Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
A Horse Named Stranger

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If Labour, LibDem and remain conservatives are as smart as the respective parties claim they are, I can see a lot of strategic voting happening in Tory seats that mostly voted majority remain in the ref. The non-LibDem voters among that lot could all swing in behind a libDem and take the seat off the Tories. And if half of the rebel alliance get back into parliament as independents I do wonder where a Tory majority will come from.

8-10% ahead in polls probably also includes voters in the rebel alliance bases, so I don't know if 8-10% is quite as meaningful for Tories now considering what's happened in the last 24 hours.

I'd put the chances of a Tory (+DUP) majority at less than 50% as of today. And if Labour campaigns strongly on ref 2.0 with remain as a promised option they can pick up swing voters.

I don't follow the bolded. 8-10% is the Tory lead over Labour in the latest polls as they are on about 35% and Labour are on 25% or so. This is potential majority territory. It does seem like both Liberals and SNP will make gains from the Tories so the Tories will need gains from Labour. They are likely to look for them in the North and Midlands from Leave seats. Tactical voting will play a role in the election, sure but tends to prove of limited effectiveness.

I'm just saying we can't get too excited about the result tonight. I doubt Boris meant to lose, and certainly not by as much as he did. It seems absurd to remove the whip from so many senior Tories. However, I do think he and Cummings knew they might have to fight an election and fighting it before leaving the EU while blaming Parliament for the delay will be one of the scenarios they've gamed. Whether this is the preferred option, above fighting it after October 31 I don't know but losing the majority does not matter that much. Even if Parliament makes Boris wait a bit for the election it will have to come soon. 

Unlike Werthead I think the overwhelming majority of the 21 will either not stand or lose their seats, so Boris will be able to shift the party more towards his grisly English nationalist vision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It works both ways right? the Tories might have 35% support, but if that's concentrated in a <majority number of hard brexit voting seats then it can spell something less than a majority that DUP can't make up.

I would be surprised if the Tories ended up on more seats than they got in the 2017 election, which means no outright majority for them.

I don't know the electorate breakdowns in the UK, does Labour stand to lose more hard Brexit seats than the cons stand to lose remainer-majority sets? is this really going to be a fight about anything more than Brexit? The usual things like law and order, education, health and jobs are just going to be support topics where each party will tell a story about how Brexit is going to ruin / benefit each one of these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Rogers isn't a Leaver. He has worked as a civil servant under both Blair and Cameron. He worked at the EU and just knows his shit when it comes to the EU and its workings. Like often in life, knowledge and faith don't mix. So he was dismissed by May pretty early on in the Brexit process for telling her about the costs of Brexit and providing her early on with reality checks - and thus showing a lack of faith in the Brexit process. 

Um, in the article he said he voted "Yes" in the referendum.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the SNP have walked back on their desire to vote in favour of a GE as well - which probably screws that option, even as a simple bill (for which, surely the FTPA foresaw and accounted for - if not, then that act is as useful as a chocolate fire guard)

For now, we need to prioritise. A GE won't solve anything, and will probably lead to a 3-way coalition or confidence and supply. Which is why it's BJ's preferred backup.

IMO We need to get an extension, and get a 2nd referendum, before heading for a GE. The chances are that a second ref will come back with a small majority, but it's the only thing that is capable of healing divisions.
Potential flies in the ointment are if May's deal is ressurected - which I think means prorogation needs to happen first, or BJ wins a vote on his strategy.



It's going to be fascinating to see what the whipless Tories do.
Greeningnis quitting anyway. Clarke wasn't intending to stand down at the next GE anyway, but may be pissed off enough to change his mind. Hammond looks like he's going to fight potential deselection.
Which leaves 18 (and a few others who must be getting annoyed by Cummings' bully-boy tactics).
I can't see m/any of the grandees joining LibDem. Do they join CHUKb? Do they stand their ground and go quietly at the GE? Do they stand as independents? Do they start their own Moderate Conservative party (and try to win back some CHUKb ex-tories).

 

 

Question.

Given the (significantly) minority government, could we see a standing article 24 force a second referendum? Or would only a GNU be able to do that?

Edited by Which Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Hammond looks like he's going to fight potential deselection.

Hammond has enough name recognition and runs on the board that he can probably run successfully as an independent, and also cobble together the remnants into a cohesive bloc. Might make the party think twice before deselecting him and really forcing him out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Jeor said:

Hammond has enough name recognition and runs on the board that he can probably run successfully as an independent, and also cobble together the remnants into a cohesive bloc. Might make the party think twice before deselecting him and really forcing him out.

