UK politics - The Yellowhammer Made The Robin Weep

[Werthead]

4 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2019/01/why-uk-cannot-see-brexit-utterly-utterly-stupid

 

Not much really new there, although it fails to go into the existential threat Brexit represents to the Conservative Party. The Tories have torn themselves apart over Brexit for the last 30-40 years, and one reason for people like Boris (who doesn't really believe in Brexit at all) and Gove (who kind of does but is also pragmatic) pursuing Brexit now and getting it done is because if they don't, the Conservative Party could permanently split apart. Some may say that's happening anyway, but the logic seems to be that if Brexit is achieved, then the Indy Tories can return to the fold and the party can resume its normal agenda.

This is also why Boris has become more set on a No Deal scenario. Any compromise will be taken up by the harder anti-EU wing of the party as a "betrayal of the vote of the people" and could see the ERG split from the Tories and join the Brexit Party, or the party's fault lines on other issues suddenly blow open. Boris has calculated that the pro-Remain wing of the party will come on board once Brexit is achieved, he doesn't see the reverse happening if Brexit is thwarted.

My feeling is that all of this has caused the Tories to lurch noticeably more rightwards than they ever were under Cameron, which will have a permanent impact going forwards, with a lot more confidence in, say, privatising the NHS and putting even more hardcore austerity measures in place.

With this all going on, to completely ignore it in the article seems a bit short-sighted. For the Tories, there is no upside from Ref3, unless they were certain it resulted in approval for a hard Brexit, which is extremely unlikely.

[Gaston de Foix]

Wert, the Tories are more willing to spend under Boris than they were under Cameron.  Boris is like Trump, he is right wing about things the right cares about, and he leaves alone the entitlements that the left care about.  Cameron had a consistent, albeit flawed, philosophy.  Boris is just opportunistic through and through. 

[Werthead]

39 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Wert, the Tories are more willing to spend under Boris than they were under Cameron.  Boris is like Trump, he is right wing about things the right cares about, and he leaves alone the entitlements that the left care about.  Cameron had a consistent, albeit flawed, philosophy.  Boris is just opportunistic through and through. 

That's why I think Boris will get a lot popularity in the party in the short-term, but his recklessness with spending will rapidly see his popularity plummet with the hard right of the party, whose primary post-Brexit target will be the NHS. Boris spending like there's no tomorrow to shore up his personal popularity is going to go against that plan.

[Werthead]

Heidi Allen has joined the LibDems, bringing them up to 19 MPs, 7 of whom are defectors from Labour and the Tories (some via CUK). 

Not a record for seats gained through defections though, which I believe remains with the SDP who went from 0 to 29 MPs (28 from Labour, 1 from the Tories) between the 1979 and 1983 elections (all of them in 1981). Maybe a record for defections to an already-established party? Can't be bothered to check right now.

The Liberal Unionists went from 0 to 77 MPs in one go, but that was during the the 1886 general election.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Meanwhile, the EU's point by point rejection of Johnson's proposal has been leaked. And surprise, Johnso lied about not knowing what's wrong with his proposal.

Quote

The confidential report chronicling the latest negotiations reveals:

• The British have been warned that the proposed Stormont veto provides the DUP with an opportunity to block the all-Ireland regulatory zone from ever materialising.

• The proposals for a customs border were said to risk a major disruption of the all-Ireland economy. EU negotiators have pointed out that it has been rejected by groups representing Northern Irish business.

• The UK is seeking a fallback of no controls, checks and border infrastructure, even if the DUP vetoes Northern Ireland’s alignment with the single market. The bloc’s internal market would be left wide open for abuse, the European commission has said in its rejection of the proposal.

• The UK’s proposal leaves it up to a joint EU-UK committee to work out how to avoid customs checks and infrastructure near the Irish border once there are two customs territories and sets of rules on the island of Ireland, without offering a plan B if no such solution is agreed.

• The UK has called for an overhaul of the common transit convention so as to avoid the need for new infrastructure in the shape of transit offices on either side of the border for the scanning of goods that have passed through multiple territories. Brussels has refused as it would lead other non-EU countries to seek similar exemptions, endangering the internal market.

• The text affords what is seen as an unacceptable wholesale exemption for small and medium-sized businesses from customs duties and processes, but it fails to provide details on how to then combat smuggling.

