Proroguing Parliament

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Trevers 27 Aug 2019

No-deal Brexit is an outcome with no democratic mandate whatsoever, which is widely regarded by those qualified to comment to be threaten the economy, short-term food supplies and law and order, the livelihoods and even lives of many residents in the country, the basis of the Good Friday Agreement and the very integrity of the nation itself. In short, it would be an extreme act of hostility by the government upon its people.

Now it seems that the government is seriously considering the option of proroguing Parliament in order to force through a no-deal Brexit, which would be an act of utter contempt towards democracy and the constitution of the UK, unacceptable and unforgivable.

I've been on three big anti-Brexit marches in London so far. The last in March was a spectacular occasion - more than a million people from all walks of life and all parts of the country peacefully protesting together. It made headlines in Europe and around the world. It was completely ignored by the government.

If the government goes ahead with shutting down Parliament, peaceful protest will no longer be enough. It seems to me that widespread organised civil disobedience would become an acceptable response, if not indeed our civic duty.

Am I being hysterical here, or do others agree with me? How can and should ordinary citizens respond to such disturbing events?

15
 Postmanpat 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

> Am I being hysterical here, or do others agree with me? How can and should ordinary citizens respond to such disturbing events?

>

   Maybe. Have you considered that Johnson might be very happy to keep people, especially the EU, thinking that it is a possibility in order to focus their minds?

  How should people react to parliament reversing their own law which was enacted in pursuance of the outcome of a democratic vote?

  Only a few weeks ago the hard core remainers were criticising the occasional violence of the hard core brexiteers and priding themselves on their peacability . Whatever happened to that? I would suggest that neither side would be wise to unleash such forces.

Post edited at 19:29
50
 tehmarks 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>    ...which was enacted in pursuance of the outcome of a democratic vote?

Oh come on, not this bollocks again.

14
 Postmanpat 27 Aug 2019
In reply to tehmarks:

> >    ...which was enacted in pursuance of the outcome of a democratic vote?

> Oh come on, not this bollocks again.

>

Oh come on, not this bollocks again.

50
OP Trevers 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>    Maybe. Have you considered that Johnson might be very happy to keep people, especially the EU, thinking that it is a possibility in order to focus their minds?

I have indeed considered this. But he's ramped up the rhetoric so far that it seems he's painted himself into a corner if the plan is simply to pressure the EU into a change of policy. As I mentioned to you earlier in a different thread, I don't believe the situation regarding the backstop has changed remotely. And the EU has less to fear from no-deal than we do. It's not a stretch to imagine that Johnson is serious - many of his supporters certainly are.

>   How should people react to parliament reversing their own law which was enacted in pursuance of the outcome of a democratic vote?

Firstly, I do no accept it was a democratic vote, for reasons that have been outlined many times in past. Parliament has no moral or constitutional duty to carry it out.

Secondly, I would suggest those people bothered by this educate themselves about Parliamentary sovereignty.

I don't see how this is remotely equivalent to shutting down Parliament.

>   Only a few weeks ago the hard core remainers were criticising the occasional violence of the hard core brexiteers. I would suggest that neither side would be wise to unleash such forces.

I'm not advocating or suggesting violence, civil disobedience is in no way the same thing.

8
 Tyler 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> How should people react to parliament reversing their own law which was enacted in pursuance of the outcome of a democratic vote?

Parliament voting to change the law? Isn't that what it's there for?

3
 alastairmac 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

The current government have no majority and no mandate. They're engaged in a right wing coup and a direct attack on democracy. It is deeply worrying and if left unchecked  the UK will effectively become a failed state. I think it's the duty of all democrats to oppose complacency and what could easily become a drift towards fascism.

12
 Postmanpat 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

> I have indeed considered this.

> Firstly, I do no accept it was a democratic vote, for reasons that have been outlined many times in past. Parliament has no moral or constitutional duty to carry it out.

>

  But it passed a law saying that it would. A bit rich now to argue that they passed law on a referendum that they believed to be undemocratic.

  The problem you have is that both sides can reasonably argue that they are right and both sides can be regarded as wrong. I trust that you can see that?
 

  So once you set a precedent you open a very large can or worms.

15
 Postmanpat 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> > How should people react to parliament reversing their own law which was enacted in pursuance of the outcome of a democratic vote?

> Parliament voting to change the law? Isn't that what it's there for?


Not if they passed it because the ultimate source of sovereignty voted it for it.

Anyway, I'll leave you lot to have one of your sessions. Do your see yourselves in this?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/13/brexit-remain-radicalisati...

22
 Robert Durran 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat

>   The problem you have is that both sides can reasonably argue that they are right and both sides can be regarded as wrong. I trust that you can see that?

It is possible to argue it both ways on the grounds of what is democratic. So it should clearlybbe settled on the grounds of what is best for the country, and no sane, intelligent person could argue that a no deal Brexit is the best option for the country.

5
 Enty 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

You've been on 3 marches. Marches do nothing. You need to riot mate.

It will come.

E

6
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   But it passed a law saying that it would. A bit rich now to argue that they passed law on a referendum that they believed to be undemocratic.

So timelines don't matter. The Electoral Commission found that Leave had breached electoral law after Article 50 was enacted. As I am sure you know.

7
 john arran 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   So once you set a precedent you open a very large can or worms.

How impossibly large would such a can of worms need to be to be worse than a no-deal Brexit? 

10
 MG 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Only a few weeks ago the hard core remainers were criticising the occasional violence of the hard core brexiteers and priding themselves on their peacability . Whatever happened to that?

I haven't noticed any violence from the remain camp.  Have you?   

That said, I think its reasonable to suggest that if democratic decision making is shutdown, there is no choice but to use undemocratic measures in response.  That's not necessarily violence of course (.e.g Ghandi), but the rules would have clearly changed.  Brexiteers can't hope to  shut parliament and expect people to still look to parliament as the source of governing authority.

6
 girlymonkey 27 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

So what would you say would be an appropriate non-violent response?

I cannot accept a no-deal Brexit, but nor can I accept violence to stop it. I am in the fortunate position where I suspect we will have an indyref2 and hopefully be free of England's foot shooting.

Post edited at 20:53
7
 MG 27 Aug 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> So what would you say would be an appropriate non-violent response? I cannot accept a no-deal Brexit, but nor can I accept violence to stop it. I am in the fortunate position where I suspect we will have an indyref2 and hopefully be free of England's foot shooting.

Well I am quite likely to return to Scotland for similar reasons! Having been vehemently opposed the independence previously, it is a bit of shock to, if not support it, at least see an arguable case for it now.  And if Johnson goes ahead as planned, it's a non-brainer, very unfortunately.  Beyond that I am not sure, currently sorry.

2
OP Trevers 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   But it passed a law saying that it would. A bit rich now to argue that they passed law on a referendum that they believed to be undemocratic.

A bit rich!? That's all?

>   The problem you have is that both sides can reasonably argue that they are right and both sides can be regarded as wrong. I trust that you can see that?

One side is pursuing a course of action that it openly accepts will be hugely damaging. One side is seeking to avert that course of action. One side broke electoral law.

I accept there are arguments both ways but I don't accept there is any balance. In the same sense that I don't accept balance in, for example, the BBC putting up climate deniers to argue against scientists. The wealth of evidence points in a certain direction.

>   So once you set a precedent you open a very large can or worms.

What precedent? Parliament exercising its sovereignty?

Post edited at 21:11
2
 elsewhere 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

If parliament has been shut down for political reasons then my MP no longer has a forum in which to represent my constituency.

No taxation without representation!

 rogerwebb 27 Aug 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> I cannot accept a no-deal Brexit, but nor can I accept violence to stop it. I am in the fortunate position where I suspect we will have an indyref2 and hopefully be free of England's foot shooting.

I  think that indyref 2 will be as divisive as brexit. Whatever the result it won't bring tranquility. 

3
 girlymonkey 27 Aug 2019
In reply to rogerwebb:

The stalling from SNP is because they don't want a super close result for that exact reason. As the ship sinks further and further, I think more people will go for the liferafts and we will be off.

I was never pro indy before. I am now. I'm certainly not the only one headed in that direction.

1
 elsewhere 27 Aug 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> I was never pro indy before. I am now. 

Same here, and I'm an English incomer!

baron 27 Aug 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

Won’t independence for Scotland be as bad as Brexit might be for the UK?

5
 Shani 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>    Maybe. Have you considered that Johnson might be very happy to keep people, especially the EU, thinking that it is a possibility in order to focus their minds?

You think that threatening to mutilate our own economy unless the EU allow us to parasitise theirs is a viable tactic to change EU minds?

2
 MG 27 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

It would be bad in many ways  but probably less bad than being part of the backward looking, populist, xenophobic brexiteer project. Assuming Scotland rejoins the EU. 

4
In reply to baron:

Of course not, because they would still be in the EU. (And I don't think they would want to become independent if they weren't able to stay in the EU.)

2
 girlymonkey 27 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

I think it would have been in 2014. Now that we are being taken out of the EU, losing all our safeguards and protections and almost certainly being forced into a horrendously destructive trade agreement with the US, I think it's the only sane option. We are in for a time of horrific disruption and crashing economy as part of the UK, so we may as well have some hope of eventually moving back towards the EU

Post edited at 22:02
2
 Shani 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   But it passed a law saying that it would. A bit rich now to argue that they passed law on a referendum that they believed to be undemocratic.

Unless stated explicitly, all referenda in the UK are advisory.

Unfortunately most hard Brexiters don't know the difference between leaving the EU, leaving the Single Market, and leaving the Customs Union. This complicates things.

Brexiters also seem to have bought in to the Brexiter idea that solving the backstop is easy. Sure David Davis repeated this recently expertly stating there will be no need for a hard border on the Island of Ireland because existing technology is already available for customs checks. This raises the question as to why Brexiters see the Backstop as so unpalatable; it's an insurance policy against Brexiters f*cking up what they see as a VERY EASY problem to solve.

I don't think Brexiters understand the real repercussions of hard Brexit/WTO trading rules either. We lose geographical protection for everything from Scotch whisky to Caerphilly & Wensleydale cheese, and cannot selectively impose tarriffs to protect native industry nor help our industry with subsidies, so funding steel or fishermen will be deemed anticompetitive and......ah f*ck it.

Post edited at 22:20
1
 Robert Durran 27 Aug 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> I was never pro indy before. I am now. I'm certainly not the only one headed in that direction.

I'm veering that way too. Most people I know seem to be at least flirting with the case for independence, even the most ardent No voters in 2014. I think independence is pretty inevitable if Brexit isn't stopped.

OP Trevers 27 Aug 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> Same here, and I'm an English incomer!

Same here. In 2014 I felt it was better for both Scotland and the rest of the UK to remain as a union. Now I think Scotland would be foolish to not vote to leave. I still live in England but if there was a possibility of being granted Scottish citizenship, I'd move in a heartbeat.

 Robert Durran 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

>  I still live in England but if there was a possibility of being granted Scottish citizenship, I'd move in a heartbeat.

As I understand it, citizenship, like voting rights in the referendum, would be on a residential* basis rather than ancestry (Scottishness obviously not currently being well defined), so get yourself up here, vote for independence and become Scottish!

*There are of course drawbacks with this for Anglo-Scots who feel completely Scottish but are disenfranchised.

Post edited at 23:27
OP Trevers 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> >  I still live in England but if there was a possibility of being granted Scottish citizenship, I'd move in a heartbeat.

> As I understand it, citizenship, like voting rights in the referendum, would be on a residential* basis rather than ancestry (Scottishness obviously not currently being well defined), so get yourself up here, vote for independence and become Scottish!

> *There are of course drawbacks with this for Anglo-Scots who feel completely Scottish but are disenfranchised.

I'm currently a PhD student in Bristol but Edinburgh looks increasingly attractive for a postdoc.

Would embracing Scottish citizenship mean I'd have to support them in the rugby?

Post edited at 23:09
 Robert Durran 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

> Would embracing Scottish citizenship mean I'd have to support them in the rugby?

In my view yes, but you would still be allowed to support England against anyone else.

OP Trevers 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> In my view yes, but you would still be allowed to support England against anyone else.

Potential deal breaker!

Post edited at 23:21
 birdie num num 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

What’s the use of civil disobedience? What’s the use of perpetuating the stagnation, the paralysis of the last three years? 

The case for remain disappeared with complacency. The failure to engage, argue and motivate before the referendum. 

24
 Robert Durran 27 Aug 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

> What’s the use of civil disobedience? What’s the use of perpetuating the stagnation, the paralysis of the last three years? 

A further delay is easily justified if it gives the possibility of abandoning Brexit and getting on with being an influential member of the EU with all the benefits that would bring rather than facing years of negotiating and wrangling with the EU and further afield from an impoverished and weakened position.

3
OP Trevers 27 Aug 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

> The case for remain disappeared with complacency. The failure to engage, argue and motivate before the referendum.

On the contrary, the case and support for remain is stronger than ever. David Cameron didn't have a monopoly on Europhilia, I will not be bound to his failure.

Post edited at 23:41
4
 birdie num num 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

I don’t agree. But who knows? 

I didn’t vote to leave, but the majority did. 

9
 birdie num num 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

The case for remain is stronger than ever after the event

2
 Robert Durran 27 Aug 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

> The case for remain is stronger than ever after the event.

Indeed. I'm not sure anyone, both leave and remain voters, realised at the time of the referendum just how divisive and destructive Brexit would be. And it hasn't even happened yet.........

1
 fred99 28 Aug 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

> I don’t agree. But who knows? 

> I didn’t vote to leave, but the majority did. 


But, and it's an absolutely massive BUT, did the majority vote to leave with no deal, along with everything it entails.

I thought the overwhelming majority who voted leave were expecting the EU to cave in, we'd have free movement in Europe, the Europeans wouldn't be able to come here without our express permission, we'd have our own private fishing waters, we'd be able to sell to and buy from the EU without tariffs, we'd pay absolutely nothing, there'd be £350 million every week for the NHS, johnny foreigner wouldn't be able to set foot on our shores without written permission and a guarantee of their financial security, and a hundred and one other lies perpetrated by the Leave side in the NON-BINDING Referendum (which, if it had been binding, would have meant an immediate quashing of the result, a re-run, and sundry persons probably jailed).

Oh, and just how many voted leave just to "stick it" to Cameron and the Tories just out of spite - and with an amount of being "egged on" by a certain Labour leader whose only interest is power and doesn't care how much of a mess we're left in just so long as he gets what he wants.

3
OP Trevers 28 Aug 2019
In reply to fred99:

> I thought the overwhelming majority who voted leave were expecting the EU to cave in, we'd have free movement in Europe, the Europeans wouldn't be able to come here without our express permission, we'd have our own private fishing waters, we'd be able to sell to and buy from the EU without tariffs, we'd pay absolutely nothing, there'd be £350 million every week for the NHS, johnny foreigner wouldn't be able to set foot on our shores without written permission and a guarantee of their financial security, and a hundred and one other lies perpetrated by the Leave side in the NON-BINDING Referendum (which, if it had been binding, would have meant an immediate quashing of the result, a re-run, and sundry persons probably jailed).

It's worth repeating that this was the vision the Leave campaign painted of Brexit, and lets face it, who wouldn't want that?

The Leave campaign expressly didn't offer food shortages, round two of The Troubles, the destruction of SMEs exporting to Europe or the deaths of anyone dependent upon supplies of medication.

Post edited at 00:16
3
 elsewhere 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

> Same here. In 2014 I felt it was better for both Scotland and the rest of the UK to remain as a union. Now I think Scotland would be foolish to not vote to leave. I still live in England but if there was a possibility of being granted Scottish citizenship, I'd move in a heartbeat.

UK citizen habitually resident here does it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Scottish_independence_referendum#Citiz...

baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to fred99:

I’ve read a lot of ridiculous things on this forum over the years but your post is in a league of its own.

37
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

Your post has just surpassed fred99’s as the most ridiculous post ever on UKC.

Congratulations.

34
 Timmd 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> I’ve read a lot of ridiculous things on this forum over the years but your post is in a league of its own.

'' Oh, and just how many voted leave just to "stick it" to Cameron and the Tories just out of spite ''

Not exactly, on the day of the referendum result a friend in Sheffield was being contacted via email by people who had voted Leave as a protest vote about austerity related cuts to services.

As an example of daft (when it comes to missing the point) I find it hard to beat. 

Post edited at 02:52
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Timmd:

The ‘sticking it to Cameron’ bit is the only bit of fred99’s post that isn’t ridiculous.

9
 Enty 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I'm veering that way too. Most people I know seem to be at least flirting with the case for independence, even the most ardent No voters in 2014. I think independence is pretty inevitable if Brexit isn't stopped.


I cannot imagine what it must feel like to be a Scottish European having people like Johnson and Gove take away your freedom of movement in this way. It must be a horrible feeling.
An independent Scotland still in the EU would be a no-brainer for me.

E

3
 Enty 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

Go on then, tell us how we'll all be better off out of the EU.

E

4
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Enty:

> Go on then, tell us how we'll all be better off out of the EU.

> E

So you agree with what fredd99 wrote?

2
 Enty 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

I have a long list of friends who I still communicate with on social media who votel leave for the exact reasons Fredd99 highlights.

So, go on then, tell us how we'll be better off out of the EU.

E

2
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Enty:

> I have a long list of friends who I still communicate with on social media who votel leave for the exact reasons Fredd99 highlights.

> So, go on then, tell us how we'll be better off out of the EU.

> E

So your friends voted leave because

 They thought  the EU would cave in, 

we'd have free movement in Europe,

the Europeans wouldn't be able to come here without our express permission,

we'd have our own private fishing waters,

we'd be able to sell to and buy from the EU without tariffs,

we'd pay absolutely nothing,

there'd be £350 million every week for the NHS,

johnny foreigner wouldn't be able to set foot on our shores without written permission and a guarantee of their financial security,

 and a hundred and one other lies perpetrated by the Leave side

Did they really or are you just making that up?

Then fred99 repeats the old bit about how remainers were cheated out of a victory when the truth is closer to that of birdie num num’s assertion that it was the Remainers complacency that cost them the victory.

‘ in the NON-BINDING Referendum (which, if it had been binding, would have meant an immediate quashing of the result, a re-run, and sundry persons probably jailed)’

If you want to know how I feel about the benefits of leaving the EU you can read some of my many posts on the subject, I can’t be bothered typing the same stuff time and time again when you’re not really interested in my opinion.

17
 Enty 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

I have an ex-facebook friend who voted leave because, and I quote; "there's too many packys".

This is absolutely true. So forgive me for thinking that Fredd99's post isn't too far fetched.

E

1
 Oceanrower 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Enty:

> I cannot imagine what it must feel like to be a Scottish European having people like Johnson and Gove take away your freedom of movement in this way.

Probably much the same way I feel as an English European...

 MG 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

Yes. One or more of those in every leave voter I've discussed things with. 

1
 Enty 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

If you can't be arsed telling me how I'll be better off out of the EU I'd be happy for you to give me just one or two reasons. One sentence, just a few words will do. No need for an essay.

E

3
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Enty:

You’re trying to deflect (I learned that term on this forum) from my criticism of fred99’s post.

If you want to debate the pros of Brexit start a new thread.

14
 Robert Durran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Enty:

> If you can't be arsed telling me how I'll be better off out of the EU I'd be happy for you to give me just one or two reasons. One sentence, just a few words will do. No need for an essay.

I don't think there are any leavers left who would honestly claim that anyone would be better off after Brexit. All that is left is a more nebulous argument about the principal of sovereignty outweighing all the other disadvantages of leaving.

2
 Shani 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I don't think there are any leavers left who would honestly claim that anyone would be better off after Brexit.

Rubbish. With a plunging pound and protectionless markets hung out on WTO rules, a fire sale of national assets will occur.

The already wealthy and undertakers are in for a boom time.

2
In reply to Enty:

> I have an ex-facebook friend who voted leave because, and I quote; "there's too many packys".

> This is absolutely true. So forgive me for thinking that Fredd99's post isn't too far fetched.

> E

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obriens-brexit-to...

I have trouble talking to my next door neighbour after he expressed his delight in the Leave win. The Paki word was used (him, not me). 

And there's always the classic C4 vox pop of the man from Barnsley. 

3
 Andy Hardy 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

I have met 2 leave voters, who have given me their reasons for voting leave. The first voted leave because he was "sick of being told what to do by eastern Europeans" (he was a labourer on a building site in Vauxhall). The second wanted "my kids to have more job opportunities" and he was convinced that there would be more jobs to go round if all the EU migrants went away. He is an electrician.

In a nutshell they both voted leave because they believed they'd be better off in some way, and I doubt they will change their minds regardless of how bad things get, because politicians can always find more scapegoats to blame.

2
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Enty:

> I have an ex-facebook friend who voted leave because, and I quote; "there's too many packys".

> This is absolutely true. So forgive me for thinking that Fredd99's post isn't too far fetched.

> E

There’s no doubt that if one was a racist then voting leave was the obvious choice.

How that makes fred99’s rant any less ridiculous I don’t know.

15
 MG 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

what do you find ridiculous about it?  It is basically a list of claims and reasons that were widely given for brexit

2
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> Yes. One or more of those in every leave voter I've discussed things with. 

Fred99 lists 8 specific reasons why people voted leave and states that there were a hundred others.

He makes it sound like every leave voter believed all of the reasons on his list not just one or two of them.

When you add in his rant about remain being cheated out of the referendum result that he wanted then I find it impossible to take him seriously.

Sorry, typed this before I saw your post at 8.28.

