UK Politics: A Partly Political Broadcast

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Hard to see that happening.

Last time out they elevated the DUP not to Guardians of Galaxy, but to the Guardians of Union (I think the Smugg himself used those words), which is nearly as good. So it sounds kinda difficult to dismiss them now as crybabies. Ok, he is full of shit and just used them as an excuse to vote down the old WA, but that would be quite a remarkable u-turn. It'd be interesting to see the sort of mental gymnastics that would require. I assume there'll be quite a few Tories who really might have constitutional reservations of going there.

And wasn't there a bill or an amendment (courtesy to Hoey I think), that explicitly ruled that out? So Johnson would also need to fix that, with the DUP all kicking and screaming. That would be quite a sight, I believe.

[Chaircat Meow]

1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Hard to see that happening.

Last time out they elevated the DUP not to Guardians of Galaxy, but to the Guardians of Union (I think the Smugg himself used those words), which is nearly as good. So it sounds kinda difficult to dismiss them now as crybabies. Ok, he is full of shit and just used them as an excuse to vote down the old WA, but that would be quite a remarkable u-turn. It'd be interesting to see the sort of mental gymnastics that would require. I assume there'll be quite a few Tories who really might have constitutional reservations of going there.

And wasn't there a bill or an amendment (courtesy to Hoey I think), that explicitly ruled that out? So Johnson would also need to fix that, with the DUP all kicking and screaming. That would be quite a sight, I believe.

Mogg has opined that one's own words make a most wholesome diet or some such. 

[The Anti-Targ]

5 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I suppose Johnson's plan could be this:

We have all been scratching our heads thinking how does this make sense, he needs the DUP and he can't expect them to fall for this. Well, it could be he knows that full well and 'success' as it is being defined here doesn't require the DUP.

1) Johnson just want to give the ERG cover to abandon the DUP; he can then isolate the DUP and paint them as obstructive because he, Johnson, did cut a deal preserving the integrity of the country, whatever they may say. He then scraps the level playing field provisions and goes for a much harder Brexit deal and future relationship. So the ERG vote for the deal.

2) He thinks nearly all the Tory rebels will vote for the deal, however awful, because they've made opposing no deal their big thing, not opposing a terrible Brexit deal nearly as bad as no deal. So the Tory rebels vote for it. 

3) He thinks there are 15-20 Labour MPs, such as Kinnock, Flint and so on desperate for a deal who will vote for anything other than total chaos in the forlorn hope Brexit will go away once the exit deal is cut. So he hopes to make up for the DUP with Labour MPs. 

So the deal gets through.

However, 3 is likely wrong - Corbyn will threaten to withdraw the whip from his rebels as he won't want Jo Swinson to be able to say he facilitated Brexit. The deal won't pass but it will fail more narrowly than May's did, as gains among the ERG, now separated from the DUP, will not be offset by losses among Tory Remainers who nearly all want a deal. 

Johnson may think a narrow loss for his deal is fine, it at least distracts from him having to ask for an extension and he's retaken the initiative and looks dynamic (cutting a deal so quickly). What's more the deal he cuts, he hopes, won't polarise Leave opinion like May's deal did; the ERG will back him and he'll be able to ask for an election where he gets to put his very hard Brexit to the public with Farage side-lined.

Crucially there are probably not the numbers for a 2nd referendum if Johnson has a deal to offer, as the DUP and enough Labour MPs are opposed to a referendum to make it unfeasible without support from the Gawkeward squad and the Tory rebels will likely only vote for a ref to avert no deal coming about via a Johnson win in an election. So just having a deal may shoot the 2nd ref fox. 

He only needs to lose by less than the number of DUP MPs to be able to completely blame the DUP for making him have to cave to the Benn Act and ask the EU for an extension. But if a handful of the Tory caucus votes against the deal that's a bad look for him. Because if his Brexit deal isn't hard enough for everyone who is still in the Tory caucus then there is very little chance that any kind of deal will be able to command a majority in the House for the foreseeable future.

[Ser Hedge]

7 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Isn't it more likely, that

1.) A number of ERGs will vote against the deal. Because it either does not contain enough unicorns or no-deal is better anyway.

