Court and Rolled

I’ve often written about the parallels between Brexit and Trump’s election, and another has revealed itself over the past few days.

I haven’t followed the story too closely, but it appears the American Establishment is going into meltdown over a phone call Trump made to the Ukrainian president. Their Russian collusion narrative having failed, they’ve effortlessly switched to trying to impeach Trump over this phone call to Ukraine. In many respects, this is hardly news: the insane wing of the Democrats – which is most of them – have been banging on about impeaching Trump for months. They have no idea what for, and nor do they care; they just want to force him from office. The only newsworthy bit about this story is that Nancy Pelosi has finally been browbeaten into getting on board with it.

When it comes to Trump, the American ruling classes threw out the rule book a long time ago. The joint intelligence community and Democrat attempt to prevent him being elected and then unseat him after the event would have resulted in lengthy prison sentences or executions in pretty much every other country at any point in their history. They lied through their teeth about the Russia collusion and activist judges are ensuring every move he makes gets blocked. They don’t care about the law, nor who sees it. All they care about is removing Trump from office and they’re prepared to bring the whole house down on themselves to do it. In many respects, the rule of law no longer applies in Russia.

On our side of the Atlantic, our political classes are doing much the same thing. The other night the supreme court judges upended the British constitution to declare Boris Johnson’s proroguing parliament was illegal because they couldn’t think of a reason why he did it. If we cut through all the bullshit, a handful of judges – who are very much members of the ruling classes and share their interests – decided to kill off another attempt to deliver the Brexit which was decided via referendum in June 2016. So Britain now has a politicised supreme court like in the US, one which considers itself above the monarch. The ruling classes aren’t even pretending any more. They might as well come out and say Brexit isn’t happening because they don’t want it to. It would at least be more honest, and they might avoid adding a string of appalling precedents to the one they’ve already set by refusing to enact the result of a free vote. As with the US, Britain is no longer a country of laws. It is ruling class free-for-all.

With each passing month, the barriers between peace and violence get torn down one by one. There is only one place at the end of this road, and that is the sort of political violence you see in failed states with politicians, judges, policemen, and journalists all fair game. I don’t think it will happen soon, though. Instead, we’ll enter into decades of being ordered around at the whim of the ruling classes, who take ever more brazen liberties while tightening the noose around our own. And then a generation will arrive who won’t stand for it, and the blood will start flowing.

It won’t be Nancy Pelosi or Brenda Hale who pay the price of their contempt for the people and the law, nor even AOC or Gina Miller. It’ll be their grandchildren, assuming they have any, who will inherit their privileges but not their protections. Those clowns hanging onto the words of Greta Thunberg are right to be worried about their children’s futures, but not for the reasons they think.

Share

109 thoughts on “Court and Rolled

  1. The difference with the UK is that President Trump is now explicitly positioning the Republican Party as the party of working people — trying to grab that Big Middle group of voters which hard-line Democrat extremists are abandoning. There does not appear to be any leader in the UK with similar smarts & insight.

    Good point.

  2. But the elected representatives get to ride roughshod over the actual people.

    The role of an MP is to represent the best interests of their constituents, end of. During the advisory referendum those actual people you refer to were promised things that could not be delivered by grifters who never intended to deliver those things even if they knew how. Now, it’s possible to give a knowing wink and say ‘well I always knew it was bait and switch’, but the fact grifters sold the bait doesn’t mean MPs have some moral duty to facilitate the switch, let alone pretend the switch out is in the interests of their constituents. That is just not what MPs are there for and never has been.

    Boris thinks grifting probably swung the referendum, and grifting is what he’s does, so grifting will deliver the swicth. The evidence says not. Given the bait is long gone there needs to be some sort of informed consensus on what happens next, that probably means another referendum with the realistic options on the table, including the different switches (WA or Project Fear/No Deal). But this is a problem for grifters like Boris, because (A) they promised the ‘moon on a stick’, (B) subsequently claimed the ‘moon on a stick’ was just an ‘aspiration’, then (‘C) blamed ‘Remoaners’ for not telling them where the ‘moon on a stick’ was kept, before finally deciding (D) that they never said ‘moon on a stick’ they actually said a ‘shitty stick’. So now they’d have to settle on another improbable claim and expect enough people to believe the previous ones simply never happend (I personally suspect they will end on some form of (E) scenario in which Jeremy Corbyn has hidden the ERG/Brexit Party/UKIP secret map to a hidden ‘moon on a stick’).

  3. “ no-one is even trying to forge a substantial majority out of those camps.”

    A big part of the problem is that both sides – and particularly remain as they have the numbers in parliament – still think they can win 100% of what they want.

    If you are losing at any particular point, you just prop up the status quo roadblock. No-one is forced to compromise because there is no deadline.

    One part of Boris’ plan, I think, was to frighten remain MPs with a no-deal exit to increase the chances of them passing a deal negotiated at the next European Council meeting. But the remain MPs scuppered this by stalling a no-deal exit, which means a deal is less likely to be struck.

    It makes a lot more sense than May’s tactic of trying to frighten Brexiteers to vote for a deal or risk losing Brexit altogether, as the May approach couldn’t deliver the numbers (and the backstop was too big a pill to swallow anyway). But it was ultimately the remainders that refused to pass it despite it being a close to a BRINO deal

    I also thought the SC verdict was pretty shocking and I don’t believe their arguments hold together based on reading the verdict. I was also surprised by how weak their credentials actually are in issues of constitutional law.

  4. The role of an MP is to represent the best interests of their constituents, end of.

    I agree. I just don’t see how anyone in their right mind can believe this is what they’re doing.

  5. Rousseau covered this one 250 years ago:
    ““The people of England regards itself as free; but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing.”

  6. You have far too much remainiac dross as commenters Tim–MJW,Longmuir etc.Low priests of the perverse.

    Our brave traitor MPs are now realising that they have–as my Granny used to say “shit their hole full”. The Jo Cox cockrot shows they begin to understand the anger outside the W1 bubble. Thanks to ZaNu’ s bottling they can’t–and I am sure dare not–revoke. If they are afraid now and I believe they are –there won’t be enough underwear on Earth –or time to change their trollys- to keep them from sitting in their own filth at the response that will come from any revoke attempt. Jizz alone knows 60% of his seats are strong Leave.

    They can’t make Boris crawl to the EU. Jail is empty talk. So they will try to fix it so Bercow can write the betraying letter. At that point BoJo will have to act decisively. I think he will.

    It is likely No Deal because Johnson must know he will lose the lot by trying to revive Treason May’s turd. He might be that daft–but I think not. The EU will only water down their crap a little and he has no reason to lose five years as PM that No Deal + a GE will bring him.

