Brexit

Just looked in on this, having been somewhat busy for a while now getting ready to go back to work in a new career. My time as a stay-at-home mum is nearly done. I'm looking forward to getting back to work in the new year.

But to Brexit....

Nooneinparticular has a far better grip on the reality of the situation than the Aussie who as usual talks through his arse.

I've been saying for the last three years that the Irish border question was not reconcilable due to Teresa May's red lines...the ones she laid down in her Malt House speech back at the very start. That factor alone made a resolution to the Irish border question impossible. Nobody listened then, the government isn't listening now.

The truth of the situation now is that Boris Johnson wants Britain to crash out of the EU without any withdrawal deal at all. This is what he is aiming for and this his intended endgame.

Why would he want such a thing..? Because his backers and those controlling him are the disaster capitalists who stand to make the most out of Brexit. They made sure he became Prime Minister (which is what he has wanted more than anything in his entire life) and they will expect him to deliver. In such a scenario they woulf be able to:

a) asset-strip the country and make an untold amount of money.

b) Direct the future policy of the country via the Conservative government that would be able to win a General Election on a "We Delivered Brexit" ticket. If that election takes place shortly after Brexit and before the consequences of doing so really start to bite and the electorate realises that it's been had, they would very likely win and Johnson would have five years to wreak havoc on the country.

c) Turn Britain into an offshore tax haven through which his backers would be able to launder their money and avoid the tax consequences they would have to face up to if Britain stayed in the EU and had to comply with New EU rules to eliminate tax avoidance loopholes that came into force on 1 January this year.

Further rules come into force on 1 January 2020 which would cost the major corporations billions. No wonder Britain leaving the EU by 31 October is such an imperative.

Johnson's attempted coup d'etat in September was an act of fascism that thankfully has been thwarted by the Supreme Court. Although they didn't go as far as to declare that he lied to the Queen, he undoubtedly did and in a previous era in our history his head would now be rotting on a spike at Traitors Gate.

He now proposes that in future the Supreme Court be made up of political appointees. That is in direct contradiction to our established practice of hundreds of years, of a separation of the Government and judiciary, but there is no act of fascism that he will not stoop to.

The man is a coward. He intends to prorogue Parliament again next week, apparently so he can write a Queen's Speech.... but hold on Boris... Didn't you say that was what the last one was for..? What did you do while Parliament wasn't sitting..?

Ahhhh, so THAT prorogation wasn't for writing the Queens Speech after all. So you WERE lying to the Queen then.

After the (unanimous) Supreme Court Judgement Johnson had to face PMQ's (the very thing he's prorogued Parliament in order to avoid) and was ripped to shreds by the House. Thus the reason for this latest prorogation. He is terrified of being held to account a second time and closing Parliament down to avoid having to answer questions, especially about his latest plan for the Irish Border (remember that..?).

Apparently, it goes something like this: Boris Bets on Dominic Cummings Cunning Plan

Honestly, its unworkable and he knows it. Boris Johnson has no intention whatsoever of making honest proposals to Brussels to sort out the problem because he doesn't want to. See the top of this post for my reasons why.

The only reason he's contacted Brussels at all...... even with the ridiculous "Phantom Border" proposal is to convince Brexiters at home that if / when Brexit fails he can exonerate himself and blame the failure on "EU intransigence".

I put forward proposals to the EU and they rejected them out of hand. I did so in good faith.... (he would have no difficulty in saying this with a straight face, trust me) so it is all their fault that negotiations have failed

So...... what is likely to happen now..? Well, Johnson is in a bind. He has until 19 October to find a Withdrawal Agreement Deal. If he doesn't achieve one (which he won't because he isn't trying) then under the Benn Act, passed by Parliament in September, given royal assent, and sustained by the Supreme Court he will have to request an extension to Brexit from Brussels (which they have strongly hinted would be given).

He has a problem there. He has nailed his colours firmly to the "We will leave on 31 October" mast. So...... if we fail to leave on 31 October because HE has requested an extension his credibility as a Prime Minister will collapse.

This is a Prime Minister who has faced only 7 votes in the House of Commons in his time as PM and has lost them all. His loss ratio is 100%. He's won zip. He has no majority which makes him not only the lamest of ducks, but he has pissed so many people off the House doesn't trust a single word he says.

If he refused to apply for an extension he would be in contempt of court and there is no precedent for that where a sitting Prime Minister is concerned, but we should be aware that Contempt of Court, depending on the magnitude of the offence, can lead to a prison sentence in this country. When we are talking about affairs of state, I can't imagine any offence of greater magnitude. He would surely go to prison.

I for one would be delighted to slam the cell door on him.

But the delicious thought of putting stripes on his shoulders aside, simply put, if he doesn't deliver Brexit on 31 October his position would be untenable. Where could he go from there...?

He could simply resign, but that is his worst nightmare. He's spent all his life in achieving his ambition to become PM. To have to resign it in ignominy would be too much for his ego.