Post edited at 08:34
7
 stevieb 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

This thread has ended up down the same blind alley that most other Brexit threads take. 

Surely the key here is that everyone, Brexiters and remainers alike, should hopefully realise that proroguing parliament fundamentally undermines British parliamentary democracy. And therefore should be opposed by everyone. And therefore Johnson should be summarily removed if he tries it. 

2
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to stevieb:

That Johnson can even contemplate proroguing parliament is a measure of how difficult the political situation is.

If MPs refuse to pass a withdrawal bill then what choices are there?

Ask for another extension? For what purpose, given that we’ve just wasted the last one.

Revoke article 50? There’s no majority in parliament for that.

Leave with no deal? Again, no majority.

A second referendum? Again, no majority.

A no confidence vote and a general election? With no guarantee that the result will dramatically affect the parliamentary arithmetic.

One can only hope that Johnson is bluffing in order to make MPs decide on a course of action, any action,  rather than inaction.

3
 Shani 28 Aug 2019
In reply to stevieb:

> This thread has ended up down the same blind alley that most other Brexit threads take. 

That's because no one can agree what Brexit actually is. The Brexiters themselves squabble about it.

Post edited at 09:13
2
 Dave Garnett 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> In a nutshell they both voted leave because they believed they'd be better off in some way, and I doubt they will change their minds regardless of how bad things get, because politicians can always find more scapegoats to blame.

At least they voted for something, however distasteful or misguided.  I had my vote cancelled out by one local person who told me he voted leave to see how it went and that he'd vote to stay in the next election if it didn't work out. 

 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

> No-deal Brexit is an outcome with no democratic mandate whatsoever, which is widely regarded by those qualified to comment to be threaten the economy, short-term food supplies and law and order, the livelihoods and even lives of many residents in the country, the basis of the Good Friday Agreement and the very integrity of the nation itself. In short, it would be an extreme act of hostility by the government upon its people.

It would be widely considered an act of war were a foreign power doing this to us rather than a radicalised 'Conservative' government (I hesitate to say 'our' government, they're not).

> If the government goes ahead with shutting down Parliament, peaceful protest will no longer be enough. It seems to me that widespread organised civil disobedience would become an acceptable response, if not indeed our civic duty. Am I being hysterical here, or do others agree with me? How can and should ordinary citizens respond to such disturbing events?

You're not being hysterical, this is a (so far mostly) bloodless coup. The response to such widespread protest will not be the relatively predictable orderly policing we're used to, they will deploy troops.

jk

3
Andy 1902 28 Aug 2019
In reply to stevieb:

> This thread has ended up down the same blind alley that most other Brexit threads take. 

> Surely the key here is that everyone, Brexiters and remainers alike, should hopefully realise that proroguing parliament fundamentally undermines British parliamentary democracy. And therefore should be opposed by everyone. And therefore Johnson should be summarily removed if he tries it. 

Completely agree with this - and I voted to leave.

 Shani 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

The Conservatives have gone from accusing others of dragging the Queen in to politics to dragging the Queen in to politics.

BBC News - Government to ask Queen to suspend Parliament https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49493632

 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>    Maybe. Have you considered that Johnson might be very happy to keep people, especially the EU, thinking that it is a possibility in order to focus their minds?

This is what brexit voters keep failing to understand though I suspect Johnson does well enough. The EU won't move significantly, they can't and maintain the integrity of their own union. They also have the upper hand in this negotiation.

>   How should people react to parliament reversing their own law which was enacted in pursuance of the outcome of a democratic vote?

With a sigh of relief. It's not without precedent that parliament changes or repeals bad law!

>   Only a few weeks ago the hard core remainers were criticising the occasional violence of the hard core brexiteers and priding themselves on their peacability . Whatever happened to that? I would suggest that neither side would be wise to unleash such forces.

You do understand the meaning of civil dissobediance? It is by definition non violent. We haven't stopped criticising brexiter threats and violence, nor should that be the preserve of 'hard core remainers' FFS, it should revolt all citizens.

jk

2
 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> Won’t independence for Scotland be as bad as Brexit might be for the UK?

More like amputating gangrene.

jk

Post edited at 09:27
1
Nempnett Thrubwell 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Andy 1902:

A quick bit of analysis on 

1. - MP Seats that voted remain

2. - MPs currently standing in those seats who are pro brexit. 

Then the voters in those seats should force a by-election.

Only a few seats would get rid of the flimsy majority.

 girlymonkey 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Shani:

Can the queen say no?

 Neil Williams 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

And an independent Scotland would join the EU if it could.  Quite different.

 elsewhere 28 Aug 2019
In reply to stevieb:

You can't be a democracy if you shut down parliament to suppress representation of the voters.

Without a functioning parliament to be loyal to a democrat had no duty of loyalty. That is unthinkable disaster for the UK.

Edit: bugger. Not unthinkable.

Post edited at 09:39
 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> Your post has just surpassed fred99’s as the most ridiculous post ever on UKC.

Just to be absolutely clear, are you saying you voted *for* a currency crash, mass business failure, food, labour and medicine shortages, the squandering of tens of billions on disaster mitigation/recovery/theatre and a far right coup in parliament?

jk

2
 stevieb 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> That Johnson can even contemplate proroguing parliament is a measure of how difficult the political situation is.

> If MPs refuse to pass a withdrawal bill then what choices are there?

I think the valid choice here is to go back to the people, rather than assume executive powers. 

 A general election is surely the least controversial option. Personally I am very worried that Boris would win a clear majority, but that depends a lot on where brexit has got to. I don’t see how anyone could question this approach. 

A referendum, preferably a confirmatory one rather than a second one, is the most likely to clarify the debate, but i totally understand why you would oppose this. 

 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> You’re trying to deflect (I learned that term on this forum) from my criticism of fred99’s post. If you want to debate the pros of Brexit start a new thread.

fredd99 absolutely nailed my profoundly depressing experience of meeting hundreds, perhaps thousands of leave inclined voters on the street in the run up to the referendum.

He's asking for one or two sentences to explain your hopes and how brexit delivers on them, it doesn't need a new thread!

jk

1
 stevieb 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Shani:

> That's because no one can agree what Brexit actually is. The Brexiters themselves squabble about it.

Yes, and I’ve always believed that. 

But this is about whether people and politicians  will allow Boris to defy the (unwritten) constitution just because they think it is in their best interests. 

The answer should be no. 

Making this all about the faults of Brexit again is pushing brexiters to support this unconstitutional action. 

baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> More like amputating gangrene.

> jk

That’s no way to talk about Scotland!

4
Nempnett Thrubwell 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Just to be absolutely clear, are you saying you voted *for* a currency crash, mass business failure, food, labour and medicine shortages, the squandering of tens of billions on disaster mitigation/recovery/theatre and a far right coup in parliament?

> jk


Saturday night TV has been a bit dire recently

1
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Just to be absolutely clear, are you saying you voted *for* a currency crash, mass business failure, food, labour and medicine shortages, the squandering of tens of billions on disaster mitigation/recovery/theatre and a far right coup in parliament?

> jk

I voted to leave the EU.

The stalemate that we are presently in and any ‘disasters’ which might unfold are the result of politicians who are unable to deliver a policy on which most of them were elected.

18
 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> That’s no way to talk about Scotland!

In the time it took to type that you could have told us how brexit make our lives better. Except you can't.

jk

1
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to stevieb:

One problem with a second referendum will be the framing of the question.

Obviously it can be worded so as to influence the result.

Can you imagine how long it will take the politicians to agree?

2
 DerwentDiluted 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

So we voted for Brexit because we wanted our elected parliament to have sovereignty. Now we dissolve said parliament...... because it might...... exercise its' soveriegnty?

Can some one help me cos my head hurts,  have I missed something? Are such brazen hypocrisy, lies and deceit the new normal?  Or is it just a Queens speech like normal... la la la la laaaa move on folks, nothing to see here. 

To paraphrase Slim Pickens in Blazing Saddles " Ah ahm deeepressed"

2
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> fredd99 absolutely nailed my profoundly depressing experience of meeting hundreds, perhaps thousands of leave inclined voters on the street in the run up to the referendum.

> He's asking for one or two sentences to explain your hopes and how brexit delivers on them, it doesn't need a new thread!

> jk

My views and opinions on Brexit are well known to anyone who uses this forum on a regular basis.

Anyone else can simply click on my past posts, they should be easy to find as there’s enough of them.

12
 wbo2 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers: goodbye democracy....

 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> I voted to leave the EU. The stalemate that we are presently in and any ‘disasters’ which might unfold are the result of politicians who are unable to deliver a policy on which most of them were elected.

No, they are the inevitable consequence of your vote to unpick 40+ years of profitable union with no unifying or credible plan and no deliverable, timely alternative future relationship coupled with your insistence (by your Farage company vote) that they continue even after it was abundantly clear the path ahead only leads to unrest, looting and economic ruin. You're not ducking the blame for this, you've had ample opportunity to change course. Own it.

jk

3
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to DerwentDiluted:

> So we voted for Brexit because we wanted our elected parliament to have sovereignty. Now we dissolve said parliament...... because it might...... exercise its' soveriegnty?

> Can some one help me cos my head hurts,  have I missed something? Are such brazen hypocrisy, lies and deceit the new normal?  Or is it just a Queens speech like normal... la la la la laaaa move on folks, nothing to see here. 

> To paraphrase Slim Pickens in Blazing Saddles " Ah ahm deeepressed"

It would be nice if Parliament would exercise its sovereignty by making a positive decision one way or the other.

When it gets a chance to make a decision it either blocks something or wants to abdicate and pass responsibility on to the people.

8
 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> My views and opinions on Brexit are well known to anyone who uses this forum on a regular basis. Anyone else can simply click on my past posts, they should be easy to find as there’s enough of them.

I've been talking to you about this for three years and I have no idea what you believe you'll get out of brexit and how. All we ask is a few sentences.

jk

1
OP Trevers 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> Your post has just surpassed fred99’s as the most ridiculous post ever on UKC.

It is ridiculous isn't it, to see just how far the rhetoric has shifted since 2016?

In reply to girlymonkey:

> Can the queen say no?

Traditionally she could have stopped it by dissolving parliament, but since the appalling Fixed-term Parliaments Act was introduced in 2011, she only retains the power to prorogue Parliament, but not to dissolve it. But apparently she CAN still dismiss the PM. It is a quite extraordinary situation. Unprecedented. Something I would never have dreamt I would see in my lifetime. 

 john arran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

The criminalisation of Brexit personified:

Having seen how easy it was for a few folk in the tech bubble to make a fortune I promised myself I'd be a millionaire by the age of 30.

But now that I'm 29 I see the only way to honour that promise is to rob a bank.

Should I find a sawn-off shotgun or rethink my promise?

1
 Darron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Enty:

This. A friend’s elderly mum voted leave because she wanted fewer “darkies in the country”.

She is in for a shock as I don’t think my local hospital is alone in increasing recruitment from India to make up for EU employees leaving.

2
 Xharlie 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> This is what brexit voters keep failing to understand though I suspect Johnson does well enough. The EU won't move significantly, they can't and maintain the integrity of their own union. They also have the upper hand in this negotiation.

I'm 100% certain that, by now, the continental EU states just want Brexit over with so that they can move forward, again.

One can be sure that European economies have done everything possible to immunise themselves against the detrimental effects of the UK leaving with no deal, by now. Furthermore, the EU knows from past history and any abundance of evidence that extending deadlines isn't going to change anything, measurably -- in fact, it enables the delaying, pig headed tactics of the UK.

There is no reason to extend the deadline and there is also no reason to re-negotiate another deal. A deal has already been negotiated and remains extant. The EU have declared that that is the deal that they will accept. Why should they tear it up and start again? Why should they compromise on the Irish backstop -- a key facet of that deal -- purely because Johnson says it won't come to that, anyway?

In Brussels, everyone's hand is played out and the cards are open on the table. Johnson is alternating between arguing about what their outcome means even though the game's rules are well defined and demanding that the hand be dealt anew to give his cause a second chance. Child's tactics.

The EU do not want the UK to leave but they are not driving this process -- they are suffering it and hoping for the end, soon.

Proroguing parliament will work -- it will ensure that Brexit occurs while the forces of democracy are unable to prevent it. It is, after all, just another tactic for subverting democracy: first-past-the-post elections, political campaigns in which politicians are not accountable for the veracity of their statements or for hate-speech or xenophobic posters or any of a number of sins, holding referendums under pretence of them being non-binding, micro-targeted subversive and downright fallacious political advertising via social media, treating non-binding referendums as a sacrosanct wild-card mandate to be defined at a later date, filling the European parliament with MEPs who's very mission is to obstruct, and then proroguing parliament at the eleventh hour to seal the deal.

2
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> No, they are the inevitable consequence of your vote to unpick 40+ years of profitable union with no unifying or credible plan and no deliverable, timely alternative future relationship coupled with your insistence (by your Farage company vote) that they continue even after it was abundantly clear the path ahead only leads to unrest, looting and economic ruin. You're not ducking the blame for this, you've had ample opportunity to change course. Own it.

> jk

There were no inevitable consequences of a leave vote.

However, any hope of an orderly exit vanished when for some bizarre reason the government agreed to settle the withdrawal agreement without any negotiations about a future relationship.

Hence the need for a backstop over which the withdrawal agreement has stalled.

Your use of emotive language, e.g. looting, doesn’t do your argument any favours.

I don’t want to change Brexit.

18
 girlymonkey 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Well dismissing him would be nice, maybe she will do that? (Yep, grasping at straws here, but in the current circus literally anything could happen!)

1
In reply to Xharlie:

That's a superb summary of the chilling situation we are in.

 JLS 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

>"Proroguing Parliament"


Possible outcomes...


1) EU bends over backwards and give us a fantastic cake and eat it deal.


2) Queen says no, Boris punches her in the stomach and grabs crown declares himself King.


3) Wide spread civil unrest, military coup d'etat shortly followed by US forces sent in to restore Boris government.


4) Corbin leads Bolshevik revolution, Boris' head placed on a spike on London Bridge, UK joins North Korea and Iran on US "Axis of Evil" list imposing crippling sanctions.

5) John Lennon rises from the dead and teaches the world to live in peace and harmony.

Rather worryingly number 1 seems least likely.

Fingers crossed for number 5

Post edited at 10:38
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> I've been talking to you about this for three years and I have no idea what you believe you'll get out of brexit and how. All we ask is a few sentences.

> jk

I have just read some of the many Brexit threads from 2016.

Do you really have no idea where I stand on Brexit?

10
In reply to girlymonkey:

Yes, I've got a hunch that she really might. If she allowed prorogation to go ahead it would, in effect, be toppling our whole parliamentary constitution of which she is the head. (Badly put, sorry.) She is the flag, as it were, flying over the houses of parliament. And the PM remains HER first minister, whom she can sack. I think that's correct anyway ...

1
 JLS 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Xharlie:

>"It is, after all, just another tactic for subverting democracy: first-past-the-post elections, political campaigns in which politicians are not accountable for the veracity of their statements or for hate-speech or xenophobic posters or any of a number of sins, holding referendums under pretence of them being non-binding, micro-targeted subversive and downright fallacious political advertising via social media, treating non-binding referendums as a sacrosanct wild-card mandate to be defined at a later date, filling the European parliament with MEPs who's very mission is to obstruct, and then proroguing parliament at the eleventh hour to seal the deal."

Last week I was thinking, god we have become Italy. This week it's worse, we have become Russia.

1
 MonkeyPuzzle 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> I have just read some of the many Brexit threads from 2016.

> Do you really have no idea where I stand on Brexit?

You've written a lot of sentences trying to explain why you won't write two sentences stating the benefits of Brexit.

2
 Dave Garnett 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> Do you really have no idea where I stand on Brexit?

Why, have you forgotten too?

2
In reply to baron:

> One problem with a second referendum will be the framing of the question.

Arguably even more of a problem with the first referendum.

jcm

1
 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Xharlie:

> There is no reason to extend the deadline and there is also no reason to re-negotiate another deal. A deal has already been negotiated and remains extant. The EU have declared that that is the deal that they will accept. Why should they tear it up and start again? Why should they compromise on the Irish backstop -- a key facet of that deal -- purely because Johnson says it won't come to that, anyway?

The glimmer of hope for any movement would be the imposition of a 20+ year time limit on the backstop, this is undesirable but it does prevent the no-deal border if it gets the WA signed so it might at a push find enough EU support. It should have been enough to get May's WA past the commons while providing enough time to deliver a genuine treaty+tech solution or more realistically to prepare for failure. Except it won't go through parliament so it won't happen.

> Proroguing parliament will work -- it will ensure that Brexit occurs while the forces of democracy are unable to prevent it.

Not (depending upon your definition of success!) if it makes the country ungovernable. We're moving rapidly into very dangerous territory.

jk

Post edited at 10:40
 stevieb 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> One problem with a second referendum will be the framing of the question.

> Obviously it can be worded so as to influence the result.

Yes, logically it should be a three way question with a defined withdrawal agreement and the two extremes. People will say that’s too confusing, but Australians seem to manage hugely confusing ballot papers, so we should be able to. 

But it looks like this thread is still brexit bad / good rather than proroguing bad / good. 

I’m actually not sure what the queen will do if she is asked. 

 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> I have just read some of the many Brexit threads from 2016. Do you really have no idea where I stand on Brexit?

I really don't. Anyway, I'm interested in what you realistically expect to get from it now and how, what is deliverable in reality that you still desire not what you hoped for in 2016.

jk

1
 Harry Jarvis 28 Aug 2019
In reply to stevieb:

> I’m actually not sure what the queen will do if she is asked. 

Given that the Queen takes the advice of the PM, I don't think she has much alternative but to agree. 

 Shani 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> I'm interested in what you realistically expect to get from it now and how, what is deliverable in reality that you still desire not what you hoped for in 2016.

Excellent question. 

1
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> You've written a lot of sentences trying to explain why you won't write two sentences stating the benefits of Brexit.

That’s because while I’m happy to discuss Brexit I’m fed up with typing my reasons for supporting Brexit just so others can disagree with them.

It’s been done many times over the years and like I said before if people are really interested in my views then they can read the many threads that I’ve contributed to.

11
 WaterMonkey 28 Aug 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> You've written a lot of sentences trying to explain why you won't write two sentences stating the benefits of Brexit.

Sounds like a typical brexiteer. Can't answer the question without using the usual Gammon-headed soundbites so chooses to not answer it.

4
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Why, have you forgotten too?

Humour or sarcasm?

 fred99 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

You sir (or should that be spelt "cur") are, in my humble opinion, a prat.

When will you stop spouting lies - we all know they are, so why do it ?

3
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to stevieb:

> Yes, logically it should be a three way question with a defined withdrawal agreement and the two extremes. People will say that’s too confusing, but Australians seem to manage hugely confusing ballot papers, so we should be able to. 

> But it looks like this thread is still brexit bad / good rather than proroguing bad / good. 

> I’m actually not sure what the queen will do if she is asked. 

I’d prefer a simple leave or remain question.

After all it worked so well last time!  

Proroguing parliament cannot be a good idea.

3
 Neil Williams 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

Leave with "no deal" vs remain.  It is quite clear that there is no viable deal.

baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to WaterMonkey:

> Sounds like a typical brexiteer. Can't answer the question without using the usual Gammon-headed soundbites so chooses to not answer it.

Did you have to resort to personal insults to make your point?

10
 DerwentDiluted 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> It would be nice if Parliament would exercise its sovereignty by making a positive decision one way or the other.

> When it gets a chance to make a decision it either blocks something or wants to abdicate and pass responsibility on to the people.

Aye, Pesky meddling kids.   Any moment now I expect Boris to take off his mask.. why!  its Old man Odey the Hedge fund manager...  who stands to make a fortune when the UK Gold mine Corp. goes tits up. Thats why they painted that bus to look like a phantom windfall for the NHS and scared people away from the mine with scary dark immigrants....  "And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling MPs"

Scooby dooby truth, where are you? We got some work for you now.

1
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to fred99:

> You sir (or should that be spelt "cur") are, in my humble opinion, a prat.

> When will you stop spouting lies - we all know they are, so why do it ?

Another masterful example of wit and repartee.

Or just another personal insult?

Is it not possible to debate without resorting to personal attacks?

2
 MonkeyPuzzle 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> That’s because while I’m happy to discuss Brexit I’m fed up with typing my reasons for supporting Brexit just so others can disagree with them.

> It’s been done many times over the years and like I said before if people are really interested in my views then they can read the many threads that I’ve contributed to.

So you don't think it relevant to view the perceived benefits against the ensuing democratic crisis?

1
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to DerwentDiluted:

> Aye, Pesky meddling kids.   Any moment now I expect Boris to take off his mask.. why!  its Old man Odey the Hedge fund manager...  who stands to make a fortune when the UK Gold mine Corp. goes tits up. Thats why they painted that bus to look like a phantom windfall for the NHS and scared people away from the mine with scary dark immigrants....  "And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling MPs"

> Scooby dooby truth, where are you? We got some work for you now.

I take it that you don’t think that parliament has played any part in this mess?

3
 stevieb 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Given that the Queen takes the advice of the PM, I don't think she has much alternative but to agree. 

Ok. I wasn’t sure if she was meant to follow parliament or the PM. I hoped it was parliament. 

baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> So you don't think it relevant to view the perceived benefits against the ensuing democratic crisis?

Of course I do.

It just becomes tedious when every thread related to Brexit involves me having to type out what should be quite well known reasons for leaving.

