Boris is Boss

[Corky34]

But .... the way to resolve the issues that might activate the backstop is to have a trade deal, which the EU refused, and continue to refuse, to discuss.

You mean the trade deal that would be the easiest in history, the one our current PM once said "It doesn’t seem to me to be very hard … to do a free trade deal very rapidly indeed"? If the trade deal is going to be easy and a solution to the Irish border problem can be found then some MPs wouldn't have had a problem with the backstop as it would never be used.

It's like an overrun clause in a contract, if you're confident you'll complete the job on time and on budget you (not you personally) would have no problem with a clause saying you'll be fined X thousands of pounds every day past completion date.

[peterb]

I think the trade deal that we wanted to negotiate in parallel with the the withdrawal agreement (the common sense way really) but Tusk refused to countenance.

[Mr_Jon]

"Shine 'em with your white flag, Pierre"

[Saracen999]

You mean the trade deal that would be the easiest in history, the one our current PM once said "It doesn’t seem to me to be very hard … to do a free trade deal very rapidly indeed"? If the trade deal is going to be easy and a solution to the Irish border problem can be found then some MPs wouldn't have had a problem with the backstop as it would never be used.

It's like an overrun clause in a contract, if you're confident you'll complete the job on time and on budget you (not you personally) would have no problem with a clause saying you'll be fined X thousands of pounds every day past completion date.

It's not at all like that, because if the EU can get the bulk of what they want by us being licked in via the backstop, they have no incentive to do a trade deal, and indeed, quite an incentive not so as we're locked out of doing deals elsewhere, and they have us by the danglies.

As for what BJ may or may not have said, no, I didn't mean that as I wasn't the one that said it. If I was prepared to go and debate who ssid what, when, I'd point out, as I have numerous times, that both sides were highly disingenuous in the lead up to the referendum, not least our former Chancellor who promised doom and gloom, mass unemployment and a recession simply by voting Leave. Well, Mr. Osborne, it seems to be a bit late showing up.

It should, however, be about as easy a trade deal as trade deals get, since we are already in full alignment. This does presuppose competence on our part, and goodwill on the other side, both of which have been marked by their absence.

[Corky34]

The EU doesn't want us in the backstop situation anymore than we do, being in a customs union with them while not having to adhere to the commitments like membership contributions, freedom of movement, out of large parts of the legal system is not something they want or even like. Their initial plan was for NI to stay in a customs union if the backstop was triggered and Mrs May convinced them that it should apply to the entire UK, something they didn't like in the least for what i hope are obvious reasons.

Anyway this is drifting into a rehash of previous Brexit threads so I'll leave it there, maybe if the discussion drifts back to Boris I'll chime in but only if we can laugh at him.

Going on that picture it seems Boris' mum didn't teach him not to put his feet on the furniture, my mum would've killed me for doing that.

[Saracen999]

The EU doesn't want us in the backstop situation anymore than we do, being in a customs union with them while not having to adhere to the commitments like membership contributions, freedom of movement, out of large parts of the legal system is not something they want or even like. Their initial plan was for NI to stay in a customs union if the backstop was triggered and Mrs May convinced them that it should apply to the entire UK, something they didn't like in the least for what i hope are obvious reasons.

Anyway this is drifting into a rehash of previous Brexit threads so I'll leave it there, maybe if the discussion drifts back to Boris I'll chime in but only if we can laugh at him.

Going on that picture it seems Boris' mum didn't teach him not to put his feet on the furniture, my mum would've killed me for doing that.

They want us in the EU but failing that, hobbled by a customs union that locks us out of 3rd party deals while not giving full single market access is a 2nd best.

But I agree, it's drifting back to a rehash.

Discussing where it goes, bowever ....

Though personally, I'm not much interested in arguing even that, since it'll no doubt come down to pre-determined preferences. i've decided that all I can affect is my personal decisions and my mind is made up on those regardless, at this point, of what happens with Brexit. Either we stay in, or leave with a deal, or leave without but my personal actions are now decided in any event.