Rather, he would face a vote of no confidence in the House of Commons, a Government of National Unity would be formed under a Prime Minister nominated by the Queen and a General Election would be called. At this time it is impossible to say where that would go.

If a GE were called, Johnson could really come to regret sacking those 21 MP's. The Conservative Party has no majority to start with. They would certainly lose the dozen seats they hold in Scotland. The DUP in Northern Ireland would no longer support them. The 21 now independent MPs they sacked could very well stand against a Tory candidate in their constituencies as independents and then there is Nigel Farage's Brexit Party who could split the Brexit vote (unless Johnson and Farage come to some sort of arrangement.... but don't bank on that).

So... at a general election, the Tories could be more than 30 seats down before they even start.

A hung Parliament would be very likely and the Liberal Democrats, who have made it a manifesto commitment to revoke Article 50 if elected could take a lot of those seats.

In such a situation, the Lib Dems could become the "Kingmakers" in the next government. They could hold the balance of government in a hung Parliament and the price of their support would undoubtedly be the withdrawal of Article 50.

if that happens, Brexit is dead. Kaput. Finito.

The Lib Dems could justifiably claim that revoking Article 50 is a democratic requirement because they made it a manifesto commitment that has been voted for by the people at a GE. Parliament does not vote on manifesto pledges to they couldn't challenge it in the House.

That is just one scenario. It is as likely or unlikely as any other.

We are approaching endgame on Brexit. And not before time. But the picture is as unclear and uncertain as it has been all along.

I can't say for certain what will become of it. I know what I would like to happen and I wish I could say it would, but that's not possible.

We must wait and see how developments pan out.

Cartoon enthusiasts have been pondering for some time which character Boris Johnson's gilet-encased, dome-headed chief of staff most resembles. Could it be Squidward Tentacles, the manipulative egomaniac octopus continually overwhelmed by that eternally sunny bungler Spongebob Squarepants? Or Brain, the scheming, arrogant laboratory mouse whose nightly plans for world domination are frequently stymied by his dimwitted cohort Pinky?

What the humiliation at the hands of the Supreme Court suggests is that Cummings is actually Wile E Coyote, luckless springer of elaborate traps which tend to blow up in his own face.

Noticing the large cage hovering above, not even Jeremy Corbyn stopped to eat his free bird seed and vote for a general election. Prorogation was supposed to be political dynamite, except when Wile E Dom pushed down the handle the explosives remained intact while the detonator blew up in his face.

No matter what the method - arcane Commons flummery, legal trickery, old-fashioned Westminster arm-twisting, reverse psychology - it always seems to end with Coyote Cummings putting up his tiny parasol in defence as a huge anvil plummets towards his head.

Just compare and contrast the Tesla swagger of his Downing Street arrival in late July with the clown car reality of what has happened since:

*Sent Boris Johnson on a tour of Labour Leave areas, believing the old Etonian bumbler would instinctively impress the milkmen and travelling tinkers he encountered. He was caught on camera several times being told to "f*** off" by the common citizenry.

Instead, the PM was constantly upbraided by locals for his part in austerity. Withdrawing to the safer environs of a Whipps Cross hospital didn't go much better. Here, he was taken to task by a tired, worried father who had spent all night sitting by the bedside of his seriously ill daughter. When the gentleman told Johnson "All you're here for is the press photo opportunity", Johnson replied "There isn't any press here". "Who are they, then?" replied the father, pointing to the gathered press who were filming the exchange. Especially the one wearing a blue bib that had "Press Liaison Officer" printed on it in big letters.



By the way.... it turns out that those women wearing nurses uniforms aren't actually nurses. They are Conservative Party activists wearing nurses uniforms who were placed in the video to smile and look like they were very happy with the way the NHS is being run.

But back to the clown car that is Johnson's handling of Brexit........


* Wile E Cummings ordered that a timer ticking down to our exit at midnight on October 31 should be displayed on every computer in No.10. The civil service refused, pointing out that this would raise employee stress levels. Meanwhile the £500 countdown clocks installed at Tory HQ and in a Downing Street meeting room, complete with signs above reading "We will have delivered Brexit and left the EU by…" click on towards the inevitable embarrassment.

*Put his faith in Jacob Rees-Mogg, who professed to know more about parliamentary procedure than the speaker and more about law than the Supreme Court but was found to not even know how to sit up straight and stay awake.

*Briefed journalists that parliament had already missed its moment to stop a no-deal Brexit happening automatically. Parliament subsequently legislated to prevent a no-deal Brexit happening automatically.

*Rattled Tory MPs by telling them that if they voted against the government they would lose the whip and be deselected, adding: "When are you f**king MPs going to realise we are leaving on October 31? We are going to purge you." This masterstroke reduced Johnson's working majority from a serviceable one to an impressive minus 43.

*Threatened an October 14 election if parliament took control of Commons business. Parliament took control of Commons business and refused to vote for a general election, on October 14 or otherwise.