    The Beaks were a BIG mistake.

    As for The Donald–he can hardly be impeached for crimes that Joe Biden has publicly and on camera boasted about committing. The Dems have their usual fuckall–except this time Dazed Joe and his crook brat are in the frame and justly too.

    Pelosi is now being run by the far left squad shite–bad news for the Demorats. As big and stupid an own goal as Corbyn’s gang throwing the UK open to unltd migration to be paid for by the white folk the scummy left despise.

  7. MJW,

    “The role of an MP is to represent the best interests of their constituents, end of.”

    No, their job is to be our bitch. We put them there, we pay them, and if they don’t do as we tell them, we fire them. A waiter might advise that I have a red wine with my steak, but if I say I want white wine, I expect white wine to be brought.

    Under normal circumstances, this is about them putting up a manifesto, us giving them a mandate and them broadly delivering on what they said they would do.

    Brexit isn’t a “broad mandate”. It’s a binary question. It is escalation of decision from the servant (MPs) to the master (the people). How should we proceed with our relationship with the EU, master? We gave them instructions and they should have gotten on with delivering.

    “During the advisory referendum those actual people you refer to were promised things that could not be delivered by grifters who never intended to deliver those things even if they knew how.”

    And do you think everyone bought every promise? Voted on every promise? Is everything in a manifesto delivered by government? You take a risk when you vote on whether you find promises credible.

    Here’s an observation: the only people I’ve heard whining about £350m on the side of a bus or promises about deals are remainers. I’ve not met a single leaver complaining about this stuff.

    “Now, it’s possible to give a knowing wink and say ‘well I always knew it was bait and switch’, but the fact grifters sold the bait doesn’t mean MPs have some moral duty to facilitate the switch, let alone pretend the switch out is in the interests of their constituents. That is just not what MPs are there for and never has been.”

    When I walked into the polling booth, there was a simple question on a piece of paper. No mention of deals, NHS or anything else. And that’s how I voted, on what question was in front of me.

    I’m not even sure where your head has to be at to want no deal off the table. Anyone who has negotiated anything knows that no deal is always an option. Do you go into car dealerships and insist that you will not leave without buying a car?

  8. If we’re going to ignore the result of the Brexit referendum on the grounds that the people who voted for it were (allegedly) ignorant and misled, why doesn’t the same reasoning apply to any other election, either? E.g., “Sure, the electorate may have voted for Donald Trump, but only because they were misled by his lies. Therefore, for the good of the country, Congress has no choice but to ignore the result of the election and keep Barack Obama on as President.”

    @ MJW:

    The role of an MP is to represent the best interests of their constituents, end of. During the advisory referendum those actual people you refer to were promised things that could not be delivered by grifters who never intended to deliver those things even if they knew how. Now, it’s possible to give a knowing wink and say ‘well I always knew it was bait and switch’, but the fact grifters sold the bait doesn’t mean MPs have some moral duty to facilitate the switch, let alone pretend the switch out is in the interests of their constituents. That is just not what MPs are there for and never has been.

    So when both Labour and the Conservatives went into the last general election promising to take the country out of the EU, and then their MPs conspired to stop that happening, does that not count as a “bait and switch”?

  9. “The role of an MP is to represent the best interests of their constituents, end of. During the advisory referendum those actual people you refer to were promised things that could not be delivered by grifters who never intended to deliver those things even if they knew how. Now, it’s possible to give a knowing wink and say ‘well I always knew it was bait and switch’, but the fact grifters sold the bait doesn’t mean MPs have some moral duty to facilitate the switch, let alone pretend the switch out is in the interests of their constituents. That is just not what MPs are there for and never has been”

    Bollocks. The huge majority of MPs who voted for the referendum in the first place are morally bound to implement its outcome. Thats what the referendum documentation said that was sent to every household. ‘We will implement your decision’. Not ‘We will look at the decision and ignore it if we don’t like it’.

    If any MP had had the balls to stand up during the referendum and say ‘ You know what, I don’t feel bound by this vote, and if it goes in a way I don’t like I will vote in favour of what I consider the best interests of my constituents’ then I’d admire their moral courage (I’d disagree with their principles, but at least they were open and honest about them) and consider they had earned the right to openly oppose the referendum result.

    But they didn’t did they? Every single one of the 650 spent the entire referendum pretending that the electorate would get what they voted for, and indeed in the immediate aftermath, because it was a bit too close to the bone to come out against a vote days afterwards, and then when they lost jumped on their high horses and claimed Parliamentary Privilege and the right to determine Brexit on their personal preference alone.

    A pox on the lot of them. They are getting perilously close to a revolution.

  10. @Ecksy

    It is likely No Deal because Johnson must know he will lose the lot by trying to revive Treason May’s turd. He might be that daft–but I think not. The EU will only water down their crap a little and he has no reason to lose five years as PM that No Deal + a GE will bring him.

    An interesting line of argument, though it does appear Johnson is making some effort to negotiate a new deal and get it passed by 31 Oct so he can say he delivered on his promise. And that’s likely to be a reheated version of May’s deal with some variegation of the backstop. I suppose your argument is he isn’t treating that seriously but is doing it for appearances so he can say “we tried making a Deal but they wouldn’t budge from their inflexible positions”.

    You seem to be suggesting that Johnson should do the following: (a) ensure no deal by 31 Oct, (b) call or engineer a GE shortly after.

    Can you explain how this is going to happen? Johnson cannot force No Deal by 31 Oct. If he tries to, parliament can and almost certainly will replace him with a caretaker PM who agrees an extension. It’s possible No Deal happens on 31 Oct because another EU country vetoes extending but this is unlikely given that they would be hurt by No Deal and anyway they think they are close to getting a second referendum in which Remain have a decent chance of winning.

    Step (b) is also problematic since Johnson cannot call a GE as and when he wants. If he is riding high in the polls then the opposition are unlikely to grant one.

    So even if Johnson wants what you think he wants, I can’t see the pathway for him to execute your preferred strategy. For what it’s worth (not a great deal as a predictor of the future but at least an indication you could make some profit by putting your money where your mouth is) betting markets suggest there’s only about a one in five chance of No Deal by the end of 2019, and a four out of five chance that there will be a GE before Brexit happens.

  11. The original Mr. X wrote: If we’re going to ignore the result of the Brexit referendum on the grounds that the people who voted for it were (allegedly) ignorant and misled, why doesn’t the same reasoning apply to any other election, either?

