Brexit

It really seems like they're just effing with Johnson.

"You Can't Exit Without a Deal"
"Here's a deal"
"We're Not Approving Your Deal"
"You must ask for an extension"

What if EU doesn't grant an extension?

"Johnson Fails!!"

... at least that's the POV of this casual observer.

It does seem as though the time has come to declare that democracy in the UK is dead.

There's a lot of anger among the working class. It's just a pity that the chatterers have done so well at convincing them that voting is a waste of time.

Boris Is a hard-working man. He’s for fighting for the will of the people and we wish him all the best.

I NEVER suggested that UKIP, the ERG or DUP would ever vote for such a referendum. Indeed they would almost certainly vote against it. The vast majority of Labour would however vote for it. The Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid Cymru may also vote for it as such a referendum would almost certainly result in a 'remain' victory for the reasons I have previously articulated. As an aside it's laughable to hear JC going on about giving the people the power to decide what happens re Brexit and saying Labour would honour the result of new referendum. He said the same thing before the 2016 vote and has steadfastly refused to honour that result. The truth is however that he and his party will only honour a result that they like.


If a part of the plan is to change/influence public opinion then of course the importance of that component of the plan is dependent upon how effectively it achieves it's aim. In the case of Project Fear changing/influencing public opinion is it's primary operational objective. So if a component of the plan requires that the public believe what is being said about a particular subject then obviously it's significance to the overall objective is going to be effected by whether or not that part of the plan is achieving it's aim. Why would you find that surprising?


The Government have only lost votes and power since they have been lead by someone determined to pay more than lip service to Brexit.



What's your point? How on earth does the quote you have posted show that: "I don't understand how you can claim that the UK having minimum requirements for a deal is not duplicitous, but that the EU having the same is."

Again, I have NOT said that the EU was/is wrong for having certain requirements as being non negotiable. However, nor do I think that it's unreasonable for the UK to have requirements that are also non negotiable. You however claim that when the EU drew their red line they were protecting their values but when the UK did it they are issuing ultimatums.

Now you are still not offering ANY proof that I have said (or even suggested) that it's ok for the UK to have min requirements for a deal but not for the EU. Infact, as previously stated, it is you that has effectively said that it's fine for the EU to have their red line whilst suggesting that it's wrong for the UK to do the same. So if anyone is being duplicitous then it's clearly you.


Was I saying that the EU were being unfair and unreasonable? No I wasnt. Both things are subjective. Here it is interesting nonetheless to recall what EU chief negotiator, Michel Barnier said to EU leaders in May 2017:
"I’ll have done my job if, in the end, the deal is so tough on the British that they’d prefer to stay in the EU."

Anyway, the EU were out to get the very best deal they could for themselves. So yes they were selfish. The UK were meant to be trying to get the best deal they could for themselves. So they also should have been selfish. I can't think of a single international deal that has ever been negotiated that was, or could reasonably be seen as, genuinely unselfish.

Was I trying to blame the EU for the failure of May to get her deal through Parliament? No. The EU must have known that the deal they gave May had little chance of passing the first time. They could hardly have been surprised when it failed. May asked them to make changes. They refused. So second time around they KNEW it would fail to attract sufficient support in Parliament. May came back a third time. Knowing the major problems the Irish Backstop was causing the EU yet again refused to budge. They did so knowing that May's deal would again fail. Now does this mean the EU were to blame for May's deal failing? No. They were in a very strong negotiating position (as May's government would never seriously consider no deal) and they made full use of their position. I don't blame them for doing so. They made sure they got the EU the very best deal that they could. This was infact their job. So I don't blame them. Don't know how I can be any clearer.


Again, you have still offered NOTHING to support your assertion. The 'multiple posts' that you quote don't blame the EU for where negotiations were at the time.