*Suggested leakers from his Friday spad meetings would be rooted out with a "one strike and you're out" policy. The fine details of each meeting have been widely reported ever since.

*Scoffed at Dominic Grieve, telling Sky News, "we'll see what he's right about." Turns out, pretty much everything.

*Predicted that Scottish judges would "reflect deeply on the profound consequences for the judiciary if they are seen to side with those trying to cancel the biggest democratic vote in our history" before deciding whether to rule prorogation unlawful. The judges did, and ruled prorogation unlawful.

*Subsequently sneered that "the legal activists choose the Scottish courts for a reason". The Scottish ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court.

*Claimed that Johnson could simply refuse to seek the mandated extension on October 18 and then run down the clock until October 31. Legal experts beg to differ, and Dom's not had much luck with them lately.

Wile E. Coyote's creator Chuck Jones once noted down his rules for the character's universe. These include "no outside force can harm the Coyote - only his own ineptitude", but the most telling one is "the Coyote could stop anytime - if he were not a fanatic".

This is true of Dominic Cummings, who won a referendum but has since lost a by-election, lost a majority, lost a Scottish leader, lost more than 20 MPs and two cabinet ministers, lost every single vote in parliament and now lost a Supreme Court case. He may lose Brexit, too.

In one of the classic Roadrunner gags, Wile E Coyote runs off a cliff edge, stopping in mid-air to gulp before he plummets down into a deep canyon. So far, Britain looks like resisting running off the cliff with Dominic Cummings.

"Leaving the single market is going to brutalise our startup culture. Running startups is hard enough, we don't need the extra burden." A good point well made in a February 2017 interview on business news network Bloomberg by a relatively obscure tech entrepreneur named Jennifer Arcuri. Does anybody have any idea what 
happened to her?

You do realize that you've now said both that 'Project Fear' was working, and that the opinion polls still place 'the will of the people' as the dominant position.

In a democracy, we cannot know what 'the will of the people' would be sans any influencing factors, so such an extrapolation is simply a hypothetical thought experiment.



So you're telling me that the Conservatives and DUP would willingly throw the chance of making a deal away just because of some arbitrary deadline that they themselves set? You do realize that that makes the government's position basically, 'We wanted to get a deal done, but we ran out of time. We could have given ourselves more time but chose not to because reasons.'



You do realize that using opinion polls to extrapolate how the voting public would react in a hypothetical election or referendum is ALSO predicting the future, right? Oh say, like the one you mentioned earlier in this post about how "polls were showing that such a referendum could well result in the same outcome as the first".

All predictions of the future, and even data compiling of the present, relies on probability. They both rely on the same framework in order to arrive at their conclusions.

How is it do you think these institutions actually calculate the numbers for their opinion polls? They ask a subset of the population and extrapolate outwards using several key assumptions. The same exact thing can be said for future predictions. They take the data that they have now and in the past and use several key assumptions to extrapolate outwards.

I understand that statistics on the present and predictions on the future are different, but that in itself doesn't explain why one is inherently flawed and the other is not.

Some things that the opinion polls don't take into account are the shift in the demographic of the voting public since 2016.

It is known that the leave vote was comprised of a significant number of "Baby Boomers", that is, those born in the post war years between 1945 and 1960. This generation grew up in the aftermath of WWII and has a generally antagonistic view of Europeans, especially Germans. They grew up in an austere society where food rationing existed until 1954, the Empire collapsed, housing was poor, resources were scarce, and the effects of the Blitz were still very visible in the form of large areas of major cities still laid waste... such areas were known as "Bomb Sites". Popular playground games among children - especially boys - centred around mock battles where good old heroic Tommy Atkins mowed down hordes of dastardly Germans.

Needless to say, large numbers of this generation have never accepted Britain joining the "European Project".

Now they are in old age. Almost all are either retired or close to retirement age and those who no longer work make up a high proportion of voters at elections because not only are they more inclined to vote, but they also no longer work and so have the time to get to the polls. They are overwhelmingly inclined to vote for anything that is anti-Europe.

The younger generation are, however, much more pro-European. Anybody born after 1973 has lived their entire life so far as a citizen in the EU and has never had any personal experience of the factors that influence the post war Boomers.

For this reason the demographic of the voter is very important. The older generation = overwhelmingly anti-Europe. The younger generation = overwhelmingly pro-Europe.

Whereas the Boomers will mostly have the time and inclination to go to the polls, the young tend to be generally less inclined to get out and vote. Many are disillusioned with politics, seeing politicians as self-serving charlatans who show scant regard for the interests of young people. A typical example of this was the anger of students over the introduction of tuition fees for university students that caused mass demonstrations during the 2010 - 2015 coalition government.

The younger generation are also more likely to be working during the daytime and those with young families, or who work long hours, are less likely to either be able to get to the polls to vote during working hours, or are so bloody tired at the end of a long day that they don't bother once they've finished work.