That's what I was thinking. This group has enough names, enough experience, and enough cabinet ministers to form a rump-tory party if they chose.

Could easily see a ticket of Hammond as leader, Clarke as wannabe chancellor, Steward as wannabe home secretary... Do that, win some of the other ex-tories (Soubrey, Allen, Boles...), would probably peel off another dozen or so current Tories who must be unhappy with the directions the party is going... They could become a force, and could relatively easily become 3rd biggest party without needing a general election.

 

The problem, as CHUK found, is the lack of party aperatus, donors and feet on the ground locally...

But then, the conservative party has lurched a long way to the right this year. There must be plenty of grass-roots activists who would follow these names. But it's a hell of a risk.

Edited by Which Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope his making those 21 lose the whip comes back to bite him in the ass.

While I’m not at all in favour of a Corbyn led government I’m not in favour of a Boris led one either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bittersweet Distractor said:

I really hope his making those 21 lose the whip comes back to bite him in the ass.

While I’m not at all in favour of a Corbyn led government I’m not in favour of a Boris led one either.

I feel the same. The grim truth though is that getting an outcome which is not either a Boris government or a Corbyn one is very hard to imagine in our system. It is almost, although maybe not quite inevitable, it is one or the other. Honestly not sure which I would go for, like being made to choose whether to drink vomit or eat turd. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could somebody explain a few things to me regarding the Northern Ireland question and to clear up any misunderstandings I have?

So my understanding of the peace deal in Northern Ireland goes like this: Politically, Northern Ireland remains part of the UK. There are democratic mechanisms set in place in case there is a real desire for reunification with the Republic of Ireland. Part of the deal also states there is to be no hard border and people can freely choose citizenship of either country.

So with that in mind, why was the question not asked during the referendum? Also my understanding of the the so called Backstop is that the question of borders was to be resolved within 2 years AFTER the UK leaves the EU. For some reason this is unacceptable and a deal breaker for some in the UK. My question is why? Immediate hard borders would compromise the peace process. Delaying addressing the issue is not a solution, but it does buy the government time while upholding the will of the people in the referendum by leaving the EU.

I guess the only guaranteed way to resolve this question is for the Republic of Ireland to ALSO leave the EU!

Please educate me and correct me where I am wrong.

 

Edited by Ordos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Ordos said:

So with that in mind, why was the question not asked during the referendum? Also my understanding of the the so called Backstop is that the question of borders was to be resolved within 2 years AFTER the UK leaves the EU. For some reason this is unacceptable and a deal breaker for some in the UK. My question is why? Immediate hard borders would compromise the peace process. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-46988529

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-46988529

There is nothing in the GFA about hard borders, although it could be argued its not in the spirit of the agreement, but again its debatable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ordos said:

Could somebody explain a few things to me regarding the Northern Ireland question and to clear up any misunderstandings I have?

So my understanding of the peace deal in Northern Ireland goes like this: Politically, Northern Ireland remains part of the UK. There are democratic mechanisms set in place in case there is a real desire for reunification with the Republic of Ireland. Part of the deal also states there is to be no hard border and people can freely choose citizenship of either country.

So with that in mind, why was the question not asked during the referendum? Also my understanding of the the so called Backstop is that the question of borders was to be resolved within 2 years AFTER the UK leaves the EU. For some reason this is unacceptable and a deal breaker for some in the UK. My question is why? Immediate hard borders would compromise the peace process. Delaying addressing the issue is not a solution, but it does buy the government time while upholding the will of the people in the referendum by leaving the EU.

I guess the only guaranteed way to resolve this question is for the Republic of Ireland to ALSO leave the EU!

Please educate me and correct me where I am wrong.

There is an appreciable difference of approach between the minutiae text of the agreement and how the agreement was sold to Republicans in Northern Ireland to convince them to lay down their weapons.

One of the ways of winning them over was to present the practical idea that there becomes little to no difference between travelling from Northern Ireland into the Republic. You're still driving on the same side of the road, you're finding the same kind of businesses and in many cases you don't need to even change your currency (certainly along and near the border, you can use both Euros and Pound Sterling, and in some places in Belfast and Dublin you can do the same; as both countries also use chip-and-pin cards, it's even less of an issue now). So if you're Republican, you can kind of pretend that the island is already unified and if you're Unionist you know it isn't, although that's an academic point as both countries are in the EU and subject to regulatory alignment.

