UK Politics: The Malice in the Chalice held by the Pfeffel with the Piffle is the Brexit that is true.

[Chaircat Meow]

The big tactical issue for the Remainers now is whether to delay the oncoming election beyond October 31, holding it in November or December after Boris has been forced to apply for an extension, thus breaking his do or die pledge. The reasons for delay are, firstly, to ensure Boris can’t take advantage of incumbency in the event of another hung Parliament to let the country fall out in October 31 and secondly to move the election further away from the honeymoon period and make Boris break his pledge in the hope this will send Leavers running to Nigel Farage.

The reason to allow the election to take place in October is that it looks less like running away from the electorate, which is not really a good look. I think the sensible course is to delay but I’m dubious it will make that much difference to the result of the election.

Remainers should also be having a good hard look at their erstwhile allies, the SNP. In theory the SNP are all for stopping no-deal Brexit, but some of them will think a Boris victory in the upcoming election, with a massive SNP win in Scotland, followed by no deal, will pave the way for a successful independence vote. They might feel it to be in their interest to allow the early election, and with their help, and the DUP, Boris has enough for a simple majority to override the FTPA.

I’m not sure what the SNP will do, as I’m not really sure what they think the best conditions for an Indyref2 are. Moreover as no deal will happen before any referendum, if they are seen to facilitate a victorious Johnson election that leads to no deal, which makes the practicalities of independence monstrously hard, that won’t look good.

[Chaircat Meow]

OK, further to what I said about the SNP apparently the motion on Monday for an election will be under the FPTA, so that rules out the Tories + Nats going for an earlier election, as they don't have the numbers. I guess there is still time to bring a simple majority bill to override the FTPA in though.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

18 hours ago, ants said:

I think I interpreted his “I agree “ below as meaning he did. 

This position reasonably asserts that Brexit is not ‘just the economy, stupid’, but also a governance, indeed a constitutional, issue.

I agree. And patently, so do lots of people who voted primarily on non-economic grounds. And perfectly reasonably so.

 

Like our resident cat from Psych explained, that's an overinterpretation on your part. All he said was, Brexit is crazy on an economical level, however leave voters did not vote on merely economic reasons (thus the more or less witty reference to Bill Clinton's old campaign slogan). Rogers said it on a few other occasions, yes, EU membership and trade deals in general do infringe to varying degrees on national sovereignty, and there's in his opinion a discussion you can hold.

He himself (again he said it on numerous occasions) has voted remain, because he believes the trade offs are quite high, and that the absolute sovereignty a lot of Brexiters fantasize about are just that.

19 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I would say Johnson's bluster over being hamstrung in negotiations is really setting things up for getting an extension "Because I was denied one of my most potent negotiation tools (no deal) and so I need more time to be able to arrive at the deal I would certainly have arranged before 31 Oct if I was left to get on with my job." 

That doesn't satisfy hard Brexiters, but if this Bill becomes law then he can't legally deliver no deal on 31 Oct anyway. Hard Brexiters will actually want an extension and a GE so that they can get a proper leave majority in Parliament and repeal that anti no-deal law. Of course it seems pretty unlikely that there will be a no-deal majority in parliament any time soon. You might get a majority of leave supporters (also somewhat unlikely I think) but not a majority of no deal supporters.

Arguably. I still believe giving him the GE now however, is just the a horrible idea politically. He can happily campaign on his Brexit October 31st Do-or-die. And he is in GE campaign mode anyway - and that's the one thing he is apparently good at, campaigning.

Let him be PM without a majority getting shown up in parliament, quite a bit of his winner image will get peeled off from him, layer by layer. You saw the last couple of days how bad, weak and pathetic he looked, the longer this goes, the better. Any maybe the next Labour party conference will even rob him off one of his last electoral tricks, and remove his "No-deal versus Corbyn" trump card. Benn, Cooper, Starmer etc. put one of them in charge instead of the right's favorite boogey man, and he can really only campaign on no-deal, for which there's no majority.

[polishgenius]

...

[A Horse Named Stranger]

3 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I’m not sure what the SNP will do, as I’m not really sure what they think the best conditions for an Indyref2 are. Moreover as no deal will happen before any referendum, if they are seen to facilitate a victorious Johnson election that leads to no deal, which makes the practicalities of independence monstrously hard, that won’t look good.

