Brexit

It could be me just wishful thinking, but ‘Getting Brexit Done’ seems to be turning into a disastrous election slogan. Politics apart, it’s only day four of the election campaign and the Tories are showing signs that they're running out of steam already. Their ministers are sweaty, gormless, panicky and hesitant, no more so than the lumbering Johnson whose weird repetitive jerky pointy manner and strange turn of phrase is both disturbing, patronising and is becoming quite irritating.

As is obvious to anybody sensible, disconnection from the EU after decades of close involvement will demand great skill, patience, acumen and diplomacy, so to compare it to microwaving a turkey just to ‘get it done’ is both superficial, trivialising and plain wrong.

Empty phrases and sound-bites just will not do - the only thing that will end up being ‘done’ is us lot..!! If the Tory spin machine thinks Johnson’s bumbling antics are in the least funny they are much mistaken. He is unconvincing, a shambling, spluttering buffoon thrust into the limelight, out of his depth, exposing himself and the country to ridicule. Certainly not Prime Minister material.

On the other hand, Corbyn’s performance so far has been cool, calm, collected, self-assured, people-friendly, dignified and competent, with an understandable and reasonable set of messages. He ignores the vile, stupid, repetitive and utterly unconvincing shower of personal criticism and ‘yah-boo’ shouting and finger-pointing to which Johnson resorts when he runs out of sound-bites, platitudes and childish clichés as he always does.

Sadly, the prospect of five weeks more of this farce is increasingly depressing. Elections and Christmas just don’t go together. The Tories should have thought of that. I hope it costs them dear.

In the 1980s, one of these men was campaigning against racism and demanding the democratic right to protest.

The other one was burning £20 notes in front of homeless people for a laugh, just to flaunt his wealth in front of the poor and starving.

I'll let you work out which was which.

Unlike some people I don't claim to be able to read the minds of others. So I don't know why BJ was so adamant that the UK would be leaving on the 31st when the BSA seemed to make that impossible. It may be that for a time he thought that a legal challenge to the BSA could be successful. It may be that he had cause to think that one or more member states would veto any extension request. Indeed so confident did BJ appear that the UK was leaving on the 31st that many people assumed that he must have something up his sleeve. Now as stated earlier, maybe he thought he did at the time...or maybe it was all a bluff to try and get the EU to renegotiate a WA. If the latter then it worked. The EU went from being absolutely adamant that there would be no renegotiation of any kind to agreeing to a new deal.



I really don't see how BJ could have got around the BSA without successfully challenging it in the courts. Given the highly unusual thinking of the Supreme Court I can only assume that, whilst there seemed to be a number of grounds to test the BSA, BJ decided there was little to be gained by going down this route.

Now interestingly EU law states that only the recognised executive arm of a nation's government can negotiate with the EU, and so BJ may have hoped that the EU wouldn't recognise the BSA as coming from the government. The BSA was after all very clearly a directive from Parliament that was forcing the executive to act against it's will. However, seeing as the remain alliance had been regularly communicating with people like Michel Barnier, Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk and Guy Verhofstadt, BJ must have known this was a long shot. Speaking of long shots, he may have hoped that perhaps a country like Hungary, Poland or even France would veto any request for an extension.

Anyway, the only real backlash was from some Brexit supporters. Most people however were able to recognise that it was the actions of Parliament that prevented BJ from taking the UK out on the 31st. Nonetheless, I am sure that some people are now a little wary about taking BJ at his word. For example, can he be believed when he says there will be no extension beyond 2020 re negotiating a trade deal with the EU IF the Tories are able to form a government after the next election. Returning the whip to 10 remainer Tories also makes me question how fair dinkum he is re not extending the next negotiating period and not accepting a trade deal that comes with special political and administrative elements. He states that the UK wants, and will only accept, a straight forward trade deal that is fundamentally no different to that which Canada was given. I have my doubts.

Anyway, those that didnt trust him before he made his promises to leave on the 31st still don't trust him, whilst i think most others are a little wary but prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. So personally I don't think his failure to take the UK out of the EU on the 31st has hurt him too much.

Meanwhile, Farage has put country before party and announced that the BP will not contest seats that the CP won in 2017. This is a sensible move. Ideally there would be no seats in which both the CP and the BP were fielding candidates but something is better than nothing.

The latest ONS figures have just been released. Not good reading for lovers of project fear. The trade in goods deficit with non EU countries fell by £2.3 billion to £9.9 billion. Meanwhile the trade deficit with EU countries widened by £1.3 billion to £23.3 billion.

Overall the deficit in goods and services has been reduced by £5 billion, largely due to an increase in exports. At the same time the surplus in services trade has increased by £4 billion. The PS is also up against all of the major currencies.

