Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

FrancieBrady · 24-07-2019 11:02PM

J Mysterio wrote: »

They might have felt it best to throw a curveball there to confuse matters and placate us a little, rather than put in another hardcore Brexiteer and antagonize us further.

Has anyone spotted any reaction on the wires to his appointment from parties?

Mr.Nice Guy · 24-07-2019 11:02PM

There's that often repeated quote where Johnson praises Trump and says if he was in charge of the Brexit negotiations "he'd go in bloody hard."

Looks like that is the plan based on Johnson's cabinet. Go in bloody hard.

I was listening to David McWilliams' recent podcast and he reckons Johnson's plan is get Brexit done on Halloween, then immediately afterwards call an election. Once Brexit has happened the Brexit Party cease to be relevant and the idea is to hoover up all their votes. That might well be the strategy.

Will be interesting to see how the DUP react to this because if they are seen as facilitating a No Deal Brexit it is going to damage them in 'soft u' unionist areas. Presumably they'll spin it that it was all the Irish government's fault.

For Forks Sake · 24-07-2019 11:03PM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

His brother has just gone into Downing Street.

Been appointed minister of state at the Business Dept

MrMusician18 · 24-07-2019 11:07PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Johnson playing a dangerous game by picking such a one sided cabinet when his government majority is so slim and his party is already split.

A couple of defectors will win a motion of no confidence for the opposition

That could be the idea. He has made himself the man of leave for sure with that cabinet so perhaps he's thinking that if there's an election he could win by stealing the Brexit party's clothes.

With his own majority, he could throw the DUP under the bus.

Akrasia · 24-07-2019 11:11PM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

There's that often repeated quote where Johnson praises Trump and says if he was in charge of the Brexit negotiations "he'd go in bloody hard."

Looks like that is the plan based on Johnson's cabinet. Go in bloody hard.

I was listening to David McWilliams' recent podcast and he reckons Johnson's plan is get Brexit done on Halloween, then immediately afterwards call an election. Once Brexit has happened the Brexit Party cease to be relevant and the idea is to hoover up all their votes. That might well be the strategy.

Will be interesting to see how the DUP react to this because if they are seen as facilitating a No Deal Brexit it is going to damage them in 'soft u' unionist areas. Presumably they'll spin it that it was all the Irish government's fault.

It takes 6 weeks for a general election. That’s plenty of time for the harsh reality of a hard no deal brexit to sink in

Bit cynical · 24-07-2019 11:12PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

The only possible pressure that could come on Ireland would be from Brussels. This mob will wind Brussels up so much that Ireland will probably end up treated even more favourably within the EU as a result.

I think that although it won't be reported, there is likely to be a behind the scenes battle between Dublin and Brussels over the extent of border infrastructure we are expected to erect in the event of no deal. Johnson will make sure that as little visible infrastructure as possible thus maximising embarrassment for Varadkar and Coveney.

devnull · 24-07-2019 11:15PM

Akrasia wrote: »

It takes 6 weeks for a general election.

Indeed and the master plan is, if you can't prorogue, you can engineer an election, which will have the same effect of stopping parliament from being able to stop no deal.

By having all the arch Brexiteers attending cabinet, they can all work on this plan together and co-ordinate it so they drop a whole load of stuff to provoke the backbenchers to vote no confidence and then blame the backbenchers for it despite the fact they had engineered it.

Surprised nobody has figured that out yet.

Water John · 24-07-2019 11:22PM

JRM has been put in place to frustrate the will of Parliament. He says, it's the law that UK leaves on Oct 31st. But as Rory Stewart pointed out on Peston ITV, it simply requires Parliament to pass an alternative motion.

Call me Al · 24-07-2019 11:27PM

MrMusician18 wrote: »

That could be the idea. He has made himself the man of leave for sure with that cabinet so perhaps he's thinking that if there's an election he could win by stealing the Brexit party's clothes.

With his own majority, he could throw the DUP under the bus.

This is my point completely.
He's trying to out-Brexit the Brexit Party and corner all that 30something % of the electorate to himself.
Get a chunky majority and he can do what he wants then.