I say quite well known not because I expect you to be able to read my mind but because there’s only about six leavers who regularly contribute to these discussions.

4
In reply to baron:

According to the radio, this closing down of parliament happens over Party Conference season, so would have been closed anyway for all bar 4 of the days.

A lot of callers and MPs are saying this words to the effect of "but this is a national emergency and parliament needs to sit to discuss this" to which the next logical question is "has any party cancelled or postponed their party conferences?" 

Anyone know or is this just some pearl clutching?

1
 RomTheBear 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   But it passed a law saying that it would. A bit rich now to argue that they passed law on a referendum that they believed to be undemocratic.

yes, and it should be able to pass a law saying it wants to delay it or cancel it in light of new circumstances. That’s called parliamentary sovereignty and that’s perfectly reasonable.

Whats not reasonable is to have a government shutting down parliament to go against its will. That’s simply dictatorship, there is no two ways about it.

But of course you are quite happy looking the other way as long as it satisfies your little authoritarian pet ideological obsessions.

Post edited at 11:27
2
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Leave with "no deal" vs remain.  It is quite clear that there is no viable deal.

How about ‘leave with no withdrawal agreement’ as we haven’t even started to discuss a deal yet?

1
 fred99 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> I voted to leave the EU.

> The stalemate that we are presently in and any ‘disasters’ which might unfold are the result of politicians who are unable to deliver a policy on which most of them were elected.


The "policy" of which you are speaking is firstly, NOT "on which most of them were elected", as far too many people in this country vote like sheep for their party even if a monkey was on the ballot sheet, and also the votes AGAINST the NON-MAJORITY party were exceeded by far by the opposition parties. (The problems of FPTP).

Secondly this "policy" of which you speak is, and always has been, impossible to achieve - in fact I would suggest that this country has a better chance of establishing a colony on Mars before Halloween than getting what they want from the EU.

It's NOT the fault of the politicians who voted against leaving, but the fault of the Leave campaign en masse for promising pink elephants and unicorns.

5
In reply to stevieb:

> Ok. I wasn’t sure if she was meant to follow parliament or the PM. I hoped it was parliament. 

I'm sure that's incorrect. She has to follow parliament, not the PM. Surely. Because that's putting the PM above herself, when actually she is head of state.

Post edited at 11:02
 Dave Garnett 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> Humour or sarcasm?

Humour. Mostly.

Although, I really would like you to give me just one good thing I have to look forward to.

 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> Of course I do.

> It just becomes tedious when every thread related to Brexit involves me having to type out what should be quite well known reasons for leaving.

But they're not because you don't answer and when you do it is with nebulous hopes, not tangible deliverable benefits, you've just expended hundreds of words explaining that you can't be bothered answering what should be utterly trivial.

I oppose brexit because I value freedom of movement of people, top item on my personal list of concerns, dead easy to state.

What do you expect to get from brexit and how?

> I say quite well known not because I expect you to be able to read my mind but because there’s only about six leavers who regularly contribute to these discussions.

None of whom can or will explain how we benefit from 'brexit' other than to repeat more or less eloquent variants of 'because we voted for it' and 'out means out'.

jk

1
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> I really don't. Anyway, I'm interested in what you realistically expect to get from it now and how, what is deliverable in reality that you still desire not what you hoped for in 2016.

> jk

I’m hoping to somehow move on to discussing with the EU what Brexit was supposed to be about i.e. a future relationship with Europe.

How we get there with the stalemate over the withdrawal agreement is anyone’s guess. Were we really supposed to spend three years arguing about leaving?

An orderly transition is preferable to a ‘no deal’ no transition withdrawal but unless MPs get their act together that’s where we’re headed.

1
 Harry Jarvis 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> An orderly transition is preferable to a ‘no deal’ no transition withdrawal but unless MPs get their act together that’s where we’re headed.

And do you think that's a good thing? 

 wbo2 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers: question that becomes valid now a precedent is set.  

Assuming there is civil disobedience starting November 1st , how long to prologue parliament and impose martial law ? 

 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

It doesn't much matter, the royal family is not going to throw itself in the path of a populist revolution.

jk

 Neil Williams 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> How about ‘leave with no withdrawal agreement’ as we haven’t even started to discuss a deal yet?


Yes, that was what I more meant, there is no sense in ruling out what might or might not happen after that.

baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> But they're not because you don't answer and when you do it is with nebulous hopes, not tangible deliverable benefits, you've just expended hundreds of words explaining that you can't be bothered answering what should be utterly trivial.

> I oppose brexit because I value freedom of movement of people, top item on my personal list of concerns, dead easy to state.

> What do you expect to get from brexit and how?

> None of whom can or will explain how we benefit from 'brexit' other than to repeat more or less eloquent variants of 'because we voted for it' and 'out means out'.

> jk

Because you asked so nicely -

an end to free movement of people 

not sending the EU huge sums of money 

UK MPs having to take responsibility for their actions/inaction and not blaming the EU.

A quick three reasons f you to disagree with, again.

2
In reply to jkarran:

surely the populist revolution is swinging onto the side of Remain. The monarch would /could in effect be leading it.

1
 DerwentDiluted 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> I take it that you don’t think that parliament has played any part in this mess?

Parliament represents the British people.  Christopher Chope & Caroline Lucas in the same institution!? - To say it runs the gamut is a bit of an understatement.  Parliament is a process not a coherent thing. It, representing the British people, has got us unto this mess, and is my preferred tool for getting us out of it. Rather than allowing a total shutdown of democracy to allow a very unplatable and damaging default to occur.  

Post edited at 11:15
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> And do you think that's a good thing? 

I don’t think that leaving without a withdrawal agreement is a good idea.

 Shani 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> Is it not possible to debate without resorting to personal attacks?

This is something I've been guilty of on UKC and I'd implore all of us to try hard to avoid insults - particularly on threads about Brexit.

We need to find a way forward which involves changing minds and compromise.

1
 Harry Jarvis 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> I don’t think that leaving without a withdrawal agreement is a good idea.

Thank you. Given that, would you support efforts in Parliament to prevent leaving without a withdrawal agreement? 

baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to DerwentDiluted:

> Parliament represents the British people, Christopher Chope & Caroline Lucas in the same institution? To say it runs the gamut is a bit of an understatement.  Parliament is a process not a coherent thing. It, representing the British people, has got us unto this mess, and is my preferred tool for getting us out of it. Rather than allowing a total shutdown of democracy to allow a very unplatable and damaging default to occur.  

I want parliament to sort it out as well.

However, how will this happen?

Lusk 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

Did you see the hostess of the Victoria Derbyshire show this morning?

She was dressed like the Grim Reaper!

Edit: fucking word fill or whatever it's called.

Post edited at 11:20
 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> I’m hoping to somehow move on to discussing with the EU what Brexit was supposed to be about i.e. a future relationship with Europe.

Too late, You signaled your intent when you voted for Farage and the lunatic fringe of brexitry, in response Johnson has today acted to suspend our democracy so as to destroy all ties with the EU against the will of parliament.

> An orderly transition is preferable to a ‘no deal’ no transition withdrawal but unless MPs get their act together that’s where we’re headed.

An orderly transition to what, what do you realistically expect to get from this coup we call 'brexit' and how exactly?

As of today we're now facing no-deal vs no-brexit, a rift between two halves of society, a looming rift between rival factions of parliament, one potentially pitted against the head of state and military forces loyal to her. This is how nations die.

jk

1
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Thank you. Given that, would you support efforts in Parliament to prevent leaving without a withdrawal agreement? 

I have listened to many commentators discussing this issue and the consensus seems to be that it might not be possible for parliament to block a no deal.

I hate May’s withdrawal agreement mainly because of the backstop but a vote to pass it would work.

Except, of course, that many MPS don’t want to just stop a no deal but want to stop Brexit.

I’ll support MPS who want to stop a no deal but I am wary as a their real, long term motives.

3
 Neil Williams 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> I don’t think that leaving without a withdrawal agreement is a good idea.


I don't either.  I don't think May's deal was *that* terrible, much as I'd prefer Remain, but it's always Northern Ireland that puts the spanner in the works (I can see the issue with the backstop).

Post edited at 11:27
In reply to baron:

 > ...I am wary as a their real, long term motives.

Perhaps their long term motives are to do what's best for the country (its constitution and its economy)? In accordance with their 'first duty'.

1
 WaterMonkey 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> Did you have to resort to personal insults to make your point?


I'm sorry if it offended you but I honestly think we are well past the point of worrying about offending brexiteers. We are trying not to destroy the country here, trying not to destroy thousands of businesses, pensions relying on those businesses etc

I can forgive brexiteers for voting to leave but given the 3 years of negotiating, the constant stalemate and the impossible puzzle around the Northern Irish border I think it's time Brexiteers admitted they were duped,  it's a non-starter and call for it to be revoked.

2
 girlymonkey 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

Of course, if Wasteminster is shut down, then the Scottish government should run the country, being the only functional government in the UK at the moment. The Welsh assembly doesn't have as many powers.

I think that could be a good solution!

3
 Harry Jarvis 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

Thank you. So, would you support those MPs who oppose the proroguing of Parliament in order to be alllowed to hold the Government to account? 

 Harry Jarvis 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Too late, You signaled your intent when you voted for Farage and the lunatic fringe of brexitry, in response Johnson has today acted to suspend our democracy so as to destroy all ties with the EU against the will of parliament.

Can I ask what you think you are achieving with such invective? We are where we are. Harking back to Farage's lies and the ERG achieves nothing and, to my mind, merely deepens the divisions. 

5
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

>  > ...I am wary as a their real, long term motives.

> Perhaps their long term motives are to do what's best for the country (its constitution and its economy)? In accordance with their 'first duty'.

If that was the case then they should vote to revoke article 50 which is according to some what the majority of the people want and is in the best interests of the country.

That they won’t leads me to be suspicious of their motives.

1
 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> an end to free movement of people 

> not sending the EU huge sums of money 

> UK MPs having to take responsibility for their actions/inaction and not blaming the EU.

> A quick three reasons f you to disagree with, again.

Thanks but yes I will challenge them because they're a nonsense.

1: Ok, it's happening. We're denying settled status to people who've lived almost their whole lives here, we're failing to attract new talent from the EU and as our economy tanks the more mobile migrant workers, the most skilled will leave. Do you really when you stop to think about this believe that's actually a good thing?

2: We send relatively little money to the EU gross, less still net of what we get back and we are overall significant net beneficiary as a result of membership. Stop paying, you lose the small cost and the large benefit. Overall less money for services etc or we pay higher rate taxes.

3: Dream on. They will just blame the EU for the 'failure of brexit' and the hard times we have coming. If that fails there's always another scapegoat. You want an end to inaction, poor representation and bullshit excuses, do away with safe seats it comes from electoral reform, not a right-wing nationalist coup.

So from that list, the deliverable one is ending free movement. Ultimately that just results in higher admin costs, delays, poorer integration of migrants who become transient second class citizens vulnerable to workplace exploitation as a reuslt of visa ties with corrosive effects for all and in the interim we get random skills shortages, an unstable job market and soaring rates of migration from countries with weak economies outside Europe (tanking pound, money goes home since they can't bring families) to plug the gaps. To put none too finer point on it that's more brown Muslims which is disappointingly what plenty of brexit voters seemed so het up about back in 2016 to begin with.

Is all this really worth that?

jk

Post edited at 11:49
2
In reply to baron:

> That they won’t leads me to be suspicious of their motives.

You're doing this strange thing of treating them as one person i.e. of one mind (like the nonsense expression 'the will of the people' when there's a 52/48% vote). The vast majority of MPs are doing what they think is in the best interests of the country, but of course they are not agreed as to what that is.

PS. Really have to work now, so won't be able to rejoin this discussion for a while.

Post edited at 11:42
1
 MargieB 28 Aug 2019
In reply to DerwentDiluted:

Parliament is my preferred tool for actioning a breakthrough in this mess.

Certain  actions would ,though ,in many people's book be a distortion of our democratic constitution. e.g. The Lords have voted legally binding requirements on our relationship with the EU. The Lords that voted were not specifically chosen as Remain Lords, they were already in place.

It is quite a different matter to now, at this particular juncture, to specifically appoint "Leave" Lords to block legislation. It is a side stepping action  that I think would constitute a breaking of our electorate's right to a democracy because procedure would then be specifically and calculatingly used to achieve an end that Parliament can't agree on. It would be seen as a deliberate act of "packing" it to ensure a particular outcome in circumstances when we have an un-mandated PM and an -mandated form of Brexit.

Post edited at 11:46
 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Can I ask what you think you are achieving with such invective? We are where we are. Harking back to Farage's lies and the ERG achieves nothing and, to my mind, merely deepens the divisions. 

Not hoping or expecting to achieve anything except to point out to those in denial of their role in this disaster how we got here. The country is fu*ked, it's no longer home and finding a new one looks increasingly difficult.

jk

1
 Neil Williams 28 Aug 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

Well, for those supporting such things, there is one favourable outcome of all this.

Both Scottish independence as a member of the EU, and Irish reunification under the Republic, are now absolutely certain within 10 years.

Welcome to "the United Kingdom of England and Wales".  And only that because Wales isn't really a viable country on its own; its economy would be tiny, like Albania or similar.

Post edited at 11:46
 MG 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Can I ask what you think you are achieving with such invective?

You are doing that brexiteer thing of trying to put accurate language out of bounds.  There is a fringe of brexitry that is clearly lunatic, trying to prevent people from describing it as such just makes the whole project seem more justifiable and reasonable.  Likewise with pointing out the authoritarianism, xenophobia and ignorance among brexiteers.  It might be irritating for them to hear this but that doesn't make it untrue.

Post edited at 11:47
1
In reply to jkarran:

"As of today we're now facing no-deal vs no-brexit, a rift between two halves of society, a looming rift between rival factions of parliament, one potentially pitted against the head of state and military forces loyal to her. This is how nations die."

My goodness! is this a feeding frenzy of who can be the most OTT doom monger? If so, you're in front by a nose

4
 MG 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> My goodness! is this a feeding frenzy of who can be the most OTT doom monger? If so, you're in front by a nose

Something tells me you would have responded in the same way in 2016 to someone suggesting anything but a mild brexit, maintaining CU membership.  Now look where we are.

1
 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Here to defend the suspension of our parliamentary democracy are you?

jk

1
 RomTheBear 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Well, for those supporting such things, there is one favourable outcome of all this.

> Both Scottish independence as a member of the EU, and Irish reunification under the Republic, are now absolutely certain within 10 years.

Actually, the opposite, an authoritarian government is even more unlikely to grant permission for a Scottish referendum or a border poll in NI.

These people happily ignore / frustrate / shut down Westminster, what makes you think they’d listen to Holyrood, which they consider to be a toy Parliament to keep the plebs up north happy ?

1
 Harry Jarvis 28 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> You are doing that brexiteer thing of trying to put accurate language out of bounds. 

Good grief, you really are an idiot aren't you. I have never been a Brexiteer, and I doubt I ever would be, and I have regularly and repeatedly criticised the idea of leaving the EU.

My point, which I'm sure you will fail to understand but which I will try to explain nevertheless, is that railing against the outcome of the referendum and those who voted Leave achieves nothing and frankly, jkarran's regular 'the sky is falling in' outbursts are increasingly tiresome and dull, and they do not paint him in a favourable light. If such outpourings are all he has to offer, I would suggest he retires to a darkened room and has a lie down for the next few years. 

7
 Neil Williams 28 Aug 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Actually, the opposite, an authoritarian government is even more unlikely to grant permission for a Scottish referendum or a border poll in NI.

> These people happily ignore / frustrate / shut down Westminster, what makes you think they’d listen to Holyrood, which they consider to be a toy Parliament to keep the plebs up north happy ?


You assume they will not declare unilateral independence.  It's maybe less likely for Scotland, but a bloody declaration and civil war in NI, based on what has happened in the past, is not in my view at all unlikely.

I bet the IRA (who haven't "gone away" as per Gerry Adams' speech) are waiting in the wings and watching carefully.

Post edited at 11:55
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Thanks but yes I will challenge them because they're a nonsense.

> 1: Ok, it's happening. We're denying settled status to people who've lived almost their whole lives here, we're failing to attract new talent from the EU and as our economy tanks the more mobile migrant workers, the most skilled will leave. Do you really when you stop to think about this believe that's actually a good thing?

> 2: We send relatively little money to the EU gross, less still net of what we get back and we are overall significant net beneficiary as a result of membership. Stop paying, you lose the small cost and the large benefit. Overall less money for services etc or we pay higher rate taxes.

> 3: Dream on. They will just blame the EU for the 'failure of brexit' and the hard times we have coming. If that fails there's always another scapegoat. You want an end to inaction, poor representation and bullshit excuses, do away with safe seats it comes from electoral reform, not a right-wing nationalist coup.

> So from that list, the deliverable one is ending free movement. Ultimately that just results in higher admin costs, delays, poorer integration of migrants who become transient second class citizens vulnerable to workplace exploitation as a reuslt of visa ties with corrosive effects for all and in the interim we get random skills shortages, an unstable job market and soaring rates of migration from countries with weak economies outside Europe (tanking pound, money goes home since they can't bring families) to plug the gaps. To put none too finer point on it that's more brown Muslims which is disappointingly what plenty of brexit voters seemed so het up about back in 2016 to begin with.

> Is all this really worth that?

> jk

See, I told you that you wouldn’t agree with me.

Just like in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.

9
In reply to jkarran:

I mentioned above that it appears that parliament would have been suspended anyway for party conferences bar a few days, and asked if any party had cancelled or postponed their conferences to save our nation from dying...

I felt compelled to post just in response to what I saw as unhelpful hyperbole.

 RomTheBear 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Neil Williams:

> You assume they will not declare unilateral independence.  It's maybe less likely for Scotland, but a bloody declaration and civil war in NI, based on what has happened in the past, is not in my view at all unlikely.

> I bet the IRA (who haven't "gone away" as per Gerry Adams' speech) are waiting in the wings and watching carefully.

It’s not unlikely but  what happens in the situation of an unilateral declaration of independence is that the UK government sends troops, puts Sturgeon and other pro independence politicians behind bars, and scrap or suspend holyrood, and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

Post edited at 12:09
 RomTheBear 28 Aug 2019

In reply to Northern Star:

> I'm no fan of Brexit and never ever wanted it, however this current stalemate is doing no-one any favors.  I work in the design industry and over the last 12 months many client contracts have been pulled or suspended and ALL existing contracts across multiple clients have had their budgets massively reduced.  Over the last 12 months the turnover of our design business has more than halved. 

> Speaking to others in the industry (and other industries) then it's a problem across the board - clients and businesses are just not willing to invest at the moment.  They are mostly just holding fire until some clarity about a future path emerges.  Our economy is grinding to a halt because of indecision it seems.  Massive damage is currently being done the longer we debate this.

> Ideally we'd have another referendum and knock the whole thing on the head, however as much as I hate the idea of Brexit I'm getting to the point (as I watch our business slide slowly down the pan) where any decision would do just to move things forward.

Problem is, that uncertainty doesn’t stop after no-deal, it just gets worse and continues for a decade.

 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> I mentioned above that it appears that parliament would have been suspended anyway for party conferences bar a few days, and asked if any party had cancelled or postponed their conferences to save our nation from dying...

Except they could, upon their return from the summer recess have decided to continue sitting through the conference season, Johnson is acting to take that out of their hands. Why do you think Johnson is doing this if as you appear to be claiming in his defence it doesn't matter?

And yes you'll argue no party has cancelled conferences but why would they until they knew they absolutely had to? Even if they do continue sitting the conferences can likely go ahead in an adjusted format.

> I felt compelled to post just in response to what I saw as unhelpful hyperbole.

I'll ask again since you didn't answer, are you here to defend the suspension of our parliamentary democracy?

jk

Post edited at 12:18
1
 Robert Durran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to stevieb:

> I’m actually not sure what the queen will do if she is asked. 

Maybe she will have a quiet word with Johnson, telling him that he is asking her to do something utterly outrageous but which, on the other hand, she cannot really refuse to do, and that maybe he should reconsider.

In reply to baron:

> How about ‘leave with no withdrawal agreement’ as we haven’t even started to discuss a deal yet?

How about ‘leave without paying our debts, without any reciprocal agreement as to the rights of UK citizens living abroad or EU citizens living here, and with a hard border in Northern Ireland’?

jcm

baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> How about ‘leave without paying our debts, without any reciprocal agreement as to the rights of UK citizens living abroad or EU citizens living here, and with a hard border in Northern Ireland’?

That would be the ‘no deal’ option on a referendum.

Which when put against remain would probably lose.

Which is why I don’t want it as part of a referendum question.

And why, as a leaver, I want a withdrawal agreement leading to a transition period and a future deal.

1
In reply to jkarran:

"I'll ask again since you didn't answer, are you here to defend the suspension of our parliamentary democracy?"

I already answered this, but here it is again.... I came here to call out your hyperbole. If you follow the thread, (like most Brexit threads) you start off quite reasonably, and with each post you often gradually descend into more extreme points of view. I don't think it helps your argument. 

Regarding talking about Brexit, proroguing parliament, etc, I will stick to discussing it with people less emotional and face to face. I'm more of a voyeur on Brexit threads here. It's really not a good forum for discussion when views are so entrenched and polarized.

5
 the sheep 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

So the DUP leader has given her support to Boris, that must make it a good idea then??

In reply to baron:

Well, the reason you didn’t get that was the ERG, obviously.

