UKH

Its all getting tiring.

youtube.com/watch?v=iyxm8cjMSCo&

I can barely manage one stroke of an x

How come it’s democratic to have another election (3rd in 4 years?) but it’s not democratic to have a 2nd referendum?

Because the EU would endorse another referendum so therefore it's obviously anti democratic....

But is it democratic to block an election with "no deal" on the table because you think you will probably lose it?

Labour have fallen into the Bear Trap as expected even though they were warned.

hey ho  

Of course it is.

Why should Parliament agree to an election just because a small number of Tories decided they want one because under the present circumstances, circumstances of their own making, they think they can win?

Let's have a confirmatory referendum, get Brexit out of the way and have a proper debate on how the country should be run over the next five years.

BJ isn't going to get a deal, he isn't going to get a GE, the only way to progress is to settle it with a once and for all confirmatory referendum.

Did you have your fingers crossed behind your back when you wrote that?

What does ‘once and for all’ mean?

Forever?

As in never, ever again?

Because you can’t pass legislation that does that.

Well you couldn’t but who knows what’s allowed in these turbulent times.

I'm afraid you've lost me. You'd rather decide the course of the country for the next five years by holding what would be a proxy vote on Brexit?

The foreseeable future. I don't think it's a difficult concept.

I think he's pointing out that parties of all stripes have always cynically chosen the timing of elections to benefit themselves until the passing of the fixed term Parliaments Act. (even that could be repealed by simple majority). 

No, they have specifically said they will not fall into it. 

What, by refusing to have the election until the bill blocking a no deal Brexit is passed?

Sorry, maybe I’m being pedantic but there’s a huge difference between once and for all and the foreseeable future.

A referendum  solves nothing .

You can have a new referendum but you’ve still got to get the result through parliament.

You can’t make MPs vote in the way that you want.

Surely the last few years have taught us that.

Parliament tries to stop something being done to carry  out the result of the referendum, after three years of failure. The constitutionally elected government says, OK, let's see if the people support us. Parliament refuses to let the people have their say until they have had theirs and thus closed down the options.

It's instructive that you are apparently unable to even see that there are two sides to it.

Rubbish.  You should seize every chance you get to exercise your democratic franchise.  People have fought and died so that you, me and every other common man and woman can vote and you think it's getting 'tiring'.

Shame on you, Lemming.

T.

The bear trap maybe but what about the elephant trap?

Funny times that a General Election can be regarded by some to be an elephant trap. Its not like the electorate are unaware of the possibilities now.

I can see that interpretation but I don't agree. Last night showed was a demonstration of the view that if the UK is to leave without a deal it should only do so with the express consent of parliament, not because of timing issues or procedural problems.

By that view it would be cavalier to support an election when there's a chance that a) the PM could change the date of it once it's agreed and parliament is dissolved and b) there is a high likelihood that the result is another hung parliament and there's a delay in forming a government while the necessary horse trading goes on, allowing the UK to exit without a deal by accident.

Frankly, I’m not able to see that. The opposition position is that this bill has to be passed, which can be done by the end of the week, and then we have an election. If Johnson wins he can drive off the cliff in January.

Obviously they’re not going to let Johnson call an election for 1st November. Sure he’s said he wouldn’t, but he’s a serial liar in thrall to Dominic Cummings; naturally they’re not going to trust him.

jcm

If BJ gets a majority at an election he can simply repeal the law that will stop the UK from leaving without a deal. 

The law is designed to stop BJ from changing the date of the GE to after brexit to force a no-deal. He said he won't do this, but it seems nobody trusts him...

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/09/02/proponents-of-the-new-bill-to-sto...

Interesting how arcane points of law are coming to the surface in these circumstances. (arcane to me anyway)

That’s not the option though is it?

You mean another non-legally binding, advisory referendum based around a campaign of lies, voted on by 72% of eligible voters, won by a 52:48 majority (37% of eligible voters) and taken as "the will of the people" ever since?

That is interesting, indeed. I wonder if that has lain behind the government’s constant refusal to say that they will obey this Act if it is passed, preferring the formula that they will obey ‘the law’.

jcm

You mean another non-legally binding, advisory referendum based around a campaign of lies, voted on by 72% of eligible voters, lost by a 48:52 minority (34.5% of eligible voters) and taken as "the will of the people" ever since?

I thought last night was interesting,  feels like the first time since the referendum some politicians actually did some politics, working together across the house to form a coherent plan to give us time to agree a deal, and ensure that it can be scrutinised. 

However,  listening to Michael Howard on R4 this morning,  he was suggesting this GE world be a proxy referendum. If this is the case,  surely it's preferential to have an actual referendum,  then a GE?  Ffs, can they not put both on a single ballot?

I'd like remain,  and I'd trust x party to deliver it.  

As an aside,  FPTP seems to be the biggest blocker on sensible politics in the UK.

The whole premise behind this is that the EU have to grant an extension before Labour will agree to an election date.

Who's to say they will grant an extension? Macron is definitely opposed as he said prolonging is almost certainly pointless and damaging. Now the Tories don't have a majority the EU can hardly imagine anything will change much in the next 3 months

"Macron added: “That’s why I spoke. But I did not try to act alone. If I had wanted, the French veto would have been enough to block unanimity. We have, with [the Belgian prime minister] Charles Michel and Chancellor Merkel in particular, built a consensus around 31 October, that is to say before the establishment of the new [European] commission, to prevent the next mandate being polluted by this subject we’ve been talking about for three years.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/22/macron-wants-to-avoid-brex...

A girl at yesterday's rally in Parliament Square had a good poster: "I did not consent to this BJ"!

And thus we move on from Parliament allegedly refusing to enact the will of the people (justified by our Parliamentary Democracy being supreme), to Government potentially refusing to enact the will of Parliament (justified by our having an absolute Monarchy).

Has there ever been a greater need for a Constitution that doesn't rely on the perpetuation of gentlemen's-agreement type customs?

But what we do not want is agreement on a new General Election, and then BJ deciding on a date that means October 31st is gone before any new government is in place - which would mean us exiting with no deal just because BJ refused to say anything.

  So then we get unelected judges making political judgements....

  But looking on the bright side. What this whole omnishambles has made clear is that our 19th century electoral and parliamentary system and constitution is completely inadequate for the 21st century. Maybe only  such a crisis is enough to provoke change?

That's just incorrect. We don't know what the 'will of the people' is now, rather than three+ years ago; the government won't let the people speak again in a People's Vote. So we have to rely on our tried and tested system of parliamentary democracy (fine, except for the serious flaw of FPTP). I think it's v likely that last night's vote does reflect quite accurately what the will of the electorate is now. It's a direct clash between our Government (with an unelected leader, ruthlessly sacking many of his own party) and the our whole system of democracy (parliament AND people).

The opposition is not obliged to make tactical blunders to assist the government. If as appears to be the case a majority of parliamentarians (as democratically elected representatives of their constituents) do not support no-deal it is perfectly reasonable to tactically delay the triggering of an election which may result in a no-deal EU exit not by dint of the party it returns to power but by the interaction of it's timing and the A50 clock. Such an election does not deliver the electorate a democratic choice over the very issue which triggered it. So no, that wouldn't be particularly democratic IMHO.

jk

Have they, can you explain in more detail? It sounded to me like Corbyn in a rare moment of competency sidestepped it quite deftly last night.

It's not at all clear yet how Johnson intends to force an election. Assuming he can't (as currently if surprisingly looks to be the case) then sure it's embarrassing for Labour to delay calling an election but equally if not more so for that delay to force Johnson to request and a50 extension or resign in protest so his deputy must?

jk

That our current arrangements have been inadequate has been apparent for many years, with precious little movement. Good grief, the very fact that parliamentary votes still rely on MPs wandering at their leisure through the lobbies tells us all we need to know about the state of parliamentary procedures. 

I suspect that there would be very little parliamentary appetite for meaningful reform. MPs, civil servants and the wider electorate are tired of the upheaval and conflict that this whole sorry affair has brought, and it is generally agreed that there is a need for some efforts to reunite the country, whatever that may mean. A root-and-branch reform is about the last thing that is likely to happen if this shambles is ever brought to a close.

So any result that parliament don’t agree with, they just delay and delay until everyone changes their mind to something they do agree with?

Direct democracy only works if the representatives carry it out when they’re supposed to. 

I think it’s discussed on another thread. The whole EU issue is because the EU and the UK parliaments have become to strong and too central. People aren’t getting their say on local issues and the EU and UK law makers are meddling in local issues. It depends on whether you think on balance the ‘meddling’ is a positive or a negative thing as to whether you are for or against Brexit. 

One thing is clear, the people don’t actually have any say in anything. 

Has a date been set for this election? Has an election actually been decided? It’s all moving very quickly so I’m not 100% where we are at the moment. 

"Frankly, yes, the opposition is not obliged to make tactical blunders to assist the government. "

What's interesting is that they don't think they (labour) can win when no deal is still an option for Oct 31st, but think they can when it's removed. 

  I agree with all of that and we can't make serious changes in the middle of the crisis. Until now there has been too much vested interest on the part of the two major parties in maintaining the status quo which keeps them in power (alternately) and able to appoint their cronies to the Lords etc. What we might be seeing is a breakdown of the two party system which will weaken the biggest block (aside from nostalgia and complacency) to change.

Technically it solves the major problem we've suffered these last few years, it gives MPs the mandate they need to progress a specific form of brexit or to stop the A50 clock, neither of which they are willing to do currently.