The SNP will tell Johnson to go and whistle. Like I said before, too much risk too little reward. Giving Johnson his GE now could mean no-deal, and that's not gonna wash too well with their electorate up north, if they were to be seen as enablers of Johnson's no-deal seppuku, which will always impact Scotland (inside or outside the UK). The SNP is not stupid, they just have to take a look over the Irish sea and what happens there with the Irish border. Do you think they'd be interested in getting themselves into that very same mess (assuming they succeed with IndyRefII)? Ideally they'd like to be in the EU alongside the UK or at the very least with the WA in place. So you could probably argue they'd sign off on the WA with IndyRefII attached to it. But no deal?

[Chaircat Meow]

30 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

The SNP will tell Johnson to go and whistle. Like I said before, too much risk too little reward. Giving Johnson his GE now could mean no-deal, and that's not gonna wash too well with their electorate up north, if they were to be seen as enablers of Johnson's no-deal seppuku, which will always impact Scotland (inside or outside the UK). The SNP is not stupid, they just have to take a look over the Irish sea and what happens there with the Irish border. Do you think they'd be interested in getting themselves into that very same mess (assuming they succeed with IndyRefII)? Ideally they'd like to be in the EU alongside the UK or at the very least with the WA in place. So you could probably argue they'd sign off on the WA with IndyRefII attached to it. But no deal?

It is dangerous to presume people are not as stupid as they seem. 

[Fragile Bird]

39 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

...

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Fragile Bird said:

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

If I were to make a guess, he  tried to pitch towards a sectorial agreement, that only covers agrifood sector on the Irish Island. Which is of course not going to fly.

[Which Tyler]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49598118

"Boris Johnson has said he would "rather be dead in a ditch" than ask the EU to delay Brexit beyond 31 October."

 

Because that's going to give his opponents faith that he'd abide by the law when the current bill passes!

 

After that, no way can labour or the SNP accept a GE before the summit. They'll need to see the extension request put in, not be vetoed, and if accepted, ratified by ourselves before they can risk that.

 

If BJ refuses, then he's breaking the law, and that seems reasonabky straight forward; which leaves him resigning as his only viable option if they don't take the election bait.

Who takes over then? Leadsom? Or a new vote of the 160,000? Or are we into GNU territory?

 

[Werthead]

19 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Mogg is shorting the pound? Where did you read that. I think that is Odey. 

Mogg is a former part-owner of Somerset Capital, which he only left in March. Between the 2016 referendum and March 2019 he is estimated to have profited to the tune of £680,000 from Somerset Capital short-trading the pound and up to £7 million in total from all his investments in Brexit-related fields.

Although he left his role in Somerset Capital in March this year, it is uncler what other, additional investments he holds.

https://www.channel4.com/press/news/brexiteer-jacob-rees-mogg-estimated-have-earnt-ps7m-investments-referendum-according

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/a-reminder-of-all-the-brexiteers-who-appeared-in-the-paradise-papers-as-eu-tax-avoidance-legislation-looms/03/09/

[Chaircat Meow]

7 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Mogg is a former part-owner of Somerset Capital, which he only left in March. Between the 2016 referendum and March 2019 he is estimated to have profited to the tune of £680,000 from Somerset Capital short-trading the pound and up to £7 million in total from all his investments in Brexit-related fields.

Although he left his role in Somerset Capital in March this year, it is uncler what other, additional investments he holds.

https://www.channel4.com/press/news/brexiteer-jacob-rees-mogg-estimated-have-earnt-ps7m-investments-referendum-according

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/a-reminder-of-all-the-brexiteers-who-appeared-in-the-paradise-papers-as-eu-tax-avoidance-legislation-looms/03/09/

This really is daft nonsense from you. There is no evidence here at all that JRM made speculative bets against the pound. He founded an EM fund house years ago which is nothing to do with betting against a currency. If you genuinely think JRM is doing all this because some investors think EM funds are more attractive because of Brexit you are indulging in a fantasy and revealing you don't know how asset management works. 

[Werthead]

47 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

This really is daft nonsense from you. There is no evidence here at all that JRM made speculative bets against the pound. He founded an EM fund house years ago which is nothing to do with betting against a currency. If you genuinely think JRM is doing all this because some investors think EM funds are more attractive because of Brexit you are indulging in a fantasy and revealing you don't know how asset management works. 

I just provided the links to the stories, I never said I believed them. In JRM's case, it would have required significant prescience from many years before the referendum to know it was going to happen (like everyone else, JRM probably did not expect us to vote to leave in 2016) to really benefit from it and, as the last three years have made clear, most of the people involved in the Brexit side of the argument are anything other than the Machiavellian masterminds they would like others to believe they are.

That said, the response to the question "Has he personally, financially profited from Brexit," the answer is "yes," to be followed by the caveat "probably inadvertently." The fact he quit the company in March after C4 News mounted an investigation into the matter shows that he agrees that the situation, at the very least, looked improper even if no actual impropriety took place.

