Brexit process

[Little John]

This is what happens when you f*ck with democracy

By 48% to 35% Britons would rather have No Deal and no Corbyn

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... _no_corbyn

[Little John]

http://commentcentral.co.uk/remainer-co ... o-madness/

Proposals for a government of national unity are the latest symptom of the Remain insurgency’s breakdown in cognitive dissonance, which is rapidly collapsing into madness, says Sean Walsh.

The game of Brexit chess finds the Remain Insurgency in zugzwang. It has no decent move left. Soon its leaders will upend the board having attempted, and failed, to persuade the rest of us that its Knight is actually a Queen and that its opponent’s Rook can only function as a Pawn. This is where we are: the Insurgency has decided at the last minute that it has the right to rewrite the rules of the game.

The Insurgency’s development of a fantasy constitution is almost funny. Where there is actual precedent it is to be ignored and where there is no precedent it is to be invented by fiat. The Insurgency’s representatives in Parliament are offering options which are plausible only when stated ambiguously and which become ludicrous when specified. Almost funny, but not quite. Remainer insanity is fast becoming a threat to the social and political order.

One of the more obtuse Remain contentions is that their methods could never amount to a “coup� because those who would implement them are elected. This is unsustainable. Coups will normally evolve from within an existing political dispensation. In a democracy such a dispensation will involve a finely calibrated separation of powers, and a coup occurs when one part of the balancing act successfully aggresses against another. It is perfectly intelligible to suggest that the legislature can launch a coup against the executive, and vice versa. That the participants are elected is irrelevant, more so when they have ben elected on a dishonest prospectus.

The Insurgency aggressions seem likely to take either an unleaded or full-blooded form (or possibly both).

The unleaded version would be to somehow dissolve the executive in the legislature by seizing control of the Commons order of business and then initiating legislation to prevent a “no deal� exit. Bring it on. If the Grieve cabal attempts this it will be forced to give up the kindergarten language of the Commons motion in favour of the adult semantics of actual statute. It will become very apparent and very quickly that what they are insisting on is not a “deal� but a treaty, one intended to carry the UK’s supplicant status over into the next set of negotiations, those relating to the future “trade� relationship. Specificity will replace ambiguity; the Grieve snake oil will look suddenly less attractive. Remember that for the fanatical Remainers the problem with the Withdrawal Treaty was that as a straitjacket it still provided a small chance that we would not be asphyxiated.

And such an Act would not in itself be enough to “block� a “no deal� exit. At the moment we are leaving on 31st October as a “default� not only in UK law but in the EU law which supersedes it. It is not in the UK’s gift to unilaterally halt our departure as things stand. The only legislative act which would stop our “no deal� departure would be one which explicitly revoked the Article 50 process. This of course is the ultimate aim, but not one they can admit to just yet.

So what of the full blooded coup?

If the Johnson government loses a vote of no confidence then we are in the political space defined by the Fixed Term Parliament Act, which does not set a precedent for his resignation for the simple reason that no precedent is available at all. The FTPA is new and therefore must be judged within its own terms rather than under the rubric of “precedent�. It is within this space that it is logically possible that the Commons could construct an alternative “government of national unity�. It would be no such thing. The only unifying principle would be one which saw its elements united in disdain at the impertinence of the masses in their attempt to decide for themselves how best they should be governed.

In these circumstances, Johnson would be absolutely correct to follow the strict terms of that Act and attempt to resubmit his government to a further vote within 14 days. If that fails then we know what happens next: a General Election in the course of which a Clean Break Brexit happens not by default but as a consequence of statutory decisions taken within our Parliament and agreed to with Brussels. There is no “purdah� issue involved here; Johnson would not be depriving this Parliament of any decision about “no deal� because it has already been taken. The Insurgency MPs who insist on a “factory reset� over their previous decision have, unfortunately for them, left indelible traces on the hard drive.

And what form would their unity government take? Will it be Corbyn riding into town like Clint Eastwood’s mysterious stranger, restoring order before graciously handing back powers to the town elders? A Corbyn “caretaker� government, seizing power with the intention of defying the Marxist template so as to return it again? Anybody want to buy a bridge? The caretaker at my grammar school was there for about forty years.

Or will it be Ken Clarke? Summoned from the backbenches to put the uppity masses back in their box before heading to Ronnie Scott’s for last orders?

There comes a time when cognitive dissonance collapses into madness. This is what is happening to the Remain Insurgency. It sits at the chess board, a Nigel Short to the Cummings Kasparov, and finds itself generating “options� of ever-increasing ludicrousness. Having invested so much in the outcome of the game it has found itself unable to resign with dignity. It’s about to sweep the pieces off the board.

It needs to find a way to get over itself, or we are in for some very dark days ahead.

[kenneal - lagger]

Andrew Rawnsley wrote a piece in the Observer yesterday on how Labour is not ready for the election it is calling for. He made several mentions of Labour losing Remainer support to other parties but not once did he mention Labour also losing Brexiteer support to the Brexit Party in the North.