You could instead change the MPs or disable them so the clock runs down without thier consent but if you consider that a better, more democratic outcome I'd appreciate a few words on how you come to that conclusion.

Anyway, its pipe dreams for now, we probably need an election to deliver a referendum and that election is unfortunately likely, in a manner heavily distorted by fptp, to negate the need for a referendum, it becomes a poor proxy vote on brexit which further entrenches the feeling of a democratic deficit.

Eh? The very point of such a confirmatory referendum where we give informed consent for a specific course of action is to free MPs of the obligations they might otherwise feel.

jk

No. Johnson has given a date for when he would like an election, but it's not in his power to make that happen. 

No. Under the Fixed Term Parliament Act, the Government needs to ask Parliament for approval, and it needs a 2/3 majority. To get that majority will require the cooperation of the Opposition, which is very far from guaranteed.

One of the ironies of this is that the 2017 Conservative manifesto included the proposal to repeal the FTPA.

   All the evidence is that a binary referendum will produce another very close result. So, probably, would a more complexly framed referendum and that would also create all sorts of problems in terms of posing the question.

  It wouldn't solve much.

... hence the "allegedly" Gordon!

  It would have been useful for the conservatives government to have spent the last few years negotiating rather than politicking internally, but hey that times gone.   A snap election will not help clarify anything, pure political stunt.

And no , this isnt Labours fault, nor the wicked EU. 

As I said, it gives MPs the free hand they need to do your harm or my harm. The work starts then, either with a decade plus of brexit negotiations and rebuilding trust in democracy or rebuilding trust in our democracy while addressing the domestic issues caused by de-industrialisation and austerity. Without our explicit informed consent this lot won't act decisively, nor is another hung parliament likely to be able to either.

I don't pretend it's a good way to make complex decisions but nor FFS is suspending parliament while a clock runs out! If labour were doing it you'd have had an aneurysm rather than minimising and excusing. We got into this mess by direct democracy (or it's poorly explained imperfect interaction with parliamentary democracy and poor expectation management, aka flagrant bullshitting). It's the only way we get out of it without exposing parliament to fire it may not be able to withstand.

jk

But a confirmatory referendum - good luck in getting a legal definition of that - isn’t legally binding.

There needs to be legislation to either leave or remain.

And we’v seen the difficulty in getting either of those.

It was always going to be about the Conservatives 'politicking internally'. Brexit has only ever really been about the Conservative party's internal divisions; until the build-up to the referendum there was no mass support for Brexit outside the party: no protests, no marches, no large scale campaign. Then we had David Cameron and his ham-fisted attempt to fix the party.

Right. So Labour are trapped or maybe walking further into one. They want an election but not right now and certainly not until Brexit is delayed, which no one has a choice in. If they vote for one, it’ll happen quickly and if they try and stall or not ageee a date, Brexit will happen.

Its all just more delaying tactics from the MPs. 

I think that’s a big problem; Johnson is so fundamentally untrustworthy that nobody will believe any assurances he gives on anything. 

What election? Johnson says he doesn't want one but will at some point today or tomorrow try to force one using the fixed term parliament act in an unspecified manner. Corbyn last night said he won't facilitate that until no-deal is off the table. It isn't at all clear either of them will succeed, both appear to face significant unavoidable hurdles within the other's gift to knock down, Johnson needs Labour votes to get his election, Corbyn needs Johnson's acquiescence to get anti- no-deal legislation through the Lords.

No, there is no date set because there is no election called. There has been lots of briefing over possible dates to muddy the waters and allow the press to present Johnson's government as normal, reasonable and responsible but that's all it is for now, spin.

jk

No it won't, given that there is absolutely no sign of a deal that can get through parliament and no deal is being blocked.

An election is coming but the opposition are in control of exactly when it happens and they must use that control wisely.

No. Thanks to the bill voted on last night, Labour can force BJ to "stew in his own juice" for the next few weeks while he's miles off a majority so can't do anything, humiliate him by forcing him to beg the eu for an extension - which will be too much for him and he'll resign. The idea for Labour is to destroy Johnsons electoral prospects and then call the election.

It's looking alright for Labour, and fairly disastrous for Johnson. Sadly I think farage does well out of this. 

Ukip winning the EU elections with over 4m voters doesn’t count as a mass support?

It’s not in the power of Parliament to block a no deal. They might think it is, but it’s not their choice. If they don’t agree a deal and the EU don’t agree a delay. That’s it. 

Could BJ ask a "friendly" MP to propose a vote of no confidence in the gvt? Labour would have to support that and so there would be a general election...job done?

No, they think an election triggered now could be timed by Johnson's government to prevent MP's blocking an automatic no-deal on the 31st. You're evidently a bright guy, I really don't believe you're not getting the election timing risk, can't we just be straight with each other?

 Labour won't win a majority either way

jk

If you think BJ can be humiliated you’ve not been watching very closely for the last 10 years. 

If the eu don't grant an extension, parliament will be forced to swallow the WA: they'd rather that than no deal. May's original tactic of running down the clock (which could conceivably also be Cummings plan) would have been successful. 

I heard this discussed yesterday. There's some non-binding advice from a select committee saying its improper to circumvent the 2/3 majority in this way. Still possible though!

Do you think he'll beg for an extension, or resign? 

It doesn't have to be, it just has to give MPs the cover they need for a specific course of action the public has given informed consent for.

Because 'leave' isn't even close to defined and has proven unexpectedly harmful in a deliverable form but nobody wants parliament to be seen to directly over-rule the electorate. Of course we do give them that authority in a representative democracy but they are unwilling to use it given the weak brexit mandate and the questionable consent. A responsible, less weak government would have sought clarity before proceeding to this stage.

jk

Quite the contrary for those of us who get involved. It's never been more interesting, or more critical for the future of our country.

It seems now that a General Election is the only way out of the mess. But, absolutely, it must be called after the current legislation preventing No Deal is safely passed. Corbyn has this right. I hope he will stick to this today.

Johnson's expressed wish (do we believe him?) is to use the threat of No Deal to get the best possible deal out of the EU and leave on that basis. This is perfectly coherent, though attractive only to those who are willing to countenance the devastation No Deal would cause. Equally coherent, and far more attractive from my perspective, is the argument from the People's Vote side that we need a second referendum to confirm or reverse the first, now we all know so much more than we did then. 

The trouble is that the current parliament has no majority for either course of action. So we are faced with further delay, with no apparent end in sight. It would be far preferable to have the People's Vote on Brexit first, followed by a GE a little later (which could be fought on all the other issues that matter - health, education, etc). But we can't get there without having a GE first, fought largely on the issue of whether we then have either a People's Vote, or revert to the current Johnson strategy (which he will be able to do only if he wins a big enough majority to immediately repeal this week's legislation).

That I think is where we are heading - at least until something more unexpected happens this week. 

Under our First Past the Post voting system, a GE fought largely on Brexit will either require electoral pacts or mass tactical voting to produce a parliament truly representative of public opinion on this issue. I, for one, will be looking to assist this process in my own constituency.

Martin

How? If parliament, or enough of parliament, disagrees with the result, or cannot agree what it means, how does it move forward any better than it has so far?

Incidentally, I hold no candle for Johnson. What I currently find odd is that so many (mainly remainers) can hold such strong views either on the legitimacy of each sides dodgy tactics, or of the best outcome. It all seems pretty foggy to me.

"You're evidently a bright guy"

Where's the evidence?  

So you think it's all about timing and nothing to do with where the zeitgeist potentially sits currently with the electorate? I don't doubt that the timing is important, but I am speculating that it is because if "no deal" was still an option, there is potential for Farage to toe the line and that the tories could walk the election with a decent majority. That's the trap IMO, nothing to do with "no deal" being bad for food prices and medical supplies etc. Maybe I am being too cynical.

It absolutely is. If parliament chooses they can revoke A50, they probably, hopefully, won't but they absolutely can.

This is what you wanted, a sovereign parliament exercising its power, ironically while still in the EU which allegedly prevents it from doing so!

jk

Labour wouldn't have secured cross bench support without the timing issue, it is key. Whether it harms or helps Corbyn electorally is highly debatable, Farage poses arguable more threat to Labour than the Conservatives and all of this is necessarily but unfortunately strengthening his hand.

We're not thinking that far apart. If I understand you, you think the trap Johnson has set up is to crush Labour under a pre-arranged Farage-Con no-deal coalition. Maybe but I can't see Farage going for it nor am I convinced it'll play well with the public or the party for that matter. It's a chance and he doesn't have many of those left.

jk

‘beg’ is your choice of words. 

Of course there are many shades of Brexit that Parliament would have voted in to being, it’s the ERG that have stopped Brexit happening.

It's funny you should say that cause i remember not so long ago one of the main brexiters on here (Thomas Dixon I think) commenting on something Trump was doing in the US which was constitutional but not considered ok and saying something along the lines of this is why it's good the UK doesn't have a written constitution as it removes the likelihood of such situations. Which got nods from a couple of the other brexiters. I don't see any talk of that now in spite of the fact the various goings on in the UK parliament at present are variously being described as legal but unconstitutional, ironically by both sides too. 

They can revoke A50 but they can’t delay Brexit. I suppose they’d have to vote to revoke. Do you honestly think they’d do that? That’s a huge step. 

I don’t understand what you mean by “What you wanted?” I don’t remember saying what I wanted. 

That was only a couple of years before. In any case mass support at an election is not the same thing as a mass movement. 