Besides, I thought you were saying higher up that you didn’t like a withdrawal agreement without an all-encompassing trade deal.

jcm

1
 MG 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Good grief, you really are an idiot aren't you.

No

> I have never been a Brexiteer, and I doubt I ever would be,

And I didn't suggest you were.

> My point, which I'm sure you will fail to understand but which I will try to explain nevertheless, is that railing against the outcome of the referendum and those who voted Leave achieves nothing 

That wasn't what you (or jkarran) were commenting on.  You were talking about "invective", which I pointed out wasn't invective but simply an accurate description.  Still, if you think the best response to all this is to be meekly polite and accept anything and everything, carry on.  I think "idiot" might be the word to describe you, however, in that case.

Post edited at 12:55
2
 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> I already answered this, but here it is again.... I came here to call out your hyperbole. If you follow the thread, (like most Brexit threads) you start off quite reasonably, and with each post you often gradually descend into more extreme points of view. I don't think it helps your argument. 

Oh for goodness' sake. Bully for you 'calling out hyperbole', shame you're so selective in doing so but none the less consider me chastened. Now will you give a straight answer?

> Regarding talking about Brexit, proroguing parliament, etc, I will stick to discussing it with people less emotional and face to face. I'm more of a voyeur on Brexit threads here. It's really not a good forum for discussion when views are so entrenched and polarized.

I don't give a toss about your pro/anti brexit views, I'm just asking you for a simple answer. Do you defend Johnson's suspension of our parliamentary democracy, yes or no?

Me: No. I think it's extraordinarily dangerous.

jk

Post edited at 13:08
2
 Bob Kemp 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

I am pretty dubious about the value of petitions, but here's a petition not to prorogue Parliament if you feel so minded:

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

 RomTheBear 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> I am pretty dubious about the value of petitions, but here's a petition not to prorogue Parliament if you feel so minded:

Useless, but a great way to get your name in a little black book with a list of the “enemy of the state”

1
In reply to jkarran:

The incredible thing (well, not incredible, given that almost everything he says is untrue) is that only a few weeks ago liar Boris was saying that he was not in favour of the 'arcane procedure' of proroguing parliament. That was the basis on which he was elected leader:

https://twitter.com/Liberal_Tory/status/1166682659155783681

1
In reply to jkarran:

"I'm just asking you for a simple answer Do you defend Johnson's suspension of our parliamentary democracy, yes or no?"

I don't have an answer. For me to be certain either way I would have to fully understand what is happening. I don't. I am suspicious of reactions that shout "coup" "dictator" etc. How often does parliament get prorogued and under what circumstances?  Parliament returns on 3/9. Doesn't that give parliament a week before BJ's proposed closing of parliament on 11/9? Is 1 week not enough for parliament to discuss/decide another way forward/delay? Is he just trying to force a no confidence vote? Another election? Will those processes take longer than to oct 31st? Why wasn't conference season postponed/cancelled? Should the summer recess have been cancelled? 

I don't doubt that BJ has called it to try and defend his Brexit position, but I am agnostic because I am struggling to see much benefit of thwarting/delaying Brexit at this point. If what he has done is illegal/unconstitutional or "extraordinarily dangerous" then I am sure he will be stopped and will pay the price. 

 fred99 28 Aug 2019
In reply to :

If a (in fact very small) number of Conservative MP's were to resign from the party whip, and then transfer to another party - any other party - then it could be easily stated that Johnson could no longer have any claim to have a majority in Parliament.

If Johnson then carried on as he is, then It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to suggest that his actions would be treasonous. Even if he wasn't removed by HM for that, then HM could then be petitioned to invite someone else to form a government.

Surely the Speaker of the House of Commons will have some influence in preventing this corruption of our political system.

1
 Iamgregp 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Not if they passed it because the ultimate source of sovereignty voted it for it.

The Queen?  Did she vote then?  ;0)

Post edited at 13:30
 RomTheBear 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

At the end of the day, it’s simple, Parliament categorically doesn’t want a no deal Brexit, and BJ and his government are doing whatever they can to bypass parliament.

That’s completely against the basic principles of parliament sovereignty and a severe, extremely damaging breach of the constitutional arrangement. This will permanently damage or even terminate British democracy, or what’s left of it.

It’s not even about Brexit anymore it’s simply about democracy. If the executive can shut down parliament for long periods of time whenever suits then you don’t have parliamentary democracy you have an authoritarian electoral dictatorship. This hasn’t happened overnight and this is the result of a slow and long degradation, but this is the nail in the coffin.

2
 Deri Jones 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

I'm betting on the Queen abdicating before Johnson arrives, to leave King Charles to sort out the mess. That worked well last time didn't it?

 Timmd 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Enty:

> I cannot imagine what it must feel like to be a Scottish European having people like Johnson and Gove take away your freedom of movement in this way. It must be a horrible feeling.

> An independent Scotland still in the EU would be a no-brainer for me.

> E

About the same as England based Europeans who know that the referendum would have been Void had it been a binding one, due to overspending by the official Leave campaign - something which everybody seems to be ignoring, everybody who talks about it being the will of the people and undemocratic to have another vote, that is.

Post edited at 13:54
1
 MargieB 28 Aug 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

Agreed. Parliament has actually voted for not having a No Deal Brexit ( 2019 /321 -278 win}. Suspending Parliament  is to cut off the legs of a Parliamentary legislative route to reinforce this . It  is contempt of Parliament, in my view.

Post edited at 13:43
 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> I don't have an answer. For me to be certain either way I would have to fully understand what is happening. I don't. I am suspicious of reactions that shout "coup" "dictator" etc. How often does parliament get prorogued and under what circumstances?

Never under these circumstances which are the only ones which matter.

> Parliament returns on 3/9. Doesn't that give parliament a week before BJ's proposed closing of parliament on 11/9? Is 1 week not enough for parliament to discuss/decide another way forward/delay?

No of course it isn't, that is transparently the point of the chosen dates.

Of course this also prevents them sitting to rattify Johnson's reworked version of May's WA if he is able to secure concessions unless of course that's to be railroaded through parliament in the hours before Halloween with minimal scrutiny.

> Is he just trying to force a no confidence vote? Another election? Will those processes take longer than to oct 31st? Why wasn't conference season postponed/cancelled? Should the summer recess have been cancelled? 

Even if he is the election can be scheduled for after Halloween so it still succeeds in subverting our democracy for personal/party gain.

> I don't doubt that BJ has called it to try and defend his Brexit position, but I am agnostic because I am struggling to see much benefit of thwarting/delaying Brexit at this point. If what he has done is illegal/unconstitutional or "extraordinarily dangerous" then I am sure he will be stopped and will pay the price. 

Well now you don't get to hear the case made by our parliamentarians for or against and they don't get to have their (your) say on the matter. Is that really better, are you really arguing the best way ahead is no-deal, smash everything then see what we can re-make from the wreckage because you're bored of it or dislike the 'uncertainty' or fear losing brexit altogether...

Frankly I don't believe you don't have a view on this, my guess is you're inclined to believe the end justifies the means but are ashamed to say so in as many words because the end is chaos and the means utterly outrageous.

jk

Post edited at 13:51
2
 Harry Jarvis 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Not hoping or expecting to achieve anything except to point out to those in denial of their role in this disaster how we got here.

And what would be the benefit of that? 

1
 Shani 28 Aug 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> This will permanently damage or even terminate British democracy, or what’s left of it.

> It’s not even about Brexit anymore it’s simply about democracy. If the executive can shut down parliament for long periods of time whenever suits then you don’t have parliamentary democracy you have an authoritarian electoral dictatorship. This hasn’t happened overnight and this is the result of a slow and long degradation, but this is the nail in the coffin.

Brexit is all but done. If a GE is called early November there will be no time to pass any legislation. We are all but out.

This was forecast by James Patrick a year ago. Respect due.

 Harry Jarvis 28 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> And I didn't suggest you were.

Perhaps not, but you tried to dismiss my comment by associating it with Brexiteer arguments. Believe it or not, it's possible to be on the same side and still have serious differences of opinions. In this particular case, I find I'm not the only person to be finding jkarran's comments somewhat hyperbolic. 

> That wasn't what you (or jkarran) were commenting on.  You were talking about "invective", which I pointed out wasn't invective but simply an accurate description.  Still, if you think the best response to all this is to be meekly polite and accept anything and everything, carry on.  I think "idiot" might be the word to describe you, however, in that case.

And where have I suggested that the best response to all this is to be meekly polite and accept anything and everything? Nowhere. Show me, or stop making things up. 

1
 John_Hat 28 Aug 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

If the executive can shut down parliament for long periods of time whenever suits then you don’t have parliamentary democracy you have an authoritarian electoral dictatorship.

^^ This.

And whilst those who support brexit will probably be unstressed, when its done so that parliament can't debate or vote on, say, a massive tax cut for the rich, or a vote for a war, then its appeal may wane.

This is the use of a populist agenda (brexit) for the concentration of power in a very, very few hands.

Post edited at 13:47
 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

None at all in the grand scheme of things but I don't see there needs to be a point.

jk

1
 RomTheBear 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Shani:

> Brexit is all but done. If a GE is called early November there will be no time to pass any legislation. We are all but out.

I agree, I’ve been banging on that three for two years now, but all we had in the remain camp were complacent idiots talking about second referendums. Unfortunately the main weakness of the remainers is that they still haven’t understood that democracy isn’t a given.

Now of course they are all surprised and outraged, but still, completely useless.

Post edited at 13:58
 Shani 28 Aug 2019
In reply to John_Hat:

> If the executive can shut down parliament for long periods of time whenever suits then you don’t have parliamentary democracy you have an authoritarian electoral dictatorship.

> ^^ This.

> And whilst those who support brexit will probably be unstressed, when its done so that parliament can't debate or vote on, say, a massive tax cut for the rich, or a vote for a war, then its appeal may wane.

> This is the use of a populist agenda (brexit) for the concentration of power in a very, very few hands.

Chaos is a ladder.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Great link. Not that anyone believes a word Boris says at any time, obviously, but it’s fun to see him lying *so* flagrantly in personal letters to his colleagues.

jcm

 BnB 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

>> Regarding talking about Brexit, proroguing parliament, etc, I will stick to discussing it with people less emotional and face to face. I'm more of a voyeur on Brexit threads here. It's really not a good forum for discussion when views are so entrenched and polarized.

> Oh for goodness' sake. Bully for you 'calling out hyperbole', shame you're so selective in doing so but none the less I'll consider myself chastened. Now will you give a straight answer?

Sorry jk, I'm not questioning the legitimacy of your views but I'm with Bjartur here. These endless debates could be really interesting if more observers were able to speculate unemotionally on the next moves in the game unfolding. But all I see is mass anger and wailing, some of it well-articulated, and for which you are the cheerleader. There is minor opposition from one or two voices who are shouted down and insulted at every turn. That the latter do not articulate their case particularly well is not the point. No one on the louder majority is interested in the rationale. It's all about the anger and despair.*

Is nobody interested is dissecting the game being played? Does Boris intend to march the UK out without a deal, or this the game of hardball with the EU that Brexiters argued we should have embarked upon from the start? Or is this all about preventing a legal challenge in order to force a vote of no confidence? You're all wailing (some would say with good reason) about being evicted without a deal, as if that is Boris' cherished aim. Rather, I think Boris is after securing his premiership.

The possibilities:

a) a vote of no confidence precipitates us into a pre-Brexit, people vs the politicians, election which Boris, with the forbearance of the Brexit party, stands to win when the Remain vote gets split between warring progressives.

b) The UK tumbles out and the Brexit party disbands to hand Boris the opportunity to call a May election. Tories recover votes previously bled to the LibDems when Remain is no longer a policy. In the absence of a coup at Labour HQ, Boris wins easily.

c) The EU blinks. Heads will be spinning in Brussels today as they realise that, for all they keep telling the UK to come up with a solution to the backstop, the next move may actually be theirs. The EU's most economically pragmatic move might be to deliver a Johnson election win (see above) in return for a deal.

* In an effort to get my own head around the Brexit arguments I made some effort here at one point to explain the seismic shift in global trade flows and consumer demand that could legitimately be regarded as making a case for uprooting our trade policy. The response could best be described as "la-la, can't hear you". Both sides are as equally entrenched and as obstinate in their positions.

From that moment, I stopped contributing to Brexit threads, as you may have noticed if my posts are of any interest to you.

2
OP Trevers 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> The incredible thing (well, not incredible, given that almost everything he says is untrue) is that only a few weeks ago liar Boris was saying that he was not in favour of the 'arcane procedure' of proroguing parliament. That was the basis on which he was elected leader:

"not in favour of" is language that gives him wiggle room to say "well I had no choice".

 Oceanrower 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Both Scottish independence as a member of the EU, and Irish reunification under the Republic, are now absolutely certain within 10 years.

As someone said recently. The Tory government have achieved in 5 years what the IRA couldn't in 100.

1
 Sir Chasm 28 Aug 2019
In reply to BnB:

> The possibilities:

> a) a vote of no confidence precipitates us into a pre-Brexit, people vs the politicians, election which Boris, with the forbearance of the Brexit party, stands to win when the Remain vote gets split between warring progressives.

That'll be an election after we've left the eu without a WA? 

> b) The UK tumbles out and the Brexit party disbands to hand Boris the opportunity to call a May election. Tories recover votes previously bled to the LibDems when Remain is no longer a policy. In the absence of a coup at Labour HQ, Boris wins easily.

Doesn't Borid winning easily rather depend on there being a rosy economic background in the run-up to an election? Does that look likely to you? My guess is that the next election will be even less predictable than "normal".

> c) The EU blinks. Heads will be spinning in Brussels today as they realise that, for all they keep telling the UK to come up with a solution to the backstop, the next move may actually be theirs. The EU's most economically pragmatic move might be to deliver a Johnson election win (see above) in return for a deal.

I think the eu have written us off, all they're going to do now is make polite noises (or maybe some minor amendments to the WA that don't change the meaning).

> * In an effort to get my own head around the Brexit arguments I made some effort here at one point to explain the seismic shift in global trade flows and consumer demand that could legitimately be regarded as making a case for uprooting our trade policy. The response could best be described as "la-la, can't hear you". Both sides are as equally entrenched and as obstinate in their positions.

> From that moment, I stopped contributing to Brexit threads, 

No you didn't. 

3
 MG 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> And where have I suggested that the best response to all this is to be meekly polite and accept anything and everything? Nowhere. Show me, or stop making things up. 

By suggesting that comment should only consist of "nice" words that's exactly what you are doing in practice. Some thing can't be described accurately using only nice words.  By trying to insist on it you are normalizing what is going on.

1
 Toerag 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Maybe she will have a quiet word with Johnson, telling him that he is asking her to do something utterly outrageous but which, on the other hand, she cannot really refuse to do, and that maybe he should reconsider.

Maybe instead of petitioning to not prorogue parliament we should be petitioning the Queen to get rid of the blonde buffoon?  If she does get rid of him what happens? General election, or election from within the Conservatives?

1
 BnB 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> That'll be an election after we've left the eu without a WA?

No, a successful vote of no-confidence installs a temporary government whose only task is to postpone Brexit and call an election

> Doesn't Borid winning easily rather depend on there being a rosy economic background in the run-up to an election? Does that look likely to you? My guess is that the next election will be even less predictable than "normal".

It depends first and foremost on the eradication of the Brexit party. How many former Tory voters are defectng to Corbyn?

> I think the eu have written us off, all they're going to do now is make polite noises (or maybe some minor amendments to the WA that don't change the meaning).

As if on cue, an unnamed EU diplomat is cited in the FT as declaring that this move, albeit secondary to Boris' negotiations in parliament, is designed to shift the EU from their position that it is solely up to the UK to come up ideas to break the impasse and avoid a no-deal Brexit. “He’s signalling to the EU that ‘we are in it together’,” the diplomat said. “He wants to get away from this idea that the ball is in the UK court – and at least put it in the middle of the court instead.

> No you didn't.

Make that argument? Or withdraw from Brexit threads? In both cases, my statement is accurate. Please use the search function for evidence both of the argument and of my forbearance. 

1
 MG 28 Aug 2019
In reply to BnB:

Ever think your view of brexit as an abstract tactics game, mildly interesting to study from a detached position is a bit out of touch?  The effects it is having and will have on people are real and catastrophic for many.

1
 john arran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to BnB:

I suspect Johnson is planning to offer a last-chance-to-approve-May's-deal to parliament in late October, by which time he'll have done his best to pretend the deal has changed significantly, even though it won't have done. The EU will not object strongly to his calling black white as long as the deal is unchanged. My guess is that instead of a time-limited backstop, we'll see a proposed criteria list such that once the criteria are met then the withdrawal is automatically completed (therefore notionally no longer being an EU decision.) And yes, of course the devil will be in the detail but that will be fudged enough to pretend it isn't still the same backstop.

The ERG won't have it, of course, certainly now they have their target no-deal currency crash so closely within their grasp. But the rest of parliament will be more torn than ever as to whether this is worth supporting after all, given the dearth of other options left and the likely alternative of catastrophe.

In reply to MG:

Belatedly, on the question of motives for voting to leave the EU. I asked a colleague of mine, a highly intelligent man and more to the point a lawyer, what proportion of leave voters thought that leaving the EU would include leaving the jurisdiction of the ECHR.

He looked at me in astonishment. ‘Doesn’t it??’, he said.

jcm

 Sir Chasm 28 Aug 2019
In reply to BnB:

> No, a successful vote of no-confidence installs a temporary government whose only task is to postpone Brexit and call an election

I think that idea is pretty much dead, unless the candidate to lead the temporary government is keeping their light hidden under a very big bushel.

> It depends first and foremost on the eradication of the Brexit party.

Do you think the Brexit party will pull in the votes after Brexit?

> How many former Tory voters are defectng to Corbyn?

I don't know, if you're saying they're former Tory voters it depends why you're saying they stopped being Tory voters. But i don't see Corbyn becoming any more appealing.

> As if on cue, an unnamed EU diplomat is cited in the FT as declaring that this move, albeit secondary to Boris' negotiations in parliament, is designed to shift the EU from their position that it is solely up to the UK to come up ideas to break the impasse and avoid a no-deal Brexit. “He’s signalling to the EU that ‘we are in it together’,” the diplomat said. “He wants to get away from this idea that the ball is in the UK court – and at least put it in the middle of the court instead.

That might be what Boris wants, it doesn't make the case that it will shift the eu's position.

> Make that argument? Or withdraw from Brexit threads? In both cases, my statement is accurate. Please use the search function for evidence both of the argument and of my forbearance. 

It's only accurate until you pop up to tell us off for not discussing things properly. Then you invalidate your statement that you have withdrawn, here you are, qed.

2
In reply to Trevers:

Breaking. Queen has just approved the suspension of Parliament in Sept.

 Bob Kemp 28 Aug 2019
In reply to John_Hat:

> If the executive can shut down parliament for long periods of time whenever suits then you don’t have parliamentary democracy you have an authoritarian electoral dictatorship.

> ^^ This.

> And whilst those who support brexit will probably be unstressed, when its done so that parliament can't debate or vote on, say, a massive tax cut for the rich, or a vote for a war, then its appeal may wane.

> This is the use of a populist agenda (brexit) for the concentration of power in a very, very few hands.

An authoritarian electoral dictatorship and the concentration of power may of course be one of the longer term aims. 

 neilh 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

£/$ still not lower much and still not lower than last week.Hardly indicative of a car crash going on.

7
In reply to neilh:

I hope you're wearing your seat belt, Neil.

1
 neilh 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

To be balanced aginst an extra 4 days in parliament if there was no proroguing because of the conference season.So my seat belt will be slack rather than tight.

He is certainly focusing minds ,and forcing people to make their views clear. Not such a bad tactic.At least if feels as though there is some pace/drive in things being moved forward.

5
In reply to neilh:

I call forcing a no-deal Brexit through by suspending parliament, i.e against the will of parliament, and almost certainly against the present will of the electorate, a car crash. The crash of our parliamentary democracy.

1
 Bob Kemp 28 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

> He is certainly focusing minds ,and forcing people to make their views clear. Not such a bad tactic.At least if feels as though there is some pace/drive in things being moved forward.

Well that's alright then, some pace and drive. Or putting one's foot down as the car hurtles towards the cliff edge. 

1
 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to BnB:

> Sorry jk, I'm not questioning the legitimacy of your views but I'm with Bjartur here. These endless debates could be really interesting if more observers were able to speculate unemotionally on the next moves in the game unfolding. But all I see is mass anger and wailing, some of it well-articulated, and for which you are the cheerleader. There is minor opposition from one or two voices who are shouted down and insulted at every turn. That the latter do not articulate their case particularly well is not the point. No one on the louder majority is interested in the rationale. It's all about the anger and despair.*

I'm interested to hear what motivates those who still support brexit, what they expect, how they expect it to deliver for them, what they understand the risks and costs to be, that's why I ask but so often when it is forthcoming it is for want of a better and less inflammatory description, claptrap. I'm afraid then my frustration spills over, I can live with that, others yourself included are free to request a ban if you can't.

I'll leave the dispasionate dissection and speculation to those who can afford to be dispasionate, I can't. This isn't abstract, it doesn't have to be experienced in the abstract to understand it.

> Is nobody interested is dissecting the game being played? Does Boris intend to march the UK out without a deal, or this the game of hardball with the EU that Brexiters argued we should have embarked upon from the start? Or is this all about preventing a legal challenge in order to force a vote of no confidence? You're all wailing (some would say with good reason) about being evicted without a deal, as if that is Boris' cherished aim. Rather, I think Boris is after securing his premiership.