Blinkered???

[woodburner]

European or Soviet Union. Is there a difference?

[Mark]

I didn't say anything about eating chicken raw anywhere. The TV program in question showed bad practise in handling both the chicken and the packaging. The bad techniques would lead to contamination being spread from dirty surfaces to both clean packaging and supposedly washed chicken in the packaging. Parts of the packaging plant were awash with dirty water and chicken offcuts and the drains were blocked. The place would have been closed down in the UK.

The packaging would spread contaimination from the plant through the shops into the home and then to other foodstuffs. cooking the chicken wouldn't stop the contamination spreading.

Bad practices are not confined to the US. Have you seen programmes about the UK bad practices? There have been instances where processors have removed the date labels from packages and replaced them with later dates. However, given the state of health of many people in the US, I would not welcome any of their ingestible products to the UK.

Agree that bad practice not confined to the US, but their standards are far lower than in the EU....
US chicken needs to be chlorinated because they know it's covered in shIte, pIss, guts, blood etc., but cutting corners saves a few cents....
US free market economics vrs EU regulation ?

Posted a link to the TV programme a couple of pages back.
Secretly filmed inside one of the major US suppliers.

'The Truth about Chlorinated Chicken':
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/dis ... /68769-001

[Mark]

Ever since Corbyn became leader of the opposition, there has been a very dirty conspiracy to undermine and delegitimise him, in any way possible. He has been treated with utter disrespect, because the political establishment views him as a huge threat, because the idea he could become Prime Minister shifts the Overton Window in a way that terrifies them. This is just more of the same. What is being suggested would give Corbyn no power to enact any policy other than getting an article 50 extension and calling a general election - so when Grant Schapps said yesterday "he would wreck the economy", he was talking utter bollocks. No...this is about refusing to allow Corbyn a modicum of legitimacy as the rightful leader of the opposition, elected fair and square. What they are scared of is Corbyn looking Prime-ministerial, and a few more people taking him seriously.

Corbyn very much reminds me of Michael Foot.
A mostly well meaning bloke, lots of high principles, but easy to paint him in the media as 'dangerous'.
Foot didn't do very well at the ballot box vrs Thatcher, and I suspect that the same fate awaits Corbyn against Johnson...
The fact that Labour isn't seen as having a clear Brexit message is only going to compound his electoral problems.

[Lord Beria3]

OK guys... what's the verdict on where we will be by the end of 2019?

My call - we have exited without a deal.

p.s. BB latest briefing. Interestingly their economic forecast on a hard Brexit isn't that bad. No growth in 2020 but 2021 we bounce back.

https://www.berenberg.de/files/MacroNew ... narios.pdf

[Little John]

I've just read that article and the one thing significantly missing from its analysis is the electorate. Instead, its focus is on the various machinations of parliamentarians, as if those machinations are occurring in a democratic vacuum in which the electorate and their votes play no part.

The truth is, MPs would have already killed Brexit long ago were it not for their abject terror of what the electorate will do to them if they do. That terror, if anything, following the EU elections, has intensified in the minds of MP's, not diminished.

That is precisely the reason why Remainer MPs in parliament are now all over the place in terms of what strategy to adopt in thwarting Brexit. The reason is very simple. They are desperately thrashing about in all directions trying to figure out ways of killing Brexit without killing their own political careers in the process.

And they are failing.

[UndercoverElephant]

OK guys... what's the verdict on where we will be by the end of 2019?

God knows. I was convinced parliament would stop no deal, but I am astonished that the leader of the Liberal Democrats, having already pledged to do anything to stop no deal, decided "anything" didn't include supporting a temporary government with the sole purpose of stopping no deal if it was led by the leader of the opposition. You couldn't make this stuff up.

I still think there is going to be an election in October, and think it is very hard to predict the outcome, but it will obviously go one of two ways. If the tories make net gains then brexit it will happen, probably without a deal. If they make net losses - even if it is just a few - then we're in very serious trouble unless Jo Swinson suddenly discovers that she doesn't hate Jeremy Corbyn after all, because the country will be ungovernable. He might offer her electoral reform, which she'd find hard to refuse.

That Corbyn led-government would hold a second brexit referendum, and remain would probably win, though I wouldn't bet on it.

[UndercoverElephant]

CON: 32% (+1)
LAB: 26% (-2)
BREX: 16% (-)
LDEM: 15% (+2)
GRN: 4% (-1)

via @OpiniumResearch
, 21 - 23 Aug
Chgs. w/ 09 Aug

Would produce a tiny tory majority, probably.

[UndercoverElephant]

https://www.independent.ie/business/bre ... 34489.html

A former Fine Gael minister and close friend of Taoiseach Leo Varadkar says there must be a "compromise" on the controversial backstop to avert economic disaster from Brexit.