Lost no confidence vote gives 2 weeks for the existing government, or an alternative to form a government. Alternative government could form and call the election for Novemeber, having secured an extension.

Basically, the risk for BJ is he officially hands power to the collective opposition.

By nailing down the options then ensuring the electorate are properly informed by fair, legal campaigns before we make a well informed and specific choice or set of choices. By ensuring there is a period of scrutiny in which that can be assured before irreversible change is triggered. In short by doing it right.

I don't doubt some MPs consciences (or donors) will still prick them but it should be sufficient to get us moving again one way or the other.

Necessary evils, most of us find ways to live with them.

jk

So you don't think that exiting the EU by default, against the will of Parliament, because of the timing of a general election, causing widespread chaos the country over, is utterly and indescribably wrong?

Yes, I think this parliament would at the 11th hour if it came to it. It might well come to that in order to give Johnson the populist strongman for the people vs parliament fascistic electoral platform he needs.

Well you've seemed pretty pro-brexit in all your contributions to these threads, are you saying you're not? Brexit was all about sovereignty wasn't it.

jk

  So, the 34 members of the ERG who voted (in my view wrongly) against May's bill outnumber the 234 Labour MPs who voted against it ? Interesting arithmetic.

I believe two thirds of parliament need to support a GE so it wouldn't be against the will, and I explained above that I believe the motives of the Labour party are not solely to do with a "no deal" being "utterly and indescribably wrong" but probably more to do with them being trounced if "no deal" is still an option. Timing does come into it as well.

Dream on

   Why is saying that something is clear and certain when it isn't a "necessary evil".

Ask, then!

Are you saying that there's some dignified, non-humiliating way in which Johnson can approach the EU when inevitably he can't get a deal (other than the WA with backstop)? That's not going to happen. If he doesn't get the GE on his terms (and admittedly it is definitely problematic for Labour to vote against one now, having banged on about it for so long, but they should do exactly that) he's humiliated. 

And I will be grinning from ear to ear. It will be delightful.

It’s rarely a good idea to humiliate people even when they deserve it.

Those 34 members are supposed to vote with the government, the opposition are supposed to oppose.

Bear in mind BJ and Cummings just expelled 21 rebels from the party for the same thing.

I've had exactly this discussion with Thomas Dixon on another thread.

You could have had your Brexit if it wasn't for the ERG. There wouldn't have been a problem getting a soft brexit through, that would have been in line with the Leave campaign, honoured the referendum result, taken into account the narrow majority for leave, safeguarded the economy, and none of this would be happening. A soft brexit is a workable policy. The ERG prevented it.

Admittedly yes, a soft brexit would have been completely pointless, but that's just the facts we've all got to deal with since DC called the referendum: brexit was never meant to happen, remember. Hard brexit is not a serious policy. It doesn't have support, because it's a shite idea. It causes insuperable problems not just for the economy but for the union. That's why it hasn't happened. Because it's shite, and our parliamentary system is there to protect us from exactly this kind of shite, which it has managed to do so far. Just.

The desire for a hard brexit, thanks to the ERG, is the reason that we haven't left.

   That is simply a party tradition. It  doesn't affect the laws of maths.

I’m pro democracy. 

Both sides had exactly the same access to exactly the same information. Everyone voted the way they thought was right. Close on a third of the electorate didn’t vote. Which gets missed an awful lot. 

Ever since the vote, Remain have behaved appallingly. Somehow believing that they’re more clever and had some magical insight through all the lies. That’s a very condescending view. 

If people can’t be trusted to make the right decision then democracy is dead. You might as well have Boris as a totalitarian leader. 

There was a referendum followed by the representatives legitimising it via parliamentary sovereignty in a vote to invoke A50.

I don’t mind what happens. Revoke A50, accept the withdrawal agreement, no deal, but all this political football dressed up as democracy is just bullshit. Let’s remember that the Withdrawal Agreement is an agreement on how to start the process, not the final deal. 

Suspend parliament, go negotiate, concentrate on a Brexit agreement fully with all sides and then move on. 

I think we can make an exception for Boris Johnson.

This is typical of Remainer attitude. It’s very sad. 

I wasn't. I was referring to your reluctant support for Johnson the man and his dodgy tactics in pursuit of an ideological objective whatever the price.

We all do it of course but 2016 you would have been appalled at where we are today, what you excuse.

jk

There are enough politicians without the ERG to work a solution. 

    At least you acknowledge that it was a "soft brexit" which some of your remainer chums don't. This is even more reason why Labour's refusal to support it was just hypocritical cynical politicking. At least the ERG rejected it on principle, however wrong that principle might be.

  Incidentally, the whole debate over the withdrawal agreement is mad. It's only a fXcking short term transition which has now taken longer to achieve than the length of the transition. We might as well have just agreed to stay on as we were but with a firm exit date.

I don't understand, what's sad?

Boris Johnson lied outright about no deal being "a million to one". Then he lied about prorogation (his reasons were another outright lie). Now he's lying about the negotiations, which the EU say are simple not happening.

Can you explain why it's wrong, or sad, for me to want to see him get his comeuppance for lying to the nation on matters of grave importance to people's lives?

Good rambling non answer. I was and remain anti-brexit incidentally, I'm happy to give a straight answer to that.

Insight isn't magical, obtaining and maintaining it requires work and care. That's not condescending, not everyone has the time or interest, not everyone is equipped with the tools to recognise and avoid deception. I know I'm not personally.

jk

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/30/sajid-javid-confronts-bori...

This is typical of Brexit-supporting attitude. It's very sad.

Bollocks argument, isn't it?

No, it's a well established political convention, one our current system relies on.

If you can't command a majority, you have no business forming a government. By the same token, the opposition has no responsibility for voting through legislation they had no hand in drafting.

Sorry, I wasn't clear there. I don't think the WA is a soft brexit, I think it's the best possible work of compromise that tries valiantly to hold together completely opposing views on our relationship with EU. However, because one of the sides, the ERG view, is batshit crazy, a compromise with this view isn't possible. 

The soft brexit you could have had was scuppered by the ERG because their demands shaped the WA. The hard brexit you wanted is just a load of shite that won't work and can't get support, hence the current situation.

No. You’re one of the less condescending. 

I think the referendum was about people not having control. By sovereignty really the Leavers mean having a say in decisions that control their lives. Getting rid of the EU is seen as the first step. A lot of people in Scotland and Wales want devolution, that’s another push against people miles away deciding their local issues. 

People who want to Remain in the main seem to be mainly worried about trade, freedom of travel, protection of workers rights and quality control of goods. I don’t see why those things can’t be sorted. They were fought for by the people, the people can continue to fight for them to ensure they remain. 

Dismissing either view is where the issues create division. 

You're clinging to a fantasy about there being something to negotiate. It's been done. It's the WA. That's the deal. The EU aren't going to move, they've no reason to. The only direction they might move in is accepting a soft brexit, as that would be less hassle for them.

The remain position is simple: don't make life worse for no reason.

  Tradition? Convention? Same thing. It's the government and/or the party's problem if some members rebel, not an undermining of parliamentary democracy. Indeed, it might be better if members did it more often

   The Labour party voted for Article 50. They therefore had and have a duty to help it to happen. They had no credible reason for opposing May's deal except that it was May's deal.

Well quite, but you appear to be confused as to why Labour oppose a General Election. You seem to firmly believe that it's because they can't garner support while no deal is still an option.

It should be blindingly obvious that they can't support it because if a General Election is called now, it's highly likely that we will have exited the EU by default before the election.

  "Shaped" in the sense that bouncing a tennis ball shapes the ground? How much softer would you have prefered?

Speaking for myself, the single most tragic thing about leaving the EU, which is not on your list, would be the environment and the signal leaving would send that we have no serious interest in protecting it.

jcm

Sounds like you've got premature electioneering.

Except that their position was that we needed to stay in a customs union to protect jobs.

Stay in the SM and CU of course! BINO!

It is. Sadly in the wrong direction.

Those aren't my primary concern though their protection is vitally important to maintaining and improving our standard of living.

We can have those things outside the EU. The Norweigan model goes a long way toward preserving these benefits, rights and freedoms but at a cost in sovereignty and long term competitiveness. All other brexits harm them to a greater or lesser extent while notionally delivering more sovereignty. We don't have the power to change that balance, we aren't calling the shots. Nobody was honest about any of that pre-referendum though it was well understood by Leave and Remain activists alike, nobody effectively managed expectations or sought genuine informed consent to trade some personal freedom and prosperity for some traditional sovereignty so here we are debating what we mean by some, trying to pretend there's another better way where the trade-off isn't necessary, going nowhere while we cling to a now old tainted marginal decision.

I don't dismiss compelling pro brexit arguments grounded in messy reality, I just don't hear many. Please do feel free to make one.

jk

Not if they don't think it's in the best interests of the country. I do find it depressing to see otherwise sensible people think that the only way ahead is to press on, regardless of the evidence of the difficulties which will faced by leaving the EU. Surely in a world of grown-ups it is possible to change one's mind when one learns more about the consequences of one's actions? 

Never said it was, but if it becomes more common, we need another way of choosing the executive.

The rebels voted Article 50 through and have a duty to vote with their government. If you are claiming Labour MPs had a duty to make it happen, the Tory rebels had a duty squared!

They did, in the wrong hands May's deal could have led to a very damaging Brexit being negotiated. Let's face it, they knew Boris was coming next. The Tories had a chance to negotiate a compromise with Labour but it didn't happen. You know full well for every Labou MP they got on board with a modified Political Declaration they'd have lost 2 Tories.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I can't be arsed with this all afternoon....but I am surprised you are pushing this one.