I agree this is about securing another 5 years in which the tarnished Johnson/Conservative brand might just be polished and if not, in which a nest can be feathered. As I see it his only hope is an election just after B-day, ideally on it before any of the inevitable disruption hits, certainly before it becomes chronic and the impact on employment and living standards is felt. No way can he afford to wait until May, that's 6 months in which the problems will all have become chronic and unavoidable but few will have been addressed. It looks like they're gearing up for a post no-deal election to me, it's the only way Farage can be neutered. Even if some pact is agreed with Farage which seems unlikely in a pre-Halloween election he'll split the right/brexit vote clean in half while the slender possibility exists of the brexit opposition organising. I wouldn't bet on a remain majority but nor would I bet against it pre-Halloween. On Nov 1st Johnson probably gets a solid majority, quite possibly a complete landslide.

> c) The EU blinks. Heads will be spinning in Brussels today as they realise that, for all they keep telling the UK to come up with a solution to the backstop, the next move may actually be theirs. The EU's most economically pragmatic move might be to deliver a Johnson election win (see above) in return for a deal.

It's not in the EU's gift to deliver Johnson a pre-brexit election win, there is nothing they are able and can afford to offer him that would deliver it. His own rhetoric has all but guaranteed anything but out on the 31st means power sharing with Farage (or a remain alliance) and that unholy alliance doesn't get the EU a lightly tweaked withdrawal agreement or a sensible border settlement in Ireland, it gets them 5 more years of bullish intransigence.

> * In an effort to get my own head around the Brexit arguments I made some effort here at one point to explain the seismic shift in global trade flows and consumer demand that could legitimately be regarded as making a case for uprooting our trade policy. The response could best be described as "la-la, can't hear you". Both sides are as equally entrenched and as obstinate in their positions.

'I don't agree with your assessment' can sound a lot like 'la-la-la not listening', especially when you're convinced you're right and bringing light to a conversation where you only see heat. It's not that we couldn't in theory realign our primary trading relationship, or that it might not be narrowly economically advantageous to do so, it's just that's not where brexit is going and if it were there is still no bridge to get us through the hard times as a functioning democracy. The electorate will not stand the generation or more of disruption and hardship necessary to see that vision realised. Also I think (hope) the timing is wrong, the world will start to change ahead of us. This won't happen fast, it's the work of maybe 20 years to rebuild something equivalent to what we're losing but as we forge new ties in the Pacific the rest of the world will be looking closer to home in order to reduce their environmental impact, to localise and circularise their material economies, just at the time we burn our bridges to our nearest major market. Or not, we'll probably just carry on with the populist right wing thing ploughing on way beyond the point of no-return on our climate making resource war inevitable. Either way I'm not interested in supporting it.

jk

Post edited at 15:52
1
 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Toerag:

> Maybe instead of petitioning to not prorogue parliament we should be petitioning the Queen to get rid of the blonde buffoon?  If she does get rid of him what happens? General election, or election from within the Conservatives?

She won't. No point wondering about the ifs on that front.

jk

 wbo2 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Bnb : I find your optimism that the EU will suddenly roll over after Boris's game of hardball to be a little optimistic... from my position I see most people expect the UK to crash out.  The Telegraph may spin another tale, but...

I'm also reading in my foreign, Norwegian  newspapers that the queen is helping Boris to crash out.   A good reason to reduce her powers

3
 neilh 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

The counter argument being that we had the referendum , Parliament said they would recognise the vote, etc etc.

I do agree though it would help to have a constitution and now is a real test as to whether our system actually works .

 rogerwebb 28 Aug 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> It’s not unlikely but  what happens in the situation of an unilateral declaration of independence is that the UK government sends troops, puts Sturgeon and other pro independence politicians behind bars, and scrap or suspend holyrood, and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

I don't think Nicola Sturgeon would go down that road. To do so would be to divide Scotland more thoroughly than it is now. Whatever you think of her politics I think she sincerely wants to lead a united country to independence, not the 50%+1 that her predecessor thought would be sufficient. 

 neilh 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Well it needs bringing to a conclusion one way or the other as we cannot continue as is.

 Postmanpat 28 Aug 2019
In reply to BnB:

> >> Regarding talking about Brexit, proroguing parliament, etc, I will stick to discussing it with people less emotional and face to face. I'm more of a voyeur on Brexit threads here. It's really not a good forum for discussion when views are so entrenched and polarized.

> Sorry jk, I'm not questioning the legitimacy of your views but I'm with Bjartur here. These endless debates could be really interesting if more observers were able to speculate unemotionally on the next moves in the game unfolding. But all I see is mass anger and wailing, some of it well-articulated, and for which you are the cheerleader.

>

   Great post, (all of it, not just the quoted bits). I'm with you Bjartur and NeilH.

Post edited at 15:44
11
 Bob Kemp 28 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Well it needs bringing to a conclusion one way or the other as we cannot continue as is.

Leaving will not bring things to a conclusion. We are going to be mired in sorting out our relationship - trade deals and so on - with the EU for decades. 

1
In reply to Trevers:

Want a sick joke? (The people who tore into me yesterday? for saying that ‘scarcely a word that passes Johnson’s lips is true’, had better take note.) Only this morning the liar said: ‘Claims the government is blocking MPs from stopping a No-Deal Brexit are “completely untrue.”’ (Sky News)

Post edited at 15:53
1
 Bob Hughes 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Want a sick joke? (The people who tore into me yesterday? for saying that ‘scarcely a word that passes Johnson’s lips is true’, had better take note.) Only this morning the liar said: ‘Claims the government is blocking MPs from stopping a No-Deal Brexit are “completely untrue.”’ (Sky News)

Matt Hancock also finds himself in a slightly ticklish position this afternoon.

https://www.indy100.com/video/politics/resurfaced-video-of-matt-hancock-rev...

In reply to Bob Hughes:

That is absolutely brilliantly pertinent, thanks. We just have to hold these people to account, even at the basic, simple level of their sheer hypocrisy and dishonesty, quite apart from their very dangerous stupidity.

1
 Shani 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Leaving will not bring things to a conclusion. We are going to be mired in sorting out our relationship - trade deals and so on - with the EU for decades. 

...at a disadvantage. We'll be isolated and on WTO terms. Economic activity will decline, the pound will weaken - delaying investment as we're a falling knife. We'll become desperate to sign any deal.

A poor bargaining position.

As long as Brexiters own their shit rather than blaming a lack of 'belief', a lack of ' Dunkirkism' or Johnny Pakistan, i can live with it.

Post edited at 16:04
1
 John_Hat 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> An authoritarian electoral dictatorship and the concentration of power may of course be one of the longer term aims. 

Sorry, yes, that was my point. I don't think Boris and co have much of a view one way or the other on Brexit, if he has a "voting history" it indicates that he's done what's expedient for Boris at every stage of his career pretty much regardless of political direction.

I think there is a good possibility brexit (and, frankly, those that voted brexit) are being cynically used to ensure power gets into (and remains in) the hands of a one Alexander Boris de pfeffel Johnson and a small crowd of trusted acolytes.

What he is going to do with that power is something I guess we'll all find out later.

Post edited at 16:08
In reply to Postmanpat:

How can one not be emotional when one is seeing our parliamentary democracy (and now, almost certainly, our once-United Kingdom) being smashed up? That's a rhetorical question, because I won't be answering you on this, or any other Brexit-related threads now, sorry. You've crossed the line.

1
OP Trevers 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> Matt Hancock also finds himself in a slightly ticklish position this afternoon.

I've written to Hancock, Rudd and Morgan, who are all on record opposing it in principle, urging them to resign.

 RomTheBear 28 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Well it needs bringing to a conclusion one way or the other as we cannot continue as is.

I’m afraid to disappoint you but whatever happens, deal, or no deal, this going to on, and on and on.

This is all about damage limitation now, but as far as I can tell everything is done to increase damage. And the more chaos is generated the better it is for the illiberal, authoritarian cabal driving this to strengthen their grip on power.

1
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

To be fair to the loathsome Mr Hancock, all defeated candidates have to accept that if they lose their victorious opponents may have some policies which they wouldn’t have pursued. Whether any given such policy is a resigning matter is a choice; it can’t follow that they all are.

jcm

In reply to RomTheBear:

You've been castigated and unpopular here for quite a while for expressing your views so strongly, but I think time may prove you to have been spot on with your concerns. (Dare I say it, like Churchill in the late 1930s?)

2
 wbo2 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:  I'd imagine you're staying out as you're embarrassed.   Man voted in by 100,000 people suspends democracy with aid of inherited monarchy.  

  Boris may as well put a cap on and call himself General...

1
 Postmanpat 28 Aug 2019
In reply to wbo2:

> I'd imagine you're staying out as you're embarrassed.   Man voted in by 100,000 people suspends democracy with aid of inherited monarchy.  

>  

   I was waiting for some chump to come up with that.

   No, I'm staying out for the same reasons I generally have all this year and have explained several times before, and that BnB cites so articulately above.

19
In reply to wbo2:

>   Boris may as well put a cap on and call himself General...

As I've said elsewhere on Twitter, Boris put the Queen in an impossible position, and has effectively now usurped her and made himself the Head of State. How long he will survive is anybody's guess, but meanwhile, it's absolutely terrifying.

Post edited at 16:24
1
 BnB 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> It's only accurate until you pop up to tell us off for not discussing things properly. Then you invalidate your statement that you have withdrawn, here you are, qed.

Call it a lightning visit.

4
 Harry Jarvis 28 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> By suggesting that comment should only consist of "nice" words that's exactly what you are doing in practice.

Where have I used the word 'nice'? I would be grateful if you would stop making things up. 

On the other hand, there is an old adage about arguing with idiots. I should have paid it more heed. 

 neilh 28 Aug 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

It is going to go on and on until about 70-80% of the voting public comes to a realistic conclusion about what they want and it is killed once and for all as an issue by a govt swept in with a huge majority.Not a piddling little one like we have had for the last decade.

So its a good few years to run yet.

 MG 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

So others use the word "lunatic" and you object, despite it being correct in the context

You use "idiot", despite it being incorrect, and you don't see a problem.

And you think you aren't trying to shut down debate.

 RomTheBear 28 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

> It is going to go on and on until about 70-80% of the voting public comes to a realistic conclusion about what they want and it is killed once and for all as an issue by a govt swept in with a huge majority.Not a piddling little one like we have had for the last decade.

That would be the most optimistic scenario.

 George Ormerod 28 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

> To be balanced aginst an extra 4 days in parliament if there was no proroguing because of the conference season.So my seat belt will be slack rather than tight.

It's not just an extra 4 days - proroguing for the longest time since 1945 removes the option of parties cancelling or shortening their conferences (as they probably should) to dedicate more parliamentary time to address this crisis.

 neilh 28 Aug 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

Live longer and be an optimist.

3
 BnB 28 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> Ever think your view of brexit as an abstract tactics game, mildly interesting to study from a detached position is a bit out of touch?  The effects it is having and will have on people are real and catastrophic for many.

It's true I find the politics interesting, but I am forcefully engaged as an investor for whom the risks are substantial. Brexit uncertainty dealt away a board seat at a venture only last month. What is more, I worked bloody hard and endured enormous personal risk to make my money. The fact that I'm possibly more insulated than most does not diminish the concern about my hard-earned nest egg, Nor for the employment prospects of my offspring. My son is a research chemist who would like to work again in Germany or Switzerland. Moreover, I'm keenly aware of the broader risks to car industry workers or residents from the EU, or NHS staffing levels and any number of other potential issues.

But I'm also possessed of a level of calm that encourages me to seek the meaning in the latest twists and turns. If you don't find those posts interesting, I'm sorry. Fortunately, there are plenty of others.

3
 ebdon 28 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

Being positive will get you so far but I'd prefer to Live longer by having access to medicine and food....

 MG 28 Aug 2019
In reply to BnB:

It's not that I don't find your posts interesting - you have an angle.  It's your dismissal of others' concerns which strikes me of out of touch.  Losing a board seat and worrying whether your son can work in Switzerland as a researcher smack very much of "let them eat cake" as a response to brexit.

 BnB 28 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> It's not that I don't find your posts interesting - you have an angle.  It's your dismissal of others' concerns which strikes me of out of touch. 

I don't see any dismissal of others' concerns, more an effort to calm the general air of panic and alarm.

> Losing a board seat and worrying whether your son can work in Switzerland as a researcher smack very much of "let them eat cake" as a response to brexit.

You can take that view if you like. I doubt my son does. He earns £14k as a pre-doctoral researcher. And does being above the breadline invalidate my Brexit experience?

Post edited at 17:06
4
 neilh 28 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

Werll if you do not want to read his views then you are going about p#ssing him off and closing his posts down. Why not just respect what he has to say.

3
 neilh 28 Aug 2019
In reply to ebdon:

And despite an air of panic I am sure you will.

1
 MG 28 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Werll if you do not want to read his views then you are going about p#ssing him off and closing his posts down. Why not just respect what he has to say.

I thought I was pretty clear I found his points interesting but his attitude to others posts a bit off.  The financial angle adds something.  The dismissal of others' concerns as wailing, not so much.

2
 ebdon 28 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

I wish government experts tasked with writing detailed reports on such things shared your optimism, but what do they know hey? 

 BnB 28 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> I thought I was pretty clear I found his points interesting but his attitude to others posts a bit off.  The financial angle adds something.  The dismissal of others' concerns as wailing, not so much.

Again. I didn't dismiss others' concerns. I lamented the lack of open-minded debate. Have another read.

Post edited at 17:21
2
 RomTheBear 28 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Live longer and be an optimist.

There are two kinds of optimists :

Type 1: Those who think tomorrow will be fine because that’s all they’ve ever known.

Type : Those who think tomorrow will be better if they work bloody hard at it.

Unfortunately at this point in time we have a lot more type 1s than type 2s. Particularly amongst baby boomers.

Post edited at 17:29
1
 stevieb 28 Aug 2019
In reply to BnB:

Which do you think Johnson wants? 

I assume he wants (a). He wants it to look like Parliament has prevented him from delivering the will of the people, even though he was trying really hard. 

The problem with (c) is that I think it is impossible to implement all of the lower level legislation required in the time frame, so he would be forced to go back on his endlessly repeated deadline. 

In reply to RomTheBear:

Whilst an optimist and a pessimist argued over whether the glass was half full or half empty, I drank the contents.

Yours,

An opportunist.

 MG 28 Aug 2019
In reply to BnB:

> Again. I didn't dismiss others' concerns. I lamented the lack of open-minded debate. Have another read.

What I see is

"These endless debates could be really interesting if more observers were able to speculate unemotionally on the next moves in the game unfolding. But all I see is mass anger and wailing, some of it well-articulated, and for which you are the cheerleader. "  

followed by

"Is nobody interested is dissecting the game being played? "

Saying it is a game, twice, and complaining about mass anger and wailing reads like dismissal of others' concerns to me.  The tactics might be fascinating to you as a game .   But you might see things rather differently if you had lost your job, or if you or your family were facing deportation (or just the mental strain of dealing with the Home Office).

Post edited at 17:31
1
 Greenbanks 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> We just have to hold these people to account, even at the basic, simple level of their sheer hypocrisy and dishonesty, quite apart from their very dangerous stupidity<

Led By Donkeys does well in this respect.

https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr...

 BnB 28 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

Then we disagree with the distinction I have the advantage of knowing my own intentions, even if my choice of words on a busy day did not convey them to your satisfaction.

6
In reply to Trevers:

Ruth Davidson. Tories leader in Scotland is "Considering her position" - ie on verge of resigning!

 BnB 28 Aug 2019
In reply to stevieb:

> Which do you think Johnson wants? 

> I assume he wants (a). He wants it to look like Parliament has prevented him from delivering the will of the people, even though he was trying really hard. 

> The problem with (c) is that I think it is impossible to implement all of the lower level legislation required in the time frame, so he would be forced to go back on his endlessly repeated deadline. 

I believe he would be happiest with c) because a concession from the EU delivers a "safer" (for his place in history as much as economically) form of Brexit that he sell to the Brexit voters in a subsequent election: "we stood up to and defeated the Bosche, I mean EU". I agree it would be legislatively challenging but it ought to be possible to leave the WA intact and amend by binding appendix/addendum. I can't pretend to understand the scale of the task however.

I agree however that Boris' plan A is surely a). 

Post edited at 17:44
Removed User 28 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

Both of you are right.

I can't help but suspect that BJ and Trump had a chat about it all at the G7 and BJ rather liked Trump's advice. It sort of has his touch on it.

If he gets his way and a polished turd of a deal is re offered to parliament again it will never pass simply because the ERG will vote against it because they want out without a deal.

The only thing I'd criticise about BnB's analysis is that it omits emotion as a factor. Think back to the poll tax and multiply the determination of a large section of the population to resist this by a factor of 10.

1
 neilh 28 Aug 2019
In reply to ebdon:

They predict worst case and outline the planning options. Read into that what you may. If you are convinced that it will be a worst case scenario then nothing will change your mind . 

So I assume that you are heeding your own advice and have purchased tins of food etc etc .

2
 MargieB 28 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

The next stage is a challenge to proroguing Parliament at the Court of Sessions.  The logical argument to win the day is that with indicative votes in place { in March and another month in 2019 with last vote a 43 majority to stop a default no deal Brexit} there is  proof that the intention of proroguing Parliament is not, as Boris says, to do normal procedure of a Queen's speech to usher in a new PM/administation , but rather there is an underlying intention to undermine a process of Parliamentary decisions/ presentation to Lords to make it legally binding to stop a no deal Brexit. This could be a winner in Court.

Boris has made his move because the legal approach to binding him to the will of those indicative votes  must have seemed very feasible so he has blocked it.{he could have gone with "packing the Lords" in his favour but there is no time} .

I think a court will see this and see through Boris.The queen accepted the request because the Court of Sessions will be examining the responsibility of the PM to put this to the Queen in the first place. Proroguing  never be instituted because of Boris. The Queen is still a neutral body.

And there is still a feasible no confidence vote  as well.

Post edited at 18:49
 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to BnB:

> Is nobody interested is dissecting the game being played? Does Boris intend to march the UK out without a deal, or this the game of hardball with the EU that Brexiters argued we should have embarked upon from the start?

I think neither. Johnson faces the same situation May did (with slightly worse numbers): deal, no-deal, no brexit.

No-deal is a killer blow to the Conservative party as the party of economic responsibility. There is likely a well timed one off election win in it for Johnson but he secures his place in history as Britain's worst PM. Some of his backers doubtless want it and have manoeuvred him into a position where it's the easy default, many of his backbench wreckers want it but against by better judgement I believe him when he says he doesn't.

No-brexit is another killer blow to the Conservative party. Put aside whatever Johnson's personal views on the wisdom of brexit might be, that option is not in his or the party interest so we can rule that out, he is an amoral opportunist, there is no long game here, no atonement for 2016.

Which leaves deal. The EU can't and won't move much. The backstop, Johnson's only targeted change stays but he may well secure a small concession couched in weasel words to protect the GFA before mid-October. Maybe a long time limit, at least a decade, maybe some sort of structured approval criteria/process for the mythical 'alternative arrangements', maybe something else more imaginative. It'll be minor and soft but it puts the deal back into parliament. the DUP are out. ERG, almost certainly out which leads us to the point of squeezing parliament this hard... passing the buck.

If the deal fails again in the dying days before the deadline the consequences of no-deal which will be terrible can be expertly palmed off onto the opposition including LibDems who may well lose some support back to the Conservatives as a consequence. People are fickle. Farage is neutered, his raison d'etra delivered in its fullest horror by the Conservatives. In the worst days and weeks after Halloween Johnson probably won't convincingly win an election on this 'they did it!' basis but once the dust has settled and the taps are opened on disaster relief funds, maybe. My guess is he doesn't take the chance of waiting to see if the situation can be stabilised, if this looks the likely outcome I suspect we'll be going to the polls as early in November as possible so he can capitalise on Farage's losses, anti-opposition fury and the fact the most serious problems will develop over days and weeks.

If the WA passes it'll be with extensive (30+) Labour rebel support, the disaster won't be as immediate or bad as the no-deal scenario, indeed there will likely be significant recovery in the value of the Pound and British stock which can be dishonestly but effectively spun as a 'brexit dividend'. Equally usefully it drives a wedge into the heart of Labour destroying them as an electoral force. They also get to shoulder a disproportionate share of the blame in a largely pro tory, pro brexit press which will be indulging in some scapegoating of its own when the inevitable project fear issues materialise. FPTP will do the rest with Farage muzzled if not neutralised but my guess is again he doesn't risk waiting for any issues to become fully developed and chronic, we get a GE November/December. If he gets enough sane new MPs to balance out the ERG nuts he might even be able to deliver a survivable transition to something not too harmful longer term but I don't think that's his game, I think his leadership run will have cost him his autonomy on that, we're heading for a hard exit and American dependence.

jk

1
 BnB 28 Aug 2019
In reply to ebdon:

> Being positive will get you so far but I'd prefer to Live longer by having access to medicine and food....

I do think this is a pithy comment. However, Investec, a completely impartial financial analyst, today asserted in their study of WM Morrision that supply chain disruption, a valid concern, was also very much a concern for EU suppliers who would be active in finding a solution and that any interruptions would be extremely brief. They also calculated that the average family would endure an extra £2.54 per week in tariffs, a rise of 3.8% on the weekly shop. Or half a pint of beer in many people's language. As MG is keen to point out, people like me might bear that extra cost more easily. But, even for the most cash-strapped of consumers, this is not a doomsday scenario, nor does it factor in adjustments to the trading universe which reduce the cost of consumables from outside the EU.