    Elections are, by the law of the land, constitutionally binding, but they’re not final as you get another chance, that’s the safeguard. Referendums are, by the law of the land, advisory only, so they’re not final, that’s the safeguard.

    Bloke on M4 wrote: Brexit isn’t a “broad mandate”. It’s a binary question…You take a risk when you vote on whether you find promises credible…

    Fine, we should have just left EU and joined EFTA. That would have honoured of the outcome of the vote as per the specific binary question actually posed. Agreed?

  12. MJW,

    Yes, I’d be fine with Efta. Efta was a good compromise. Like everything since the mid 2000s, remain could have got half of what they wanted if they’d compromised. Instead, their bloody mindedness at every stage is taking us towards delivering everything Farage wanted.

  13. Fine, we should have just left EU and joined EFTA. That would have honoured of the outcome of the vote as per the specific binary question actually posed. Agreed?

    Yes. Absolutely. That’s what should have happened.

    But the Remainers in and outside Parliament worked hard, in collusion with the EU, to delegitimise that option, so that they could force us into a situation where we had to choose between leaving either without a deal or leaving with a deal that effectively binds us into the customs union for ever, and remaining, in the hope that we would then back down and decide to remain after all.

    And they were successful, hence the situation we not find ourselves in where that is exactly the choice: no deal or remain.

  14. Fine, we should have just left EU and joined EFTA. That would have honoured of the outcome of the vote as per the specific binary question actually posed. Agreed?

    Had we done so shortly after the referendum, yes. In fact that always has been my preferred option and at that point would have been accepted by the leave voting members of my family (I know – I asked at the time). There would have been a rump of hard liners but most leavers would have just got on with life, content that their decision had been implemented.

    Unfortunately if you insist on talking about people like they’re the shit on your shoe for three years, as the great & the good have, they tend to take it personally and will willing take the hit if it means fucking you over. So our chances of getting through now are somewhere between slim and SFA.

  15. MBE-If they want a caretaker clown show what is stopping the pricks doing a VONC today?

    The fact is that if Johnson shut the HoTraitors today until 1 Nov the maj of the country will be fIne with it. With or without the CCA. Which he could use and declare that there will be no HoScum oversight or Judgepuke review as those groups are the source of the emergency.

    He will have to stop Bercow and the gang amending the surrender act to enable Bercow or other vermin to usurp the PM role.

    It is all down now to will and fuck the rulebook. In some ways your post is an expression of your own perversity MBE–you have witnessed both Bercow and the scumbeaks both wipe their arse on law and convention but you still bring out the old stupidity as if it is sacred.

    It may be Johnson is as perverse as you. We shall see.

    PS–The “rule of law” is a grand noise but in practice is a very poor grey thing indeed. Ask Tommy Robinson about that. Ask the fucking EU about how Bliar got his gun ban despite EU rules saying it wasn’t legal. And how both sides never mention the topic. Ask the NHS about various types of parental assistance care which they are supposed to give –and have lost several court cases over and should be compelled to give– but still DON’T. Ask them about the awkward silence that seems to descend every time TPTB set aside the rule of law. Well now that shite can work for the good guys.

  16. Ecksy,

    Keeping Johnson in number ten is a deliberate choice the opposition are making (there are different opposition factions that have their own preferences but collectively they are content to keep Johnson in office and are not presently in any rush to do otherwise).

    At the moment Johnson is losing every vote in parliament. He isn’t doing any great harm there. More importantly, keeping him there will result (in their plan at least, you can disagree with what the consequences are likely to be if you think they’ve made a miscalculation, but this is their logic and strategy not yours) in Johnson’s total humiliation. They are confident he cannot deliver Brexit by 31 Oct and want him to stew in his own juice. Once his promise, repeated again and again, has been broken, then there will be an election at which they expect the Tories to fare badly. They believe, and hypothetical-question polling backs them up (though this is notoriously unreliable) that Leavers will desert the Tories en masse if Johnson does not deliver by 31 Oct – either too thick or too angry to see that Johnson was thwarted by parliamentary opposition, a big chunk of Leavers are expected to stay at home or vote TBP while Remainers are expected to be highly motivated to vote and more likely to vote tactically.

    If Johnson sends the extension letter they think he will be electorally frit (as do you, so you at least agree with this aspect of the Remainer strategy). If he does not – by breaking or sidestepping the law or by resigning – then there are a variety of contingencies under discussion (eg the letter being sent by the speaker or by a judge) or alternatively there will be enough time to install a caretaker PM. There would be much greater urgency to compromise on who exactly, especially as failure to agree one would result in a very toxic Remainer blame game at the following GE – no opposition leader wants to be the one whose refusal to compromise allowed Brexit to sneak in via the back door – and at that point there is no advantage keeping Johnson in No 10, so it’s not sensible to apply the logic “they haven’t kicked him out yet, so they won’t kick him out at crunch time either.

    You’ve also just seen why Johnson can’t just shut down the House of Commons. If he tries then it gets quashed and the Commons just meet again anyway. He can’t change the law in a way that allows him to do so because parliament won’t let him. He doesn’t have a great deal of options at the moment, because in reality he does not have the confidence of the Commons but the Commons want to see him squirm and fail before they formally declare their lack of confidence. What can he do?

  17. Johnson opting for the CCA is extremely unlikely because of the optics and practicalities of it, if what you’ve got your hopes on is a kind of Leaver “coup” then they’re likely to be dashed because there’s no indication Johnson is willing or able to play as hard as you want. Any sniff that he intends to use the CCA would just result in Parliament passing a law to negate its impact (they could simply repeal it) and any attempt to use it to shut down Parliament before they get a chance to do so is only going to get overturned in the courts. There isn’t a snowball’s chance Johnson is going to shut down Parliament AND the courts. That’s a retreat into fantasy-land. No indication he wants to try and if he did he wouldn’t get that through his own cabinet.

  18. Oh so Jizz and the gang have played a blinder have they MBE?

    And Johnson –and Mogg–HoC procedural expert + Cummings– weren’t bright enough to see that their only future was humiliation and defeat before they started–knowing that little cunt Bercow was the lynch pin.

    Maybe–but I think not. Johnson isn’t in this for the money –he has plenty of that. I don’t think he–or the others–would have started on a course that could only end in humiliation and a lifetime as a laughing stock and pariah.

    And you have forgotten the rest of us out here–who despite your polls bullshit–don’t care to have a pile of shite taking over our nation.

  19. What can he do?

    Exactly what he is doing: keep banging on about how Parliament wants to surrender and he is the one fighting them. Refuse to send the extension request letter so they have to pass legislation authorising Bercow (who Leavers already hate) to send it on behalf of Parliament, thus cementing the ‘heroic Boris versus the evil Remainer Parliament’ narrative.