  That's even worse! If the Labour party had decided that they now think that even a soft withdrawal is not in the best interests of the country then they should have said that and stake their chances with the electorate on that basis. But they didn't, did they? Instead they have prevaricated for three long years thus seriously undermining the economy.

That is a simplistic and ultimately wrong way of looking at it. The ERG, which is much more than those 34 rebels, influenced her formulation of the deal. By pandering to the extreme agenda of the ERG she attained a position that neither there ERG or parliament as a whole could agree to. If she had ignored their malign influence a variation on Norway could have passed easily, you know the model that many of the Leave campaigners advocated for during the referendum, but now consider to be treason.

"It should be blindingly obvious that they can't support it because if a General Election is called now, it's highly likely that we will have exited the EU by default before the election."

I think to blindly accept and believe that is naive, but no need to cover again..the thread is moving on but will add this to the mix to add some support to the idea...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7426391/Nigel-Farage-says-Brexit-e...

I don't understand why you think that the Labour party are responsible for the catastrophe of the last 3 years. Of course they could have taken other actions which would have made it easier for the government, but that's not really their job, is it?

The Tories called the referendum. They were in power to implement the result. I think it's clear who should have got their act together to leave the EU, isn't it?

Quite probably

   Not a duty, a convention which they (in my view wrongly) ignored on the basis of principles. Even if they had that responsibility, there were 34 of them and 234 Labour MPs

   So, it wasn't even the deal, it was what might come next? Which part of May's deal made such a risk possible compared to any other withdrawal deal?

So you think it best to plough on regardless? 

   The referendum and Article 50 is an almost unprecedented situation. It creates a particular requirement for the outcome to be carried out. In this situation, opposition for the sake of opposition is quite wrong (personally I think it's often wrong but that's an aside).

  I am not defending the ERG, just pointing out that the Labour party had easily the power to make it happen and chose not to for no good reason.

  The basic problem here is the intransigence of many parliamentarians in not accepting a compromise on their "perfect" outcome.

Meaning?

I have no fantasy. If there’s no progress in the negotiations then we go from there. BJ has bluffed his no deal and it’s not got him anywhere. The politicians then vote again. 

The problem is they keep taking away his bluff card. He’s got them as worried as he’s got Europe. 

I could be wrong and he could be about to launch complete chaos on the entire world economy but don’t think he can actually do that. 

The no deal legal position should have been done after negotiations failed.

May's WA doesn't lead to a 'soft' brexit. As it stands it's a pathway out of the SM and CU which in the immediate aftermath of the referendum was considered very 'hard', indeed it was frequently portrayed during the campaign by key figures (dishonestly and naively) as absolutely unthinkable. Concerted campaigning by the ERG and their ilk has shifted the Overton window in the intervening years but that doesn't materially change the facts that leaving the CU and SM represents a huge step change to our place in the world with the inevitable accompanying disruption and costs.

Rather than getting on with putting it to the torch as Johnson plans.

jk

The Labour party did have the power to make it happen, but since they didn't agree with May's deal, because it didn't include a customs union (to appease the ERG), they had good reason not to.

Look at it from their point of view: their policy is "we will support a Brexit that safeguards jobs by keeping our close trading relationship with the EU intact through a customs union" or something like that. How can they vote for May's deal? What you're asking them to do is simply not reasonable. The blame lies 100% with the Tories, specifically the ERG who made it impossible for May to propose a deal that would have been passed. Having an enemy within like the ERG is pretty bad. It's a lot worse when they take over though! Good bye Conservative Party, hello the Farage and Cummings puppet show.

MPs lose control of the election timing and the legislative agenda the moment they grant Johnson his desire for one, with them the ability to prevent an October no-deal which is Johnson's best electoral hope. Johnson has shown himself time and time again to be duplicitous, nobody in their right mind would take him at his word on a matter this serious.

Newsflash. Farage signals willingness to buy a fraction of the seats he may or may not win in a straight fight. No word from Johnson, doubtless waiting to see if he can regain control of the timetable. I'm shocked to my core.

jk

The Tories over the many years have mastered Jedi Mind Controlling abilities which enable them to do unspeakable things which are either overlooked or forgotten by the electorate.

These abilities can reflect onto the Opposition to give mythical negative properties that are simply not true. The electorate may have short memories but the memories would have to be Goldfish in nature to survive the next upcoming election cycle.

No Labour government or Con/Lib-Dem coalition to blame this time. And good luck pinning the blame on the DUP who are full-on swivel eyed loons.

And if the opposition had opposed, maybe we'd be in a different position (or different mess).

But Labour have also had a rather large problem with deciding its position on the EU and Brexit.

Unfortunately (!), the Brexit question doesn't split nicely along party lines. If it did, then a GE might be a suitable proxy for another referendum.

Oh good grief, typical Leaver - always looking for someone else to work things out for them. Meaning that at the time that A50 was invoked, there was much that was not known about the separation process and the consequences of leaving the EU (although some did have a vague inkling that the Irish border might be a bit of a problem). Three years on, we are much better informed, and there is little that paints a rosy picture of the future. Ploughing on regardless means ignoring the fact that we are now better informed, and it means carrying on in ignorance of the potential damaging consequences. 

I can't think of many situations in life where one would knowingly ignore whole swathes of warning signs simply because of something said years earlier. It takes blind idiocy not to reconsider one's actions. Blind idiocy is what I would associate with Johnson and his idiot cronies, but I would rather hope that there might be some in the HoC who might not be quite so stupid. 

You've ticked almost all the boxes there. A Daily Mail article on what Nigel Farage says. Just as a refresher, here are some other things Nigel Farage has said:

• It costs £55000000 per day to be a member of the EU.
• Britain can strike the same kind of trade deals without EU membership.
• The majority of our laws are made by the EU.
• Our Supreme Court can be overruled by unqualified judges in Luxembourg.
• EU legislation makes things difficult for small businesses.
• Remaining in the EU makes us vulnerable to terrorism.

Nigel Farage has also defended the possibility that we could have a Norway-style deal with the EU - what is his position on this now? And it's a Daily Mail article. Forgive me if I don't take it seriously.

I can't believe that you think it would be acceptable that we exit the EU due to Parliament being dissolved. How on Earth can you possibly think that that is acceptable? I can only draw the conclusion that you think it is acceptable because you seem to have the view that Labour should support a decision which would make that a highly likely outcome.

Take back control? We've just become a dictatorship.

Firstly a card clearly labelled bluff isn't much of a bluff and if it isn't a bluff it should be taken away from him. Tricky but that's reality, the no-deal bluff has never made any sense given the power and size imbalance we face, it's not credible that a competent negotiating team considers it to be one so we must conclude it is a game played for the home audience. He doesn't get to burn our economy down to prove a point.

As for MPs giving Johnson time, they have, he's taken their next opportunity from them, he did it in a premeditated move decided (and lied about) weeks before declaring his suspension of Parliament. This is MPs last chance, that it fell before his supposedly key summit (which is nothing of the sort, another sham) is of Johnson's choosing.

Hanging in the balance this week. We'll see.

They didn't fail. We have a comprehensive withdrawal agreement and a framework for future negotiations, it just happens to be too much of a compromise to sell to the public or the vultures behind the ERG. The proper solution to that impasse isn't to give the vultures what they want.

jk

Oh, I see. So you've completely ignored my previous post "What I currently find odd is that so many (mainly remainers) can hold such strong views either on the legitimacy of each sides dodgy tactics, or of the best outcome. It all seems pretty foggy to me."

  But anyway, given that you're one of those remainers who appears to know everything, are you saying that we should wait until we have perfect information before doing anything (which I thought most remainers had already)

Yes ok. I understand all of that and yes it makes sense. And all I have been suggesting is their "public face" for trying to thwart "no deal" is portrayed as altruistic for the good of the nation conveniently never mentioning that they are fully cognizant that they would probably get slaughtered in a GE with the leave vote united behind Boris 

It's not earth shattering I know. Lets move on.... 

  To you and Jon: is your problem with the withdrawal agreement or the political declaration?

  Incidentally, where do you think I've supported Boris's actions?

I think temporarily we're more rudderless than under the Jackboot, at least until Johnson shows his hand anyway. Can he force an election without risking the opposition pulling a rival government together?

jk

"We've just become a dictatorship."

 oh dear, and you had the audacity to tell me I ticked all the boxes

Don't worry, you are clearly not understanding me . Not a problem. I'm just chewing the cud with fellow UKCers...try to keep some perspective though...dictators don't tend to call for general elections

I note you're still not replying to my question, which I'll repeat here:

'So you think it best to plough on regardless? '

Perhaps you might do me the courtesy of an answer. 

We have much better information about remaining than leaving. We know that remaining would mean that our trade relations with our major trading partner would remain as they are, we know that international businesses which value our position as a gateway into Europe would stay here, we know that our important trade links across the Channel (including that crucial link between Dover and Calais so cleverly identified by the idiot Raab) would remain uninterrupted, we know that our borders would be open to EU workers who fill vital roles in all sectors of our economy, and I could go on.

By contrast, we don't have the first idea what will happen to all that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, and we can be fairly sure that any resolutions will be many years in the making. You may think that to be an ideal worth pursuing and a price worth paying. Good luck to you. 

Personally my problem is that brexit makes the things that need fixing worse, it appears to have lost the support of the public and it has been hijacked by far-right English nationalists.

