UKH

Looks like the old thread hit the post size limit.

On ron's point

"What you forgot is FPTP.  Labour vote is likely to be split with Lib Dem’s, and they have no easy way to get this vote back. They could campaign on a pro-remain platform but they would lose as many of their constituencies are hardcore leave."

I forget no such thing. Lib dems are strong in different constituencies to Labour, whereas tories and Brexit voters align. I simply don't believe any Labour constiuency is 'hard core leave'... a few might be marginal leave with nearly all Labour voters against hard brexit. Hard brexit support is less than a third by any reasonable measure and is only supported in England by Brexit, UKIP and the tory right... you simply can't win elections that way, unless there is some external 'dead cat' issue.

"However, the Tories can easily get Brexit party voters back. All they need to do is get no-deal in their manifesto, that eliminates the only reason for existence of the Brexit party."

I was allowing for that. UKIP were nowhere last time and there is no way Farage will be nowhere this time, if the government falls on a no confidence vote about hard brexit. They can fairly argue the tories can't be trusted.

"Strategically, BJ is in a better position, in fact in a much better position than Theresa May was in at the last GE."

You're deluded... the only thing better for Boris will be the campaign (and it will be negative and nasty). I still see it as hopeless even so, as hard brexit is more scary for most  than the most likely Lab-Lib coalition where the Labour hard left will be neutered.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49127616

Not in My Name

Maybe time to sumarise where we are. Cameron called the referendum to try to sort out problems in his party (and it backfired spectacularly). Both main parties were to blame for the close result, arguably just down to a lacklustre campaign. No one on the brexit side argued for the benefits of no deal... it was just an unfortunate worst case brexit consequence at most, even for the likes of Farage. May called an election hoping for a majority large enough to ignore problems in her party and it backfired spectacularly. May failed to deliver brexit, which would have been easy with backbench and maybe even front bench Labour support for a slightly softer version of her deal, and didn't do that because of problems in her party. Boris is elected because of problems in his party and flies off in the other direction, ignoring party unity and the best chances of any parliamentory compromise, but still only has May's deal as a realistic choice to brexit without an election. An election in such circumstances will inevitably be a proxy vote on no deal (that I can't see him winning without something 'dead cat' like, like a war).

Funding a Conservative run this autumn could prove difficult, by all accounts Conservative backers of both brexit persuasions are holding back their funding or diverting it elsewhere. The campaign coffers are empty until they choose 'Economic shock brexit' or 'Norway/no brexit'. Has Johnson done enough with his freak-show cabinet to convince the looters he's their man? Perhaps he's banking on not having to, that ultimately they'll fear an over-strong strong BP splitting the right wing vote and delivering Corbyn rather than providing the pressure to shape an aggressively right wing Conservative policy, that ultimately they'll hedge their bets and back the tories whether or not they buy into Johnson's strategy.

I doubt Farage will struggle for funds and I'm sure he won't go under the bus with his lackeys and accountants if and when we eventually trace the source. The question in my mind is what's charisma and advertising, even micro-targeted advertising really worth vs an organised network of people on the ground. That can't be bought, at least not quietly and I'm not sure the Conservative members have defected in sufficient numbers to take their campaigning organisations with them wholesale.

jk

It's very easy to see Johnson winning an election. All he needs do is carry on sounding like a person who's going to deliver everything good (regardless of troublesome facts), and for Corbyn to carry on being as utterly useless as he has been since his election as leader of the Labour Party. Dreadful thought, but Johnson will make all the right noises. 

I think another election would produce the same sort of stalemate we have right now. English Remain votes are split Lab/LD/Green, English Leave votes are split Con/Brexit Ltd/Lab. Note Lab is on both sides because Corbyn. The Cons with Cummings pulling the strings might shoot the Brexit Party Ltd's fox by deselecting Remain candidates, in which case they could win a small majority, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.

We're probably screwed. 😶

Deselection has cowed MP's both sides of the house but you're right, it's only likely to be to the Cons' benefit, Labour's purge if it comes (rather than just silencing its moderates) only weaken's the party's appeal. Perversely a really weak unappealing Labour which still can't get it's brexit policy clear or calm the antisemitism storm probably favours remain since they split the vote both sides of the brexit debate but far more so on the remain side.

As it stands today a GE is Russian roulette with 3/6 chambers filled. There's maybe +- 1 round to fight for before we take our spin.

jk

It doesn’t  look that way.  The metropolitan remain constituency, traditionally labour, are likely to shift towards Lib Dem, but not enough to not effectively split the vote.

actually support for no-deal is on par with support for remain.

Or they can fairly argue that they didn’t have the numbers in parliament to deliver it, hence the need to vote in a GE for pro-Brexit Tory MPs.

It doesn't look that way based on what evidence? Lib dems were nowhere in most strong Labour- Conservative marginal seats (where if they improve, they are likely to take almost  as many tory remain defectors as Labour votes) and Labour dissatisfaction won't help the torys in tory-Liberal marginals anywhere. Labour also have the strongest local campaiging machine acoss England, the largest party membership by far and will be united against no deal. The idea that there are large number of Labour supporters who favour no deal is a complete myth. You also seem to be missing all the establishment being forced to come out in support, given the prospect of no deal (the position in the referendum was way more mixed with a fair bit of finance, business and the press favouring brexit with a deal). There is simply nothing like a majority for no deal in England and Boris can promise the earth, pitch Corby and the EU as devils, but he's still having to sell no deal having pissed off half his party and lied to the electorate about getting a deal before the October deadline (simply not possible unless he goes back to a version of the May deal) and he has no time to negotiate something else, as he insisted it could all be done by then.

It's so desperate I suspect Cummings might be already looking at the possibility of running a coalition deal with Brexit giving only one candidate of either party in each seat.

Interesting analysis of Boris and Swinson's voting record!!

https://brignews.com/2019/07/25/how-liberal-are-the-lib-dems-now-comparing-...

I simply don't believe Swinson voted against PR but she did vote with the party whip in the coalition. None of the assertions in this student paper seemed to be linked to any data...   are we expected to trust students read things correctly when they don't reference?

The first part of Boris' strategy is transparent. He presses for the ripping up of May's WA and gets rejected by Brussels. He then presses for No Deal only to be rebuffed by parliament. Now, wailing that everyone is obstructing "the will of the people", he calls an election.

The next part is harder to call. Suggestions are that Boris, even with an enhanced majority, will baulk at leaving without a deal. Instead, newly bolstered and shorn of his dependency on the DUP, he will cut NI loose by tying the region into the single market, exactly as the EU originally proposed. And we leave with a mildly revised WA ex backstop. Note Boris' lack of respect for the union in his first address. The indivisible United Kingdom became the cleavable entities of the "awesome foursome".

All speculation, of course, but from an impeccable source.

Not bad

Does B Johnson do strategy? Some years ago a lot of people were expecting T. May to have a long term strategy as well...

Dominic Cummings does strategy.

Agreed. My point is simply that all he needs to win a majority, thanks to FPTP, is to get back a bit less than half of the Brexit party voters back. Pretty easy to do, all you need to do is to commit to leaving on the 31st deal or no-deal.

I agree broadly with the analysis and came to a similar conclusion, although I am not so sure that he would shy away from no deal, especially if he wins the election on a manifesto of no-deal.

So I’m still working on the assumption of no-deal  being the base scenario, just to be on the safe side.

I like the assumption that he’d have an enhanced majority. 

you simply can't win elections that way, unless there is some external 'dead cat' issue.

ie Facebook advertising and shares for 'dead cat' issues and fake news

I think you've got this right.....

I reopened facebook the other day having not been on it for about 6 years (I wnt on to look at a bike on market place). I was really shocked though when I started nosing at people's posts about Johnson....I looked at what people in the village where I live (Peak area) were saying and they were all pro Johnson! It made me feel despair!

They archived the previous thread because I was winning all of the arguments

The Conservatives won’t be winning any election any time soon because in my opinion, as a long time Conservative voter, they’ve failed to deliver Brexit so I’d rather vote for the Brexit party and Johnson is their leader so I’d rather vote for Corbyn.

Of course that’s just my opinion but I’m probably not alone.

They did reference, they said where they found their data in the text and provided a link.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11971/jo_swinson/east_dunbartonshire

Swinson and the Lib Dems are a party of austerity and privatisation.

that didn’t make any sense.

I’ll try again.

Used to vote conservative but won’t anymore because

the Conservative party failed to deliver Brexit 

and Johnson - a buffoon - is their leader.

So I’ll either be voting for the Brexit party or Corbyn.

As possibly will many others and hence no Conservative win.

I don't think there are many ex Tory voters out there who could bring themselves to vote Corbyn.

He wouldn’t be my first choice but I’d rather vote for him than either the Conservatives or the Lib Dem’s.

At least he’s a brexiteer.

... which, for me, is the hardest part to understand. Somehow you have arrived at the conclusion that leaving the EU is more important than the entirety of UK political direction, while at the same time I am still to hear anything more than platitudes as to what tangible benefits such a leave would bring. It would seem to be a position based on hatred without considered cause.

Can you articulate what it is about our membership of this mutually beneficial agreement between nations that you find so objectionable such that you would think it preferable to see a UK government that is diametrically opposed to your political ideals?

Most people and politicians have roughly the same aims and ambitions for themselves and society.

All that differs is their preferred means of achieving those goals.

I’ll cast my vote for whoever I think has the best chance of achieving what I want.

So I voted for Blair when he seemed to offer a fresh way of doing things.

I voted to leave the EU not out of any hatred for it but because it was a chance to have a different way of doing things. 

It was a chance to shake up politicians and politics in the UK and the EU.

It certainly has achieved that in the UK.

Would I vote leave again now that I know how inept our politicians are?

Probably.

Because what other way is there for our politics to change?

We could of course leave things as they are and continue as we were which suits some people fine but ignores those who are struggling with a multitude of problems. As many have often stated the Brexit vote was as much a protest against the UK governments as it was against the EU.

We could believe politicians who say if we remain in the EU that things both in the UK and the EU will change for the better.

Unfortunately I don’t believe them and there’s little evidence to prove their case. If we revoke article 50 the politicians will simply revert to type, thank their lucky stars that they’ve dodged a bullet and continue along in their merry little way, the way that helped us into this mess in the first place.

I’m a conservative, note the small c, by nature and nurture but I’m not wedded to any one political ideology. If Corbyn can deliver a fair, equal society which is his stated aim why wouldn’t I vote for him?

So if you want to remain in the EU, which wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world, you have to convince us leavers not that things will be much worse outside of the EU but that things will get much better if we stay in.

The status quo isn’t an option unless you find a way to put the genie back in the bottle.