 

7 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

One reason for the ERG caving is that the no-dealers must now see the writing on the wall and appreciate there is a significant chance the great Brexit turd will be taken away from them

This. Bozo or Dom Moriarty to be precise has now clearly demonstrated for even the thickest Hard Brexiteer that no deal is unlikely to ever happen. Current Parliament will pass another Cooper or Benn Act and clever tricks like prorogation don't work.

What about a new Commons?

About 50 Tories (not the de-whipped ones) have made it plain they will not campaign for no deal. More importantly, Bozo owns this new de-facto-de-jure-if-you-want-a-rebate-sing-Molly-Malone-but-this-is-not-a-backstop-yeah-fudge-o-rama, so he will campaign on this, not no deal.

No deal is dead, though for most it was always only ever a negotiating tactic anyway.

[mormont]

14 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The leadership is under great pressure to leverage the Brexit crisis to secure and then win a 2nd Scexit referendum.

There has been no first 'Scexit referendum', it was an independence referendum. 'Scexit'? What fresh gibberish is this?

What is it with this '-exit' nonsense? It's worse than '-gate'. Now I'm going to leave the room, or 'rexit' as it's becoming known. 

[Ser Hedge]

2 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

 

This. Bozo or Dom Moriarty to be precise has now clearly demonstrated for even the thickest Hard Brexiteer that no deal is unlikely to ever happen. Current Parliament will pass another Cooper or Benn Act and clever tricks like prorogation don't work.

What about a new Commons?

About 50 Tories (not the de-whipped ones) have made it plain they will not campaign for no deal. More importantly, Bozo owns this new de-facto-de-jure-if-you-want-a-rebate-sing-Molly-Malone-but-this-is-not-a-backstop-yeah-fudge-o-rama, so he will campaign on this, not no deal.

No deal is dead, though for most it was always only ever a negotiating tactic anyway.

Btw, the above is assuming he comes back with a deal. If there is no deal in hand, then sadly EU intransigence will be blamed of course and we are back to a few weeks ago. So if the EU are able to humour the Bozo - while of course staying within their red lines - and just allow the Bozo to pretend he got some concessions (even if he didn't) by some fudgy language, then that is not a bad outcome as this ridiculous no deal threat then really falls off the table.

After that if Lib-Lab manage to get in a remain vs Bozo deal referendum, great. GE is also fine, it's a referendum of sorts (with first past the post constraints). If this deal passes before of the either two, well, it's theoretically only a withdrawal agreement, there still a chance to influence the future relationship with the EU, so not the end of the world.

The worst outcome is easily the current talks breaking down. No one except the craziest leaver should want that.

[Mosi Mynn]

Have UK voters changed their minds on Brexit?

Stats/polls highlighting how divided the country is.  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

So after last night, is Johnson's new car smell already starting to dissipate?

 

[Chaircat Meow]

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So after last night, is Johnson's new car smell already starting to dissipate?

 

No, not yet. Mood music is OK for him.

A David Gauke piece in the ES suggests the whipless 19 are less of a shoe-in for a deal than I pessimistically supposed. 

[Ser Hedge]

Responded to wrong post sorry

[Ser Hedge]

5 hours ago, Mosi Mynn said:

Have UK voters changed their minds on Brexit?

Stats/polls highlighting how divided the country is.  

In the Kantar poll: If you leave out the don't knows the different flavours of Leave are 46% vs 34% status quo. So, almost all the Don't Knows need to come out for Remain. Or the Leave votes are split through a multi stage referendum or appropriately framed options in a single stage referendum.

BMG: Very Brexit-y. 49% Leave flavours, 18% second referendum, 22% revoke/remain, only 12% don't knows. You need all the don't knows and all the second refs and even then you're only at 51-52%

The data about where 2016 voters stand now shows 1/3rd of Remain voters no longer insisting on pure remain, while far fewer Leaves have shifted. A pretty high number of no dealers. Clearly frustration with the long process turning a lot of Leavers more hard line.

The only positive is revoke+single market/customs union is over 50% in Kantar, and close to 70% including May dealers. Don't know how many of those realize that single market means  free movement. Assuming most don't know that and are not that favourable of immigration, then the solution would be customs union or a close free trade agreement, while maintaining single market worker and product standards me thinks.

[Chaircat Meow]

10 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

The worst outcome is easily the current talks breaking down. No one except the craziest leaver should want that.

