cost of student loans stripped the Treasury of £43bn.

The Resolution Foundation, an independent thinktank, warned that the £27bn of spending “headroom” set aside by former chancellor Philip Hammond in March to cope with the costs of Brexit had evaporated over the last six months, leaving the government with a hefty deficit.

In a report that was due to be released ahead of Sajid Javid’s first budget on 6 November, which was scrapped last week, the independent thinktank said the Treasury was going to be left with little option but to break its rule that caps the annual shortfall in spending at 2% of GDP.

Labour has criticised Javid for refusing to publish official budget forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which are expected to be cancelled along with the budget, knowing they are likely to show the government has breached its deficit rule.

A slowdown in the economy this year following a slump in manufacturing and construction activity has reduced government income by more than £10bn in the next financial year, the report estimated.

Related: Tories increase borrowing by 28% as possible election looms

Revisions to the treatment of government liabilities, including student loans, many of which are unlikely to be repaid, added a further £19bn to the total deficit. Extra spending commitments on hospitals, police and schools added another £13bn, the report said, increasing the shortfall between income and expenditure since March to £43bn.

Without tax increases or a retreat on spending pledges, the deficit next year was likely to be nearer 3% and possibly higher should Brexit knock GDP growth, hitting government income further.

Sign up to the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @BusinessDesk

Richard Hughes, an economist at the foundation, said Javid should ditch inflexible fiscal rules that can only be met with short-term decisions that harm the economy’s future.

He sad: “Fiscal rules have guided, if not always bound, tax and spending decisions over the past 20 years – from Gordon Brown’s golden rule to George Osborne’s goal of eliminating the deficit.

“But with the UK’s current fiscal rules set to expire next year, and the government on course to miss them by £16bn anyway, the chancellor should take this opportunity to rewrite the fiscal rule book and set a new framework to guide government policy over the coming decade.

“The UK’s new fiscal rules should reflect current economic realities such as record low interest rates, and the broad political consensus around the need to invest in improving productivity, tackling climate change, and renewing our public service infrastructure.”

greybeard

29th October 2019, 17:11

Swinson, Corbyn and the SNP have condemned us to five years of Boris’ Britain, and they are not going to enjoy it
The Independent Sean O'Grady,The Independent

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/swinson-corbyn-snp-condemned-us-132100672.html

I cannot really improve on the cliché du jour: “turkeys voting for Christmas”. I know that, according to the British Election Study, 50 per cent of the British now call themselves "floating voters”, and that everything is febrile and unpredictable and volatile and all that. Turnout in the dark damp polling day from students and older voters is difficult to predict. I know that the representation of the people act and the obligation on broadcasters to offer meticulously unbiased coverage will give extra profile to the smaller parties including, especially, the Brexit Party. And we’ve not ever had an election like this, at a time like this, on in issue like this, ever.

All to play for, then? Maybe. It is certainly what that clucking idiot Jeremy Corbyn thinks – “We're going out there to fight an election campaign, and I can't wait”. Jeremy Corbyn says Labour MPs are ready to back a general election – “This is the end of the debate, and we're going out there to win”. With more (selfish) justification, it is also what these other clucking imbeciles, Jo Swinson and the SNP, believe. They’ll probably do “well”, increasing their representation in the House of Commons and, in the SNP’s case, adding to pressure for a second Scottish independence referendum. But they will also bring upon themselves and the rest of us five years – or more – of Boris Johnson doing what the hell he wants with an overall Commons majority.

By Christmas Day, Britain will be well on the way to a hard Brexit. The Labour party will have fallen into another of its post-election defeat civil wars, and the Tories can get one with delivering the long-delayed Thatcher Fourth Term – liberalising and deregulating the country to create the lusted-after Singapore on Sea, a no-deal Brexit, if needed, and with no interference from parliament or the EU commissioners along the way. God, Johnson could be in until 2029!

Every single pledge and promise given to the likes of Caroline Flint or Jo Swinson about no deal or workers’ rights can be abolished under a Tory-dominated Commons packed with Europhobic Thatcherite zealots. The "moderates" will stand down or be purged. It’s over for the welfare state.

The Johnson family, friends, cronies and hangers on will able to enjoy an exceptionally festive champagne break at Chequers like no other. The rest of us can cry into our Baileys.

Make no mistake: Swinson, Corbyn and the SNP have condemned us to five years of Boris’ Britain, and they are not going to enjoy it. Everyone knows the only reason Labour backed it was because the Tories were going to win the vote on a snap election anyway – thanks to the Liberal Democrats and the SNP. They had a choice of looking cowardly or pretending they are “up for it”. Labour carries, therefore, less of the blame. Still, it is a terrible mistake by most of the opposition parties, and a wonderful gift for Boris Jonson. Only Carline Lucas of the Greens talks much sense publicly. She knows the planet won’t be a winner either.

Yet the single salient fact in this election is the 12-point opinion poll lead the Conservatives enjoy over the Labour Party. Even with everything that has changed, British general elections are still basically won and lost in Labour-Conservative marginal seats, many in the Midlands, Lancashire and Yorkshire. The rest is quite distracting noise.

Farage and Swinson will be able to tear chunks out of the two major parties, and the SNP and Plaid Cymru can do the same with more potency in Scotland and Wales. But mostly the smaller party insurgencies will take place in safer Lab/Con seats, and not enough. The net result will probably be a net swing compared to the 2017 election from Labour to the Conservatives. Johnson will win about 5 per cent less of the vote than Theresa May, say, but Corbyn will lose about half of the votes he won so impressively in 2017 – about 15 percentage points down. That adds up to a very a large swing indeed in historical terms.

It is also possible that Labour could actually go backwards in the 2019 general election campaign, as a similarly beleaguered Labour Party did in the 1983 general election, the previous low point, at 27 per cent or so of the popular vote. Corbyn's Labour, in other words, could plunge to its lowest vote share since 1918, when they got about 20 per cent. They are certainly divided and confused enough to make fools of themselves, though I freely admit the Tories have more than their share of clowns too. The “constructive ambiguity” on Brexit that served them so well in 2017 will not work again; and recent real-world electoral tests suggest that it just alienates both sides of the argument.

The closer the Tories get to 40 per cent, and the closer Labour slumps to 20 per cent, the more chance Johnson will win big in parliamentary seats – beating David Cameron and John Major’s previous modest majorities (of 12 in 2015 and 22 in 1992 respectively).

It is all something of a tragedy. In her many defences of her bold, i.e. foolhardy, move, Swinson argues that the votes in a parliament sadly aren’t there for a second referendum, and there never will be unless (obviously) the Commons is suddenly flooded with liberal Democrats. Not on 18 per cent of the vote, it won’t.

The point is that the opposition parties have and had Boris Johnson exactly where they needed him – caged. Labour and the Lib Dems could have played hardball with Johnson. They could have said that they would nod through his Withdrawal Agreement Bill – conditional on a confirmatory vote through a Final Say referendum. Eventually he would have caved, because he always does; Boris will sell anyone out, even himself, to stay in power. We’ve seen that a lot. Instead, the turkeys have gifted him a snap election, an election on his own agenda, and the project of remaking Britain in his own image.

I can only repeat the words of Neil Kinnock in the final desperate moments of the 1983 election as the Tories headed for a landslide, which were prophetic. I make no apology for quoting them in their full, chilling, form, and challenge anyone to say it better now:

“If Margaret Thatcher is re-elected as prime minister on Thursday, I warn you.

I warn you that you will have pain – when healing and relief depend upon payment.

“I warn you that you will have ignorance – when talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege and not a right.

“I warn you that you will have poverty – when pensions slip and benefits are whittled away by a government that won’t pay in an economy that can’t pay.

“I warn you that you will be cold – when fuel charges are used as a tax system that the rich don’t notice and the poor can’t afford.

“I warn you that you must not expect work – when many cannot spend, more will not be able to earn. When they don’t earn, they don’t spend. When they don’t spend, work dies.

“I warn you not to go into the streets alone after dark or into the streets in large crowds of protest in the light.

“I warn you that you will be quiet – when the curfew of fear and the gibbet of unemployment make you obedient.

“I warn you that you will have defence of a sort – with a risk and at a price that passes all understanding.

“I warn you that you will be home-bound – when fares and transport bills kill leisure and lock you up.

“I warn you that you will borrow less – when credit, loans, mortgages and easy payments are refused to people on your melting income.

“If Margaret Thatcher wins on Thursday –

– I warn you not to be ordinary

– I warn you not to be young

– I warn you not to fall ill

– I warn you not to get old.”

You have been warned, and you’ll know who to blame – not Johnson so much, who is only doing what comes naturally, but the tactical ineptitude of Swinson, the SNP and Corbyn.

"Well thats a somewhat long News Paper Column.
He does not mess about
Could he be right?
Time will tell.
Chris"

Matthew

29th October 2019, 22:17

Quote, " I'd rather be dead in a ditch, if I don't deliver Brexit on 31/10/2019" Unquote. Boris Johnson

Yes, good intentions by Boris and all that. It was actually an extension beyond the 31st, rather Brexit, he would rather to die in a ditch for.

http://www.boriswatch.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/Boris-ball.jpg

Not sure it's Boris' fault though, with MPs saying they'd honour the referendum result then blatantly changing their mind; the only solution: a general election so people can get rid of their unrepresentative MPs. And Boris called for an election, time after time, and said MPs, who changed their minds on their voted promise, blocked the call for election. Obviously they don't want to face the wrath of the people at the ballet box.

Also the speaker isn't meant to be leading the remain side, he was meant to be as neutral as possible.

Add to this the Supreme court (setup under Tony Blair) getting involved in politics in the same way the Queen, very explicitly, does not.

greybeard

30th October 2019, 10:39

That photo of Boris--retouched no doubt--reminds me of "Back to the Future" film.
When does the film of this Brexit event come out?
Comedy or tragedy?
Happy ending?
I await with baited breath.
I dont like pop corn--pass the mince pies.
Chris

greybeard

30th October 2019, 11:44

What The General Election Could Mean For Brexit
HuffPost UK Rachel Wearmouth,HuffPost UK
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/general-election-could-mean-brexit-071243642.html

Just when you thought it was safe to drink mulled wine ... they’re back.

The same politicians who ruined most of 2019 with Brexit chaos are determined to wreck Christmas by calling a snap general election on December 12.

But before, in the name of your sanity/human rights/Strictly Come Dancing, you tune out completely, you should know just how important the election is for the future of Brexit.

If you care about when, how or if the UK leaves the EU, you should vote - and here’s why.
Some context ...

Brexit stands at a crossroads.

It won’t have escaped your notice that Leavers and Remainers have been at war since the 2016 referendum result.

Boris Johnson surprised everyone by agreeing a fresh withdrawal deal with Brussels earlier this month.

Reminder: this ‘stage one’ deal only sets out the terms on which the UK leaves, such as border checks, the divorce bill and length of the transition period, and does not sort out trade. The ‘stage two’ future relationship deal will be part of a different set of negotiations once a withdrawal deal is ratified by the UK and EU.

Johnson even managed to do what May couldn’t and got a majority of MPs to back legislation for a Brexit deal in parliament.

But then MPs ripped up his fast-track timetable for the bill, and fearing attempts to soften his deal or trigger a second referendum, Johnson has insisted on a snap general election.

Meanwhile, the EU has agreed to extend the October 31 Brexit deadline to January 31.

But now a general election is to happen, Brexit will be decided by whoever wins power. It is all to play for.
So, what happens if the Conservatives win?

The prime minister has been clear that he will campaign for his deal.

If the Tories win a majority then Johnson will have the means and mandate to take the UK out of the EU on the terms he has agreed with Brussels.

What does his deal include? The UK will leaving the customs union while Northern Ireland will stay aligned with single market regulations on goods.

The UK will also pay a £33bn divorce bill. Johnson has also agreed a “level playing field” commitment for trade talks, which will see Britain closely aligned to EU regulations with some freedom to diverge.

There will be a transition period until December 2020, when critics say the UK could again face a no-deal cliff-edge.

It is worth saying that Johnson has repeatedly refused to rule out a no-deal Brexit, maintaining that while he doesn’t want this outcome it is an option the UK must have.

His deal is also controversial for unionists, who point out the regulatory border in the Irish Sea separates Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK.

Proposals for Northern Ireland to give its consent for the plan also involve a simple majority of votes of politicians in Stormont. This has angered some as the Good Friday Agreement, which secured peace in Northern Ireland after the Troubles, stipulates ‘cross-community’ consent from both nationalist and unionist politicians.

After withdrawal, Johnson will look to strike new trade deals, in particular with Donald Trump’s America.
And what about if Labour win?
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn

If Jeremy Corbyn wins the keys to Number 10 Downing Street, it does not mean that Brexit does not happen but it does guarantee a second referendum.

Despite a large rump of Labour MPs and the party’s membership being pro-Remain, the policy is much more nuanced.

Corbyn would renegotiate a softer Brexit deal with the EU, claiming Johnson’s agreement puts manufacturing jobs at risk.

A Labour government would rule out no-deal. It would also seek customs union membership and a close UK relationship with the single market.

This deal would be put to the public in a second referendum versus remain. Labour has said it would legislate for that vote immediately, so it could mean a referendum within the space of a year.

Labour has not said whether it would campaign for the Brexit deal or for Remain.

Corbyn has been hostile to striking any trade deal with America, claiming Trump would aim to cut UK standards and target the NHS.
The Lib Dems could win, right?
Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson.

Yes, it is possible and should Jo Swinson’s Liberal Democrats do win, Brexit would be cancelled altogether.

In a bid to sweep up Remain voters, Swinson has committed her party to revoking Article 50 and keeping Britain in the European Union.

So, to quote the party’s eyebrow-raising slogan, it would be “bollocks to Brexit”.

The Lib Dems would have to pull off an extraordinary turnaround in their party’s fortunes to secure a Commons majority, having just 19 out of 650 MPs.

But this may be “the Brexit election” when leaving the EU entirely dominates and really anything could happen.
What if the Brexit Party win?
Leader of the Brexit Party Nigel Farage speaks during a Brexit Party event at the QEII Centre in London.

This is highly unlikely given they are a new party with no MPs but, anything could happen in these strange and wild political times.

If Nigel Farage’s party sweeps the country and wins power then a no-deal Brexit would happen when the Article 50 deadline expires on January 31 if not before.

A no-deal Brexit is pretty much Farage’s only policy.
And what about if nobody wins?
Stylized line person shrugging its shoulders indicating lack of knowledge, and care.

No one party winning a majority at the ballot box means the future of Brexit is unpredictable.

But, judging by the polls, this is one of the likely outcomes.

It means parties would probably go into negotiations over a coalition or confidence and supply arrangement.

During the election campaign, all party leaders will swear blind they will not do deals with any of their rivals. There is a good chance this will change after the votes are counted, however.

The Conservatives have gone into coalition with the Lib Dems in the past but given their Brexit policies are almost polar opposites it is difficult to see this alliance being rebuilt.

Johnson could, however, do a deal with the Brexit Party if Farage takes seats from them or Labour. A Leave alliance would likely mean a hard Brexit and that no-deal will not be off the table during trade talks.

Labour’s natural allies would be the SNP and Lib Dems, but both parties would want to reshape Corbyn’s Brexit policy.

Nicola Sturgeon’s price will be for the UK government to sanction a second referendum on Scottish independence and it is not clear if Swinson’s revoke Article 50 policy is a red line. Both the SNP and Lib Dems have been supportive of a second Brexit referendum in the past, however.

But there is no surefire way of knowing what trade-offs party leaders will make when negotiating a coalition.
Related

Matthew

30th October 2019, 19:53

...
Comedy or tragedy?
...

We have a general election at last, after Boris asked four times.

Election blocking MPs (mostly from Labour, Lib Dems and SNP) are the comedy.

If you value one person, one vote style democracy, that we've had all our lives, it's a tragedy.

The mainstream media almost completely ignore The Brexit Party even though they are responsible for all shifts in Tory attitudes towards Brexit, for May stepping down and Boris having a chance.

But there is some, here's one from the Remainian Guardian

Tory MPs 'asking Brexit party not to stand against them'

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/a3c1df5e2097e310bc8c55a4c6442b69c3c48303/0_89_4205_2524/master/4205.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&

Tory MPs are asking the Brexit party not to run candidates in their seats at an early general election, according to the party’s chair, Richard Tice, as speculation mounts over the anti-EU party’s potential pacts in leave areas.

Tice said he received a frantic message from one Tory urging him not to stand a candidate in their constituency because they were facing a challenge from the Liberal Democrats. “It wasn’t the first; it won’t be the last,” he said.

...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/29/tory-mps-asking-brexit-party-not-to-stand-against-them

--------------------------------------------
:Avalon: :cell: :typing:
--------------------------------------------

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/03/31/11/11615078-6863863-A_Brexit_supporter_demonstrates_outside_the_Houses_of_Parliament-a-5_1554029428428.jpg

araucaria

30th October 2019, 20:23

I don’t have a personal interest in UK politics, but in more general terms, I do want to take a little further the idea of how making choices can refine our instincts, working from a real-life situation. People in labour camps during the war learnt to hold their hand over their chunk of bread to make sure no one stole it. Some survivors still do it to this day. Back then it was their survival instinct; now it is a mere reflex, understandable but no longer appropriate: normally speaking, there is food enough to go round. Even back then, it was based on the crudest possible (black and white) assessment of the situation: it was a matter of Life or Death. In many cases, that would be correct, but by no means always: you read many stories of people sharing their bread with those whose need was even greater than theirs. Many were actually saved who would otherwise have died, showing that altruism is more effective than basic instincts alone. Notice how the sharers found they had a choice when the non-sharers saw none.

This would make for an interesting referendum question in a country seeking to improve its overall living standards. The hypothetical question might be framed as follows: “In such a concentration camp situation, would you have been a sharer or a non-sharer?” In one scenario, there might well be more sharers in the vote than there ever were in real-life, but that is OK; it would reflect the direction in which people want to improve. Forget the past, look to the future. But if and when a government decided to introduce altruistic legislation based on such a vote, it might become hard to implement because the very people who tipped the balance might revert to type and refuse to put in the required effort. In another scenario, people might vote honestly, and the non-sharers would likely win. This might be seen as a retrograde step since it would be turning their back on altruism even though it has been proven to work. In both cases, a democratic vote leads to no improvement or worse. Some would be voting not only against the greater interest, but also potentially against their own personal interest (since they may one day stand to benefit). The one way a truly beneficial outcome could be achieved would be seen as undemocratic, since the sharers would have to impose their better-informed minority view.

Altruism generally is the course of the more “enlightened” in this everyday sense of better-informed. But this quality is not evenly distributed among the population and so it sits ill with the notion of democracy. It also sits ill with the notion of better education (see below). It is a value which we should prize more than most others, but we haven’t yet worked out where it fits in with the overall workings of society. We have a very confused idea of how such anti-authoritarian authority might work. However, one concrete example of altruism applied to politics opens up in real time with the upcoming election taking the place of a referendum. The latter is yes or no, but the former makes room for tactical voting. Switching your vote is in a very real sense equivalent to giving your neighbour your chunk of bread and it means that the decried ‘first past the post system’ can be subverted. There is clear evidence that organized use of this option will produce a different administration than the numbers would otherwise suggest. I described in an earlier post how some people were voting against their own interests to produce an undesirable result. Tactical voting is a way of doing that to produce a desirable result. When I say organized, I mean when voter override their individual interest towards a collective goal.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/30/tactical-voting-could-deliver-remain-victory-in-election-study

In political terms, altruism is a core value of the left. As such, it is much more than just me helping you, it is all of us helping all of us. And yet I never cease to be amazed at the extent to which forums like this one, claiming to a degree of spiritual awareness, are aligned with the right, and even the hard right. This probably comes from America, where the so-called “left” is actually the same liberal establishment as the Tory party in the UK – The Ivy League elite is actually based on the English public school system. There are many things money can buy, including a better education. But you can’t buy a better mind, you can nurture what you have and develop this spiritual nous I am talking about; but this doesn’t depend on who your parents are. The hereditary thing leads to degeneracy. For example, the son of a rags-to-riches man is not going to be another selfmade man, he is more likely to be an entitled wealthy layabout, because the money is already there without lifting a finger. And even when a great mind is born into that environment, it is limited by its background. I am thinking of Norman Mailer, whose brilliant critiques of the establishment are blunted by a secret admiration, for he is one of them, and he knows it.

On the other hand, anyone remotely progressive will get hammered. No amateur theatricals about wanting to die in a ditch, a politician who genuinely tries to help the people will often get murdered: literally in the case of Julius Caesar or JFK. I know, they didn’t do very much, but it was enough to warrant extreme prejudice (see books by Michael Parenti). Right now, Labour in general and Corbyn in particular are being given a very hard time, doubtless because they represent a genuine threat of doing good. The implication is that they are communists. ‘Communist’ is a derogatory term for trouble-makers that was eventually supplanted by ‘conspiracy theorist’. Forty years ago, those most vociferous against what is now called the New World Order were the communists, who in the late 1970s came perilously close to government in France and Italy. In those days, even the Vatican was more leftwing than virtually anyone today. Paul VI had ties of some sort with the communist movement, and John Paul I was likely murdered for taking action against its enemies. So you see, conspiracy theory is not the rightwing phenomenon it is often made out to be: that is part of the trap into which many in the alternative media are being drawn, and as a consequence they are attacking their own allies. (When I say allies, I don’t mean monolithic entities like ‘The Vatican’; everything is changing far too fast to have any time for such monoliths.)

For all the baubles of nobility etc. , many among the hereditary wealthy – but also many nouveaux riches – are like the camp survivors still clinging onto their bread after 60 or 70 years: it is a hangover from the survival instinct dealing with the fear of going without. But it is worse than that: they need all the bread they can lay their hands, yours and mine included. I think Wade Frazier talks about the scarcity society: scarcity is the commodity that makes the elite tick (the ‘oligo’ in ‘oligarchy’ actually means ‘few’). A while back, I visited a château with a display of a coffee set dating back to when coffee was exceedingly rare and expensive. Not so today. In the fifties and sixties, you had to go to the cinema to see what the inside of an airport terminal or an airliner looked like. Nowadays you can board a plane for coppers, and the once glamorous air hostess turns out to be a very ordinary waitress. Democratization. What can the oligarchy do these days to remain a breed apart? Instead of improving the survival instinct through altruism, they are aggravating it through greed. They are trying to confiscate everything: wealth itself of course – and now even altruism with slogans that simply cannot be true, like defending the will of the people.