Thank you for that, though there do appear to be a number of contradictions in your reasoning. Not least of which is the claim to be at the same time both conservative and in support of anarchy (in terms of an apparent desire to break things without a clear plan for what comes afterwards). Another sore thumb stand-out would appear to be your welcoming of anyone who "can deliver a fair, equal society" while at the same time being happy to vote Tory (whose policies could, at a stretch, be claimed to be promoting fairness but could never reasonably be said to be encouraging equality.)

My question still remains though: What is it in particular about our membership of the EU that is preventing the change that you seem very keen on (notably so for a self-declared conservative) while at the same time being unable or unwilling to describe?

Brexit wasn’t a vote for anarchy it was to leave the EU.

Happily voting Conservative wasn’t a phrase that I used.

Often it’s choosing the best of a bad bunch.

As for what is preventing change -

For many years, probably since politics began, it’s been a favourite tactic of politicians of all ilks to blame their failings on something beyond their control.

For the last 40 years the EU has served that purpose.

It doesn’t matter if the EU is actually to blame as long as politicians can say that it is.

So, as a made up example ‘we can’t support a failing industry and keep people in employment because it’s against EU rules’.

Put the blame on the EU and do nothing to solve the problem.

When/if the UK is no longer in the EU it will be much harder, though probably not impossible, for UK politicians to lay the blame at the door of the EU.

This is the ‘taking back control’ that some people have so much difficulty understanding.

It’s not just or even about UK politicians wresting back power from the EU but about the UK public being able to hold the UK government to account in a way that hasn’t been possible f over 40 years.

And I know that if the UK leaves the EU then UK politicians will find something/someone else to blame - we can address that issue when it arises.

Those coalition votes were not as simple as they seem (on fees, her fellow Liberals abstained (on a deal), they did not vote against and I can't find the details on those specific PR votes but if you search for "Jo Swinson"  "Proportional Representation" you get speechs and articles that clearly show her support for change to our electoral system. Hence those website headlines are misleading (if we are being generous). Anyone with any knowledge of the party and electoral reform should have smelt a rat. Yes the Lib Dems propped up austerity in the Coalition and disagreed with Gordon Brown's more Keynesian responses (bizzare in my view for liberal minds that should have been open to different economic models).

https://www.libdemvoice.org/jo-swinson-mp-writes-on-tuition-fees-21908.html

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/jo-swinson-lib-dem-leadership-democracy...

If your entire rationale for greatly impeding our individual rights and trashing our national economy is the hindering of our politicians' ability to lie about causes of political or economic malaise, I suggest you consider instead backing media or legal reform. The plan you seem to be backing instead is to throw generations of babies out in pursuit of a change of bathwater.

'And I know that if the UK leaves the EU then UK politicians will find something/someone else to blame - we can address that issue when it arises.'

That's exactly the problem - I don't think we will address it. There is something spineless in our political culture about taking actual responsibility.

You’ll have noticed that we haven’t left the EU yet.

Nothing is decided, nothing is set in stone.

No baby has yet been tossed.

No bath water has yet been changed.

When has major change ever taken place without some element of danger?

Of course it’s a game of very high stakes with people’s livings at stake.

But remaining, as in keeping the status quo, allows those in serious difficulties to stay in those situations without any hope of meaningful change. Where’s the remainers answer to these people, except to keep saying that they (the poorest) will suffer the most.

As if that isn’t the case in every situation.

You need to give these people hope with an actual plan, then maybe they’ll change their minds about leaving. But all we get is that things will change if we remain. People need to see/feel the direct benefits of membership of the EU not just be told about them.

Campaigning for media/legal reform - how’s that going to work? As well as it has in the past?

You know I think Boris Johnson statements about kippers is piffle.

But, I give him more political nouse than say an Andrea Leadsom has got .

And this is why,:He has an ability to expose the essential difference in his idea of the UK  versus EU . He has begun with the idea of a points system for immigration ,making the starkest choice between WTO rules UK  and Remain in EU UK. None before have made us face such a stark choice.

But the irony is, that notion of freedom of movement of people will, I think, inevitably come into reform  within  the EU but not immediately. Because it has elected members and they are gradually shifting the ideas within the EU.

Boris has one thing on his side as to the psychological aspect of the UK electorate. Short time mentality and gain,

Whereas the EU system is a longer game of representation and reform.

This is the psychology Boris is working on. It is the mentality he is wooing us with.

The Eu is not all sweetness and light, operates differently and slowly.

Ahem, no, actually, it does matter. Facts and reality do matter.

They matter to you and me but not to politicians playing the blame game.

You mean like the various Leave campaigns gave people hope with an actual plan to persuade people to change their minds about remaining?

Hmm. I think I see a flaw in that reasoning.

Nobody mandated anybody to play games with people's livelihoods - and in some cases lives.

Here's one 'remainers answer':

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/26/alternatives-take-bac...

There are plenty more, if you can be bothered to look.

Well a plan based on actual facts, costs and a means of achieving said plan would be better

There is no sign of any reform. The new head is pro further rapid integration, not reform, with luck they might become a little greener but given that Germany burns some of the most polluting forms of coal for power I doubt it. They'll ignore the problems, drop interest rates and restart QE, then claim any debt driven growth a success. 

Gosh, now it’s actual lives at stake.

Is this the lack of medicines or atoms that is often bandied about or some else that I’ve missed?

I actually can’t be bothered to look - given the number of Brexit threads on this forum I would have expected to be bombarded with workable plans from remainers.

Your article is, from the bit I read, about local people’s helping themselves.

Where’s the remainer’s masterplan to convince leavers to change their minds, avoid the looming Armageddon and rejuvenate the disadvantaged’s lives?

Nonsensical. You argument is that politician use scapegoats, so we must play their game and go after all the scapegoats. This is worthy of a Luis Bunuel screenplay.

Sorry, you’ lost me.

I think you’ve been lost for for a while. The reason you are lost is because your argument, pushed to its logical conclusion, is absurd.

Why does that come as no surprise to me?

Well that’s me told.

It’s a pity that I haven’t got a clue what you are on about.

What should I infer from your comment?

I haven’t got the time to go looking for evidence to support the side of an argument that many posters on here are perfectly capable of providing. Should they choose to do so.

If you want to opine on political debate without looking at evidence, feel free. Just don't expect to have much success in convincing other people. 

I’m not trying to convince anyone.

That would be futile, especially on the subject of Brexit.

I tend to get my news from the bbc and Sky.

With the odd foray into Al Jazeera and RT news.

I find that they tend to confirm any biased opinions that I may have.

Confirmation bias at work...

There is less understanding about the agreements for WTO rules, no agreements of substance formed, an awareness that our sudden economic downturn will make us vulnerable to give away values as regards food standards and green standards to secure fast agreements.

The balances and advantages and disadvantages are very uncertain under WTO rules but the certainty is our immediate vulnerability and downturn in economy.

Compare with the EU, the advantages and disadvantages somewhat known as regards economy, immigration , green issues  and although the points system has merits it by no means compensates for our extensive losses.

And to continue,

what we understand are say the standards of  the American economy. Now who is going to compromise their standards in a moment of vulnerability in a UK economic downturn- the UK or America?? now I don't think we have leverage as Boris would persuade us that we have. That is another unicorn. That is where we are at in the 21st century global economies not in the 19th century economies, I concede, but it is not the 19th century. 

There's nothing misleading about the They Work For You website. Politicians voting records are there for all to see in black and white. You can judge them by their actions and hold them to account. You can judge them by their words as well but it's a problem of politics that politicians often use their words to mislead (like Jo Swinson is doing in the first article you posted and her Lib Dem supporters are calling her out for it in the comments). It's a great tool for for democracy.

There is quite a lot misleading about the They Work For You website, Jo Swinson’s Position on PR is one of them. It doesn’t contextualise the vote, it refers to a single vote amongst a series of votes, the majority of the Lib Dem’s votes the same way as her, although the website suggests otherwise.

It provides the data on how a politician has voted which is surely what counts most. It does refer to the series of votes. Difficult to get context from data but for context it provides access to all speeches and appearances made in parliament, and you can interrogate the voting data to see if she voted with the party or not.

The data is unclear on most of a small number on PR votes for Jo (I can't find all the detail from the site); what is plain wrong is their own linked data on their website headline assertion:

"Jo Swinson generally voted against a more proportional system for electing MPs, while most Liberal Democrat MPs generally voted for."

If you click the key vote button for detail and track the main vote to the MP names (page linked below) nearly all the Liberals voted against this (all but two), including all those I can remember in coalition government posts. Only 17 MPs voted for that particular clause (on the English progressive side: 4 Labour and Lucas, the only Green). This clearly shows the assertion is bullshit which is pretty big deal for a party leader who has spoken out time and time again for PR (like nearly all in her party).

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2010-10-12-68-commons/mp/11971

I also detailed  the timeline and context for the website statement on her Fees votes which means the other main assertion is highly misleading (the other Liberal MP votes in the times when she was an MP were not opposite).

"Jo Swinson consistently voted for university tuition fees, while most Liberal Democrat MPs generally voted against."

I'd add its pretty shit of the website to include a disclaimer on Jo being away on parliamentary parental leave and put this inside the nested threads and in the wrong place (not connected to the affected votes). She was also not an MP (breifly ) when Mays first government started.

If the website assertions on a party leader are this bad how much can we trust it for ordinary MP's.

....and the latest on Cummings

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/28/dominic-cummings-must-face-...

Ruth steps into the fray.....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/28/support-no-deal-brexit-sco...

She talks but does nothing.

Not unlike most of the remainers, sitting on their arses, watching their country being destroyed by clowns, complaining and ranting but doing f*ck all about it.

I like your point which ironically could be used by the EU and remainers to help their cause. 

If for example Brits who are for leave could be brought over to remain if they seen actual changes at the heart of the EU that addressed some of the reasons they voted leave.

Like immigration or rules to prevent nationalising companies for example, anything that shows the EU rules are not monolithic set in stone from up on high and unchangeable. Perhaps it would do the remainers and the EUs cause well if the EU do more than admit it is not perfect but actually implements genuine reforms that address the causes of brexit.

That would practically remove the entire sting of brexit in one go by giving hope to absolutely everyone that we can stay in the EU and avoid all the mess from leaving but get some of the main reasons for wanting to leave solved, a compromise if you will: we are happy to stay if you change things we are not happy with. 

Agree with your point about the EU needing to show a willingness to change.

I’m feeling very generous today so I’ll become a remainer if we no longer have to pay the EU the 8 billion or whatever the exact amount is. The rest of our membership can stay the same for now.

That was easy, wasn’t it?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/28/boris-johnson-turbo-chargi...