The Department of National Statistics reported post referendum that voting returns revealed that the referendum turnout contained a significantly high proportion of voters aged over 55. It is highly likely therefore that the Baby Boomers - overwhelmingly anti-EU - would have had a major say in the 52% - 48% "close run thing".

This is something that pollsters seem to not take into account. They go out during the daytime when these same Boomers are likely to be in public places such as shopping centres, libraries, community halls, etc. They are the ones most likely to be polled, whereas the younger generation are more likely to be working or at university, and unavailable for polling.

Little wonder therefore, that the polls continue to show high support for Brexit. The pollsters keep asking the same pro-leave voters.

Portsmouth University (my former seat of learning) informed all the major polling organisations that they would welcome pollsters on the campus to give a more balanced sample group. So far, none have taken up the offer.

So.......how have things changed since 2016...?

The link below gives some interesting numbers:

Leave Voters Are Dying While Remain Voters Are Attaining Voting Age


In the 2016 referendum, Leave enjoyed a majority of 1,269,501. The accepted rate of attrition (deduct dying boomers from leave / add young attaining majority age to remain) be around 1'350 per day. The leave majority would have disappeared 940 days (give or take) after June 23, 2016. On the basis of this, the outcome of a second referendum would be likely to return a remain outcome on or around January 19, 2019, and that assumes nobody from 2016 changed their mind in the knowledge of the calamity that awaits a no-deal Brexit.


To repeat: the calculations of pollsters assume that not one person who voted in the last referendum has changed their mind – and that those who abstained then would stay at home again. In fact, YouGov’s research shows that a fair number of today’s under 25s who were old enough last time but did not do so, would vote in a new referendum; and these people would divide 82-18 per cent for Remain. (This compares with a 75-25 per cent preference for Remain among the under 25s who DID vote last time.)

The proposition is simple. The Baby Boom generation is in - literally terminal - decline, while every day, the number of people attaining majority age and thus being eligible to vote increases.

I accept that not all Boomers were leave voters and not all young people vote remain, but these age groups represent a HIGH PROPORTION of such voters. It is quite clear that the anti-EU vote is in decline while the remain vote is growing by the day.

Leavers say we should "respect the referendum", but to do that... to leave the EU off the back of the 2016 vote now would be to leave the EU on the say so of many hundreds of thousands of people who are now dead, while the wishes of a similar number who are now eligible to vote, and whose lives will be affected by Brexit, have never been taken into account.

And they call that democracy...?

It is, in my opinion, highly likely that many will have changed their minds on Brexit. Just because somebody voted leave in 2016 when they were promised unicorns and rainbows and they believed it would be simple and Britain would get "The easiest trade deal in history", it doesn't mean they would vote the same now they know that it will actually mean food and medicine shortages, lost jobs, austerity, the sell-off of the NHS to disaster capitalists and the break up of the United Kingdom.

You show me where I stated that "project fear" was working.


In 2016 Parliament asked the people what their will was re the EU. Over 17.4 million made it clear what their will was.


Only it doesnt. The EU have constantly stated that May's thrice rejected deal is the only one available. Only very recently (since BJ became PM) have some (such as Juncker) suggested that new negotiations might be possible after all. Now BJ has come up with a proposed leave agreement that, unlike May's, might attract enough votes in Parliament to pass. However, unless the EU say they are prepared to accept the key points of BJ's proposal then it's pointless wasting any more time. BJ's proposal is pretty much the minimum that will get the support of the DUP and groups like the ERG. So it's over to the EU. If they are prepared to discuss a new deal then I think it can be done before October 31. I do not however believe that the EU will accept BJ's proposals. Actually it's a bit disconcerting when Cameron backs BJ's proposals. Makes me wonder what's in the fine print. Anyway, both sides obviously want very different things. The only possible way any agreeable middle ground will be found is if the EU genuinely believe that if they aren't prepared to be more flexible then the UK WILL leave without a deal. They won't crash out. That's remoaner emotive BS. Instead the UK will leave under WTO terms. The remoaner Parliament and media are however doing everything they can to prevent BJ from leaving under ANY circumstances. At the moment they seem to be winning and so I think the EU will feel that BJ wont be able to leave on the 31st in which case they dont need to bother about re-opening renegotiations. The simple reality is that time isnt the issue re finding common ground. Meanwhile the UK is paying over a billion pound a month to the EU.


Actually no. Polls are never anything more than an indication of how people are thinking at the time the poll was taken. For example, polls being taken at the moment re how people would vote arent really meant to be taken as a prediction for the future. Rather they are an indication of CURRENT support, as opposed to FUTURE support. Oh, and as previously stated, I am very much aware that polls can never offer more than a general indication.


Some do, some dont. For example, paragraph three of the Yellowsnow document (that has got remoaners so wet with excitement) assumes significant delays at the Port of Calais. Only problem is they never bothered to ask the Port of Calais Authority what plans they had made for the UK leaving without a deal. Back in January the terminal's boss stated that they had spent a year preparing for a no deal scenerio and that traffic would flow just as readily if the UK left without as deal as it does whilst the UK is in the EU. He re-stated that point in May, again in July, and most recently a couple of days ago. Yet the civil servants responsible for Yellowsnow didnt even bother to contact him before they made their doomsday predictions.