    Then win a masive majority in the enusing general election, on a promise to leave within, say, two months of taking office (Article 50 extensions are maximums, not minimums: there’s nothing to stop a country leaving before the extension runs out, indeed, Theresa May’s whole thing after not leaving in March was that if the Withdrawal Agreement pased then we would leave before the 31st of October).

  20. He could use the CCA to merely set aside the surrender shit + FTPA temporarily and set a GE date after 31/10 confirming that no attempts to amend or re-legislate will be accepted.

    That is all he has to do–they can meet and squeeze out all the shit out they like and crawl to Judgeboys all they like. Bojo has the lads with the muscle and he says we leave 31/10/19 and the GE is on whatever day. Do the traitors have the balls to front the people of this nation once a GE date has been set? To use their tame Judgeboy scum again to set a GE aside? I don’t think so.

    Or is Johnson just going to spin it out making his eventual humiliation all the more final and ruinous? And the end of his Party all the more certain.

    Oh BTW MBE fuck you for your insolent remarks about thickies who don’t get the niceties of the House of Traitors procedures. Fuck the House of Shite and their procedures.

  21. It’d be fun trying to get a jury to convict Johnson, when over 60% of the population want Brexit delivering. Put me in that room and I’ll explain what jury nullification is, how you, as a jury, can simply take a giant shit on what the law says and set someone free.

  22. @BoM4

    A criminal trial for Johnson is massively unlikely for that reason. What crime would he even be accused of? Doesn’t mean there won’t be legal shenanigans if he doesn’t sign that letter but far more likely to be a matter of public law than criminal.

    @S

    Right. I’m not saying Johnson has no counter -moves. What you’re saying seems to accurately reflect what sensible people are suggesting he’s up to. His other obvious escape route would be to see if he can agree and push through a deal before the 31st, but it isn’t clear how hard he is pushing that. (Even the better-informed sources are producing conflicting reports.)

    On the other hand I don’t think he has a viable route to achieve what Ecks wants, even if he actually wanted to do it. Ecksy, I really don’t think Johnson is in a position to just shut down the court system. Does the CCA even allow him to set a GE date? He only controls the “muscle” by virtue of being PM and as leader of a minority government only does so as long as Parliament will permit it. If he was barmy enough to go full CCA and order tanks to block Parliament and the courts from opening, his cabinet would walk out on him (it is clear many of them would have done so if he had prorogued until 31 Oct, let alone anything more drastic than that). It’s not obvious that the military or police would follow what they regarded as illegal orders. In terms of citizens’ boots on the streets of London then Remain have a much better record of mobilisation than Leave on recent form and what all the world’s press would report as a coup would only motivate them further.

    I’m sorry if you honestly believe that Johnson is the man who to save the day by going all guns blazing to ensure Brexit, but unless a deal gets through Parliament or an EU leader has an unanticipated fit of pique, the 31 Oct will not be the Brexit deadline day and we are going to have another extension. There won’t be tanks on the streets of Westminster and neither the courts nor HoC will be shut down. If you really, really want that then BoJo is just another politician who is going to let you down.

  23. When the history books are written, the fickle finger of fate is going to point at the hard-line Brexiteers as the guys who blew their great opportunity.

    Following the Referendum 3 years ago, Leave had the high ground. They had prevailed in the Referendum, albeit by a very narrow margin. If they had been smart rather than emotional, they would have realized that 37% vs 35% was not the solid support desirable for implementing a major change — especially when “Leave” meant different things to different people. Brexiteers should have used the high ground of the victory to be conciliatory to the 63% of UK citizens who did not vote Leave and worked to broaden the support — which would have been quite feasible at the time.

    Instead, the minority who wanted Leave to mean “Walk Away” went full triumphalist, and poisoned the well.

    That is all water under the bridge now. It is unfortunate that the people of the UK are so divided, and even more unfortunate that no-one is trying to build a consensus with solid majority support. But Brexit will happen — if only because the rest of Europe is getting tired of all the offshore drama. And then Brits will find themselves on an over-populated rainy little island, wondering what to do next. But Brexiteers don’t seem to be thinking much about what to do after Brexit either.

  24. “Instead, the minority who wanted Leave to mean “Walk Away” went full triumphalist, and poisoned the well.”

    Utter utter lies. We were consistently told by the Remain camp during the referendum that voting Leave MEANT ‘walking away’ with no deal, plagues of locusts and the killing of the first born etc etc etc. And we still voted for it, because (and I’m going to shout) ITS WHAT WE FUCKING WANTED. And still do. A free trade deal would be nice, but if thats not forthcoming, No Deal. End of.

    Incidentally, where is the ‘compromise’ that Leave should have accepted? The WA? The sort of treaty that a defeated nation would be forced to sign after a massive military catastrophe? Is that the ‘compromise’ that Leave should have accepted? What else have we been offered? What sort of compromise would Remain have offered Leave should it have been 52/48 the other way? You know the answer to that, SFA. We’d have been signed up for the Euro, Euro-taxes, Euro Army, you name it, on the basis ‘You voted to Remain, hard cheese’.

  25. Longmuir–None of your business mate. You don’t know shite but you re-spew remain cockrot. Our ONLY mistake was thinking that British political shite were in someway accountable to us and trusting Treason May to act on the lies she peddled.

    MBE”He only controls the “muscle” by virtue of being PM and as leader of a minority government only does so as long as Parliament will permit it. ”

    Parliament isn’t going to do shit.. Johnson tells his HS arrest Bercow on a charge of treason–extreme but lets use it as an example–and the HS tells picked coppers to arrest Bercow and beat him if he resists–as anybody else would get–then Bercow will be arrested. They would need to guard against common purpose agents but that is all.

    If the CCA–designed by Bliar for use against us– is invoked then Boris can do whatever he has muscle to enforce. As said the HoS /Beak oversight can be set aside on the grounds that they are the emergency. Now as for your crap about his own Cabinet etc won’t let him. Maybe if tanks were brought up (unless there were mass riots first–then tanks would move) right away. But to set aside the Surrender and the FTPA and set a GE date? His Cabinet are going to mutiny over a chance of saving themselves and their Party? Because they are just longing to earn the undying hatred of the British people.

    Also you don’t seem to get the idea that anyone other than cunt MPs and grandees matter. Any who help remain win this match are done in politics. You love your polls and your Parliament is sovereign cockrot. Most of us want tha GE and don’t give a shit how Johnson gets it.