The more I read things like this, the more I think Boris (as advised by Cummings) is planning to call an early election (politically much better than being forced into it by a no confidence vote). Boris winning an election with a no-deal brexit mandate could pretty much be given a 'blank cheque' on the future of the UK: state finances, regulations, benefits, the public sector (especially the NHS traded for a US trade deal) etc.  .... all out of 'sad necessity'..... which would make it the most important vote since 1945. I still think his chances of winning such an election are much less than 50%, as it would be against the establishment, a significant minority of his own MPs and most tory Lords, most of the population and most other parties (except the Brexit, UKIP and DUP extremists) but the risks are huge.

Reading your linked article leads me to believe that Johnson is merely engaging in the only strategy open to him.

He’s giving the impression that he’s prepared to leave with no deal in an attempt to get the EU to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement.

The question remains is he prepared to see no deal actually happen and if he is does he have the ability to actually make it happen?

A general election is such a risky strategy as nobody has a clue as to what the result would be.

Normally you would expect to see voters revert to tribal politics in a general election but these aren’t normal times.

The lack of a remain plan is one of the problems of brexit.

Why should the EU change to convince the british? The majority of EU citizens doesn't want that.

The EU is in a process of state formation (albeit a complicated one with decision making at lots of different levels). The UK can either willingly participate or be sidelined in european decision making.

He doesn't have to do anything to make no-deal happen. It happens regardless if nothing else is in place by October 31st. 

Indeed.

But will parliament or Bercow come up with a plan to frustrate him?

I doubt that parliament can realistically do anything at all, if BJ is determined to go for no deal, this is what would happen. 

Sure parliament could pass a motion forcing BJ to ask for an extension, but there is no guarantee that Boris would actually comply with such a motion.

Of course this would be illegal, but I don’t think that someone like BJ cares much about the law.

He’s taking a huge gamble that his confidence trick will pay off. I still cannot work out what his motivation is. His entire personality is so insincere and shallow that it’s really hard to guess what he’s thinking.

If he brings about no deal through subterfuge I will have no choice but to engage in civil disobedience.

This is not the country or the government I recognise any more.

I agree they are campaigning for this GE at the moment as seen by his trip and £3.6 billion Northern Town initiative promise in Manchester yesterday and all the more reason to wake up to the fact that if you do vote for any party other than Labour you are voting the Tories into power and into a no-deal brexit.

And no second referendum. 

You keep talking nonsense: If there is a successful motion of no confidence the government falls and brexit pauses until after an election.

Vote for Corbyn? Not in a month of Sundays. If he goes and is replaced by a moderate politician with a modicum of intelligence I will vote Labour otherwise I'm with Pasbury - civil disobedience from me too. And I don't relish the prospect. 

If you want to maximise the chances of Boris losing an election those in constituencies who dont want Boris, or no-deal need to vote for the party most likely to beat the tories (other than Brexit):  that will often be Liberal or SNP and sometimes maybe even Green.

It's been some time since Labour last deserved the title H.M.Opposition, the principal role of which is to oppose. If Labour were to have a leader who's clear about opposing Brexit then I'm confident they could be deserving of a large part of the Remain vote. Until then, I see a vote for Labour as potentially a vote for Brexit, which is the single most damaging prospect to face the UK in many decades. So no thanks. We've learned from 2017.

If one partner won't compromise then marriages can only end in divorce. 

Don't you think this whole matter could be resolved if the EU was not so unyielding to the concerns of its people? It just keeps steamrollering on regardless toward an EU army and a take it or leave it attitude as if any genuine concerns of people are not worth hearing and if they are then they don't care anyway.

I think if the EU were more flexible then it would help take the sting away from the far right who use this to hold sway over many ordinary voters who think brexit will solve all of our problems when in reality it will probably make them worse. 

Two choices. 

Vote SNlibgreecymru and get Tories, no deal and no second referendum.

Vote Labour, get Labour and a second referendum. 

So if you want brexit over Corbyn then carry on, that's what you will get. 

Marriage implies equal partners. This is not the situation. 27 partners want to go one way, 1 wants to go in another direction.

The EU listens to the concerns of the people. But there are many concerns. Some think the integration goes to fast. Others think it goes to slow. The EU compromises. A current issue is migration. UK thinks internal migration is a problem, the other 27 think it is great and beneficial. So UK rightly gets ignored. Migration from outside of the EU is a big problem though. Countries at the border don't like the current scheme where the problems are left for the border countries to deal with. Countries on the inside don't want to help. A compromise involving some flow of resources from inside to outside will have to be found.

The EU is not steamrollering. It is moving as slowly as the crises allow for. Every once in a while a massive problem arises in the single market that can only by solved by further integration. Then the EU takes another step.

This is not the EU's responsibility. It would also be counterproductive. It would just empower the far right and far left groups in the EU27. Being in a union means solidarity with each other. 

If you want to defeat Boris in an election, it's dangerous to vote Labour in English tory seats where Labour are nowhere and the Liberals or Greens have a strong chance; or in the Green seat and in Liberal-tory marignals. Ditto for Scottish tory sets where the SNP have a chance and Labour are nowhere (or SNP-tory marginals). I can see with this 'always vote Labour nonsense' you clearly fear a Liberal-Labour coalition which would see the clipping of Corbyn's leftist power, and would risk the possibility Boris could win as a result. The default in a more moderate Labour Liberal coalition mighte even be a remain government (where I supect the clamour for the second referendum would be from the brexiteers now acting as rank hypocrits).

JC has been quite open in admitting he'd only support a referendum if the alternative was a 'Tory Brexit', so by voting Labour into government we really would be using the same gun to shoot ourselves in the same foot. Except we'd be trying to stop the bleeding by using a red bandage instead of a blue one.

There are likely to be some seats where a vote for Labour is the only realistic way of preventing a Tory win. In all other seats, the best way to achieve the Remain outcome that the majority of the electorate now support is to vote for a party that is clear about its intention to actually deliver that if elected.

Your words changed around a bit.

I think this is what Boris is saying.

I’m not f*cking stupid either way.

Wrong, in case of a vote of no confidence, Brexit doesn’t pause. The only thing that can pause Brexit is the head of the government or the head of state going to Brussels and asking for an extension.

That means there are only two people who can legally, pause Brexit: Boris and - theoretically speaking, if she is asked to by parliament - the Queen.

Of course, if there was a vote of no-confidence, and it was won, then you go to a general election in 14 days maximum, but I think that Boris would probably win it.

However, I see it as unlikely that any Tory MPs would support any no confidence vote until all options are exhausted, since it’s a career ending move. That would be not before the next EU council, in September, by which time it’s too late to organise a GE. 

When were the people in these 26 countries asked what direction they wanted the EU to take? It looks as if when the public of just one was asked then they wanted a little bit of a change in route so how do you know if the people of the other 26 were asked then they would not want the same? 

All very true I agree except you give European people only 2 options : fast integration or slow, so what about no more intigration, a little less intigration or consulting countries populations before any more measures are taken on any further intigration. I mean why do you give only 2 options? That basically says our end goal is full intigration but who decided that? 

Sorry by steamrollering I meant the eu just seems to do what it wants without asking the people, I mean who was asked if they wanted a European army? No one. 

It would neuter the far rights arguments and leave people swayed by them to see the EU in a renewed light as willing to listen and accommodate rather than being a brick wall. Yes the far right could say look we helped get these concessions and that would be true but then their cause would have died so like ukip they would quickly fade away. At the moment you and the EU give the impression that it is such a fragile castle of sand that to remove one little surrounding wall (concession) would let the sea in. Do you think that? 

Why does brexit pause if the government is deposed? They aren't automatically linked and the government remains in control of the timetable for both the election and brexit until a new one is formed. Schedule the election for November or win it or drag out coalition talks... no deal brexit happens by default. It only stops if as most of us assume Johnson isn't mad or so deep in someone's pocket he lets it happen because he's blocked all his exits and can't stop it now.

Jk

Sorry I should have stated but thought it unnecessary as it should be blinking obvious that you vote tactically where necessary to keep Tories out of certain seats. 

I think parliament could if it wanted. But the barriers are high and I am not convinced that they will.

A way which could work is: Parliament votes no confidence in BJ. And it votes for a minority government led by Bercow or Grieve or Cooper. The new PM either asks for an extension or revocation.

I think your reply this morning shows you managed to find a lot of good information about MP's voting records and parliamentary activity using the They Work For You website so the existence of the tool can only be a good thing for democracy.

The statement you dispute is

"Jo Swinson generally voted against a more proportional system for electing MPs, while most Liberal Democrat MPs generally voted for."

I see that she voted in 4 votes related to a more proportional system for electing MPs and in 3 out of 4 of those votes she voted in the way that would be less likely to lead to a more proportional system for electing MPs. So the first part of the statement is correct.

The second part of the statement, whether she agrees with her party on the issue, you're right, on 4 out of 4 of those votes, her vote was with the majority of her party. What I think is going on here is that there have been 10 votes in parliament about a more proportional system for electing MPs since 1997 (when the website first has access to an electronic record of votes in parliament) and it must score the party over all 10 votes. Her score is for the 4 votes she has voted on. So the second part is also correct but you are fair in pointing out that looking at this metric alone misses out on the context. The site does make it as easy as possible for you to look further into the context though.

In looking into this, I found that the data on voting is taken from this website which presents it in a way that really does show well, at a glance, where an MP stands on a range of issues. If that then is a surprise then it makes it as easy as it can to look into the context.

https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Jo_Swinson&mpc=East_Dunbartons...

These are not campaigning websites, they're trying carefully to word things neutrally while making democracy easier to follow which should be applauded. 

It's the truth now and always was so smell that coffee.

Every EU and national election. Those are the official ones. On top of that there is a lot of polling done by both EU and national governments.

Integration can be stopped by the people as well. But there will be a price in reduced welfare, which the people are not willing to pay at the moment.

Everytime I vote for a party that wants further EU integration.

It depends on the concession. The one Cameron always wanted and that seems to be the one Corbyn and May also want is the removal of freedom of movement. This is one which I think would break the EU. It would tell people from poorer countries that they are not equal to people from richer countries and that EU citizenship is meaningless.

But I do not think the EU is fragile. Current concessions given to the UK such as the UK-wide backstop, further extensions and transition periods are all fine. I have confidence in the political leadership to make the correct choices in what to grant.

Is there now? I don't remember seeing those polls and no I'm afraid in the UK GEs there is zero mention of which direction the EU should go and you should vote for and is there in MEP voting? For that one i don't know. 

Can you expand on why it would impact welfare and how can this steamrollering of integration by the EU be stopped by Europeans? 

So who was asked if they wanted an EU army? 

Why? What of increasing the living standards in peoples home countries rather than the upheaval of removing them en mass from their homelands before they can get a better standard of living? 

With respect by your own admission you say removing one policy would be its demise. 

You have a confidence in their leadership that is encouraging to see yet does make me wonder if it could be too unquestioning. I hope you are right though. 