You seem to assign to people like Barnier altruistic motivations which I would certainly question. As for negotiating in good faith, well that means different things to different people. Is saying before negotiations have even begun that "I’ll have done my job if, in the end, the deal is so tough on the British that they’d prefer to stay in the EU" a sign of acting in good faith? Maybe to you it is. As I have already said the EU were out to get the very best deal possible for themselves. They found themselves in negotiations where they held all the power and they exploited this position to their own ends. Do I blame them for doing so? Again, no I don't.


What's your point?

It's hardly any secret that the EU do NOT want the UK to leave. Junker has said it many times as have others. It's also no secret that members of the Rebel Alliance have communicated, and met many times, with key EU figures. Indeed it's still happening. Now when you have these EU members saying that they don't want the UK to leave, and they are meeting with remoaners who are publicly saying they will do everything they can to stop the UK from leaving, then it's reasonable to assume that they are working together towards a common goal. BJ is the only fly in the ointment.


Again, show me (with quotes) where I have said that the EU were to blame for there not being a deal that would see the UK leave the EU. You on the other hand have blamed the UK in general and BJ in particular for there being no deal at the time of your posting.

Now, do I hold the rebel alliance responsible for there being a zombie parliament? Absolutely. How can you not? They have taken over Parliament. They have stopped the Government from being able to govern. They have two clear options available to them to resolve the mess that Parliament is in. They could table a motion of no confidence or they could support a motion for an early election. Have they done either? No they haven't. Instead they use their numbers, and a weaponised speaker and Supreme court, to delay, delay, delay. To just keep kicking the can down the road. I am especially critical of the FORMER tories who crossed the floor as they had been elected on the promise to honour the result of the 2016 people's vote with the stipulation that no deal would be better than a bad deal.

So yes, absolutely I hold the rebel alliance responsible for there being a zombie Parliament...but for the bloody umpteenth time I didn't blame the EU for there not having been a deal at the time of posting. Obviously now there is a new deal which the zombie Parliament are determined not to even allow a vote on.


Seriously? That's your 'evidence' that the UK have been more selfish than the EU? Firstly, the Government couldnt "enact that proposal" as Parliament voted it down. So they could either give up and let the clock wind down and allow the UK to leave on WTO terms (fat chance Parliament would have allowed that as we have clearly seen) or they could go back to the EU and say "look Parliament simply won't accept the deal we negotiated. If you genuinely want a deal we need to make some changes". Seriously, what else could they do? Of course the EU said "Nope, the deal is as it is and cant be changed. If you cant get it passed that's your problem". And then BJ becomes PM and as the clock ticks down it turns out that the EU could make some changes afterall. Not many, but some.


N.I was identified as a key negotiating leverage for the EU right from the very start. If N.I wasnt a part of the UK (and it shouldnt be but that's a conversation for another time) then the EU's position would never have been quite as strong as it was/and is.



I call bollocks. Again, you claimed that the EU would be "subject to international repercussions from violating the GFA" when they arent even signatories to the GFA.


Not in this case. All incoming and outgoing phone calls at Number 10 are recorded. The same is true for the German equivalent. Most people I suspect are aware of this. So when Number 10 claim Merkel said certain things they do so knowing that the Germans have a recording of the conversation and could easily prove that the Brits are lying if indeed they were. But instead Merkel remains quiet. Everyone in the German executive remain quiet...the same people who have in the past leaked phone recordings involving the Bundeskanzleramt. So if what number 10 claimed was untrue why wouldnt the Germans say so and deal BJ a humiliating blow by leaking (or straight-out releasing) the taped conversation? I personally can't think of any reason other than what number 10 claimed Merkel said was what she actually did say.


Only the conversation would have been recorded as per SOPs.

At the moment it's not even a case of "we're not approving your deal" but rather "we're not going to allow you a vote on your deal". All the while the same old record is playing...delay, delay, delay...

Meanwhile you get Corbyn attacking the Tories claiming they are acting undemocratically whilst refusing the Tories multiple offers to hold an election! I would have thought that a general election is a pretty democratic exercise. But as we have seen, Labour, the Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid Cymru and Greens all have a rather different view of democracy.