Republicans also appreciate that the shifting demographics mean that it's pretty inevitable they will win a border referendum to reunite the island, they just need to wait until the appropriate moment to campaign for one (at current rates of change, probably the early 2030s, maybe even the late 2020s) without the need for further violence. A key flaw of the prior paramilitary campaign (well, apart from the murders) was that the majority of the population of NI was opposed to reunification, forcing them to make the argument that it was justified by historical colonisation and transplantation of English settlers into NI hundreds and hundreds of years ago, which feels a bit a of a stretch. The removal of the border posts and patrols, the visible evidence of a hard British military presence in NI, and the reorganisation of NI's police and security forces to bring in both Catholics and Protestants and engage with both communities was all done to heal the divisions of the past.

Reintroducing a hard border on the island of Ireland will become necessary from the UK POV to stop illegal immigration: people from Romania or Poland can fly (or sail) to Dublin, cross the border without checks and then catch a ferry from Belfast to Liverpool and disappear into the UK. The RoI may also not feel particularly bothered to crack down on refugees or migrants from outside the EU if they're just passing through on their way to the UK. It is also necessary from the EU POV to stop sub-standard dogshit bought into the UK cheap from China or the US making its way into the EU, undermining its quality systems. The hard border will need to consist of customs check posts, but some kind of police or even military presence may be necessary if smuggling takes off again as a criminal enterprise (there's a reason why some of the border is historically known as "Bandit Country").

As for why the question was not asked during the referendum, it was and it was immediately shouted down as "Project Fear" by intellectually-challenged morons who probably think that Dublin is still a British city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It occurs that there is now a viable path to Ref3. If Johnson loses the bill today, he then can't call an election under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act because he can't get the support. He may not be able to then call an election under a bill because he can't get a simple majority, and AFAIK the government can't call a vote of no confidence in itself.

He could resign, but that would just trigger a renewed leadership challenge which the rest of Parliament doesn't need to give two shits about, and the new leader would face some of the same obstacles.

The only way out of the mess might be to call a new referendum. That would just require a simple majority, and if Boris convinced the bulk of the Tory Party to agree to it, he might get away with just bringing on board the Lib Dems, CUK and maybe some of the SNP. There's also plenty of Labour MPs who'd vote for it as well.

No-one's really talking about it at the moment, but at some point that may emerge as the only way out of the mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The only way out of the mess might be to call a new referendum.

The problem with Ref3 would be there's no level of concreteness to add to the Leave option, and by now I should hope most Leavers have realized there really needs to be one. Would Leave be with No Deal (an unpalatable option), with Theresa May's Deal (another unpalatable option) or with a New Better Deal to be negotiated really soon by Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn (a both undefined and unlikely option)?

After the rejection of Theresa May's deal, Leave needs the pipe-dream of a New Better Deal to remain alive to be really viable. Even with only two months to go, Boris Johnson keeps saying he's confident in negotiating a Better, Backstopless Deal if the HoC will only give him free rein to do so (despite this being a ludicrous assertion). No Deal is still only the fall back option if all else fails. Labour, on the other hand, still appears confident that, if it wins a GE, it will be able to negotiate a New Better Deal that will win over the Conservative and Labour voters (at least they have conceded they will put it to a referendum, I think...).

Revoking A50 is a clear and unambiguous option, but what's behind the other door?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone has pointed out that this situation is in danger of triggering Constitutional Armageddon.

Namely, a scenario where the Bill passes the Lords, and Boris Johnson advises Liz not to sign it - a situation that puts her in an impossible situation, since either way she's breaching convention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mentat said:

The problem with Ref3 would be there's no level of concreteness to add to the Leave option, and by now I should hope most Leavers have realized there really needs to be one. Would Leave be with No Deal (an unpalatable option), with Theresa May's Deal (another unpalatable option) or with a New Better Deal to be negotiated really soon by Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn (a both undefined and unlikely option)?

After the rejection of Theresa May's deal, Leave needs the pipe-dream of a New Better Deal to remain alive to be really viable. Even with only two months to go, Boris Johnson keeps saying he's confident in negotiating a Better, Backstopless Deal if the HoC will only give him free rein to do so (despite this being a ludicrous assertion). No Deal is still only the fall back option if all else fails. Labour, on the other hand, still appears confident that, if it wins a GE, it will be able to negotiate a New Better Deal that will win over the Conservative and Labour voters (at least they have conceded they will put it to a referendum, I think...).