If we're leaving then it might as well be orderly which May's WA works to ensure. The political declaration will be re-interpreted by whichever parties undertake the bulk of the coming decade's negotiations, it's not worth losing too much sleep over.

He's convenient for you so you do nothing, whatever risks the takes. Have you resigned your membership of the party in protest at the sacking of 21 decent MPs for the crime of not pretending to believe the leader's lies anymore? Have you written to your MP and association chair in protest at Johnson's abuse of prerogative powers? All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men do nothing.

jk

To be fair they do, they just know the result before asking the question. Even DPRK's Kim is elected

jk

I think 'slaughtered' is you own hyperbole, but sure, other parties would have a better chance after Boris is let to stew for a while.

You've made you're point, I acknowledge it.... but do you really think preparation for a no-deal and a general election at the same time would be a good idea? It does strike me as something to avoid.

If it’s not being believed and they don’t think it’s a bluff, why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth?

Sorry, by ‘after negotiations failed’, I mean ‘if negotiations fail’ as Boris hasn’t had any negotiations yet. 

For the avoidance of all doubt, I don't believe we are quite at the level of invading Poland. But I don't believe that any sane person can argue that the current manoeuvring of the government is in any way, shape or form democratic. Can't get our way? Let's suspend Parliament, and then let's dissolve Parliament at the exact time-critical moment we need our elected representatives to do the jobs we elected them to do. We've got an unelected advisor sacking and having escorted away by armed Police other people's staff, we have a PM who is a compulsive liar trying to push through a deeply unpopular poilcy in any way he can, and we have a government of rebels deselecting any MP of their party who dares to put their integrity before their career and oppose their deeply unpopular policy.

Tell me with a straight face that any control has been taken back.

   I don't see the relevance of that to these exchanges. Funnily enough I've worked you are a remainer

  So, why are you justifying Labour's refusal to sign up to it?

  Hahaha. Have you taken leave of your senses? I'm not and never have been a member of the Conservative party !! What a preposterous suggestion.

So what exactly am I supposed to do if I am ambivalent about his tactics (as I am about the tactics of Bercow and the remainers)?

Does this not concern you?

That's why some of his former colleagues came to the correct conclusion that he's not trying to get a deal. With proroguing, party conference ect, the need for all EU countries to ratify a new deal, the need to get a new deal through parliament..... there simply isn't time before Oct 31st.

I've got no problem real problem with the WA, which is just staying in the EU for the time being (or the time already gone, as you say). It's the plan to leave the SM and CU (with no idea how we can do that without breaking up the union) that I object to, which as I understand it, isn't actually in the PD - I think it's just waffle(?) - but was what May promised us in her tortuous trying-to-please-everyone-and-achieve-the-impossible speeches.

The trouble with the overall arrangement is that it's an open door to any sort of Brexit - so a disaster in the hands of BJ's Brexit Party.

I know you're no fan of his. I just don't see the point in trying to deflect blame onto Labour, or pretend that his opponents have acted equally dishonourably. They haven't.

Do you mean rolling of eyes?

"but do you really think preparation for a no-deal and a general election at the same time would be a good idea? It does strike me as something to avoid."

I guess it comes down to how you view getting out of this mess. If I ask myself what another 3 month extension will offer, what removal of "no deal" as default will offer, what another referendum will offer, another GE will offer...I struggle to see many positives. I also struggle to see many positives in our current situation.

Pragmatically, part of me thinks I just want it done now. But before I get blasted with a million clever points about why this will be a disaster and why that will be awful.....I don't have any answers, but I do have the same questions I think we are probably getting to the point where some elements of Brexit we will have to trust necessity as the the mother of invention. Not ideal.

"I think 'slaughtered' is you own hyperbole," maybe a bit strong, doesn't look like we will ever find out anyway.

    I am telling you that I don't have a dogmatic view. I think that in the medium to long term the UK would be better off as a nation with a Canada ++ type free trade deal outside the EU. Of that I'm pretty confident.

  Whether that can be achieved given the resistance within the UK and the difficulties of negotiating with the EU, I am not sure.  Were a no deal transition to have been properly prepared for I think it would have only had pretty minor short terms disruptions to the economy.

 Obviously since we would control our borders we could let in workers as required.

 Given that we have no idea what the EU will look like in 5-10 or 50 years time, staying in is a obviously leap in the dark.

  Since we had a referendum the outcome of which parliament promised to and passed an act to execute, my feeling is that the damage to democracy done by reneging on that, especially since we don't know on what terms we could renege on it, is probably greater than risk of trying to act on it.

  But, unlike you, I don't know any of that. Maybe we have got ourselves into such a position that the best outcome from here would be roll over and take it up the arse from the EU. What I am sure of is that the conceit of remainers that they do know, as they quaff their vino at their demonstrations (whilst claiming to represent "the people"), doesn't work in their favour.

What do you have crossed when you wrote that?

I haven't been but since it doesn't guarantee their minimum requirements for leaving, namely a CU then their opposition seems perfectly justifiable to me since there is no guarantee they would be negotiating it it or have any leverage over future Conservative administrations in that role.

Why is that idea so preposterous?

Back in '16 your brexit was all about swashbuckling and new opportunity. Johnson's is about to leave us on our knees, our union in tatters and our society shattered. You claim you're ambivalent. I just don't believe you. Anyway, do what you want it's not my place to think for you.

jk

Nothing. How do you think they shaped it?

That sounds like hand-waving to try to justify a shite policy without any reasons. "Properly prepare" - by doing what, negotiating a deal that lets our businesses export their products to the EU? Oh wait a minute.

Except that the problem in some sectors, e.g. health, is getting enough people in, not keeping enough people out. This is a fundamental misunderstanding about immigration - that everyone wants to come the UK and we can pick and choose who we want and who we don't. Lots of poor people from places like Nigeria and Bangladesh do indeed want to come here, but skilled nurses no longer do. They think the UK looks like a shithole, thanks to Brexit, and let's face it, who can blame them? We don't get to pick and choose, we have to be attractive to the people we need, as well as having the controls to refuse those who we don't want. Leaving the EU does not deliver a better immigration policy, because while we can keep more people out, we can't get those we want in, so economically we're onto a loser. It's a shite policy.

Probably, yes, if you mean agreeing to the WA and eventually not really leaving (because actually we value the union more than we value brexit). That would be quite a sensible plan, as it wouldn't harm the economy or union, and it could be done in such a way as to pretend to respect the referendum result. Those who were dissatisfied with this, who Farage would of course be whipping up into a state of frenzy, we'd just have to live with as a sizable bunch of nutters on the edge of politics. I'd hope they could be squeezed out of the mainstream, if the Tory party didn't dance to Farage's tune. Oh well.

You've lost me. People here are concerned because it will ruin their lives. People in Brussels consider it the lesser evil if Britain goes through with it vs being blackmailed into compromising the integrity of their union. Together the 27 can weather the consequences of no-deal. 

It couldn't. Johnson has broken any trust MPs might have had that they would get a later opportunity to prevent no-deal. He is motivated to pursue it and dangerous, this is their last chance.

jk

So, into the unknown with the idiots Johnson, Raab, Rees-Mogg, Cummings, and the rest of that sorry shower. Of all the options available, that does not appeal greatly. 

 Given that the political declaration is not legally binding how can it ever guarantee continuing membership of the CU?

   > Why is that idea so preposterous?

Because I wouldn't dream of it.

  See my previous answer.

This is why so much of the discussion with Brexiteesrs is pointelss..... it's very difficult to have a sensible discussion with people who look at Donald Tusk and see a sinister man in a peak leather cap! Same with Boris's 'surrender' comments yesterday. Good article on this a while ago

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/16/brexit-paranoid-fantasy-fi...

Do you never consider that we are were we are because of our own history on the British Isles, and that the Irish might not be too keen on 'taking it up the arse' from the old neighbour?

And why do this weird shit never apply to our relationship with the US?

  Because the EU has spent forty years trying to move by hook or by crook to a federal State and have signalled their intention to accelerate that process since 2016. The UK has made half hearted attempts to decelerate the process but instead settled for opt outs where possible. It was made very clear to Cameron that no further such opt-outs were possible.

  If you think it likely after all the trouble we have caused them over the past three years that they will welcome us back promising flexibiilty, opt outs, and our thoughts on a  reformed EU then you need your head examined.

Seriously?

Let’s start with half the Cabinet and all of the Brexit Department team being members of the ERG.

Yes, seriously. The bloody brexit secretaries barely influenced it so God knows what you think the rest did. What parts of it did they influence?

They were always open about the federalist ambitions, if anything it was UK politicians who downplayed it to the domestic audience. So we didn't get to dictate to the other countries, but we did get meaningful opt outs from the project the majority wanted to follow. It was pretty reasonable.

I'm not sure they will. But they might for pragmatic reasons. Unlike Brexiteers they do actually give a shit about Ireland.

They set the agenda of leaving the SM and CU, resulting in the whole structure of the WA (not leaving just yet) and PD (waffle pushing can down road, because leaving the SM and CU has insuperable problems).

You don’t think that a large and co-ordinated group of MP’s with many of its members in Cabinet positions have an large degree of influence over a party leader / PM with a narrow majority.

You don’t think that a remain advocating politician handed the job of delivering Brexit would naturally steer it towards what she perceives to be the least damaging Brexit for the country.

Staggering!

 So wanting to leave the SM and CU result in staying in the SM and CU and making no promise to leave? OK.