Also, I suggest reading what people are saying before engaging in a hysterical rant which makes you look foolish.

[A wilding]

Further evidence of Rees-Mogg being a horrible human being:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49598999

Rees-Mogg today sheltered behind Parliamentary privilege to say that one of the Government's own medical experts was "as bad as Andrew Wakefield" after they spoke out about likely drug supply issues after a no deal Brexit. Those issues of course being well documented, not least by that leaked Government report on how to handle a no deal Brexit.

(Andrew Wakefield of course, is the discredited former doctor who kickstarted the whole "MMR causes autism" nonsense.)

Still I like the expert's response: he has dared Rees-Mogg to repeat what he said outside the protection of the HoC.

 

[Derfel Cadarn]

8 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

He is saying Boris is not serving the national interest so he is going, despite Boris being his brother and family loyalty, etc. And yes, both Boris's brother and sister are remainers. 

The first minister to resign to spend less time with his family?

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, A wilding said:

Further evidence of Rees-Mogg being a horrible human being:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49598999

Rees-Mogg today sheltered behind Parliamentary privilege to say that one of the Government's own medical experts was "as bad as Andrew Wakefield" after they spoke out about likely drug supply issues after a no deal Brexit. Those issues of course being well documented, not least by that leaked Government report on how to handle a no deal Brexit.

(Andrew Wakefield of course, is the discredited former doctor who kickstarted the whole "MMR causes autism" nonsense.)

Still I like the expert's response: he has dared Rees-Mogg to repeat what he said outside the protection of the HoC.

 

I guess the silver lining to this is Rees-Mogg agrees that Andrew Wakefield is a quack and JRM is not an anti-vaxxer? So he is capable of having rational views.

I do find it hard to fathom that the govt wouldn't have the pharmaceuticals situation covered. But maybe they are being too complacent about it, or have underestimated the size of the need.

[Werthead]

11 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I guess the silver lining to this is Rees-Mogg agrees that Andrew Wakefield is a quack and JRM is not an anti-vaxxer? So he is capable of having rational views.

I do find it hard to fathom that the govt wouldn't have the pharmaceuticals situation covered. But maybe they are being too complacent about it, or have underestimated the size of the need.

Or are actively hoping there is a major catastrophic problem, which they will then explain is a direct result of the NHS being a filthy socialist invention and also foreigners, and then use it to justify selling the entire organisation to Walmart?

[The Anti-Targ]

13 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Or are actively hoping there is a major catastrophic problem, which they will then explain is a direct result of the NHS being a filthy socialist invention and also foreigners, and then use it to justify selling the entire organisation to Walmart?

Can they really be that evil? Not the selling off of the NHS, that's bad but can theoretically be based in some notion that healthcare works better for everyone in a private free market system and so not evil. But the manufacturing of a catastrophe that does cost lives, or at best serious ill health, to achieve that end? That's just evil.

[Zorral]

There are so many ways for the well-positioned, well-informed and corrupt to profit from the dissolution of a state and empire.  Any war profiteer will tell us that it is much easier and quicker to make profit out of destruction than out of production.

If the UK doesn't believe that USA Big Pharma and Big 'Medical' Insurance and Big For Profit Hospital conglomerates aren't just salivating and pulling at the NHS leash to push their Massive For Profit ways on the British, well, I dunno.  And that's just for starters.  As They Say, 'Strip the UK and sell it for parts.'  Disaster capitalism in action!

Ask the vast majority of USA citizens how good for them this for profit and profit only 'medical system' of the US works.
 

[Chaircat Meow]

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

I just provided the links to the stories, I never said I believed them. In JRM's case, it would have required significant prescience from many years before the referendum to know it was going to happen (like everyone else, JRM probably did not expect us to vote to leave in 2016) to really benefit from it and, as the last three years have made clear, most of the people involved in the Brexit side of the argument are anything other than the Machiavellian masterminds they would like others to believe they are.

That said, the response to the question "Has he personally, financially profited from Brexit," the answer is "yes," to be followed by the caveat "probably inadvertently." The fact he quit the company in March after C4 News mounted an investigation into the matter shows that he agrees that the situation, at the very least, looked improper even if no actual impropriety took place.

Also, I suggest reading what people are saying before engaging in a hysterical rant which makes you look foolish.

The link didn't backup what you were saying in anyway. Anyone who invested predominantly in the FTSE 100 would be shorting the pound on your analysis, which is just absurd. 

[James Arryn]

4 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Bovine suffrage.