Revoking A50 is a clear and unambiguous option, but what's behind the other door?

That would be a problem. No Deal vs Remain, a Deal vs Remain (and we stay in the EU in the meantime) or a 3 or even 4-way split option all have massive problems.

No Deal vs. Remain is won by Remain almost immediately. Deal vs Remain could go either way depending on the deal, but it might take years to negotiate a deal, and splitting the vote will immediately have people crying foul: Deal vs No Deal vs Remain splits the Brexit vote so Remain wins, and I can't see two Remain votes that make sense (Remain on current terms or Remain & Reform?).

The most logical thing to do at this juncture would be to say that a Deal seems unlikely, so therefore it'll be No Deal vs Remain. And Remain wins with something north of a 60 majority. But then you have leave-with-a-deal fans bitching for the next infinity years about it.

Quote

Namely, a scenario where the Bill passes the Lords, and Boris Johnson advises Liz not to sign it - a situation that puts her in an impossible situation, since either way she's breaching convention

 

I don't think even Johnson would do that, although you never know.

Edited by Werthead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

I don't think anyone has pointed out that this situation is in danger of triggering Constitutional Armageddon.

Namely, a scenario where the Bill passes the Lords, and Boris Johnson advises Liz not to sign it - a situation that puts her in an impossible situation, since either way she's breaching convention.

It has been talked about - as has the possibility of him refusing to act upon said law; or acting upon it and vetoing his own request to the EU.

He simultaneously refuses to request an extension, and acknowledges that he won't break the law; whilst his get-out-of-jail-free option has been removed.

 

 

 

I've never heard of a fillibuster being possible in the UK system before (quite possibly because I've never paid much attention to the Lords).

It SOUNDS LIKE... a fillibuster can only really happen when there's a proroguement about to happen; as that's the only time debate is actually closed down, rather tan staying live to be picked up again later.
Which means that if the tory lords can just keep it being debated for a week, they can simply run down the clock.
Cummings has gotten 86 (and counting?) ammendments to be added when today's bill reaches the lords - with each (apparently) taking a minium of about 45 minutes.
The Lords can keep themselves open all night, and over the weekend if they wish - but they have to close down and vacate when proroguement kicks in.

Was this part of the equation when proroguement was floated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that's a "no" to Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi's question.

That's going to be all over the place, and terrible, terrible optics for BJ

 

ETA: well played Swinson for calling him on it as well

 

For those who haven't seen it: https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1169218435554918400?

Just... don't read the comments

Edited by Which Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I feel the same. The grim truth though is that getting an outcome which is not either a Boris government or a Corbyn one is very hard to imagine in our system. It is almost, although maybe not quite inevitable, it is one or the other. Honestly not sure which I would go for, like being made to choose whether to drink vomit or eat turd. 

I know, we’re going to end up with one or the other and I don’t like the prospect of either at all!.

I can’t vote for a party which has expelled people who I believe held the best views in it, and I can’t vote for a government that’s as left leaning as Corbyns.

Guess I will have to vote for the Lib Dems, although it’s quite a pointless exercise in the constituency that I live in, I doubt it’s ever been anything other than blue!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Werthead said:

 

Reintroducing a hard border on the island of Ireland will become necessary from the UK POV to stop illegal immigration: people from Romania or Poland can fly (or sail) to Dublin, cross the border without checks and then catch a ferry from Belfast to Liverpool and disappear into the UK. The RoI may also not feel particularly bothered to crack down on refugees or migrants from outside the EU if they're just passing through on their way to the UK. It is also necessary from the EU POV to stop sub-standard dogshit bought into the UK cheap from China or the US making its way into the EU, undermining its quality systems. The hard border will need to consist of customs check posts, but some kind of police or even military presence may be necessary if smuggling takes off again as a criminal enterprise (there's a reason why some of the border is historically known as "Bandit Country").

As for why the question was not asked during the referendum, it was and it was immediately shouted down as "Project Fear" by intellectually-challenged morons who probably think that Dublin is still a British city.

OK. But honestly if you are pro leave, when complaining about the backstop, what would you say to the face of a member of Sinn Fein (the political wing of the IRA)? I'm not accusing you, I'm just asking what an average person who voted leave would say.

Also I see nothing wrong with fulfilling some referendum promises by the deadline and others later by pointing out the complexity of the issues. "Let me introduce you to this IRA terrorist and this Loyalist paramilitary! Tell them we need a hard border!"

Edited by Ordos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×