    I don’t care about Londonistan riots. But if needs I will turn out on the street in places more salvageable for Brexit –and I won’t be alone.

  26. This is a good primer on what impeachment is all about: https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/house-launches-impeachment-inquiry

    On Brexit and the Supreme Court judgement their’s quite an interesting argument on the Spectator website, in short and paraphrased.

    The SC ruled that legislature has the legitimate role of holding the executive to account, which is true, and that the length of prorogation denied that role.

    However, by seizing control of business and passing the Benn law their is no legislature to scrutinise the Bill, the legislature in effect became the executive. That is emphasised by Benn being the chairman of the Brexit select committee.

    Boris can now argues that the bill doesn’t stand because there wasn’t/isn’t a legislature to carry out a key function in our democracy. They same would be true of any further Bills on the same subject.

    The SC also made the point that it is the role of the Executive to govern. By taking control that role has been usurped.

    It would certainly be a good one to take to the SC and I wonder if that’s why there’s talk of the SNP supporting Corbyn as a temporary PM to make sure the letter is sent.

  27. @Ecksy

    Parliament isn’t going to do shit.. Johnson tells his HS arrest Bercow on a charge of treason–extreme but lets use it as an example–and the HS tells picked coppers to arrest Bercow and beat him if he resists–as anybody else would get–then Bercow will be arrested. They would need to guard against common purpose agents but that is all.

    I can’t imagine any police obeying that command as it would not be deemed a lawful order.

    That, and your stuff about getting the tanks on the streets, can safely be filed under “Things That Are Not Going To Happen, Sorry”.

    The fact that the lengths you think Johnson would need to go to in order to obtain a 31 Oct No Deal Brexit are becoming increasingly extreme, far beyond the bounds of reasonable possibility, must surely be evidence to you that what you want is becoming increasingly less likely to happen?

    My personal belief is that Brexit is likely but not certain, and the thing most likely to stop it is a general election that produces a pro-remain balance of power and so enables a second referendum (if the Tory vote is split with the Brexit Party and Remainers vote tactically in their constituencies, then this is not an outlandish outcome). The next-most-likely thing to stop it is if the current parliament reaches a majority for a referendum before a GE, but that seems rather less likely as it wouldn’t suit Corbyn or indeed most Labour MPs. (I am, however, counting “Brexit with Deal” as a form of Brexit, and I imagine you would count that as a form of treachery.)

    Putting the fantasies of what you would like to one one side, what do you think is most likely to happen?

  28. Gavin Longmuir,

    “When the history books are written, the fickle finger of fate is going to point at the hard-line Brexiteers as the guys who blew their great opportunity.

    Following the Referendum 3 years ago, Leave had the high ground. They had prevailed in the Referendum, albeit by a very narrow margin. If they had been smart rather than emotional, they would have realized that 37% vs 35% was not the solid support desirable for implementing a major change — especially when “Leave” meant different things to different people. Brexiteers should have used the high ground of the victory to be conciliatory to the 63% of UK citizens who did not vote Leave and worked to broaden the support — which would have been quite feasible at the time.”

    Blew their great opportunity? You’re aware we’re now heading for no deal? And this doesn’t go away until it’s done now? You’re aware 61% of people think we should be leaving?

    The people who blew all their opportunities are remain.

    2006: Instead of reaching out to UKIP to try and find an accomodation, remainer Cameron calls them fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists.
    2007: Instead of delivering on his promise to hold a referendum on Lisbon, which might have delivered a compromised version of the EU acceptable to most people, he reneged on it, even signing the document in a room.
    2008-2015: Immigration balloons, government does nothing about it. Any leaver who says this probably isn’t good for the country is called a racist by remainers.
    2015-16: Cameron brings back a pitiful renegotiation from Brussels and tries to sell it as fried gold, rather then working harder for all.
    2017: referendum lost.
    2017: election manifestos are full of remainers saying they will respect the result. They lied and once were in office decided to show no respect.
    Remainers then desperately tried to discredit the result with claims of magic and voodoo by Cambridge Analytics.
    2018: Theresa May goes to Brussels and comes back with a deal that is about as soft a version of Brexit imaginable. Instead of accepting this as about the best thing they can get, Labour, the Lib Dems and remoaner Conservatives just vote against it. They do nothing to try and co-operate with getting a deal that is acceptable.
    2019: May goes, Johnson takes over. He is now painted by remain as a dangerous fascist.

    Your side has had ample opportunity to be reasonable. Remain could have decided that no new powers will go to Brussels and stuck to that. That alone would have kept us in the EU. Remain could have demanded more from Cameron. Remain could have voted for May’s deal.

    You could have gotten something, but instead, you wanted everything. You don’t give a stuff about what 52% of people wanted, right down to the Lib Dems wanting us to just undo the whole thing. And there’s a good chance that you’re going to get nothing.

    You lot are undemocratic snobs. You think everyone else is some stupid, racist gammon, and therefore don’t deserve any democratic rights. Just you, the enlightened ones deserve to decide what this country does. That’s why you’re going to lose.

  29. MBE–My examples used were not good and have not conveyed my full meaning. Lets say that Bercow resisted arrest –then he would get a hiding or tased etc–I did not mean they would go over and give him a kicking however deserved as it is. If he went quietly there would be no trouble. But your nonsense: “I can’t imagine any police obeying that command as it would not be deemed a lawful order” is absolute cockrot.

    Do you get to be a successful copper by refusing orders? An arrest under the terms of the CCA would be entirely lawful. They only have to give an emergency as a reason. Don’t talk crap.

    Tanks again–what I meant was the military would be called up quick if the boss class felt in any real danger of people getting their hands on them. My suggestion was that yes BoJo’s Cabinet would baulk at sending tank columns as a kickoff. But that they would not object to use of CCA powers to set aside the Surrender and the FTPA and to set a GE date. And to set aside any meddling from the scum and/or shut them down. Not a coup and it then means the already hated turds are going to have to try themselves or via their tame beaks to set aside a GE date that has been set. They already know they are in for a pasting–and fuck your polls.

    As for your most likely crap–is it likely Johnson is going to sit back while he suffers lifelong and life altering humiliation and the Tory Party are all but wiped out–esp as –in the midst of everything else he tries to revive Treason May’s crap. Is that likely. Are his Cabinet such fuckwits that they love the EU more than their careers and cushy numbers? Why weren’t they with Greieve and the traitors then? Allowing Jizz etc to win because they have no balls to stop them won’t help when they are out of a job and folk are shouting “CUNT” at them in the street. Is it likely that Mogg/Cummings would join him in that mess with only a plan so shaky Jizz could beat it.?.