Furthermore, it doesnt matter what method and/or what data you use to make your predictions. If you are wildly out time and time again with your predictions then it's unreasonable to expect people to take them seriously.


Really? The simple difference is one is dealing with what is known and the other is dealing with what is unknown. For example, HM Treasury can state that in January 2016 the inflation rate was 2.81%. That is information that they know to be true. However, when they said that if the leave vote is successful then inflation will jump to over 7% within three months of the nation voting to leave the EU, that was simply speculation. Problem is they presented it as fact.

So determining things like the CURRENT inflation rate is, as i said, dealing with what is known. Predictions however are inherently flawed as you are dealing with the unknown. The longer the prediction is set in the future the greater the unknown. The greater the variables the greater the unknown. One of the problems with project fear is that they like to treat predictions as if they were/are fact.

That is true. 17.4 million people voted in 2016. It is now the back end of 2019 and still nothing is resolved. See post 169 for my debunking of your argument: (snip): Leavers say we should "respect the referendum", but to do that... to leave the EU off the back of the 2016 vote now would be to leave the EU on the say so of many hundreds of thousands of people who are now dead, while the wishes of a similar number who are now eligible to vote, and whose lives will be affected by Brexit, have never been taken into account.

Also click: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-leave-eu-remain-vote-support-against-poll-uk-europe-final-say-yougov-second-referendum-peter-a8541971.html

I'm kinda of the opinion that the needs of the living outweigh those of the dead.




I covered that argument in post 166 (snip) Honestly, its unworkable and he knows it. Boris Johnson has no intention whatsoever of making honest proposals to Brussels to sort out the (Irish border) problem because he doesn't want to.

The only reason he's contacted Brussels at all...... even with the ridiculous "Phantom Border" proposal is to convince Brexiters at home that if / when Brexit fails he can exonerate himself and blame the failure on "EU intransigence".

Johnson knows his plans are not acceptable. He never intended them to be. His proposals are what are called "Kamikaze Plans". That is, they are set up to fail. He wants the UK to crash out, but he wants the EU to take the blame for it when the inevitable consequences come down on the British people.

Also click on this link:
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/boris-bets-on-cummings-cunning-plan-1-6304002


As for £1 billion pounds a month to the EU.... Hahahahaha....!!! Hilarious.

In 2018 the UK made an estimated gross contribution (after the rebate) of £13.2 billion. The UK received £4.3 billion rebate from the EU, so the UK’s net public sector contribution to the EU was an estimated £8.9 billion.

There are different ways to measure other funds the UK receives back from the EU. The above figure of £4.3 billion includes only funding allocated to UK government to manage. However, the European Commission also allocates funding directly to UK organisations. In recent years these funds have been worth around £1 - £2 billion to the UK. Accounting for these receipts results in the UK making an average net contribution of £7.9 billion between 2013 and 2017.

(Source: WWW.Parliament.UK)

Approximately 40% of the EU budget, around £42 billion is set aside for agriculture and fisheries. The UK receives 7% of the total agriculture and fisheries payments, ranking sixth among EU member states.

(Source: BBC News.

I'll let you figure the amount Britain gets back from its contribution for that but if you were to argue that it's a small amount, it's worth me pointing out that the British government has made no money available to either after Brexit. Fishing and farming will lose ALL the money that up to now the EU sends them.

From these few stats it's easy to see that your figure of £1 billion a month is far from accurate. At a rough hack, it's closer to £5 - 6 billion or £500 million per month (give or take), or around £175 million a week. Not exactly the same as the £350 million a week pasted on the side of the big red bus, eh..?

You may argue that is still a lot of money for a membership fee, but that membership is worth tariff free trade with 27 other member states. The EU, taken as a whole is the UK’s largest trading partner. In 2018, UK exports to the EU were £289 billion (46% of all UK exports).

We also benefit from advantageous EU trade deals with around 70 other countries.... including the USA.... which will cease if we leave the EU. Britain will then have to negotiate independently with each of those countries for another trade agreement, which will take many years and it is highly unlikely that any of those agreements, when finally ratified, will be worth as much as what we already have as EU members.

Britain is now what is called a "Distressed Negotiator". We are diminished and have very little influence as an independent nation. Our bargaining base is extremely weak. If we leave on a no deal Brexit and refuse to pay the withdrawal bill, Britain's credit rating will seriously decline and it will be very difficult to negotiate all but the harshest terms if we are seen as a country that reneges on its bills.

All in all, £5 - 600'000 a month is not a lot for what we get in return. It's money well spent.