  Yes, which was precisely not the one that the ERG wanted.

Well yes, so stupid is the policy that the best way to attempt to make compromise with it was just to put it off. Poor old bat.

They didn’t want any which involved staying in the SM and/or CU. May’s deal was a bodge to try and accommodate the ERG extremists, it failed because you cannot accommodate extremists.

She didn't bodge it because of them . She bodged it because she  believed that brexit was all about immigration and thought that would suffice.

I’ve just come up with a brilliant plan.

Well, brilliant for leavers.

Feel free to pick holes in it.

The EU declares that there will be no extension.

As the EU doesn’t get involved in domestic politics it will need one country to declare that it will veto an extension. Macron is your man.

They should make this declaration now to give parliament time to act.

With no extension offered there’s no point continuing with the current rigmarole.

There’s no stomach for a no deal so parliament agrees to the withdrawal agreement.

No deal is avoided, a smooth transition is enabled and we can have an election at our leisure.

There, that was easy, wasn’t it?

I'd take that at the moment. Won't happen though as it would mean the EU using the Irish in a high stakes game of brinkmanship.

You've got a very different take on it then. I saw May desperately trying to steer a course between the pressure of the ERG on one side, and the economic reality (and her non-batshit colleagues) on the other. Did you not see that?

  If they really gave a shit about Ireland they'd have spent the last three years sitting down with the UK to work out if and how a technology based solution to the border issue could be found.

And if that was the case you Brexiteers could have left the EU under the WA without having to worry about being trapped in Big Don's basement. A simple 2 stage departure, but no, doesn't fit with the victim/victor mentality.

Not really. I thought several weeks of solid negotiations were on the table. 

I’m pretty sure people took it to court. That requires more than rolling eyes. 

This really does take the biscuit.

The UK is leaving the EU but it was up to the EU to come up with 'technology based solutions' to sort our shit out. When the UK never offered any firm or workable examples. Jeez.

I think I misunderstood. All the EU have done at BJ's threats of no deal and total lack of any proposals to replace the backstop is roll their eyes, and prepare for no deal. They think he's a prick.

Yes. This Brexit thing doesn't seem to be going very well. It's the Labour Party's fault! No wait, it's the EU's fault! Or of course, maybe, it's just a terrible idea that won't work. Which is why it hasn't. Just maybe.

It's common sense. It's what "friends" do.

If they "gave a shit" they would work with us. It can't be done by one side only. They wouldn't be doing it on our behalf. They would be doing it on Ireland's behalf but they refused to engage.

 Of course the idiot May should have gone ahead with the project anyway.

I have a number of very clever friends doing very clever work designing and building tech to mitigate the effects of brexit on our infrastructure. We’re talking automated traffic management across the south east to account for changes in flow through ports, new customs processes to shave seconds off process time, even one bloke working on a cyber border project for (I think) hitachi. They all, without exception, think that the idea of a technological solution in a reasonable time frame, without moon landing levels of ongoing investment is so deeply improbable that it’s akin to magical thinking.

  Yes, which maybe why the EU wouldn't do it. Why the hell else wouldn't they look at it?

Actually they are pretty evasive. Obviously it would be utterly stupid to have an election before an extension is secured.

No “technology based solution” (I note that you are being deliberately vague as to what such magical fantasyland technology is) is going to fix this. It’s a legal and political issue not a technological one.

Besides, the UK hasn’t put forward any technological solution. Why ? Because it does not exist. 

In any case, it’s an entirely stupid argument, if you really believe there are easy technological solution then why worry about the backstop, it would never come into force.

I'm on friendly terms with people at work. But if I wanted instigate a change, and turned up to a meeting to explain it empty handed, then told everybody I expected my 'friendly' colleagues to research it, I'd get laughed out the room. Davis probably did get laughed out the room.

On the face off it, it doesn't address the issues the EU and the Irish are worried about, so if there was a chance it would work then the UK would need to have done some thorough research had some good evidence that it could work. They didn't.

If the UK had some deep rooted knowledge it would work, then there'd be know worries about the WA.

  I heard the former head of UK customs (I forget the precise title) on the radio last week saying that a technological solution is perfectly possible within a reasonable time frame, which is pretty much what the former head of the WCO has said (to the EU).

  Maybe they are wrong but given that seriousness of the issue is it really not exploring further?

No, what the EU have done is publicly back Ireland’s public position. If Ireland aren’t happy with the 101 concrete proposals that Boris and the ERG have presented to solve this impasse, then the EU are publicly backing them the whole way. 

There are benefits to being in the club, and one of them is this public support in negotiations with a third country. 

well if that’s true, then just go with the withdrawal agreement as it is, the backstop will be gone before you know it 

If there is an easy technological solution then why would you care about the backstop ? Moreover, What is this solution exactly ? And if it exists (hint:it doesn’t ) why hasn’t BJ taken it to the EU ?

Why would we in the rEU do so?

It is your problem, you created it (by setting Brexit red lines incompatible with the pre-existing and legally binding international treaty of the GFA), you solve it. 

Actually, the current backstop version as enshrined in the WA (i.e., applying to the whole of the UK) is something the UK came up with, after the DUP blocked the previous version that had been agreed between EU and May (NI in CU only).

It is not something the EU wants coming into force, as it would, under certain not too unlikely circumstances, put UK businesses at an advantage over their rEU competition.

From an rEU POV the order of preference for the possible outcomes would certainly be Norway (gets rid of one block to further integration while keeping the economic advantage of a bigger single market) > remain > WA plus rapid agreement > crash out > WA with backstop coming into force.

IMO the EU should stop negotiating as long as this pathological liar Johnson and his henchmen are in charge. They prove every day that one cannot trust them as far as one can vomit, thus demonstrating again and again why a backstop is absolutely essential. Any further extension should only be given for an election (that may result in a government willing to shift May's red lines, thus making it worth renegotiating) or referendum. The last extension, granted for negotiation under good faith, was a complete waste.

Anyway, what I cannot get my head around is that the No Dealers do not seem to understand that even if the UK left without a "deal"*, the exact issues would crop up again immediately, just without a transition period to minimize the economic chaos: You want to talk about anything? That would be 39 million, please (minus of course the contributions paid during the extension, but corrected for the drop in the Pound)....

CB

* what a shit Trumpism that is anyway, it is a separation agreement not a "deal". If anything, the topics covered by the PD could be part if a "deal"

edit: forgot to mention, the last extension was granted specifically with the proviso that the WA would be left unchanged. PD, sure, but not WA. Of course Johnson reneged on that written agreement, so fuck him.

There's no commitment by the EU (in fact, the opposite) and no trust.

Not the same person but a similar opinion.

https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2018/04/ultra-hi-tech-invisible-i...

Did you read the last paragraph?

If it's so easy why is nobody else in the world doing it?

“However, he acknowledged that a fully operational smart border is not currently in use anywhere in the world”

Note that the Conservative Party established a panel of experts to advise on possible technical solutions to the dilemma. None of what they suggested was put forward by the UK government. Most likely because it was unworkable.

Who said it would be easy?

Is there another border in the western world that’s anything like the Irish border.

If both sides wanted it to work it would but it suits to make it an insolvable issue.

Because they don't need to and it costs money, fairly obviously. But the UK guy I mentioned above made the point that actually this is the way borders are headed globally. It could actually be a very profitable opportunity for whoever develops the system.

What exactly is that magical system ?

Edit: (sound of the wind blowing over a desert)

More likely it wasn’t put forward because the UK’s crack negotiating team forgot to mention it/didn’t know about it/haven’t got a clue, etc, etc, etc.

Or more likely, because it doesn’t exist.

You read the link that I provided.

Why would an impartial expert write an article that was a complete lie?

What he describe is essentially just technology to streamline border checks. It doesn’t fix the problem.

Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between a small oil salesman and an expert, just thought the media anyway.

I think your autocorrect is working overtime.  

That’s the problem with technology, isn’t it?  

It would be far preferable to have the People's Vote on Brexit first, followed by a GE a little later (which could be fought on all the other issues that matter - health, education, etc).

Absolutely!

The ideal would be a caretaker government follopwing a vote of no confidence simply with a mandate simply to get a confirmatory vote done and then call a GE.

I heard the same interview. He basically said the eu, the UK and Irish governments all have out dated views on how customs is currently carried out and they wrongly visualise a man sat in a cabin in the middle of the road. He also stated the electronic route would just advance further and further in all countries. 

All the parties stood on a manifesto last GE of delivering Brexit, and almost all the remain MPs. Now they are using their position and every trick in the book to discard the EU referendum. They are a disgrace, the 'worst parliament since Cromwell'. The commons is packed full of neo-liberal globalists who have had their time in the sun and who now think they have a god given right to rule, and sod referendums, and sod the voters and sod the constitution, and anyone else who thinks differently. They are going down, the easy way or the hard way.

Much, much, much less so than Brexit.

We know where we currently stand with the EU. We have a pretty good deal compared to other member states. We know what that deal is, and what it costs us. We can track what the EU is doing. We can try to influence the way the EU is going.

If, 5-10 years in the future, or 50, or whatever, we think that the EU has changed significantly from what it is now, we can always choose to leave then. voting to remain now doesn't prevent us from ever trying to leave at some point in future, due to some imagined euro bogeyman.

But, leaving now, we will find it very hard to re-join in 5-10 years time, and we would certainly not be allowed to rejoin with the deal we currently have. If they let us back at all given the trouble we've caused.

