UK Politics: A Partly Political Broadcast

[Werthead]

Just now, Maltaran said:

I believe the idea is if he can't get it done by the end of the month, then he wants an election so he can pass the bill with a majority government and avoid any amendments that Labour might put down about staying in the customs union or having a second referendum.

Some Labour sources suggesting that Labour will not vote for a new election and hand Boris another five years in power. It looks like Boris' plan is to get Brexit done and win a GE with the victory bounce, and then if things go wrong a few months later, tough, he's in Number 10 until 2024. Some Labour MPs seem to be pondering if it's better to let Boris own Brexit for several months to come before the election.

If the SNP and DUP support a GE, though, he might get it anyway.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

6 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Some Labour sources suggesting that Labour will not vote for a new election and hand Boris another five years in power. It looks like Boris' plan is to get Brexit done and win a GE with the victory bounce, and then if things go wrong a few months later, tough, he's in Number 10 until 2024. Some Labour MPs seem to be pondering if it's better to let Boris own Brexit for several months to come before the election.

However, if you again view this in connection with their idiot party policy of wanting an election before a second referendum (with no clear preference for a potential second referendum), you have to wonder how they picture the next few months/years (or however long they intend to sit it out)?

 

[Werthead]

11 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

However, if you again view this in connection with their idiot party policy of wanting an election before a second referendum (with no clear preference for a potential second referendum), you have to wonder how they picture the next few months/years (or however long they intend to sit it out)?

Yeah, it's all a bit unclear.

The problem seems to be that the Labour Party seem to be simultaneously worried about the polls and also recalling that the polls were out by a light-year in 2017, creating this situation where they seem to want a GE but only in certain circumstances to stymie a Johnson victory. Which is kind of fair enough, but it's also creating a confusing image of them demanding a GE for years and then saying, "No, not like that," which is not going to look good to the voter on the street.

Labour are banking on the fact that they can win an argument with the Tories on national services, but also need to realise that Johnson is also more aware of this than May ever was and also that Brexit will be more key to this election than the last one.

[Ser Hedge]

54 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The DUP have said they don't want to stay in the EU, but they will reject anything that results in NI being treated differently to the rest of the UK.

The only logical inference I could draw from their stance is they want a hard border with Ireland, which is the only way of reconciling the above two. Boris tried a fudge, but it's a fudge in name only - Fino if you like and it doesn't look like the DUP would have been happy with a different kind of fudge either. So what do they actually want?

What about the other crews?

Lib Dems: Came up with their own clever wheeze. A vote for us is a vote to revoke. err, ok, so you get 15-20% let's say and 30-40 MPs and a hung parliament overall. You just going to keep insisting on revoking based on that mandate? Technically, you wouldn't have a mandate for negotiating anything else, so you just sit there all day and go revoke, revoke, revoke. Great. Did someone mention tuition fees? And what about issues other than Brexit? If someone is a Leaver for whatever reason, but a pure Liberal, what does she do? I really don't see why they could not have just insisted on a final say as they were doing before - could have kept their support in the South-West. Own goal, I think. esp if WAB is passed before GE.
 

SNP: Stay in the EU or we leave.
 

You want a hard border with England then? Just look at this mess of leaving the EU. Have you done the homework on what your future relationship with rUK would look like? Before asking for a referendum, might not be a bad idea what your idea of independence is going to look like? How long is the transition for instance? Going to have your own currency? Republic or commonwealth? But no, much easier to just grandstand.

Labour: We want a customs union. We want close assignment with single markets. We're cool with Immigration.
 

Then why don't you just say you want to stay in? Or negotiated with May on her deal? You would have had a good say in influencing it. She was safe from a Tory party challenge to her leadership for a year and had invited you in. Ok the WA might not have changed much, but you could have got stuck into the future relationship. Or supported final say.
 

The post-May Tories: 
Nobody believes anything they say. But they likely stay in control because of all of the above.

 

[Chaircat Meow]

So basically it is bad but we're not totally fucked yet. 

The 329 he got for the 2nd reading is clearly not the actual majority for the WAB as some Labour MPs are just voting for the 2nd reading so they can vote amendments and won't vote for it if the amendments don't pass. 