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/do-you-agree-or-disagree-that-if-bori...

Interesting poll - 29+8 disagree with leaving on the 31st Oct, 24+14 agree with leaving no deal on 31st come what may. You sure you’ve got the support you think you do?

Nobody can be completely sure about anything in this age of misinformation but you will be perfectly aware that the poll question you've linked to is notable by its showing a very different view to the clear majority of other polls. Of course, that's all part of the way misinformation spreads - in this case an outlier doubtless will be doing the rounds of social media masquerading as representative.

Incidentally I was curious about the somewhat involved and hypothetical nature of the question enough to start looking into the poll itself. And the VERY NEXT QUESTION asked to the EXACT SAME SAMPLE group at the SAME TIME gave a COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY RESULT:

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/do-you-agree-or-disagree-with-the-fol...

Our welfare is linked to the EU being a single economy. It is the size of the system that enables a larger amount of welfare than without the EU.

By voting for political parties that want to stop it. If all europeans would be voting for EU27 copies of the UK conservative party, integration would stop.

You cannot ask this about every specific issue. If you are worried about an EU army, write your prospective MP and MEP about their position at the next election.

Europeans tend to worry now about external border control. The response of the politicians is to augment the capabilities of the national border control units by providing a european cooperation structure. This is one of the ways european military cooperation procedes.

Please accept that this is not for you and me to decide, but it is the free choice of the people.

Also removing FoM will reduce living standards in poorer countries as well, because it makes the countries less likely to attract investment.

Look for example to the German car industry expanding in Slowakia and Czech Rep.

Removing the social contract breaks states. States don't do this, so it is stable. As an example, the UK would also break down if parliament would tell the people of Wales that they are supposed to stay in Wales.

it is still our leadership. At least up to 31.10

It’s on social media?  I’ve only seen it on that website.  It’s different in that it goes the other way, it’s not very different though, polls are narrow either way.

Rather shouty there.  It’s not completely contradictory, it just goes slightly the other way.  It’s hardly involved and hypothetical, it’s the likely scenario isn’t it?  Neither poll show anything close to a majority of the electorate for remain.

They and we had our say in May.

Your arguments seem to come from the same blinkered position of British exceptionalism as those of the right-wing brexiters. They don't make any sense when our true position in the bloc and the wider world is actually consider. If you're struggling with this then flip it up, lets say a strong federalist movement develops in Malta, should the EU move rapidly to federalise to appease them, to demonstrate flexibility and responsiveness, to neutralise that 'threat'? If an organisation appeases those at it's extremist fringes it is quickly torn asunder, however big and strong it was.

jk

That's a complete contradiction of what you have been saying!

jk

Looks to me like there should be a lot more willing to put themselves in the don't know/understand category. Nothing new there!

jk

Is that really the case?

Can the EU impose an extension to article 50? Does it need UK gov consent? In the event of losing a no confidence vote what happens to government? Could parliament find a mechanism to extend article 50 or would/could this 'by all means necessary' government block such attempts?

Under the terms of the 2011 Fixed-term Parliaments Act: 

... if a motion of no confidence in the government is passed ..., the house must then adopt a vote of confidence in that same or an alternative government within 14 days, or a general election is held.

In other words, there is a grace period of 14 days during which the government can undertake such actions as it thinks necessary/appropriate to regain the confidence of the house (such as changing an important policy). If it fails to do so, then a general election must be held. 

In today's context, a vote of no confidence could be held if a no-deal Brexit becomes probable, as currently proposed by Johnson. If that vote of no confidence succeeds Johnson has 14 days to convince the house that no-deal Brexit is the right way to proceed, or he has to drop that policy position and agree to further talks with the EU. Failure to do either of those things would probably mean he would fail to regain the confidence of the house and a general election would be held. 

I hadn't realised that a policy change could regain the confidence of the house.

However a policy change away from a 'do or die' exit on Oct 31st would surely be the end of him anyway. Raab's interview statements today suggest they're pulling some sort of passive-aggressive stunt by waiting for the EU to change it's stance on the backstop (even though it's been clear for ages that they will not do that) and then blaming EU intransigence.

When can the tory party next call a vote of no confidence in their leader? I presume the clock is reset.

It takes two to tango - the EU could give an extension but could not force the UK to accept the extension.

Difficult to see how an extension would be anything other than agreed by both sides.

I would hope parliament has a mechanism to rescind UK declaration of article 50 as it is supposed to be a sovereign parliament that can change any previous parliamentary decision.

In theory. I don't know whether it has ever been tested. 

Indeed. Having set his stall out so decisively, such a change would be highly improbable. 

That seems a safe presumption, although it wouldn't surprise me if the rules are less than clear - I doubt such an eventuality would have been anticipated when the rules were draw up. Dear Lord, another Tory leadership election - another parade of the hopeless and hopelessly deluded.  

If they continue with their current rhetoric then no deal is the inevitable outcome. That make a vote of no confidence inevitable too and probably as soon as the house returns - there's going to be a lot of scheming going on over the summer!

He'll lose the vote if he's running on a 'no-deal let's all be optimistic and the chaos will sort itself out' ticket. I can't see that leading anywhere else but a general election.

That I am genuinely scared of; a very volatile electorate, four parties neck and neck and first past the post - bloody anything could happen. 

So in the meant time we throw out lots of things that are good, which are evidently not to blame until we get to the rotten core of what is to blame? It's a good idea but to reach that point, going on what Brexiters have blamed so far, that would mean throwing out the judiciary, Parliamentary oversight and the civil service.

No, we just need to remove one of the major excuses that uk politicians continually fall back on to explain their failure to act.

If you can think of another way to make our politicians more responsible for the actions/inaction then I’ll glad listen

But brexit would still happen by default on Halloween, potentially during the pre-election period when parliament is dissolved.

The only way I see out of that would be if a rival government could be formed around a leader with cross-bench respect, likely for a strictly limited time and a single objective: either delay brexit for an election (the worse but easier option) or revoke A50 and legislate for a re-run of the 2016 referendum (the better, still poor but less likely option) or to deliver a 'Norway'/'Canada'/No-brexit referendum and negotiate the first step with the EU (the most decisive, probably least likely option).

IIRC (and I may not) a defeated government has to gift the opportunity to seek the confidence of the house to a rival rather than proceeding straight from defeat to an election. Either way, the delay in arranging all of this becomes/remains the opportunity Johnson needs (but probably wants to avoid) to bypass parliament and crash us out given the Conservative rebels will not fell their own Government until the very last moment, even those implacably opposed to no-deal since a brexit-opposition forced election with brexit put on hold yet again represents at best (from a remain perspective) a winner takes all game of Russian roulette. At worst it's a gift to Farage resulting in the same shock doctrine no-deal outcome and a five year term with a solid majority during which Farage and his backers can asset strip the UK and reverse decades of progress unopposed.

jk

Electoral reform. Media ownership and regulation reform. Electoral law review and enforcement.

jk

I love the "Do or Die" Message.

"I Will Do ..... or The Kitten Dies ..."

For Kitten delete and insert "unspecified numbers of people who matter less ..."

Abolish FPTP. Safe seats can be relied on to insulate 400+ MPs from the consequences of actions/inaction. They just have to keep local party activists happy.

Sounds good to me.

Now someone just needs to make it happen.

What’s the chance of that?

As elsewhere said in his 12.34 post, many politicians are kept in safe seats by FPTP, why would they vote for electoral reform?

Sounds like a reasonable idea, how does this happen?

About 50/50, same as they have been ever since you set fire to the country in 2016. Something has to change to restore stability. 

They won't, instead they convince you to divert your frustrations elsewhere.

jk

Lib Dems holding the balance of power.

"Can the EU impose an extension to article 50? Does it need UK gov consent? In the event of losing a no confidence vote what happens to government? Could parliament find a mechanism to extend article 50 or would/could this 'by all means necessary' government block such attempts?"

The EU can't impose but it certainly wouldn't block a delay when that helps the EU. As for the UK govenment there probably won't be one as we would be in the 25 days pre election period , so its an interesting question, but having a no deal brexit in such a situation obviously won't have the support of parliament. High profile tory MPs like Hammond wouldn't be threatening if the threat was empty, but you are right that it would need to happen more than 14 days before Oct 31st. An unlikely other alternative would be a grand anti no-deal coalition (tory rebels, Labour, Liberals, SNP) but I think the Labour leaders would rather risk the UK sink before they agree that.

Another opinion is 'Brino':

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/24/boris-johnson-reshuff...

"This would see the UK exit the political union at the end of October, while for the time being remaining in everything else. That would mean leaving the European council, commission, and parliament while staying in the customs union and single market. It will also mean the continuation of free movement and the UK’s full financial contribution, so that the benefits and burdens are in balance. The political declaration will then set out a timetable for a Canada-style free trade agreement to be negotiated, with a timeframe of three to five years – a meaningful period for a premiership, a blink of the eye for a generational project such as Brexit. The UK would then cut over from de facto EU membership to the new partnership at that point. This would enable Johnson to claim that he had torn up Theresa May’s near-universally hated withdrawal agreement and avoided the “undemocratic” backstop."

Try here then, you might actually have to scroll down the page, if that's not too much for you?

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11971/jo_swinson/east_dunbartonshire/vote...

Do try to keep up. We tracked that up-thread... that  particular vote 'agaisnt PR' was a variant rejected by the vast majority of the parliamentary Liberal party in the coalition (and an even larger majority of Labour). The assertion is plain bullshit.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2010-10-12-68-commons/mp/11971

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2321005128137712&id=1648203...

She's just another Tory like all Liberals. 

We established upthread that the claim can be defended, coming as it does by analysing the voting record using standard rules as politically neutral as can be done, though the statement on its own lacks context so could possibly be misleading.

In reply 

Truth hurts

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/29/what-vote-leave-leaders-re...

With the pound crashing so fast (1.09€ now) I'm starting to wonder whether the currency speculators at the helm of the Leave movement are about to start cashing in on their investment. Along with the government's absolute insistence on a UK crash-and-burn Brexit (which is guaranteed to sink the pound) there seem to be more indicators than usual that the emperor's clothes may not be admired for much longer, not least of which are Leave-critical BBC reports like that one that have been vanishingly rare until very recently.

I don't think I'll start getting optimistic just yet but if I'm right the same speculators will be doing a u-turn very soon and betting on a strengthening pound, and the easiest way to achieve that would be for Johnson to put a new vote to the people 'just to confirm the Brexit mandate and strengthen the UK's negotiating hand'.

Completely, utterly, deluded.

No wonder the remainer bunch is losing, and losing and losing again. They are masters of naivety and complacency.

Lol

What is?

Why? And what the hell are you talking about?

The guardian article.

Congress not as keen on a no-deal brexit trade deal as Trump.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/31/brexit-mess-with-good-frid...