Michi

31st October 2019, 12:26

Joseph P. Farrell just addressed a recent so-called "protocol" (see: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7583709/Boris-Johnsons-Brexit-deal-Read-text-Britains-agreement-EU-here.html) in his latest NEWS AND VIEWS FROM THE NEFARIUM OCT 31 2019
ovYkcizsMjs

I am really so appalled of the murky legalese that are put out to cut the sovereignty of other countries.

I commented the following:

This protocol is soooo gross! This is what politicians really should do is to expose and remedy such b****t! This has nothing to do with democracy but self-interests. What about transparency and honesty and authenticity? Great job, Joseph!

Matthew

31st October 2019, 22:51

Jeff Taylor ON BREXIT DAY!!!!

But he's renamed it now, it's 42 days to the General Election.

Voters are not blaming Boris Johnson for Brexit delay!

It may be that the electorate is not blaming Boris Johnson for the Brexit delay - if anything his support base is growing.

z8jMSvdak94

Cara

1st November 2019, 06:50

This is a longish and thought-provoking article from philosopher and commenter John Gray on Brexit and the current state of politics. I recommend it.

The closing of the conservative mind: Politics and the art of war

Rather than being the creation of a fanatical Eurosceptic minority, Tory populism is a sign that the Conservative Party is reinventing itself again just as Britain becomes ungovernable.

BY JOHN GRAY

The current parliament has run its course. Fuelled by a mix of calculating opportunism, ideological immobility and rancorous emotion, the House of Commons has slid into factionalised anarchy. In the course of this descent, politics has become an exercise in irregular warfare.

A common response to this situation is that it reflects a crisis of conservatism. The Tory party has become a revolutionary sect under the control of the Robespierre-like figure of Dominic Cummings. The solution to Britain’s ills, some have argued, is to return to true conservatism as expressed in the enduring verities of Edmund Burke. Instead of abstract ideas and principles, politicians should rely on the slowly accumulated wisdom of past generations. Practice and tradition, not theories spun from the conceit of human reason, should be the basis of government.

No discussion in polite society of the state of politics is complete without a reverential genuflection to the 18th-century parliamentarian. Get rid of Cummings and Boris Johnson, along with the right-wing libertarians in the cabinet, recover Burkean moderation, and all will be well.

It is a familiar narrative in the opinion-forming classes, and all the more appealing for being baseless. The notion that Conservatives have ceased to be conservative ignores transformations in other parts of the political spectrum. Labour has also abandoned any small-c conservative disposition and become a vehicle for anti-Semitism and a version of Marxism that deems working-class values of place and community racist when they are expressed as concern about continuing mass immigration. The Liberal Democrats have become hyper-liberals, making the nullification of a clear democratic mandate their signature policy. Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party is not simply a right-wing splinter movement but a response to a state of affairs in which large sections of the population are unrepresented. Rather than being the creation of Boris Johnson and a fanatical Eurosceptic minority, Tory populism is a sign of the Conservative Party reinventing itself – as it has done many times before – in order to survive.

Burke has been resurrected by self-styled moderates because he lets them off the hook. Having previously supported the American Revolution, he reacted to the French Revolution in his celebrated Reflections of 1790 with uncomprehending horror. Burke was unhinged by the revolution in France because it subverted his Whig belief that incremental progress was part of a providential design ordained by God. Prescient in predicting the Terror, he ended up regarding the French Revolution as divine punishment for human sinfulness. The ideas that fuelled popular discontent were demonic lies, used by wicked demagogues to appeal to the base instincts and low intelligence of the masses. The people had been prised from their proper deference to higher minds, and chaos and tyranny ensued.

For centrists rattled by the rise of populism it is a flattering tale. No responsibility for the condition of politics is ascribed to them. Reason has been tossed aside because the masses – encouraged by amoral rabble-rousers – have been allowed to vent their ignorant passions. It is not hard to detect the reek of class hatred in this ruling liberal narrative. But there is something more powerful here than mere snobbery: the belief that politics can be governed by formulas derived from some large theory. In the past, such theories were derived from Marxism and positivism, utilitarianism and Fabianism, among other ideologies. Today they emanate from the prevailing variety of rights-based liberalism promoted by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin. The key feature of this liberalism is that it transfers decision-making from political to judicial institutions. Liberals are turning to law to entrench values and policies for which they cannot secure democratic assent.

When Britain’s Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister acted unlawfully when he prorogued parliament, it argued that it was simply restoring authority to parliament, and in particular the House of Commons. In this sense, the judgment can be interpreted as a conservative ruling. Yet it would be disingenuous to pretend that the Supreme Court has left everything as it was. Until the court’s verdict, there were no legal standards against which the prorogation could be assessed; a significant body of expert opinion believed and still believes the question was not justiciable. By setting a precedent for further judicial intervention, the ruling has initiated a fundamental shift in British government away from the executive and towards the legislature and the courts.

Inevitably, there will be more lawsuits attempting to overturn what were once accepted to be political decisions. As a consequence, it may not be long before judges are chosen by a political process, as in the United States. In a recent speech in the Commons, the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox raised the possibility that Supreme Court judges could be appointed after being questioned in parliament.

Pressure for a written constitution will increase. But since a trusted institution where such a document could be written cannot be found or established when politics is so intensely polarised, the process will be bitterly contested. Given the beliefs and attitudes of many lawyers, the likely upshot would be to entrench today’s version of liberal values, which large sections of the population do not share. In that event, the descent of politics into warfare, ever more nasty and brutish, will continue.

***

Since liberals exculpate themselves from any responsibility for this situation, it is only to be expected that they should pin the blame on an ideological takeover on the right. My own earlier work may have played a minor role in shaping this curious view. In The Undoing of Conservatism, a pamphlet published by the Social Market Foundation in 1994, I argued that conservative thinking had become an unstable mix of neoliberal economics with cultural traditionalism. The effect of free markets is to subvert inherited ways of life. The restless mobility of capital and labour makes any strong attachment to a particular place or company dysfunctional. An unceasing stream of new technologies undermines life-long careers, while the privileging of choice in the market promotes a transactional view of human relations throughout society. Friedrich Hayek and his followers promoted an ideology in which economic life could be a vortex of creative destruction while communal, familial and personal life remained governed by traditional norms.

It was a fantastical combination, and something had to give. Conservative movements would fracture, some holding to doctrinaire free-market ideology and others embracing reactionary nativism, as has since happened on the American right and in European countries such as Sweden and Germany. In power, conservative parties would try to combine the two, but the balancing act would be difficult. The scale of social dislocation produced by unfettered markets would unleash powerful forces, which conservative parties and governments could not control. I did not suggest that “true conservatism” – if such a thing ever existed – could be recovered. Rather, I suggested that if conservative thinking was to have a future it would have to renew itself in a post-liberal form – one that renounced hyperbolic market individualism while securing personal freedom and social cohesion under the aegis of a strong state.

Since then, the undoing of conservatism has been completed by the centre right. David Cameron and George Osborne promoted a neoliberalism more extreme than any entertained by Margaret Thatcher. While Osborne oversaw an austerity campaign that ravaged core structures of the state – the police and the armed forces as well as welfare services – Cameron’s deadly mix of the Brexit referendum with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act has left Britain in effect ungovernable. It was these self-styled modernisers that led the country to its present impasse, and it has been the ultras of the extreme centre that have locked us into it.

https://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/2019_43_burke.jpg?itok=U1gyy6mu
Centre ground: Edmund Burke is venerated as a moderate conservative and anti-populist

***

The proximate cause of the breakdown in British politics is the extreme lengths to which the Remainer elite has gone in their attempt to derail Brexit. Hard Brexiteers also sought to derail Theresa May’s agreement because they wanted no deal; but most proved ready to compromise when the time for a final decision arrived. In contrast, for the haute-Remainers that dominate many public institutions there can be only one rational position. For them, Brexit is not a political issue but an eschatological struggle between light and darkness.

The haute-Remainer mind is an example of what the 20th century’s subtlest and most original conservative philosopher called political rationalism. Michael Oakeshott (1901-90) used the term to describe totalitarian ideologies such as Leninism and National Socialism, but he was clear that any kind of political tradition could succumb to rationalist ideology – including conservatism. (His own version of conservatism – an ultra-liberal variety, in which the ideal role of the state was that of an umpire – itself did.) The core of rationalism in politics is an idea of politics itself. Rather than being a practice in which people negotiate the terms on which they co-exist with one another, politics means the imposition of an idea. The idea is self-evidently true; anyone who questions it is ignorant and stupid, or else wilfully malignant. Though they claim to embody reason in politics, haute-Remainers cling to a view of the EU in which facts are secondary or irrelevant. They fulminate on the dangers of Brexit without ever mentioning that Paris has been convulsed by riots while Barcelona has become the scene of mass demonstration, burning streets and police violence. No mere fact can be allowed to cloud the vision of a sacred institution.

This kind of thinking underlies many of the absurdities of politics at the present time, on left and right. When the European Parliament’s Brexit co-ordinator Guy Verhofstadt praised the EU as an emerging empire at the Liberal Democrat conference last month, the assembled delegates could hardly restrain their enthusiasm. The dream of a future European empire supplies an alternative patriotism for progressives who despise the nation-state. In practice the European project has itself become a variety of nationalism, though it celebrates a nation that does not exist. The reality throughout the continent is the onward march of nationalists of a more familiar kind. Like much of the rest of Europe, Verhofstadt’s native Belgium is rotten with far-right movements, which his hyper-federal project would only further empower. Preferring not to face these realities, the liberals who cheered him are possessed by a grand idea.

Oakeshott understood politics as a practical skill. In a celebrated essay, he wrote:

In political activity, then, men sail a boundless and bottomless sea; there is neither harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage, neither starting-place nor appointed destination. The enterprise is to keep afloat on an even keel; the sea is both friend and enemy, and the seamanship consists in using the resources of a traditional manner of behaviour in order to make a friend of every hostile occasion.

It is a poetic and (to my mind) true image of the open-ended nature of politics. The flaw is in Oakeshott’s understanding of tradition. He writes as if there is a body of practice, uncorrupted by theorising, to which conservatives could revert. Here he is not unlike Burke. During the dozen or so years in which I knew and talked with Oakeshott he rarely mentioned “the founder of modern conservatism” and never with approval. He disliked Burke’s Whiggish faith in progress and much preferred the cool scepticism of David Hume. But Oakeshott’s idea of tradition has many of the difficulties of Burke’s defence of what he described as “just prejudice”. Both of them preferred the tacit knowledge embodied in practices to the abstractions of rationalist intellectuals. They passed over the fact that tacit knowledge often consists of fossilised remnants of fashionable ideas.

The experience of the French arch-reactionary Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) may be worth recalling. At the start of the 19th century he was sent to Russia as a diplomat. An ardent opponent of the philosophes of the Enlightenment, he hoped to visit a country that had not been “scribbled on” by intellectuals. What he found was aristocratic elites babbling about Voltaire and Diderot. Then as now, there was no traditional wisdom to which a conservative could default.

Today the tacit understanding of liberals in all parties is that the world would be far more civilised if the grubby business of politics was replaced by the legal adjudication of justice and rights. The evidence for this view is – shall we say – patchy. In the US, Donald Trump’s capture of the White House enabled him to begin reshaping the judicial system, including the Supreme Court. When political issues become the province of courts, the law is politicised. At the same time, because so many are unrepresented and the void left by liberal legalism must somehow be filled, politics becomes more polarised and vicious.

***

It is a meme among bien-pensants that Britain’s disorder is the work of Dominic Cummings, among others in the Johnson government. Cummings’s penchant for the ancient Chinese text The Art of War is cited as showing his disdain for traditional ways of conducting politics. Yet he is not alone in thinking of politics as a branch of warfare. Putin’s close adviser, Vladislav Surkov, the postmodern media guru, pseudonymous novelist and theorist of hybrid warfare; Steve Bannon, the head of Trump’s presidential campaign and short-lived White House consigliere; Seamus Milne, Wykehamist, Bolshevik and chief architect of the crumbling Corbyn project – each of these have approached politics as an exercise in warfare. What is significant in Cummings is not any supposed commitment to hard-right ideology. While he may admire Bismarckian statecraft, the more important point is that for him strategy takes priority over any ideology.

There is nothing singularly British in this development. Though the term political technology first emerged in post-communist Russia to describe the use of new media in military-style strategies of deception, it is something practised in many countries. The mutation of politics into warfare is contagious in much the same way that freedom was once supposed to be contagious.

The technologists of power are today’s true rationalists. That superior intelligence is found among the practitioners of populism is a fact of our time. When liberals talk about reason they mean a mishmash of ideas they picked up at university. Scraps of Rawls, Dworkin and Thomas Piketty, together with a smattering of modish conspiracy theories, form the folk wisdom of the thinking classes. Rationality means deferring to this ragbag of ephemera and ignoring enduring truths about the deciding forces in politics.

Liberals have become what John Stuart Mill, describing mid-Victorian Tories, called “the stupidest party”. Stupidity in politics is not an inert condition. It is dynamic, inventive and cumulative. The Remainer elite believe they can reverse Brexit by bypassing democratic politics: incessant legal challenges and procedural machinations in the Commons will be followed by a referendum without a no-deal option; an all-Remainer “government of national unity” will oversee the process. Of course, this would involve a good deal of political chicanery, particularly between the SNP and Labour. But the aim is to return to a sunlit place where politics is once again under the control of higher minds. Some Brexiteers have bought into this story, seeing haute-Remainers as diabolically clever conspiracists who have succeeded in denying the people what they voted for. The chief feature of the story, however, is that the politics do not add up.

An enduring Remainer coup is a fantasy. The EU cannot negotiate with a shifting coalition of opposition MPs or a recklessly partisan Speaker, nor could it rely on a jerry-built “temporary government” the largest part of which would be a chronically divided party, whose leader will likely be gone in months. A rigged referendum excluding no deal may be the plan, but it would also exclude around a third of the electorate. Like a written constitution, a second referendum would have to be drafted by a body that is trusted to be impartial – a type of institution that, the monarchy aside, no longer exists. Any idea that a “confirmatory” referendum cobbled up by the Remainer political classes could bring closure to Brexit is laughable. Equally, the predictable result of revoking Article 50 – in the event there were ever a Commons majority for such a move – would be to trigger a major populist challenge to the legitimacy of parliament.

***

The Remainer elite has been guided by the ruling philosophy of liberal legalism, which is essentially anti-political. But sooner or later, politics is bound to assert its primacy over legal and procedural manoeuvres. Despite talk of a pact with the Liberal Democrats, Tory Remainers are all but extinct as an electoral force. Driving them out of the party may be a prerequisite of its continued existence as a party of government. Without the constant threat of a mutinous faction, Johnson is more likely to achieve a workable majority. If he can attract most Brexit Party voters, he could win by a landslide.

The most serious electoral threat to the Johnson government comes from Nigel Farage. Under the leadership of Corbyn and Milne, Labour has reached a dead end. Becoming an all-out Remain party will not help. It is too late. There already is a party for the woke bourgeoisie – Jo Swinson’s Liberal Democrats. (Though it is unclear what the party’s reason for existence will be once Britain has left the EU. If it becomes a Rejoin party it could end up a bien-pensant version of Ukip, beached on the fringes of politics.) Labour’s economic programme – the only part of the Corbyn project that was ever popular – has been superseded by Johnson’s strategic break with austerity. But Johnson needs to go further if he is to defuse the threat from Farage. Brexit Party voters are the key to winning a majority, and many belong in the social group most hostile to globalisation.

Ukip in its earlier days contained a faction that was critical of corporate capitalism. But Farage has never wavered in his commitment to libertarian economics, and today this is a clear vulnerability. Johnson has to show he is committed to using the power of the state to repair the damage inflicted on society by markets, something that Theresa May and her adviser Nick Timothy briefly aspired to do.

***

The future of the British state is at the heart of the crisis. Remainers repeat that no deal would mean the break-up of the United Kingdom. But if Brexit were reversed through a Labour deal with the SNP, another Scottish referendum could have the same result. The break-up of the UK may be the price of staying in the EU. Remainers point to the threat of a hard border in Ireland in the event of no deal. But a hard border will be imposed by Brussels, in order to protect the single market, not by Westminster or Dublin. Whether the EU wants to keep an unstable and obstructive state in the fold is another question.

Though they have yet to recognise the fact, Britain’s haute-Remainers have ceased to be useful allies for the EU. If Remainers persist in their wrecking tactics and their delusion that Brexit can be reversed by another referendum, they will find themselves cut loose by Brussels with the same ruthlessness with which Johnson despatched the DUP. One way or another Brexit is going to happen, and for the EU the best way is via the swift passage of Johnson’s deal. The effect of any further delay will be to increase the prospect of a disorderly exit. The EU will be extremely reluctant to incur the responsibility for no deal. But its leaders are notably more intelligent than haute-Remainers, and recognise that continuing uncertainty is the worst outcome of all.

As Thomas Hobbes learnt from the English Civil War, the deciding factor in politics is the need for a state with the power to act. Hobbes thought of the state as a way of escaping what he regarded as the natural human condition – continuous mistrust and conflict. Paradoxically, the upshot of British politics over the past several years has been an artificial state of nature. It is possible that Britain will continue to drift, a semi-failed state without a functioning government. But if the impact of Brexit is to reconfigure British politics, victory will not go to the forces that have paralysed government. The winner will be the party that can act resolutely and secure a period of peace.
From: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/10/closing-conservative-mind-politics-and-art-war

Jayke

1st November 2019, 10:08

Nigel Farage has Donald Trump as a guest on his LBC Livestream last night :highfive:

a7WsHoHgUP8

Cara

2nd November 2019, 05:10

Posting for the record, in case the story changes:

1190241997124186113

Alex Wickham
@alexwickham
·
16h
NEW

The UK’s intelligence agencies found no evidence that the Russian state interfered in the outcome of the Brexit referendum and the 2017 election, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the Intelligence and Security Committee report

Matthew

2nd November 2019, 13:18

In UK Brexit news Nigel Farage aims to expose the truth about Boris' deal.

tweet: https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1190614809592643586?s=20

Nigel Farage
@Nigel_Farage

Over the next two weeks, we will embark on a nationwide campaign to expose this rotten deal.

Every household in the land will hear the truth about the perilous path it would send our nation on.

The deal is simply not Brexit and does not get Brexit done.

Drop your dreadful deal, Boris, and in the national interest let's get Brexit done properly
The Brexit Party is ready for the general election. As the European election made clear, we have hundreds of high quality candidates from a diverse range of backgrounds who are united in their desire to secure a proper break from Brussels and who share a lack of trust in the political class.
...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/01/drop-dreadful-deal-boris-national-interest-get-brexit-done-properly/

greybeard

2nd November 2019, 15:23

All sides seem to have an agenda and who is actually there for the voters I wonder.
What is really in the best interests of UK or the future of the free world?
Dont ask me--Im a floating--non voter.
Chris

Bill Ryan

5th November 2019, 22:13

All you Brits (or people who live in Britain!) — please forgive me for this. I've only just discovered it.

I've also just realized that YoYoYo posted it here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91509-The-UK-Brexit-vote-to-leave-the-EU&p=1303945&viewfull=1#post1303945), back in July. But no apologies for the re-post! It's priceless.

:bigsmile:

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

sunwings

6th November 2019, 13:15

Bravo! This analogy I use with Spanish teenagers.

Imagine the UK is a car. Every five years we have elections and the new government changes the car´s tyres. The conservatives prefer hard tyres and labour prefer softer tyres.

Now in 2016, we had a vote to decide if we want to change the engine of the car. We already have a nice reliable European/ British engine but we were promised an Aston Martin of an engine if we decided to change it.

However, changing the car's engine has not been easy. It turns out the new engine will be more like a Rover 600 then an Aston Martin. The Europeans would like us to keep the same engine but maybe just change a piston or two.

ps. No disrespect to anyone who has/had a Rover:bigsmile:

greybeard

13th November 2019, 20:49

How to make the perfect cuppa - as Boris Johnson's tea-making skills are questioned

https://uk.yahoo.com/style/boris-johnson-tea-making-how-to-make-perfect-cup-of-tea-103921654.html

Boris Johnson’s tea-making skills have been questioned after he was filmed pouring himself a cuppa in an election broadcast on Twitter.

The Prime Minister was criticised for not taking the teabag out, adding milk with it still in and barely stirring the brew.

Some people even pointed out that the controversial technique could even lose the 55-year-old votes in the general election.

Mr Johnson responded to those who noticed how he takes his brew, saying: “This really is how I make my tea… It lets it brew and makes it stronger.”

The original heading was Outrage over Johnson's tea making skills.
I m not fond of how the media sensationalizes everything.

Actually thats exactly how I make my tea.
"Controversial technique" Well I never!!
Chris

Chester

13th November 2019, 22:03

sunwings

14th November 2019, 10:46

I leave my tea bags in all the way until the tea has been fully embibed (yes bags... I use two). I prefer Lap Sang Su Chong... and I tap a tad of a special stevia you can't get anymore because the importer got out of the biz (I bought her entire stock which should last me into my 90s should I make it that long.

Thankfully I can't lose any votes.

This is a funny joke regarding tea and Brexit.

Xm6Id3Qt8Wk

Phoenix1304

17th November 2019, 08:26

Hi Greybeard

I've watched a few of Craig's vids. 'I'm fallible' he says quite often. He predicted quite decisively that we'd leave in March 2019 then again on Oct 31st. A hard Brexit with a last minute deal. He doesn't show that in the retrospectives! But when something is so hit and miss it's not wise to take any of it really. He says Conservatives will win the election and Jeremy Corbyn gains more power but then is replaced after election? Who knows. I predicted that the 31st would pass with another delay and I make no claim of psychism. It's all beyond a joke now and the only thing we can take for sure is that the backroom, Bullingdon Club deals are what shape policy, not the voting public.

My father used to say 'if you don't vote, it's the same as giving a vote to each party' and when I think that women died to give me the right to vote, I feel I ought to, but like others I feel there is little point. It's a rigged game. Jeremy Corbyn radiates integrity and isn't in the game of slinging muck at others (as they do on him relentlessly) and that makes me favour him, also socialist ambitions like free education, healthcare, taking back control of the water etc. but I'm afraid the public are so sick of them all, completely programmed to believe whatever the mainstream agenda is, that we will get the government we deserve and the slaves will slog on and continue to swell the offshore accounts of the plutocrats.