Post edited at 18:54
2
 neilh 28 Aug 2019
In reply to MargieB:

A legal challenge for the loss of 4 days of parliamentary time??? I think time would be better spent elsewhere for those who oppose a no deal. 

5
 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to BnB:

> I don't see any dismissal of others' concerns, more an effort to calm the general air of panic and alarm. You can take that view if you like. I doubt my son does. He earns £14k as a pre-doctoral researcher. And does being above the breadline invalidate my Brexit experience?

It means presuming you've invested carefully as I'm sure you have you don't face the same risks many of us without nest eggs or a functioning social security system do. Good for you but you'll have to forgive others a degree of justified concern you may not be experiencing, half of a plenty is still plenty with or without a board seat, half of just enough in 21st century tory britain means soup kitchens and sleeping in a box.

jk

Post edited at 19:23
1
 MargieB 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

Boris is more duplicitous than Farage. He has tried to convey a difference/softer image to court popular interest but this latest move outs him as exactly in  the same mindset as Farage.

 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

> A legal challenge for the loss of 4 days of parliamentary time??? I think time would be better spent elsewhere for those who oppose a no deal. 

It's not just 4 lost days, it's 4 days designed to sound reasonable plus the lost ability to sit during the scheduled conference break if as expected, MP's so desired. It is also timed to break off and scrap any pre-prorogation legislation before it reaches the statute book and to limit the opportunity for passing meaningful brexit legislation in the new session.

Don't do Johnson's PR work for him you're smarter than that. This isn't normal or reasonable, it's a cynical and dangerous full frontal assault on our parliamentary democracy because he knows his actions do not have the support of the house.

jk

Post edited at 19:21
1
 Robert Durran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> Boris is more duplicitous than Farage. He has tried to convey a difference/softer image to court popular interest but this latest move outs him as exactly in  the same mindset as Farage.

I think that what has shocked me most about Johnson today is his completely brazen lying about his motives for proroguing parliament (the same goes for Rees Mogg, IDS, Redwood and several others). Even the BBC didn't rermotely entertain the possibility that he might have been being honest - on the Radio 4 news earlier they simply announced that he had done it to try to stop parliament blocking no deal; his lying has become so habitual and taken for granted that it passes without comment.

Even those who support Johnson and his Brexit policy now have no choice but to accept that Johnson and his cronies are an unscrupulous bunch of liars in the way they are going about their business. 

This really is a terrifying low point for our country and its democracy.

Post edited at 19:28
1
 John_Hat 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

I tend to agree. BJ and co present the "tweaked" WA in the few days before 31st October with a "do or die" message. If I was a remain MP, as much as I might disagree with the WA if it was that or crash out without any deal I would be very tempted to hold my nose and vote for it.

In the case of the populace Boris is then "the guy who delivered Brexit when no-one else could". So in the GE he sweeps up the brexit votes, and with a pile of money promised to the usual suspects (doctors nurses teachers etc) buys the extra votes necessary to win a decent majority.

1
In reply to Robert Durran:

> This really is a terrifying low point for our country and its democracy.

Yes, there's never been anything like this before. Nor such a response from the people:

https://splasho.com/petitions/index.php?petition=269157

baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Is there something ironic about people signing a petition asking parliament to consider debating the proroguing of parliament?

Apparently protests in Liverpool, Manchester and Chester attracted about 150 people each.

The democrats need to mobilise their forces and quickly if they’re to have any chance of influencing the government.

2
In reply to baron:

Yes, it's ironic in the fullest sense of the term. Terrifying dramatic irony, rather than a sick joke. Now all the people can do is let their feelings be shown, even if it's too late.

1
In reply to baron:

Also, have you not seen footage of the 1000s of people that have assembled in Parliament Square this afternoon?? At least you're honest enough to refer to 'the democrats' as if they're on the opposite side to yourself.

Post edited at 20:31
1
In reply to baron:

> Apparently protests in Liverpool, Manchester and Chester attracted about 150 people each.

Which is more than Farage's Brexit march attracted despite plenty of time to plan it.

Let us see how many people turn up at protests over the weekend.

Removed User 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Also, have you not seen footage of the 1000s of people that have assembled in Parliament Square this afternoon?? At least you're honest enough to refer to 'the democrats' as if they're on the opposite side to yourself.

This isn't about Brexit any longer.

It's about democracy.

...and BJ's stunt doesn't seem that popular: https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=...

Post edited at 20:40
1
baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Also, have you not seen footage of the 1000s of people that have assembled in Parliament Square this afternoon?? At least you're honest enough to refer to 'the democrats' as if they're on the opposite side to yourself.

Yes, I thought the difference between the numbers protesting in London and other cities was interesting, maybe it takes longer to organise and assemble large numbers outside of the capital.

Just because I’m a leaver doesn’t make me in favour of Johnson’s actions.

 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> The democrats need to mobilise their forces and quickly if they’re to have any chance of influencing the government.

There's no point. Brexit will now be delivered, irreversibly, against the will of the British people, against the will of the nations of the union, parliament subverted. You've won.

Congratulations.

jk

2
 Yanis Nayu 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

To add to the duplicity of Johnson he wrote to Conservative MPs while seeking election to the leadership advising them he was not attracted to arcane procedures such as prorogation. 

Removed User 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> There's no point. Brexit will now be delivered, irreversibly, against the will of the British people, against the will of the nations of the union, parliament subverted. You've won.

No, this is where the fight starts.

It was never going to be easy.

1
In reply to Removed User:

Anyone who's a democrat, just keep looking at that petition and vote if you haven't:

https://splasho.com/petitions/index.php?petition=269157 27

 Jon Stewart 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I think that what has shocked me most about Johnson today is his completely brazen lying about his motives for proroguing parliament

I wonder where he got the idea that this could be a workable leadership style?

> Even those who support Johnson and his Brexit policy now have no choice but to accept that Johnson and his cronies are an unscrupulous bunch of liars in the way they are going about their business. 

And those Tories who don't are now being called upon to show a little bit of integrity - either by getting behind some rapid-fire legislative route (seems a tall order) or by voting no confidence in Johnson. We'll see how they do.

The liars have stood up to be counted. Next, let's watch the cowards do the same: Matt Hancock, Sajid Javid, we're all looking at you.

2
 Bob Hughes 28 Aug 2019
In reply to thread:

I’ve been trying to figure out exactly what Johnson has done today. Here’s what I found:

1. proroguing parliament on its own is normal and happens usually slightly more than once a year - typically before the queens speech and before an election. It is the process by which one parliamentary session ends and another begins.

2. Prorrogación affects both houses and all parliamentary business (so no comittees, debates, emergency motions, PMQs etc)

3. The first thing that is odd about this latest prorogation is the length. Most prorogations last 8 days. The longest one in recent times was 2014 to take account of European elections. The current proper ovation could be up to 34 days long which is unprecedented.

4. The point has been made above that parliament was planning recess for party conference season anyway. This is true but slightly misses the point. First, parliament votes on recess and some opposition MPs were planning to vote against. Second, parliament still operates during recess - comittees can still choose to meet and require people to give evidence to them. Alis the House of Lords could have chosen to continue sitting during recess. None of this is possible during prorogation.

5. Apart from the length, the other very big thing which makes this prorogation stand out is the reason for it - to push through a policy which parliament is against. This sets a very poor precedent of using prorogation for partisan ends rather than as a neutral process.

 Jon Stewart 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> 5. Apart from the length, the other very big thing which makes this prorogation stand out is the reason for it - to push through a policy which parliament is against. This sets a very poor precedent of using prorogation for partisan ends rather than as a neutral process.

Yes, and lying blatantly about it isn't a good look, if you don't want to be seen as a "tin pot dictator". I think he's completely backed himself into the corner of being the lying piece of shit who, if you're naive, "will do anything to stand up for Brexit". Or if you're not thick, "will do anything to serve his own interests".

As a strategy for the GE I think that's a risky strategy. Might those voters he's trying to buy with his spending pledges on public services be put off by displaying utter contempt for their intelligence? Who knows...

3
 Jon Stewart 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> There's no point. Brexit will now be delivered, irreversibly, against the will of the British people, against the will of the nations of the union, parliament subverted. You've won.

I disagree. I'm not convinced yet that Johnson has called this one correctly. Standing with Johnson is now toxic, even to leavers like baron. He's becoming reliant on the Brexit Party vote only, should moderate Tories begin to show a little bit of integrity. As soon as it looks like he's going to lose the GE, his policy will change. He doesn't want no deal, he doesn't want anything except power, and I don't think the adoration of the Nigel Farage fan club is enough to get him what he wants. Extreme politics don't do well in the UK, do they...?

 Duncan Bourne 28 Aug 2019
In reply to BnB:

I'll go with all that.

1
 RomTheBear 28 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

> They predict worst case and outline the planning options. Read into that what you may. If you are convinced that it will be a worst case scenario then nothing will change your mind . 

> So I assume that you are heeding your own advice and have purchased tins of food etc etc .

if you think it’s about tins of food then you have completely missed the plot.

1
 BnB 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

I’m conscious I haven’t got back to you, jk. I’ve been spending the rest of today firefighting various issues. I did appreciate both the thoughtfulness of your response and the obvious effort made to engage with my points. 

The thread has moved on somewhat now and, I’m pleased to say, with a higher proportion of insights and analysis, thanks to many good inputs. The next stage is to get get ahead of the game that Leave is playing and work out how to win, not by protesting Brexiters’ past ploys, but by taking the initiative. Corbyn has backed the parliamentary Remain movement into a corner and it is hard to see a way out. But, if a majority exists in Parliament for Remain, then Boris’ gamble ought to flush it out. 

Post edited at 22:04
2
 DT 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Anyone who's a democrat perhaps should recognize the will of the people, and that in proroguing parliament the executive has taken the most reasonable means, at this stage, of avoiding the subversion of that will. I realize, of course, the crude form in which this is expressed but believe it captures the essence.

If remainers want some medium-term upside, it is that Mr Johnson can now longer claim that a deal would have been possible but for legislative pressure in UK for Brexit's delay or cancellation. Sow the wind...

3
 FactorXXX 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Breaking. Queen has just approved the suspension of Parliament in Sept.

Boris, I love you, but we only have 64 days to save the UK...

1
In reply to DT:

Why can't you accept the near-certainty that 'the will of the people' (to use your, and Adolf's, expression) has changed, but is not being allowed to speak? You are simply not recognising what the electorate may now wish. It is you and the Brexiters who will have to reap your whirlwind.

Post edited at 22:15
2
In reply to FactorXXX:

It's far less than that in terms of parliamentary days.

1
Pan Ron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Presumably if an indyref2 returned a Remain result that would also, to quote Adolph, be the will of the people too?

2
 FactorXXX 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> It's far less than that in terms of parliamentary days.

Boris the Merciless doesn't care for such things.

In reply to Pan Ron:

> Presumably if an indyref2 returned a Remain result that would also, to quote Adolph, be the will of the people too?

No, it would be the will of that proportion of the electorate who had voted for it. Not the will of the whole electorate. It's very odd that you can't see this simple point ... I was tempted to make a further comment about [...] but I won't.

2
 FactorXXX 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Why can't you accept the near-certainty that 'the will of the people' (to use your, and Adolf's, expression) 

Adolf Hitler?
Thomas Jefferson surely: “The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.”

In reply to FactorXXX:

Yes, but I'm certain that Jefferson would not have happily described 52% as 'the people'. He was talking about democracy in the broadest sense, the very thing that the Brexiters now seem terrified of. Which is exactly why they don't want a People's Vote. They've always treated it as a game. They just managed to push the ball over the line three years ago and they're now saying that that particular win is for all time and we're not allowed to play any more games. I find it really weird and scary, this idea that they've somehow won for all time and won't brook any further contest.

Post edited at 22:44
1
 FactorXXX 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> It's far less than that in terms of parliamentary days.

I assumed as a film buff that you would recognise the reference and realise that it was a bit of a joke.
Maybe not...

 

In reply to FactorXXX:

Oops, sorry, missed that. We desperately need any kind of humour at the moment.

 SenzuBean 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> I voted to leave the EU.

> The stalemate that we are presently in and any ‘disasters’ which might unfold are the result of politicians who are unable to deliver a policy on which most of them were elected.


You voted for a fantasy promised only by opportunist liars, charlatans and/or ignorant fools, and then you are upset that these opportunist liars, charlatans and/or ignorant fools aren't able to realize the fantasy?

It doesn't make your position any more credible to try and shift the blame - you should never vote for opportunist liars, charlatans and/or ignorant fools - regardless of what they promise.

3
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> An opportunist.

I think opportunists, or those who see opportunities in the chaos that is likely to ensue from brexit, are at the core of those driving brexit. I'd be careful about aligning yourself with such odious characters as JRM.

1
 Robert Durran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I disagree. I'm not convinced yet that Johnson has called this one correctly.

Yes, I'm going to remain cautiously optimistic. His outrageous abuse of the constitution is going to really focus minds on stopping Johnson and I think that even some brexiteers are going to struggle to stomach his lying and arrogance after this. I am heartened that Hammond and others are now right behind moves to block no deal and will not wait until the 30 days for conjuring up alternative arrangements are up. I think it also makes a successful vote of confidence more likely. There is still all to play for.

Another thought. I don't think Boris would have taken this step if he was not running scared of being stopped after yesterday's announcement by remain leaders of their intention to do so - he must believe they're in with a chance of success.

Post edited at 22:53
1
 FactorXXX 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Yes, but I'm certain that Jefferson would not have happily described 52% as 'the people'. He was talking about democracy in the broadest sense, the very thing that the Brexiters now seem terrified of. Which is exactly why they don't want a People's Vote.

Sorry, don't quite follow you.
You seemed to attribute the 'Will of the people' quote to Hitler and therefore used it to smear Pan Ron. 
Did Hitler ever use that exact terminology?
If not, then the original Jefferson phrase is the obvious and only one that should be referred to and to add Hitler into the mix is perhaps a little bit disingenuous at best.  

 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to BnB:

> Corbyn has backed the parliamentary Remain movement into a corner and it is hard to see a way out. But, if a majority exists in Parliament for Remain, then Boris’ gamble ought to flush it out. 

Ay but if he's done his work properly (or more to the point Cummings has) it won't matter a jot. They'll have just enough time to stumble at the finishing line with their blocking legislation twice before delivering Johnson his election and picking up the blame for this carefully crafted disaster. That should if the timing is right, deliver him the opportunity, majority and excuse to dismantle the last remnants of the post-war welfare state while transforming Britain into a London shaped tax haven. I'm not partucularly angry about the tactics, that's politics albeit the riskier end thereof. I'm furious about the likely consequences and frankly pretty pissed off at those who continue to enable this with their votes despite the mounting evidence they've been mugged along with the rest of us.

Jk

Post edited at 23:12
2
 FactorXXX 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Oops, sorry, missed that. We desperately need any kind of humour at the moment.

Gordon's alive!

youtube.com/watch?v=MFnmT82yGpk&

baron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to SenzuBean:

> You voted for a fantasy promised only by opportunist liars, charlatans and/or ignorant fools, and then you are upset that these opportunist liars, charlatans and/or ignorant fools aren't able to realize the fantasy?

> It doesn't make your position any more credible to try and shift the blame - you should never vote for opportunist liars, charlatans and/or ignorant fools - regardless of what they promise.

I wasn’t laying the blame at the door of those politicians that you probably consider to be liars and charlatans but at the door of those who stood on a deliver Brexit manifesto and then failed to deliver.

Still, alls well that ends well, eh?

3
 MonkeyPuzzle 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

Well the FT aren't impressed (apologies if already posted above):

https://www.ft.com/content/9dbc7852-c9b2-11e9-af46-b09e8bfe60c0 

In reply to FactorXXX:

The 'will of the people' you should know very well was central to Nazi propaganda. Innumerable examples. E.g. 1933 'The nation and the government in Germany are one thing. The will of the people is the will of the government and vice versa.' And how could I smear Ron before he'd replied to me?

4
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Gordon's alive!

What makes that particularly fun for me is that I worked with Brian Blessed once (about 15 years ago) and he did that for me in person

2
 Postmanpat 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> because I won't be answering you on this, or any other Brexit-related threads now, sorry. You've crossed the line.

  Well, I’m sorry that you feel that way.

   I have to say that I am bemused as to why an intelligent person like you would regard supporting three of the most sensible posters on UKC in suggesting that debate would be better were it more level headed and less vitriolic as “crossing the line”.

Even more odd since I’ve barely commented on, let alone discussed with you, the pros and cons of brexit or the brexit process this year.

Post edited at 23:44
9
 Pete Pozman 28 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> I’ve read a lot of ridiculous things on this forum over the years but your post is in a league of its own.

But what do you want? For God's sake don't say freedom. 

1
 Pete Pozman 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

There has only ever been one democratic thing and the whole of British history built up to it. Now that we have had that one vote we don't really need to vote about anything ever again. It starts with proroguing parliament and a lot of people would be very happy if it were to continue that way. After all we only need a strong leader who speaks his mind and stands up for the ordinary bloke against the elite. 

1
baron 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> But what do you want? For God's sake don't say freedom. 

Freedom?

Who do you think I am? 

Mel Gibson?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'll talk about this just once. You are the one who's caused this sad personal rift. I've always remained my same gentle centrist self (no one could ever describe me as a socialist), not very political, but now fighting for the survival of everything I've always liked about my country. I hate what you now stand for. It's really been an accumulative drip-drip thing until it's reached a point that's become intolerable for me. I remember my brother asking me about a year ago 'just who is this creepy pmp you seem so friendly with? Why do you keep talking to him?' I said, well, he's an old friend. And I've hung in ever since. Bear in mind that I always try to be loyal with my friendships, but I really can't see how you expect me to support you in the creation of this huge pile of neo-fascist shit. The problem has come from you. If you snap out of this crap one day, having seen just how horrible and destructive it really is, I'll happily have drink with you and resume our friendship as if nothing had ever happened. I promise you.

6
 BnB 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Yes, I'm going to remain cautiously optimistic. His outrageous abuse of the constitution is going to really focus minds on stopping Johnson and I think that even some brexiteers are going to struggle to stomach his lying and arrogance after this. I am heartened that Hammond and others are now right behind moves to block no deal and will not wait until the 30 days for conjuring up alternative arrangements are up. I think it also makes a successful vote of confidence more likely. There is still all to play for.

> Another thought. I don't think Boris would have taken this step if he was not running scared of being stopped after yesterday's announcement by remain leaders of their intention to do so - he must believe they're in with a chance of success.

I agree with your last point but I think it is an important part of their plan for Boris and his backers to be forced into an election, if one is to be held before Brexit. In that sense, whatever measures might succeed in blocking an exit still play into Boris' hands.

As for the chances of a vote of no-confidence (VONC) succeeding, can someone with more understanding of parliamentary procedure help out? Corbyn is the problem as I see it. He's manoeuvred the forces of Remain that exist beyond the Labour party into a tight spot. If the Greens and Liberals back a Corbyn-led government of national unity, they install him as the saviour of Remain, potentially wiping out their best chance of progress in a generation. If they don't back him, then they can be portrayed as greedy politicians putting career before principle. What are the chances of two VONCs,? A defeat for Corbyn's immediately followed by victory for, well, who's? As I understand it, any MP can introduce a VONC, but only the leader of the opposition can expect to be heard. Is this where Bercow makes a big play?

Post edited at 07:58
 john arran 29 Aug 2019
In reply to BnB:

> As for the chances of a vote of no-confidence (VONC) succeeding, can someone with more understanding of parliamentary procedure help out? Corbyn is the problem as I see it. He's manoeuvred the forces of Remain that exist beyond the Labour party into a tight spot. If the Greens and Liberals back a Corbyn-led government of national unity, they install him as the saviour of Remain, potentially wiping out their best chance of progress in a generation. If they don't back him, then they can be portrayed as greedy politicians putting career before principle. What are the chances of two VONCs,? A defeat for Corbyn's immediately followed by victory for, well, who's? Can anyone shed light on the procedures?

I see the problem with Greens and Liberals supporting Corbyn not as risking him being viewed as "the saviour of Remain", but rather as (potentially fatally) weakening the chances of such a move being successful as it would require disaffected Tories to vote for what they no doubt see as the most objectionable opposition leader in a generation.

I think pretty much any other Remain figure would have more chance of succeeding, particularly if it was clear they don't harbour personal leadership ambitions beyond the immediate crisis. But getting Corbyn to agree to a non-Corbyn GNU leader appears to be about as hard as getting him to make any clear and unambiguous statement on his party's support for Remain.

 Dr.S at work 29 Aug 2019
In reply to BnB:

Re Bercow - obviously he holds a lot of power, but he has to play his cards very carefully - too far outside the scope of the letter of the law and his actions could be open to legal challenge.

The same may be said of proroguing - it seems to me to be strictly speaking legal, so very hard to challenge in the courts - hence canny play by Blo Jo unless it pushes his opponents to MONC success.

 Sir Chasm 29 Aug 2019
In reply to BnB:

> I agree with your last point but I think it is an important part of their plan for Boris and his backers to be forced into an election, if one is to be held before Brexit. In that sense, whatever measures might succeed in blocking an exit still play into Boris' hands.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that that is the plan. Yesterday Peston posted  "A number 10 source told me: “If MPs pass a no confidence vote next week, then we'll stay in No10, we won't recommend any alternative government,...". So who is going to call an election? Boris could call one, but he'd need 66% of MPs to agree. Or an alternative government could call one. But that would need a vonc called on 3/9 and lost on 4/9, and then for an alternative government to be ready immediately, and who's going to lead it? 