Strong Irish support in the US... who could have anticipated that ?

Another fantasy punctured.....

Having just read the Belfast agreement, all 35 pages of it, I can find no mention of a physical North/South border.

Please help me out?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/...

edited to insert the word physical.

NI/Irish/EU/US sentiment in 2019 is not in the 1998 agreement. Sentiment and goodwill in 2019 determines likely success of negotiations in 2019.

You (we) need to bone up on NI/Irish/EU/US politics (eg sentiment and goodwill) in 2019 to know who we negotiate with.

The whole pretext of the Belfast Accord is that there is not a physical border........have you read the tweets posted by Patrick Kielty late last year that have resurfaced recently explaining the situation over there? He aimed them at Boris Johnson after some comments made by our glorious leader who clearly doesn't understand the situation any more now as then. Kielty does have some reason to go off on one, his father having been murdered by the paramilitary group set up by our friends the DUP....... 

If you read the Belfast agreement you can pick up the intention to keep both sides and both countries happy.

Surely if the actual border is so important and as you say was the whole pretext for the agreement it would have merited at least a mention?

Or is it just an excuse for discontent either with Brexit or the current political situation?

It’s strange how the failure of the Northern Ireland assembly, which is mentioned many times in the agreement, hasn’t led to predictions/threats of chaos and violence.

Violence is on the up and the signs are there.  Constant reports on the news

Pick up the intention?!? It has no other purpose! 

I think you'll find that the lack of a border was the pretext, not the actual border. It was only possible because of membership of the EU for both RoI and the UK, which was assumed to be pretty well permanent. The BA works because it manages to satisfy both parties, who can on the one side pretend there isnt one as there is free movement of goods / people etc, and on the other side can pretend there is one because of the different currency, nationality etc

Nope, just that brexit on ERG terms threatens the BA via their red line of no customs check in the Irish sea. Its a pity that those refusing to accept this as a solution can't be as conciliatory and flexible as the various groups signing up to the BA (SinnFein / IRA and DUP / UDA etc). A very sad state of affairs IMO, as this "threatens the union" no more than the BA did / does.

See wercats response.

You might need to check again, because most Labour MPs abstained

Constant reports?

When was the last terrorist act reported on the BBC compared to reports of a hard border and Brexit?

The border is an issue because people want it to be.

If there was political will on all sides it would soon be sorted or more likely fudged.

Instead we have Sinn Fein threatening violence if they don’t get what they want.

Indeed. It was on the BBC yesterday.

Unfortunately I don’t think such trivial matters as “the good Friday agreement” or “reality” matter much for people like Boris Johnson and his cabinet.

The problem is that the people in the border towns who actually have a grasp on the reality of the situation, completely disagree with you.

How well do you think the people of NI can “pretend” that NI is a part of the U.K. just like any other if there’s a customs border in the Irish Sea?

I think they'd be quite sanguine about it as they'd have a lot more money in their pockets. No costs to import/export to the EU, regulatory equivalence, for them it would be the softest of Brexits.

The vast majority of people in the border towns just want to get on with their day to day lives. Of course they don’t want any disruption.

People saying that the Belfast agreement is being threatened when there’s no mention of the border in the agreement are using such threat for their own ends.

That's why the majority of people in NI voted remain (56/44). They don't want disruption to a very hard won peace, and the stability and prosperity that it has brought to their communities.

Its the outcomes of the BA (peace and prosperity) that are threatened. The BA is merely a framework (albeit a very clever one) that has helped facilitate it. Is that a price worth paying for an idealogically pure brexit, against the wishes of the majority of those affected by it? Not for me, it isn't.

They won't have to pretend. They will still be part of the UK. The BA guarantees that no matter what, NI will be part of the UK until voted otherwise by its electorate. It will be no more difficult for them than the current situation, unless they want it to be. And its only the DUP and the ERG that appear to want it to be. 

And whilst they are at it, they can "pretend" they have the same laws as us on womens rights / lgbtq rights etc.

I don’t have an issue with people who are concerned about the Northern Ireland border.

It’s the argument that if there’s no withdrawal agreement then there will be chaos and violence.

Do you know what % of goods from outside the EU are checked when they enter the UK or Ireland - which is what would happen if there’s no withdrawal agreement?

And what % of those checks are actually physical ones as opposed to digital ones?

How is such a small percentage of checks going to cause chaos?

Inconvenience maybe.

Agree. It only seems to be an issue in the political arena though, not with the Irish population.

A clever fudge would be to have a "virtual border" for customs purposes in a similar fashion to the "virtual border" we already have between RoI and NI for administrative purposes......oh, wait......

Which is the status quo. That the majority of their countrymen voted for. Or as near to it as possible.

And if anyone thinks that there is currently no "border" between NI and GB, just try taking your pet dog on holiday there with you.

Sure, solving the border issue is simple https://twitter.com/marksugruek/status/1155957402312663041?s=19

The border isn't mentioned from my quick read of the Belfast Agreement but Annex 1 does incorporate the agreement reached in multiparty talks. 

There may be references to the border in that, but for life of me I can't find that document online.

It seems to work at the moment with different VAT, currency, etc.

Will a very small % of customs checks and an even smaller number of actual physical checks really cause that much trouble?

Unless you want it to.

I'm sorry but it's complete fantasy that you can have 2 different customs areas without introducing a huge amount of disruption on the communities that it is imposed on.

The nub of this is the Brexiteers want something for NI and the UK that no other country has. They want to be in their own customs area so they can negotiate their own trade deals, but the also want free movement of goods between the UK and the EU. The EU are completely within their rights to say no to that, it's a bloody cheek to ask. It is the Brexiteers  who are using the NI situation try try and get the 'cake and eat it' outcome for the whole UK.

Replying to your other post as well.

Agree, its would be a very minor inconvenience, so why not have the Irish sea version? Nobody in ireland need notice the difference in their day to day lives, and a few bits of paper and a minimal amount of physical checks (you are probably more likely to be caught out on a weighbridge in the UK anyway) to add to the pet checks across the Irish sea, and the jobs done. Change the name from backstop to something very slightly different, and everyone except Arlene Foster and the ERG will be happy.

its not as if we are very good at border checks anyway, so all the brexiteer shite about "taking back control" is just so much hot air.

www.nao.org.uk/report/hm-revenue-customs-the-control-and-facilitation-of-imports/

and if insomnia is an issue,

www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/The-UK-border.pdf 

Do you know how many hgvs and vans move across the border each day?

Do you know how many of those would be checked - using current customs checks for goods from outside the EU as an example?

You might, or might not be surprised at the very small number.

To suggest that it can’t be done without chaos is not true.

The problem can indeed be solved.

I’m not sure that the Irish Sea border is the answer but it’s certainly an example of what can be achieved if the political will is there.

Well you obviously know that there are terrorists who would love to make this a problem.

And we don’t negotiate with terrorists, do we?

Its certainly not perfect, but is at least a workable compromise in the presence of precisely zero real alternatives (except the hard border version). The lack of political will appears therefore to be on the brexiteer side of the tory party; the WA as already negotiated was rejected by the negotiators' own party because of their lack of political will. 

And for anyone complaining of a lack of democracy in choosing / electing the new hierarchy in the EU, exactly how did we end up with that blond shitforbrains as PM? not that Jeremy Hunt would be much better.......

By my calculations there would be less than 200 vehicles - hgvs and vans - that would be physically checked each day.

That seems a small number given the problem that it’s causing.

Scary having one’s future decided by Johnson, isn’t it?

Not unless they prop up a minority administration......... 

Ah, yes, there is that example.

And the entire peace process.

And probably just about every police action we’ve ever been involved in.  

Very. Especially when he's backed up by that Dominic Cummins character.

We don't? You may be 50 years out of date!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/10/newsid_2499000/249...

I once checked online and there are records that almost every British PM has negotiated with terrorists throughout the troubles. I think there's an exception (Callaghan?) but given that there were negotiations before & after it may just be it was done at a lower and less well known level, see below.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/mar/18/northernireland.past

Mrs Thatcher deserves credit for the negotiations that carried on under Major & Blair resulting in the Peace Process.

We usually do actually.

More importantly, creating an environment in which they can thrive is usually considered a bad thing.

Well we did - that's how the Good Friday Agreement was born in the first place.

Currentley, a lot.

All of them, the EU has a right to police their borders as they see fit

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/on-the-poland-ukraine-frontier...

Brexiteers don't want any customs checks at all, but it isn't up to them. To insist on it is like trying to change the rules of a club as you leave it... I'm sorry but that's a p*ss take.

You've lost me. We booked him onto the night boat from Liverpool, disembarked Dublin, drove to Belfast. Similar process in reverse, Belfast to Cairnryan, drove back into England. Zero paperwork, zero hassle. Have you had a different experience?

jk

See my post at 15.08

See my post at 15.08

Looks like he was right about uniting the country. Getting booed wherever he goes - we all hate him!

By my calculations it’s  less than 200 hgvs and vans per day.

Using the checks currently used for outside the EU goods.

And that’s what most of the fuss is about?

Only in that it says on the guidelines that a pet passport is required in the same way that it is needed for travel to (say) france........if its a rule that isnt enforced, then fine, but its an example of something where travel to NI is different already to travel to wales / scotland, and that there is the potentail for checks in the Irish sea.

Interesting and odd since I presumably checked this at the time and concluded we could travel. We travelled directly into the republic, out of NI. No passports required, canine or human.

jk

There's certainly nothing between NI and RoI as the whole island is effectively one country because of farming / livestock. And Rugby!! Its the (potentially, it seems) requirement for a pet passport when travelling from Cairnryan to Larne (for EG), ie GB to NI.

Can you show your calculations?

This fact check gives 12,900 heavy goods vehicles and light vans each day, based on a UK parliamentary report (link included in the article).

https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-lorries-4469494-Feb2019/

Where do you think immigration will be checked as both the EU and the UK will want to TAKE CONTROL BACK over who is moving between them?

By the Hen Coop or in the builder's yard?

or perhaps we should simply acknowledge freedom of movement

and if we did ignore the likelihood of advantage and escalation being taken by the gangsters what would we not buy for our communities throughout the UK if we had to bear the cost of Operation Banner II?

Still, cheap for what we'd gain from Brexit

btw - big 50th Anniversary this August, some may be considering a commemorative event, don't encourage them! It was bad enough last time - even so Farage would "take up a rifle" to bring it all about again

I saw 400000 vehicles every month.

At present only between 4 and 6 percent of vehicles are subject to a check of any sort and around 1% of those are actually physically checked.

There will be free travel for people across the border.

QED.

Unfortunately, for those wishing to remain, including those in border towns, the UK is leaving the EU.

Definitely.

Probably.

Possibly.