Also love the arrogance of Labour. They claim to represent the 'working class'. This is the same 'working class' who overwhelmingly voted "leave". And yet Labour are doing all they can to prevent the UK from leaving whilst telling the 'working class' that we are doing this for your own benefit. As in, we know you said you wanted to leave, but trust us, you will be better off staying. UFB

Nice to see that JRM and his 12 yr old son needed a large police escort to protect them from remoaner protesters. Real classy.

Of course JRM wasnt the only Tory MP who needed a police escort...

Was strange (but at the same time not unexpected) to see remoaners carrying signs that read "Reject Brexit - Defend democracy". So how does that work then? The decision for the UK to leave the EU was the result of a democratic vote. So how exactly is trying to overturn the result of a democratic vote defending democracy?

Also was watching videos of remoaners shouting at MPs like JRM that they were traitors. Really? Who exactly have they betrayed? The people of the UK were told that their vote in 2016 would be respected, that whatever they decided re the UK's relationship with the EU would be enacted upon. People like JRM are actually trying to uphold the promise Parliament made to the people of the UK. Remoaners on the other hand are doing everything possible to prevent the expressed wishes of the people from being acted upon. So who exactly are the traitors here?

Interesting hearing Oliver Letwin implore Labour to support BJ's deal and his timetable.

Anyway, after the latest votes in the HoC the most likely scenario at the minute would appear to be another extension and a GE. Labour have constantly said of late that they would support a GE once a further extension had been set...so let's see what happens...

Meanwhile, Germany is on the brink of recession after the German Central Bank (Bundesbank) warned the economy was expected to shrink in the third financial quarter. Interestingly the Bundesbank stated that car production has been “greatly reduced”. This is important as the car industry sustains over 820,000 jobs domestically whilst more than 77 per cent of the cars produced in Germany are exported. Germany's three biggest export markets re cars are China, the US and the UK...

The "promise" you refer to was a comment in a leaflet sent out by David Cameron during the 2016 referendum campaign in which he stated as Prime Minister, that the result of the referendum is final.

Unfortunately (for Brextremists), he was wrong on one important count, and his "promise" is no longer valid on another


Firstly the important count.

In UK, referenda are not legally binding. They are advisory. They are not any sort of "instruction" to the government. There is no legal requirement to act upon a referendum result.

It is interesting to note that during the court cases called by the Electoral Commission into criminal misconduct by Leave.UK during the campaign, the judge who found Leave.UK guilty of corrupt and criminal behaviour said that the level of corruption was such that he had no doubt that the outcome of the referendum had been significantly influenced by the actions of Leave.UK and the rules were broken to such a degree that, had the referendum been legally binding he would have had no option but to declare the result null and void.

As the result was not legally binding, it was not possible to nullify the outcome, but the fact that the result was criminally influenced renders the outcome - in the minds of all but the Brextremists to be morally indefensible.

To summarise, there is no LEGAL obligation for the result to be respected and the result carries no moral validity either.

The other point, regarding David Cameron, is that he is no longer the Prime Minister. Any promises he made in office ceased to be beholden to the British people on the day he left office.

Since he left, we have had three governments (soon to be a fourth) and two Prime Ministers, one utterly incompetent and the other a corrupt fool who is under the thrall of his puppet master.

A "promise" made three governments ago and by a PM now superceded by two different successors clearly has neither currency or validity.

As for the ludicrous charge of "treachery", well, that is just the rhetoric of the desperate.

In the United Kingdom............

It is not a criminal offence to object to a decision by Parliament.

It is not a criminal offence to lobby your MP.

It is not a criminal offence to march for a lawful cause.

It is not a criminal offence to use your citizens right of liberty to challenge the result of a vote.

It is not a criminal offence to hold Parliament to account.

It is not a criminal offence to challenge the legitimacy of political acts via the courts (God (if you exist) Bless Gina Miller)

None of these things are criminal offences.