[badass]

What you need is a dog. And you've just shot the dog.

The problem is that the dog you just shot was rabid according to 52% of your family.

[neonplanet40]

So... a few developments today.

Do we think proroguing parliament is a good move by Boris? Or, is it the catalyst that destroys the UK as we know it?

[Spud1]

So... a few developments today.

Do we think proroguing parliament is a good move by Boris? Or, is it the catalyst that destroys the UK as we know it?

It's certainly another nail in the coffin. The referrundum already split the UK down the middle and thats not a wound that will heal anytime soon, regardless of whether Brexit happens or not.

It helps his agenda, and his supporters will likely be happy about this given that it makes it even easier for him to force through Brexit regardless of all common sense, but for the rest of us, it looks like yet another massive kick in the teeth.

So ultimately, I don't think it makes a difference - Brexiteers will still be largely content, Remainers will be largely angry and upset - same as before.

[Galant]

Destroy the UK? Doubtful.

In general I'd say proroguing parliament is not a good way to get things done. In this case, however, it might be the only way to get things done. Parliament has had 3 years to get something done and achieved absolutely nothing at all. Even the EU called them out on saying no to everything and yes to nothing. There was no sign that was going to change. What's more, as undemocratic as this action is it at least has in its favour that it honours the referendum vote and the governmental promises to the people, something that all the 'democratic' inaction can't boast.

Of course, there's always the possibility that this action works against Brexit supporters, I think. If Boris negotiates another unfavourable deal, will anyone be able to stop Brexit happening in a way no one wants?

[TooNice]

Boris is certainly acting like the boss.
I wouldn't be surprised if he gets away with it, and for brexiters would approve / defend such actions it really prove that it was never about so-called "democracy" or taking back parliamentary control.. and just about populists far right beliefs.

Well, Game of Brexit may not quite roll off the tongue, but this is all quite entertaining in a way.

I am certain that I will remain "Brexited".

[Galant]

And the Queen has approved it:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9082281.html

[TeePee]

Good for him, actually attempting to deliver on his promises to the British people. He's already doing better than May. All the complaints about him not being democratic seem a little bit ridiculous after Corbyn's attempts to line up a coup...

[Saracen999]

Boris is certainly acting like the boss.
I wouldn't be surprised if he gets away with it, and for brexiters would approve / defend such actions it really prove that it was never about so-called "democracy" or taking back parliamentary control.. and just about populists far right beliefs.

Well, Game of Brexit may not quite roll off the tongue, but this is all quite entertaining in a way.

I am certain that I will remain "Brexited".

Neither "Democracy", nor "bringing back control" require giving determined Remainer MPs chance after chance to frustrate an already democratically decided question. In fact, it's bare-faced hypocrisy for MPs like Grieve to keep going on about democracy, by which he means his and his clique not getting their way.

Why?

Because we already had the best part of 2 years of arguments followed by a clear majority vote in a referendum to Leave, that being a referendum on which a govdrnment headed by a Remainer PM stated explicitly, categorically and unequivocally that the results would be implemented.

Then, thanks to Ms. Miller and her attempts to frustrate that be seeking to use the courts to block article 50 invocation, we then have the courts, right up to an 8:3 decision in the Supreme Court, deciding that art.50 could only be invoked with the approval of Parliament, and MPs duly voted with a majority of 384 (498 to 114) to approve invocation.


Adticle 50, having been invoked, has a couple of gotchas. First, the Lisbon treaty allows for a withdrawal deal, but does not require it. Any such deal, IIRC, requires rafification by at least 20 member states representing 65% of EU populations. Even if Westminster had approved May's deal, which we all know it rejected three times including one with the largest government defeat in UK history, it still could have fallen in EU member parliaments.

Then there's timing. Whatever Westminster does, come Oct. 31st, any extension would require all member states, inckuding the UK, to agree a delay, and Macron had to have his arm twisted last time. There's no guarantee he, or any orher single state, won't simply decide "enough already" and veto an extension.