We have  some idea of what brexit might look like, and, by all predictions, it's going to be bad. No deal especially so, and we cannot predict what the consequences of brexit will be, for your 5-10 years. Or 50 years.

Brexit is the leap in the dark.

Staying in the EU is not; the future is lit all the way.

But that simply isn't true. "The EU" isn't monolithic, and notably it has got nowhere near producing some of the existential premises of a state, notably the ability to defend itself and any unified vision of its relationships with "other states". Kissinger's comment on who do you call when you want to speak to Europe, remains sadly almost as true now as when he said it.

Can I have now and good, please?

Problem is the even if you had the best of the best technology it would still take ten years to implement. And even then, can you point out to a technology that can inspect the contents of a moving lorry ? Sure you can get mobile unit, have APNR, satellite tracking, etc etc and do checks somewhere else but your just moving the problem around.

in any case, if you’re of the opinion that the technology can solve it, then fine, you don’t have to worry about the backstop.

Sure - that will be 30% of the total national defense budget, due now.

Edit: I'm not being facetious, but this is simply how it works, when developing any novel complex system (especially software and hardware, as such as border solution has to be). I am an engineer involved in high tech industry for years, and you simply cannot have a complicated solution instantly, without having a ginormous workforce. Even then, productivity doesn't scale - you can't pay 2x as much and get 2x as fast progress - you probably have to pay 8x as much to get 2x as fast progress (see The Mythical Man Month). So if you want a decade or so of work (think multiple airports being built at the same time - look how fast those get upgrades with the same technology) - you will need to pay extremely vast sums of money.

For that price it would be cheaper to station some troops along the border.

What could possibly go wrong?

wrong, wrong, and wrong.

First of all any change towards federalisation would have needed UK approval. So let’s knock that one down straight away.

Secondly, federalisation is definitely not the way the EU is going. The French don’t want it nor do the German, nor anybody else for that matter.

Moreover, Cameron actually negotiated a very good deal with Europe. The biggest strategic win for the UK in Europe. Of course the brexiteers immediately rubbished that deal, totally unfairly.

What we need is a technological solution to get you a brain.

Remember the eBorders system ? That was simply meant to record the passenger information of people going in and out of the UK. Not rocket science is it ?

Delayed for 8 years, cost £1bn, and was ultimately scrapped.

There's this too - "widespread political opposition to the creation of anything approximating a large, unified executive bureaucracy in Brussels has long-since ended hopes, for the few who harboured them, of creating a European superstate."

 Kelemen, R. Daniel; Tarrant, Andy (2007). "Building the Eurocracy" 

http://aei.pitt.edu/7931/1/kelemen-d-08h.pdf

Contrary to popular opinion the EU doesn't have a very large bureaucracy, and it's nowhere near big enough to sustain a large federal state. 

You appear to be advocating against your previous position? :p

I believe it was replaced by a man with a clipboard at Heathrow asking people how long they were staying/leaving.

That’s why our immigration figures are poo.

It was an attempt at humour.

Something us leavers are renowned for.

The EU employs 55000 staff. For a total population of more than half a billion people.

In comparison the UK civil service is about half a million people, for a total population of 65m.

Anybody who thinks there are too many bureaucrats in the eu needs to look home first.

Previously in NI you needed police to guard the customs officers and soldiers to guard the police. Replacing customs officers with technology doesn't change that requirement for a militarised border to protect border controls.

To think otherwise is to naively rely on the New IRA being nice people rather than terrorists.

The NI border is a political problem. It is not a technological problem. Software developers don't fix political problems or restore the GFA even if their technology works.

As you said yourself, what could possibly go wrong...

I was being sarcastic.

BJ isn't going to get a deal, he isn't going to get a GE, the only way to progress is to settle it with a once and for all confirmatory referendum.

If the confirmatory referendum says leave again does that mean there will be a third and so on?

That's how it works now. Off site customs. When a container ship arrives from China in Rotterdam, Portsmouth etc.. (hint it's from outside the eu) do you think they unload each container, opening them one at time, checking a manifest and so on. 

Why ten years? Which element takes that long? It's just a scaling up of existing practices..  and that's what the person who ran that department said. 

Ps. There are roll through vehicle scanners already in use, mainly looking for people smuggling. ANPR is common in ferry terminals, if registered in advance the vehicle reg correlates with the booking, they drive in over the weigh bridge where vehicle should correlate with booked weight and cargo list etc. All this can be done, without a single person stood there, no barrier and not actually stopping. 

Why don't you read what I wrote.

Carefully.

Good. A lot of people don't recognise that the border problem is political, international and potentially paramilitary even if the technology works perfectly.

Oh FFS. Have you ever heard a single remainer suggest such a thing? it is simply a fabricated leaver slur.

Listening to radio 5 live and a presenter just said BJ could get his election tomorrow with a different approach (1line motion??) and they think the SNP will support it (?!) Which only needs 50% wasn’t listening properly , anyone have anymore colour on this?

this is the sort of thing that makes you sound silly to people who actually know what that might involve...

  He said that there was no need for technology at the border.

I doubt that the SNP would vote for this - risking a "no deal" Brexit for the sake of a few weeks. If they do so they would demonstrate themselves utterly indifferent to the interests of the people of both Scotland and of the rUK, and they will find themselves with at least one fewer vote (mine) as a result. A "no deal" Brexit really doesn't suit the nationalist cause. A soft Brexit, Norway style, would allow Scotland to separate from the UK and rejoin the EU without too much economic hardship. Independence from the UK following a "no deal" Brexit would cost Scotland dearly.

Do you agree that the same information that both sides had was at least partially lies?  

It's not fair or right that people voted based on lies.  

I don't think that people who believed that the NHS would get all the money should be blamed for believing what they were told.  But some are too embarrassed or too proud to admit they were lied to.  

the first person who stops power grabbing but suggests a 2nd referendum by Jan 31st after the Brussels meeting in October reveals the final definition of brexit, will gain a lot of kudos from the electorate, imo.

It's unlikely.  Many people now realise they were promised impossible dreams and magic money.

Not each, but the physically check vast numbers, every day, efficiently.

BTW huge ports like Rotterdam have spent DECADES building some of the most efficient customs processing facilities in the world. It’s truly huge infrastructure. (In fact they’ve been building extra facilities .mto accommodate no deal.)

Which BTW is a problem because many of the things we import are cleared for entry in the single market at Rotterdam, but we won’t benefit from that any longer.

I just saw a piece of news on french TV about the new processing facility they’ve built in Calais to handle no deal. A 2500sqm warehouse with dozens of loading bay for lorries to be physically checked, and with special storage for items held in customs, large parking spaces.

All of this doesn’t look at all like the kind of frictionless border we need Ireland.

Just plain rubbish. Just look at how long it takes to get even basic government IT projects done.

What you’ve described is essentially physical border infrastructure. Exactly what we cannot have in NI.

You've completely lost the plot.

I'm confused. If not on the NI land border, where is the technology that stops smuggling? Are you relying on smugglers informing the govt truthfully what they are transporting with an electronic declaration?

No, indeed, there is no need for technology at all. The solution is staring you in the face: the border works perfectly smoothly and transparently as it is now.

You could keep it that way by staying in the single market and the customs unions, or at least have NI stay in it.

But of course no Brexit is ever pure enough for people like you so you now you have to resort to lalaland tech that you don’t have.

You haven’t got a clue how many vehicles cross the Irish border every day and how many would be checked if there was a no deal - using the present percentage of vehicles from outside the EU which are checked.

Some of us know because we discussed it on this forum not so long ago.

The number is small.

Very small.

It’s not a reason for a stalemate on the withdrawal agreement.

That’s what happens with the vast majority of goods imported into the UK from around the world.

According it the Irish revenue service  :

There were 1 million crossings by HGVs or 2,700 on average per day;

1.3 million by LGVs or 3,600 per day;

and 12 million by cars or 32,900 per day.

numbers are not small, and it’s not the numbers that matter anyway.

It’s true the vast majority of what enters the UK isn’t checked, typically 3%. But what you don’t seem to understand is that it’s 3% of a huge volume so it still requires quite large infrastructure.

2,700 HGVs per day.

Lets say 5% are checked, that’s 135 per day.

Although traffic flow won’t be evenly spread throughout the day let’s say it is.

So that’s 135 divided by 24.

That’s 5 HGVs that need to be checked every hour.

Even adding vans to the figures doesn’t make it a large number.

So by all means let’s not use customs checks in themselves as an excuse for making the backstop a deal breaker in Brexit negotiations.

Obviously there’s the political, social, cultural and historic aspects of the border to consider but these can be taken into account e.g. common travel area.

What we mustn’t do is allow threats of terrorism, actual or implied, to decide or influence our actions.

You can substitute ‘freedom fighting’ for ‘terrorism’ depending on your views on Irish unification.

Even your with your wild underestimation you still have 5 checks per hours,  means you’re going to have border agents busy all day and some sort of border infrastructure.

No matter how you twist the numbers I’m afraid the problem remains.

That would look great on the side of a red bus.

How does your impressively simplistic modelling cope with monitoring the hundreds of minor roads that cross the border? How will telling HGV drivers to arrive at a predefined customs post at regular intervals throughout the day and night cope with non-truck based smuggling across the border? Will you be installing cameras at every crossing? Will you be collecting data on every vehicle that passes, even the local villagers that are commuting to work or the farmers rounding up their cows? Will you be performing stop-and-search? Will you be raiding the border farms periodically to ensure the cows stay on the right side?