I covered that at the very start of post 169 (snip): This is something that pollsters seem to not take into account. They go out during the daytime when these same Boomers are likely to be in public places such as shopping centres, libraries, community halls, etc. They are the ones most likely to be polled, whereas the younger generation are more likely to be working or at university, and unavailable for polling.

Little wonder therefore, that the polls continue to show high support for Brexit. The pollsters keep asking the same pro-leave voters.






The Civil Servants you mention were working to the instructions of the government.....er.... you know.... the one that ordered "Orwell Mayhem". Yes, the port of Calais will work perfectly. It's at the port of Dover that things will start to go tits up.





Only... the predictions made by remainers keep coming to pass. We said we wouldn't be out of the EU on 29 March. We said the May WA would never pass. We said the Irish Border was an unsolvable problem with May's red lines in place. All these things have come true.

Brextremists however keep telling us we're going to leave the EU in March.... June.... August.... and now October. 0 from 3 is a pretty s*** record so far, and we now have the Benn Act to prevent crashing out with no deal in October.

0 from 4 looms.




That was the biggest cock-up of the entire referendum campaign and only a pair of idiots like Cameron and Osborne could have made it. We all put our head in our hands and groaned "Ohhhh nooooooooooo" when that one came out. It is true that that was stupid. It was undoubtedly an own goal.

That doesn't mean it can't come true if Brexit were to happen though. Only time would tell on that. It is universally acknowledged that prices will rise dramatically in a No Deal departure from the EU. We may even come to wish that inflation had risen to ONLY 7%

Watch this space.





Not at all. But OK... let's look at some of the statements of Dominic "Wile E Coyote" Cummings......

*Briefed journalists that parliament had already missed its moment to stop a no-deal Brexit happening automatically. Parliament subsequently legislated to prevent a no-deal Brexit happening automatically.

*Rattled Tory MPs by telling them that if they voted against the government they would lose the whip and be deselected, adding: "When are you f**king MPs going to realise we are leaving on October 31? We are going to purge you." This masterstroke reduced Johnson's working majority from a serviceable one to an impressive minus 43.

*Threatened an October 14 election if parliament took control of Commons business. Parliament took control of Commons business and refused to vote for a general election, on October 14 or otherwise.

*Suggested leakers from his Friday spad meetings would be rooted out with a "one strike and you're out" policy. The fine details of each meeting have been widely reported ever since.

*Scoffed at Dominic Grieve, telling Sky News, "we'll see what he's right about." Turns out, pretty much everything.

Predicted that Scottish judges would "reflect deeply on the profound consequences for the judiciary if they are seen to side with those trying to cancel the biggest democratic vote in our history" before deciding whether to rule prorogation unlawful. The judges did, and ruled prorogation unlawful.

*Subsequently sneered that "the legal activists choose the Scottish courts for a reason". The Scottish ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court.

I cannot disagree that the statements of Cameron and Osborne were anything other than mistaken. At that time.

Brexiter predictions leave a lot to be desired too, you know.

SANS ANY INFLUENCING FACTORS



More deflection. Is this going to be the game plan for all negotiations going forward? Ask for things the other side is unlikely to give and then blame them when talks fall through?



I find it funny that you're very quick to disparage certain remainer words like 'crash out', but feel perfectly comfortable saying words like 'remoaner' and 'Project Fear'.



In which case they are almost completely worthless.



Again we come back to the 'time and time again'.



So now we've gone from opinion polls to economics? Alright, I can play this game. All predictions, be they political or economical, rely on a certain set of key assumptions to operate. Violate one of those assumptions and the whole thing falls apart. What were the assumptions used to reach the conclusions in the Yellowhammer report?



Who is 'they'? The news media?

This was released by Downing Street last night (7 October)

Good grief. This is petulance worthy of Violet Elizabeth Bott.


"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."

My take on the above..........

* Negotiations have stalled and the Johnson administration are keen to blame the EU. Of course, it has nothing to do with the Johnson administration wasting everyone's time, acting in bad faith and proposing a ludicrous alternative to the vexed Irish Backstop.

* It is all the fault of the evil Boche (Germans) and the slimy Frogs (French). This is like reading the story of Brexit as re-told by Commando Comics; which, now I think about it, is a very apt description of how the Johnson administration is approaching the whole thing.

* The Euro-meanies and the Remoaners are conspiring to Do Britain Down, but they will be shown up in time by British pluck and cold hard steel, which has always seen off their Continental guile. Apparently, they don't like it up 'em, Captain Mainwaring.

*The Johnson administration really is intent on going full steam ahead into the iceberg, because they are more scared of Nigel Farage than they are of ruining the country. Never mind the arguments about 17.4 million voters, this is about one man. Oddly, their plan for stopping him is to do exactly what he wants, which seems a bit silly, but they aren't interested in what is better for Britain here - it is simple psychopathic careerism. f*** up, blame everyone else and hope that people will fall for it so you don't lose your job.

* The Johnson (mal)administration intends to subvert the Benn Act to prevent delaying Brexit: "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."; one wonders if this 'legal advice' springs from the same mind that told them proroguing parliament for five weeks was legal, and that they could win court cases without presenting sworn affidavits?