Call me cynical. I am. If Labour won though, to be honest, I'd have a glimmer of hope and I've never voted Labour in my life! Somehow I think that JC would manage a Brexit that isn't all about plutocrats avoiding taxes and exposure.

greybeard

17th November 2019, 08:38

Thanks Phoenix1304 for your input.
Living in Scotland the perspective is quite different--we benefit greatly from being in the EU.
Andrew Marr on BBC this morning will be good--he is Scottish incidently.
Cant see an election solving the Brexit mess---people have made their minds up.
Boris may loose his seat--that would be a first.
SNP will probably gain seats.
In Scotland many benefits--free eye test--free bus pass over 60 and disabled.
Scotland traditional Labour --SNP has many Labour qualities.
Interesting to see where this all goes.
Chris

Longjohn

18th November 2019, 15:46

Dear Guys,

I've not contributed to the Avalon forum for some time, but after reading with dismay some of the Pro-Leave views expressed here, I felt impelled to say something.

As a Brit living in Switzerland for the last 10 years, I see Brexit through the eyes of a country that is 'outside' the EU, but still has to trade with it.

From a trading point of view, it's most interesting, because Switzerland is surrounded on all sides by the largest and wealthiest nations of the EU. It's part of the single market, but not part of the customs union. People think that because you can easily cross borders in your car from Switzerland into France, Germany, Italy and Austria, trade must be equally easy and 'frictionless'. Not so!

Watch this video in which a van driver and a prominent Dover-based Brexiteer go to Switzerland and try and export a simple car component back to the UK, and observe the dismay on the Brexiteer's face after having to deal with all the paperwork and customs agents:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hWQ0T10v6Y

For most of the ten years I've lived here, I worked in a large factory, and I saw the issues mentioned in this video on a much larger scale. It often took days to organise export papers, so much so that sometimes we would sneakily (and illegally!) drive across the border and despatch the goods from a French or German post office!

In Johnson's new agreement, the countries of England, Scotland and Wales will no longer have the luxury of frictionless trade with Europe after Brexit Day. And UK citizens will certainly not have the privilege of jumping across the border to send their goods from an EU post office, because the English Channel rather gets in the way of that!

Britain is not in the slightest bit prepared for this. There is no ready-and-waiting export/import infrastructure, replete with all the necessary customs offices and agents to deal with this. C'MON, BREXITEERS, GET REAL!!!

Johnson's deal is actually very different to Theresa May's in that it is virtually a No-Deal Brexit in all but name. How many people realise that?

Britain treasures its venerable democracy, but never questions whether its governmental structure meets the needs of the modern age. Was it really democratic to have just a single referendum in which people were misled by unscrupulous and, worse still, ill-informed politicians, and not to have a chance to review their decision based on better information or changing events? Surely the very essence of democracy is that it should be a fluid, maleable process, reflecting the changing will of the people?

In Switzerland, they would never have been satisfied with just one referendum, but would have have at least 10 on the same issue in the time it has taken for the Brits to deal with one! Nor is Switzerland liable to be hijacked by mendacious single-issue politicians, because the system simply does not allow them to achieve the prominence and power they are able to acquire in the UK.

So should Britain not better spend its time examining the deficiencies, antiquities and iniquities of its own centralised government instead of excoriating the EU for being a tyrannous administration?

The next (very short) video sums up my view on Brexit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQscs6WWP_I

Best regards,

John

greybeard

18th November 2019, 17:16

Yes John.
We dont have a coherent trade deal set up with anyone and as far as I can see it take quite some time to set up due to all the rules and regulations of any other country that have to be met and they ours.
It all seems red bus pie in the sky to me.

Form a management committee and watch the time delay increase.

Our own civil service is well capable of developing and implementing draconian rules and regulations--More freedom as an independent nation --think again.
Brexit is based on the lies of Boris--magnificent salesman--tells people what they want to hear, even if it is not true-- seems people would rather believe a serial liar than look at inconvenient truth ---a clasic is him telling people Norther Ireland that there will not be any paperwork sending goods to the rest of UK--at the same time a member of the cabinet is saying there will be.
Im not against leaving but against leaving without a proper trade deal set up and there is no sign of that being on the table for negotiation---as said a lengthy proposition.

Chris

Longjohn

18th November 2019, 18:15

Brexit and the Deep State:

Something I often see is a tendency for conspiracy-theorists in Anglo-Saxon countries outside Britain to regard Brexit as a titanic battle fought between an evil, globalist EU and a downtrodden vassal state, struggling to be free. This is the view put forward in many well-known alternative news aggregation sites, such as ZeroHedge. Joseph P. Farrell seems to share this view in the video presented in Post #1118 above.

So Britain's exit from the EU will be a jab in the eye for the Deep State, and will set the scene for similar rebelliousness elsewhere in the EU and throughout the world. Really?

Do you really think the Deep State is as dumb as that? These are the same guys who have thrived on chaos for years, triggering financial crashes and profiting from the very wars they fund. They take the long view and look forward to a disunited world reduced to chaos and conflict.

When the next global recession hits, there won't be a nice compliant Obama ready to pour more QE oil on the troubled financial waters of the US and Europe. I somehow doubt that a guy like Trump will be so ready to see reason and bail out other nations.

The Deep Statists have done their job well: they've installed idiot, incompetent, populist politicians in the major governments who will put narrow national interests first, without thought of negotiation or consensus for the greater good. The Illuminati, meanwhile, will be waiting in the wings to profit from people's misery and, at the same time, to present themselves as our saviours. Just read James Rickard's concept of the Ice-Nine scenario:

https://kingdomecon.wordpress.com/2017/02/01/the-rickards-big-freeze-how-to-solve-this-scenario/

The crumbling financial assets of the world of the world will be frozen, and out of the chaos a New World Order will emerge, with a single cashless currency (IMF Special Drawing Rights, or gold-backed cash). This scheme will be sold to the destitute masses as the only way out of an otherwise interminable recession, and the people will be grateful to their new masters.

So if you Brexiteers think that getting out of the EU offers the UK Freedom and Sovereignty, just stop and think of where all this disunity could lead us.

It's not impossible that the Brexit chaos could provide the tipping-point for a new Great Recession in which the relatively benign EU is swept away and replaced by a surpassingly tyrannical World Government.

Be careful what you wish for!

greybeard

18th November 2019, 20:03

A far as I can see the great majority of Tory MP's were for Brexit just not for one that would bring chaos to UK finances and trading.
The Tory faithful, were not faithful, did not listen to Tory stalwarts, who, for as far as I can see, prevented the plans offered, for the right reasons, from being passed
To my mind--Its folly to ignore the advice of former cabinet ministers, chancellors, PM's and long serving Tories.
Are they all wrong
They were not against Brexit on the whole but against the plans put forward.
Norther Ireland and Scotland thrown under a bus--promises broken.
Does the end justify the means?
As said be careful what you wish for
I almost wish a Brexit no deal happens--then see what you've got!!!
Chris

scanner

18th November 2019, 20:58

An argument put forward by two people again, for what they can get out of it. Scotland and a person who lived in Switzerland for ten years. I do business now with China, America, Australia, South Korea, I don't do too much with the EU, there is too much regulation. You only mention the business side of it. What about immigration, self rule and set our own Laws. Having the ability to decide who we want to trade with? What about our borders at Sea, fishing given to the French and Spanish. Watched by our fishing boats through binoculars in our waters, our Fishermen are not allowed to fish. You can both argue your selfish economics, but from my point of view, you just that selfish.

greybeard

18th November 2019, 21:43

Not two people --scores of people who say Boris not to be trusted--scores of MP's who voted for Brexit but cant support the Boris agenda.
The truth is inconvenient for quite a few who wont do a reality check.

Im glad you are successful scanner but think of the youth of today who will not have the freedom to come and go throughout Europe as we could.
Our NHS desperately needs foreign medical people --you can pump billions into NHS but where is the staff coming from?
There has been a degree of financial stability since we joined the EU.
Boris is not stable and not a statesman and people trust him!!!--well you get what you wish for.

Chris

Longjohn

19th November 2019, 00:51

It's a cheap shot to describe us as being selfish.

I've been around too long, and I'm a practical engineer who was once a UK school teacher. I've seen with my own eyes how the fabric of British society has become shredded over the years, and how that has sown seeds of discontent that causes dispossessed people to seek out a cause for their ills, which miscreant politicians have told them is the EU.

To reiterate Greybeard's excellent point, I too see the loss of opportunities for young people. Why do I say that? Because I was one of those young people who would go and work in EU projects, and I'm saddened that people like my son will not so easily come by similar opportunities. That's hardly selfish, is it?

Let's examine your points:

Laws and self-rule:

Don't fall for the mythology of Britain not being able to create its own laws. Parliament always had control of at least 90% of the laws on its statute book, and approved of 98% of those that came from the EU, which by the way, were laws that were beneficial to the working man or for the environment and quality of life. I earnestly recommend that you view some of the excellent videos by Stephen Fry that provide real information and put to rest many of the lies put out by Messrs. Johnson, Gove, Farage and their ilk. Try this one for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYonSZ8s3_o

If you're in a hurry, start at about 5.00 mins through the video and see what is said about EU laws.

Immigration:

Please don't fall for the myth that EU immigrants took away British jobs. They did work that Brits simply did not have the skills for, or 'menial' work that Brits refused to do, such as picking fruit or working in hotels. Stephen Fry's video will give you a few more facts on this.

Fishing:

Brexiteers go on about fishing, but in fact it contributes just over 0.1% of Britain's GDP as against 0.6% for farming. Add to this the complexities of what would happen after Brexit: it's by no means certain that Britain's fishing industry would have a clear route to prosperity. Read this article from the FT, if you like:

https://www.ft.com/content/84f51c84-5fe2-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26895

Trade:

As regards your much-vaunted freedom to trade with whomever you like, don't talk to me about being selfish. If you have views on this that don't stand up to proper research and verification, then you are putting British jobs and livelihoods at risk. In my book, that's selfish!

What's come of all the magical trade deals promised by Liam Fox's International Trade Department? In a no-deal Brexit, Britain could well find itself cast adrift from the international trading fraternity. You cannot just go out and trade on WTO rules. Where is the framework for that? Read what both the current director and ex-director of the WTO have to say about it:

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/economics-and-finance/jumping-from-league-one-to-league-three-wto-insiders-scathing-assessments-of-a-wto-brexit

There's a good video on YouTube in which the ex-director of the WTO (Pascal Lamy) tears into Ian Duncan Smith:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF6svI3W_vI

Also please ask yourself which countries Britain is going to trade with after Brexit that it doesn't trade with already. From what you say, you already do that. What difference will Brexit really make to you?

The damage to Britain's reputation brought about by Brexit is already severe: do you really think that's going help negotiations with future partners, especially considering that Britain will not go into future trade talks from the position of strength it formerly had as a member of the EU? Such trade talks take years! What does Britain do in the interregnum between the looming disorderly Brexit and achieving this fantastical dream of conducting buccaneering trade deals all over the world?

I think it's inconsiderate (and SELFISH) to your fellow man if you promulgate beliefs that are not adequately based on fact, and could leave your nation in a state of uncertainty and risk its future well-being and prosperity!

You may continue to disagree with me, but at least I research my facts before spouting them out. Let me see you do the same...

Best regards,

John

scanner

19th November 2019, 09:19

Your arguments are too little too late. The die was cast over three years ago, again, 17.4 million voted, again we were ignored. Lied to back in 1972 by an alleged paedophile Prime minister Heath, under the guise, "it's a common market". It's not, it's a dictatorship. You both need to read, Europaische WirtschaftsGemeinschaft' aka The 'EEC', 1942. Nothing has changed, except the method and rhetoric. There is nothing you can say that will change mind position on this.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-nazis-created-basic-plan-for-the-european-union-ukip-mep-gerard-batten-says-a7032221.html
The Nazis drew up the “basic plan” for the European Union decades before it was actually established, a Ukip MEP has claimed.

Gerard Batten on Monday stepped up to defend Boris Johnson, who on Sunday attracted criticism for likening the EU’s aims to those of Adolf Hitler.

Mr Batten however suggested Mr Johnson had actually underplayed the connections between the EU and the Nazis, and that the bloc had “closer links” with the fascists than many realized.

So you're maligning yourselves with fascists and a dictatorship.

greybeard

19th November 2019, 12:11

Regardless-
Many businesses including your own have flourished in the environment which includes the EU Scanner.
If it aint broke dont fix it---unless for sure you have something better in place which benefits the whole of the UK
There as been a too and fro between EU countries which has been beneficial for all as far as I can see.
A sharing of many things.
I accept that much can be said against the staying in the EU an much said against leaving.
I dont have a problem with for and against debate when it is honestly put forth.
If leaving is such a good thing why did Boris and friends tell so many lies and half truths prior to the referendum?
Much has been made of imigration--little has be said of UKpeople that go and work abroad--some settle as in the USA--The Irish over there take a dim view of Boris treatment of Ireland and we will pay the price when we try to negotiate trade deals with USA--small powerless UK.
So if leave at any price comes about--what then?
We will have a Prime minister and cabinet that have repeatedly misinformed and kept important information from the voters.
Is that what the British public really want?
Boris wont even tell you how many children he has.
He wants to be "father of the UK parliament" hasn't shown any parenting skills that I am aware of.

A referendum is advisory--not bound in law.
Leaving the market will be--time for second thoughts--much more info now available--for and against--many young voters now--they will be affected when we are dead and gone.
Is it not fair and unselfish to now consider the opinion of those now eligible to vote in a new referendum?
Governments come and go they can be changed---When we leave that is not up for change.
Is it right that us older people dictate to they young that we should leave based on a flawed referendum years ago.
Many vote against--in many countries a referendum/vote has to be carried by more than a small % over Fifty Percent.
Many are the conspiracy theories--some may even be true.
We joined the EU many years ago---cant see that it has been a disaster--warts and all.
Nothing works 100% for the good of all---compromise compromise compromise.

Chris

scanner

19th November 2019, 13:58

No, I will not compromise on my, Children/Grandchildren and our UK Children's freedom. This isn't just about the UK, it's the wholesale sell off of humanity to the NWO. We, as a Nation are being held back, dumbed down, by the EU, and we're paying for it. We are, on certain goods, not allowed to trade outside the EU. So how's this free rule ? We're never going to see eye to eye on this.

You obviously didn't read the above document, created by the Nazis, Europaische WirtschaftsGemeinschaft' aka The 'EEC', 1942. It took me sometime to read and understand it. May I also recommend, Albert Pike's book, morals and dogma. An instruction manual from a 33 deg Mason. Interesting to note Pike was a 33 deg Scottish Rite Mason.

The sound quality is not the best, but well worth the info contained in it. This is what it is all about, in a nutshell two hour video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_ixU5kxI2k&feature=emb_logo

Longjohn

19th November 2019, 14:10

I think you look for fascism in the wrong places, my friend.

The word 'Fascism' originated in Italy, and Mussolini's ghost writer, Giovanni Gentile, defined Fascism as follows:

'Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.'

I spent the last 3 years of my working life as an employee of a large American corporation, and I was stunned at the cavalier way in which we were treated. We were relentlessly bombarded by daily propaganda of an intensity I had never before experienced.

At the time, I called it 'corporate fascism', not fully appreciating at the time that this had always been part of the original fascist vision.

So look to the globalised mega-corporations and obscenely wealthy individuals behind them as the true inheritors of fascism on this planet. Governments are merely their tool.

Most mediocre right-wing politicians like Gerard Batten don't appreciate that, but the ones at the top of the pyramid (or hidden in the corridors of power) who are hand-in-hand with the corporate oligarchs most certainly do. There you will find your true 'Deep State', 'Miiltary Industrial Complex', or whatever you care to call them.

In my opinion, turning away from the relatively benign political unity offered by the EU will open the doors to libertarianism of a kind never previously experienced in the UK.

The ordinary man will slowly begin to realise that Fascism is alive and well in Britain, and that people like Johnson and Farage will have allowed it to happen.

Longjohn

19th November 2019, 14:14

Well said, Chris!

:happythumbsup:

Longjohn

19th November 2019, 15:27

Scanner, I entirely agree with you about the New World Order, but I cannot accept that it comes from the EU, or that the EU is part and parcel of it. I haven't had a chance to read the document you mentioned, but I already knew about it from a good Swiss friend of mine. Did you read any of mine?

What you have to realise is that the control and dumbing-down of the UK started well before Britain became fully integrated with the EU. Let me elaborate on this:

To start, I'm sure you will agree with me that a good pre-university education is fundamental to the growth and well-being of a nation. Well, I went to an excellent grammar school in the 1960s, and eventually became a school teacher myself in the 70s. I did my teacher training precisely during the period in which comprehensive education was being rolled out across the UK. I was dismayed when I found I was expected to teach a subject (Physics) that was a pale shadow of what I had learnt at school and university barely a few years previously.

The problem with Britain, then, is that secondary school education has been dumbed-down across the board, without providing non-academic (i.e., normal) children with the skills necessary to help them realise their potential and to give them a sense of purpose and job satisfaction throughout their lives.

Of all the countries in Europe, Britain focused on creating this dumbed-down, 'prizes-for-all' education system without providing an institutionalised vocational training structure. A similar thing has happened to the American education system.

In my younger years (i.e., the 1970s), I felt that this originated from the desire of socialist educationalists to eliminate all traces of class from British education, with grammar schools seen as being for the elitist few. It also occurred to me that there could have been be more sinister forces behind this, such as a Soviet communist desire to undermine Britsh society from within. Recall that in the post-war years there were plenty of communist 'sleepers' within the British labour party!

If you go to countries like Germany, Switzerland, Holland, Austria and Denmark you will find that they are very strong on developing and utilising vocational skills. I notice that these people are, on the whole, much more knowledgeable, self-assured, organised and employable than their British counterparts.

If you give people skills, then they can work more competently, manufacture goods that people want, build better houses, cars and trains, and generally run their businesses and nation better.

Why can't Britain grasp this nettle for the benefit of its citizens? Could this be the one of the causes of the deep discontent that exists in Britain? Perhaps the very same discontent that devious politicians exploited to blame Britain's ills on the EU...

In more recent years, I've come round to the idea that the NWO might be conducting an experiment with the Anglo-Saxon countries to slowly destroy them from within, perhaps with the aim of making them more subservient when these countries suffer the economic and social collapse, which, in my view, they are assuredly heading for (go back to my contribution above on the Ice-Nine scenario!).

Personally, I'm very concerned that leaving the EU will trigger a cathartic shock to Britain from which it may not easily recover, especially considering the UK's severe skills deficit.

As Greybeard has clearly said, surely maintaining the state of cooperation that has existed for the last 45 years has its benefits. Are we not 'better together', to be able sort out differences around the same table, instead of being an outsider?

If you could persuade me that the EU is an evil force that is responsible for Britain's ills then I would be on your side but, in all honesty, I think you have to look elsewhere.

Cheers, John

Longjohn

19th November 2019, 16:19

Scanner, here's another take on your German article.

'Brexit: UKIP MEP condemned for EU-Nazis comparison'

https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/brexit-ukip-mep-condemned-eu-nazis-comparison

I quote here some of the criticisms made of Gerard Batten:

"On Monday, reaction to his remarks was swift, with UK Tory MEP Charles Tannock telling this website, "This is a burlesque statement and bears no relation to the truth. The EU was founded precisely to avoid the horrors of another major war on our continent."

Tannock added, "The EU is a voluntary association of democratic countries prepared to pool some sovereignty for the common collective good and is as far removed as one can imagine from the totalitarian genocidal attempts by Hitler to force Europe under the Nazi thumb. It is an unworthy statement by any UK politician who has the minimal knowledge of 20th Century European history."

Denis MacShane, a former Europe Minister in the UK who is campaigning for Britain to stay in the EU, said, "The desperate efforts by batty Europhobes to link Hitler with EU shows they know no history. They might as well say Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun were forefathers of EU. The fact is that European integration was a response to fascism and Stalinism and those who want to return the UK to pre-war isolationism are bonkers."

Former ALDE MEP Andrew Duff commented, "It is unethical to relativise the Nazi regime - trying to explain it by putting the Third Reich into a normal historical context.

"The post-war moves to European integration were the antithesis of fascism. Instead of forcing citizens to serve the state, the European Community aims to serve its citizens. In that sense, the EU is the prize of victory over Nazism. Batten finds himself unable to disguise his true colours."

scanner

19th November 2019, 16:32

We agree on one thing John, we are stronger together. But, as trading partners, not controlled by unelected Eurocrats. To be free to trade with any Country we wish, as it was packaged to us back in 1972. Not to be Dictated too. Have our Laws changed and told who we should accept and how many are allowed into our Country. I'm a firm believer in helping others no matter race or religion if they are truly refugees. But not to the point where our own are living on the streets, homeless without work. Charity begins at home, our system is not perfect, but it's ours.

Tell these Scottish fishermen how the EU has helped them, in THEIR OWN Seas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym9lcfpRH-A

scanner

19th November 2019, 16:51

Can we be clear about the headline I posted. The original quote is from our Prime Minister Boris Johnson, not Batten. Batten said Johnson didn't go far enough (paraphrasing). I note the disdain comes from a remoner, ups sorry remainer. Why do they think they have the monopoly on history.

How can this be Voluntary, if we're paying for it ?

"The EU is a voluntary association of democratic countries prepared to pool some sovereignty for the common collective good and is as far removed as one can imagine from the totalitarian genocidal attempts by Hitler to force Europe under the Nazi thumb. It is an unworthy statement by any UK politician who has the minimal knowledge of 20th Century European history."

greybeard

19th November 2019, 17:05

At least there is an educated discussion going on in this thread now.
Another miss truth is that we would have a European Army certainly there were a few for it, Angela M for one, but it has definitely been rules out --sorry I cant quote where I read this now.
Chris
Ps trading strength comes from size.
Car manufacturers were drawn to this country as easy access to Europe.
When I mentioned compromise I was not suggesting you should compromise scanner but that the EU partners had to compromise--fishing one of these.
I do think that leaving the EU without a satisfactory deal will lead to economic disaster.
Ive yet to see a poor fisherman---a hard life but they earn big money.

And the Lower Astral thrives on disunity ---fear --divide and conquer and all that.
Boris is an expert in propaganda--get brexit done ---repeat repeat.
Thats NLP---every one of the cabinet mouths it in every TV moment.
Is a form of Hypnosis.