The "promise by David Cameron is no longer extant.

The referendum was only advisory. It had no basis in law. It's established (in court) criminality deprives it of moral validity.

How is challenging Brexit "treachery...?"


Your comments are debunked.

The "Deal" has not been killed off. That's just Brextremist propaganda.

Johnson tried to push a 110 page document, which would commit the UK to Brexit, through Parliament in just three days.

Parliament decided that it needed more time.

The act that enabled the delay was put through the House of Commons (quite correctly and procedurally soundly) by Oliver Letwin, a Conservative MP, former Attorney General and actually........ HE VOTED FOR THE "DEAL".

Hardly the "Wrecker" some are trying to portray him as.

His reason for putting the amendment was that he could see that Parliament would clearly need more than three days to debate the complex legal detail of the "deal" so it was fully understood, and to put any amendments ........ as is the legitimate right of the House of Commons..... before passing it.

I repeat: The "deal" has NOT been "thrown out", all that has happened is that Parliament has ....... as is it's democratic right..... given itself more time to read, debate and possibly amend it before passing or not passing.


There is nothing undemocratic about having a debate and then holding a vote.

Why not?
Our guys passed a 43,000 page Healthcare reform bill in like ... 3 hours after getting it!

Slackers!


... Yes, I understand it is not thrown out, but there is nothing guaranteeing the EU will grant his ask (I haven't looked lately, I don't know the current stance).
Kinda like playing chicken.

I honestly doubt whether 'the vast majority of Labor' would vote for such a thing. I also never suggested that you said that they would vote for such a referendum. I merely pointed out that such a referendum would probably require some of their support because, unlike you, I don't believe that all the MP's in Labour, Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid Cymru, and especially the wild cards of Tory Rebels which gave them the majority in the first place, are chasing the same goal.



I think I get what's going on here. You refer to both 'Project Fear' and 'overturning the vote' as 'the plan', but clearly you distinguish between the two of them. Whenever I have mentioned 'the plan' I have not been talking about 'Project Fear' in isolation but always the plan 'to overturn the vote'. You switch between both meanings randomly and it jumbles what you're saying.



Right, because the Government and the majority coalition at the time were totally on the same page when the Parliament handed May's Deal the biggest parliamentary defeat in British history.



No, I have merely stated that both sides are negotiating with each other based on positions that they seem unwilling to compromise on. Both sides are drawing red lines based on their values, but that doesn't mean that they aren't issuing ultimatums. The lines each side has drawn are at cross-purposes with each other, so ultimately the ability to reach a deal is dependent upon who's red line gets crossed first. This of course creates a game of chicken and makes both of their positions ultimatums. Whether or not this is a positive or negative thing is subjective.

I have not said that it's wrong for the UK to have ultimatums. I have only said that accusing the EU of foul play for holding on to it's own without holding the UK to the same standard is ridiculous. You seem to focus on Barnier's statement alot, but that statement is simply a verbalization of one of the EU's own red lines. To say that somehow Barnier's statement is a sign of bad faith, but that the UK's own position is not is nonsense.

This is one of the main reasons why I said years ago when this started with May's red lines that negotiations between the UK and EU would probably not amount to much and that they would have been smarter focusing on those 'amazing trade deals with the rest of the world' they were talking about instead.



If what you say is true, that you don't blame the EU for negotiating the way it has, then why even bother bringing up Barnier's statements or the idea that the Rebel Alliance and the EU are working together? What is the point? How is it relevant to anything else we have been discussing?

Also you seem to be under the impression that I am on the EU's 'side' here. You keep making statements about how I apparently see the EU drawing it's own red lines in a positive light, or about how I attribute Barnier with altruistic motivation. I don't understand how either of those things could even be implied here.

The only things I have said about the EU is that their own values stop them from capitulating to the UK's wishes and that their values are entirely self-serving. How is that positive?