Maybe.

the border with the EU?  For everyone? Complete freodom of movement.  Is that a Frankpledge?

Common travel area.

And no it not for everyone.

Why would it be?

if not for everyone how do you control that and where is it to be done exactly?

I have no idea but it’s been in place, in one form or another, for ages.

It is for everyone though, can’t work any other way.  We trust the Irish to police their borders.

but we haven't needed it since we have recognised freedom of movement within the EU.  Going back before that to a time before Ireland and the UK were both in the EU things were different and we didn't have to worry about international/internal peace agreement implications re what happened at the border except for restricting terrorist activity with VCPs, armed patrols, concrete observation towers, barbed wire emplacements etc

More on Cummings and the Civil Service. His ideas could have huge implications for our democracy if implemented and who voted for them? 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/01/boris-johnson-dominic...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/25/dominic-cummings-role-prov...

It’s had regular reviews and changes over the time but has always been in place.

Like quite a few Anglo/Irish agreements it’s a result of the historical links between the two countries and the way that both Ireland and the UK treat the citizens of both those countries differently than citizens of other EU countries.

you are correct, the problem can easily be solved, this solution is called the backstop. I.e we keep some form of alignment at least between NI and ROI up until something else replaces it. 

That seems a perfectly sensible to deal with it. Unfortunately the current UK government refuses it.

There are no checks at the moment as NI and ROI are 'at present' in the EU. That will all change. The EU has a right and an obligation to police their borders.

Tragically Ironic, isn't it, in the year of the 200th Anniversary of the massacre of peaceful British subjects being subject to and put to the sword in one of our cities, all just for wanting more representation in Parliament, that we have politicians (of that era of thinking?)  who have Taken Back Control through lies and deceipt and are willing to contemplate suspending Parliament, and hence that representation for which those poor people, dressed in their Sunday best clothes, were slaughtered.

Are we brave enough to stand up to the Putsch? Fellow Subjects ...

If the civil servant wants to claim he’s not acting from bias he would do better not to start by talking about “crashing” out of the EU and no deal “meltdown”.  He is biased, it shows.

So there are two articles.

One penned by an unknown source and one quoting union leaders.

Would I be correct in assuming that they both have their own agendas besides just trying to protect the civil service?

Or am I just being cynical?

That’s not to say that special advisors shouldn’t be subject to scrutiny and held to account.

I was referring to the percentage  of checks currently conducted by the Irish and UK governments on goods from outside the EU which are subject to checks.

There is no reason to believe that those percentages would change if the Irish And UK governments had to check each other’s goods in the event of their being no withdrawal agreement.

Or we could have held future trade talks at the same time as the withdrawal agreement talks but for some reason the EU wasn’t keen on the idea and for some even more unforgivable reason the UK’s crack negotiating team agreed to this.

Of course they have agendas.. doesn't stop the message from being important unless of course you have your own agenda for change to something more suppine. I think the civil service has served us well as a nation despite big changes in political directions of governments  over the years.

The EU wasn't keen because it was more keen to follow the order of events as laid down by the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, agreed to by all 28 member states (and as a slightly irrelevant aside written by a Brit). It would be a bit awkward if they abandoned their own rulebook on something so major and far reaching at the first opportunity........and I suspect the UK agreed to this as we are a signatory to the Lisbon Treaty. 

All non-EU imports should be declared and electronically tracked. As they must come in by sea and air to the UK this is straightforward to do as the freight must be unloaded at some point(no roll on roll off). The 4% figure refers to physical checks.

At EU land borders with 3rd countries this involves all trucks stopping to declare the goods and a percentage of physical checks at around 4% as you say. 12900 stopping trucks and 500 physical checks a day would be hugely disruptive and that's before getting into the Good Friday agreement. That is one reason why Boris et al do not want it. They want free movement of goods without any of the other obligations.

If you do not want free movement of goods fine, but it is a moot point as that is not what the majority of Brexiteers want, so is not relevant to the current negotiations.

Can you point to where in the article it sets out this order of events?

It’s here for reference: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012M050

As far as I can see there was/is nothing stopping the EU from negotiating a new arrangement alongside, they just chose not to.

And in any event, despite all the bluster we lacked any real leverage with which to shift the 27 had we decided to make that the battle we expended ourselves upon. 

jk

Actually, no, we couldn’t. The reason are pretty obvious, first it would be illegal, based on the treaties that we are signatories to, second, it would be completely impractical. You can’t negotiate a future relationship unless you know the terms of the divorce.

Moreover, the UK agreed on this approach anyway.

The problem Boris is going to have is that nobody will sign those wonderful trade deal with the UK unless the UK can show that they can effectively enforce customs fairly.

The government policy is to say we won’t enforce customs control and we’ll essentially have near unilateral free trade. The problem with unilateral free trade is that it effectively shuts you of other markets, since you’re already giving them what they want for free, they have no reason to give you access to their market.

Actually you are right - good for you. It only says that the terms of the withdrawal must be concluded within 2 years of the invocation of A50. It makes absolutely no reference to future trade arrangements, only that it should be done  "taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union." So sticking to the wording of the Lisbon treaty, the only requirement would be to conclude the WA. 

And as it turns out, this was wise judgement on the part of the EU, as clearly the UK negotiating team were not capable of agreeing a WA on it own, never mind future trade agreements. If they had agreed to negotiate the future agreements concurrent to the WA, the mess TM, DD et al would have ended up in does not bear thinking about, given where we are after following a simple chronological sequence.

Not sure it was that wise, given that all they’ve done is spent years on an agreement that (it looks like) won’t ever come into force.

Guinness send 13000 lorries and vans across the border each year.

That’s about 36 a day.

Even at a check rate of 4% that’s less than 2 a day that would need to be physically checked and it’s more likely to be 1 a day.

And all this with no mention of new technologies.

Not for the first time Rom and probably not for the last but you are wrong.

I think you meant to say 'written by a traitorous, unelected Eurocrat', didn't you...?

Yes, of course, silly me.

Fine. Now convince Ireland, EU and US.

And who's fault is that? Both sides negotiated, in apparently good faith, then some of our elected representatives decided to scupper it, against the wishes of the people voting for them. How democratic. 

It’s the Irish government who need convincing.

The EU has its own concerns about the backstop.

Fine. Now convince the Irish.

Don't forget Ireland has backing in US too.

The EU speak with one voice. Whilst they will obviously take advice from the Irish government, the Irish land border is the same to the EU as the Polish / Russian border. Perhaps its parts of the Tory party and the DUP need convincing about the practicalities of the backstop compared to the alternatives......

The Irish won’t be convinced because they are quite rightly concerned about the damage to their economy.

The US supporters might be less keen when they find that their cousins in Ireland are threatening the return of terrorism.

But the Irish border isn’t the same as other EU external borders.

Why the EU won’t recognise this is beyond me.

I do understand  the need to protect the integrity of the EU but such inflexibility doesn’t help.

Time is on their side. We're feeling the pain of this process, we're shedding jobs, we're losing investment and research grants, we're seeing the unicorns fall one by one at the hurdles of reality. We're down to the reality of brexit now, exposed for what it is. Will we take notice in time?

jk

I posted further up, the figure is 12900 lorries and vans per day, why single out Guinness?

4% of that is approx 500. That's a lot of  checks, and as I say all trucks and vans importing goods to the EU will have to stop and declare.

But as I keep saying the Brexiteers are trying to get free movement of goods, they don't want any checks, so the point you are trying to make is irrelevant. I don't want to antagonise you but continually ignoring that point does suggest that you don't understand the situation.

I used Guinness as an example  of a company that has a lot of cross border trade and the limited impact that cross border checks would have even if they were carried out using the current procedure for non EU goods.

I’m not sure where you figure of 4% physical checks comes from.

Of course the UK and Irish governments don’t want any checks but we’re talking reality here and given the current situation that’s not likely to happen.

At present the Irish border between Eire and the UK is a (nominal) border between 2 EU member states, with all the freedom of movement for goods and people that are thus allowed.

If/when we leave the EU then this border becomes one between an EU member state and another country - in practice no different between the current border between Greece (within the EU) and Turkey (outside the EU).

There is not therefore any validity in your "statement".

It is, but.....

Indeed. And that is why they have proposed and we (or the vast majority of us, anyway) have accepted, an exceptional arrangement (the backstop) that respects and protects the provisions in the Belfast Accord and maintains the delicate peace still existing in Northern Ireland. I simply dont understand why the ERG are being so belligerent and are willing to risk so much to make no more than a political point. And the DUP are simply beneath contempt.

Think you’ve messed up the sequence there - the elected representatives made it quite clear that they would never vote for the deal.  The EU and May wrote it up regardless and demanded that those MPs backtrack on their promises and vote it through anyway.  Shockingly they stuck to their promises.  Terribly undemocratic of the DUP to not vote against everything they stand for.

This says more about you than the EU. The EU desire to avoid a hard border is clear recognition of the both close and bloody recent history. 

The vast majority of us haven’t accepted it at all, the deal was and is incredibly unpopular.

It's easy to forget what the backstop actually is. It's an insurance policy that would only be implemented in the event of the UK and the EU not reaching the kind of agreement that leading Brexiters have long tried to convince us all will be easy.

The fact that these same leading Brexiters are flatly refusing to accept such an insurance policy speaks volumes about their actual confidence in being able to find a workable solution.

Which means there would sooner or later come a time where a solution still wouldn't exist but where Brexiters would want to be able to begin customs divergence anyway between NI and Eire. This, of course, would be terminal for what remains of the GFA and, in the absence of a workable alternative customs mechanism, would also be terminal for any serious hope of an infrastructure-free border.

The message that such leading Brexiters are communicating is that they don't believe in their own confident assertions and that they would prefer to see infrastructure along the border (along with whatever consequences ensued) rather than seeing even NI continuing to benefit from the successful trading arrangements that have been in place for over 40 years.

Do all other EU external borders have a common travel area?

Do they have citizens on one side of the border who can also claim citizenship on the other side?

Is my statement still invalid?

There is no mention of the border in the Belfast agreement.

The constant threat of reverting back to terrorism is both wearisome and worrying.

The current procedure is non-EU goods are declared and electronically tracked as they are unloaded from plane or ship. There is no current procedure for land freight as we have no land borders with non-EU countries. I posted the Poland -Ukraine border article further up as an example but you don't seem to have looked at that.

https://fullfact.org/europe/irish-border-trade-checks/

It's 4% good coming into UK and 6% goods going into Ireland.

I actually agree with that..... but the leading Brexiteers don't... hence the current impasse.

Yes 2 different customs areas = border checks, the world over.

The Brexiteers are trying to get an exception from that but the EU are rightly saying no.

The UK is quite rightly concerned that the withdrawal agreement backstop ties UK to the EU with no time limit and no legal way to escape.