Chris

Longjohn

19th November 2019, 17:44

Dear Chris,

That's a good point about NLP: repeat the lie often enough, ram it down their throats, and the sheeple will accept it even if they know it ain't true.

The other slogan used in the 2016 campaign was 'take back control'. They believed that too!

Yes, it's brilliant propaganda, damn it! Dominic Cummings knew what he was doing...

IChingUChing

19th November 2019, 19:31

I haven't been following this thread continuously so forgive me if anyone has already mentioned the book "The Great Deception - Can the European Union Survive" by Christopher Booker and Richard North. I'm currently reading it and it's packed with fully referenced information. I can thoroughly recommend it.

In relation to the idea of the Nazi roots of the European Union, I thought it might be helpful to quote from the introduction to the book which is quite clear on this point:

"But the immediate trigger for the intensive programme of research on which
The Great Deception is based was a cinema commercial put out in 2002 by the
organisation leading the campaign against Britain joining the single currency.
Featuring the comedian Rik Maya11, in a parody of Hitler. proclaiming 'ein
Volk, ein Reich, ein Euro' , this played on a widespread popular prejudice that
European integration was somehow rooted in a desire for German domination.
It was this prejudice in turn which had already encouraged some British
Eurosceptics to argue that the EU's ideological origins lay in Nazi plans
during World War Two to set up a 'European Economic Community' .

We were already aware that this was based on a fundamental misreading of
both the nature and the history of the 'project', and that its origins went
considerably farther back than the Nazi period. But when we embarked on a
systematic historical investigation, drawing ultimately on thousands of books,
documents. academic papers and other sources, it soon became clear that it
was not only the adherents of the 'Nazi origins' theory who had got the history
of the European Union fundamentally wrong.

So. it turned out, had everyone else who had attempted to reconstruct the
story: Eurosceptics and Europhiles alike. And it was not least because of their
failure to grasp the 'project's' true origins that historians had misunderstood
and misrepresented so much that followed. The foundation of our researches
lay in uncovering for the first time just how directly the European Union drew
its inspiration from events during and after the First World War: in particular
from the thinking of two friends who held senior posts in the League of
Nations, the Frenchman Jean Monnet and his English colleague Arthur Salter.
The irony will not be lost on some readers that the original blueprint for what
was to become the European Union was sketched out by a British civil
servant." (p6, The Great Deception - Can the European Union Survive by Christopher Booker and Richard North)

greybeard

19th November 2019, 20:04

Well Well. Thanks for the clarification IChingUChing.
Inclined to believe that foreword you posted.
We have had peace since the two World wars both coming from Germany for whatever reason and the secret organization behind them.
That alone is a massive benefit.
Peace is not guaranteed.
Look at the upsurge of violence in Northern Ireland possibly brought on by Brexit--look a the threats to MP's
In who's interest is it to promote violence?
Boris certainly did nothing to calm down the situation.
So much rubbish about immigrants taking our jobs--ruining the country--all fuelling division.
Where is the honesty and integrity?
People have been fed over an over so many lies--all leading to conflict and division.
Chris

Longjohn

20th November 2019, 00:02

Dear IChing,

Thank you for your most interesting revelation. What I like about the book is that it was written well before there was any talk of a referendum,
so no-one can accuse the author of being an apologist for either Leave or Remain camps.

It confirms my long-standing belief that the European Union was indeed the product of genuine altruism and vision on the part of its founders!

Once again, I most sincerely thank you for this.

John

Longjohn

22nd November 2019, 09:21

An utter demolition of Brext and its perpetrators.

If you want to engage in intelligent discussion on anything under the sun, Quora is a good place to go. This guy (Chris Le Carlin) has compiled an excellent summary of facts and statistics in answer to the question

'Is Brexit destroying the UK' (https://qr.ae/TiucVe)?

It includes this, for example:

EU Unfairness

"Farage says that the EU has been imposing its “rule” on the UK for decades. If this true, the whole country would have been chafing at the bit for many, many years. Instead, the truth is:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-6590b0dd9208f95275460fbf2ba8143d

Nobody cared much about the EU till Farage started his campaign of lies in 2016. It is remarkable how he turned UK issues into EU issues. For example, this is a UK-only issue which he never speaks about:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-9179bedf768c9db9f928e0d8a1875b10

Almost a quarter of UK children are living at poverty levels due to failure of the UK system. Farage never mentions this. And as a multi-millionaire who made most of his money from politics, he never mentions this either:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-6ae43486ecc9eea64475e10ccae7060f

So where should our priorities be? I think these graphs tell us a lot.

Brexit is just a distraction from all the real problems of the UK.

It's a bit like General Galtieri invading the Falkland Islands to stir up nationalism and distract attention away from Argentina's severe economic problems. Look where it got him and Argentina...

I'm so, so disappointed regarding the whole utter, unnecessary idiocy that is Brexit.

Longjohn

22nd November 2019, 09:35

And a bit more, this time on fishing:

Nothing Ever Gets Done By the EU

"If nothing ever gets done by the EU, then how come the EU is supposedly oppressing us? Regardless, the EU can adapt and react to genuine concerns by its citizens. Here is the proof:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-7fbb8e5e2726cd660ae65e5421331bc8

And guess who never bothered doing anything, despite getting paid an obscene salary and continuously over-claiming his expenses?"

scanner

22nd November 2019, 11:12

Dear me, another one, who has no horse in this race. Telling us we have no mind of our own, we're too dumb to understand, please don't insult me. If you believe Farage influenced 17.5 million people, then Farage should be PM. Not everyone who voted leave likes Farage. I, personally, deplore the man. An ex Con-serative millionaire, who tells us he ran a business. Farage was born into a prosperous family—his father was a stockbroker—and attended Dulwich College, a prestigious private school in London. At age 18, instead of pursuing a university education, he became a commodities trader. Who has the best interests of the masses, do me a favour. He's just controlled opposition.

We're constantly told " don't believe anything I say, do your own research " I don't and I do. But what Farage does, and does it well (as all politicians do) is inform the masses what they want to hear. Any good analyst, can make figures up say what they want them to say. I know this to be true, I have accountants who perform this task every year for me.

Laws.
The claims about how much of UK law comes from the European Union vary so massively, it's really difficult to get a definitive answer.

Business for Britain, which wants the UK to leave the EU, says more than 60% of UK law is influenced by EU law.

Robert Oxley says, "If you stacked the entire EU rule book it would be higher than Nelson's column. That's an incredible amount of paperwork which British businesses, British employers, all the people who have to comply with this legislation have to deal with. It is cost and time added on to their businesses."

But some put the figure far lower, at around 13%. So who is right?

In a nutshell it's somewhere in-between the two - let's look at why.

To try to work out the proportion of UK law derived from EU law, you need to define what you mean by UK law and EU law, understand how they relate to one another, and only then "do the math".

I have no dispute with, EU getting things done.
They certainly do, ask the Irish, how they were forced to take a second referendum and is now causing violence again after some years of peace, because of the Good Friday agreement. But, could now be in tatters, because of the EU interference over borders, i.e. the back stop.

Ask the Cypriots, who had to give their children to Social services because they couldn't afford to feed them, because of EU policies and banking.

Immigration.
EU open door policy, it's working really well in EU countries. Violent crimes and rapes up, Germany, Sweden and UK. Being well reported in the MSM. Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the EU.

Fishing quotas
I'll concede the fishing quotas are set and enforced by Britain, but initiated by the EU.

So yes they get things done. I like your analogy of Fearnly- Whittingstall and Farage, both millionaires and both actors. At least Whittingstall can cook.

Longjohn

22nd November 2019, 12:34

Dear Scanner,

I liked what you said in your last post, and you argued your case well.

The only thing I will say is that I worked in British manufacturing for years, and I had to design, assemble, package goods and send them all over the EU.

I never had any problems with delivery or receipt of goods, and we benefitted from being part of the customs union and not having to pay tariffs.

When I moved to Switzerland, it became a different matter. In post #1132 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91509-The-UK-Brexit-vote-to-leave-the-EU&p=1324047&viewfull=1#post1324047) above, I described the consequences of not being in the customs union and the effects this had on trading. The Swiss are used to this, the British are not, and yet no time will be allowed to sort all this out before Brexit.

This is why I consider the whole busines of getting out of EU 'lock, stock and barrel' to be such nonsense. If the politicians could put away their ideological blinkers for a short space, and possibly find out a bit more about the real world, then they might just begin to perceive all the damage that's going to come in the wake of 'Getting Brexit Done'.

Best, John

Longjohn

22nd November 2019, 12:42

Sorry, meant to say 'Scanner'!

greybeard

27th November 2019, 17:21

Boris Johnson is about to destroy our democracy – just because he wants to get back at me
The Independent Gina Miller,

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boris-johnson-destroy-democracy-just-124339555.html

One of the many ironies of this general election is that Boris Johnson is actually seeking a democratic mandate to devalue our democracy.

I wish this were some kind of sick joke, but it is there on page 48 of the Conservative manifesto, in black and white. “After Brexit we also need to look at the broader aspects of our constitution: the relationship between the government, parliament and the courts; the functioning of the royal prerogative; the role of the House of Lords; and access to justice for ordinary people,” it states.

“The ability of our security services to defend us against terrorism and organised crime is critical.

“We will update the Human Rights Act and administrative law to ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government.

“We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays”.

One shouldn’t take these things personally, but it’s hard not to imagine Johnson was thinking about me and my two successful legal challenges to, first, Theresa May’s government, and then his when he approved the line “conducting politics by other means or to create needless delays.”

Miller 1 – as the lawyers now call it – focused on May’s attempt to to deny parliament her sovereign right to vote on invoking Article 50. Miller 2 focused on his illegal prorogation of parliament to push his disastrous Brexit deal through without proper parliamentary scrutiny.

When Johnson delivered his short manifesto speech on Sunday, very much in the manner of an accomplished after-dinner speaker, there was little to hint at the dark truths hidden away in his manifesto. It was essentially a document for constitutional change and modifications to the Human Rights Act. And it was presaged by certain right wing newspapers talking about the “people vs parliament” or the “people vs the judiciary”, despite this trampling on the most basic tenets of democracy that have made our “mother of all parliaments” revered the world over.

Believing in the sanctity of parliament and understanding the dangers of undermining it for political gain is crucial to our country’s stability. No prime minister has ever had the audacity to challenge democracy with democracy.

Parliament is the “people” because the people are represented by those they vote for in general elections. I acknowledge the deficits in both our first-past-the-post electoral system, as well as politicians getting away with dishonesty, but it is the system we have.

When it comes to the judiciary, they are once again being turned into a tool for partisan and corporate interests. Our judges are the last check and balance we have on politicians attempts to put themselves above the law.

These sinister lines about seeking to redraw the relationship between the government, parliament and the courts show that for Johnson, nothing is now off limits – even if it threatens the way our country has been governed for centuries.

As things stand, the prime minister and the executive cannot resort to changing the royal prerogative to diminish our rights without parliamentary scrutiny or approval – as the judgment in my first case makes clear.

Johnson has not, however, given up on his monstrous power grab. These manifesto commitments need to be seen within the context of the Henry VIII clauses in the Withdrawal Agreement Bill (WAB). It’s scattered with references to giving the minister (whoever he or she may be) and devolved authorities wide-ranging powers to implement delegated or secondary legislation.

The scope of those proposed powers is extremely broad, they give the minister the subjective discretion to “make such provisions as he considers appropriate”. In many instances, there are no limits (like those included in the EU Withdrawal Act 2018) on the exercise of the power, such as preventing retroactive application of the law, the creation of criminal offences or tax implications, and the establishment of new authorities or time limited powers.

The mechanics for parliamentary approval are set out in schedule five of the WAB, but whether the secondary instrument is to be passed by the affirmative or negative resolution procedure is not clear.

In some cases, it appears that Johnson is seeking to write the House of Lords out of the next difficult phase of the Brexit process altogether. It seems he wishes to see that its role is reduced to observing motions in the House of Commons without its own separate power to approve or oppose.

Why is that important? The type of resolution procedure determines the extent and intensity of parliamentary scrutiny. Neither delegated procedure ensures full parliamentary scrutiny, which is why the use of Henry VII powers is so contentious and alarming. Let’s be clear – attempts are being made to make precedents here that will go far and beyond Brexit and threaten our most basic and cherished of freedoms.

Dominic Cummings – the intellectual driver of Johnson’s government – has long been an exponent of disruptive politics, but we need to be clear about what new order he has in mind for when we disrupt what we now have.

Johnson’s manifesto predictably cites “national security” as one of the reasons for giving up on so many of our ancient rights, which reminds me of Benjamin Franklin’s famous warning that “those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Gina Miller is the founder of the tactical voting website remainunited.org

greybeard

27th November 2019, 17:49

Sometimes the onlooker sees most of the game.
When sides are taken-- a blindness can set in and valid issues are ignored if they conflict with our chosen out come.
I can see why Jeremy Corbyn states he is neutral--thats ok when there is no agenda and you are not taking any part in the game.
However people have the right to expect leaders to lead--to be specific to have a definite direction to go in.
Then people can choose.

Nicola Sturgeon did not excel in her interview recently with Andrew Neil--though I doubt if anyone would survive his style of questioning--Jeremy Corbyn did not fare much better.
Wonder if Boris will be interviewed by him.
Chris

avid

27th November 2019, 18:54

Nicola Sturgeon is horrendous, a driven crone worthy of a Shakespearean tragedy, a politicking poseur with colour-co-ordinated baby-posing. She is the death of Scotland, much much worse than when I voted for Margo MacDonald in the 70’s, this stirring witch is not for Scottish folk at all, just a self-promoting nasty piece of funded corporate puppeteering. Don’t be fooled.

greybeard

29th November 2019, 12:46

BBC tells Tories to take down Facebook ad featuring its presenters
The Guardian Jim Waterson,

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/bbc-tells-tories-down-facebook-192557263.html

BBC tells Tories to take down Facebook ad featuring its presenters. Laura Kuenssberg and Huw Edwards footage could damage perception of impartiality, says corporation

The BBC is demanding the Conservatives take down Facebook adverts featuring footage of its journalists Laura Kuenssberg and Huw Edwards, arguing that their inclusion could damage perceptions of the corporation’s impartiality.

The paid-for advert uses footage of the BBC’s political editor and the News at Ten host to argue that chaotic debates over Brexit can be avoided if people vote Conservative.

The short clip begins with Kuenssberg saying the words “pointless delay to Brexit”, in footage taken from an archive news broadcast. Although the clip gives the impression it was the BBC political editor delivering that judgment, it appears she was actually quoting Boris Johnson’s comments from September when he rejected a further extension to article 50.

Related: Tories threaten Channel 4 after ice sculpture takes PM's place in debate

Her appearance is followed by footage of Edwards – who will host the BBC’s election night coverage – intoning that there will be “another Brexit delay”, followed by shaky footage of opposition leaders accompanied by threatening music.

The BBC said its footage had been used without permission and asked the Conservatives to stop using the material in this manner. “This is a completely unacceptable use of BBC content which distorts our output and which could damage perceptions of our impartiality. We are asking the Conservatives to remove these adverts,” it said.

In common with other intentionally provocative stunts pulled by the Conservatives during this campaign, such as rebranding their press office Twitter account as a fact checker, it is possible the party will welcome any press coverage that focuses attention on its message.

The advert had been running for 24 hours on both Facebook and its sister site Instagram by the time of the BBC’s complaint. In this time it had been seen by around a 100,000 people and it remains live. The advert was targeted at older male voters, although it is possible the Conservatives intended to put more money behind it to reach a wider audience.

My thoughts are that if you have to be that devious to win an election then you are not for the people---you have an agenda beyond that which is obvious and stated.
Why resort to trickery if what you represent can stand on its own merit?
This applies to major parties to a greater or lesser degree,
Look beyond the stated.
The truth lies in patterns.
The history
The means--the ways of presenting ones case.
The money behind.
Chris

greybeard

29th November 2019, 14:26

Ridicule and disbelief as Boris Johnson insists he's never told a single lie in his whole political career
The Independent Ashley Cowburn,

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/ridicule-disbelief-boris-johnson-insists-091300936.html

Boris Johnson has prompted widespread ridicule after claiming he has never told a lie during his political career in a televised interview.

Appearing on ITV, the prime minister was asked whether he could look the presenter “in the eye” and say he had never lied in his career – spanning back to 2001 when he was first elected as an MP.

“Absolutely not, absolutely not,” Mr Johnson replied. “I have never tried to deceive the public and I’ve always tried to be absolutely frank.”

Pressed again, he continued: “I may have got things wrong, I may have been mistaken, but I’ve never tried to deceive people about the way I see things.”

Mr Johnson later added: “I am not going to pretend that in my political career I have not said or done things that have caused offence. I’ve made mistakes, I’ve certainly made mistakes."

Seizing on his remarks, the Liberal Democrat leader made a reference to the decision of the former Tory leader Michael Howard to sack Mr Johnson from his frontbench in 2004 after lying over an extramarital affair.

Mr Johnson had dismissed the allegations about his private life at the time as “an inverted pyramid of piffle”, before further evidence proving the claims emerged.

Ridiculing the prime minister, she said: “He was sacked twice for lying. So when he says he has never lied, he’s literally lying.”

Mr Johnson’s decision to duck a leaders’ debate on climate change on Thursday evening was also criticised by Labour’s national campaign coordinator, Andrew Gwynee, who said: “Boris Johnson has been hiding from scrutiny to avoid being held to account for a decade of Conservative austerity and his litany of lies, failure and bigotry.”

In a series of questions put to Mr Johnson, Labour also demanded whether he had “only lied to the Queen once” over his decision to unlawfully prorogue parliament earlier this year.

The Tory leader was also heavily criticised during the EU referendum campaign and faced accusations of deceiving the public over Vote Leave’s infamous claim to “take back control of roughly £350 million per week” after Brexit.

The UK Statistics Authority said it was a “clear misuse of official statistics”, and the fact-checking charity, Full Fact, added: “We have never paid the EU £350m a week and we have never owed the EU £350m a week. After we leave the EU, that means we cannot take back control of £350m a week."

Mark (Star Mariner)

29th November 2019, 15:37

Boris Johnson is about to destroy our democracy – just because he wants to get back at me
The Independent Gina Miller,

Parliament is the “people” because the people are represented by those they vote for in general elections.

Sorry Chris, at that point, after spitting out my tea in gales of laughter, I had to stop reading. Newspapers today have only one useful function. As a liner for drawers.

greybeard

29th November 2019, 17:29

Well there is an amusement factor Star.
Are people that stupid to be conned into believing all they read?
Boris Dad had just said that people are illiterate.
Wont bother posting the quote which prompted the response that his son did not understand the word liar.
And on it goes
Chris

lightpotential

29th November 2019, 20:06

Guys,

Here is my latest video summarising where we appear to stand with regard to Brexit and the upcoming UK election. In my view Nigel Farage has screwed up by standing down 300 of his MPs in the upcoming general election. He needed to have gone forwards to help create a hung parliament. Siding with Boris's EU Treaty is a mistake:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS00kD0hIHc

araucaria

30th November 2019, 08:16

It is good to see Longjohn and ICHingUChing expanding on points I made earlier in the thread.
But mention of Facebook gives me a segue to a real eye-opener seen only yesterday, and which goes a long way to explaining the rationale behind all the irrationality of the Brexit nonsense whereby people vote against their own personal interests. Below is a short (15 min.) Ted talk given by an Observer reporter, telling of Facebook fear-based advertising targeting specific individuals on the basis of their personal input. If you have not been targeted you will never know about it, and there is subsequently no incriminating evidence: all that remains of this perfect crime is the effect it has on public “debate”. And of course people like me who don’t even use Facebook are in danger of being left completely in the dark.

Fear is an animal-based instinct that has constantly to be overridden as new situations arise. Compared with cavemen, modern man has relatively little to be afraid about. Of course we do hugely dangerous things like driving cars and crossing roads, but our rational mind has made such things on the whole pretty safe through orderly conduct. On reflection, even animal prey for the most part live a fairly peaceful life, keeping their predators at a safe distance most of the time. And we know how a parent can ruin their child’s education by fear-based interference when the child is learning to stand on its own two feet. Hence fear becomes a cultural feature to be passed on, instead of a basic instinct that evolves over time. It is not a game being played by powerful people; it is a potentially fatal weakness being transmitted like a virus – literally “gone viral”.

OQSMr-3GGvQ

Phoenix1304

30th November 2019, 11:49

The UK election is all tied up with this now - Boris has obviously been advised not to be interviewed too much, scrutiny is not a good thing for him! He ducked out of the leader’s debate on climate and heavy duty interviewers are kept at bay, at least until the postal vote deadline has passed. He has a continual smirk on his face as if he knows something we don’t. Maybe his ticket off planet while we all brace ourselves for disaster? He just laughs off the exposure because they get away with murder and always have. The judiciary as well as Parliament is rotten to the core.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, Labour were able to get documents relating to the Tory secret negotiations with the US and the entire thing is redacted! Laughable if it wasn’t so disturbing. Like witholding the Russia report, with no explanation, that likely reveals the enormous funding Tories receive from Russian oligarchs.

I’m very glad to see the respectful and interesting discussion here and trying to keep up. Scanner sends me on a journey into Tsarion’s research and to the ‘bigger picture’. That has to have a thread of it’s own and surely does here, if I ever find the time to look further. It’s not a complete picture though and for me, raises as many questions as it answers.

Longjohn and Greybeard you seem to be in favour of the EU, I respect any argument that presents what's good about it. But do you remember the UK before the EU?’. I travelled and worked overseas extensively in my youth and not having an EU didn’t make much difference to me then. In fact, the very different economic and cultural differences of other countries was far more interesting than the homogenous blob that they’re trying to make of Europe now. The EU is widely despised, not just in UK, and it’s not the common market, not the customs union, but the EU government and bank. Ask Greeks how they feel about it, they don't even own their country any more. Or Italians. The Spanish, in my experience, have utter contempt and simply ignore a whole bundle of 'EU Directives'. They're not as 'law abiding' as we meek little sheep in UK, do as we're told, follow the programming. Millions may protest but it's still business as directed.

The legislation that is passed in Brussels goes mostly unnoticed by the public until it affects them directly. I was unable to upload the photo of it, but here are a couple of comments on a recent newspaper article about the floods.