So saying that they are negotiating based on their own values is somehow an altruistic characterization? How does that work? So when you say that the EU are negotiating based on their own values as a bloc, that's also an altruistic motivation? So negotiating selfishly is an altruistic character trait?



I mean, that's basically been the position of the EU this entire time. From the very start, I have said that the EU cannot afford to make leaving more tempting than staying.

Does negotiating in good faith mean that the one with more power must lower itself into an equal position? Based on our responses, I would say that neither of us thinks this is true.

Once again we come back to Barnier's statement. You do not blame the EU for the stances it has taken, yet imply that the stances it has taken are not part of negotiating in good faith. Does that then mean that you do not care whether or not either party is negotiating in good faith?



So accusing the EU of collusion with the 'Rebel Alliance', with the express purpose of staying in the EU, is not in any way meant to even imply that the EU are responsible for the state of affairs? Am I reading this right?



I don't think I've blamed BJ for much of anything other than playing brinksmanship and creating a deal that looks markedly similar to May's.

As for blaming the UK, I blame them insofar as they had a deal and they had the chance to not request an extension and they chose neither option. Doing so typically means that negotiations drag on, and that situation is entirely the UK's fault.



Who allowed that to happen in the first place? Why did the Tory rebels rebel in the first place? You talk as if what happened in the HOC was completely unavoidable and unpredictable, except that it was obvious how dangerous the governments position was a year ago. This 'Zombie Parliament' has existed since May's hung election. The biggest news to come out of it since that time is what the government was/is *not* doing with it's power.

This has not just become a Zombie Parliament. It has been one for years. The only thing that changed is who the lead zombies are. Yes, the new balance of power has shifted the dynamic, but there were literal years of Tory power with no results, so I think that they deserve way more blame for the literal years of wheel spinning compared to the relatively small amount of a couple months of wheel spinning that the Rebels have done up until this point.



It's the governments job to enact it's own will over Parliament. If it cannot effectively do that, then it has failed at its job. It was May's government who wanted 'everyone out' at the same time. That's where all the problems started. If May were willing to cross that red line from the start, then perhaps the original deal would have looked something closer to Johnson's proposal, but she wasn't and it didn't. Re-negotiating with May as long as those conditions still held, would have most likely led nowhere. It was Johnsons willingness to drop that red line that moved the EU even as far as it did, even if it wasn't by very much.

With her red lines, that was about the best deal she would get. Re-negotiating held little value. Instead of accepting that and addressing her own power issues in her own government, she went back to the EU. The EU, however, cannot help her with her own power issues, and thus the negotiation would have most likely run in circles again.

Ultimately, the only thing the EU could have done to help negotiations along would be to violate their own red lines. From that perspective, hearing the UK coming back to you going 'I can't violate my own red lines to move forward. Can you violate yours instead?' is a rather selfish request, don't you think?



None of which negates or challenges what I just said. N.I. is key negotiating leverage simply because of the GFA and its existence as a buffer. Nothing more. Both the EU and the UK are using NI for their own ends. As soon as it exhausts its usefulness, NI will be discarded. There is nothing intrinsically valuable about NI from either perspective. NI is not worth fighting over intrinsically, it's just that it becomes so due to the situation at hand. If the infrastructure-less border solution could be solved to both parties satisfaction, then NI would leave and the EU would not fight that, because it has no reason to create an excuse just to hold onto NI; it's not valuable enough to be worth it.



Call it whatever you like, it doesn't change reality. If Ireland violates GFA then the international effects will hit all of the EU, not just Ireland.



You do realize that that argument works both ways, right? If what Johnson has said is true, then why would he knowingly hold on to the recordings that could vindicate him?

Personally, I suspect that what was said on paper is pretty standard fair for a diplomatic talk, but the undertones are what made Johnson believe that his characterization is correct. Of course, such undertones are entirely subjective, and thus only serve to stir debate among the populace. As an actual piece in a game of statecraft, such information becomes a wash.