The EU is quite rightly concerned that the backstop allows the UK to enjoy the benefits of EU membership  without all the responsibilities and with no time limit.

Maybe it’s the two completely opposite ways of looking at the same situation that is at the root of the negotiation difficulties.

Maybe those difficulties are insurmountable?

A sobering article in the FT - behind a paywall but if you google "ft No-deal Brexit: how prepared are the EU and UK" you go straight to it.

The first and last charts really spell out how severely we're going to wound ourselves if we carry on with this insane fantasy.

Interestingly the last chart shows a negative impact on every country in Europe but small gains for Japan, Canada, South Korea, Australia the USA and Israel.

So they think its acceptable to tell their own party leader what is and isnt acceptable before she had even got off the plane in brussels? They should therefore have resigned and stood in opposition if they didnt support their own party position. Anyway, some of them (eg Johnson, JRM) clearly lied (surprise, surprise) when they said they wouldn't vote for the deal as they eventually did vote for it. So what they say they will do and what they do are not necessarily connected. And we are supposed to believe them now when they still insist the unicorns are just over the next rise?

If they had been willing to compromise their positions and negotiate with their own party, we would be leaving the EU with an orderly agreement, and be 4 months into the implementation phase, talking to the EU27 about future trade etc rather than going through the current turmoil. Instead we have this shower of sh1t in charge, who are refusing point blank to even talk to the EU reps, blaming everyone else for everything whilst coming up with precisely zero workable solutions that might inch (copyright JRM, jul 2019) the project forward. 

OK we get it, you don't give a crap about the Irish. Get in the sea

See my reply to a remarkably similar post either upthread or in the JRM one.

Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful addition to this thread.

Seems reasonable to me.  When should they have told her?  At the last second?  I presume you know that each MP is their own master.

Several did resign.  

They’re clearly connected, it’s just that if you back people into a corner they take a least worst option.  What did you want them to do?

No, they wouldn’t.  The DUP wouldn’t have voted with them and without the votes of Grieve et al they wouldn’t have had the votes to get it through. 

Of course it has a perfectly legal way to escape. All it has to do is come good on the promises upon which the withdrawal agreement is passed.

It seems it is not confident that it will be keeping its promises. Quelle surprise.

Thats a bloody weird way of looking at it!

Only the extremists in the uk are concerned that the backstop ties the UK to the EU. And their incentive is to come up with a way of removing the backstop, at which point it will cease to be. We await with bated breath.....

No, they proposed it in order to allow the UK to leave in an orderly fashion. It only allows a small part of the UK to enjoy these benefits, respecting the (lack of) border provisions in the Belfast Accord.

Maybe its the holders of some of the more extreme views that cant open their eyes and minds to the actually possibly rather than the theoretically possible.

There is none so blind as those who will not see..........

There are two sides to the future trade deal.

It doesn’t only hinge on the UK but also 27 other countries.

They should have put party and country before their own ambitions. And in any case, they promised the electorate they would get us out of the EU. The door was wide open. They pulled it shut.

The wrong ones.........

Back their party leader once a course of action had been agreed. 

When someone, anyone, can tell us what 'brexit' does: what brexit-voters, brexit-architects and brexit-bankrollers can actually compromise on (or which stakeholder group can be screwed) we'll know very quickly whether the problems are insurmountable. They look insurmountable. The brexit you bought and the brexit others paid for do radically different things, the hapless Conservative party is currently caught in the middle desperately pretending there is a solution to this mess that doesn't end in one type of carnage or another.

jk

All is not sweetness and light in the EU.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/brexit-backstop-could-undermin...

The door came with a catch, a permanent attachment to the place we were supposed to be leaving.  That’s ignoring the NI issue.  They promised the electorate freedom to make our own trade deals, the WA didn’t give us that.  They promised us we could set our own laws, the WA didn’t give us that either.

Who are the right ones?  Johnson, Raab, Davis and several others did.

Who are you talking about?  You’ve complained that Boris and JRM backed the deal, make your mind up.  And then remember that regardless of what the ERG did the deal still wouldn’t have passed.

The sensible thing would be for NI to stay in the customs union while Great Britain leaves, but Boris et al don't want that for 2 reasons. First there's the DUP propping up the government, but the second reason is the major one and keeps getting overlooked in analysis. The Brexiteers want free movement of goods with the EU, they want friction-less trade across the English Channel. Even they know it's a bloody cheek to ask for that directly, so are using the NI situation to try and achieve it. The EU will never go for that.

It all comes back to the Brexiteers massively overestimating their negotiating strength before this thing started.

How so? What permanent attachment? Who promised? freedom to make deals? Set laws? Give us all a clue what you are on about, at least!

the WA do any of this didnt because its only the first part of the separation process. Your catch was not permanent; just until something better comes along. You know, technology etc. 

Yup, but not just from cabinet, they should have resigned the party whip.

Read it again, i didnt complain that they backed the deal, i pointed out that they voted for it having said they never would (although i didnt fact check it, I took your word for it. Possibly a mistake).

Thats all well and good, except it ha been pointed out by our more extreme parliamentary representatives (and the Brexit party) that the backstop was most certainly the work of the EU......nobody in our parliament is close to clever enough to have thought of it deviously as per the second paragraph. Nice article, though - i wouldnt take it too seriously though; it does sem to be fairly light hearted in tone.

A temporary hurdle if the brexiteers are telling the truth about 'technological solutions'. If they aren't then well that insurance the 27 took out for Ireland is going to look like a good call isn't it.

Aw, here let me get you the moon on a stick to soften the blow!

You've been conned. It sucks. You can't have what you were promised so now you need to think carefully and honestly about what second best looks like because at some point soon you're going to be asked to decide one way or another.

jk

Theresa May and her party prior to their election.

Permanent until is permanent for the time being.  The second part may never happen, given that the EU have to agree it’s not something we have control over.

Every time you disagree with the detail of a decision you should resign the party whip!?  That’s ridiculous.

I’ve no idea what you think they should have done, or what you’re unhappy about.  Fact check what?  I’m taking your word for it that they voted for it...

There’s two requirements, a solution and a willing EU that will agree to it, we’ll never find the second.  The insurance is not in place, and doesn’t look like it will ever be in place.  Given that it’s hardly a great call.

What was that about keeping everything on the table so you don't let the 'enemy' know what you are thinking? 

And they should now be held to account for those, er, "misleading" statements. Unfortunately, some people still seem to believe them

Fair enough. Better get looking then. As for the second part, why should we think the EU won't agree to the end of the backstop if a suitable alternative is found? They at least have been consistent and honest during the negotiation of the WA.

Stop adding and taking away words from what people have written in order to make a point. If you disagree with a decision or a policy so fundamentally that you are prepared to risk bringing down your own government over it, then yes you should resign. Not over details. 

They should have backed it from the beginning. I'm unhappy about the whole brexit thing (in case it wasnt obvious) and that we are now governed by amoral selfish liars.

google their voting records. It really isnt difficult. 

The EU was clear that the UK would simply need to demonstrate that its magic border-free border would be effective in the way that the Brexiters were claiming would be easy. Hard to see the problem if they genuinely believed their own rhetoric.

Coming from you, the man who has systematically been proven wrong, wrong and wrong again for the past two years, that’s quite something. 

I note that as usual you don’t say what is wrong and don’t even bother pointing out to any evidence.

If we are in the Alps together and I warn you that your intended approach is threatened by Rockfall and crevasses it would appear that you would interpret that as "the constant threat of .. is both wearisome and worrying" as if you were not being warned but threatened, when the fact of your intentions is what is threatening you.

I'd rather not hear of any more ribcages being found hundreds of yards from bombed bus stations or paras picking up faces after another Warrenpoint

The UK will be begging the EU to backtrack toward the terms agreed in May's WA before November is out if Johnson miscalculates an crashes us out.

We've ceded almost all control over our destiny already. Bravo.

jk

Having achieved a long lasting if not perfect peace agreement (they haven’t gone away, you know) I, like every other right minded soul would rather that there wasn’t a return to constant terrorism.

However, I’d also rather not see the future of the entire UK decided by the threats of violence from the political wing of the IRA.

'I’d also rather not see the future of the entire UK decided by the threats of violence from the political wing of the IRA.'

That's ironic, isn't it? Because it is my firmly held belief that much of the momentum for a hard Brexit is being sustained because politicians are fearful of the consequences and unrest if, say, a referendum was to be held that overturned the original decision - which is surely democratic and sensible  in view of all the new facts  that have emerged since 2016.

In short, I personally believe we are being held to ransom, not by the majority of reasonable Brexiters, but by a small rump - maybe 100,000 or so - of right wing, bullying f*cking Nazis,  and it really galls.

The threat of civil unrest whichever way Brexit pans out is possible.

Whether it’s the malcontented leavers or remainers who are more likely to kick off is open for debate.

But the threat is definitely there.

Whatever happens things won’t be going back to normal anytime soon

I genuinely don't see any appetite for violence - or even significant unrest - on behalf of Remain. 

Well if we discount, at our peril, the threat from across the Irish Sea then there are probably more extremists who have latched on to the Brexit cause so I guess that’s where the most danger lies.

Of course there are more ways than outright violence to disrupt society.

What?  You asked who made those promises, I answered, and now you’re having a go at... well I’m not sure, maybe May?  Personally I’d rather those who are elected keep their promises.  Those who deliberately break their promises, those who make promises with no intention of keeping them, they’re the problem.

Because they have little reason to want an alternative and because their actions suggest they will not try and find one unless pressed.  If we sign up to a deal we cannot leave without their consent we can’t press them.

That’s quoted verbatim...  The backstop is a detail, leaving the EU is the policy.

They should back whatever deal May fancies regardless of what’s in it?  No, they should not.

I’m quite happy to take your word for it.  What did I say that you should have fact checked?

I’ve seen it threatened by posters on here.  Whether it’s real is another matter of course.

I'd suggest more reliable pieces of evidence are a) the frequent violent protests and behaviour of brexiteers b) the pretty much uniformly peaceful protests of remainers. 

And this is despite brexiteers winning a referendum, having numerous opportunities to effect brexit while remainers have been utterly sidelined with ever more extreme versions of brexit being proposed, clearly contrary to a three year old narrow result.

Having a go at pretty well the lot of them. I dont think we are far apart on that one - especially those that make promises they will never keep, as they are impossible.

Do you mean the EU here? If so, I have no idea why; they have already suggested a workable solution, which the ERG etc have rejected. Why should they be expected to come up with another solution while the ERG etc cant / wont / dont want to suggest an alternative? Its not the EU that wants the UK to leave.

Why not; her WA satisfies the promise they all made to leave the EU. They stood behind the manifesto promise to leave the EU; Mays negotiated WA would have achieved that. Mind you, the majority of parliament should hang its head in shame on this one; the various indicative votes only showed what they didnt want, and nothing of what they did want.