Itssoeasy · 24-07-2019 11:28PM

Just listening to the recap and hearing what is being said on virgin media, I mean Boris Johnson can for ever more say he was prime minister come what may. The thing is he’s clearly cashed in all his chips already and he’s barely twelve hours in the job. I mean if he doesn’t achieve brexit by October 31st then he and the conservatives will likely lose a vote of no confidence and having not achieved brexit when he promised he’ll have written the brexit party’s election manifesto for them, which could mean a 1997 or worse election lashing for his party. It’s completely nuts.

Sam Russell · 24-07-2019 11:29PM

devnull wrote: »

Akrasia wrote: »

It takes 6 weeks for a general election. That’s plenty of time for the harsh reality of a hard no deal brexit to sink in

Indeed and the master plan is, if you can't prorogue, you can engineer an election, which will have the same effect of stopping parliament from being able to stop no deal.

By having all the arch Brexiteers attending cabinet, they can all work on this plan together and co-ordinate it so they drop a whole load of stuff to provoke the backbenchers to vote no confidence and then blame the backbenchers for it despite the fact they had engineered it.

Surprised nobody has figured that out yet.

One small point.

He needs a two thirds majority to overcome the fixed term Parliament act.

Now Jezza would vote for a GE in a heart beat, but if there is a possibility of a Stop No-Deal National Government, which only requires a simple majority, maybe he would go with that to get the Tories out of Gov, end the Brexit mess, and then go for a GE. Boris would be a busted flush. Might work out, but you never know.

MrMusician18 · 24-07-2019 11:33PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

One small point.

He needs a two thirds majority to overcome the fixed term Parliament act.

Now Jezza would vote for a GE in a heart beat, but if there is a possibility of a Stop No-Deal National Government, which only requires a simple majority, maybe he would go with that to get the Tories out of Gov, end the Brexit mess, and then go for a GE. Boris would be a busted flush. Might work out, but you never know.

The problem is that a national Government won't coalesce around Corbyn, it would be Starmer or similar. So if it isn't Corbyn that makes it to No. 10 why would he back a national Government?

Mr.Nice Guy · 24-07-2019 11:35PM

Wow his brother has taken a job having resigned less than a year ago, calling for a second referendum.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1154148705555099649

What a family.

20silkcut · 24-07-2019 11:36PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think that although it won't be reported, there is likely to be a behind the scenes battle between Dublin and Brussels over the extent of border infrastructure we are expected to erect in the event of no deal. Johnson will make sure that as little visible infrastructure as possible thus maximising embarrassment for Varadkar and Coveney.

It should not be seen as embarrassing. Protecting the single market is absolutely of the utmost importance to this country.
We should build the most watertight border possible between ourselves and Brexit Britain. Even if it’s on the island of Ireland. And Brussels should and probably will fully support us on that. Both politically and financially.
I dislike the way reporters put Coveney et al on the spot over this. This is entirely the fault of the UK and DUP. We have an ideal situation right now and they are the ones who want to depart and destroy it. This should be drilled home mercilessly and relentlessly in all commentary to do with the hard border in Ireland. Hounding our politicians over this drastic situation, entirely not of our making is absolutely unacceptable IMO.
Remember when the shoe was on the other foot they had no bother in putting 30,000 troops in the north to protect the union. And I’m sure would have no qualms in doing it again.

For Forks Sake · 24-07-2019 11:37PM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Wow his brother has taken a job having resigned less than a year ago, calling for a second referendum.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1154148705555099649

What a family.

Yeah, moral fortitude would seem to be wholly lacking in that particular gene-pool

Akrasia · 24-07-2019 11:41PM

devnull wrote: »

Indeed and the master plan is, if you can't prorogue, you can engineer an election, which will have the same effect of stopping parliament from being able to stop no deal.

By having all the arch Brexiteers attending cabinet, they can all work on this plan together and co-ordinate it so they drop a whole load of stuff to provoke the backbenchers to vote no confidence and then blame the backbenchers for it despite the fact they had engineered it.

Surprised nobody has figured that out yet.