• On VAT, the British negotiators were told that the proposals fail to offer any solutions as to how to avoid payments and checks at the border.

• Under the UK’s proposals all the state aid and level-playing-field conditions Theresa May agreed to in order to reassure the EU that Northern Ireland businesses would not enjoy a competitive advantage have been deleted. But Northern Irish firms would still be able to compete in the single market for electricity.

• The UK would have access to an unlisted number of EU databases to allow it to police the customs border on the island of Ireland and the regulatory border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Whitehall would maintain such access even if the DUP vetoed alignment with the single market.

Am I the only one who has this strange feeling of déjà vu?

Feels a bit like Theresa May shortly before the Salzburg summit and her pretense that her lunatic checker's deal was still alive. She also had no idea, what was wrong with it.

And yes, I am suspecting this one was leaked from the EU side.

[Heartofice]

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/10/how-number-10-view-the-state-of-the-negotiations/

View on negotiations from a government insider (is it Cummings??). Is it all just a massive bluff?
 

Quote

Varadkar doesn’t want to negotiate. Varadkar was keen on talking before the Benn Act when he thought that the choice would be ‘new deal or no deal’. Since the Benn Act passed he has gone very cold and in the last week the official channels and the backchannels have also gone cold. Varadkar has also gone back on his commitments — he said if we moved on manufactured goods then he would also move but instead he just attacked us publicly. It’s clear he wants to gamble on a second referendum and that he’s encouraging Barnier to stick to the line that the UK cannot leave the EU without leaving Northern Ireland behind.

 

There are quite a few people in Paris and Berlin who would like to discuss our offer but Merkel and Macron won’t push Barnier unless Ireland says it wants to negotiate. Those who think Merkel will help us are deluded. As things stand, Dublin will do nothing, hoping we offer more, then at the end of this week they may say ‘OK, let’s do a Northern Ireland only backstop with a time limit’, which is what various players have been hinting at, then we’ll say No, and that will probably be the end.

 

Varadkar thinks that either there will be a referendum or we win a majority but we will just put this offer back on the table so he thinks he can’t lose by refusing to compromise now. Given his assumptions, Varadkar’s behaviour is arguably rational but his assumptions are, I think, false. Ireland and Brussels listen to all the people who lost the referendum, they don’t listen to those who won the referendum and they don’t understand the electoral dynamics here.

If this deal dies in the next few days, then it won’t be revived. To marginalise the Brexit Party, we will have to fight the election on the basis of ‘no more delays, get Brexit done immediately’. They thought that if May went then Brexit would get softer. It seems few have learned from this mistake. They think we’re bluffing and there’s nothing we can do about that, not least given the way May and Hammond constantly talked tough then folded.

So, if talks go nowhere this week, the next phase will require us to set out our view on the Surrender Act. The Act imposes narrow duties. Our legal advice is clear that we can do all sorts of things to scupper delay which for obvious reasons we aren’t going into details about. Different lawyers see the “frustration principle” very differently especially on a case like this where there is no precedent for primary legislation directing how the PM conducts international discussions.

We will make clear privately and publicly that countries which oppose delay will go the front of the queue for future cooperation — cooperation on things both within and outside EU competences. Those who support  delay will go to the bottom of the queue. [This source also made clear that defence and security cooperation will inevitably be affected if the EU tries to keep Britain in against the will of its government] Supporting delay will be seen by this government as hostile interference in domestic politics, and over half of the public will agree with us.

We will also make clear that this government will not negotiate further so any delay would be totally pointless.  They think now that if there is another delay we will keep coming back with new proposals. This won’t happen. We’ll either leave with no deal on 31 October or there will be an election and then we will leave with no deal.

‘When they say ‘so what is the point of delay?’, we will say “This is not our delay, the government is not asking for a delay — Parliament is sending you a letter and Parliament is asking for a delay but official government policy remains that delay is an atrocious idea that everyone should dismiss. Any delay will in effect be negotiated between you, Parliament, and the courts — we will wash our hands of it, we won’t engage in further talks, we obviously won’t given any undertakings about cooperative behaviour, everything to do with ‘duty of sincere cooperation’ will be in the toilet, we will focus on winning the election on a manifesto of immediately revoking the entire EU legal order without further talks, and then we will leave. Those who supported delay will face the inevitable consequences of being seen to interfere in domestic politics in a deeply unpopular way by colluding with a Parliament that is as popular as the clap.
Those who pushed the Benn Act intended to sabotage a deal and they’ve probably succeeded. So the main effect of it will probably be to help us win an election by uniting the leave vote and then a no deal Brexit. History is full of such ironies and tragedies.’