    We shall see.

  30. MBE,

    “Putting the fantasies of what you would like to one one side, what do you think is most likely to happen?”

    I see many possible outcomes but I don’t particularly see a good outcome for remain. The bottom lines are that the people want Brexit to happen by a considerable and the opposition are pretty much split down the middle. If Boris goes no deal, BXP disappear and it’s a landslide. Even if he doesn’t, there’s probably a decent majority.

  31. @BoM4

    I also think Brexit is more likely than Remain (betting markets make Brexit about a 75% chance for what they’re worth, but they rate it more likely in Nov-Dec 2019 or some time in 2020 than by October 31st). Frankly, even if there’s a Brexit With Deal, I can’t see there being much appetite left for people to vote for Farage and the No Dealers by that stage. For most leave voters, just being outside the EU itself is going to be enough.

    @Ecksy

    I don’t think Johnson is going to do nothing whatsoever. Obviously he’s going to try something. But “something” is not going to be arresting the speaker on charges of treason. If that’s what you’ve got your fingers crossed for, then you’re going to be bitterly disappointed.

  32. Bloke on M4: “Your side has had ample opportunity to be reasonable.”

    Please pay attention, man! I am an outsider. I do not have a side, in the sense of caring whether the UK separates from the EU or stays. I do have a strong interest in seeing excessive government rolled back anywhere. Brexit could have been a shining example for the world, but it looks like hard-line Brexiteers are screwing it up.

    My expectation is that Brexit will happen — and probably without the blood in the gutters that Tiananmen Ecks is longing to see. Does that put me on your side?

    My expectation is that the aftermath of Brexit will run into many potholes, made more difficult by the obvious deep divisions among the people of the UK — and by the lack of any coherent planning by Brexiteers for what to do once Brexit has been achieved.

    My fear is that a messy Brexit will be used by Authoritarians in other countries as an example of why they should maintain their control. That is why I really wish Brexiteers would get their act together, and get realistic about the need to broaden their support.

  33. I’m genuinely stunned at all the comments saying EFTA would have been fine and May’s deal was a sell out. Do people really not realise EFTA is the softest of all conceivable Leave options and May’s deal was an attempt to preserve some of her red lines? The backstop was put in at the request of the UK!
    If the ERG et al had been willing to go EFTA, Brexit would be done and dusted by now.

  34. FN–And in the same EU on top shit relationship as Norway. Fuck the EFTA.

    MBE-Arresting Bercow would be a bonus. I want us out. Now “some” version of that cunt Treason’s deal in fact equals the vast bulk of Treason’s shit deal and BRINO. I hear the scuttlebutt is that even the backstop is to only be “amended” not scrapped. Fuck that frankly. And it still makes no fucking sense. Why sack a pack of shite traitors who would have helped him put through just such puke? Why create all the bad blood for a couple of sentences lopped off May’s turd?

    Also you miss that there is a sea change going on. People are realising slowly but surely that Steve’s bowl of cold insects in the Dhimmi ghetto is to be their fate and that of their kids if they don’t fight back.

    Don’t underestimate that –the fixed fucking polls won’t allow it through.

  35. Do people really not realise EFTA is the softest of all conceivable Leave options and May’s deal was an attempt to preserve some of her red lines?

    Being in EFTA would not mean being in the customs union, so the worst aspect of May’s deal — the backstop — would not apply.

    It would also mean not being subject to ECJ decisions; no social chapter; no automatic supremacy of EU law a la Factortame…

    It would be perhaps not ideal, but perfectly acceptable.

  36. @Ecks

    We all know what you want, but how is it going to happen and how likely is it to take place?

    As for the rumours about the backstop being amended not simply removed – well yes of course. The EU would never sign a deal without a backstop of some description, this has been clear for a very long time and isn’t showing any signs of changing. Why ever would they accept a deal without one? They are simply not willing to take on trust “we’ll sort the border stuff out later” – they have no incentive to, and they would realistically be imprudent if they did, given how volatile UK politics has become and the uncertainty of its trajectory.

    This might cheer you up even more, but there have been serious reports that hardcore ERG Brexiteers have been warned in turn that when Johnson’s promised deal comes before the Commons, they will be kicked out of the party and deselected for the next election if they rebel against it. Is it really so irrational for the leadership of a divided party to have a crack at rebels on both of its flanks? The soft/remainer MPs who got kicked out for the previous rebellion had gone beyond a very clear red line – they had voted for something that strips executive power from the government and ruins its parliamentary strategy to get Brexit through. The original plan was to back parliament into a corner where, when given the forced choice “vote for our renegotiated deal, or else it’s no deal”, the majority would have to accept Johnson’s deal. This was a key part of the government’s leverage and removing it undermined the government’s position considerably – so of course those MPs had to have the whip withdrawn.

    However, if a renegotiated deal does come before parliament, then many of those kicked-out MPs will back it from the opposition benches. There’s a small hardcore who will refuse to vote for it unless there’s a second referendum attached but letting them keep the Tory whip would not have prevented this kind of further rebellion. When (or if – doesn’t seem terribly probable Johnson will succeed in his renegotiation anyway) the crunch vote comes, that harsh response to the rebellion is unlikely to have cost many votes for Johnson’s deal. In fact that harshness to the “wet” rebels is in part a warning shot to the hard Brexiteers that they’re going to have to get behind a reheated backstop.

  37. As for the sea change – well it’s true that a lot of people are much angrier than before, trust in politicians is very low, and there is an unusually high degree of realignment going on with voters crossing between traditional fault-lines. But we are not poised for some sweeping nationwide Brexit Party victory – the FPTP electoral system makes it hard for the existing party order to be broken into, and if anything, there’s evidence that Remainers have been more strongly energised than Leavers. You can dismiss the polls as fake if you want, and clearly pollsters are struggling to cope with the changes taking place so need to be taken with a pinch of salt. It’s very hard for them to balance their polling panels or account for changes in actual and self-reported propensity to vote in such turbulent times, as well as accounting for how willingness to vote tactically changes if there’s a very binary issue at stake. Indeed different pollsters are coming to quite different anticipated election results, but they all agree the country is very divided and none finds a large Leave majority percentage-wise (though the Tories might get a good majority of seats if TBP fall by the wayside and the Lib Dems inefficiently cannibalise Labour votes).

    The bad news for you is repeated in real-life elections where you look at people who actually do turn out to vote. The European Elections didn’t provide a massive majority for Leave-backing parties that your thesis suggests it should, and though Farage did well that was largely at the expense of the Tories and to some extent Labour. By-elections and local election results don’t fit your story either. Nor are your hopes supported by the amount of activism and protest – this is rarely a good guide to election results but your thesis particularly concerns people who are the most energised and motivated. The angriest and most active people seem to be Remainers at the moment.