And, of course, Lisbon is dead clear about what happens after an unextended art.50 time clock runs out ....all EU treaties cease to apply to the exiting member.


So ..... MPs had to pass an Act to give us a reverendum. Democracy.

We had a referendum and whether Remainers like it or not, Leave won.

The question did not stipulate Leave but only witb a deal. It simply said Leave.

MPs then had to vote to invoke art.50, the implications of which, as above, are explicit .... agree a deal within time, or Leave without one. And MPs voted, with a massive majority, to invoke art. 50.

Again, democracy.

As for whether proroguing is about Brexit, we really don't know. Lots of people, including me and quite a few others here, on both sides, have often lamented May's governnent's seeming inability to get on witb a domestic agenda. And we're 3 years into this farce.

We now have a new PM, with a historic cabinet reshuffle and a whole series of domestic policies. Tradition is, that requires a preroguing. Don't forget that that isn't just about susoending MPs. An equally critical part, naybe more than equally, is that any current legislation currently in either house has to either be enacted before prorogation, or it dies.

The critical effect, therefore, is to clear the legislative decks of all legislation in thus session, ready for a clean start after the Queen's speech.

If this is about Brexit, then that is the clever bit, because we're currently in a parliamentary session that not only is one of if not the longest session in modern times, but one by a hopelessly ineffectual government and PM at that. Which means, proroguing parliament is absolutely in line, following a new government with a new agenda, with hundreds of years of tradition. And that is going to be a major problem for any legal challenge.

It's a double whammy. It's utterly in line with tradition, and has the bonus of making Remainer MPs chances to delay, or let's face it, get their true agenda to block Brexit entirely, that much harder.

What it isn't is undemocratic because Leave is already a democratically decided issue, however much those Remainer MPs don't like it, and because it's entirely consistent with what just about every incoming new government with a revised agenda does

[Saracen999]

And the Queen has approved it:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9082281.html

The moment it was announced the PM had requested it, I think it was clear she would.

She'd need an extraordinarily good reason to go against bundreds of years of traditionin the monarch following the PM's advice because sooner or later it would be seen as political interference by the monarch and, once the Brexit dust has died down, that may have led to calls for the monarchy to be abolished. And dear Lizzie II has spent her entire adult life scrupuously and expertly avoiding any hint of political interference.

I don't think it was ever in doubt.

[TooNice]

[...]As for whether proroguing is about Brexit, we really don't know.[...]

You are smarter than this. Not everything needs to be spelled out when the intent is so obvious, especially given that the idea (which he refused to rule out - perhaps the most honest thing he has done so far) was put forward even before he became PM.

I am not surprised that any Brexiter would approve of it. Brexit at any and all cost and all, the ends justifies the means etc., but if you honestly believe that this had anything to do with tradition and whatnot then.. words fails me really. This is about as much about tradition as it is about "democracy".

Still, credit where it is due. Brexiters have played the smarter game. If both sides have lied, they've used more effective lies. If both sides have tried to outmanoeuvre each other, they appear to have done it better. They were the better snakes. Congrats. Though, whatever admiration that doesn't really quite match by my disgust.

Now it will be interesting to see what happens to the divide in the country. If the government is counting on British citizens, more especially remain voters to be too mild mannered to riot.. well, they'd probably be right. After all, the worst I've seen from the remain camp involved a milkshake and a ruined suit (the brexit camp on the other hand...). And I can't see Boris lose any sleep over a petition or a couple of peaceful protests. But, I am also pretty sure that I won't be the first person to change my mind on indyref after all this. I'd pick the EU over a Brexit-Union, but even if even if Scotland isn't allowed in the EU, I'd still pick an independent Scotland at this point. And if that isn't an option, well, I have the luxury of other nationalities (alas no EU ones).

Would also be interesting to see how public opinion on the monarchy will shift too. Granted, brexiters are likely delighted by the outcome, but can't help but think that remainers who haven't had a strong reason to feel either way about the monarchy until now may have found one now.