 

[Which Tyler]

10 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Meanwhile, the EU's point by point rejection of Johnson's proposal has been leaked. And surprise, Johnso lied about not knowing what's wrong with his proposal.

Am I the only one who has this strange feeling of déjà vu?

Feels a bit like Theresa May shortly before the Salzburg summit and her pretense that her lunatic checker's deal was still alive. She also had no idea, what was wrong with it.

And yes, I am suspecting this one was leaked from the EU side.

BBC are saying that the EU had to call the government to check that 1a (Stormont's veto) wasn't just a joke that was supposed to be removed before sending. It wasn't.

 

Government promising to disrupt EU proceedings if were forced to stay in, cooperating only with countries that support no deal, and disrupting those that want an extension. Showing a spectacular (to my understanding) lack of awareness of what the word "unanimous" means, whennit comes to granting an extension.

 

[mormont]

19 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/10/how-number-10-view-the-state-of-the-negotiations/

View on negotiations from a government insider (is it Cummings??). Is it all just a massive bluff?

These are the views of someone who fundamentally has no grasp of the situation. 

So yeah, probably Cummings. 

[Which Tyler]

20 minutes ago, mormont said:

These are the views of someone who fundamentally has no grasp of the situation. 

So yeah, probably Cummings. 

Everyone seems pretty sure it's Cummings.

Angry - fits

Tough talk - fits

Soundbites - fits

Threatens retribution - fits AND suggests that it was written specifically to be leaked

That there's not been any outrage about the leak, with heads rolling - nails it.

 

Elsewhere, the Pasty Cockwomble calls Extension Rebellion "uncooperative crusties". Being uncooperative is the whole point of the thing, whereas the reason it's got so big is that it's NOT just crusties.

However, great to see Pasty Cockwomble sticking to his principles of escalating everything he possibly can escalate.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49967784

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

We will make clear privately and publicly that countries which oppose delay will go the front of the queue for future cooperation — cooperation on things both within and outside EU competences. Those who support  delay will go to the bottom of the queue.

Interesting. I watched an youtuber talk about the Padfield precedent, which seems to suggest that any action taken by a minister (or prime minister) and one would assume his/her proxy that seeks to thwart the stated aim of the law is unlawful. I would say that this statement is coming very close. If the govt is putting it out there that if you (eg. Hungary) vote against the extension and thereby shoot the extension down then you will get favourable treatment, and anyone who votes for the extension will be put on the naughty step, then that is the govt seeking to thwart the express purpose of the Benn Act. Is my reading of how the youtuber described Padfield.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I have some questions about this latest Cummings drivel.

So he basically threatens the countries in the EU 27, that they would basically on their shit list, if they vote for an extension, while promising rewards to those that don't.

Ok, now. So what are those "fabulous rewards Britain will be withholding from those Extensionists"? And does the word unanimous, have a different meaning in Downing Street? As in all the members have to vote unanimously in favour of an extension to grant an extension. So will they all be on the bottom of Cummings'es Christmas list?

This all feels so stupid on so many levels, and like a rerun. But then again, so does Brexit.

[Gaston de Foix]

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Ok, now. So what are those "fabulous rewards Britain will be withholding from those Extensionists"? And does the word unanimous, have a different meaning in Downing Street? As in all the members have to vote unanimously in favour of an extension to grant an extension. So will they all be on the bottom of Cummings'es Christmas list?

I think the implication is that those that argue against an extension will be rewarded, and those that argue for it will be punished. 

The principle that ministers cannot frustrate statutory purposes (i.e., must abide by the spirit and not just the letter of the law) is so well established in British public law as to be unnecessary to reiterate.  The government knows this, and have thus made the undertaking to the Scottish court that they have.  But I also think the EU will simply disregard any steps that the government takes contrary to the Benn Act. 

[Mosi Mynn]

Donald Tusk cuts through the bullshit as per usual https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1181519363783974912

Why are our politicians so inept?  Boris Johnson can't possibly "negotiate" with leaders of the calibre of Merkel and Tusk.