"People of Yorkshire left to rot in the water absolute disgraceful Conservatives government, a week it nearly took to get some help and even then it was only when Jeremy Corbyn Labour had to ask for cobra and flood money for Yorkshire areas, people in Yorkshire know who is genuine and who is not"

"Perhaps EVERYONE should blame Tony Blair and the EU directives. The European Union banned the dredging of water courses years ago, but no one told us so and Tony Blair's Government meekly accept it. THIS is what no one wants you to know".

EU policies have an agenda most of us know nothing about. I’d like to believe it is all in the interests of the people, but I don’t. I do not agree that dissatisfaction with it was initiated by Farage and Johnson, many people were very sick of taking orders from a distant body of bureaucrats/plutocrats they didn’t feel they’d elected, impacted in thousands of little ways and raising their eyebrows in despair at the explanations of ‘EU directives’. They were ripe for it when the fascist right started rattling their cages. Another image I was unable to upload is of the letter from the Master of Dulwich College denouncing schoolboy Farage for his fascist views and appalling behaviour marching through a Sussex village, with others, shouting Hitler youth songs. He strongly objected to him being put forward as a prefect. It's out there on the net if you're interested. I wish these kinds of characters only appeared in comics and novels.

Are we going to have any more accountability from TPB outside of the EU? probably not, but people feel they will, maybe with a Labour government that now seems to be peopled by traditional ‘socialists’ as the Blairites have been weeded out, sacked or resigned.

Obviously a common market is a good idea, as is the ability to travel and work anywhere in Europe without barriers. Corbyn seems to be offering a sensible solution, let everyone see the deal (that includes a common market) then vote Leave or Remain from an informed position.

I was favouring Labour even before I heard this week that he plans to compensate my generation of women that got badly shafted by government with the changes to state pension age. This probably is only of interest to women like me, but we were really bludgeoned after a lifetime of paying contributions into a government scheme, they suddenly moved the goalposts and we were told we wouldn’t be retiring at 60 after all, but at 66/67. (Russian women retire at 50). We didn’t learn of this until years after the legislation incidentally. Gutted would be putting it mildly. Every time I thought about it over recent years I was brought to tears with frustration and impotence against a ruling class that seems to hate us and want us slaving until death. 82k+ women have died pensionless so far as a result of this and I wouldn’t hazard a guess at the number of suicides.

I raise this because, this promise by Labour must raise the hopes of millions of women who endured this betrayal after a lifetime of struggle and buoyed just before Christmas at the prospect that the slog will be over and we will be free. (ish) So the cynic in me is seeing that the propoganda and fascism will win and there will be no change, business as usual and then how much deeper will the depression go? I have no doubt this will take out thousands more women. The level of hatred for women in society seems to be intensifying daily, but I guess that’s for another thread. The Eves are fundamentally despised eh Scanner? So I guess I’m saying that even the hope offered by Labour is just controlled opposition, we’re all being played all the time and not even the smartest of us seem to know what’s really going on.

I’d like to hear your opinions on this question in particular. Why were we given a referendum on Europe in the first place? As you say Longjohn these people aren’t stupid, they must have known the mood of the country, was it all faux surprise at the outcome and everything going as planned? Or, can we, the people, really effect any honest change towards an egalatarian society?

Meanwhile, as the UK election circus plays on, Muslim cells all across the world multiply and one is put in mind of the black hooded hordes invading Europe that Nostradamus spoke of. I’m not racist in any way and believe in freedom of thought, religion, sexuality, whatever, so long as it harm no other. But I really don’t want to find myself in the Handmaid’s Tale. There is so much playing out before our eyes regardless of what politicians say. Assange and Snowden are seen as the bad guys while Trump, Farage and Johnson are portrayed as heroes. The sexualisation of children, the trans agenda, that again, attacks and marginalises women, but I guess I’ve gone on long enough. Apologies, I really don’t have answers, just wanted to get into the debate and vent a bit!.

greybeard

30th November 2019, 21:37

Thank you Phoenix1304 for your post and question re referendum.
I cant really see a positive reason for the referendum
There was some unrest provoked by all the anti Europen rule media reports.
There was after the referendum Boris flashing a pre packed fish saying look what the euro rules have done---then it turned out it was UK rules--silence on that.
So a lot of rules coming from Eu was fo the protection of workers--Tory business not too keen on worker protection.Health and safety has cost implication for business--not popular.
So people were fed misleading information regarding the EU.

I would be quite happy if we left with a good deal---what I am against is the lying.
A lot of good would happen if we left-- a lot of good will happen if we remain.
The British are survivers
If we leave without a deal--still possible or leave under current one offered then Nicola Sturgeon will be laughing all the way to Scottish independence--followed by Wales and Northern Ireland perhaps
Chris

greybeard

3rd December 2019, 20:06

In its election coverage, the BBC has let down the people who believe in it
The Guardian Peter Oborne,
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/election-coverage-bbc-let-down-055913313.html

In its election coverage, the BBC has let down the people who believe in it. The corporation, admired around the world, has been behaving in a way that favours the Tories

Boris Johnson continues to get away with it. The onslaught of lies has become a tsunami in the few weeks since I launched a website to keep track of Johnson’s falsehoods, with dozens more waiting to be added to the list.

A particularly distasteful batch concerns his use of the London Bridge terror attack as a campaign tool, in defiance of the wishes of the father of one of the victims. On the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on Sunday he wheeled out four or five more, including the daft claim that Jeremy Corbyn will disband MI5, and another that Labour was responsible for the London Bridge attacker’s early release.

Marr barely managed to confront these lies, and it’s noteworthy that the BBC only allowed the prime minister on the air because, after the attack, “it was in the public interest”. Johnson continues to dodge an interview with Andrew Neil, who has eviscerated Nicola Sturgeon and Corbyn.

Meanwhile, Johnson has scarcely been interrogated about the biggest lie of all. It lurks there in plain sight: the Tory slogan “Get Brexit Done”. The nonsensical Conservative position that the country will leave the EU on 31 January – and that the transition period will end in December 2020 – has hardly been scrutinised.

More bigoted statements emerge from Johnson’s press clippings – such as his claim in 1995 that the children of single mothers were “ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate”. Yet he continues to brush off complaints, as he did, again on The Andrew Marr Show, with his offensive comparison between Muslim women and bank robbers. No previous prime minister or party leader would have survived. But Johnson doesn’t merely survive. He flourishes. How?

Partly it’s because he combines membership of the traditional British establishment with celebrity status among the contemporary media elite: Eton, Oxford, the Bullingdon Club, the Conservative party, the Spectator, and flashier parts of the City. He knows what to say and who to say it to.

Britain’s three most powerful newspaper groups (the Telegraph, the Murdoch press and Associated Newspapers) fervently support the Conservative party while being dedicated to the destruction of Corbyn. It is particularly striking that the Times, the voice of Britain’s professional class, has been so stridently in favour of Johnson.

Yet the written press have always tended to support Conservatives. In this election, though, they have an unusual ally – the BBC. The British Broadcasting Corporation is bound by rigorous rules of impartiality that do not apply to newspapers – one reason the organisation has often been unjustly accused by those very same newspapers of being biased towards the left. In the 2019 general election, however, the BBC has been behaving in a way that favours the Tories.

After a dishevelled Johnson made a mess of placing a red wreath at the Cenotaph, ahead of the silence on Remembrance Sunday, BBC Breakfast showed footage of a much smarter Johnson placing a green wreath: footage dating back to 2016, when Johnson was foreign secretary. The corporation insisted the clip was used in error.

Then there was the rather more serious case when, for its main news broadcast, the BBC edited a clip to cut out the audience laughter at the prime minister during the party leaders’ Question Time, after he was asked whether he believed it was important to tell the truth. The edited clip showed only applause.

As Lady Bracknell said: “To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune, to lose both looks like carelessness.” There has, however, been a series of such misfortunes – all of them errors, perhaps, but all contributing to the widespread impression that the BBC is putting its thumb on the scale for the government.

In October Jill Rutter, a senior research fellow at The UK in a Changing Europe, highlighted the way in which many senior journalists, including the BBC’s political editor, Laura Kuenssberg, had become overly dependent on private briefings from Johnson’s strategy chief, Dominic Cummings. “This way of operating does the public a big disservice,” Rutter said. “It allows Downing Street to get its message out without having to take responsibility for it.”

When Johnson made his notorious “there is no press here” claim in front of the cameras at Whipps Cross hospital in east London– while being quizzed by a father anxious over his sick daughter – Kuenssberg came to his rescue. Passing over the prime minister’s falsehood at the time, she sent out a tweet stating that the father was a Labour activist.
Omar Salem challenges Boris Johnson during his visit to Whipps Cross hospital

Yet it is unfair to single out Kuenssberg. Research by Justin Schlosberg of Birkbeck, University of London, shows how the BBC (and other TV channels) paid huge attention when the obscure former Labour MP Ian Austin endorsed the Tories. Those channels paid far less attention when Ken Clarke, a political giant, suggested he would not vote Tory.

Dr Schlosberg also draws attention to the striking imbalance in the coverage of manifesto launches. The Institute of Fiscal Studies produced an immediate and strongly critical response to both Tory and Labour manifestos, but “the IFS response to Labour was covered 10 times on the BBC in the two days” compared with “just one mention” for its criticism of the Tory manifesto in the equivalent period.

I don’t think the BBC’s director general, Tony Hall, and his senior executives actively support Johnson and his Brexit policy. The problem is more interesting. The BBC does not have a party political bias: it is biased towards the government of the day.

Two decades ago Hall was the BBC’s director of news and current affairs. Back then the corporation allowed itself to be bullied, manipulated and played by the New Labour government. William Hague’s Tories were almost as hard done-by as Corbyn is today. The memo from the then Newsnight editor Peter Horrocks to his team after the 1997 general election – calling for a very much different, and softer, analysis of New Labour in power than its Tory predecessor – remains notorious.

Related: When Tory lies go unchallenged, democracy itself is in danger | Owen Jones

The BBC is the second greatest British institution (after the NHS) created during the 20th century. It holds us all together as a nation. It stands for something magnificent about the decency and creativity of the British people. Like other great institutions, including parliament, it has been shaken by Brexit. That is understandable. But I worry that, over the last few months, it has been letting down the people who believe in it.

I hope that BBC executives are not favouring the Tories simply because they fear the revenge a Conservative government would take if the corporation gave proper scrutiny to its stunningly dishonest campaign. This wouldn’t work: Johnson has allies who would love nothing more than the destruction of British public service broadcasting.

It is past time for the BBC to regain its confidence as a fair-minded news organisation admired and envied across the world.

• Peter Oborne is a journalist and author, and also runs a website about Boris Johnson’s falsehoods

My comment is that its not about taking sides its about a catalogue of lies and half truths.
Thats not an opinion--- the lies are a proven fact.

Phoenix1304

4th December 2019, 15:46

Hi Everyone,

I’m not really a political animal, is there ever any real choice? But this time round, I do believe there is a very positive choice before the British people that could provide a beacon for the rest of the world. The video below was made in 2018 but couldn’t be more relevant and it’s a pleasure to see some intelligent discussion in the midst of the circus of lies. The EU is discussed as well as political systems and possibilities. Enjoy.

cLLoSzNn6xg

snoman

4th December 2019, 17:25

is it over yet?

How long in my lifetime do I have to wait for news coverage on election day where live reporters are seen scratching their heads outside polling stations that are deserted?
Cut to live footage from government buildings around the country being ransacked and burned before all hell breaks out as hordes of unzombies storm the gates of Buckingham Palace.

hey ho

greybeard

4th December 2019, 18:37

Don’t kid yourselves, progressives – Jo Swinson is so bad she’s helping build a Tory majority
The Independent Sean O'Grady,The Independent

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/dont-kid-yourselves-progressives-jo-112300356.html

As they say, this wasn’t in the script. Jo Swinson wanted three big things out of this election: Stop Brexit; Bin Boris; get the balance of power for the Lib Dems. It’s not turning out quite like that, is it Jo?

After a disastrous campaign in an unnecessary winter election it looks rather more likely that her own party will want to bin Swinson. If the polls are right, the Lib Dems will now win few extra seats (YouGov suggests a net gain of one); Brexit will happen; and Boris will be set for a full term or two of his unique style of national leadership. If he makes it to 2024 and then to 2029 he will be in the Thatcher-Blair league. Most young people in this country will have lived most of their adult lives under Tory or Tory-led governments. Ms Swinson will be a backbencher, unless the SNP ousts her. And to think only a few short weeks ago she fancied she could be PM.

Get used to it. In a little over a week’s time, Britain will have a hardline Brexit Conservative government led by a man with the morals of an alley cat, backed by a big majority of MPs who have sworn a personal oath of fealty to him and his skimpy manifesto. What a Christmas party they’re going to have at Chequers!

When he was eight years old, the fable goes, Boris Johnson declared his ambition to be “king of the world”. He won’t be far off it as he prepares for a five-year term in which he can wreak revenge on the EU, the courts, the Commons, the BBC, Channel 4 and anyone else. Be afraid.

Tactical voting, the Remain alliance, the youthquake, the remaining TV debates, Andrew Neil, Jeremy Corbyn’s superb campaigning skills, Lord Buckethead, Nigel Farage, the Russians – forget them. Even the brilliant Nicola Sturgeon, penned in up in Scotland.

Progressives: do not delude yourself; do not entertain false hope. There are plenty of people out there nasty enough to vote Tory, and mean it. Even if you don’t know any.

Nothing on earth can save you. A 10 point lead, or more, for the Tories over Labour will give Johnson a bumper result and quite possibly a landslide. Maybe Chuka will get in, maybe Raab will lose his seat. Maybe Labour will hold Kensington. It won’t matter.

Get ready then for the elective dictatorship and the possibility of a no-deal Brexit by the end of 2020. The nightmare is about to go into full horror mode.

It is not too early to start apportioning blame for this show. This brings us back to the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Jo Swinson, who has more to answer for than most.

It was she, let us not forget, who granted Boris Johnson his early election during some parliamentary manoeuvrings in late October. She agreed to support the SNP in going for an early election. Labour, fearful of looking fearful, then gave in too. Johnson and Dominic Cummings got their way. And they knew exactly what to do.

It need not have happened. Johnson was caged in the last parliament, and the possibility of a second referendum was live as the months dragged on. He was exactly where the opposition parties wanted him. No-deal Brexit was not allowed. Swinson held the balance of power, with others.

But Swinson released the blond beast from the cage. She pleaded there was no majority for a final say referendum in the Commons. Maybe, but there was a lot more support for it in the old Commons than in the next one, and the pressure was there to force it.

The Lib Dem leader said the best way to stop Brexit was to elect enough members of her party to revoke Article 50. She was warned at conference that that sounded extreme and undemocratic, and so it has been proved. It has it has annoyed voters on all sides.

Swinson thought an early election would strengthen the Remain alliance, yet the SNP and Labour spurned the overtures. The Leave alliance is firmer.

Swinson told us she stood ready to be prime minister, but the voters have not warmed to her the more they see of her. Unlike Nick Clegg, Paddy Ashdown and David Steel in their day, the extra media exposure hasn’t helped her party. It is going backwards in the polls.

Mercifully, the big talk has stopped and Swinson has stopped trying to throw her weight around, but it is all a bit late. An electoral humiliation approaches.

She will get more votes than Tim Farron in 2017, but few more MPs. The defectors from Labour and the Conservatives will probably fail. She, her party, and her supporters face a long depressing era of utter irrelevance. It may be some consolation to her that Labour will be in much the same position, but not much.

None of this needed to happen. All of the consequence of her catastrophic decision to give Johnson his early general election were foreseen. The risk he’d actually win and “get Brexit done” was also obvious, with or without Farage’s help. Swinson owns her campaigning failures and huge political errors of judgement. Soon she will own Brexit too. Not in the script.

Longjohn

4th December 2019, 18:51

Dear Phoenix,

The UK election is all tied up with this now - Boris has obviously been advised not to be interviewed too much, scrutiny is not a good thing for him! He ducked out of the leader’s debate on climate and heavy duty interviewers are kept at bay, at least until the postal vote deadline has passed. He has a continual smirk on his face as if he knows something we don’t. Maybe his ticket off planet while we all brace ourselves for disaster? He just laughs off the exposure because they get away with murder and always have. The judiciary as well as Parliament is rotten to the core.

LJ: I don't think anyone would want Boris off-planet except as a slave or for breeding purposes, the latter activity which, by all accounts, he could at least perform to order! I disagree with you that the judiciary is rotten to the core. Whatever you think, its reputation is certainly less besmirched than that of our parliamentarians. Out of the triad of Crown, Judges and Parliament, it may well be that the judiciary is the most worthwhile institution of state the UK has, but it looks as if a victorious Johnson will use his majority to further reduce its power over parliament.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, Labour were able to get documents relating to the Tory secret negotiations with the US and the entire thing is redacted! Laughable if it wasn’t so disturbing. Like witholding the Russia report, with no explanation, that likely reveals the enormous funding Tories receive from Russian oligarchs.

LJ: As Johnson's former boss, Max Hastings, said, 'He is not a man to believe in, to trust or respect, save as a superlative exhibitionist. He is bereft of judgment, loyalty and discretion. Only in the star-crazed, frivolous Britain of the 21st century could such a man have risen so high, and he is utterly unfit to go higher still.' From The Guardian, 12th Oct 2012 (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/10/boris-johnson-unfit-to-be-prime-minister).

I travelled and worked overseas extensively in my youth and not having an EU didn’t make much difference to me then. In fact, the very different economic and cultural differences of other countries was far more interesting than the homogenous blob that they’re trying to make of Europe now. The EU is widely despised, not just in UK, and it’s not the common market, not the customs union, but the EU government and bank.

LJ: The EU will never be turned into an homgenous blob. You've just pointed out the differences in national character yourself. In criticising the EU, you have to remember why it was created, which was to bring Europe together after two terrible wars (see IChingUChing's mail (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91509-The-UK-Brexit-vote-to-leave-the-EU&p=1324238&viewfull=1#post1324238)). All too many politicians castigate the EU as a dominating supranational entity and completely forget the highly cooperative 'social' and 'cultural' aspects of the EU. In this case, I refer to its responsibility for joint projects (such as BRITE for R&D) and breathing life into underdeveloped regions that national governments don't reach, or even care about. It was was through projects like BRITE that I and many others acquired the opportunity to work with my fellow Europeans, and it was commendable that funding in these projects always favoured the least well-developed European states.

Ask Greeks how they feel about it, they don't even own their country any more. Or Italians. The Spanish, in my experience, have utter contempt and simply ignore a whole bundle of 'EU Directives'. They're not as 'law abiding' as we meek little sheep in UK, do as we're told, follow the programming. Millions may protest but it's still business as directed.

The legislation that is passed in Brussels goes mostly unnoticed by the public until it affects them directly.

LJ: You've hit the nail on the head! Brits took no interest in the EU until just before the referendum in 2016, as shown in the first figure here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91509-The-UK-Brexit-vote-to-leave-the-EU&p=1324616&viewfull=1#post1324616). That was the time the opportunists (yes, Johnson et al!) started selling a very simplified version of facts they themselves did not fully understand or bother to research. All too often when talking to native Brits who rail against the EU, I hear comments about immigration, people taking our jobs, EU laws that diminish our control, etc., etc., but what people do not realise is that it's because the Brits slavishly followed the rules to the letter, whereas the Italians, Spanish, French and, yes, even the Germans (!) would bend them to their advantage. I experienced this first-hand in the costing and management of EU projects, in which Brits were known to be the only ones who played the game with a straight bat.

The great paradox is that if Brits had shared the Italians' healthy disrespect of government, then nutters like Rees-Mogg and Farage would never have been listened to!

Believe you me, the EU is really a very tame and benign animal compared to the libertarian monsters within the Tory party.

They were ripe for it when the fascist right started rattling their cages. Another image I was unable to upload is of the letter from the Master of Dulwich College denouncing schoolboy Farage for his fascist views and appalling behaviour marching through a Sussex village, with others, shouting Hitler youth songs./QUOTE]

LJ: As I've already said, the average joe in the street never really cared until the fascist right started stirring up blind hatred against the EU. Likewise, before the Nazis achieved ascendency in Germany, the jews simply got on with their lives and were never really a problem.

[QUOTE]Obviously a common market is a good idea, as is the ability to travel and work anywhere in Europe without barriers. Corbyn seems to be offering a sensible solution, let everyone see the deal (that includes a common market) then vote Leave or Remain from an informed position.

LJ: Exactly! As I can now see from working in Switzerland, the common market is of absolutely inestimable benefit. What we Brits took for granted, we will now lose.

I have not a shred of respect for the right-wing MPs who eased their way into parliament from their respective disaster capitalism and stockbroking fraternities, and who have absolutely no understanding of the trials and tribulations of setting up and maintaining a business, manufacturing and trading goods and looking after one's employees.

Every time I thought about it over recent years I was brought to tears with frustration and impotence against a ruling class that seems to hate us and want us slaving until death. 82k+ women have died pensionless so far as a result of this and I wouldn’t hazard a guess at the number of suicides.

LJ: You have my sympathies in this respect!

I’d like to hear your opinions on this question in particular. Why were we given a referendum on Europe in the first place?

LJ: The referendum in 2016 was the result of David Cameron's promise in the manifesto on which he was elected. He always believed that the UK would vote to stay in the EU. The story is complex, but my view is that there was agitation from eurosceptic right-wing elements within the Tory party from the early 90s onwards. John Major famously called these guys his 'Bastards'. He briefly got them under control, but they regained their strength as the years went by, so Cameron eventually felt under increasing pressure to write the referendum offer into the manifesto. It has also been said that Cameron felt safe in doing this because he privately believed the Tories would never get a sufficiently large parliamentary majority to allow the referendum to go ahead!

Cheers, John

Phoenix1304

4th December 2019, 20:57

Hi Longjohn

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Points taken, although regarding the judiciary I remain shocked at the Assange ‘trial’ and endless stories like public schoolboy with 2000 images of baby porn gets off with a slap on the wrist, it makes me tend to believe the ‘conspiracy theory’ that the judiciary (and police) have been heavily infiltrated by the worst kinds of people, just like the BBC. I have little faith in any of it now...

I’d be interested in your feedback on the vid I posted above as Corbyn very much speaks for me regarding the EU, and Varoufakis drops a truth bomb about the EU and Ireland that was news to me.

I agree with you that by nature Brits are fair minded and decent people. The imperialists may have profited greatly from slavery, but it was Brits that initiated and effected its abolition in the end. But then again, maybe slavery just got more disguised. We are the most heavily surveilled and programmed nowadays, small island, perfect for the crowd control experiments.