I kind of want the talks to break down. If they don't break down that may indicate the DUP have wet themselves and fallen in line. And that means the deal has better than 50% odds of passing.

From what we know (and yes, this may change, the text is not out yet - we are still in the dark really) the Boris deal is no-deal Brexit for Great Britain for the most part. The bits of no deal we miss out on are chaos in Ireland, no prospect of any sort of minimal trade deal with the EU (which would add little to GDP growth) and the immediate tomfoolery with the trucks and the missing mars bars and medicine. The medium-long term effects will otherwise be the same it seems; the country about 5-10% poorer in ten years time than it otherwise would have been for nothing in return. 

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Ser Hedge said:

In the Kantar poll: If you leave out the don't knows the different flavours of Leave are 46% vs 34% status quo. So, almost all the Don't Knows need to come out for Remain. Or the Leave votes are split through a multi stage referendum or appropriately framed options in a single stage referendum.

BMG: Very Brexit-y. 49% Leave flavours, 18% second referendum, 22% revoke/remain, only 12% don't knows. You need all the don't knows and all the second refs and even then you're only at 51-52%

The data about where 2016 voters stand now shows 1/3rd of Remain voters no longer insisting on pure remain, while far fewer Leaves have shifted. A pretty high number of no dealers. Clearly frustration with the long process turning a lot of Leavers more hard line.

The only positive is revoke+single market/customs union is over 50% in Kantar, and close to 70% including May dealers. Don't know how many of those realize that single market means  free movement. Assuming most don't know that and are not that favourable of immigration, then the solution would be customs union or a close free trade agreement, while maintaining single market worker and product standards me thinks.

But a referendum is not going to present 4 options, at best it will present 3. But if a deal has not been passed in Parliament it will probably only present 2: no deal leave, or remain. 34% remain only needs another 16%+1 to get across the line in a head to head vs no deal. It's very likely that of the other groups that aren't no deal leavers remain would easily pick up the necessary votes. I would think almost all of the 14% who like a customs union / single market arrangement would flip for remain, so really not much more than 2% would need to flip for remain out of the other pool of 18%.

Past polls have said a majority prefer remain over no-deal. But if remain goes up against a non-May deal that has cross party support there does seem like there could be the numbers to win for a deal.

 

[Ser Hedge]

10 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Past polls have said a majority prefer remain over no-deal. But if remain goes up against a non-May deal that has cross party support there does seem like there could be the numbers to win for a deal.

Yup, agree. 

[Ser Hedge]

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I kind of want the talks to break down. If they don't break down that may indicate the DUP have wet themselves and fallen in line. And that means the deal has better than 50% odds of passing.

From what we know (and yes, this may change, the text is not out yet - we are still in the dark really) the Boris deal is no-deal Brexit for Great Britain for the most part. The bits of no deal we miss out on are chaos in Ireland, no prospect of any sort of minimal trade deal with the EU (which would add little to GDP growth) and the immediate tomfoolery with the trucks and the missing mars bars and medicine. The medium-long term effects will otherwise be the same it seems; the country about 5-10% poorer in ten years time than it otherwise would have been for nothing in return. 

But talks breaking down can lead to a GE (fought on a very anti-EU platform evoking faux patriotism in many neutrals) with a bigger majority for the Tories and a subsequent attempt to Brexit with no deal.

With this deal, you still have the chance of a remain vs deal referendum if Lib-Lab-ex Tories pull that off, and/or a less polarising GE with the Brexit Party eating less into Labour votes in Leave constituencies (meaning potentially a better leader of HM opposition being elected), and time until the transition runs out to still influence a closer free trade agreement with a high conformity to single market standards.  The deep state is strongly remain, they are not going anywhere.

Bozo being an unprincipled oppurtunist, may well ditch the Spartans if he realizes he is  economically better off with a closer relationship with the EU. He will be thinking about the next GE by then, and a 5-10% drop does not win elections.Trump may also not even be around by the time the transition ends, so may not have to enter a complete shyte deal with the US.

[Werthead]

A referendum will present 2 options. There is no way the electoral commission would allow some kind of 3 or 4-option referendum or a transferable vote system, as they know there will be a vast number of people who get confused by such options and would complain about it afterwards. It will be a straight-up question, probably Remain vs Deal or Remain vs No Deal.