It would take an awful lot of engineering though. If there is a vote of no confidence in Johnson, parliament has 2 weeks to try and form a new Government. In that 2 weeks all the anti ‘no deal’ tories and the opposition parties could form a coalition to block Britain from crashing out. Especially if Johnson thinks he can pull a fast one without anyone noticing what he is trying to do

Jamie2k9 · 24-07-2019 11:41PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think that although it won't be reported, there is likely to be a behind the scenes battle between Dublin and Brussels over the extent of border infrastructure we are expected to erect in the event of no deal. Johnson will make sure that as little visible infrastructure as possible thus maximising embarrassment for Varadkar and Coveney.

"we" will be the major downfall of Leo stint as leader. Ireland overplayed it's hand been unnecessary disruptive and it will cost us big time if there is a no deal. Coveney has put it out there about Ireland's obligations on the border and just as quickly played it down because of the negative press it's gotten.

Leo might need to set up a new PR unit....

woohoo!!! · 24-07-2019 11:45PM

BJ and the Tories are toast if no Brexit on October 31st. This bizarre cabinet has one purpose, to cannibalize the BP vote. All he needs to do is avoid a no confidence vote until the latter half of September, thereafter he'll manufacture one thus side lining parliament.

He needs the numbers and a lot more than he has now. He knows the EU won't blink but his priority is take out the BP, get their votes and strengthen his current tenuous grip on power.

dublinman1990 · 24-07-2019 11:53PM

John McDonnell of Labour; on ITV's Peston, has said tonight that Labour will be ready for a GE. They will go in on a position of Remain during the election but, in his view, Labour will not be in favour of a taking part in a government of national unity. He says that type of position would never work for Labour because they do not have a good history in the UK. In the most honest terms possible; if Labour are put into a position after a GE that they are the new majority party in the UK parliament that does not get a commanding majority. What type of scenario could happen next for Labour? They still have the intention in taking a big gamble to still become a one-party government in the UK. Is that still a strategy that could still work in a country like the UK? My opinion is that JC could be stuck in a position to take what he gets to eventually become PM. That could mean taking part in a government of national unity so that the position of the Tories position considerably further into the abyss of political extinction.

Enzokk · 24-07-2019 11:59PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I've seen him interviewed a few times and was impressed. Very articulate, intelligent and informed. Would be very disappointing to see him take the shilling.

Seeing as he is back in his old job, let's hope he handles interviews better than this one.

About 2:45 or so.

Snickers Man · 25-07-2019 12:02AM

First Up wrote: »

They would have fun trying to prevent a CTA in Ireland.

They couldn't. The most sensible, pragmatic way to police it is at ports and airports, which is of course the way they would do it, if only to prevent all those Polish electricians and plumbers who would be coming through Dublin to access the UK.

But then, that's your famous "Hard border in the Irish Sea" right there.

Bit cynical · 25-07-2019 12:22AM

20silkcut wrote: »

It should not be seen as embarrassing. Protecting the single market is absolutely of the utmost importance to this country.
We should build the most watertight border possible between ourselves and Brexit Britain.

I don't think this will be the widespread view if a no deal happens even on this forum. Our leaders will not want to be seen leading the way on border infrastructure if the UK is holding back.

Strazdas · 25-07-2019 12:36AM

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't think this will be the widespread view if a no deal happens even on this forum. Our leaders will not want to be seen leading the way on border infrastructure if the UK is holding back.

As far as I know, there simply has to be border checks no matter what : otherwise all manner of unhealthy products such as chlorinated chicken or diseased cattle could enter the Single Market (ie. Ireland) from NI.

Border checks are not just about customs charges or tariffs.

MrMusician18 · 25-07-2019 01:04AM

Strazdas wrote: »

As far as I know, there simply has to be border checks no matter what : otherwise all manner of unhealthy products such as chlorinated chicken or diseased cattle could enter the Single Market (ie. Ireland) from NI.

Border checks are not just about customs charges or tariffs.

Chlorinated chicken isn't any more unhealthy than it's non chlorinated counterpart. Chlorinated chicken, and the EUs opposition to it is more an animal welfare measure as well as a protectionist measure.