The 322 against the programme motion is also higher than total opposition to the deal, as some Tory indies, such as Clarke, will vote for the third reading. I make three Indie Tories of the nine who voted against who will certainly vote against third reading of the WAB and you need 7 switchers, so even if all the others switch Boris would still be one short. But some shoe-in Labour for the deal, like Onn, abstained, so tight as fuck.

Overall, I am afraid it does look like he kind of does have a majority of at least 4-5 for this. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

5 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

The only logical inference I could draw from their stance is they want a hard border with Ireland, which is the only way of reconciling the above two. Boris tried a fudge, but it's a fudge in name only - Fino if you like and it doesn't look like the DUP would have been happy with a different kind of fudge either. So what do they actually want? 

Pretty much yes. For them the EU is that huge Irish conspiracy to take NI out of the UK and integrate it into the ROI. That'S pretty much the only possible way to explain their stance. NI being part of the UK is their whole point of existence, and the EU was a threat for them long term. Johnson is now the more imminent one.

9 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

Labour: We want a customs union. We want close assignment with single markets. We're cool with Immigration.

No, not really. I think. I mean, no idea what they want, they won't tell me what they really, really want. But they were onboard with ending FoM, that was a theme they had in common with May.

[williamjm]

4 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

Lib Dems: Came up with their own clever wheeze. A vote for us is a vote to revoke. err, ok, so you get 15-20% let's say and 30-40 MPs and a hung parliament overall. You just going to keep insisting on revoking based on that mandate? Technically, you wouldn't have a mandate for negotiating anything else, so you just sit there all day and go revoke, revoke, revoke.

From what I remember they said they would revoke if they won an outright majority, which I think it's fair to say isn't very likely. It's more of a gimmick than an actual policy.

[divica]

so how are things with the uk? Will the deal be aproved?

What is the big diference betwees boris and may deals regarding NI?

[Which Tyler]

36 minutes ago, divica said:

so how are things with the uk? Will the deal be aproved?

What is the big diference betwees boris and may deals regarding NI?

Depressing but not quite desperate. It could, but way more likely that the Pasty Cockwomble pulls the deal atnsome point because he doesn't like an amendment that parliament might add (probably customs union or referendum).

May wanted an imaginary border between North and South, manned by fairies and pixies (see Theda for details on these). Cockwomble is happy to speed up Irish unification in order to get his deal.

[Ser Hedge]

41 minutes ago, divica said:

so how are things with the uk? Will the deal be aproved?

@Chaircat Meow has a good analysis above. Tight but could pass with a slim majority. As @Which Tyler points out just above Boris could however pull the bill and ask for early elections because the concern is parliament could take forever and keep amending the bill. The EU is likely to grant an extension (past the current Oct 31 deadline to leave) for UK parliament to consider the bill and debate, but the question is how long? Too long and it will annoy Boris with whom they've just established a reasonable working relationship. They will not want to take a further extension off the table of course, but will likely also want to nudge parliament into concluding this saga soon-ish.

But if you're not in the UK, there is nothing to worry about in terms of a no deal crash-out for some months.

[Chaircat Meow]

Can Labour change their leader before an election really quickly? Going to the country with Corbyn is indescribably stupid. I'd even take McDonnell, even though he's actually worse than Corbyn in many respects but with JC all the far-left nastiness is married to utter incompetence and uselessness.

Such a shitshow. 

[Ser Hedge]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

But they were onboard with ending FoM

They were and now I think they're not - as of the party conference when immigration became kosher - errr halal again I think.

 

1 hour ago, williamjm said:

From what I remember they said they would revoke if they won an outright majority, which I think it's fair to say isn't very likely. It's more of a gimmick than an actual policy.

Good point, you're right of course. If we win we revoke, if we don't, we ..... I looked up their conference motion -

"Conference reaffirms the Liberal Democrat commitment to:

Fighting in Parliament for an "exit from Brexit" referendum and for the public to choose between "the deal" or staying in the EU; with Liberal Democrats campaigning for the UK to remain a full and active member of the EU.

Revoke Article 50 if the House of Commons has not passed a resolution approving the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement one week ahead of the date on which the UK is due to leave the EU.

