[Oldmanmatt]

You’re all Disturbed.

[SamT]

Anyway, aren't we meant to be talking about the European Monetary Fund,.. you know the EMF.

[A Jooser]

   FFS! I thought you were all talking about what a Theatre of Hate Parliament is.

[tomtom]

Anyway, aren't we meant to be talking about the European Monetary Fund,.. you know the EMF.

You’re Unbelievable!

[SamT]

Anyway, aren't we meant to be talking about the European Monetary Fund,.. you know the EMF.

You’re Unbelievable!

I know, sorry. This topic has seriously gone West. Life goes on though.

[tomtom]

A fairly sanguine summary I thought:

https://news.sky.com/story/forget-the-hype-johnson-hasnt-made-much-progress-on-breaking-brexit-deadlock-11826814

[tommytwotone]

Interesting inference from yesterday's Brexitcast - that while May secured a deal that the EU endorsed but Parliament would not approve, Johnson appears to have done the opposite.


Whether this is a winning strategy or not.


Arguably the EU would have more motivation to compromise / change tack if this is indeed a deal that would make it through the next meaningful vote. Or just that there's more chance of that than a fractured, tribal and increasingly divided House Of Commons being prepared to converge on something that is in middle of everyone's points of view.


Or this could all just be an elaborate ruse to be seen to be trying to get a deal by proposing something he knows the EU will reject, thereby lining up a convenient scapegoat for what he really wants which is a no-deal Brexit.

[teestub]

As you say, by getting it this way around I guess Johnson gets to make it seem that it’s the EU who are inflexible and unwilling to compromise so that if/when no deal is the outcome he is not seen to be at fault by those not paying much attention.

[tomtom]

But he missed an opp to have a vote on it this week... where he may have got enough support before it’s forensically torn apart.

[teestub]

Interesting from the current Scottish court case, the submitted government papers seem to go strongly against Johnson’s ‘we are leaving on 31st come what may’ position.  https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/04/boris-johnson-will-write-to-eu-requesting-article-50-extension-court-told-brexit

[sdm]

But he missed an opp to have a vote on it this week... where he may have got enough support before it’s forensically torn apart.

Where would he have gained enough support from to get it through parliament? I don't see many (any?) of the Tory 21 coming back on side. The DUP would have to vote in favour of something that creates a border both between NI and Ireland and between NI and the UK and I don't see the additional money for NI changing their minds. Labour's position is hardening against Brexit.

I don't see where the extra votes would have come from. I think he might have lost by even more than the last vote.

[Will Hunt]

The DUP are supporting it aren't they? For some reason.

[tommytwotone]

Interesting from the current Scottish court case, the submitted government papers seem to go strongly against Johnson’s ‘we are leaving on 31st come what may’ position.  https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/04/boris-johnson-will-write-to-eu-requesting-article-50-extension-court-told-brexit

I'm still trying to guess what the getout is going to be. Steve Baker was suggesting on Newsnight earlier in the week that BJ and co have something in their back pockets but it's being kept under wraps.

Could Boris write the letter asking for an extension, but stipulate a timeframe? Could he ask for something stupid like 10 minutes?

[tommytwotone]

Not strictly Brexit-related, but this made me properly LOL a number of times:


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/02/raising-hopes-and-denying-gropes-tory-conference-leaves-no-fantasy-untouched

[mrjonathanr]

The proposal to get Stormont to review whether to align more closely with the EU (ROI) or UK every 4 years is an interesting one.

Essentially an endless rerun of the core referendum issue, every 4 years, in an area where tensions are historically sky high.

What could possibly go wrong? 

[TobyD]

The proposal to get Stormont to review whether to align more closely with the EU (ROI) or UK every 4 years is an interesting one.

Essentially an endless rerun of the core referendum issue, every 4 years, in an area where tensions are historically sky high.

What could possibly go wrong? 

Especially since Stormont hasn't actually sat for over 1000 days.

There is a keenly observed opinion piece by Johnathan Freedland in the Guardian detailing the casual disdain in which the Brexit lobby hold the Irish situation.

[teestub]

I'm still trying to guess what the getout is going to be. Steve Baker was suggesting on Newsnight earlier in the week that BJ and co have something in their back pockets but it's being kept under wraps.

This is where we are at the moment right, guessing how the PM might try and break the law. WTF!

[TobyD]

I'm still trying to guess what the getout is going to be. Steve Baker was suggesting on Newsnight earlier in the week that BJ and co have something in their back pockets but it's being kept under wraps.

This is where we are at the moment right, guessing how the PM might try and break the law. WTF!

As one of the panel on Any Questions put it, it really comes to something when the PM  writing a letter to say he'll abide by the law is breaking news. I sympathise  with Rory Stewart's move out of party politics,  though I wish there were more like him in positions of power at the moment.  (Or indeed Andy Burnham, David Milliband,  William Hague or anyone else with dignity and intelligence)

[Oldmanmatt]

Not Hauge!

I was in charge/head guide for his honeymoon expedition, with Ffion, to Greenland, summer 2000. When he was leader and shadow PM.

Total idiot. Couldn’t tie his own shoe laces without an assistant.

[TobyD]

Not Hauge!

I was in charge/head guide for his honeymoon expedition, with Ffion, to Greenland, summer 2000. When he was leader and shadow PM.

Total idiot. Couldn’t tie his own shoe laces without an assistant.

The mark of really profound intelligence,  the inability to do simple everyday tasks. 