    If you tell me street activism doesn’t count that’s fair enough, if you reckon all the election results were as rigged as you reckon the polls were – postal vote cheating or whatever you want to blame – then what’s to stop that just happening again and you losing all over again? And if you reckon, ultimately, that’s why hard Brexiteers are going to have to take over the country by non-electoral means because the voting system is rigged against them (bit like those very earnest Class War types during the tuition-fee riots who thought that a couple of thousand angry students were somehow going to overthrow the government) then I refer you to the activism point, which is that you’re heavily outnumbered for boots on the ground if it all kicks off anyway.

    I just can’t see your proposed route to victory. Would you settle for a Brexit deal which results in a looser relationship that you can then chip away with future UK governments seeking to cut ties bit by bit? Or are you concerned that a soft Brexit will inevitably result in those ties getting stronger and stronger over time? (In which case I’m not sure how even No Deal Brexit saves you, as presumably at some point some government or another will seek to negotiate new trade deals with the EU and the tentacles come into play again – it sounds like what you really need is Never Deal Brexit if that’s what troubles you.)

  38. Point of information:- Parliament is not sovereign. What is sovereign is the Crown in Parliament. The Queen, through the executive branch of government, shares her power with the legislature.

    Hence, the Enacting Formula:
    ‘Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows’.

  39. MyBurningEars: “Indeed different pollsters are coming to quite different anticipated election results, but they all agree the country is very divided …”

    That division is the elephant in the corner. We can try to put some very rough numbers to the division of the UK population from actual votes:

    6 Million — hard-line, No Deal Brexiteers; the people who voted for the Brexit Party in the European elections (which was effectively another referendum, since the EU parliament is pointless).

    11 Million — Leave, with an agreed deal. (i.e. 17 Million who voted Leave in the Referendum minus the 6 Million No Dealers).

    16 Million – Remain (from the Referendum). But these are probably split between people who want a reformed less-intrusive EU and those who want Ever Closer Union. Since we don’t know the split, let’s use the Bayesian initial guess of 50/50 — 8 Million who want to stay in a reformed EU, 8 Million who want continued movement towards an EU super-state.

    13 Million who did not vote in the Referendum. Some of these just don’t care, and some did not like either Leave or Remain — as skeptical about Westminster as they are about Brussels (with good reason, as events have demonstrated).

    Going forward, what would be best would be to get 25+ Million citizens supporting some particular course of action. What is lacking in the UK is leadership trying to assemble that kind of majority.

  40. MyBurningEars

    “Would you settle for a Brexit deal which results in a looser relationship that you can then chip away with future UK governments seeking to cut ties bit by bit?”

    This would be a total failure for people who want to leave the EU. The political classes have already shown exactly how this would work, they would simply carry on inching the UK back into the EU as they have done for the last 5 decades.

    Quite frankly, I’m surprised the leavers didn’t accept something like this in the first place, if they hadn’t made such a fuss, they would likely have had the outcome they wanted in a couple of election cycles.

  41. “This would be a total failure for people who want to leave the EU. The political classes have already shown exactly how this would work, they would simply carry on inching the UK back into the EU as they have done for the last 5 decades.”

    Exactly. We can see what will happen if we get anything less than a clean Brexit, the Political Class will close ranks again, there will be a code of omerta about all things European, there will be no major party that will be for any more loosening of ties with the EU, and indeed they’ll try to tie us further in at every opportunity again. And as elections would go back to being determined on the NHS, and tax, and other domestic issues, they’d be left to do what they liked with regard to Europe, as they have for the last 30 years. Which is exactly what has got us into the current situation.

    We need a clean break so there is no special relationship with the EU for them to manage, or attempt to change. We need to be 100% out, like all the other countries not in the EU.

  42. Since Corby and his even more sinister communist backers started to become a realistic option for the angry and demented in this country its all I’ve worried about, Brexit etc is just noise to me. In or out the real danger to this nation is the Labour party or at least the proto communist dictatorship that has captured it.

  43. The Brexit situation is bemusing and amusing from afar. On the one hand, a PM who wants an election (Boris) and is happy for an election to be called on the grounds of him getting a no-confidence vote. On the other hand, an opposition who profess to have no confidence in him and who profess to want an election and who are doing everything and anything whatsoever to avoid that possibility. Again, we have politicians who profess to be doing the best for Great Britain but who are thwarting its every effort to renegotiate with the EU to get the best exit deal.

    If I’d been unsure before of which side was right, the cowardice of certain Remain politicians has certainly done a great deal to change my mind.

    I found particularly pathetic the claims of certain politicians that there should be no elections in a time of national crisis. That is indeed one of the reasons why democracy came into being in the first place: it is an excellent means of testing the mettle of the competing parties and drawing the people together as one.

    One gets the impression those politicians see democracy as a minor inconvenience.

  44. “One gets the impression those politicians see democracy as a minor inconvenience.”

    Its less of an impression, rather they are actually shouting it from the roof tops – the voters are stupid racist bigots who the Great and the Good don’t have to listen to. And not so much a minor inconvenience, more that democracy is something to be ignored entirely.

  45. @Jim

    We can see what will happen if we get anything less than a clean Brexit, the Political Class will close ranks again, there will be a code of omerta about all things European, there will be no major party that will be for any more loosening of ties with the EU, and indeed they’ll try to tie us further in at every opportunity again. And as elections would go back to being determined on the NHS, and tax, and other domestic issues, they’d be left to do what they liked with regard to Europe, as they have for the last 30 years. Which is exactly what has got us into the current situation.

    Fully agreed and think this is one of the places where first-past-the-post has served Britain quite poorly as an electoral system. Something like proportional representation or multi-member STV would have created more space for mainstream anti-“ever closer union” parties. (Indeed we would probably have ended up with both europhile and eurosceptic versions of the conservative and social democratic parties.) Under our current system, if the “elite” (broadly defined, and who tend to be europhile) capture control of the two main parties then realistically the electoral space under a FPTP system for a eurosceptic party is very squeezed, and until recently there hasn’t been any clear electoral advantage for one of the main parties to abandon its europhile wing.