Protect Freedom of Movement and extend the right to full participation in civic life to all EU citizens who have lived in the UK for five years or longer.

Work cross-party to ensure Parliamentary sovereignty is upheld, and a Conservative government is unable to force through a disastrous no-deal Brexit.

Conference calls for:

Liberal Democrats to campaign to Stop Brexit in a General Election, with the election of a Liberal Democrat majority government to be recognised as an unequivocal mandate to revoke Article 50 and for the UK to stay in the EU."
 

After this they move on to non-Brexit stuff. I guess you can take it as: in the event we don't win, go back to very above (current Parliament strategy).  Still warbled and as you say a gimmick. I think the clear messaging would have been Final Say, which they were early advocates of and have now allowed John McD to usurp in the Sunday rally. ("Labour is the only party calling for another referendum")

[Ser Hedge]

Sorry last post and I'm out.
 

Is this Boris and Dom's plan?
 

If the EU only grant a short technical extension:
    a. Try to ram through WAB again. Pass it and call GE on Brexit Done platform.
 

     b. i) WAB fails. Try a no deal (Benn act no longer applies). If somehow stopped by parliament or the courts, ask for longer extension, then

    b. ii) GE, which Labour have to vote for as per their latest decision. Campaign on Labour delayed Brexit.
 

If EU grant an extension until 31. Dec or longer:
 

c. Call GE straight away. Same as b. ii) Labour say they will agree. Campaign on Labour delayed Brexit.

The EU know all this, so I'm guessing a short extension that can potentially  lead to a no deal is a risk they will not take, unless they get a 'guarantee' from Boris he will not no deal them and since it's politically toxic for him to come back with another extension request, the second extension kicks in automatically. But is this palatable to the EU as a policy? A second follow on extension without a formal request?

If the EU grant a longer extension, then nothing gets done this side of spring. Maybe they decide that's the lesser evil.

Labour basically have to go back on this latest policy of GE first to break the deadlock sooner and for their own political future. What were they thinking?

 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

1 minute ago, Ser Hedge said:

Sorry last post and I'm out.
 

Is this Boris and Dom's plan?
 

If the EU only grant a short technical extension:
    a. Try to ram through WAB again. Pass it and call GE on Brexit Done platform.
 

     b. i) WAB fails. Try a no deal (Benn act no longer applies). If somehow stopped by parliament or the courts, ask for longer extension, then

    b. ii) GE, which Labour have to vote for as per their latest decision. Campaign on Labour delayed Brexit.
 

If EU grant an extension until 31. Dec or longer:
 

c. Call GE straight away. Same as b. ii) Labour say they will agree. Campaign on Labour delayed Brexit.

The EU know all this, so I'm guessing a short extension that can potentially  lead to a no deal is a risk they will not take, unless they get a 'guarantee' from Boris he will not no deal them and since it's politically toxic for him to come back with another extension request, the second extension kicks in automatically. But is this palatable to the EU as a policy? A second follow on extension without a formal request?

If the EU grant a longer extension, then nothing gets done this side of spring. Maybe they decide that's the lesser evil.

Labour basically have to go back on this latest policy of GE first to break the deadlock sooner and for their own political future. What were they thinking?

 

I think the EU have in a previous extension give 2 dates.  so if you get the deal and legislation passed by X date in a few weeks you can leave then.  if not then the extension runs out in a few months.  I believe they will offer something similar this time.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I'm amazed the EU hasn't told the UK to kick rocks at this point.....

[Seli]

On 10/22/2019 at 12:12 AM, The Anti-Targ said:

...

What should be learned from this whole mess is that Art 50 is not fit for purpose. There should always be a mechanism for a country to leave the EU but the mechanism needs to have some fail-safes, including that reaching a deadline does not mean a country crashing out. In fact Art 50 should not set any deadlines to leave. It should set deadlines to rescind. If in two years a country has not left the EU then there is an option for the leaving country to extend for 1 year if it chooses. If it chooses not to extend then Art 50 is revoked and a country has a certain cool-down period before it can re-notify under Art 50. If it extends by a year then the same revoke and cool-down is triggered in a year's time if the country has still not figured out how to exit....