> As for the chances of a vote of no-confidence (VONC) succeeding, can someone with more understanding of parliamentary procedure help out? Corbyn is the problem as I see it. He's manoeuvred the forces of Remain that exist beyond the Labour party into a tight spot. If the Greens and Liberals back a Corbyn-led government of national unity, they install him as the saviour of Remain, potentially wiping out their best chance of progress in a generation. If they don't back him, then they can be portrayed as greedy politicians putting career before principle. What are the chances of two VONCs,? A defeat for Corbyn's immediately followed by victory for, well, who's? As I understand it, any MP can introduce a VONC, but only the leader of the opposition can expect to be heard. Is this where Bercow makes a big play?

There is precious little time to do any of that, the last day for a GE before brexit would be 25(?) October, and that assumes a vonc is passed first time and a new government is formed after the 14 days are up. 

 BnB 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> There is precious little time to do any of that, the last day for a GE before brexit would be 25(?) October, and that assumes a vonc is passed first time and a new government is formed after the 14 days are up. 

A temporary govt would postpone Brexit so a general election could take place after October. The question is, can a new govt be formed?

 Sir Chasm 29 Aug 2019
In reply to BnB:

> A temporary govt would postpone Brexit so a general election could take place after October. The question is, can a new govt be formed?

It's one question, it isn't the question. Before you get to it there's the question of whether a vonc would be lost by Boris. And the question of how long it takes. And if Boris did lose a vonc whether that takes precedence over the prorogation of parliament. Not to mention that a new government can't merely "postpone Brexit".

 subtle 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> I'll talk about this just once. You are the one who's caused this sad personal rift. I've always remained my same gentle centrist self (no one could ever describe me as a socialist), not very political, but now fighting for the survival of everything I've always liked about my country. I hate what you now stand for. It's really been an accumulative drip-drip thing until it's reached a point that's become intolerable for me. I remember my brother asking me about a year ago 'just who is this creepy pmp you seem so friendly with? Why do you keep talking to him?' I said, well, he's an old friend. And I've hung in ever since. Bear in mind that I always try to be loyal with my friendships, but I really can't see how you expect me to support you in the creation of this huge pile of neo-fascist shit. The problem has come from you. If you snap out of this crap one day, having seen just how horrible and destructive it really is, I'll happily have drink with you and resume our friendship as if nothing had ever happened. I promise you.

Gordon, whilst I agree (mainly) with your views, and am staunchly pro remain, I do find this approach outlined above quite bizarre - almost ostrich like with you just burying head in the sand instead of continuing sensible discourse - just saying like, no offence to either party meant

Post edited at 09:14
 steve taylor 29 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

> A legal challenge for the loss of 4 days of parliamentary time??? I think time would be better spent elsewhere for those who oppose a no deal. 

I think the parties should be looking at cancelling their party conferences!

In reply to Dr.S at work:

"Re Bercow - obviously he holds a lot of power, but he has to play his cards very carefully - too far outside the scope of the letter of the law and his actions could be open to legal challenge."

Bercow rides as roughshod as Boris to be fair, he is meant to be impartial but doesn't appear to be..

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/03/13/john-bercow-faces-backlash-...

3
 jkarran 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> The same may be said of proroguing - it seems to me to be strictly speaking legal, so very hard to challenge in the courts - hence canny play by Blo Jo unless it pushes his opponents to MONC success.

He needs an election soon one way or another. Even with a MONC he retains a lot of control over timing which will be critical to his winning a majority. The risk to a Halloween brexit (therefore any brexit and Johnson's legacy) is the opposition get their act together and propose an alternative government which can command a majority, alas Corbyn is a clear blockage there without an obvious bypass and there is as I understand it the chance Johnson just brazens this out refusing to present MP's the opportunity to vote on a motion of confidence. A MONC in the coming week would see parliament porogued before Johnson's 14 days to secure a new majority were up meaning the opposition wouldn't get the chance to propose an alternative anyway unless at the gift of Johnson which won't happen because this is all about running the clock down to force parliament's hand.

Brexit is now unstoppable, the opposition has been outplayed. We'll have to find a way to live with the consequences of that being forced on an unwilling parliament and electorate for a long time to come.

The interesting thing is who's still cheering for it. Most are assuming this is a headlong charge for no-deal but I don't think it is, it never was (though that may result), it looks to me like Johnson is setting up to screw both tory hardliners/cabinet and the opposition (by forcing them to support or oppose it against a certain crash, both deadly toxic) by presenting them with May's WA, tweaked or not.

jk

1
 summo 29 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

There is an election coming, unless Boris gets the deal of century this stunt will have cost him votes. It would be wise for the lib dems to not be too affiliated with Brexiteer Corbyn as there will likely be floating voters around. Yes you'll claim he's not a Brexiteer, but he's canny with his wording he'll campaign against 'No deal', he never says he is pro staying in. 

Either way, the Tories will lose votes and hopefully the lib dems can secure enough to keep Corbyn out of power. 

Ps. I bet Corbyn really wishes he had sung the national anthem and hadn't been so anti monarchy. 

4
 Rob Exile Ward 29 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

Sadly the WA looks like the best outcome we could realistically hope for at the moment, I'm not sure you're correct though. I think you may be overstating Johnson's cunning and under-estimating the toxic influence of Cummings. These people don't mind breaking things, they've never grown out of that toddler stage when you find that it's a lot easier and more fun to break things than it is to create them. 

In reply to George Ormerod:

> It's not just an extra 4 days - proroguing for the longest time since 1945 removes the option of parties cancelling or shortening their conferences (as they probably should) to dedicate more parliamentary time to address this crisis.

Exactly. It’s interesting that even Rees-Mogg has started with the outright lies now he’s in government. Previously he usually stuck to nonsense as opposed to falsehood, at least as far as I noticed. It’s just like Trump and the Republicans; the fish rots from the head.

jcm

1
 neilh 29 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

Of course there is an election coming. He needs a better workable majority than he has at the moment. 

OP Trevers 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Pete Pozman:

You actually had me there for a few brief moments!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Yes, and lying blatantly about it isn't a good look

Presumably it’s better than the alternative look of ‘we’re doing it in order to prevent parliamentary debate and scrutiny because we fear that our policy does not command a majority in Parliament’

jcm

In reply to jkarran:

" Most are assuming this is a headlong charge for no-deal but I don't think it is, it never was (though that may result), it looks to me like Johnson is setting up to screw both tory hardliners/cabinet and the opposition (by forcing them to support or oppose it against a certain crash, both deadly toxic) by presenting them with May's WA, tweaked or not."

Isn't it possible it's turning the screw on the EU by trying to remove the resistance to no deal in parliament? Whether they take any notice or not I have no idea, but as a negotiation tactic, if you believe the EU will be more accommodating to avoid no deal, it makes sense. It's clearly a high risk strategy though.

1
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Might those voters he's trying to buy with his spending pledges on public services be put off by displaying utter contempt for their intelligence? Who knows...

I wouldn’t have thought so. Contempt for the public’s intelligence is usually a winning strategy. Simple lies for simple people. It worked last time.

jcm

1
 jkarran 29 Aug 2019
In reply to summo:

> There is an election coming, unless Boris gets the deal of century this stunt will have cost him votes. It would be wise for the lib dems to not be too affiliated with Brexiteer Corbyn as there will likely be floating voters around.

I wouldn't be so sure, there is a big bloc of votes currently waiting to be taken from Farage by removing his raison d'etra, leaving the EU and there won't be many moderate small c conservatives left voting for the Conservatives to be repulsed by this new obscenity and lost, it has long since become a a party of right wing revolution.

> Yes you'll claim he's not a Brexiteer, but he's canny with his wording he'll campaign against 'No deal', he never says he is pro staying in. 

Corbyn is a useless tw*t but his personal views on brexit hardly matter at the moment.

> Either way, the Tories will lose votes and hopefully the lib dems can secure enough to keep Corbyn out of power. 

The tories will win an election this year, brexit presenting them with the opportunity and an excuse to complete Thatcher's work thanks in large part to people like you with bees in your bonnet about bent bananas and Strasbourg.

> Ps. I bet Corbyn really wishes he had sung the national anthem and hadn't been so anti monarchy. 

Don't be such a wally.

jk

Post edited at 10:38
2
 elsewhere 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I don't get the impression the EU is feeling pressured or thinks the UK is offering anything significant enough for reopening negotiations. 

baron 29 Aug 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Does your ‘simple lies for simple people’ refer to the leave campaign?

1
In reply to elsewhere:

Fair enough, I have no idea how they are viewing it or what, if anything will be their response. 

 jkarran 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Sadly the WA looks like the best outcome we could realistically hope for at the moment, I'm not sure you're correct though. I think you may be overstating Johnson's cunning and under-estimating the toxic influence of Cummings.

We shouldn't underestimate the competence or ruthlessness of Johnson's team, this will have been gamed through countless times, calculated to the hour to close off every possible option open to the opposition/rebels.

The question remains is he willing to screw over half his cabinet and backers by railroading May's deal through parliament in late October to secure his legacy. I think he will and I think some of them will reluctantly be dragged along with him, lured by the opportunity to trap the opposition into sharing the blame the brexit architects will bear when the negative consequences of leaving play out.

I don't think the voting public, not the fraction that matter anyway, give a toss about Cummings. We've moved into a polarised situation like that which supports Trump, an unshakable minority propping him up against divided majority opposition. The remaining brexit vote at ~45% of the electorate could deliver Johnson a landslide to rival Blair's *if* he can regain his share of it from Farage. That it's still a minority of the population doesn't really matter, this is not a government interested in the national interest or national unity. Divide and conquer, the lessons of empire won't have been lost on these nostalgia and plunder fuelled opportunist spivs.

jk

Post edited at 10:56
1
In reply to baron:

> Does your ‘simple lies for simple people’ refer to the leave campaign?

Yes, of course.

jcm

1
 jkarran 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Isn't it possible it's turning the screw on the EU by trying to remove the resistance to no deal in parliament? Whether they take any notice or not I have no idea, but as a negotiation tactic, if you believe the EU will be more accommodating to avoid no deal, it makes sense. It's clearly a high risk strategy though.

I don't think so, the EU really have nowhere to move on this that doesn't threaten the stability of the union, Johnson's team aren't stupid, they know that.

jk

1
 AllanMac 29 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

" if people are really interested in my views then they can read the many threads that I’ve contributed to."

Given that this thread is more of an in-the-moment discussion than a protracted research project, what advice would you give to someone who may not have the time/inclination to trawl through your posting history to find your views on the subject? 

1
baron 29 Aug 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Yes, of course.

> jcm

So would I be right in inferring that the remain campaign was the truth for intelligent people?

If so, shouldn’t remain have won?

baron 29 Aug 2019
In reply to AllanMac:

> " if people are really interested in my views then they can read the many threads that I’ve contributed to."

> Given that this thread is more of an in-the-moment discussion than a protracted research project, what advice would you give to someone who may not have the time/inclination to trawl through your posting history to find your views on the subject? 

See my post of 11.09 Wednesday.

In reply to baron:

> So would I be right in inferring that the remain campaign was the truth for intelligent people?

> If so, shouldn’t remain have won?

youtube.com/watch?v=SFjfbL1KWNI&

Always worth remembering how stupid some people are. 

1
 Dr.S at work 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> "Re Bercow - obviously he holds a lot of power, but he has to play his cards very carefully - too far outside the scope of the letter of the law and his actions could be open to legal challenge."

> Bercow rides as roughshod as Boris to be fair, he is meant to be impartial but doesn't appear to be..

indeed - both sides are pushing the envelope, and must be careful that it does not rip too much.

 David Myatt 29 Aug 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

In 2014 I campaigned hard for Scotland to stay in the UK. Brexit reverses most of the reasons I had then. Next time, if there is one, I will campaign and vote for Scottish ndependence.

David

In reply to baron:

> So would I be right in inferring that the remain campaign was the truth for intelligent people?

Not particularly, no - both sides naturally sought to appeal mainly to simple people, as they form the majority of the electorate. Remain didn’t do it well enough.

> If so, shouldn’t remain have won?

Not sure what you mean by ‘should’ - clearly remain winning would have been a far better outcome both for humanity and for our nation and therefore it ‘should’ have won in that sense, but winning the majority support of the educated and informed (as remain did) is seldom enough to win any popular vote.

jcm

2
baron 29 Aug 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

It’s a pity then that the simple people were so easily persuaded by lies rather than the truth and the experience of living within the EU.

In reply to baron:

It’s a great pity, indeed. Someone post the Barnsley Racist for baron again.

jcm

1
 john arran 29 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> It’s a pity then that the simple people were so easily persuaded by lies rather than the truth and the experience of living within the EU.

Finally we got there!

1
baron 29 Aug 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Yes, obviously a perfect example of your typical Brexit supporter.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

"...but winning the majority support of the educated and informed (as remain did) is seldom enough to win any popular vote."

I wonder if that explains why there has been a very muted response. Lots of outrage online and petition signing but not many yellow vest demos and self immolators.  The cushty middle class lifestyle of the well educated and informed is clearly not fertile ground for civil disobedience. The poor thickos are much better at it

Post edited at 12:20
 jkarran 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> I wonder if that explains why there has been a very muted response. Lots of outrage online and petition signing but not many yellow vest demos and self immolators.  The cushty middle class lifestyle of the well educated and informed is clearly not fertile ground for civil disobedience. The poor thickos are much better at it

Another person confusing civil disobedience with violent disorder. Weird eh, a cynic might wonder if someone somewhere isn't deliberately pushing that idea, manufacturing a false equivalence.

I'd image Scandalised of Remainland it sat fuming at his or her desk, maybe penning an angry letter to their MP or local rag in the lunch break. You'll get to see them at the weekend except of course you won't, most of the papers won't deign to notice unless someone knocks a bin over then we'll get a colour pull out special on "Remainer terror and the hidden enemy within!"

jk

Post edited at 12:39
2
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Meanwhile the icecaps carry on melting

In reply to baron:

> Yes, obviously a perfect example of your typical Brexit supporter.

How else do you account for the chap from Barnsley? 

1
In reply to jkarran:

Me? Confused? lol 

Is there going to be a big demo this weekend? You would expect so to back up all the outrage online. Are you going to demo anywhere? 

Edit - the lol is me laughing at myself because I do find a lot of this very perplexing

Post edited at 12:53
 jkarran 29 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> Yes, obviously a perfect example of your typical Brexit supporter.

I talked to far too many pricks like that, he's certainly not atypical!

Also to be fair, the only one of your stated brexit hopes that is realistically deliverable (mainly by economic decline) is nett immigration reduction so on that you and he agree. I presume unlike Barnsley man you don't care that the immigrants who do come will be significantly more brown, less Christian and less socially integrated as a direct result of brexit.

jk

Post edited at 12:57
1
In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:

> Meanwhile the icecaps carry on melting

Which is one of the main reasons nations need to abandon outdated notions of sovverinty and bind themselves to act together and accept collective decisions, of course. It’s no coincidence that climate change deniers and petrolheads are generally leavers.

jcm

 jkarran 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Me? Confused? lol 

Confused, disingenuous... who knows, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

> Is there going to be a big demo this weekend? You would expect so to back up all the outrage online. Are you going to demo anywhere? 

No doubt there will be in London but I can't make it. There'll be one in most cities I'd have thought, probably not huge given the short notice, there's certainly one in York which I'll attend if I can. It's not worth much but this abuse can't go unmarked.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

> I talked to far too many pricks like that, he's certainly not atypical!

> Also to be fair, the only one of your stated brexit hopes that is realistically deliverable (mainly by economic decline) is nett immigration reduction so on that you agree. I presume unlike Barnsley man you don't care that the immigrants who do come will be significantly more brown, less Christian and less socially integrated as a direct result of brexit.

> jk

What's deeply upsetting and equally baffling is that Leave won by the inclusion of votes by people like Barnsley man and, it would seem, intelligent Leavers are happy about that (since they won). It reminds me of that Hand of God goal by Maradona, a tainted win. Is that really what Leavers want? A win at any cost? 

1
 Robert Durran 29 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> It’s a pity then that the simple people were so easily persuaded by lies rather than the truth and the experience of living within the EU.

They were persuaded by decades and distortions from the gutter press over several decades. The remain campaign campaign was really up against it reversing such ingrained  false beliefs. All the leave campaign had to do was reinforce them with more lies.

1
 Bob Kemp 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

It's not baffling if you consider that a proportion of voters increasingly behave like fans. As in that Irish case, fans just don't care how their team win, so long as they win. There was an interesting FT article about this if you want to pursue this - 

Trumpsters, Corbynistas and the rise of the political fan

https://www.ft.com/content/a46fa5b6-6c17-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa

(If you can't get through the paywall, search for the title via Google. Should let you in...)

Post edited at 13:11
 fred99 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> What's deeply upsetting .... a tainted win. Is that really what Leavers want? A win at any cost? 

When you consider the number of illegal activities by their adherents, why do you even bother to ask such a question ?

1
baron 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> How else do you account for the chap from Barnsley? 

He’s a racist dickhead.

Are you seriously suggesting that he’s anything other than an example of a tiny minority of the 17 million people who voted leave?

If you are then you’re seriously wrong.

baron 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> What's deeply upsetting and equally baffling is that Leave won by the inclusion of votes by people like Barnsley man and, it would seem, intelligent Leavers are happy about that (since they won). It reminds me of that Hand of God goal by Maradona, a tainted win. Is that really what Leavers want? A win at any cost? 

Most leavers are probably disgusted by Barnsley man’s behaviour.

That he is probably, no definitely, a leave voter doesn’t alter the referendum result unless we are going to prevent people voting because we disagree with their views.

 MG 29 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

He's a slightly extreme example.  However the general mindset of England (yes) good, foreign bad, is typical.

1
baron 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> They were persuaded by decades and distortions from the gutter press over several decades. The remain campaign campaign was really up against it reversing such ingrained  false beliefs. All the leave campaign had to do was reinforce them with more lies.

Was it really that easy?

If so then you might as well give up any hope of remaining in the EU.

 jkarran 29 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> He’s a racist dickhead.

Yes. One of many.

> Are you seriously suggesting that he’s anything other than an example of a tiny minority of the 17 million people who voted leave? If you are then you’re seriously wrong.

It really isn't a tiny minority view. It was depressingly common, not a majority by any stretch but his views were well and truly mainstream in 2016 Britain. Ironically brexit and the aftermath actually softened attitudes to immigration on average but I doubt that made much dent at the extremes.

jk

Post edited at 13:34
1
baron 29 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> He's a slightly extreme example.  However the general mindset of England (yes) good, foreign bad, is typical.

A slightly extreme example?

He’s an out and out racist nut job.

There might be a large amount of racial prejudice in the UK, as in people having an inbred feeling of unease about foreigners but there’s a world of difference between having a thought and actually translating that into a racist attack.

1
 Enty 29 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> Most leavers are probably disgusted by Barnsley man’s behaviour.

> That he is probably, no definitely, a leave voter doesn’t alter the referendum result unless we are going to prevent people voting because we disagree with their views.

Really? Go into any pub in East Lancs, Haslingden maybe? You know Haslingden don't you? Or a Witherspoons in Accrington and I can assure you that Barnsley guy is definitely on his own.

E

Post edited at 13:41
1
 jkarran 29 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> He’s an out and out racist nut job.

> There might be a large amount of racial prejudice in the UK, as in people having an inbred feeling of unease about foreigners but there’s a world of difference between having a thought and actually translating that into a racist attack.

This is very confusing. You say Barnsley man is a 'racist nut' but also imply people who fear or hate but do not actually attack others with racial motive are not racists. By that measure Barnsley man is surely not a racist nut, he doesn't attack anyone, he's just someone expressing his legitimate inbred (sic) views. Or is he a racist because he was captured expressing the view, Shrodinger's racist if you will, simultaneously both racist and not racist until the camera captured him being a racist?

jk

1
In reply to jkarran:

"simultaneously both racist and not racist until the camera captured him being a racist?"

The remain side have Jeremy Clarkson

1
baron 29 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

You make it sound like I’m trying to defend Barnsley man.

I’m not.

His actions are deplorable.

However, it is perfectly possible to be racially prejudiced and not be a racist.

As Enty said in his previous post there are areas of the UK where racist views, comments and actions are widespread and the norm.

If you grow up in one of these areas then being exposed to such beliefs must have an influence on you.

You become racially prejudiced.

What you choose to do with those beliefs is the difference between being racially prejudiced and a racist.

You can probably say the same for older generations who were brought up in an era when racism was far more acceptable. Do they go around shouting abuse at Black people, graffitiing on synagogues or beating up Asians?

The Barnsley man is guilty of a racist assault, you don’t actually have to hit someone to assault them, and he should be prosecuted for his actions.

 krikoman 29 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> It’s a pity then that the simple people were so easily persuaded by lies rather than the truth and the experience of living within the EU.


You mean like "£350 million a week for the NHS" type stuff?

You're right it is a pity.

1
 krikoman 29 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> He's a slightly extreme example.  However the general mindset of England (yes) good, foreign bad, is typical.


Sadly, a very common one.

A recent exapmle, froma german owned UK car plant,

"What do we need Europe for?"

"You job, maybe, most of these cars go for export, you know?"

"Fuck the lot of them, fucking German's think they own the country. The sooner we're out the better."

