UK politics - The Yellowhammer Made The Robin Weep

[Which Tyler]

8 hours ago, Werthead said:

Apparently the date being floated by the EU is the end of June 2020. However, if Boris sends the letter it will be until the end of January and no more, we can be sure of that.

I don't think Boris gets a say does he?
I thought the Benn Act mandates him to request an extension - and request January 31st; but it's then up to the EU what, if any, extension they're willing to grant; and then up to parliament as a whole to agree or reject that offer.

 

 

MPs could amend Queen’s Speech to call for a referendum

 

https://infacts.org/mps-could-amend-queens-speech-to-call-for-a-referendum/

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Interesting.

Talks are heading to the mythical tunnel.

From the outside this reads like Johnson has given up on his nonsense. But I still fail to see what compromise the negotiation team could possibly reach, that would satisfy the EU and the DUP. Yes, the DUP are not gonna like the possible outcomes, not one bit. Alright, then it's hard to see how any deal coming out of the tunnel is ever gonna pass Westminster. That's not even taking the ERG trolls into consideration, who are so close to their no-deal dystopia, that they can almost taste it.

 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

From what I've read elsewhere, if the deal gets approved by the EU and Westminster, then the Ben act does not come into force and we won't have an extension.  However just passing the deal is not enough as we would then need to pass further laws, and there is very little time to do that and Boris could deliberatly delay on them.

 

If we don't also pass those extra laws before we leave then we leave with No Deal. which may be why the ERG and DUP agree to just about any deal knowing there is no time to implement the deal after agreeing so get No deal by the back door.

 

 

I don't know how feasible that all is, but might be whats going on.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Possible.

But before we venture into the darkest of all alleys, can we go down what might remotely be palatable to both sides.

The only idea I have is, giving the people of NI (not Stormont, and least of all the DUP) a say.

Let's say an NI only referendum on where they want a border to go up 6 months before the end of transition; so May/April 2021. That would give the Republic sufficient time to put their emergency plans into action, and it's actually respecting the will of the people in NI. Not ideal for the Republic, but at least that gives them a fair shot to avoid the hard border (which would go up instantly in a no-deal situation).

[Heartofice]

10 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

The only idea I have is, giving the people of NI (not Stormont, and least of all the DUP) a say.

Let's say an NI only referendum on where they want a border to go up 6 months before the end of transition; so May/April 2021. That would give the Republic sufficient time to put their emergency plans into action, and it's actually respecting the will of the people in NI. Not ideal for the Republic, but at least that gives them a fair shot to avoid the hard border (which would go up instantly in a no-deal situation).

I imagine it would need to be some mechanism to allow NI to decide when and if it wants to change its status. The permanence of the backstop being the big sticking point for the British and the lack of permanence for the EU.
A referendum would be too permanent I guess and while the DUP veto was deemed to give them too much power to pull out, some sort of regular democratic way of accessing whether the situation is working or not would be the way forward, and was what I think was being discussed. 

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

From what I've read elsewhere, if the deal gets approved by the EU and Westminster, then the Ben act does not come into force and we won't have an extension.  However just passing the deal is not enough as we would then need to pass further laws, and there is very little time to do that and Boris could deliberatly delay on them.

 

If we don't also pass those extra laws before we leave then we leave with No Deal. which may be why the ERG and DUP agree to just about any deal knowing there is no time to implement the deal after agreeing so get No deal by the back door.

 

 

I don't know how feasible that all is, but might be whats going on.

Surely not. The EU are well aware that any deal will require Parliamentary time and would certainly insist on a short extension to allow for this as a condition of agreeing any deal. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

A referendum would be too permanent I guess and while the DUP veto was deemed to give them too much power to pull out, some sort of regular democratic way of accessing whether the situation is working or not would be the way forward, and was what I think was being discussed.  

I'll leave it for some other day to contemplate on the irony of that statement. Yes, I am mainly responding to that comment for the snipe.

Anyway. Payne seems to think it's nothing of that sort. Instead Johnson is aiming for the NI only option, leaving NI in the EU CU. While the UK is free of all the pesky red tape to court Trump (if he is not impeached by then for a benevolent trade deal, by bending over a barrel without any lube. Oh yeah, the DUP can go and whistle (to coin a phrase).

I don't see how the original proposition, to which No, PM could ever sign up to (PM May), has a snowball's chance in hell of passing.

[Heartofice]

14 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I'll leave it for some other day to contemplate on the irony of that statement. Yes, I am mainly responding to that comment for the snipe.