We don't know that article 50 is not fit. We just know that if the country invoking article 50 doesn't know what it actually wants it will be a mess.

And the cool-down is a horrible idea from the point of view of the community.  The whole point of pushing the UK to invoke article 50 quickly after the referendum was to end insecurity (hah!) and minimise leverage of the leaving country over the collective.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Seli said:

We don't know that article 50 is not fit. We just know that if the country invoking article 50 doesn't know what it actually wants it will be a mess.

And the cool-down is a horrible idea from the point of view of the community.  The whole point of pushing the UK to invoke article 50 quickly after the referendum was to end insecurity (hah!) and minimise leverage of the leaving country over the collective.

Art 50 is certainly not fit, if the only reason the UK can crash out with no deal is because Art 50 basically establishes no-deal as the default, and that appears to be the case. Status quo, ie. remain, should be the default if a country can't figure its shit out. A country can always drop out without a deal if its govt / parliament actively chooses that form of exit. But it should not just happen because of incompetence and inaction. Exit clauses in treaties should always assume incompetence until proven otherwise.

I don't see how a default of remain (revoking Art 50) and a cool down period gives the leaving country leverage. It actually removes leverage on the leaving country because the failsafe is that nothing changes. And a cooldown gives everyone a period of operational certainty. Service and supply contracts can be entered into with certainty that there will be no upheavals for a certain period of time. It's not the same situation as initially invoking Art 50. And I hope that in hindsight the EU recognizes that its role in pushing the UK to invoke art 50 ASAP was a mistake and would not be repeated if another country is mad enough to look at going down this road.

[ants]

6 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

The only logical inference I could draw from their stance is they want a hard border with Ireland, which is the only way of reconciling the above two. Boris tried a fudge, but it's a fudge in name only - Fino if you like and it doesn't look like the DUP would have been happy with a different kind of fudge either. So what do they actually want?

......

May's deal was fine for the DUP.  The entire UK stayed on EU terms until technology (or a treaty) came along that allows the outcomes of a hard border without a hard border.  Just, everyone else hated the backstop idea because the hardliners could see it was going to take forever to come up with a solution that didn't involve a hard border. Which meant staying in the EU single market. 

5 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

So basically it is bad but we're not totally fucked yet. 

The 329 he got for the 2nd reading is clearly not the actual majority for the WAB as some Labour MPs are just voting for the 2nd reading so they can vote amendments and won't vote for it if the amendments don't pass. 

The 322 against the programme motion is also higher than total opposition to the deal, as some Tory indies, such as Clarke, will vote for the third reading. I make three Indie Tories of the nine who voted against who will certainly vote against third reading of the WAB and you need 7 switchers, so even if all the others switch Boris would still be one short. But some shoe-in Labour for the deal, like Onn, abstained, so tight as fuck.

Overall, I am afraid it does look like he kind of does have a majority of at least 4-5 for this. 

The question may be is there a majority for any amendments that would then turn Boris off the whole deal (or turn off parts of his support)? 

[mormont]

A horrifying and sad story:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-50150070

Quote

 

The bodies of 39 people have been found in a lorry container in Essex.

Police were called by the ambulance service shortly before 01:40 BST after the discovery at Waterglade Industrial Park in Eastern Avenue, Grays.

The lorry driver, a 25-year-old man from Northern Ireland, has been arrested on suspicion of murder.

Early indications are that 38 adults and one teenager have died, Essex Police said.

The force said the lorry came from Bulgaria and entered the country via Holyhead on Saturday.

Ch Supt Andrew Mariner said officers were trying to indentify victims but anticipated a "lengthy process".

 

39 people.

[Ser Hedge]

19 hours ago, ants said:

May's deal was fine for the DUP.  

Did they not vote against it though?

Anyway, moving on, Macron playing hardball.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/10/23/emmanuel-macron-demands-new-brexit-deadline-november-15/

Guess a bit of posturing, but takes a GE before Christmas off the table I think. Its reasonably long enough for the WAB to be debated, but not filibustered or amended into oblivion. If the WAB really cannot pass by this time, then really it is time for a referendum or a GE anyway, though January wouldn't be a great time to have a GE in the Highlands and many other places any more than December.