[Werthead]

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Interesting. I watched an youtuber talk about the Padfield precedent, which seems to suggest that any action taken by a minister (or prime minister) and one would assume his/her proxy that seeks to thwart the stated aim of the law is unlawful. I would say that this statement is coming very close. If the govt is putting it out there that if you (eg. Hungary) vote against the extension and thereby shoot the extension down then you will get favourable treatment, and anyone who votes for the extension will be put on the naughty step, then that is the govt seeking to thwart the express purpose of the Benn Act. Is my reading of how the youtuber described Padfield.

Not to mention it is an empty threat: the EU responds to negotiations with a united front, so it is unclear how we would know what countries are being cooperative or not, apart from their public declarations. This is especially useful for countries like Poland and Hungary, who are somewhat positively minded towards the UK but also need the continued support of the rest of the EU (where both countries are on thin ice for human rights and freedom of speech abuses), where they can say one thing to us and one thing to the EU.

Johnson has apparently tried to ring round the EU leaders in the last couple of days to try to sell his ideas in one-on-one conversations, and apparently they have all presented a united front and told him exactly the same thing, that the Northern Ireland idea is a non-starter as long as it can be vetoed at will by the DUP.

The EU is certainly still hoping we will reconsider, and there is some movement on that. Only a few of the Independent Tories were in favour of a third referendum, but most are now coming on board (Amber Rudd most recently) and are ready to concede it in horse-trading for a national unity government.

[mormont]

Who could have foreseen that Boris Johnson - a notoriously unethical and slapdash journalist whose career was built on bluff, untruths and bullshit - should turn out to be an unethical, slapdash politician with nothing to offer but bluff, untruths and bullshit? 

[Gaston de Foix]

33 minutes ago, mormont said:

Who could have foreseen that Boris Johnson - a notoriously unethical and slapdash journalist whose career was built on bluff, untruths and bullshit - should turn out to be an unethical, slapdash politician with nothing to offer but bluff, untruths and bullshit? 

The sadder part is the subversion of HMG which has always had a professional and serious-minded ethos.  What is Mark Sedwill doing?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I think the implication is that those that argue against an extension will be rewarded, and those that argue for it will be punished. 

Nope. Like @The Anti-Targ said, British Goverment is basically saying, we will treat you favourably if you shoot down the extension, but will treat you less so if you vote for the extension.

They apparently tried that stunt in a private call with the Hungarians, whose reaction was:

So what could you possibly hope to offer us, that''d be worth the resulting rift in our relations with Germany? No, nothing? Yeah, I thought so.

.

So I am really curious what that favourable treatment is supposed to be, and how they square that with the vote for an extension needing to be unanimously.

 

[Zorral]

9 hours ago, Heartofice said:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/10/how-number-10-view-the-state-of-the-negotiations/

View on negotiations from a government insider (is it Cummings??). Is it all just a massive bluff?
 

 

It must be the microplastics we've all been ingesting for decades.  This is so word salad-y bonkers stupid no there there, there is no way to parse it.

You all are the only ones as stupid as we are.

 

[ants]

4 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Nope. Like @The Anti-Targ said, British Goverment is basically saying, we will treat you favourably if you shoot down the extension, but will treat you less so if you vote for the extension.

They apparently tried that stunt in a private call with the Hungarians, whose reaction was:

So what could you possibly hope to offer us, that''d be worth the resulting rift in our relations with Germany? No, nothing? Yeah, I thought so.

.

So I am really curious what that favourable treatment is supposed to be, and how they square that with the vote for an extension needing to be unanimously.

I don’t get the bold bit. The entire point of what they’re doing is to get one nation to vote against the extension. Which scuppers any extension. If they all vote for the extension the Tories have failed to convince anyone. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

15 minutes ago, ants said:

I don’t get the bold bit. The entire point of what they’re doing is to get one nation to vote against the extension. Which scuppers any extension. If they all vote for the extension the Tories have failed to convince anyone. 

Which is exactly the point. The EU 27 will vote for an extension. They don't get give a hoot about being on Cumming's naughty list or something. So by that logic all of them will be on the bottom of his Christmas list. The Hungarians already asked what possible benefits there'd be that could possibly outweigh the damage their relations with their EU partners (Germany in particular they asked) would suffer.

It's a bit like being Sheldon's enemy list.

This threat of being at the bottom of Johnson's "friend list" is just so utterly ridiculous.