Depends if you view referendums as something you actually have to abide by or maybe you can just keep having them every couple of years till you get the answer you want. I can guess your view 

[Werthead]

30 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Depends if you view referendums as something you actually have to abide by or maybe you can just keep having them every couple of years till you get the answer you want. I can guess your view 

Or alternatively you can have a referendum, have a second referendum after forty years of seeing how the first one worked out and then have a third referendum after four years of seeing how the second one worked out, especially if the reality of the situation on the ground no longer matches the situation as presented at the time of the second referendum.

If people are still all for the idea, they can confirm the decision and the government can move forward with public support for the course of action it has chosen. If they've changed their mind, the government can respond to that as well.

Democracy is a continuing, constant process, it isn't a situation where you vote once and then never vote again on the subject. If that was the case, the 2016 referendum would never have happened. The problem is that the second you say we can have a second vote on the issue, then the question arises of why not a third, a fourth, a fifth etc.

[Ser Hedge]

15 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Democracy is a continuing, constant process, it isn't a situation where you vote once and then never vote again on the subject. If that was the case, the 2016 referendum would never have happened. The problem is that the second you say we can have a second vote on the issue, then the question arises of why not a third, a fourth, a fifth etc.

That's a great point.

I'm a remainer (or was I guess, let me explain) as I believed that with its imperfections EU membership is and was the most optimal choice for the UK, but the ensuing culture wars have left me so mind numbed that I now think an orderly exit seems the best way to calm things down.

Once we have left, I would hope the culture war element is out of the equation and we inevitably would move closer economically to the EU again, starting maybe only with a free trade agreement but later ending up with customs union and/or single market. This is a sub-optimal route to get back to something less than what we already have, but I don't see a better way. At least we can have a sensible discussion along the way.

Are we allowing Frogface/Banks and the ERG characters out of PG Wodehouse along with the  Orange Order, and not to forget Dom "Moriarty" Cummings, to manipulate a bunch of idiots who are holding us to random?

Unfortunately, yes. I guess that is the price you have to pay for having education systems and a social order that allow such large numbers of idiots to have proliferated.  Many other countries also have large numbers of idiots that keep them back, so it's just a fact of life.

Opting for Remain at this point is going to get spun as some kind of betrayal, even if it's  through a free and fair referendum that everyone could have taken part in and this issue of  "the Brexit that we could have had, but for this or the other" would just keep hanging over us forever. Might as well get it done with.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Ser Hedge said:

That's a great point.

I'm a remainer (or was I guess, let me explain) as I believed that with its imperfections EU membership is and was the most optimal choice for the UK, but the ensuing culture wars have left me so mind numbed that I now think an orderly exit seems the best way to calm things down.

Sadly, this view strikes me as naive at best. Things are going to do anything but 'calm down' if Brexit goes ahead. The likes of Rees-Mogg and Johnson aren't interested in 'sensible discussion': still less are they interested in moving closer to the EU again. Brexit, for them, is the start, not the end, of the process. The glorious low-wage, low-regulation, low-healthcare, no-such-thing-as-society, fuck the poor future they envisage will be presented as our destiny and the only option. Undercutting the evil EU requires sacrifices, and there's no sacrifice they won't be prepared for us to make on their behalf.

[Werthead]

Corbyn and McDonnell likely to step down if they lose the next election.

Makes sense. Corbyn just turned 70, McDonnell 68, so getting into office at 75 and 73 and being in power until 80 and 78 seems impractical. McDonnell ruled himself out as a successor to Corbyn for the same reason.

Interestingly, McDonnell seemed keen for the next leader to be a woman, and touted Angela Rayner as a successor. Rayner is a bit to the right of Corbyn and McDonnell, speaking often of pragmatism and practical policies, although maybe not back into Blairite territory.

I'd be interested in seeing Sir Keir Starmer go for it. A former Queen's Counsel and a knight of the realm (recommended by the coalition when it was in power), he definitely comes across as less of an obvious red-menace than other candidates, and seems to have the respect of much of the house. He's also put in some excellent performances in the commons. As a fairly recent MP (only coming in in 2015) he's also untarnished by the Blair years. He was the bookies' favourite to succeed Corbyn this summer. His Remainer credentials have been reasonable as well, allowing him to win support from the younger wing of the party.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

5 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Corbyn and McDonnell likely to step down if they lose the next election.

Makes sense. Corbyn just turned 70, McDonnell 68, so getting into office at 75 and 73 and being in power until 80 and 78 seems impractical. McDonnell ruled himself out as a successor to Corbyn for the same reason.