There is a TV reality show called The Real Marigold Hotel in which Stanley Johnson (Boris’ dad), was invited to race against some Indians, he cheated, crowed in triumph that he’d ‘won’ while everyone looked at each other in amazement thinking ‘what a jerk’. Everyone knew he’d cheated. Apple don’t fall far from the tree, as they say. Ironically, despite the plummy accents the family are not ‘true’ Brits, but immigrants! Just like the royal family!

I would love to feel proud to be British again, as I did in my youth when holding up the NHS and education as great testaments to our democracy, but these clowns like Johnson, Cameron, Osborne, Gove, Blair, Brown etc. over recent decades have only caused me shame. 5 yr olds have classes in self touching and gender identity now. I expect you’re glad not to be teaching these days, I know of so many good people that have left the profession, sadly those following the program without question remain.

I’m ever hopeful positive change is on the horizon. Which means I’m not quite so cynical as I make out! But if the Brits let us down in this election I guess I’ll just have to settle for the government they deserve and take the fallout along with the rest of the world.

greybeard

5th December 2019, 20:38

It is not too late': Andrew Neil challenges Johnson to commit to interview

Andrew Neil has urged Boris Johnson to commit to an interview with him to face questions on why people have 'deemed him to be untrustworthy'. Neil ended his interview with Brexit party leader Nigel Farage with a direct challenge to the prime minister – the only leader of a major party not to have been interviewed by the veteran broadcaster during the campaign: 'It is not too late. We have an interview prepared. Oven-ready, as Mr Johnson likes to say.'

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

Longjohn

6th December 2019, 09:19

@Phoenix,

I'm in the process of watching your video and will reply. I have a great deal of admiration for Yanis Varoufakis, so I want to see it all!

greybeard

6th December 2019, 09:33

greybeard

6th December 2019, 11:02

The Infamous Page 48 of Boris Johnson's Manifesto
There is a lot of awful promises made in the Conservative manifesto, but none more horrific than page 48, which has been getting a lot of attention this week due to a dreadful link with similar policies last century. In this video, I explain how Boris Johnson intends to tear up the British constitution and use it to completely bypass parliament, the Queen and the courts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS1BUkn1cSI

Whats the expression???
"Hidden in plain sight"

Boris has knocked the highest court in the land--- parliament fail safe ( a speaker and opposition) the Monarchy and just about everything else that stands for British Democracy.
Anything that stands in the way--including old friends-family-ex lovers- ex employers-experienced ex chancellors of the exchequer ex PM's, is put to the media in a way that favours Get Brexit Done --They all got Boris and Brexit wrong of course.
Chris

greybeard

6th December 2019, 12:53

Sir John Major in extraordinary call urging people to vote against Tories in three constituencies
Yahoo News UK James Morris,Yahoo News UK

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/john-major-general-election-tories-111230979.html

Sir John Major today urged people in three constituencies to vote against the Tories in next week’s general election.

In an extraordinary move by the former Conservative prime minister, he endorsed three independents who lost the Tory whip earlier this year after rebelling against Boris Johnson over Brexit.

Mr Johnson responded by saying: “I think it’s very sad and I think that he’s wrong.”

Sir John, backing ex-ministers David Gauke, Dominic Grieve and Anne Milton, was expected to say at a pro-second referendum rally in London: “Let me make one thing absolutely clear: none of them has left the Conservative Party, the Conservative Party has left them.
"Without such talent on its benches, Parliament will be the poorer, which is why – if I were resident in any one of their constituencies – they would have my vote.”

Sir John was set to describe Brexit as the “worst foreign policy decision in my lifetime”, and will say leaving the EU will affect “nearly every single aspect of our lives for many decades to come”.

Chris says.
Voters WAKE UP!!!!
Do you really want Boris to be PM?
Brexit at any cost???
Chris

Longjohn

6th December 2019, 13:55

Well said, Greybeard!

I knew that Boris would try and nobble the courts: this just confirms it. In a few months' time, people will begin to see through the empty facade of the man he really is.

I sincerely hope that one day the Brits will take a leaf out of the French Gilet Jeunes playbook, and finally have the guts to get off their complacent backsides and take their pitchforks to Parliament.

The Brits really are the true 'Sheeple': in their naive belief that they still have democracy, they will continue to allow their 'elected' masters to strip their formerly great nation of humanity, decency and prosperity.

greybeard

6th December 2019, 14:14

I would like to be clear.
Im still not against Brexit or for it.
However I do now have a position.
I do not trust Boris---I suspect there is an agenda even bigger than Brexit that most, including my self, are unaware of.
All the respected long term members of the Tory party have had their influence taken away, degraded --Why?
They stand against an extreme right wing leadership that claims they are for the people and against all that has been already mentioned in previous post.
Parliament in its wisdom--rejected terrible deals that would have ruined UK--they got castigated for this in the Right Wing press.
The last part is an opinion--so a maybe so.
However the lies that have been told are now being exposed--that is fact not an opinion.
If something is for the good of the UK then there is no need to lie.

Chris

Longjohn

7th December 2019, 08:41

British diplomat in US resigns, saying she can't 'peddle half-truths' on Brexit

From The Guardian, 6th December 2019 (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/06/alexandra-hall-british-diplomat-resigns-letter-cant-peddle-half-truths-uk-government):

The British diplomat in charge of explaining Brexit to the US government, Congress and public, has resigned, saying she was no longer prepared to “peddle half-truths on behalf of a government I do not trust”.

“I have been increasingly dismayed by the way in which our political leaders have tried to deliver Brexit, with reluctance to address honestly, even with our own citizens, the challenges and trade-offs which Brexit involves; the use of misleading or disingenuous arguments about the implications of the various options before us; and some behaviour towards our institutions, which, were it happening in another country, we would almost certainly as diplomats have received instructions to register our concern,” Hall Hall wrote in the letter, dated 3 December.

“It makes our job to promote democracy and the rule of law that much harder, if we are not seen to be upholding these core values at home,” Hall Hall said.

Daniel Fried, a former US assistant secretary of state for Europe, said this:

“Ambassador Hall Hall is known to her US colleagues, myself included, as a person of integrity and insight. I cannot comment on the specifics of her charges, but she is a credible and serious person and as such her words carry weight.”

On the other hand, Nile Gardiner, director for the Margaret Thatcher Centre for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, responded:

“It is very, very disappointing to see a British diplomat not implementing the official policy of their government. Diplomats should not be giving their own interpretation of information provided by their own government”

LJ: This statement from Gardiner completely ignores the fact that the diplomat had resigned and was thereby entitled to express her views in her resignation letter!

Cheers, LJ

Matthew

7th December 2019, 10:31

WE DID IT!! But this is just the start - The David Icke Videocast/Podcast trailer

cW6WsvZal2Y

Published on 24 Jun 2016

WE DID IT!! But this is just the start - The David Icke Videocast/Podcast trailer
All David's Books Now Available Here http://www.DavidIckeStore.com

Here's a flashback to 2016.

greybeard

7th December 2019, 13:44

David Icke discusses theories and politics with Eamonn Holmes

David Icke joins Eamonn in the studio to discuss his alternative theories. Under the microscope is fake news, mass surveillance, 5G, AI, climate change, US and UK politics - and, of course - Brexit.

"It was always going to go pear-shaped. It's been an alliance between the political class in Britain and the bureaucrats in Brussels to trash Brexit."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaUKOQ4rsdQ

greybeard

8th December 2019, 07:24

I cant help but think Boris going to loose his seat and he know it.
He has not been to the hustings in the area for which he is currently the MP.
What then?
Chris

greybeard

9th December 2019, 14:15

This isn’t the unpredictable election we all want it to be – the Tories have already won
The Independent Sean O'Grady,The Independent

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/isn-t-unpredictable-election-want-120044460.html

It is often remarked that generals, the bad ones at any rate, always tend to fight the last war. And then, of course, lose.

I wonder if we – the journalists, the voters, even the politicians – are making the same mistake with the British general election of 2019.

Ever since the get-go, and even now, the word you most often hear (apart from Brexit) about this contest is “unpredictable”. We’re still told that this is the most unpredictable election in years; that anything could happen; the public is volatile and undecided; there will be some wave of tactical voting to transform things; or a wave of tactical campaigning to do the same; or a “youth quake” is going to seep away our complacent assumptions; that aggressive micro-targeted modern cyber election techniques will transform the parties’ marketing; and, of course, that the polls are all wrong and anyway, a 2017-style Corbyn surge is just around the corner.

Even if any of those things were ever true, or were ever going to be true, they are not true now. It is not 2017 all over again. We are going to get a Tory landslide. Or leastways a very decent majority, large enough for Boris Johnson to disregard not only the opposition parties, but also the nutters in the European Research Group and any vestigial stirrings of pro-Remain, anti-no deal sentiment that somehow escaped his purge of the candidates’ list.

At the start of this campaign, Johnson and the Conservatives had a roughly 10-point lead over the Labour party, and the position has held, with some squeeze on the Farageists and the Lib Dems, bar a few wibbles and wobbles, ever since. We might as well have called off all the tedious “make-or-break” leaders’ debates and photo stunts and fact-checking and just put our feet up. I’m a Celeb was more volatile and unpredictable.

It has been remarkably predictable in fact – or, more accurately, the unpredictable things about the year 2019 was how boringly predictable it has been. Things are not, as of today, “tight”, as Laura Kuenssberg says they are. I don’t know why she says this, given all the data, but there we are.

The Tories, true enough, agree it is touch and go, but that is not because they fear not being the largest party or winning a working majority. What is touch and go is the Johnson landslide – the thing he most prizes but dare not speak of.

In other words, the Conservatives want to scare people, especially Brexit Party voters and Labour Leavers, into giving them a landslide – a 100 plus majority. Labour also talks up how easily they could deprive the Tories of their majority (like in 2017), for similar reasons – to gather momentum. The Lib Dems try to make out they are still on track to hold the balance of power, as they fantasised when Jo Swinson made her historic blunder of granting Johnson his early election.

The more we look at it, the more the 2017 contest was sui generis, a reflection of Theresa May’s extraordinarily poor campaign, and we are now witnessing a reversion to an older norm. Almost every election since the Second World War has been characterised by two things: that the polls hardly shift during the campaign and, closely connected, that all the noise and tumult is mere background. People make their minds up years before.

The truth, I suppose, is that we have been in a virtual non-stop election campaign ever since the inconclusive 2017 poll. The voters are well aware of the personalities and arguments. Johnson and Sturgeon have been around for years and we are familiar with them; Corbyn is no longer this slightly startling man of principle, as the more we have come to know him the dodgier some of his views have become. Swinson, meantime, has pulled off the remarkable trick of growing less impressive the more the public see of her, whereas Sturgeon, Angela Rayner, Caroline Lucas and Rebecca Long-Bailey have been stars in a lacklustre scene.

Most people in this country can barely remember a Tory government with a parliamentary majority big enough for them to do whatever they liked. Many were not even born. It was last seen at the 1987 election, when Margaret Thatcher won her third contest with a majority of 102. I predict the same this time, even given all the social changes over the past 30 years. In which case, you should get used to the idea of a Johnson-led government of cronies and toadies.

Among other things they will; preside over a protracted post-Brexit recession; a collapse in sterling; starve local services and the welfare state of funding when the comprehensive spending review comes round; fail to conclude a trade deal with the EU in time; fail to negotiate an advantageous trade deal with anyone else including (especially) Trump’s protectionist America by 2024; dismantle the constitutional checks and balances supplied by the Commons and the courts, as per page 48 of the Tory manifesto; shut down Channel 4; neuter the BBC; cut taxes for the rich; pack the House of Lords with more Tories and appoint placemen and placewomen to top jobs in the civil service, diplomatic corps, Bank of England and quangos; privatise anything not specifically ruled out by their manifesto.

It is not, then, only the election campaign that is quite stunningly predictable and an easy win for the Tories; but the course of the next five years of the Johnson administration as well. It feels, for those of us who lived through it, every much like the 1980s – a divided centre-left opposition facing a determined Tory PM, who uses their powers as if an elected dictator. You have been warned.

I have highlighted the last part.
May or not be true but worth a thought.
Chris

East Sun

9th December 2019, 15:52

Nice to see David Icke smiling. It's been a tough road he had to follow and is still following.
Proven right once again. I have always been a fan and am not the "fan" type of person.

I'm so glad that Britton has taken a giant step away from the EU and continues on this
road to the end. There's light at the end of the tunnel.

Inspiration for others is what I love to see.

greybeard

9th December 2019, 16:35

Scotland would back independence if Brexit happens, poll indicates
PA Media: UK News By Laura Paterson, PA Scotland,PA Media: UK News

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/scotland-back-independence-brexit-happens-090308330.html

Scotland would vote in favour of independence if Brexit goes ahead, a new poll suggests, but a majority would vote no to leaving the UK if it remains within the EU.

The Panelbase poll for The Sunday Times surveyed 1,020 voters in Scotland between December 3 and 6.

It found a majority, 51%, would back independence if the UK leaves the EU, while 49% would vote against it.

However, if the UK remains in the EU, a majority said they are against Scottish independence at 58%, with 42% in favour.

In general, support for independence has fallen, down 2% since November to 47% while support for Scotland saying in the UK has risen by the same amount to 53%.

The poll results were published as Scottish Conservative leader Jackson Carlaw urged Scots to vote Tory to put plans for a second independence referendum “in cold storage for good”.

He urged unionist Scots to band together to stop a second independence referendum.

But SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon said Scottish voters should “aim higher” than Boris Johnson and Brexit when voting in the General Election on Thursday.

She said a vote for her party would “put Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands”.

Ahead of campaigning on Sunday, Mr Carlaw said: “Two years ago, three-quarters-of-a-million Scots gave their vote to the Scottish Conservatives to stop the SNP’s divisive second independence referendum.

“By acting together, they won. They toppled nationalist MPs off their perch, and forced Nicola Sturgeon to put her indyref2 plans on ice.

“This week, we need those 750,000 people to come together once more and tell her again.

“As more pro-union voters join them in backing the Scottish Conservatives during this campaign, this time we can put that referendum in the cold storage for good.

“Pro-UK voters need to act as one. Jeremy Corbyn won’t stop her, only the Scottish Conservatives will do so.”

Ms Sturgeon said the “very future” of Scotland is at stake in the election.

She said: “Scotland cannot afford to live under more Westminster chaos for years and potentially decades – and we certainly cannot afford five years of Boris Johnson.

“The people of Scotland can do better than Boris and Brexit – and on Thursday we should aim higher.

“This Thursday people in Scotland have an opportunity to unite and demand the right to choose a better future as an independent country – where we always get the governments we vote for and where we have the powers we need to make Scotland the best it can be.

“So I am asking Scotland to unite behind the SNP this Thursday – to escape Brexit, protect the NHS and to put Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands – not Boris Johnson’s.”

greybeard

10th December 2019, 15:59

Boris Johnson insults the 3.6m EU citizens who have made the UK their home
The Guardian Letters,The Guardian

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boris-johnson-insults-3-6m-155426326.html

Boris Johnson thinks I have been able to treat the UK as if it is part of my own country for too long. My own country – that would be Germany which I left 26 years ago. I came as what he now calls an “unskilled migrant”, attracted by a love for British literature, culture and its university system.

We are part of the 3.6 million EU citizens and the 1.2 million UK citizens who freely moved around the UK and Europe.

If Mr Johnson suggests EU migrants in the UK are outstaying their welcome, then he must also apply that to the 1.2 million British citizens living in the EU. Both groups moved around the UK and Europe, curious to discover other countries, meeting and marrying people from a different nation, settling with their loved ones in a new home.

We did not invade our new home countries, we had to fulfil certain criteria upon arrival to make sure we did not become a burden. Freedom of movement rules are not carte blanche for immigration but allow all EU citizens, including the British, to move to another country and get work within three months of their stay.

Freedom of movement rights do not mean uncontrolled immigration, do not mean putting pressure on healthcare and housing by people who haven’t paid in. This is a lie now peddled by the Tory party, desperate to win an election and not caring whether this means wrecking the country I call my home.

The UK chose not to invest in a system to register newcomers, it chose to create a nasty bureaucracy instead, the hostile environment that has such a devastating effect on any immigrant who can’t prove their right to be in the UK. The new settled status application system is based on a platform of anti-immigration rhetoric, no matter how many times the Home Office protests otherwise. It could have been made a simple registration, giving the automatic rights that were promised and truly protecting EU citizens.

Just a few weeks ago, EU migrants were Mr Johnson’s “friends, family and neighbours”, praised for their contribution. Now the tone has changed to an anti-immigration dog whistle from a prime minister blaming migrants for homegrown problems. He should know better – the government’s own report on the positive impact of immigrants contradicts his statements.

But truth doesn’t matter any more in British politics. And this is something we should all be very afraid of. EU immigrants are the latest scapegoats in an election that demonises others to gloss over the Tory party’s own failure to create a prosperous and more equal society.

For most migrants working, studying and raising families in the UK, home is here and we are here to stay.
Maike Bohn
Co-founder, the3million

Longjohn

11th December 2019, 21:03

Boris's Election Bus:

Make sure you vote for Boris tomorrow so he can finish himself off at the bottom of the cliff!

Courtesy of Steve Bell, The Guardian, 11th December 2019 (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2019/dec/11/steve-bell-boris-johnson-general-election-pledges-cartoon#comments)

Phoenix1304

11th December 2019, 21:30

greybeard

11th December 2019, 22:40

If its a close run thing then there is not one party that will support Boris most certainly not DUP--once bitten their quote. Not enough money to bribe them this time.

So Labour could scrape enough support together from the other parties to form a minority Government.
Chris

araucaria

12th December 2019, 09:43

Phoenix1304

12th December 2019, 09:58

araucaria

12th December 2019, 10:16

No misunderstanding : I am speaking to a wider audience. I have no vote on this beyond the odd post on this forum, where it is often said that this is a planet of choice. A metaphysical statement like that is meaningless unless and until it produces an effect in the real world. Sometimes it can boil down literally to casting a vote in an election – or sharing a thought. Either way it’s about making a real individual, and hopefully informed choice.

Longjohn

12th December 2019, 12:50

@Phoenix,

I'm in the process of watching your video and will reply. I have a great deal of admiration for Yanis Varoufakis, so I want to see it all!

I have to say I warmed to Corbyn --he is for the vunerable--genuinely cares I would say.
Better PM material than Boris I would say--but can we afford either of them?
Chris

For me he radiates integrity,
Thank you Helen. The question then becomes: do you vote for real flesh-and-blood human beings with integrity? Or do you listen to conspiracy theories that become so enormous they are turned into satanic abstractions and give your vote to the narcissists and psychopaths who are tapping into such ideas? There certainly are things hugely wrong with the world, but the fact and doubtless the purpose of incarnation is to deal with these abstract issues in concrete, real flesh-and-blood ways and dissipate the nightmare of larger-than-life but lifeless phantoms. Boris Johnson is not for real: get real.

Your last sentence made me question if you thought I was referring to Boris with ‘he radiates integrity’ - I most certainly was not. I will be voting for Labour (for the first time actually, since I always vote Green) in the hope of decent human beings taking over. I do realise we are up against the ‘stop at nothing’ beast, and have been for so very long...I can only pray for the good guys protection and success and that the rest of the country feels the same and are not the feckless idiots Boris’ & co. think they are. Arrogance and conceit could be their downfall. Ever hopeful.

I eventually watched all of the Varoufakis-Corbyn video and much enjoyed it. I'm sorry I took time to reply, but was busy with other things!

I saw an even-handed, deep-thinking, almost apolitical aspect of Corbyn I had not encountered before. He did not spew out a string of political diatribes but came across as someone who was exceedingly well-informed on a wide range of topics as well as on the general dire state of British society.

What a contrast to Boris Johnson's juvenile inability to inform himself on anything, lest he become self-aware of his profound ignorance!

I've heard many times how Corbyn's approach to Brexit is muddle-headed and provides no solution to the debate, but it came over here as a sensible, middle-of-the road compromise that would protect British jobs and trade right across the whole spectrum of businesses.

My admiration for Varoufakis goes up a couple of notches every time I hear him. He has commanding intelligence and power of expression as well as being amazingly well-versed on the history of British socialism. He sees the negative aspects of the Brussels bureaucracy, but at the same time exhorts the British not to jump the EU ship with undue haste.

Best regards,

John

Longjohn

12th December 2019, 13:54

As a relevant aside, I want to mention how I first came to admire Yanis Varoufakis. It was when I read this article on his background, "Yanis Varoufakis: In his own words" (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-31111905) which, significantly for me at the time, included this:

On worries about his elevation from university professor to politician
"I know that I run the risk of, surreptitiously... indulging a feeling of having become 'agreeable' to the circles of 'polite society'. The sense of self-satisfaction from being feted by the high and mighty did begin, on occasion, to creep up on me. And what a non-radical, ugly, corruptive and corrosive sense it was!"

And when did he first notice that "corruptive" influence?
"My personal nadir came at an airport. Some moneyed outfit had invited me to give a keynote on the European crisis and had forked out the ludicrous sum necessary to buy me a first class ticket. On my way back home, tired and already with several flights under my belt, I was making my way past the long queue of economy passengers, to get to my gate. Suddenly I noticed, with considerable horror, how easy it was for my mind to be infected with the sense that I was 'entitled' to bypass the hoi polloi. I realised how readily I could forget that which my left-wing mind had always known: that nothing succeeds in reproducing itself better than a false sense of entitlement."

It made a deep impression on me because I would often ponder how some politicians, academics and well-heeled people could display an arrogance so far in excess of their manifest talent.

When I read this article, I remember thinking to myself that at last I had found a man of renown who had the honesty and transparency to publically admit his all-too human failings.

AutumnW

12th December 2019, 17:48

Brexit is a wedge to establish American authority in the region, IMHO. It is unlikely that Trump will mess up trade. More likely there will be issues with trade with China and the U.S (and British elites--this is coordinated) will be happy to fill any void.

I have just been told that the U.S.could easily offer up a free trade deal predicated on privatizing the whole country, including the health care system. You know...because the super rich just don't have enough money already.

araucaria

13th December 2019, 07:17

Longjohn

13th December 2019, 11:43

After what will turn out to be a disastrous election result for Britain, I'm thinking about what I will do if I ever return to these benighted isles...

I've decided I will wait for Nicola Sturgeon to take Scotland out of the UK and reclaim my good old Scottish ancestry by moving there!

