RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:If an election doesn't establish a huge majority, 30 if not 40+ either Corbyn or Johnson (and dear god those are vomit inducing options) are still going struggle with the number of rebels either party would retain, so if an election is no way forward it's no way forward.

It could get even more muddled with Brexit taking seats off Labour, and the Lib Dems & SNP taking seats off the Tories, but we'd still be left trying to clear the biggest political issue of my lifetime with best case someone having a majority of 10 or less MPs, and even that in some form of a joint agreement or coalition is quite likely

Basically I don't follow the logic that if we can't have a referendum we should have another election, arguably we might as well all choose to jump up and down on the east or west coast depending on whether you want to the country to tilt towards or away from Europe

My argument would be if we can't have a referendum, what's left to do other than an election? What other route forward is there?

Digby wrote:not sure on where I stand on kicking the can down the road with no path forwards established just 'cause no deal is a shit outcome, we could still end up with no deal, in which case we might as well crack on

The problem is that no deal isn't an outcome - it's just a shit thing that happens and then we have to carry on with exactly the same problems to solve. The Irish border, our future relationship with Europe, our international obligations, fishing rights - none of that disappears if we crash out without a deal. Unless we decide we're never talking to Europe again, the problems still have to be solved, only with having a fucked economy and a fucked-off Europe who now have no incentive to be nice to us cause we've used all our leverage shooting both of us in the foot.

Puja

And if there's no referendum and an election leaves us in a similarly parliamentary mess?

Having an election looks a waste of time and money to me. But I've been wrong plenty often enough in the past, and I suppose not only might someone having a shocking campaign but there's the Brexit party coming in, and that young people might actually bother to vote, so predictions are even harder than usual

Puja wrote:
What's the alternative, sit here with the mess we have?

Puja

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
What's the alternative, sit here with the mess we have?

Puja

I doubt we'd be sitting, the EU isn't going go for that, but yes we'd be in a mess. I would hope an election would help, mind I'd also hope Boris would negotiate a deal, I just can't see either really progressing things unless there's an actual route forward established in a referendum, though I retain my dislike for placing such a complex issue into such a reductive model, especially one wherein most voters will give scant little time to researching the various problems

Government proposes Schrodingers Irish Border, which exists when you want sovereignty and doesn’t exist when you want frictionless trade

Boris and Schrodingers Irish Border
The Irish border will exist in multiple uncertain states in which it both exists and doesn’t exist at the same time depending on what you want right this second, according to proposals unveiled today.
Two borders will coexist in a state of quantum superposition; one which prevents undesirables and European laws from crossing, and another which is highly permeable to cheap imports.

Despite seeming internally contradictory, the Department for Exiting the EU insist that quantum events have been observed at the Planck scale and can exist for a fraction of a second, so permanently applying it to the Irish border is no more ridiculous than anything else they’ve suggested.

The government expects the suggestion to be warmly received by the European Union, which similarly exists in two states at once depending on who is speaking; one where it is so weak it desperately needs British money and another where it is powerful enough to bully Britain.

“The border would exist in a theoretical state which is only resolved when you look at it,” a spokesman told us. “So if you’re driving a lorry load of car parts, for example, the border exists as a wave, as we wave you through.

“But if you’re a migrant fruit picker hoping to take a cash-in-hand job it resolves as a particle which has enough volume, density and mass as is required to stop you passing. Simple!

“Also, at high energy states, the Irish border can jump to a higher shell at Drogheda, whilst at lower energies it will manifest in the Irish sea.”

“What do Michael Gove and an electron have in common?” he added.

“They both interfere with themselves when nobody is looking.”

Stones of granite wrote:Sherelle Jacobs gives the game away in the Telegraph.

Which Tyler wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:Sherelle Jacobs gives the game away in the Telegraph.

Gives the game away? we all knew that before he even approached making at attempt at getting a deal.
The entire purpose is to give himself enough wriggle room when it comes to the blame game once everything's gone to shit after Brexit, but that it can't possibly be the fault of Brexit or its advocates.

It's the Remainers fault for not believing hard enough.
It's the MP's fault for standing up for what they believe in, and not doing what Theresa told them to.
It's the EU's fault for not doing our work for us, and finding those pesky unicorns; and then having the temerity to point out that our unicorns don't actually exist.

Stones of granite wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:Sherelle Jacobs gives the game away in the Telegraph.

Gives the game away? we all knew that before he even approached making at attempt at getting a deal.
The entire purpose is to give himself enough wriggle room when it comes to the blame game once everything's gone to shit after Brexit, but that it can't possibly be the fault of Brexit or its advocates.

It's the Remainers fault for not believing hard enough.
It's the MP's fault for standing up for what they believe in, and not doing what Theresa told them to.
It's the EU's fault for not doing our work for us, and finding those pesky unicorns; and then having the temerity to point out that our unicorns don't actually exist.

I know that we all knew that, the interesting thing is that a Torygraph journalist is now writing it. I suspect they are flying that kite to make sure that the true believers, some of who might not be bright enough to realise what is going on, don't start falling for Farage's claims of a sell-out.

Brexit: Boris Johnson moves to scrap environment safeguards to get deal with Trump
Trade secretary says scrapping protections ‘vital for giving us the freedom and flexibility’ to sign deals

Boris Johnson is scrapping a commitment by Theresa May to stick to EU rules on the environment, safety standards and workers’ rights – to raise his chances of getting a trade agreement with Donald Trump.