Farage could very well be doing the Remain parties a favour. So BXP aren't going to challenge the tories in any of the seats they already hold. OK, that's fine. All that will do is help the tories retain the seats they already hold.

If that's all they get, then the very best scenario they could hope for would be a hung Parliament. I'd take that and the second referendum that comes with it.

The Aussie is conveniently forgetting that the tories are a minority government. In order to become a majority government, they have to WIN seats. That is, take some from Labour and the Lib Dems and others.

Well, for a start, they can forget that in Scotland. Indeed, they are almost certain to lose seats north of the border.... possibly all of them.... so that will mean they have to take EVEN MORE seats from other parties than is already the case.

There are some Labour marginals that voted for brexit and it is being assumed that they will inevitably fall to the Tories. Bishop Auckland in the north east is one such minority Labour seat that voted leave in the referendum. But it is also a former mining community and the voters there have long memories. Just say "Margaret Thatcher" and "Miners Strike" in the same breath and see what sort of response you get. If you're wearing a blue rosette you might well be going home with a mouthful of broken teeth.

But OK.... there are Labour marginals that the Tories could win.

On the other hand, there are also Tory marginals that are very winnable for the LibDems. My own constituency of St Ives was LibDem for many years until 2010, and then only changed because of Cameron's promise for a referendum. The Tory majority in 2015 was 2'500-ish. by 2017 it had already shrunk to 312. Very winnable for LibDem.

The extremely unpopular Amber Rudd has a majority of only 342 in Hastings and Rye. Very winnable for Labour.

Given the unquestionable fact that the Tories need 326 to get across the winning line with a majority. They currently have 298. They need to gain at the very least 28 seats and that would only give them a majority of 1.

The loss of 13 seats in Scotland would raise their target to 41 gains in England because they sure as hell won't gain any in Wales.

And then there are the marginals. They could easily lose as many of their own marginals as they gain from Labour.

So, it is all the more feasible that BXP challenging in Labour marginals could split the Brexit vote in those seats the Tories need to take in order to get a majority and contribute to a hung Parliament.

And then the pressure for a second referendum will REALLY be on.

If this is the bluff working, I shudder to think what the losing alternative was. As far as I can recall, the EU's position was always that an extension had to be meaningful, i.e. it had to be undertaken with the understanding that both sides would ask for different things. The only way this happens is with a new government in power that actually controls Parliament enough that whatever is agreed to actually has a chance of being enacted. Anything else just drags this out more, even a new hung Parliament will see very little movement from where the UK is now.



Well, I suppose that depends entirely on whether or not you believe that anything other than fighting it in court and being belligerent against it actually held value. I'm of the opinion that certain options were still open to him largely as a consequence of his position and influence, but that's just me. Closed door agreements, party solidarity, looking for new allies, any number of these options were open to him, even as others burned every bridge around him with calls of MP traitors.

On the other hand, I suppose if someone were to think this is all a massive conspiracy then I suppose one could reach the conclusion that any such action would be pointless from the start. Unfortunately that raises a different question of 'what was the point of any of it'.

As for the topic of Johnson's damage, domestically it's probably still as split as ever, but internationally I suspect it's a slightly different story. As you've already pointed out, some people domestically will look at this and question to themselves whether or not Johnson is trustworthy. Internationally, it will be largely the same. This includes not only foreign citizens, who already hold a certain level of power in democratic nations on their own, but also the governments themselves. The only difference being that Johnson doesn't have any 'home field advantage' like he would domestically.

As for Farage, if he truly was putting country over party, he wouldn't be running at all. Two parties running similar platforms steal each others seats. As Jenifer pointed out, a minority government needs to gain seats in order to increase their power to change the status quo. It's not enough to hold the ones already won, that would just result in another hung Parliament.

I disagree with you re Farage. There are some traditional Labour seats that voted leave but are unlikely to return a Tory MP. So running in those seats makes sense. At the same time the Tories should be prepared to step aside from those seats...but they won't.

In addition to the above, IF the BP were able to gain some seats AND hold the balance of power then they would be in a position to hold BJ to his commitments. So I think it's important that the BP run...but only in around 40 odd targeted seats.

Quite amazing to hear Caroline Lucas claim that Jo Swinson and the LD "don't give a f^ck" about the 17.4 million who voted leave. Now obviously she is right in what she is saying. Tell us something we dont already know Caroline. What is amazing though is that ever since the result of the 2016 people's vote Caroline and the Greens have been doing everything they can to prevent the 17.4 million who voted leave having their vote respected. Her party is in a remain alliance with the LD for f^cks sake. Quite obviously neither her nor her party give a "f^ck" about the 17.4 million leave voters either. The hypocrisy is extraordinary.