Longjohn

13th December 2019, 12:04

This may be my last word on this matter, posted on the other thread:

The latest polls predicted a possible hung parliament with highly organized tactical voting expected to be hugely effective.
How to turn this into a Tory landslide ? Easy peasy.

You conduct exit polls in all the close constituencies, using facsimile ballot papers identical to the real thing – true, I read it yesterday, and no doubt thousands can testify to it. You then have all day to prepare to substitute real ballot papers with these forged ones – Tories get to vote twice, others not at all.

These exit polls were themselves criminal, a big No No. And a big smoking gun: there can have been no other motive behind such a massive forgery than a Con landslide. The thousands of victims need to file a complaint. But they will be seen as bad losers: it is all those dumb northerners’ fault. And for once the conspiracy theorists won’t be interested, because those losers are on the winning side.

A very slick piece of work.

@Araucaria,

I read that yesterday and said to myself, 'Oh, no, it can't be true!', but you vocalised it. I had heard tales of ballot-box stuffing occurring in previous elections, but this...!

For many years, I've felt that the Anglo-Saxons are sheep who allow themselves to be led astray by the worst of masters, whether they be Johnson, Trump or Trudeau.

I just wish the British would get off their collective backsides and do what the Gilet Jaunes did in France. That time will come, I guess, but by then it could be too late.

As to responsibility for all this, I could be persuaded to glance in the direction of a certain well-known henchman Boris appointed to his No. 10 office...

John

greybeard

13th December 2019, 12:53

N.L.P. won.
Neuro linguistic programing---repitition repitition and a style of vocal delivery that holds the attention--gives it impact.
Man made the dream and the dream made the man--I hope Boris rises to the occasion---you can be sure Nicola Sturgeon will.
Scotland may get an influxof remainers if home rule comes about.
They will get a good Scottish welcome.
Chris

araucaria

13th December 2019, 13:27

As to responsibility for all this, I could be persuaded to glance in the direction of a certain well-known henchman Boris appointed to his No. 10 office...

A thought from last summer: Dominic Cummings, from a mining family of Durham, famous for explaining how the Tories couldn’t give a toss for people like himself, is clearly a traitor to his own and his own integrity. Notice how for people like this, Boris Johnson has previous: Leo Boland, another “son of a County Durham pitman” was his chief executive at London City Hall from 2009-11. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/jan/05/boris-london-boland

What happened is that this civil servant, who built his reputation by making other people redundant, made himself redundant on the basis that he was doing Johnson’s job, and so gave himself a nice golden handshake at 58, thereby saving the taxpayer not a penny on his two-year early retirement!
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/boris-johnsons-city-hall-chief-makes-himself-redundant-with-300k-pay-off-6565805.html

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/jan/22/greater-london-authority-chief-executive

In view of recent developments this fetish for Durham miners’ sons takes on some importance. Here is a video presentation which I confess made me cringe: pretty dreadful from someone on that sort of salary.
https://vimeo.com/15684975

More interestingly, there is the going ahead with electronic vote-counting despite possible fraud: “Leo Boland takes decision to e-count in London 2012”
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2009/leo-boland-takes-decision-to-e-count-in-london-2012

Bill Ryan

14th December 2019, 20:17

From: https://bbc.com/news/election/2019

http://projectavalon.net/UK_Dec_2019_election_results.gif

This is the Conservatives biggest election victory in more than 30 years.
Boris Johnston said that Brexit is now 'irrefutable'.

happyuk

14th December 2019, 21:13

But here’s the big question: Can we trust Boris Johnson to deliver? He’s certainly saying the right things. Maybe we have turned a corner. Maybe the Conservatives finally understand they have to deliver a meaningful Brexit in order to survive as a political force. The last Euro elections put the fear of god into them. That said, the Tories remain the only party who can form a Leave government.

What's the alternative? As someone who grew up in the seventies an economically innumerate Labour Party is too horrible to contemplate. Their manifesto is a blueprint for financial ruin. The policies of the EU have hit the working classes hard. Working class voices need to be heard, aspirations recognized and cultural values respected.

scanner

14th December 2019, 23:57

I would rather be dead in a ditch, if I don't Brexit by 31st Oct 2019, said Boris.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-dead-ditch-extension-election-police-yorkshire-a9093501.html

greybeard

15th December 2019, 20:05

Home Rule for Scotland Inevitable?

I have been thinking about this.
The Scots are Thrawn (Pig headed)
The more Boris and Co say no to anoher independence referendum, the more the Scots will be determined to have home rule.
So the border situation.
If home rule comes about it will take some time and sometime to get an application to rejoin the EU approved by them.
Mean time a trade relationship between the UK and others inculding the EU, will be negotiated.
The main reason for a border is custom and excise requirements--only necessary if different tariffs apply.
Other situations can be handled by visa, applied for before foreign nationals want to come here.
The rules and regulations on food etc always apply--now and in the future.
So as long as Scotland and England have the same tariff rate I dont see the need for a hard border.
Happy to be corrected on this.
Maybe I am naive.
Chris

Matthew

18th January 2020, 11:11

Jeff Taylor is still going with his countdowns, this one is another countdown to Brexit Day!: 14 days to Brexit Day

Macron tries to force Brexit extension!
NGjF05GyUhA

...Mr Macron it is not our nation that is engaged in civil unrest like yours is...

Jeff gives (in my bias and humble opinion) a great rant at the end!

Matthew

1st February 2020, 12:17

Nigel Farage's last speech in the European Union parliament.

TL;DR
It was meant to be a common market, not a common flag (or army, or political empire). The EU have IGNORED EVERY SINGLE OTHER COUNTRIES REFERENDUM, except Britain's.

xjQvSGwPY40

Matthew

1st February 2020, 13:12

scanner

1st February 2020, 14:00

:clapping::clapping: We are now Sovereign again. I've now updated my Countries Flag.

_rdIJ0sEEmA

Bill Ryan

1st February 2020, 20:36

I haven't seen Carl Benjamin (aka Sargon of Akkad) in such a humorous, flippant mood for a while.

Benjamin had previously expressed Brexit frustration more elegantly than I thought possible.

In this video Benjamin picks through remainers tweats, calling out misconceptions and badly informed opinions.

This isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea, it is highly bias and (imho) it may come across a little obnoxious to some people. It's here for people who are enjoying Brexit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L_ECsbmxdcI thought that was hilarious. (I confess! :) ) He really was enjoying himself. His humour was genuine, not faked for the camera.

It must be pretty tricky in Britain right now. I'm 100% against the EU, and always have been. But it's not any Europeans, or any European countries I didn't like: it was solely the top-heavy bureaucracy of the European Superstate: a kind of sugar-coated, Totalitarian Lite.

Now, I suspect, it'll all start to crumble as more countries opt to do the same.
:happy dog:

Matthew

1st February 2020, 21:48

... Carl Benjamin ...
Him, Count Dankula, Alistair Williams and We Got A Problem seem to have been closer to the zeitgeist, than for example Victoria Derbyshire, who like the rest of the BBC missed zeitgeist because they were pushing the zeitgeist they really really wanted instead.

Mehyar Tousi, also capturing the moment but with a more low-brow tone, different to the danky, gamer geek humour (or with Alistair, a full blown pro. comedian). One way or the other, it seems brash/frank, unafraid humour saved the day.

araucaria

15th February 2020, 08:11

The US connection. Guardian comment by fishgirl23:

Cummings ain't running this show. Matthew Elliot and his wife, Sarah Elliot are in full control of what is happening in the UK. I have been reading about it, but need to understand it fully before posting more. All information is in the public domain. If journalists fail to present this information they will do a disservice to their profession and the UK. Just undertake a search of the husband and wife team. Brexit has been a very long time in the making. Cummings is another puppet. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2020/feb/14/martin-rowson-on-new-uk-cabinets-inaugural-meeting-at-downing-street

Follow the links in the thread :
https://twitter.com/BettGunther/status/1228279980884463619

GuntherBett #FBPE@BettGunther 20h
Now look at how Matthew Elliott told his wife to be Sarah, in 2012 that he would take the UK out of the EUhttps://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/11/18/matthew-sarah-elliott-uk-power-couple-linking-us-libertarians-and-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-brexit

At the heart of this network lies a little-known power couple, Matthew and Sarah Elliott. Together, the husband and wife team connect senior members of the Leave campaign and groups pushing a libertarian free-market ideology from offices in Westminster’s Tufton Street to major US libertarian lobbyists and funders.

Collectively, the network aims to use Brexit as an opportunity to slash regulations in the UK, paving the way for a wide-ranging US-UK free-trade deal that could have disastrous consequences for the environment.

greybeard

16th April 2020, 06:14

After coronavirus, Boris Johnson's Tories will be a very different party
The Guardian Martin Kettle,The Guardian

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-boris-johnsons-tories-very-050034631.html

It is only four months since Boris Johnson led the Conservative party to a historic victory. His 80-seat majority seemed to recast the electoral landscape for a generation. It also marked another milestone in Brexit’s transformation of the Conservative party from the party of business to the party of the flag. Today, that seems like another world.

Everything has been upended by Covid-19. The business of government is wholly taken up with protecting public health, keeping the economy on life support and, in Johnson’s own case, his personal survival. Today the national lockdown is expected to be extended into May.

It seems likely that the Britain which eventually emerges from the coronavirus crisis will be a country of a significantly different temper from the Britain that went into it. Nobody can be certain about the degree of change. The possibility that the economy may shrink by a third, with millions of job losses, is a reality check about a more enduringly difficult new normal. The post-pandemic Conservative party must adapt too. But in what ways?

Future British politics will not shake down into a binary choice between the economy and public health. The need to restore both will be far messier than that. Political horizons will simultaneously be very wide – global issues of health, supply chains, travel, information and Chinese power will surge up the agenda – and very narrow: local issues about safe ways to work, earn, live and survive a future pandemic will matter more too. Politics will be more fragile, fearful and dynamic.

While the pandemic and the lockdown hold sway, the official Conservative position is to ensure the least bad of all possibilities. The policy can be summed up by Rishi Sunak’s comments this week. “The single most important thing we can do for the health of our economy is to protect the health of our people,” said the chancellor on Tuesday. “It’s not a case of choosing between the economy and public health.”

However, once discussion moves on to the so-called exit strategy and to the post-Covid future, as it is now beginning to do, this begins to change. The choices do not suddenly become absolute. Instead they become competing calculations of the balance of risk in the interaction between the economy and public health, as and when the pandemic wanes. That has to be one of the reasons why Keir Starmer is pressing the government to publish its strategy. He knows this will reveal faultlines and compromises that an opposition can exploit without appearing partisan or unpatriotic.

There are some signs of those tensions already appearing within Conservative ranks. Sajid Javid, Sunak’s more fiscally cautious predecessor, warned this week against mortgaging the future, and said low taxes remained key to kickstarting the economic recovery. Theresa May and several of her ex-ministers, including Philip Hammond, believe something similar. But Johnson will want to go on spending, not reinventing austerity. So will the health secretary, Matt Hancock, who will press for a large programme of resilience measures in health and social care to guard against a future pandemic. The new Tory MPs from the former industrial areas will agree with them. So, at least for now, will Sunak.

Where this process of change will eventually lead the Tory party is difficult to predict. Sunak’s autumn budget – in which the social care agenda that was abandoned in 2017 will surely have to be a central focus – looms increasingly as a vital moment. But all this will surely generate a rather different party, and with rather different priorities, from the one that Johnson led to victory last December.

Whether the Tory party successfully embraces the choices that will now face it depends overwhelmingly on Johnson himself. After 2019, the party is unusually dependent on the man at the top. The reshuffled cabinet consists mainly of minister of state-level players whom Johnson dominates from No 10. Its lack of depth has been cruelly exposed in the crisis. The party remains very much Johnson’s own brand, held together by his inimitable personality and popularity.

For as long as Johnson remains out of action, the important choices about the party’s direction are likely to be deferred. The party which, only a few weeks ago, Johnson and Dominic Cummings were building on the basis of Brexit and the anger of the left-behind is becoming less relevant by the day in the shadow of coronavirus.

Related: Coronavirus has made the BBC's balancing act even harder | Tom Mills

The dissonance between the new realities and the recent past is now huge. Instead of the old contempt towards experts, competence and seriousness, there is now a craving for all three to help steer a safe course through the Covid-19 crisis. The idea that the government’s post-pandemic priorities might include lighting fires under the BBC, the civil service and the universities therefore seems even more destructive now than before. The idea that Britain should be a Brexit buccaneer, turning its back resolutely against Europe and throwing itself into the arms of Donald Trump seems even more irresponsible.

As one former minister put it to me this week: “The party that was being created in the wake of the election was a new one. It was based on a cultural backlash against liberalism and established elites at home and abroad. But that doesn’t feel to me like what the country wants now. It doesn’t want divisive politics. It doesn’t want a culture war. This feels like a moment to step away from a lot of that.” Whether to take that step away will be very much Johnson’s own decision. But it is a decision with momentous implications for the Tory party and for the whole of British party politics.

• Martin Kettle is a Guardian columnist

greybeard

16th April 2020, 06:17

I wonder where this puts the brexit process.
A double whammy for buisness and the economy- trying to survive lockdown.
Chris

norman

16th April 2020, 08:26

I wonder where this puts the brexit process.
A double whammy for buisness and the economy- trying to survive lockdown.
Chris

It's going to depend on how the mood changes as the stats justifying lockdown change to stats justifying getting back to 'normal'. If the UK politicos start tap dancing and allowing an ingress of a technocratic replacement form of government, a societal 2by4 smack on the head double whammy realisation could trigger trouble.

If our Brexit Prime Minister only gave us 'brexit' because a decision had been made that brexit didn't even matter any longer, watch out.

I'm not going to go there yet because the straw I'm clutching is the most positive psychological battlefield straw I can manifest in my sweaty grip, and UK riots ain't in it.

greybeard

16th April 2020, 08:39

greybeard

16th April 2020, 08:43

Brexit transition period must be extended immediately, says Labour MP
By Craig Paton, PA Scotland Political Reporter
PA Media: UK News

Shadow Scottish secretary Ian Murray has called for an “immediate” extension to the Brexit transition period due to the coronavirus outbreak.

In a letter to Scottish Secretary Alister Jack, Mr Murray said “this is not a time for constitutional politics”, adding the Government focus should be on tackling Covid-19.

The transition period for the UK leaving the EU expires on December 31, with a deadline to request an extension set for June 30.

Mr Murray wrote: “I note that Scottish Conservative and Unionist leader Jackson Carlaw MSP has called for a ‘pragmatic response’.

“The pragmatic response for the UK Government is to urgently apply for an extension to the transition period.

“This is not a time for constitutional politics and business do not need any more uncertainty.”

He added: “The entire focus of all Governments in the UK must be on working together to tackle the coronavirus outbreak and then dealing with its aftermath to ensure our economy recovers.

“I therefore hope you will support your party leader in Holyrood, and business leaders across the UK, and address this issue with your Cabinet colleagues at the earliest possible opportunity.”

The letter also raised a number of other issues.

The Edinburgh South MP asked for assurances that MPs would return to Parliament in some form after the Easter recess, as well as the extension of the job retention scheme to those who have started a new job and concerns about people who are self employed.

Mr Murray outlined nine different issues in his letter, in which he also called on the Scottish Secretary to push for full transparency on how financial support sent from Westminster to Scotland will be spent by Scottish ministers.

Support will also be needed in local media, Mr Murray said, claiming newspapers are struggling to due to declining sales and advertising revenue during the crisis.

He said: “Without newspapers to hold those in power to account, our democracy will be fundamentally weakened.

“Would your office consider engaging with the Scottish Government to discuss what financial support can be offered to ensure Scotland’s local newspapers survive this crisis?”

The shadow Scottish Secretary, who was appointed by new Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, went on to accuse the UK Government of not doing enough to repatriate citizens stuck abroad.

He said: “I do believe the UK Government can increase its efforts to get people home. Many airlines that are still operating are charging exorbitant fares which means commercial travel is not affordable for most.

“My constituents who are still stuck abroad need more certainty that their Government will get them home as soon as possible.”

A spokeswoman for the UK Government said the Prime Minister has “no intention of changing” the date of the end of the transition period.

She added: “Our top priority as a Government is to slow the spread of the coronavirus, protect the NHS and keep people safe – we are working around the clock to do so, with all four nations together providing unprecedented financial support for businesses, workers and the self-employed.”

greybeard

16th April 2020, 08:53

Scottish Independence.
I think this will be really knocked on the head, reason being that Scotland derives quite an income from tourism -- which will be dead in the water for quite some time.
Chris

Matthew

18th April 2020, 09:54

The EU on the brink of collapse due to infighting

In this video we look at an article that states that the EU is dying and its down to merkel(hard to disagree there)

YouTube channel, Rotten Politics, looks at reports from The Express about EU personality in-fighting. Junker being the one with integrity, working hard to maintain the European state while others look like they are reverting to their original nation states

This video presents a very anti-European Commission bias

3wjczQMsAIo

norman

17th May 2020, 06:18

Eurozone Breakup Risk Reaches New High

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/eurozone-breakup-risk-reaches-new-high

What's in the water in Karlsruhe? Because the German supreme court is on a tear through the EU...
lMCh5gTCXZA

Europe In Crisis: German Judges Strike Back, Say ECB Isn't "Master Of The Universe"

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/europe-crisis-german-judges-strike-back-say-ecb-isnt-master-universe

norman

8th June 2020, 16:38

NISSAN doesn't think UK, brexit and the big T revolution is screwed.

It's the EU Nissan is dropping.

xgDoElJInLc
NEWS AND VIEWS FROM THE NEFARIUM JUNE 4 2020

greybeard

8th June 2020, 16:46

Unfortunately I think its all irrelevant with "The Great Reset" Norman
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?111148-Now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset&p=1359573&viewfull=1#post1359573

Chris

norman

8th June 2020, 16:50

We'll see about that, Chris . . . . .

greybeard

8th June 2020, 17:14

norman

8th June 2020, 18:10

greybeard

8th June 2020, 18:32

We'll see about that, Chris . . . . .

I hope you are right Norman, but I would not bet on anything at the moment.
New World Oder seems a likely winner.
So many sleep walking into loss of freedom.
Chris

I guess that's always been the difference between enlightenment and faith Chris.

best wishes.

Yet strangely enough I have faith that given time the situation -- all the various aspects of it--will come right for the good of all decent fair minded people.

Best wishes Norman
Chris

greybeard

22nd June 2020, 20:02

Boris Johnson loves U-turns. Let's hope this extends to a no-deal Brexit
[The Guardian]
Simon Jenkins
The Guardian19 June 2020

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/boris-johnson-loves-u-turns-130848259.html

Boris Johnson loves U-turns. Let's hope this extends to a no-deal Brexit

Britain could be the first developed economy to be sabotaged by maths. Not by war, ideology or disease, but maths. The prime minister is said to be mesmerised by models.

Related: Failure of Brexit talks could lead to terrorism intelligence delays, say Lords

One is the coronavirus model of a “second spike” and half a million deaths, creation of Imperial College London statisticians, led by the epidemiologist Neil Ferguson. The other is the Brexit model of Professor Patrick Minford, forecasting a surge of 4% in British growth in the event of a hard Brexit. Both modellers have their critics. But no matter. To Boris Johnson, the model is god. Forget common sense. Maths cannot lie. The models hover over today’s Downing Street like two swords of Damocles.

Johnson can reasonably argue that he was not alone in following Imperial College to blanket lockdown. He meant well. But now he is trapped by it. Despite his project fear and its poll approval, lockdown failed to stem Europe’s second worst death rate. According to the OECD, it is also about to inflict on Britain Europe’s worst recession – an 11.5% fall in GDP, compared with Germany’s 6.6%. Unemployment without equal since the 1930s may result.

One might think that, having cut off the economy’s two legs, Johnson might be kind to its arms. But no. This week he and his Brexiter colleague Michael Gove indicated that talks with the EU on a trade deal had stalled. There was no way they would seek the extension on offer at the end of this month. They are putting it about that, with the economy in ruins anyway, no one will actually notice more blood spilt over stalled EU trade.

Like many half-hearted remainers, I have accepted Brexit as a new reality. But I could never imagine no trade deal with the EU. It was and is barking mad. As with blanket lockdown, no-deal Brexit is treated by Johnson and Gove as undergraduate psychology – of bluff, double-bluff and debating points. They regard the EU’s Michel Barnier as the cad of the lower fifth. Put him against the wall, they jeer, and he will fold.

There is absolutely no reason for failing to extend the current EU talks, at least until heads on both sides can clear. The British economy, partly through the government’s own fault, faces appalling contraction. The economy’s second biggest sector, hospitality and tourism, has been devastated.

Johnson may think Britons are so bound up in the horrors of his first model that they will not notice the horrors of the second. Apart from such irresponsibility, that cannot apply to businesses and their employees. British exporters face an instant tariff wall from January. Farmers may have to slaughter animals. Aviation, policing, and food and medicine supply chains will choke. Banking arrangements may be cobbled together, but the trickle of financial emigration to Europe’s capitals will become a flood. And for what? So Johnson can keep his appointment with his own chosen date.

Searchers after comfort may find some in the prime minister’s addiction to U-turns. He made a significant one last year when he agreed to an unavoidable customs border with Northern Ireland. Peering through the murk, we can see the hope of a compromise on fish, where at least Britain has right on its side.

Other EU concessions are harder to discern. A grownup arrangement should be possible on trade arbitration. One is less plausible on common trading standards. Compliance to such standards is the essence of a sophisticated free market between adjacent economies, but Johnson seems averse. The idea that a deal with the US might ever compensate for the EU, let alone now, is fantastical.

In other words, a version of the old single-market option of sharing Europe’s “economic area” should make as much sense to a Eurosceptic as to a former remainer. It is said that the necessary concessions – or U-turns – could be cobbled together by Christmas. But this involves Downing Street genuinely wanting it.

Why Johnson should want to put British businesses and their workers through the hell of yet more uncertainty is a mystery. He says he must keep faith with those who voted for Brexit, but this is infantile. They were a narrow majority, and were never asked to vote for no deal. A poll last month was emphatic. Three-quarters of respondents do not want to leave the EU without a deal. That includes 64% of Tories and 57% of leavers.

There cannot be a majority for no deal in parliament. Keir Starmer and the opposition have a duty to do all they can to force Downing Street to reverse its intransigence. They must stop Johnson doubling-down on insanity, and declare death to the models and the maths.

• Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist

Now this is what really concerns me.
If the projections in the video below come to pass then Brexit without a deal could play a major part in decreasing the population through food shortage.
Lets face it a lot of our food comes from Europe.
No deal chaos at ports.
I really hope I am miss reading this.
Chris

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlu21LnvD-s

Food supplies could be hit more by no-deal Brexit than Covid-19, experts claim
[PA Media: UK News]
Katrine Bussey, PA Scotland Political Editor
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/food-supplies-could-hit-more-115850716.html

A no-deal Brexit may have a far more severe impact on food supplies than coronavirus, according to academics.

Experts from Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) have warned possible price hikes could make it harder for some people to consume the recommended five portions a day of fruit and vegetables.

They looked at what could happen if the UK fails to secure a Brexit deal before the transition period expires at the end of December.

Cesar Revoredo-Giha and Montserrat Costa-Font, from SRUC’s food marketing research team, said: “Whilst Covid-19 has already had an impact on prices and imports, a no-deal Brexit may have far more severe effects on the food chain.”

They warned “the effect of a no-deal Brexit may disrupt the fruit and vegetable supply in multiple ways”.

The pair spoke out after comparing the price of 20 fruits and vegetables between March and April this year and the same period last year.

During the coronavirus crisis, imports of fruit and vegetables from the EU fell, with the prices of onions up by 26.7% between March and April.

Over the same period, the prices of mushrooms and tomatoes also increased by more than 10%.

They noted the “significant price differences” in a blog post published by the London School of Economics and Political Science.

The pair said the UK is “highly dependent” on imports of both fruit and vegetables, adding: “On vegetables, the UK imports more than half of the tomatoes, onions, cucumbers, mushrooms, peppers and lettuce it consumes.

“Between 75% and 100% of these products were imported from the EU in 2019.

“This share did not vary much during Covid-19, except in the case of tomatoes and onions, where we do observe a reduction of EU imports during the first quarter of 2020.”

The SRUC experts added such “disruptions” to the supply of fruit and veg could “exert important effects on their price and, potentially, consumption in the UK”.

They said: “This can have important effects on the nutrition of the UK population, particularly for those with limited income, hampering any improvement towards the five-a-day goal.”

Figures for across the UK showed that in 2018 just over a quarter (28%) of adults were eating the recommended five portions of fruit and vegetables per day – with people consuming on average 3.7 portions.

Fewer men than women meet the five-a-day guideline, while only 18% of children aged between five and 15 managed to eat five servings of fruit and vegetables per day.

greybeard

25th June 2020, 19:20

Boris Johnson is playing a dangerous Brexit game. A transition extension is the only way to protect people’s health and livelihoods
Layla Moran
The Independentyesterday

I recently launched Build Back Better, a new booklet of radical ideas for the Liberal Democrats in a post-coronavirus world. In among the 128-pages of policy and political reflection, I call for more cross-party working, particularly on the centre-left.

In the long term, working with other parties will help us all make progress on our common causes: protecting the environment and reducing inequality, for instance. In the much more immediate term, cross-party working, across the whole of parliament, is vital to prevent a damaging no-deal Brexit.

A no-deal Brexit means uncertainty for businesses. It means more job losses and reduced access to medication. I believe our country has suffered enough this year, without adding more misery on top. So, I believe that we, as a country, need to do everything we can to avoid no deal. And that means extending the transition period, to allow ourselves more time to negotiate a deal with the EU.

It’s not just Remain politicians who think this. The public thinks it too. All the excellent polling work by Best for Britain shows that people want the government to focus on the crisis in front of them and avoid a no-deal Brexit. This was particularly true in polling from the “red wall” seats, many of which will bear the brunt of the economic impact of a no-deal Brexit.

Unfortunately, our prime minister and government are yet to grasp this. They are so intent on leaving the EU on 31 December, by any means, that they are actively putting ideology ahead of people’s health and livelihoods.

Rather than focusing on the coronavirus response, they are redeploying resources back to no-deal planning, and refusing to take the opportunity to extend the transition period. This is an extraordinarily dangerous path to take the country on; and the prime minister is gambling with more than just his majority.

So what can we do, as the clock ticks down to 30 June (our deadline for requesting an extension)? Well, we managed to stop the UK crashing out of the EU without a deal once, and we can do it again. It isn’t too late.

I am leading a cross-party effort, teaming up with Labour backbenchers and Green, SNP and Plaid Cymru MPs on a bill that could pull us back from the brink. On Monday I presented the bill, which would revoke the government’s ban on itself requesting an extension and enable parliament, the people’s representatives, to have a say on whether to extend the transition period or not, beyond 30 June.

Neither the people nor parliament have had their say on Brexit and the transition period since coronavirus struck our country. It has had a devastating health and economic impact, and changed the way we think about so many aspects of life.

So, I hope politicians from across the Commons, including from the Conservative Party and the leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer, will join us in sending Boris Johnson a clear and simple message: it’s not too late. I hope they will join us in backing this bill and calling for a vote on extending this transition period, to ensuring the government is compelled to focus on the real crisis right now: the coronavirus pandemic.

To the prime minister, I say this: take this branch you’re being offered. Put the power in the hands of the people’s representatives, and then work with us to extend the transition period and do right by the people of this country, who have suffered enough this year.

Businesses can’t move forward under the threat of a no deal. People can’t move forward if they lose their jobs because of a no deal. Our health services can’t move forward if resources are removed to prepare for a no deal.

This debate needs to be had, these arguments need to be heard, and the transition period must be extended.

Layla Moran is the Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon and a candidate for the party’s leadership

safara

3rd November 2020, 19:29

Hmmmm.
New to the forum and a large thread to read through.
I have always vehemently opposed Brexit - as I see it as a Tory construct to remove it's shackles of adhearance to rights for those that are not part of their top elite. A means to impose greater sanctions, restrictions on us. A way forward to the removal of many of our freedoms.
I dont trust the Torys - and I shudder to think what they will do to the country with a free reign.
I have some reading to do to see if anything here will change my mind.

greybeard

3rd November 2020, 19:38

Welcome safra.
I was against leaving -- better the devil you know so to speak.
I now understand better the reasons for leaving, however, terrible timing.
In the middle of draconian restrictions -- we may face a food shortage or much more expensive products down to the twin whammies.
Chris

scanner

3rd November 2020, 21:54

The game of chess is very technical, we're on the defensive but not quite mate, yet.

safara

6th November 2020, 16:52

They are going to have to delay it in the current climate surely?

A subject I am passionate about - taking the time to read through the whole thread.
Please excuse if I make a few concurrent posts quoting people :flower:

safara

6th November 2020, 16:59

Dear Guys,

Don't kid yourselves. Britain will now be the economic victim of its ill-informed parochialism. It did not vote to leave the EU on the grounds of sensible, well presented arguments. The 'Leave' campaign nailed its colours onto an anti-immigration, pro-sovereignty bandwagon. Both sides were guilty of negative campaigning, but at least the 'Remain' campaign warned people of the economic consequences of such a drastic change. If the Germans decided to leave the EU, then they would survive because they have a strong economy and the world needs its goods. The British economy is hopelessly weak, burdened with deficit and was only kept going by the positive perception of the financial markets.

Once the 'Leavers' get over their silly triumphalism, the party will turn sour and they will slowly realise the damage that this move will wreak on Britain's status in the world, its economy, their people's wealth, pensions and their own children's future.

From my own point of view, I'm an engineer working in Switzerland, but I have family in the UK. I see nothing but harm to young people's opportunities, Britain's educational institutions, its R&D base, its ability to attract investment, and for its people to believe that they are part of one world.

Britain will now retreat into its past glories...

With regrets,

John

As true today as it was over 4 years ago.

safara

6th November 2020, 17:55

Scottish Independence.
I think this will be really knocked on the head, reason being that Scotland derives quite an income from tourism -- which will be dead in the water for quite some time.
Chris

Tourism will bounce very quickly. I have a small AirBNB here in Wales and the MINUTE a local Covid restriction is lifted, we have enquiries. If the offering is right, and in Scotland and Wales this is simply not being in England LOL, people will want to come and stay.

Re: Welsh independence - the Yes Cymru movement has grown in the last 2 months from nothing to having more piad up members that any other political party in Wales bar Labour.
Wales is waking up to the fact that Westiminster does not give a toss about it, and other facts like Wales gto more back from the EU every month than it paid to it. And no way in hell is Westminster going to do anything about that :D
Self Determination and rejoining the EU, along with partners like Scotland is becoming a viable thing to push towards.

Less than 2 months to a No Deal Exit - less when you lump in the Xmas break and 4 weeks of English lockdown.

greybeard

6th November 2020, 18:07

All credit to you safra -- you are doing your home work.
While I get the deep political undercurrents- cutting ties with your closes and best customer does not make sense.
At the moment it is a level playing field as far as goods in goods out goes to Europe.
The timing is terrible.
Of course union should never happened in the first place from some points of view and thats valid

Chris

safara

13th November 2020, 18:09

Chief Rat is forced to jump ship, before the Brexit hits the fan.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54938050

avid

13th November 2020, 18:54

Chief Rat is forced to jump ship, before the Brexit hits the fan.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54938050

Goodbye Dominic Cummings, the ‘tour de force’ of Barnard Castle lockdown for eyesight tests. How have you survived at No 10 soooo loooong? Pathetic. That is indicative of the ‘leadership’ in the sinking ship of Boris - a laughing stock, grovelling for advice to ‘Kill Gates’ as to whom should be annihilated next 🤬🤬🤬

norman

17th November 2020, 09:50

Is Carrie Symonds Boris Johnson's handler ? - OR - Has Boris been bought (by China)?
(https://app.box.com/s/oe3yc5hckdcogwi89ciwypj9gntkpk6w)

norman

11th December 2020, 10:14

Julia Hartley Brewer - Boris’ No Deal Brexit warning, Mass testing of London pupils, Barbara Windsor dies aged 83 (https://podbay.fm/p/julia-hartley-brewer-daily/e/1607681135)
Show notes
Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden joins Julia to discuss the £165 million in repayable finance offered to some of the country's most iconic cultural venues as part of the £1.57 billion Culture Recovery Fund. Lord Digby Jones, former Director General of the CBI with the latest on the Brexit deal. Julia is also joined by Christopher Biggins, Shobiz legend and friend of Dame Barbara Windsor.

Brexit Republic - Podcast (https://podbay.fm/p/rte-brexit-republic)
Each week Brexit Republic will assess the unfolding developments, explain the complexities, and explore where and how Brexit will have an impact.

norman

23rd December 2020, 23:17

UK and EU close to agreeing post-Brexit trade deal | ITV News

eVLt2Bfhd5k

araucaria

28th December 2020, 10:22

With Johnson's kipper tie, the Piscean age comes to an end with a whimper: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/24/net-gains-boris-points-up-his-ties-to-the-fishing-industries

Bill Ryan

18th May 2021, 22:19

Several months way too late, I've just come across this utterly delightful 3 minute clip from Yes Minister. :)

Why the UK is in the EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVYqB0uTKlE

araucaria

21st May 2021, 08:25

Several months way too late, I've just come across this utterly delightful 3 minute clip from Yes Minister. :)

Why the UK is in the EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVYqB0uTKlE
Yes Avalon Founder! But this rather contradicts the prevalent forum view that Brexit was necessary in order to escape the evil cabal in Brussels. So which is it to be? This video presents the acceptable face of perfidious Albion: self-deprecatory British humour. Humour is a two-edged sword; it can be a way to convey unpalatable truths (there’s many a true word spoken in jest, as they say); or it can be a way to play down those unpalatable truths. The rise of the buffoon Johnson would seem to suggest the latter, Brexit being the next step in the ongoing process of fomenting trouble. Even now we can say that any future step such as an application to rejoin the EU is doomed to create just more trouble.

It is also worth considering many earlier steps long before Orwell said War is peace. In the mid-19th century, Victor Hugo was bemoaning the perverse genius of Britain and Russia at the Congress of Vienna (https://www.historytoday.com/archive/what-was-congress-vienna) of 1814-15. In Le Rhin (1858), Hugo explains how Britain and Russia created a permanent motive for hatred between Germany and France at a time when they were destined to become reconciled. The main plank of the post-Napoleonic peace, he says, was taking the left bank of the Rhine from France and giving it not just to Germany but to ‘the youngest and strongest of the German peoples’, Prussia,’ capable of never giving something up once it has gained control’. Writing over a decade before the Franco-Prussian War, Hugo describes this move as ‘a masterpiece of hatred, cunning, discord and calamity.’

Even today, France is highly ambivalent over Napoleon, whose bicentenary fell only the other week. Briefly, as I understand it, the huge benefits of the French revolution are inextricably bound up with the war in Europe, the problem being, as the Soviets later discovered, how to establish revolution in one country. Creating goodwill/peace is not everyone’s ‘cup of tea’. It takes some stretch of the imagination to conceive of the current English administration working in that direction. On the contrary, it is a part of their success so far to have turned round the alternative community, winning over conspiracy theorists by focussing their attention away from their own misdeeds.

Bill Ryan

21st May 2021, 11:07

araucaria

21st May 2021, 19:04

But this rather contradicts the prevalent forum view that Brexit was necessary in order to escape the evil cabal in Brussels.Well, the sketch is a joke, of course. Yes Minister was a satirical political comedy. (And one of the very best, as well.)

But a Brexit-supporting cynic could wryly point out that all ended well, because after joining the EU, Britain ended up destablizing it substantially by then leaving dramatically. Just like someone being invited to join an important decision-making committee and then upsetting the applecart by walking out again and talking to the press waiting outside the door.

Given that the EU was one of the NWO's beta tests for a supranational conglomeration of nation states, one step towards their planned abolition, weakening the EU was a very positive thing to happen. It made the North American Union, the South American Union, the African Union, the Asian Union, and the Pacific Union just a little less easier to put together.

Vive la révolution. :)
Bill, it is not a valid objection to say this is comedy, since I covered that question in my post. Interesting that cynicism should be brought into it; I imagine that cynicism is something for which David Hawkins would award pretty low vibrational marks. But let me make a clumsy attempt at bringing the comedy up to date.

- Grandpa, tell me how the great human awakening came about that saved the world, the universe and everything.
- Well, son, it was like this. You had a few million working-class Labour-voting northerners. They were mostly miners in the 1970s, but they lost their jobs under Thatcher, a Conservative. Why? Because they were the main culprits behind global warming, which only became a big issue in the 21st century. Later, when an Eton-educated loser came along – another tory – they were heard to say, ‘I voted for Boris, because he’s a good laugh’. (And so, one supposes, was that son of a miner Dominic Cummings.) Many people were incensed that this tiny minority should vote so stupidly and so effectively against their own interests, but the fact is that it made Alexander de Pfeffel Johnson the king and saviour of the world, so we can all live happily ever after. Just stop scratching your head, there’s a good boy. You need to understand that any kind of union is and was a very bad thing, unless it is the United Kingdom or Manchester United. The great Bill Ryan said this:

Given that the EU was one of the NWO's beta tests for a supranational conglomeration of nation states, one step towards their planned abolition, weakening the EU was a very positive thing to happen. It made the North American Union, the South American Union, the African Union, the Asian Union, and the Pacific Union just a little less easier to put together.- Grandpa, what was the NWO?
- It was a union of evil forces that extended worldwide and beyond into the solar system and the galaxy.
- So what was the awakening all about?
- It was about bringing together all the forces for good in a supraplanetary conglomeration of positive-oriented souls. ETs could finally approach Earth safe in the knowledge that humans were speaking with one voice.
- So, they had become like a flock of sheep?
- Yes. No!! Hey, it’s way past your bedtime.

Breakdowns in logic are an endless source of comedy. If some kind of unity is your goal, then any breakdown in logical unity will produce unwelcome comedy. If some kind of universal love is your unity, then there is nothing funny about universal love per se. On the contrary, it is no joking matter. Comedy dwells on the imperfections; love dwells on the core perfection.

araucaria

28th May 2021, 19:13

It’s always interesting when a post gets zero likes :) If it happens to you, don’t be discouraged: press where it hurts.

There’s many a true word spoken in jest, I wrote. When Victor Hugo said in all seriousness that already way back Britain was up to no good in Europe, he has a prior claim to the idea. If the same thought appears in late 20th c. TV comedy satire, then it has a serious historical basis and is fulfilling the purpose of satire according to its dictionary definition, namely ‘intended to expose and discredit foolishness or vice’ (Longman Dictionary, p. 1320). That is the intention; unfortunately, when things begin to appear altogether too ridiculous, the intention can be undermined by the comic effect. The British are very good at laughing at themselves, but satire is wasted on them because they overlook the serious intent. It is a recipe for… conservatism. The silliness is priced into Englishness, all the way to putting a clown in 10 Downing St. Viewing this old TV show with 40 years hindsight just adds a whole new comical layer to the business.

Against this, to say ‘Vive la révolution’, especially in French, is clearly to adopt a pro-European stance. The French revolution went hand in hand with the American Revolution, the difference being that the French were doing it from home, the Americans having withdrawn to a distant colony. They had already gotten out of Europe; it was now a matter of getting London out of America. Britain is the least revolutionary nation in the world because it is the target of revolution, being the home of the imperialist status quo, with everything to lose. Clinging to this past is what makes sense of both the frantic efforts to join the Common Market and Brexit 40 years later: two imperialist reactions to a continent that had moved on.

There IS a huge contradiction in all of this that has to be addressed. And it is not simply about the intuitively offensive idea that a beneficial outcome for humanity could in any way be deliberately planned and carried out by this bunch of borderline sociopaths. On the other hand, it may that a beneficial outcome for humanity could be brought about by the same, accidentally and at great cost to their own people.

I pointed out some time ago on the ‘Anglo-Saxon mission’ thread that the meeting setting out that agenda was overheard not in Brussels but among elite figures in London, people therefore who are bankrolling the English government, not the EU. As I never got a satisfactory response to this issue, I have been working on one myself and will report back in due course. Meanwhile, let me make a start right now. It irons out the contradictions, which are due to the Brits playing a double game of outmoded imperialism in an age of international cooperation. Instead, you have a consistent tale over time: Victor Hugo was describing the same thing back in the 1850s. (Interestingly, in Kim Stanley Robinson’s SF novel Blue Mars, two centuries into our future, with colonies on Mars, Mercury, the asteroid belt, on the way to the stars, you find Earth humanity still messing around with all these fledgling independent civilizations.)

Briefly, what this means is that the ‘NWO’ concept – which my spellchecker unfailingly turns into ‘NOW’ :) – is unfit, or no longer fit, for purpose. If one applies the slogan ‘Vive la révolution’ to the NOW, it is massively incompatible with the ‘Britannia rules the waves’ slogan still being bandied about. Contrary to conspiracist theory, Britannia cannot or can no longer use maritime law to rule the continents of America or Europe, which are huge land masses governed by ‘the law of the land’. The New World Order was a suitable concept as a desirable future for the Old World Order; that is all it ever was. Yet this is the major stumbling-block that keeps the alternative community out of the mainstream, as a minority of nutters who see an overarching conspiracy to rule the world. That major stumbling-block is removed by taking the view that the alternative community is caught up in the madness of a tiny minority of nutters who may well be dreaming of running an overarching conspiracy to rule the world. To awaken would then be to emerge from this collective psychosis – just as an analyst, having got into the patient’s head in order to understand, must at some point come out the other side and declare a cure.

It’s game over; the past is past. Time to move on, otherwise the vanguard becomes the rearguard. I will take the NOW not as a spellcheck error but as the oppositional force to the THEN, aka the NWO with its Orwellian twist whereby new=old. With these two terms you can generate all the conflict in the world: bloody status quo –> bloody revolution –> bloody counter-revolution ->... This is the Ickean mantra, that travesty of Hegelian dialectics that does not bear another mention. It is a travesty of Hegelian dialectics because it passes back and forth from thesis to antithesis without ever bothering with the synthesis that, normally speaking, becomes the next thesis to be antithesized and synthesized. Hegelian dialectics is not some laboratory tool: it is how the real world actually works. Progress is simply moving forward in time; one ‘makes progress’ in the ameliorative sense by keeping up with that process. Some diehards create difficulties by seeking to stand still. However, visionaries can also create difficulties by getting ahead of themselves and everyone else.

Hence the synthesis of the THEN and the NOW is going to be the UPCOMING: whatever comes after the stage currently coming into being. This embryonic form is what will eventually turn today’s NOW into tomorrow’s THEN and so on. Hence there are two ways of misperceiving the situation. The first of course is the reactionary one, i.e. seeing the NOW (e.g. all the good things happening that never get into the news) exclusively in terms of the THEN. The other is a reverse effect, seeing the NOW exclusively in terms of the UPCOMING, and therefore all the relative shortcomings of the NOW, notably surviving elements of today’s THEN. To take a positive angle on the same data is to focus on where emergent phenomena are heading as part of the bigger process, rather than where they are coming from.

To wind up this post, let me come back to the EC, as a work in progress (NOW). Imperialism (THEN) meant divide and conquer. The Treaties of Vienna and Versailles sought to weaken the aggressor by punishing the French and then the Germans. In the latter instance it didn’t work: the Germans came back even stronger than before. The origins of the EC show it to be an attempt to solve that issue, and history shows that, for all its imperfections, it has succeeded in that regard, thereby placing it in a position to do something about those imperfections. The serious subtext of both the above ‘Yes Minister’ clip and the Brexit saga is to highlight what happens when a nation fails to keep up with the progress of history.

In earlier times it was a consistent policy of weakening the aggressor that was applied, only inconsistent in that it had to punish different nations. Unfortunately, weakening Peter (later Paul) only strengthened Paul (later Peter), which is how ‘the peace’ just paved the way for the next war. What the UK has arguably been doing during this extended peace has been sniping at anything and anyone showing a little more strength and creating a kind of cold war among allies. Whether or not Britain is seeking to come out stronger in the process is neither here nor there; it may well be simply an uncontrollable reflex. The method that always worked with the colonies no longer works when dealing with equals; Britain (or England) is fast becoming irrelevant. This is in line with international relations under Johnson as described by Cummings only yesterday (with reference to covid): thriving on chaos because it shows people he is in charge – a totally meaningless stroking of his narcissism, because chaos literally means that no one is in charge.

We are getting very close to CS Lewis’s pandemonium (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?111554-C.S.-Lewis-The-Space-Trilogy&p=1371247&viewfull=1#post1371247). Brexit may turn out to be a very good thing, not for the UK, but for everyone else.