How do you prevent a "common travel area" from becoming a common smuggling zone without running up hard against "political, social, cultural and historic" problems?

The easiest (only?) way to solve that is very easy indeed: that is to harmonise tax rates and goods standards on both sides of the border, so that any incentive to move goods for illegal gain is removed.

With whom we have had no need have a GFA.

But it requires a border infrastructure to enforce those checks.

Goodbye GFA.

If this border solution is so great and so simple it will be the easiest deal in history to persuade the Irish government. Why have brexiteers failed there? I'm guessing it will be somebody else's fault. It always is.

What gets me most is the sheer arrogance of believing things could be simple enough such that a layperson with little or no experience of the area or the issue could feel justified in being so dismissive of other people's lives and other people's problems. In reality there are very serious issues to be resolved, and yes potentially also violence thrown into the mix too. This is caused entirely by the unthinking or uncaring attitude of people in England and Wales voting for something that will have NI consequences that won't (initially) directly affect those unthinking or uncaring voters. That's pretty much the definition of tyranny by majority.

The problem is terrorists. People on both sides who are looking for further excuses to fight more (many haven't stopped), rather than a reason for peace. 

They should be treated like any other terrorist organisation in the western world. And the same with anyone who funds them.

Should ETA come out of retirement for the Catalans? As it seems the EU is happy to bow to the threats of trouble? Maybe they'll get their border wishes too or at least a referendum?

Yes you'll probably think I'm harsh, but these are people who happily see civilians as acceptable collateral damage. Such as the journalist earlier in the year. But it can hardly come as a surprise when even some of it's political leaders are convicted terrorists. 

Thank you for demonstrating my point so effectively within less than one minute!

Is it not by minority? I suspect the vast majority on both sides want peace and have no willing allegiance to the few who wish to wage war over there, rather than solve differences politically. 

The UK and the eu is bowing to terrorism or the threat of increasing it? That is surely not right and almost justifies violence as a means to get what you want? 

You're almost certainly right that it is now a minority (and quite possibly always was but for fraudulent shenanigans in the runup to the vote), but there's a figure of 51.9% of the electorate in a referendum that is widely being used to justify whatever impositions on the rest of the country are deemed to serve the political and financial interests of the leading Brexiters.

Next question for you to think over. Do they all cross at the same point or at different points across a land border. 

I guess you will understand it’s the latter. So you need the infrastructure at all the border crossings. 

Do you think the only issue with a border in NI is one of renewed terrorism?

So say they over spent on internet propaganda..  targetted Facebook 

On another thread people were blaming the media for bias and saying the young get most of their news online.. the old from BBC and printed press..

How does that correlate when it's the old not the young who voted out etc.? Most of the targeted online stuff would never have reached the old. You can't really have targeted adverts in the torygraph so one newspaper reader sees something different to another. Although you could print run slightly different versions regionally.

I think there were dodgy shenanigans on both sides, of different types. I'd happily admit the campaigning, the claims, etc. were dire from both sides.  

No but it's always the big threat the politicians are saying. 

Edit. Stuff to do now. So I'll end by saying I just don't think any country should be allowing terrorists or the threat of terrorism to shape political policy. 

I suspect it's more a case of it always being the big threat that some people are choosing to hear.

Of course any two wrongs can always be claimed to be mutually cancelling, especially when evidence for that isn't considered in detail and when it suits political ends to do so, but I also remember a common adage about what two wrongs don't make that seems particularly relevant here.

It’s not that hard to understand that the lack of any physical border is a powerful symbol of the compromise found in the GFA which settled a century of fighting between the two communities.

To re-establish a border of any kind would a serious breach of this settlement, of not the end of it.

You can perfectly make the argument that those who live in Northern Ireland and identify as Irish should just suck it up, we just impose this on them and that’s it. But to deny the existence of the problem is either ignorant or disingenuous.

I do think you are harsh and callous  to accept deaths in NI as acceptable collateral damage for Brexit. I suppose that the difference between being in Sweden and having skin in the game like the NI majority who voted remain knowing the value of peace.

Tiring.....We haven't even started the protraction of it all....... trying to look objectively at this  I can only conclude that Boris will sweep up the Brexit/Farage voters quite easily. Coalition of others could also be a response. Result of GE, a Parliament as hung as this one and more stymied processes,  that can't achieve anything.

I can only say as an electorate member, I feel a snap 2nd referendum is required before Jan 31st as I can't see any other definition of Brexit acceptable to Brexit people { who have a right to define it as they wish, probably WTO rules} beyond the conclusion at the Brussels summit on October 8.

To lighten the tone slightly, Nick Robinson's killer opening question to Savid Javid this morning was:

'What attracted you to announcing a spending splurge on the eve of a general election?'

And bowing to the GFA endorsing referendums on both sides of the border.

Anyone going on about "remoaners" not respecting the referendum should remember that the Brexit project failed principally because the ERG, including Rees Mogg and Johnson, voted down May's deal. Otherwise we would already be out.

Unfortunately, Brexit has never been a serious project. It has always just been a wank-fantasy for various inbred Tory politicians. This has been apparent from day one. The only reason it has ever had traction with the public is because growing inequality over 30 years, a protracted recession and austerity have made things very hard for many people.

But, actually, most people do not want to be represented by Johnson and co., nor want to see everything go up in flames just so that we can enjoy chlorinated chicken, zero-hour contracts and private healthcare bills. We will have an election soon and, when we do, we'll finally get rid of these scum. Because everyone knows that Johnson and co. are only in it for themselves. 

You have no idea of my experience of the northern Irish border.

I allowed my feelings on this issue to get the better of me once before on this forum and it resulted in a shameful act on my part.

You, me and everyone else, should think carefully before judging someone who we do not know.

Well certain sections of the Labour Party - the Bennite wing- were and are still pretty hardcore anti EU . So it applies to both extremes.

So you were against the Good Friday agreement in the first place?

Anyway, of course terrorism shapes political policy. Politics takes place in the real world and needs to take account of everything which occurs in that world.

jcm

No. Because I very much doubt large numbers of voters made up theirs minds in the few weeks leading up to the referendum based on the referendum propaganda from the leave and the remain sides. 

People (from both sides) already had views entrenched within them. All he propaganda gave was ammunition for them to chuck at each other. 

The propaganda process is still ongoing. 

It’s the same as lifetime labour or conservative voters. They’re both constantly lied to, but somehow they both continue to vote conservative or labour. 

People have entrenched views which is why a second referendum will not have a significantly different result. It’s also why the MPs in parliament are not discussing anything rationally.

Indeed.

As a general political proposition, nothing that appeals to both the far right and the far left is ever remotely a good idea.

jcm

Please forgive me if I have incorrectly deduced a paucity of NI experience from the content of your posts, it's just that every single person from NI I've talked to since this debacle started has had hugely different opinions from those you have been espousing.

On the contrary the problem is making and maintaining a lasting peace while also finding a way to live with the past.

On this you're the living embodiment of the Dunning Kruger effect and your ideas are deeply counterproductive. Harsh hardly matters by comparison.

jk

Why would ETA come out of retirement for the Catalans? 

Indeed, that was something. I happened to see him being interviewed by the political heavyweights Susanna Reid and Ben Shepherd on ITV before the beeb interview, and he simply couldnt answer any question properly. I then changed channel to the beeb, and saw him again. He simply cant answer anything properly beyond whatever Dominic C has told him to say,  or think on his feet. So far out of his depth it was embarrassing.

It's tragic watching once respectable Conservative MPs uncomfortably dissembling for this government. They know they're trading their job security for others', as soon as the journalists start probing the stories break down, the ums and ahs fill time, the caveats get frantically added onto to the stock bullshit they've been primed with... Sickening.

jk

PM's brother quits as Tory MP

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49594793

Is that 22 MPs no longer in the Tory party now?

It's on the same level as Mrs Merton and her famous opening question to Debbie McGee

Brutal, I didn't realise he'd resigned the whip too. That's minus 23 this week, could be 24 soon If Theresa May doesn't stop laughing to breathe soon 

Nobody deserves this ignominy more than Johnson but behind him there are worse waiting to fill his shoes. We're still drowning in the brexit mire.

jk

No it's not.  Friends when faced with a friend attempting self harm do everything they can to make them see sense... they don't offer them a knife and say here let me hold your wrist straight

Except the NI border isn't a bulk goods container port. Most of those examples have very little baring on the reality of a border that isn't (or at least hasn't up until recently) been a border for trade in any meaningful sense. How will you police check for small traders using the border for tax and cost arbitrage purposes? And as the EU have stated time and again (and WTO rules also insist upon) there has to checks to ensure regularity compliance on goods coming into the EU. 

It also appears that May's Deal must be brought back to Parliament for a vote on it. That was also passed unchallenged {accidentally????} last night. It was an amendment to the main bill.Oh Boris!!! You've been out manoeuvred and can't just hold court on WTO rules as the only option, even on a referendum paper.

Now that really will split the conservative vote in a GE.

His best option would be a  2nd referendum using a preferential system..

"We're still drowning in the brexit mire."

I was just on a Brexit conf call with William Hague speaking and he said a couple of things which piqued my interest. 1) he didn't rule out a legal challenge to this bill that has just passed on no deal, he didn't want to divulge any details but I am assuming it's something to do with Queen consent linked to further up thread (or another thread by me) 

2) The Viktor Orban gambit - where the Hungarian leader vetos the extension (on request of UK govt). He thought it would be unlikely.