Here is a bit of what she had to say:
"The position of revoke, at that point I just felt that this is taking party interest above national interest to such an unforgivable degree.
To be honest, if you wanted to send a message to 17.4 million people that you don’t give a f*** what they have just said, why don’t you just say so?"

How about you actually take your own advice. Why don't you and the Greens simply come out and tell the 17.4 million people who voted leave that "you don’t give a f*** what they have just said". And how is your party's position any better than the LD? Your official policy is also to ignore the result of the 2016 people's vote. To ignore the wishes of the 17.4 million who voted leave. UFB

Could you elaborate? What options were open to him? How could he have taken the UK out on the 31st?

He couldn't. That door was slammed firmly in his face and he knew it.

What he could have done though was call a second referendum and make it legally binding. If, as he says, the country is still for Brexit, then surely he would have had no trouble in winning it. Would he..?

A legally binding referendum would take the matter out of Parliament's hands. A legally binding referendum voted for by the people trumps an MP's vote in the house.

The trouble with that though, is that for all his bluster and bullshine, a vote to remain would kick Brexit into touch forever.

Another problem with a legally binding referendum is that anybody who breaks the Electoral Commission rules can find themselves on their way to chokey and any result gained by dishonest means could be overturned or at the very least, declared null and void.

Brexit Result Would Have Been Declared Null and Void If The Referendum Had Been Legally Binding

So there was Johnson's quandary. He could get a failsafe Brexit mandate with a legally binding referendum, but all the indicators now are that a second referendum would return a Remain result.

Leave would also be hamstrung because the Electoral Commission would be watching them like hawks and the first whiff of criminality and / or corruption would bring the rozzers in, raiding their offices before you could say "Let's get Brexit done."

The last thing any future Leave campaign wants is somebody watching closely what they're up to. And in a legally binding referedum, the Electoral Commission would have powers to access campaign documents that they don't have in advisory referenda.



Boris has managed to prevent publication of the report into Russian involvement into British politics. Now, why would he do a thing like that during an election campaign, I wonder...?

Johnson Prevents Report Into Russian Involvement In British Politics From Being Published.

Corruption and cover up are endemic in the Conservative government.

Little wonder they don't want a second - legally binding - referendum.


Everything the Tories do stinks.

Going back to the Bishop Auckland marginal seat that I mentioned in Post 200..... Auntie sent a reporter up there expecting to get plenty of vox pops that back up the narrative that the seat will fall to the Conservatives. Instead, she got this bloke......


Bishop Auckland - Vox Pops

"On the night of the referendum we went to bed as Great Britain and woke up as Little Britain".

"Johnson will go to negotiate with Trump as a little boy..... pat him on the head.

He's called Johnson out and it's likely that he's not the only one up there that holds these views.

Read the follow up comments on this. They tell you a lot.

The Benn Act forced Johnson to request an extension if, and only if, he could not secure a deal by the 31st. Naturally, this means that in order to avoid that, he must negotiate a deal before that time. The options I stated earlier (i.e. party solidarity and negotiation with potential allies) gave him a good chance of doing so.

The thing is...... he didn't want to.

It's no secret that Johnson, the ERG and what's left of the rest of the Tory party wants a no-deal Brexit. That's the whole idea of it.

Don't for one minute be fooled into thinking that Johnson went to talk to Leo Varadkar in the Wirrall in anything remotely resembling good faith. He knew he was staring down the barrel of having to call a second referendum, which is the second to last thing he wants to do. Ever. (the last thing being revoking Article 50).

He had to get something and he knew the bait to dangle to the Irish leader. A "deal" that keeps the border open.

Two things about that. Firstly, the EU leadership were always going to give great priority to what the Irish were prepared to settle for. There was no way in the world they would block something Ireland were prepared to accept.

Secondly, they didn't want to be seen as the bad guys. If Johnson put something on the table which was as near as dammit the Teresa May deal - with a few tweaks - that they'd previously agreed to, then they couldn't really say no without looking bad.

On Johnson's part, he now had something that - at first glance - the House of Commons would vote for and if he could railroad it through without proper scrutiny he'd be home and hosed.

He managed to get a second reading, but Parliament wisely prevented it being ratified before 31 October. I say wisely because it's only with greater scrutiny that the holes and pitfalls have become apparent. Had he gotten away with rushing it through the House of Commons the stitch up of Northern Ireland would be a fait accomplis. Not to mention the death of workers rights in Britain and the end of the United Kingdom.

And so he had to apply for an extension, which he did in a schoolboy strop... refusing to sign the letter, and call a general election, which is why we are where we are now.

Who said politics is dull....???

Deleted. Wrong video

I disagree...