    In fact the Tories are still taking something of an educated gamble in doing so, with the prospect of losing some of their longest-held leafy, remainy suburban constituencies in the hopes of picking up grittier, more working class constituencies where they haven’t been electorally competitive for decades. Although some of those target areas came out very strongly pro-leave in the referendum, the risk the Tories are taking is that the referendum was a binary issue without the issue of “brand toxicity”. Traditional Labour voters are generally averse to voting Tory (the Tories score poorly in polls as the party more people say they “would never vote for” which makes it challenging to attract non-traditional support) and polls also suggest Labour Leave voters rate Brexit as a much less important issue than Tory and UKIP/TBP voters do, so they may yet be persuaded to continue backing Labour even if they disagree with (or simply do not understand) that party’s Brexit policy. On the other hand, I can’t see that the Tories have an attractive alternative at this point – backsliding on Brexit would risk splitting the pro-Brexit vote with Farage’s organisation, and under FPTP that could result in losing swathes of the country even if Labour poll 30%.

    We need a clean break so there is no special relationship with the EU for them to manage, or attempt to change. We need to be 100% out, like all the other countries not in the EU.

    I’m not sure “all the other countries not in the EU” are 100% out. Even Switzerland is finding itself increasingly tangled up and having to accept the EU’s diktat on policy areas they traditionally diverged in. The balance of power favours the EU in trade negotiations with Switzerland more drastically than it would do with the UK, but I still think the trend would be for the UK to end up accepting quite a lot of EU requirements (“alignment”) even for negotiating a pretty vanilla, not “special relationship”, type of trade deal. (Similar to how the USA pushes hard for countries to accept US style of copyright protection when they sign trade deals because of how important intellectual property is to the US.)

    On the other hand I can’t see that there’s much long-term hope in being a “Never Dealer”. Even outright No Dealers are outnumbered at the moment, and I’d wager most of them are thinking and hoping that a vanilla trade deal will be signed eventually, without the UK ceding any ground on “sovereignty”. I’m not so sure. Economics, and trade is a big part of that, has a tendency to trump politics in the long run. Only a tendency, mind, not a certainty. And culture has a word or two to put in, too. For a point of comparison, I think it’s worth reading how the German Empire came about, with economic origins in a trade area/customs union, but also political/cultural reasons why its boundaries were demarcated as they were (with Bavaria falling in, but Austria and German-speaking areas of Switzerland and Bohemia falling outside it).

    The UK is an interesting case in that both culturally and geographically it’s very much on the periphery of Europe, and economically and culturally it has much stronger links to other regions of the world than other parts of Europe do. There are good reasons to think it can carve out a distinctive role for itself (and my personal hope is that it does) and yet its strongest economic links are to Western Europe. For all our global interconnectedness, those EU tentacles are always going to be there. The EU currently makes up less than 50% of our trade and the trend is down; outside the EU single market one might expect that to fall faster, and growth in trade with rapidly developing nations that form the bulk of the world’s population might even get it down to 25-30% in the longer run. If we’re still outside an increasingly centralised EU or “US of E” by that point I think we are “safe” – the Brussels project will feel much more like any other major foreign power than as something we are a wider part of and naturally at home in, and there’d be little pressing economic reason for us to join at those kinds of trade figures. So I have reasonable grounds for optimism there is a viable escape trajectory. Whether we have quite enough oomph in the tank to reach escape velocity, though, particularly whether we can build the kind of national consensus required to pursue it and confidently carve out a new role for ourselves, I can only cross my fingers…

  46. @TimT: Not that I like Corbyn (mainly over his daft economic ideas) but you surely must be willfully misunderstanding his position: He is against a hard Brexit (or claims to be. Sometimes.) so he has no choice but to delay the general election until the EU grants another extension, otherwise the deed will be done before he can try to get a mandate.

  47. HibernoFrog,

    “He is against a hard Brexit (or claims to be. Sometimes.) so he has no choice but to delay the general election until the EU grants another extension, otherwise the deed will be done before he can try to get a mandate.”

    Look at Corbyn’s voting record as a back bencher. Or read his old speeches. He’s as hard leave as anyone in parliament. The key thing is that if we’re in any part of the EU, Corbyn can’t do all the things he wants to do. Restoring British rail running the trains? Goes against EU directives. Pouring lots of money into favoured industries? Goes against EU state aid rules.

    Right now, he’s just sitting on the fence to curry favour. In Tim Shipman’s book, Alan Johnson recalls Corbyn saying to him that he didn’t see any point in getting involved, just go with the winning side.

  48. My Burning Ears: “… this is one of the places where first-past-the-post has served Britain quite poorly as an electoral system.”

    In a polity which is as highly divided as the UK is now, the results of the FPTP system when there are multiple serious parties could be a great surprise to everyone! FPTP is ok as long as there are only 2 serious parties. The one prediction that can safely be made at present is that a government formed after an election now would not have the support of the majority of the people — it would be an artefact of the electoral system. And that will only add to the frustrations felt by UK citizens who will believe — quite correctly — that this new government does not represent them.

    My guess remains that Brexit will happen because the countries of the EU are getting tired of all the drama and will engineer the exit of the UK. In that post-Brexit world, the future success of the UK will be heavily dependent on making substantial changes to its governance, perhaps including changing FPTP. But there is clearly no drive in the UK to make those kinds of necessary changes. Rough sledding ahead!

  49. I could believe that Corbyn is a hard-leaver, for the reasons given by Bloke on M4. But I still believe he’s stalling to get control over Brexit before it happens (even if just for appearances) – that it traps the Tories in a minority government is just a bonus. But we’ll get confirmation soon enough, if Labour supports the call for a GE.

    I think the Lib Dems are going to do well (by their standards) and if Labour do alright then I could imagine a coalition… And then there’ll be fireworks…

  50. Re Corbyn, bear in mind he is riding several different horses at the moment. Yes he would benefit from Brexit in his role as “leader of the opposition and likely next PM” but he doesn’t want to scare more remain-tending Labour voters into the arms of the Lib Dems and if he is seen to be deliberately forcing a hard Brexit then he’d be in instant difficulty in his role as “cat herder in chief of Labour MPs”. Should his own MPs no-confidence him again and trigger another leadership ballot, he will be in deep trouble in his role as “standard bearer of the Left within the Labour Party”.

    In fact Brexit is the one issue he diverges significantly from his young leftie fan-club (socialist true believers with similarly 1980s attitudes as him might prefer the Labour Party reverting to its euroscepticism of that era) and therefore is the biggest weapon the party’s right-wing/centrist/Blairite Third Way factions have in their battle to win the party back. So Corbyn’s freedom of action is constrained and if he sees the opportunity of seizing power (and reinforcing his wing’s dominance over Labour Party institutions, policies and ultimately personnel) as a sufficiently valuable prize he may not pursue the Brexit path that his eurosceptic beliefs would favour.

Comments are closed.