The mind boggles! This is a bloke who has a villa in Bulgaria that he rents out.

Post edited at 14:06
baron 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Enty:

> Really? Go into any pub in East Lancs, Haslingden maybe? You know Haslingden don't you? Or a Witherspoons in Accrington and I can assure you that Barnsley guy is definitely on his own.

> E

There are undoubtedly many racists in the UK.

Most probably voted leave.

Even in the areas you mentioned I hope you’re not saying that all the residents are racist?

I stand and by my comment that most leavers aren’t racist.

I’m from Birkenhead, home of the white supremacist dickhead and I know a racist when I see one.

In reply to baron:

> Most leavers are probably disgusted by Barnsley man’s behaviour.

Unfortunately a good proportion aren't. I live nearby and visit Barnsley fairly regularly with work. 70% Leave and his opinion is repeated often and proudly. It doesn't help that we're so proximal to Rotherham and the grooming case which was conveniently conflated by a nasty element to skew the thinking and embolden people like Barnsley man. 

> That he is probably, no definitely, a leave voter

He states that's why he voted Leave which is why the reporter has to repeat the question. 

>... doesn’t alter the referendum result

Except it very much does.

> unless we are going to prevent people voting because we disagree with their views.

Of course not. But his vote and others like him, are based on a nasty misapprehension of what the referendum was actually about. His view shouldn't count. This is why, as a Remain voter, I am so angry. 

1
 jkarran 29 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> You make it sound like I’m trying to defend Barnsley man.

Well credit where it's due you started out very clear, but if you rigorously apply the latter part of your argument to the man in the former it's hard to see how you came to the conclusion he's a 'racist nut'.

> The Barnsley man is guilty of a racist assault, you don’t actually have to hit someone to assault them, and he should be prosecuted for his actions.

This man (the first one), he commits a racist assault? Do you mean subsequently? His only crime in this video is against reason!

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/eu-referendum-muslims_uk_576e558ce4b...

Or perhaps we're talking about a different person.

jk

1
 Pete Pozman 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

As long de Pfeffel stays on message he'll be able to swing that "cunning" schtick. He's not cunning though, is he? He's just a liar. Make no mistake it's Cummings running this show. Right now he's like a ferret in a hen house. We're all at his mercy and I have absolutely no idea what he's going to do with all that power. 

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Does he need that much power when he's up against this?

(from this morning)

"Ken Clarke confessed this morning when asked how anti-Brexit MPs should respond, he wasn’t really sure because he’d been on holiday and thus not fully keeping up with events."

OP Trevers 29 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> No doubt there will be in London but I can't make it. There'll be one in most cities I'd have thought, probably not huge given the short notice, there's certainly one in York which I'll attend if I can. It's not worth much but this abuse can't go unmarked.

We had an impromptu demo in Bristol yesterday evening. Nobody seemed to know who'd organised it, most were there in the vague hope something might happen. We eventually ended up with a couple of hundred people in the pissing rain, marching and chanting and cheering the passing cars and buses that honked their horns. One chap jumped up on a park bench and made an off-the-cuff speech because it seemed like a speech was required. Another organised a follow up protest for Saturday on the spot.

It was real, grassroots democracy in action and a wonderfully British affair.

 Pete Pozman 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Maybe all the hens saying "please bite my head off" will confuse him. 

 Robert Durran 29 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> Was it really that easy?

> If so then you might as well give up any hope of remaining in the EU.

The remain side will not be anything like as complacent in a second referendum, and the leave side's lies have been exposed for all to see.

Post edited at 15:50
1
 RomTheBear 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> " Most are assuming this is a headlong charge for no-deal but I don't think it is, it never was (though that may result), it looks to me like Johnson is setting up to screw both tory hardliners/cabinet and the opposition (by forcing them to support or oppose it against a certain crash, both deadly toxic) by presenting them with May's WA, tweaked or not."

> Isn't it possible it's turning the screw on the EU by trying to remove the resistance to no deal in parliament? Whether they take any notice or not I have no idea, but as a negotiation tactic, if you believe the EU will be more accommodating to avoid no deal, it makes sense. It's clearly a high risk strategy though.

All of these talks about “which games is being played” are just examples of the narrative fallacy IMO. People make up a story that fits their hopes and/or delusions.

I suspect that in fact even BJ doesn’t have any clue as to what’s he’s doing. Or maybe he thinks he does, but actually doesn’t. The situation is and was always highly unpredictable.

That’s where the moderates have gone wrong, for three years they came up with rubbish explanations as to why no-deal would not happen, and didn’t do the sensible thing: vote the WA to keep options open. They didn’t do that and now they are stuck on a highway with few if no exits.

1
 neilh 29 Aug 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

Agreed

 jkarran 29 Aug 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> All of these talks about “which games is being played” are just examples of the narrative fallacy IMO. People make up a story that fits their hopes and/or delusions.

I'm not sure any of this fits my hopes! I do wonder about delusion, very hard to detect from the inside.

> I suspect that in fact even BJ doesn’t have any clue as to what’s he’s doing. Or maybe he thinks he does, but actually doesn’t. The situation is and was always highly unpredictable.

I'm sure he has an idea, doubtless different to Cummings' idea, everyone has their own narrative however messy and imperfect. At best where they can be discerned they indicate a likely direction of travel at any given moment but we can be wrong, they can be deceptive or nuts and things change. Still, we can't work on the assumption it's all just rudderless chaos, a random barely connected set of loosely interacting events, even if on average it pans out that way.

> That’s where the moderates have gone wrong, for three years they came up with rubbish explanations as to why no-deal would not happen, and didn’t do the sensible thing: vote the WA to keep options open. They didn’t do that and now they are stuck on a highway with few if no exits.

The WA doesn't keep the remain option open. Let's be honest, there is currently no hope of rejoining once we leave, in the immediate aftermath the anti-EU sentiment (mirrored across the channel no doubt) and the concessions which would be required will make it impossible and as our new relationships and regulations emerge we get onto a ratchet, each step forward adding significant cost to the path back.

I'll bet you a pint Johnson has a shot at passing May's WA before Halloween.

jk

Post edited at 16:27
OP Trevers 29 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> I'll bet you a pint Johnson has a shot at passing May's WA before Halloween.

I can't see that this is really the plan. He's escalated things to such an extent that any attempt to bring back the WA would be met with howls of betrayal. With yesterday's move he's shut out the BXP - Farage's foaming-from-the-mouth voters love this sort of dictatorship crap. If he were to renege and go for the deal, he'd be handing Farage a nuclear payload's worth of ammunition.

Pan Ron 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> How can one not be emotional when one is seeing our parliamentary democracy (and now, almost certainly, our once-United Kingdom) being smashed up? That's a rhetorical question, because I won't be answering you on this, or any other Brexit-related threads now, sorry. You've crossed the line.

A lot of people on the Brexit side see democracy and the country being "smashed up" by the Brexit referendum not being acted on.  In the last week some Remainers dedicated themselves to do so "by any means necessary" and I wouldn't be at all surprised if suspending parliament entered the Remain playbook too.  

Can you see that Brexiteers might be pretty emotional about this too?  About three years of zero-action and their elected representatives, either through intent or incompetence, ensuring no option but Remain is on the table?  And all along being told anything up to and including Armageddon will ensue if their wishes are acted upon.

8
 RomTheBear 29 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> I'm not sure any of this fits my hopes! I do wonder about delusion, very hard to detect from the inside.

> Still, we can't work on the assumption it's all just rudderless chaos, a random barely connected set of loosely interacting events, even if on average it pans out that way.

I disagree, that’s exactly the assumption you should be working on.

> The WA doesn't keep the remain option open.

Actually, it would have kept that open as well. More so that no deal anyway.

 The New NickB 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Can you see that Brexiteers might be pretty emotional about this too?  About three years of zero-action and their elected representatives, either through intent or incompetence, ensuring no option but Remain is on the table?  And all along being told anything up to and including Armageddon will ensue if their wishes are acted upon.

They may be telling themselves this, but anyone with even the most basic understanding of what has been happening for the last three years knows that it is utter bollocks.

Post edited at 17:15
2
 French Erick 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Enty:

> I cannot imagine what it must feel like to be a Scottish European having people like Johnson and Gove take away your freedom of movement in this way. It must be a horrible feeling.

> An independent Scotland still in the EU would be a no-brainer for me.

> E

Very unpleasant indeed. It has its silver lining however. It gave me the impetus needed to become British so that now my views cannot be completely ignored...just slightly pushed to the side because it is only 1 out of 5millions (at best if all Scottish residents agreed) against a vast number of people in England who hold their own, and valid views, hence the need for a split of the Union.

Scottish independance will be difficult, but I am ready to work hard for it so that my children do not have to deal with the consequences of the seemingly dominating ideologies south of the borders.

Sorry England but you have lost all appeal for me. Pity you have great crags, great cheese and a quirky but often endearing mentality. The quirkiness has gone too far and I would rather we do not mingle anymore than we must now.

Now there is lot of work to make the Scottish project function. I fear that we, north of the borders, need to harden ourselves somehow- there's financial stress, and administrative hardships ahead as RogerW has pointed out. Or indeed, some decidedly English leavers have also stated  (Baron...).

To Baron, I often disagree with your ideas and interpretations. However, you are entitled to your opinions so long as they are not immoral (I haven't ever read one that was either). You often have good arguments that you present in a way that suit your arguments. We all do. I wish you well in your indepedent England. I hope that, were the need arise and you would need help, and were I able to provide that help safely, I would not sneeringly ignore you and vice-versa.

OP Trevers 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> A lot of people on the Brexit side see democracy and the country being "smashed up" by the Brexit referendum not being acted on.  In the last week some Remainers dedicated themselves to do so "by any means necessary" and I wouldn't be at all surprised if suspending parliament entered the Remain playbook too.  

The 2016 referendum was not democracy by any but the most childishly vague definitions. There's no moral or constitutional duty for MPs to enact the result. In fact, it's not even remotely clear what enacting the result even means. You are aware of all the arguments as to why, aren't you? They've been repeated on UKC ad infinitum for three years now.

> Can you see that Brexiteers might be pretty emotional about this too? 

I can. But I think if I'd voted leave, my anger would be towards those who promised the impossible. Between the disappointment of those who aren't getting what they wanted, and the disappointment of those whose family members might get kicked out of the country or who might die because their access to medication is suddenly cut off, I think there's objectively no balance.

3
 jkarran 29 Aug 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I disagree, that’s exactly the assumption you should be working on.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I don't suppose you win much chess by assuming your opponent's actions are random or all reactive. 

> Actually, it would have kept that open as well. More so that no deal anyway.

OK, explain.

Jk

 jkarran 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

> I can't see that this is really the plan. He's escalated things to such an extent that any attempt to bring back the WA would be met with howls of betrayal. With yesterday's move he's shut out the BXP - Farage's foaming-from-the-mouth voters love this sort of dictatorship crap. If he were to renege and go for the deal, he'd be handing Farage a nuclear payload's worth of ammunition.

Like the howls of betrayal he's getting today he's none too sensitive to? 

Sure, signing the WA doesn't fully neutralise Farage but it delivers brexit which goes a good way toward doing so. In the process he'll destroy Labour's credibility, possibly even the LibDems by forcing them or more likely some of their MPs to back 'brexit' as least worst option. If that backfires the opposition still carry the can for no deal, they'd have effectively just voted for it after all! 

Jk

OP Trevers 29 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Like the howls of betrayal he's getting today he's none too sensitive to? 

> Sure, signing the WA doesn't fully neutralise Farage but it delivers brexit which goes a good way toward doing so. In the process he'll destroy Labour's credibility, possibly even the LibDems by forcing them or more likely some of their MPs to back 'brexit' as least worst option. If that backfires the opposition still carry the can for no deal, they'd have effectively just voted for it after all! 

I'm not convinced by this argument. Farage has stated that no-deal is the only acceptable outcome (for him) and I think the majority of Tory/BXP voters would agree with that. By going back for the WA, he'd lose them to Farage. Remainers and anyone to the left of centre-right despise him. I think he'd be completely isolated.

 Andy Hardy 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> A lot of people on the Brexit side see democracy and the country being "smashed up" by the Brexit referendum not being acted on.  In the last week some Remainers dedicated themselves to do so "by any means necessary" and I wouldn't be at all surprised if suspending parliament entered the Remain playbook too.  

> Can you see that Brexiteers might be pretty emotional about this too?  About three years of zero-action and their elected representatives, either through intent or incompetence, ensuring no option but Remain is on the table?  And all along being told anything up to and including Armageddon will ensue if their wishes are acted upon.


Due to A50 being triggered before agreeing what sort of brexit had been voted for.

 RomTheBear 29 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I don't suppose you win much chess by assuming your opponent's actions are random or all reactive. 

It would be nice if it was a deterministic game of chess. But it isn’t, at all.

If it was a game of chess, it would be one where some pieces are shuffled randomly without notice, the rules can be altered at any time, and indeed the opponent is nuts.

In such a game there is absolutely no point trying to calculate the moves ahead. Instead your only strategy should be to protect your king as much as possible and wait for something bad to happen to your opponent.

That’s exactly what the leave side did and what the remain side didn’t do. Remainers MPs should have protected themselves against no-deal at the earliest opportunity.

I’ve been barking at that tree for two years and every time I’ve been told I was “crazy”, “pessimistic” or “hysteric” for even suggesting a no-deal outcome. Now look where we are.

> OK, explain.

Well with the WA you had a transition period of two years during which you would have been inside the EU for all practical purposes.

>

Post edited at 17:37
1
 Oceanrower 29 Aug 2019
In reply to French Erick:

Forgive me if I'm rambling here but I'm just putting thoughts down.

If you've gained British citizenship then, I assume, you have a British passport (as there's no such thing (yet!) as a Scottish one). I'm also assuming from your user name that you're French. I'm further assuming from your post that you live in Scotland.

If, eventually, Scotland breaks away from the UK and becomes an independent country and, furthermore, joins the EU then you as a Scottish person with a UK passport can have a EU passport with all that entails. This, I take it, with no Scottish descendancy but based purely on residency?

If so, what happens if I (English, UK passport) move to Scotland?

I'm confused...

 john arran 29 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> However, it is perfectly possible to be racially prejudiced and not be a racist.

I understand what you're trying to say, and I agree with what I think is your sentiment, but I can't let that one pass. The very definition of racial prejudice is that your behaviour or opinions differs depending on the race of others rather than their character or other characteristics. It literally means that you've to some extent already made up your mind in advance of making an unbiased assessment and race was a factor in the decisions you have arrived at. 

I accept that everyone, me included, has varying degrees of historical cultural baggage that often makes us more ready to question the actions or motives of different groups in society, including those of a different race. But to question is not to judge. And if, having questioned and found your instinct to be misguided, you then act in an essentially non-racist manner, you cannot be be considered to be prejudiced, because you have not judged differently according to race. If, having questioned, you still feel it's right to treat a person differently for no reason other than their race, you're certainly racially prejudiced, and the word for someone who's racially prejudiced is 'racist'.

1
 rogerwebb 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Forgive me if I'm rambling here but I'm just putting thoughts down.

> If you've gained British citizenship then, I assume, you have a British passport (as there's no such thing (yet!) as a Scottish one). I'm also assuming from your user name that you're French. I'm further assuming from your post that you live in Scotland.

> If, eventually, Scotland breaks away from the UK and becomes an independent country and, furthermore, joins the EU then you as a Scottish person with a UK passport can have a EU passport with all that entails. This, I take it, with no Scottish descendancy but based purely on residency?

> If so, what happens if I (English, UK passport) move to Scotland?

> I'm confused...

That will depend upon the withdrawal agreement... 

(as in the Scottish/rUK one) 

Post edited at 18:11
 seankenny 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>    No, I'm staying out for the same reasons I generally have all this year...

Everyone who bought a ring from Ratner's kept quiet about it after he let on how shit they were, out of simple embarrassment.

1
 Pefa 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

Liz: Boris my dear boy, I need a little favour, if I give my immediate agreement to your roguing of democracy by shutting the peasants talk shop idea we agreed on would you push the announcement forward a few weeks ?

Boris de pffiflfe : aaeaw, ma'am, eehuwa, (more pathetic plagiarism from a sad lifetime of imitating Hugh Grant's bumbling movie characters)oaeao of of course ma'am  gracious, wondrous wonder, smarm, grovel

Liz: Good chap ! Press getting too close to Andy, need a big distraction, could be a knighthood in this for you boy.

Boris de plifffliffle: Grovel, thank you, ma'am,I, I, I, oh aah, oeuah, grovel, brownose, almost injures himself doing an extreme super grovel. 

Post edited at 18:18
 john arran 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

> I'm not convinced by this argument. Farage has stated that no-deal is the only acceptable outcome (for him) and I think the majority of Tory/BXP voters would agree with that. By going back for the WA, he'd lose them to Farage. Remainers and anyone to the left of centre-right despise him. I think he'd be completely isolated.

At this stage the opinion of voters is irrelevant; it's the opinion of MPs that counts. Given a choice between Johnson/May's deal (effectively one and the same) and no-deal, the only reliably predictable votes are those of the ERG to vote for no-deal. That leaves the vast majority of MPs staring down the barrel of no-deal, knowing that virtually everyone will be badly affected, that the livelihoods of large numbers of people will be critically endangered, and that in all likelihood this will lead to some people dying as a result. If by then there no longer is any credible 'positive' outcome possible, the only moral choice for MPs would be to vote for the hugely damaging deal over the catastrophic no-deal. You can be absolutely sure that, if no-deal then were to transpire and shit hits fans, it wouldn't be the ERG MPs that were blamed for not stopping it while they still had chance.

 seankenny 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I don't think May's deal was *that* terrible

Well, it was out of the CU and SM, so a hard Brexit, which was the most damaging we thought we could have before the Tory idiots got to grips with it, making it - by the standards of 2016, when things were a bit saner - a pretty terrible deal.

Keeps the foreigners under control tho, so baron and the millions like him will be chuffed to bits. We trashed our economy, our reputation and our democracy to keep out* Jaroslav! Party on boys!

*By keep out I obviously mean keep in, but with more paperwork for everyone concerned. Sshhhh - don't want them realising it.

Post edited at 18:15
1
 Doug 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Pefa:

odd that you mention Hugh Grant, his views on Johnston have been in the French news today, see eg Hugh Grant invite Boris Johnson à aller «se faire foutre» avec son «gang de branleurs» (http://www.leparisien.fr/international/brexit-hugh-grant-invite-boris-johns... )

but also in several other papers, tv channels etc. I chose le Parisien as they gave an English version of his comments as well as the French translation

 Pefa 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Doug:

Good old Hugh ! He's a top man. 

Pan Ron 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

> The 2016 referendum was not democracy by any but the most childishly vague definitions. There's no moral or constitutional duty for MPs to enact the result. In fact, it's not even remotely clear what enacting the result even means. You are aware of all the arguments as to why, aren't you? They've been repeated on UKC ad infinitum for three years now.

Well aware.  I've made the case repeatedly to Leavers that it was a non-binding referendum.  It pisses me off that so many refuse to acknowledge that.

However, it equally pisses me off that Remainers assume there is no mandate to follow through with Brexit, give the subsequent actions of parliament and the message sent at the time of the referendum (and heard clearly by all Brexiteers) that the outcome would be enacted.  That has weight.  Put yourself in Brexiteer shoes for a bit and imagine how it would feel if the situation was reversed?

In many ways, Remain has a certain benefit in no-deal Brexit being on the cards as it becomes the straw-man to throw the whole thing out.  The original battle, opposing any form of Brexit (my position), is a losing one.  

> I can. But I think if I'd voted leave, my anger would be towards those who promised the impossible.

I don't think they promised the impossible.  I take those scare stories with a massive pinch of salt.  Some form of Brexit, would be possible.  The pain of it may be short-lived (though permanent in terms of the benefits I would lose), and in the medium term there may even be benefits (there are zero benefits if you ask Remainers, which does make me question their arguments).

4
 seankenny 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:


 

> The pain of it may be short-lived (though permanent in terms of the benefits I would lose), and in the medium term there may even be benefits (there are zero benefits if you ask Remainers, which does make me question their arguments).

The one thing we are sure about is that the economic pain - in terms of lost stuff (whether that's NHS operations or cheaper climbing shoes or whatever) - the loses, compared to not Brexiting, are absolutely certain to be long-term. It's actually the short term pain that is questionable, at least it was in 2016. We've seen plenty of it since.

So this common trop that "the pain is probably short term, we'll be okay in the longer term" doesn't really stack up. Unless you're Patrick Minford.

I've yet to see a good summation of the benefits of Brexit. Even Leavers really struggle to give a good answer, at least if UKC is anything to go by - and the Leavers here are probably more clued-up than the "Bradford vox pop" type crew. We may be able to set a few more of our rules around various types of products, but we won't, in reality, because we'll want to sell them either to the EU, or to the US, who both have their own standards and rules, so that benefit is illusory. Leavers get excited about fish, but honestly, it's really not that big a deal to the UK economy even if it does stir your heart.

Given that we are messing up our democracy for this paltry set of gains, it all seems pretty worthless.

1
baron 29 Aug 2019
In reply to john arran:

I’m not going to get into a debate about semantics nor am I going to defend or attempt to defend racism or racists.

We can call prejudice anything you want as long as we acknowledge that people’s upbringing gives them a way of looking at things and people in a certain way.

baron 29 Aug 2019
In reply to seankenny:

Jeez, that was a long winded way to say that you’re not in favour of controlling migration.

That is what you were attempting to say, isn’t it?

4

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...