Interestingly, McDonnell seemed keen for the next leader to be a woman, and touted Angela Rayner as a successor. Rayner is a bit to the right of Corbyn and McDonnell, speaking often of pragmatism and practical policies, although maybe not back into Blairite territory. 

I'd be interested in seeing Sir Keir Starmer go for it. A former Queen's Counsel and a knight of the realm (recommended by the coalition when it was in power), he definitely comes across as less of an obvious red-menace than other candidates, and seems to have the respect of much of the house. He's also put in some excellent performances in the commons. As a fairly recent MP (only coming in in 2015) he's also untarnished by the Blair years. He was the bookies' favourite to succeed Corbyn this summer. His Remainer credentials have been reasonable as well, allowing him to win support from the younger wing of the party. 

I thought the next successor with Memetum at the wheel (sorry spent too much time in the football thread) is suppsoedly coming from Corbynistas again. Namely *sigh* Long-Bailey.

[Ser Hedge]

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

Sadly, this view strikes me as naive at best. Things are going to do anything but 'calm down' if Brexit goes ahead. The likes of Rees-Mogg and Johnson aren't interested in 'sensible discussion': still less are they interested in moving closer to the EU again. Brexit, for them, is the start, not the end, of the process. The glorious low-wage, low-regulation, low-healthcare, no-such-thing-as-society, fuck the poor future they envisage will be presented as our destiny and the only option. Undercutting the evil EU requires sacrifices, and there's no sacrifice they won't be prepared for us to make on their behalf.

I'm sure they'll try, but I don't think they will prevail. Fortunately, the country isn't  right wing. It's of course hard to say what Bozo will do after 'Brexit gets done' (= George W's Mission Accomplished) - I don't think he himself knows at this point, but the signs point to a bit of populism and pretending to be a 'One Nation Tory' again.  Somehow I don't think the Remain/Moderate-wing of the Tory party will let Bertie Wooster-Mogg run amok, they have plenty of scores to settle with his mob. If he does, then the Tories are finished in the next election.
 

By 'sensible discussion' I meant it becomes technocratic again with immigration, EU political structures and red herrings like the ECJ taken out of the equation. It ceases to be a culture war and becomes about boring economics. The yellow vests will have long tuned out.

[Ser Hedge]

From the FT:
 

How Boris Johnson moved to break the Brexit deadlock

Plan contains elements of Theresa May’s derided deal and may see opposition from DUP

Nick Name

 

Boris Johnson has moved decisively to break the deadlock on Brexit, sparking a rare mood of optimism in Brussels, sending the pound soaring and prompting bookmakers to slash the odds on the UK leaving the EU with a deal.

Details of Mr Johnson’s plan are gradually taking shape, although EU ambassadors in Brussels were on Friday given only the contours of a possible agreement by Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator.

Those close to the Johnson plan say it adopts elements of a “customs partnership” proposed by Theresa May, the former UK prime minister, and derided by Tory Eurosceptics — including Mr Johnson — at the time. A heavy layer of fudge has also been added.

What finally unblocked the Brexit impasse?

Mr Barnier said that the UK prime minister made the key concession that there cannot be “border across the island of Ireland”, a move that finally persuaded the EU that a deal may be possible.

In doing so, Mr Johnson abandoned his previous proposal that there should be a customs border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, managed by untested technology and other administrative fixes.

In exchange, the EU accepted Mr Johnson’s red line that Northern Ireland could not remain part of the bloc’s customs union and that the region must be able to benefit from any trade deals struck by the UK after Brexit.

Mr Johnson has not yet made formal proposals to the European Commission. One official said: “All we care about is: does it work? Does it allow for all the checks and controls necessary to protect the single market and customs union.”

How can Northern Ireland be part of the UK customs area without creating a border in Ireland?

Officials close to the negotiations say that while Mr Johnson is reviving Mrs May’s proposed customs partnership from last year he is scaling it back so it applies only to Northern Ireland. British officials are still working on the details.

Under the plan, Northern Ireland would remain legally part of the UK customs area but in practice would be part of the EU’s customs territory.

Goods entering Northern Ireland would pass a customs border in the Irish Sea, where EU tariffs would be levied and passed to Brussels.

In the event that the UK had lower tariffs than the EU, as a result of trade deals stuck by Britain with third countries, importers would have to apply for a rebate if they sold their goods in Northern Ireland.

What’s the problem with this plan?

Mrs May originally proposed this model — where the UK collects tariffs on the EU’s behalf — for goods entering any British port, including on the mainland as part of a long-term trading arrangement with Europe.