* They will use bribes and threats to try to get the EU to vote against offering a further extension. So, having failed to win any intellectual arguments, they will resort to bullying.

* The EU offering something that has been requested by the British PM acting on the instructions of the British parliament is "hostile interference in domestic politics."

* Presumably they will apply the same 'logic' to any attempt to form treaties or agreements in the future. And the cynical statement that the public will agree with them reveals they are intent on plunging even further down the Faragist populist bulls*** rabbit hole. All, you know, to stop Farage.
They will take their toys and go home.

* They are deluded: "Those who pushed the Benn Act intended to sabotage a deal and they’ve probably succeeded." No, bad faith negotiations, posturing and hopeless alternative' to the Irish Backstop killed a deal. Which they probably knew all along it would. The ferocity of the pro-No Deal language in this whole message reveals the lie in this weak attempt to pass the blame.

I just read an article on the BBC. That with this brexit you will be at a 100 billion of debt. You will also be at 90% of your GPD IN debt.this has not happened in the last 50 years. I really do wish you luck in all of this.

There are theories that the Titanic would have survived if they had gone straight into the iceberg, rather than a long, damaging scrape along the side breaching more compartments than a head-on collision would have.

.. just sayin'

Very possibly.

It still wouldn't have done the ship much good though, and the iceberg still wouldn't have felt a thing.

Just replyin'.










Compare Brexit Debt With The 2008 Financial Crisis

Yep, we really are facing a financial crisis of that magnitude. There is a graph at the link which makes the comparison between a post no-deal Brexit and the 2008 financial crisis.

It is truly frightening.

The Brexit campaigners Leave.EU have sunk to a new, appalling, xenophobic low.



We Didn't Win Two World Wars To Be Pushed Around By A Kraut



Angela Merkel did NOT say the Northern Ireland could rot inside the Customs Union. False attribution of the worst kind.

This is dreadful, even by their disgustingly low standards.

I was NOT saying that Project Fear was working. I said that the plan was to make "everything to do with Brexit as difficult as possible. This gives remoaners more time to stoke 'project fear' and to show everyone that leaving is just too difficult. The hope is the constant delays and constant 'project fear' propaganda will eventually wear people down." So I was saying one aspect of the plan was to take advantage of the constant delays to stoke 'project fear' and that the plan was working well. Saying that the overall plan was working well and saying that 'Project fear" was/is working well are not the same thing. Infact project fear hasnt worked. It didnt work in the lead up to the people's vote and it hasnt worked since. Why? Because polls before the people's vote consistently showed that economic reasons were to the fore when it came to the reasons why people said they were intending to vote "leave". Exit polls on the day, and polls since, have consistently shown that economic reasons were to the fore when it cam eto why most people voted 'leave'. Economic issues are short term. The main reasons people voted leave were long term and more to do with issues of Governance, responsibility, sovereignty and an idea of democracy. These are long term aspirations entirely separate to economic considerations. But remaoners just keep going for the economic fear factor that they seem to find so compelling.


It is interesting that the EU gave May a deal they must have known had no chance of being accepted. A deal that would have left the UK trapped in the EU for an indefinite period of time. And yet EU lovers claim that Barnier and co were being fair and reasonable. So it's ok for the EU to draw their red line but not for BJ. Likewise, Barnier comes out just recently and says that BJ's proposal as it stands is not acceptable and that if he doesnt come up with something else then a no deal outcome will be his fault. BJ replies that the Government have made major concessions to the EU and if the EU remain intransigent then it will be the EU's fault if there is no deal. And then Tusk comes out and says "what’s at stake is not winning some stupid blame game". This after Barnier was the first to play the blame game! Unreal.

Now early this morning Merkel apparently told BJ that the only deal that would be possible is one that would see Northern Ireland permanently a part of the Customs Union. The only response I have seen to this is the German government effectively saying 'no comment'. Talk about offering someone a deal you know they can't accept. Her alleged comments show that groups like the ERG were right to reject May's deal for fear that it would see the UK trapped in the EU without a voice. Shows they were right not to believe the EU when they said the whole of the UK would be allowed to leave the customs union as soon as an 'answer' to the Irish Backstop was found. We now know there was never going to be an 'answer'. We also know now that it's a waste of time negotiating with the EU. Their red line won't move and even if he wanted to BJ knows he has no chance of getting Parliament to agree to any deal that leaves Northern Ireland permanently within the Customs Union. Also makes you wonder what games Barnier is up to when he says just hours ago that "I think the deal is possible. Very difficult but possible." I suspect he is only saying this so he can then blame the UK for no deal. Personally I find the blame game pointless. It is entirely subjective and ultimately irrelevant. Anyway, Merkel's alleged comments now means the people of the UK have a binary choice. It's a no deal Brexit or no Brexit. They now need to be given the opportunity to decide (once again) what they want in the form of a general election.