Boris would probably like to try to get Deal vs No Deal (presented live on TV by Noel Edmonds, probably), but the commission would likely refuse to allow that due to the very high interest in the Remain option being on the ballot.

Incidentally, if Boris puts the deal before Parliament and Parliament rejects it - which is entirely possible - then I strongly suspect he'll try to take the country out of the EU regardless. He'll argue that he satisfied the Benn Act by getting a deal and it's not his problem if Parliament rejected it. There will be significant pushback on that, of course, including more legal challenges.

[Chaircat Meow]

2 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

But talks breaking down can lead to a GE (fought on a very anti-EU platform evoking faux patriotism in many neutrals) with a bigger majority for the Tories and a subsequent attempt to Brexit with no deal.

With this deal, you still have the chance of a remain vs deal referendum if Lib-Lab-ex Tories pull that off, and/or a less polarising GE with the Brexit Party eating less into Labour votes in Leave constituencies (meaning potentially a better leader of HM opposition being elected), and time until the transition runs out to still influence a closer free trade agreement with a high conformity to single market standards.  The deep state is strongly remain, they are not going anywhere.

Bozo being an unprincipled oppurtunist, may well ditch the Spartans if he realizes he is  economically better off with a closer relationship with the EU. He will be thinking about the next GE by then, and a 5-10% drop does not win elections.Trump may also not even be around by the time the transition ends, so may not have to enter a complete shyte deal with the US.

If we can attach a confirmatory referendum to the deal then I'm in favour of the deal. If, as I suspect, we can't (not enough votes) then I think it is best if the deal collapses. 

Careful with that '5-10% drop does win not elections' thing you have going on there. You're wrong. No one will notice the 5-10% because it isn't a 5-10% drop. It is the country being, in ten years time, poorer by 5-10% than it would have otherwise been if we had stayed in the EU. It is a counterfactual claim; it is not a visible measurable 10% drop and so the public will not notice.

People would notice no deal because they would see images of big lorry queues and might notice some empty shelves in the shops. But in the end this short term chaos would not use permanent damage and the economy would recover. The real danger is the silent puncture and the public won't blame Johnson for that in the same way they would blame him for no deal chaos.

The US deal is pretty irrelevant as I understand it, it adds peanuts to GDP compared to the current arrangements (i.e. single market and customs union). It is just a totem for the Brexiteers. 

[Ser Hedge]

Whatever happens, I think here these guys are being over-litigious (if that is the word)
 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/16/brexit-legal-action-stop-boris-johnson-putting-withdrawal-agreement-before-mps
 

C'mon, parliament cannot consider a bill because you filed a lawsuit asking a court to stop it? Because it contravenes another law? Well parliament can amend the other law. This has gone too far now.

[Chaircat Meow]

10 minutes ago, Werthead said:

A referendum will present 2 options. There is no way the electoral commission would allow some kind of 3 or 4-option referendum or a transferable vote system, as they know there will be a vast number of people who get confused by such options and would complain about it afterwards. It will be a straight-up question, probably Remain vs Deal or Remain vs No Deal.

Boris would probably like to try to get Deal vs No Deal (presented live on TV by Noel Edmonds, probably), but the commission would likely refuse to allow that due to the very high interest in the Remain option being on the ballot.

Incidentally, if Boris puts the deal before Parliament and Parliament rejects it - which is entirely possible - then I strongly suspect he'll try to take the country out of the EU regardless. He'll argue that he satisfied the Benn Act by getting a deal and it's not his problem if Parliament rejected it. There will be significant pushback on that, of course, including more legal challenges.

The electoral commission does not run the country. If Boris has the votes in the HoC to have a referendum with Deal vs No Deal that's what he can have. 

[Ser Hedge]

18 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Careful with that '5-10% drop does win not elections' thing you have going on there. You're wrong. No one will notice the 5-10% because it isn't a 5-10% drop. It is the country being, in ten years time, poorer by 5-10% than it would have otherwise been if we had stayed in the EU. It is a counterfactual claim; it is not a visible measurable 10% drop and so the public will not notice.

Agreed it won't be 5-10% between during the course of the next parliament. Let's say it's 3-5%. If the direction of travel is going that way, the Tories being the party of opportunists (economic pragmatists if people prefer) will start pulling towards closer integration with the EU again.
 

Immigration will be presented as the big win in the short term, while we quietly creep back in terms of economic arrangements.