Mr Johnson said at the time it was “crazy” and Jacob Rees-Mogg, now Leader of the House of Commons, said: “It’s completely cretinous.” Mr Johnson’s plan applies the same principle, but is simpler as it would only apply to Northern Ireland.

The deal may be difficult for Arlene Foster's Democratic Unionist party to swallow 

But it is more difficult for the Democratic Unionist party to swallow because it creates a new customs border in the Irish Sea with UK officials collecting tariffs for Brussels. It would mean paperwork for businesses in the region.

Jon Thompson, head of HMRC, said the scheme — had it applied to goods entering all UK ports — would have taken about five years to set up.

Are there any legal problems?

The plan would face legal problems in the UK, thanks to the efforts of hardline Tory Eurosceptics, including some now serving in the cabinet, to stop Northern Ireland being carved off into a separate customs territory.

One amendment to the 2018 Customs act, would make it unlawful for Northern Ireland to be part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain. Mr Johnson might argue that under his plan, the region remains legally part of the UK territory.

Another amendment moved by Priti Patel, now home secretary, would stop the UK collecting tariffs on behalf of the EU unless the EU agrees to collect them for the UK. That will not happen. Mr Johnson will have to change the law to make his plan work.

Does Northern Ireland have a say over this new plan?

Mr Johnson originally proposed last week that the Northern Ireland assembly — currently suspended — should vote on whether the region should stay part of the single market rule book and renew its consent every four years.

Mr Barnier told diplomats in Brussels that the prime minister had agreed to drop that proposal, which would have given the DUP an effective veto over any post-Brexit arrangement. 

Different “consent” mechanisms are now being discussed to ensure the people of Northern Ireland approve. That could require the backing of both unionist or nationalist communities or perhaps just a simple majority, expressed through a referendum.

How does this proposal compare with Theresa May’s Irish backstop plan?

Although the DUP rejected Mrs May’s deal three times, Mr Johnson’s plan is arguably more problematic for the unionist party.

Mrs May’s plan had a “backstop” arrangement which would have seen the whole of the UK remain in a customs union with the EU — to avoid a border in Ireland — with only a thin regulatory border in the Irish Sea. The backstop was a temporary arrangement to designed to fall away once a longer term trade deal with the EU was agreed.

Mr Johnson’s idea would see a much thicker regulatory border and a new customs border in the Irish Sea, primarily to ensure that Mr Johnson and the DUP can honour their promise to keep Northern Ireland — legally at least — in the UK customs area.

[A wilding]

1 hour ago, Ser Hedge said:

I'm sure they'll try, but I don't think they will prevail. Fortunately, the country isn't  right wing. It's of course hard to say what Bozo will do after 'Brexit gets done' (= George W's Mission Accomplished) - I don't think he himself knows at this point, but the signs point to a bit of populism and pretending to be a 'One Nation Tory' again.  Somehow I don't think the Remain/Moderate-wing of the Tory party will let Bertie Wooster-Mogg run amok, they have plenty of scores to settle with his mob. If he does, then the Tories are finished in the next election.
 

By 'sensible discussion' I meant it becomes technocratic again with immigration, EU political structures and red herrings like the ECJ taken out of the equation. It ceases to be a culture war and becomes about boring economics. The yellow vests will have long tuned out.

Sadly, I don't think so. There will be basically two options after Brexit:

Go back to the EU cap in hand and sign up to some Norway style deal that will keep us in rough regulatory harmony with it. This will be shouted down as "surrender", all the more so because it will not be as good a deal as Remain.

Or sign trade deals with the US and other nations, from a position of weakness, which will cause as least as much of a loss of national sovereignty as being in the EU ever did, and will lock in place the low regulation regime of Rees-Mogg's dreams. I fear we will go for this, because the right wing media that successfully sold us Brexit will obfuscate their minuses until way too late. I mean how many people have even heard of ISDS clauses in trade deals?

I suppose there is a sort of third option, of doing neither, which as far as I can tell Corbyn seems to favour. That is likely to end with us up heading down the same sort of path as Venezuela.

 

[Werthead]

Watched the Channel 4 documentary Tories at War, which had exclusive inside access to all wings of the party for most of this year. Completely barking what the Tory MPs decided to say in front of the cameras when they knew it wouldn't air for 9 months. Also some embarrassing turn-abouts, including from Alan Duncan who was putting the knife into Boris relentlessly at the start of the programme and is meekly going along with him at the end. Nicky Morgan does the same thing as well, at one point angrily saying that Boris can never be PM and then going, "Er, okay then." For some reason she seems really keen to remain chummy with Anna Soubry, who clearly thinks that she is full of shit for not standing by her principles, or indeed, having any.