Bit cynical · 25-07-2019 01:05AM

Strazdas wrote: »

As far as I know, there simply has to be border checks no matter what : otherwise all manner of unhealthy products such as chlorinated chicken or diseased cattle could enter the Single Market (ie. Ireland) from NI.

Border checks are not just about customs charges or tariffs.

I don't disagree with that. However the extent of them and how quickly they need to be put in will be a matter of debate between Dublin and Brussels I think. We (Coveney and Varadkar) will be trying to minimise the extent to which they are needed at the site of the border arguing for a low-key approach. This will happen behind the scenes in Brussels.

I don't think we will be trying to produce the most watertight border as possible (as the poster suggested) in the event of a no deal brexit.

FrancieBrady · 25-07-2019 01:11AM

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't disagree with that. However the extent of them and how quickly they need to be put in will be a matter of debate between Dublin and Brussels I think. We (Coveney and Varadkar) will be trying to minimise the extent to which they are needed at the site of the border arguing for a low-key approach. This will happen behind the scenes in Brussels.

I don't think we will be trying to produce the most watertight border as possible (as the poster suggested) in the event of a no deal brexit.

I don't understand what happens to people like us who live on the border if checks are to be held away from the border. Anybody seen any more detail?

I make 1000's of crossing a year as do many many more. What is to stop us taking un-regulated products across and slipping them into containers originating in the south?
I can't get my head around how it will work without massive blind eyes being turned.

Bit cynical · 25-07-2019 01:24AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't understand what happens to people like us who live on the border if checks are to be held away from the border. Anybody seen any more detail?

I make 1000's of crossing a year as do many many more. What is to stop us taking un-regulated products across and slipping them into containers originating in the south?
I can't get my head around how it will work without massive blind eyes being turned.

To be honest I don't know how it is going to work either. I believe that Johnson will probably be able to do physical border checking away from the border. How well it is going to work I don't know but I believe it is his intention and it makes sense politically for him to do this.

Therefore it is not going to look good if the South has physical infrastructure right up to the border itself. That is where the international press is going to be if brexit occurs. It's going to be a political problem for Coveney to solve.

J Mysterio · 25-07-2019 01:45AM

Very interesting to see this hard (but extremely accurate) reporting of UK politics on MSNBC:

https://twitter.com/davidhall111/status/1154124220529381377

Peregrinus · 25-07-2019 03:16AM

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The problem is that a national Government won't coalesce around Corbyn, it would be Starmer or similar. So if it isn't Corbyn that makes it to No. 10 why would he back a national Government?

To get Labour into power.

There's a precedent. The UK formed a national government during the war, as we know, and on 10 May 1040 Churchill became Prime Minister in that government. He wasn't leader of the Conservative party; Neville Chamberlain was. Chamberlain remained party leader, took a seat in Churchill's war cabinet, and worked hard to keep the party behind Churchill's government. (Churchill was not popular or widely trusted in the party.) Chamberlain didn't leave the party leadership, or the Cabinet, until October 1940, when he was given a terminal cancer diagnosis. (He died the following month.) At that point Churchill became party leader.

There's an even more striking precedent in Ireland. John A. Costello was twice Taoiseach, leading inter-party governments, in 1948-51 and 1954-57. At no time was he leader of Fine Gael; Richard Mulcahy was. But Mulcahy served under Costello as Taoiseach. Mulcahy, because of his Civil War role, was not an acceptable Taoiseach to other parties in the inter-party government, so it was agreed that Costello would fill the role.

In short, there's no rule that the Prime Minister/Taoiseach has to be leader of
his or her party, and there is precedent for party leaders not to hold the office if that would impede the formation of a multi-party government. So if Corbyn is more concerned with Labour being in power than he is with Corbyn being in Downing Street, it's not unreasonable to think that he might do the same thing.

dresden8 · 25-07-2019 03:30AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Obvious one is ending the CTA which would be a very serious threat. It matters far more to us than to them.

The card has not been played yet but I fully expect something on it if things are not going their way soon.

Thank God for that. Don't want those starving Brit refugees coming over here taking our houses......

Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Comments