That Bo Jo, JRM etc promised they would never back the deal, as you said in a previous post; do try to keep up.

Its a crap non solution, and they knew it wouldn’t pass (or should have).  It could have done though, and they’d have been happy with that hence no real reason to try anything else.

If the alternative is no deal, and they want a deal, then it’s sensible for them to try.  If you’re trying to work out an agreement and only one party will suggest anything you won’t get far very fast.

It’d achieve leaving the EU, sure.  It blocks various things we could have the power to do, as said.  Some of those the Tory party promised to do, May promised.

I didn’t say they did.  Pre election the deal didn’t exist...

What I said was that they made certain promises, some of which aren’t met by the deal.  May says they will be because we’ll negotiate that later and the EU will give us a deal that meets them.  I don’t believe it - why did the EU refuse to negotiate the final deal any earlier?  Why believe that they will do it now after they’ve got most of what they want and when they’ve refused to for so long?  Why insist on a clause that prevents us leaving without consent if they’re going to negotiate in good faith?

Why is it a "crap non solution"? Are "they" the EU or the UK negotiators? There is no reason at all other than bloody mindedness of those with vested interests in it failing why it should have failed. It would have at least kept us reasonably aligned with the EU, and given a firm footing for the negotiation of a future trade relationship. Note that because of the relative size of the 2 parties, the upper hand will always be with the EU. Still not sure also why you say they knew it wouldn't pass but could have done. 

Exactly; even now BoJO, DR, DD etc say they want a deal and that they beleive a dea lwill be done, but they arent doing anything to help - they are now even refusing to approach the EU.

And I simply dont believe you - i simply dont think you "get" how this type of thing works

  > why did the EU refuse to negotiate the final deal any earlier?

because they wanted to know the basis from which a deal would stem. The WA becomes a kind of "heads of terms" on which the detail of the trade deal would be developed.

Why believe that they will do it now after they’ve got most of what they want and when they’ve refused to for so long?

Theres a chance they wont, but thus far they have been honest, open, detailed and consistent in their approach. If it was my money (and in a way, it is) I would be much happier dealing with the EU side than the UK side, who have been consistently evasive, dishonest and ill prepared.

Why insist on a clause that prevents us leaving without consent if they’re going to negotiate in good faith?

They havent insisted (I assume again that by "they", you mean the EU). They have insisted on a solution to the irish border problem, suggested a potential solution, and are now waiting for those that said there must be a better way to actually come up with one.

Perhaps you could run us through the list of remainers who have been prosecuted for harassment of MPs, conspiracy to murder an MP and the murder of an MP?

I’m presuming, possibly wrongly, that there is a list of leavers who have committed those crimes?

When will you get over the fact that the ‘certain promises’ were either lies or fantasy?

No, you presumr correctly. Remember Jo Cox?

Have you ever heard of Jo Cox?

Not that this discussion is getting us anywhere at all.

And meanwhile we have just had two local EDL acivists jailed for chucking items of Masonry through the windows of the local MP's constituency office.

Thomas Mair was a documented leaver was he?

Or was he a man with mental health issues who had issues with governments and affiliations with extremist groups  for a very long time?

The judge in his case said that Mair had murdered Cox to advance a political, racial and ideological cause - that of violent white supremacism and exclusive nationalism most associated with Nazism and its modern forms.

What happened to Cox was a tragedy but I can’t believe that you think that Mair is in any way representative of leavers.

Of course he isnt representative of leavers, but I can be pretty certain from his "political" affiliations which way he voted......

People like him, or Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, or Colin Dodds, dont really "represent" anybody. They have a poisoned view of aspects of our society but for whatever reason find violence and targeted hate a preferable modus operandum to debate / discussion.

now, from Georges question, an equivalent from the remainer side?

Tommy Robinson. Advisor to UKIP. They're a bit Leavy I'm led to believe. Nice company they're keeping... 

It's not a solution because it won't pass Parliament, and there are good reasons why people have refused to vote for it, as said.  They (the EU) knew it couldn't pass because they can do the maths like everyone else - Labour et al refused, DUP refused, Tories don't have enough votes and even if they did a bunch of Tory MPs (remainers and leavers) had refused anyway.  Relative size is not the be all and end all of negotiation.

The EU's current stance is sign or not, there is no other option.  What is there to talk about?

What don't you believe?  I certainly mean what I'm saying.  You disagree with me, I disagree with you...  You trust the EU, but bear in mind in this situation they will have no responsibility to act in our interests, just their own.

They could have discussed both together and removed (or at least tried to remove) the need for the argument over the backstop by replacing it with something better, that would show good faith.  They chose not to.  The WA is nothing but a gentleman's agreement, the backstop is legally binding.

I don't agree, except that they've been consistent. They've been closed and difficult.  They want us to sign up to this deal while telling us that the methods available for working out the replacement deal do not exist and cannot exist, and what's left if we can't is the backstop, which they're happy to have continue indefinitely.

They have said that they will not remove or amend that clause.  That's insisting on the clause.

That's a big part of the reason they lost the great majority of their voters to the Brexit party.

Farage reaching for his rifle, Steve Baker saying Theresa May should ‘bring her own noose’, ‘enemies of the people’ , traitors.

Wake up and stop equivocating.

You and many others keep making the mistake of equating the self appointed leaders of the leave campaign with the vast majority of leavers.

Leavers had/have no more say in who represents us than the vast majority of Conservative and Labour voters have.

Violence or the threat there of has no place in the Brexit debate.

Unequivocal enough?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/02/brecon-radnorshire-byelect...

Tories lose election despite local small brexit majority (Brexit + tory + UKIP @ 50.3% ). Massive implications for the UK. Boris' s majority down to 1. Labour vote more than halved but their remaining vote only just exceeds the Liberal majority. Greens and Plaid decision not to stand fully justified.

This is yet more evidence to be ignored by the Story Party that the democratic will has shifted and started to see sense.  Will it make any difference?  No, Hotblack Desiato still has the controls set for the heart of the sun.

As baron says, violence has no part in the debate so the self-servatives should not argue danger of anger, violence and unrest as a reason for pushing this disaster through. 

Personally I find it hard not to see Brexit as an act of violence against the country's well-being and the well-being of Britons

The Lib Dem’s win because the Brexit vote is split.

The Greens And Plaid Cymru don’t stand.

All sides will spin the result as usual.

Nothing really changes.

Interesting times ahead

There was one significant result. Labour went from bad to worse. Who will still argue that JC  is an electoral asset?

What would have happened to the result if Labour had backed remain?

Would this have reduced the LIb Dem vote, although the seat has never been a Labour stronghold.

Would the Conservatives have held the seat?

Maybe Labour’s current stance helped the Lib Dem’s win, reduced the governments majority and allows the remain camp to have a stronger claim for a referendum.

So why did TM bring it back to parliament? She must have told the EU it stood a chance (although if she couldnt see potential defeat in what turned out to be the biggest defeat in parliamentary history, she should have gone there and then).

Not much. A deal was struck; a WA was agreed by both parties, its up to the tories to get ti through parliament. 

Which is what they have been doing from the start. And in the case of "looking after their own", this doesnt just extend to making sure BMW can still flog X5's in the UK, but extends to cherry picking UK businesses to relocate in the EU to replace the business potentailly lost when our economy tanks. Nissan, BMW mini, Vauxhall, Goldman Sachs, various insurance companies etc etc. IF BoJo starts playing hardball with them, then he had better be ready to explain away these losses at the next GE.

They came up with a perfectly workable, if politically imperfect solution, which was rejected by the UK hardliners, who came up with precisely zero alternatives. The backstop is part of the WA, so cant be separated. Until the WA is written into UK law, its all just a gentlemans agreement. The (significant) problem for anyone from the tory party suggesting an alternative to the backstop is that their government is propped up by a political party that actually formed a terrorist organisation in its past, so cant really propose anything that would upset our DUP chums........

You clearly havent been following the progress of the talks! They need to protect the integrity of the external EU borders. They have proposed a workable solution. They have said (just reminding you, as someone else pointed it out upthread) that the backstop will only be in place until a replacement solution can be found. They have been true to their word so far, so no reason to believe they will change that stance, so of course until a replacement is found they will insist on the maintenance of the backstop, as they will always need to maintain the integrity of the external EU borders.

Or a replacement. Not that one is needed. 

Note that the integrity of the union (not that BoJo really gives a sh1t about that or anything else) is guaranteed by the Belfast Accord, and as i have already said in this or the other thread, both sides of the irish political divide are happy to pretend that the border either does or doesnt exist depending on requirements, so i'm not sure why the tories think its necessary to get all hot under the collar about the backstop. Ah yes, our DUP chums.

But not sensible to bend over backwards compromising their principles and the integrity of the union. 'No-deal' is not an end point, it just applies crushing pressure to our parliament to accept a more structured withdrawal agreement. Under duress this will not be on our ridiculous terms, it will be May's deal or worse. The 27 can support each other through this politically and economically. Sure there will be pain across the water and plenty of discord but their union will hold, by contrast we will be utterly isolated, completely at the mercy of the EU for temporary relief measures which will be focused on their UK-facing members' interests, rationed and time limited. 'Taking back control'.

No-deal is no threat, it's like threatening to hold your breath until you're dead to win an argument, stupid and ultimately hollow however red faced we get in the process.

It did conceptually. The easiest deal in history! All the benefits without the downsides! etc etc. As of course did the real world constraints within which it would actually be negotiated.

Because they can't be, those claims, promises if you will didn't reflect the reality in which they were made. Fools like you have wrecked the country by refusing to recognise that, driving politicians not to backtrack sensibly toward a deliverable and sensible exit which mitigates economic harm but instead to double down on the lies and engineer a scapegoat. I hold them and those of you who refuse to see this despite obvious capacity in utter contempt.

jk

'Maybe Labour’s current stance helped the Lib Dem’s win, reduced the governments majority and allows the remain camp to have a stronger claim for a referendum.'

You may well be correct but there's no way it's a thought-out, coherent strategy.

Get rid of JC; elect Keir Starmer on an unambiguous Remain ticket (which will partly at least win over the youth JC vote); start arguing and campaigning day in day out for Remain; and then see what happens.

Stop kidding yourself.

Who you've voted for and against, how you react to decisions and events, how you've polled and responded to media campaigns, the letters you write to MP's and papers, the party funding you provide or withhold, the protests you organise and join... These have driven the leave process from foolishness to radicalism to extremism? Where next, this is in the hands of leavers just like you, head in the sand, uncritical Brexit Party voting citizens, a minority of the electorate propelling our 'leaders' off a cliff edge, the rest of us in tow.

Brexit does not do what you think it does. It will never do what you think it should. Snap out of it!

jk