One interesting bit is when arch-Brexiter and ERG member Andrew Bridgen (who until this programme I'd always thought was actually the same entity as Mark Francois) has a moment of self-reflection and ponders if they may have just made a massive fuck-up in kicking out the rebel Tory MPs (that'd be a yes then). Soames and Clarke come out of it reasonably well (Soames notes that some may rejoice in the destruction of the Conservative Party but also expresses concern over the loss of the party as a broad-church centre-to-centre-right force and fears for what it may become in the future), and JRM at least remains consistent in his position throughout the whole thing.

All-in-all, what you'd expect: a portrait of a dysfunctional crew you wouldn't trust to put up a tent, let alone guide Britain through it's most sensitive political crisis for seventy years.

One of the worst bits comes from Boris backer, billionaire Crispin Odey, who is quite open about how he sees Brexit as an opportunity to fuck the country over for as much money as is humanly possible.

Quote

 

“Parliament has got to be minimised in this instance. But in a new parliament [after a general election] in which hopefully he [Johnson] has a 100 majority, parliament comes back into being what it should be. But in the process you may have destroyed a lot of the political class. But the political class long ago forgot who their masters are.”

 

I don't think he's talking about the average voter on the street here.

Also, a surprisingly good soundbite from Farage, who happily says he'll work with Boris but doesn't trust him, because Boris got into politics to "be somebody" - Prime Minister - by any means necessary but has no idea of what to do with the power when he gets it. Farage and Soames both seem to think that Boris is incapable of negotiating on the level of the likes of Macron, Merkel or Barnier, which seems to have been proven. Farage also notes that other people get into politics to "do something", perhaps without fully appreciating the cost, which I'm still trying to work out is him realising he's talking about himself or not.

[mormont]

12 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

I'm sure they'll try, but I don't think they will prevail. Fortunately, the country isn't  right wing.

Um... if this were true, we would not be where we are. 'The country', by which I mean England, is actually pretty right wing. It just has some vestigial attachment to a few left-wing positions, like universal healthcare. On almost every other issue - immigration, law and order, taxation, foreign policy - the English, at least, are very right wing by European standards. And on these particular questions, I see no evidence that they are going to strongly oppose such moves.

12 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

It's of course hard to say what Bozo will do after 'Brexit gets done' (= George W's Mission Accomplished) - I don't think he himself knows at this point, but the signs point to a bit of populism and pretending to be a 'One Nation Tory' again.  Somehow I don't think the Remain/Moderate-wing of the Tory party will let Bertie Wooster-Mogg run amok, they have plenty of scores to settle with his mob. If he does, then the Tories are finished in the next election.

By 'sensible discussion' I meant it becomes technocratic again with immigration, EU political structures and red herrings like the ECJ taken out of the equation. It ceases to be a culture war and becomes about boring economics. The yellow vests will have long tuned out.

This, I'm afraid, is blind optimism. The culture war will not end. It has been going on for decades and Brexit being achieved will energise it to a new level. Expect to see a lot more of Rees-Mogg on your screens in that event.

[Varysblackfyre321]

18 hours ago, Werthead said:

Democracy is a continuing, constant process, it isn't a situation where you vote once and then never vote again on the subject. If that was the case, the 2016 referendum would never have happened. The problem is that the second you say we can have a second vote on the issue, then the question arises of why not a third, a fourth, a fifth etc.

Many, people only like the idea of Democracy when they think they are in a position to win the thing they want. Democracy has less appeal to those who recognize they’re either in a minority or at least not in a overwhelmingly majority on a particular issue. 

Having a third referendum at this point is not more unreasonable than having had the second one. The only reason for anyone see such an action wrong is if they think there’s a more than fair chance their side will lose this time. 

“Democracy” be damned unless the majority of people could be safely relied upon to vote a certain way.

 

[Heartofice]

19 hours ago, mormont said:

Sadly, this view strikes me as naive at best. Things are going to do anything but 'calm down' if Brexit goes ahead. The likes of Rees-Mogg and Johnson aren't interested in 'sensible discussion': still less are they interested in moving closer to the EU again. Brexit, for them, is the start, not the end, of the process. The glorious low-wage, low-regulation, low-healthcare, no-such-thing-as-society, fuck the poor future they envisage will be presented as our destiny and the only option. Undercutting the evil EU requires sacrifices, and there's no sacrifice they won't be prepared for us to make on their behalf.

Of course you could just vote in Corbyn if you don’t like any of that.