Lucinda Creighton, the former Europe Minister, says a "fudge" on the backstop in talks with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson would be better than 80,000 people losing their jobs in a no-deal Brexit scenario.

She is proposing a time limit on the backstop - the guarantee there will be no hard border between the Republic and Northern Ireland in a Brexit deal.

[Little John]

Meanwhile...

Corbyn has indicated that;

a) Labour will vote against any deal brokered by Johnson

b) Labour intend to bring about a VoNC and seek a general election

c) Labour, if they win a general election, will seek yet another extension and negotiate their own deal with the EU

d) Labour will then seek a new referendum. But, in that referendum, they will campaign for remain against their own deal and Leave on WTO will not be allowed on the ballot.


Corbyn and Labour are as big an antidemocratic joke as Swinson and the Liberal Democrats.

And every man and his dog knows it.

[Lord Beria3]

LJ - agree on the BB analysis.

Strikingly no reference to the shifts in public opinion on Brexit.

It's like their analysis operates as if Parliament works within a vacuum of the wider electorate.

Their forecasting on Brexit has been consistently wrong but their economic predictions have been reasonably sound which is why I posted the link.

[Lord Beria3]

Eurointeligence latest...

August 27, 2019

Remain’s narrowing pathway

No, there really isn’t any Brexit news. The situation is the same as it was two weeks ago - indeed the same as it was in April when we wrote that the probability of a no-deal Brexit was high. 

This morning we think it useful to look at the strategic choices for the Remain-supporting MPs in the UK parliament, ahead of today’s meeting between Jeremy Corbyn and other opposition leaders. Anybody who ever bothered to read Art. 50 would know that there is no provision for "stopping no-deal". This is not a technical detail. If parliament does not ratify a withdrawal agreement, or revokes Brexit outright, then no-deal Brexit is the default. So, what can parliament do?

As of this morning, there is no agreement within the Remain camp about the right course of action. This does not surprise us since every course of action has its potential traps. 

Before we went on holidays, MPs seemed to favour the option of a confidence vote. That lasted until they realised that the fixed-term parliaments act, combined with the prime minister’s prerogative to set the election date, could be potentially self-defeating. Boris Johnson could, if he wanted to, hold an election on Brexit day itself, or the day after before chaos sets in - as we also pointed out before the holiday.

An alternative approach, which appears to have gained ground over the holidays, is to vote for another Cooper/Letwin-style piece of legislation to force the prime minister to ask for an extension. Let’s presume that this is technically possible, and parliament finds the time to do it. Even then, it is not a fail-safe mechanism. We should remember that Theresa May was a willing accomplice both times when she asked the European Council for an extension. In addition, the EU has to accept a request by unanimity. We don’t think it is possible for the parliament to water-proof this legislation. The prime minister might threaten to veto EU business if EU leaders were to agree to an extension. EU leaders might agree an extension on conditions the prime minister could reject. Both the prime minister and the EU could argue that the conditions for an extension are not given. The EU made it clear in the April decision that an extension would have to be accompanied by a way forward. It is not a unilateral decision for the UK to take. If the UK parliament merely forced the prime minister to ask for an extension, but without the prospect of an election or a second referendum, the request might be null and void. All of this tells us that MPs really didn’t read, or comprehend, Art. 50 when they voted to trigger it. It really sets a guillotine. 

And of course, it is quite possible that MPs might simply leave it too late. Angela Merkel may have misjudged the snake pit of British politics when she made her off-the-cuff remark about an alternative deal within 30 days. All she said was that in EU politics things can happen in 30 days that are impossible over longer periods. This is clearly true. The main consequences of this useful misunderstanding - useful for Johnson - is that Tory MPs may hold their fire while talks are going on. Once the process drags into the political conference season at the end of September, parliament will have run out of time to play the usual games. We agree with Zoe Williams in the Guardian this morning that Labour's choice for Labour is whether to back outright revocation. 

What about the other side? We noted one story in the Daily Mail according to which Downing Street is gaming a number of scenarios, including one of an October 17 election, to capitalise on Johnson's good polling numbers. Still, it would be a high-stakes gamble: they could lose both power and Brexit. 

Another difficult scenario would be a narrow victory for Boris Johnson in a vote of confidence, with parliament trying to force him to extend Brexit. This would be the scenario of uncertainty. He might threaten prorogation. Or a policy of the empty chair. Nothing will be what it seems.

The events to watch out for are today’s meeting of opposition leaders, followed by Jeremy Corbyn’s decision on whether or not to go ahead with a confidence vote. We think he will. The drama will unfold then.

A further factor to consider is legal action. No UK court can revoke Brexit, since Art. 50 is EU law. But the courts can rule on issues such as prorogation.

[kenneal - lagger]

Only 160 MPs signed up for the joint action. There's quite a few missing there and not nearly enough to win a vote on anything.