That's not how political parties tend to see them. Polls can give them an idea as to how the public are reacting to particular issues, policies etc. If the reaction is less than favourable then they can consider taking appropriate action(s). It also gives parties the chance to gauge popular support for their leader. Over the years a number of PM's (and even opposition leaders) have been removed due to continuing poor performances in the polls.


And your point is?


Where to even begin...

1/ That cross channel movement of goods btw Calais and Dover COULD be reduced to as little as 40% and that in the first few months HGVs could face maximum delays of 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 days.

Now of course 'could' is pretty vague. The staggering thing here though is that the authors never even spoke to the Port of Calais Authority who had been saying for nearly a year that they were (and still are) VERY confident that there would be no change in the flow of goods coming into and out of Calais. Furthermore, the head of the Port of Dover at the time the Yellowsnow report was being compiled has stated that they didnt believe there would be any noticeable change in the flow of traffic coming from Calais. Now he did state that there might be some disruption to the flow of goods leaving the UK for France but that this was being actively worked on. So how the hell do they arrive at the conclusion that traffic flow could be as little as 40% of what it is today? Do these civil servants claim to have a better understanding of how the Ports in Dover and Calais run than the people who actually run them? Infact, if you read the yellowsnow report (it's only 5 pages long) it talks about HGVs blocking up the Port of Calais as they have limited space to hold unready HGVs. And yet twice before the Yellowsnow report came out the Port of Calais Authority had stated that they already had areas set aside to process unready HGVs which were well away from the port. So here you have the Port of Calais Authority (PoCA) saying any unready HGVs will be processed well away from the Port and will NOT cause any disruption. Meanwhile, the civil servants who drew up yellowsnow claim that the PoCA will be processing unready HGVs at the Port and that this in turn will clog up the Port and may cause major delays. These major delays are then linked to a shortage of petrol, food and medicine. Furthermore, they assumed that the number of unready HGVs would be the same come D1ND as it was when the report was written. Of course the number of unready HGVs at the time was a direct result of Hammond not telling businesses to prepare for a no deal Brexit. Since BJ became PM much has changed with the government spending a lot of time and money telling businesses not only to prepare for a no deal exit but telling them what they need to do to prepare. So not only will unready HGVs not be processed at the Port of Calais as yellowsnow states, but there will be a lot less unready HGVs in the first place.

2. That the low level of preparedness at the time the report was written will remain the same due to a lack of a clear decision on the form a Brexit exit will take and due to EU exit fatigue.

The lack of a clear decision on the form of a Brexit exit goes back to May's government and esp Hammond as the later never told businesses to prepare for a no deal exit. Since then BJ has become PM and businesses have been told over and over and over again that they need to prepare for a no deal Brexit. Furthermore, under the current Conservative government there has been no sign of EU exit fatigue among businesses. Indeed the sharp increase in the number of businesses reporting that they are prepared for, or preparing for, a no deal Brexit suggests that far from being fatigued many businesses are infact energised.

3. A rapid SEM split months or years after the UK leaves the EU.

They literally give NO explanation was to why they think this would ever happen.

4. A reduction in the availability and choice of products may lead to price increases.

Again, this goes back to the flawed assumptions leading to Calais becoming clogged. It also assumes that the Government will not make any changes to tariffs nor source food from new markets, or increase food coming from current markets. On Tariffs the Government have already announced that 88% of goods coming into the UK will not attract a tariff which is likely to lead to lower prices...not higher.

That's enough to be going on with.

Notwithstanding the above it should be noted that Yellowsnow is a ‘Reasonable WORST CASE Planning Assumption(s)’ in a no-deal Brexit scenario. It was commissioned by a Government that was not only unwilling to seriously consider leaving without a deal but which was never going to leave without a deal. They went to a remainer civil service and said in effect "we want you to go away and think of the worse things that might happen in a no deal scenario (one we wont consider) and report back to us". The result is yellowsnow.

Of course yellowsnow was purportedly created for the purposes of contingency planning, though in reality it seems to have been created in case a no deal scenario ever looked like it was gaining traction. Nonetheless, for all it's faults (and I certainly didnt address all of them) it doesn't claim to be a forecast of what will happen, but rather a statement of what might happen...if nothing is done.

At best you can look at yellowsnow as being like those briefings you get when you board an airplane. They tell you what to do if the plane loses pressure, if it has to make an emergency landing, if there's a fire, if the plane crashes into a body of water etc etc etc. These are all reasonable worst case scenarios and yet do they stop people from flying? Well maybe a few. And yet remoaners view yellowsnow like it was an airline safety briefing where cabin crew tell you what could happen, and they assume that they mean this is what will happen.


People like your remoaner friend, the media, politicans, so called 'experts'. Indeed, even in the case where experts may not necessarily say this WILL happen in the future, the fact that they dont publicly correct those who misrepresent what they say makes them complicit in 'project fear'.

BBC = Biased Broadcasting Corporation.