Article Continues

Which Tyler wrote:Wow, I'm really surprised by this, really couldn't have seen this coming 3 years ago.[/deadpan]
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 43221.html

Brexit: Boris Johnson moves to scrap environment safeguards to get deal with Trump
Trade secretary says scrapping protections ‘vital for giving us the freedom and flexibility’ to sign deals

Boris Johnson is scrapping a commitment by Theresa May to stick to EU rules on the environment, safety standards and workers’ rights – to raise his chances of getting a trade agreement with Donald Trump.

Article Continues

Sandydragon wrote:So now we want to do our own thing in terms of standards but still have a close deal with the EU.

Cakism.

Puja wrote: And, of course, have no border with either Ireland or Northern Ireland, except in the circumstances where we want one.

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Wow, I'm really surprised by this, really couldn't have seen this coming 3 years ago.[/deadpan]
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 43221.html

Brexit: Boris Johnson moves to scrap environment safeguards to get deal with Trump
Trade secretary says scrapping protections ‘vital for giving us the freedom and flexibility’ to sign deals

Boris Johnson is scrapping a commitment by Theresa May to stick to EU rules on the environment, safety standards and workers’ rights – to raise his chances of getting a trade agreement with Donald Trump.

Article Continues

I'd like to know the details, but (a) it's no surprise (b) they've been lying to us on this subject too and (c) it'll diverge us still further from the EU making a deal with greater access more problematic

Maths is not remotely on the side ion Boris in all this

Why the UK cannot see that Brexit is utterly, utterly stupid

The British press helped condone austerity. It’s now blinding us to the stupidity of Brexit.

If you talk to almost anyone overseas, except those at the right-wing extreme (like Trump) or part of a tiny minority of the left, their reaction to Brexit is similar that of the former prime minister of Finland. What the UK is doing is utterly, utterly stupid. An act of self harm with no point, no upside. Sometimes outside opinion is based on incomplete or biased information and should be discounted, but on Brexit it is spot on. So why are so many people in the UK unable to see what outsiders can see quite clearly?

The days when Leavers talked about the sunlit uplands are over. Liam Fox has not even managed to replicate the scores of trade deals the UK will lose when we leave the EU. As for independence, Leavers cannot name any laws imposed on the UK by the EU that they do not like. Since the referendum, even public attitudes to immigration have become much more favourable.

Article Continues

Digby wrote:Sources have told the Times that the Speaker of the House John Bercow is being considered as a possible leader of a government of national unity. Which is clearly a nonsense idea, you simply cannot start to build unity around such a divisive figure, and it's a horrible step for what would be a very recent former speaker of the house into the bargain.

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:Sources have told the Times that the Speaker of the House John Bercow is being considered as a possible leader of a government of national unity. Which is clearly a nonsense idea, you simply cannot start to build unity around such a divisive figure, and it's a horrible step for what would be a very recent former speaker of the house into the bargain.

Yup.
The point is (allegedly) to built a cabinet of people who aren't going tonstand for election again, so they're no threat to JC. There are so many better candidates to build that around though (Ken Clarke)

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:Sources have told the Times that the Speaker of the House John Bercow is being considered as a possible leader of a government of national unity. Which is clearly a nonsense idea, you simply cannot start to build unity around such a divisive figure, and it's a horrible step for what would be a very recent former speaker of the house into the bargain.

Yup.
The point is (allegedly) to built a cabinet of people who aren't going tonstand for election again, so they're no threat to JC. There are so many better candidates to build that around though (Ken Clarke)

I think Bercow would be an ok choice.

He's a former Tory, but now effectively independent. The Bercow party isn't likely to threaten Labour (or anyone else).

He's divisive, yes, but that's across the house. What the GNU needs is a figure who isn't divisive amongst members of the GNU.
And (presumably) Bercow has the respect (to say the least) of most of them.

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: Yup.
The point is (allegedly) to built a cabinet of people who aren't going tonstand for election again, so they're no threat to JC. There are so many better candidates to build that around though (Ken Clarke)

I think Bercow would be an ok choice.

He's a former Tory, but now effectively independent. The Bercow party isn't likely to threaten Labour (or anyone else).

He's divisive, yes, but that's across the house. What the GNU needs is a figure who isn't divisive amongst members of the GNU.
And (presumably) Bercow has the respect (to say the least) of most of them.

He doesn't, though, because he's pretty much an avowed remainer. We'd need a "moderate" lunatic.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I think Bercow would be an ok choice.

He's a former Tory, but now effectively independent. The Bercow party isn't likely to threaten Labour (or anyone else).

He's divisive, yes, but that's across the house. What the GNU needs is a figure who isn't divisive amongst members of the GNU.
And (presumably) Bercow has the respect (to say the least) of most of them.

He doesn't, though, because he's pretty much an avowed remainer. We'd need a "moderate" lunatic.

He doesn't have the respect of the opposition? Are you sure? I'm not saying he's anyone's favourite, just someone most people would find acceptable.

Most of the GNU would be remainers. How can that rule him out? He doesn't need to bring parliament back together again (nothing can do that in the short term), he just needs to hold the GNU together (for how long? A week would do it).