[tomtom]

The text from UK govt sent to several MP’s I believe that the spectator unearthed today

‘The negotiations will probably end this week. Varadkar doesn’t want to negotiate. Varadkar was keen on talking before the Benn Act when he thought that the choice would be ‘new deal or no deal’. Since the Benn Act passed he has gone very cold and in the last week the official channels and the backchannels have also gone cold. Varadkar has also gone back on his commitments — he said if we moved on manufactured goods then he would also move but instead he just attacked us publicly. It’s clear he wants to gamble on a second referendum and that he’s encouraging Barnier to stick to the line that the UK cannot leave the EU without leaving Northern Ireland behind.
There are quite a few people in Paris and Berlin who would like to discuss our offer but Merkel and Macron won’t push Barnier unless Ireland says it wants to negotiate. Those who think Merkel will help us are deluded. As things stand, Dublin will do nothing, hoping we offer more, then at the end of this week they may say ‘OK, let’s do a Northern Ireland only backstop with a time limit’, which is what various players have been hinting at, then we’ll say No, and that will probably be the end.
Varadkar thinks that either there will be a referendum or we win a majority but we will just put this offer back on the table so he thinks he can’t lose by refusing to compromise now. Given his assumptions, Varadkar’s behaviour is arguably rational but his assumptions are, I think, false. Ireland and Brussels listen to all the people who lost the referendum, they don’t listen to those who won the referendum and they don’t understand the electoral dynamics here.
If this deal dies in the next few days, then it won’t be revived. To marginalise the Brexit Party, we will have to fight the election on the basis of ‘no more delays, get Brexit done immediately’. They thought that if May went then Brexit would get softer. It seems few have learned from this mistake. They think we’re bluffing and there’s nothing we can do about that, not least given the way May and Hammond constantly talked tough then folded.
So, if talks go nowhere this week, the next phase will require us to set out our view on the Surrender Act. The Act imposes narrow duties. Our legal advice is clear that we can do all sorts of things to scupper delay which for obvious reasons we aren’t going into details about. Different lawyers see the “frustration principle” very differently especially on a case like this where there is no precedent for primary legislation directing how the PM conducts international discussions.
We will make clear privately and publicly that countries which oppose delay will go the front of the queue for future cooperation — cooperation on things both within and outside EU competences. Those who support  delay will go to the bottom of the queue. [This source also made clear that defence and security cooperation will inevitably be affected if the EU tries to keep Britain in against the will of its government] Supporting delay will be seen by this government as hostile interference in domestic politics, and over half of the public will agree with us.
We will also make clear that this government will not negotiate further so any delay would be totally pointless.  They think now that if there is another delay we will keep coming back with new proposals. This won’t happen. We’ll either leave with no deal on 31 October or there will be an election and then we will leave with no deal.
‘When they say ‘so what is the point of delay?’, we will say “This is not our delay, the government is not asking for a delay — Parliament is sending you a letter and Parliament is asking for a delay but official government policy remains that delay is an atrocious idea that everyone should dismiss. Any delay will in effect be negotiated between you, Parliament, and the courts — we will wash our hands of it, we won’t engage in further talks, we obviously won’t given any undertakings about cooperative behaviour, everything to do with ‘duty of sincere cooperation’ will be in the toilet, we will focus on winning the election on a manifesto of immediately revoking the entire EU legal order without further talks, and then we will leave. Those who supported delay will face the inevitable consequences of being seen to interfere in domestic politics in a deeply unpopular way by colluding with a Parliament that is as popular as the clap.
Those who pushed the Benn Act intended to sabotage a deal and they’ve probably succeeded. So the main effect of it will probably be to help us win an election by uniting the leave vote and then a no deal Brexit. History is full of such ironies and tragedies.’

[teestub]

Classic Dom, so much nonsense, particularly around his secret plans to get out of asking for a delay (after the government have made explicit in court documents this week what their duties are). Even he obviously doesn’t believe that whatever tactics he had dreamed up will work otherwise the whole remainder of his statement would be pointless.

Anyone from parliament will be able to answer that the reason for the delay is to have an election without the possibility of no deal occurring by accident, which was one of the reasons the EU agreed was appropriate to delay exit.

This is putting aside all of the tough talk against a trading block that you will have to do a deal with after your glorious riding off into the sunset on a unicorn no deal exit.

[JohnM]

He is probably right about the fact that they will get a majority in a GE though, what with the opposition parties so split. They are either refusing to cooperate with each other, refusing to work under certain interim leaders and in some cases trying to keep all their potential voters happy by having no clear direction of potential travel and sitting on the fence or trying to ride two horses at the same time.

[teestub]

He is probably right about the fact that they will get a majority in a GE though, what with the opposition parties so split.

If the conservatives do get a majority after all of this shite, whether it's due to people agreeing with their current policies on brexit and other matters, not having anyone else they feel they can vote for instead in their constituency, or whatever else, I won't like it, but at least then they will have a mandate in our current system. Then they will have gained the right to pursue whatever policies they think are best without all of the unconstitutional nefarious shit they're up to right now.

[Oldmanmatt]

Unfortunately under the current system, the split opposition is a massive problem.

None of the opposition parties are exactly covering themselves in glory, are they.

So, we will get a Government with a Parliamentary majority, representing a minority of the voting population. Again.
If only Swinson was such a stubborn cus and Labour could pull their heads out of the 70’s...

I’d support a coalition. Even one with Corbyn at the head, if it avoided no deal.