Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Mr.Wemmick

Roger_007 wrote: »

(btw where is Rees-Mogg hiding these days? He's keeping a very low profile).

He's upset about his ill-received book and doesn't understand why all the nasty historians are laughing at it.

If he can't handle the Victorians, he has no hope with Brexit either.

Stop moaning ffs

BluePlanet wrote: »

I'm not sure they particularly about the macro political landscape.

I'm convinced most of these politicians, May included, are just in it for their own celebrity.
Maybe this is their ticket to vain glorious fame and riches, also providing the opportunity to
jettison those pesky local constituent matters.

They’re playing in the macro. The celebrity poser aspect as you said.

It is the micro in its immense detail that they’re really failing in

listermint

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

That’s a great point.
Thing is they *do* know. Or at least I hope they do. Some of them at least.
Whoever gets that job is in exactly the same situation May was. That’s just a fact.

If they were just honest about it there’s be a light in the darkness.

Thing is saying that any of them, is out get them the job.

So back to square one.

Telling people at dinner parties they were the PM , collecting the pension and having a security detail will be enough for them all. Even if they don't do a jot during their tenure

That's all its about for that lot.

Kermit.de.frog

Jeremy Hunt adamant Merkel and Macron told him they will renegotiate Brexit deal.

Think the EU/Irish govt need to nip that in the bud if it's untrue.

Stop moaning ffs

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Jeremy Hunt adamant Merkel and Macron told him they will renegotiate Brexit deal.

Think the EU/Irish govt need to nip that in the bud if it's untrue.

Nah. Ignore it. Brexit waffle. Don’t give it any oxygen

LeinsterDub

devnull wrote: »

Tory Leadership contenders

- Michael Gove
- Matt Hancock
- Mark Harper
- Jeremy Hunt
- Sajid Javid
- Boris Johnson
- Andrea Leadsom
- Esther McVey
- Dominic Raab
- Rory Stewart

Rest didn't have enough support.

Some scary names on there.

Yet another example of Tory hypocrisy. First past the post is good enough for the plebs but they will have a run off first

Charles Babbage

robinph wrote: »

The DUP could always withdraw support.

What are the chances of Boris saying he'll dump NI in order to get rid of the backstop problem before the final vote? Then the DUP walk away and Boris gets the top job in the party, but instantly loses the PM role.

May has said that she will not resign as PM until she believes the new leader has a majority. So Boris might never become PM. Mind you decoupling NI might in itself find approval in Westminster, but the hard-line Brexit it would facilitate would not.

Capt'n Midnight

listermint wrote: »

Telling people at dinner parties they were the PM , collecting the pension and having a security detail will be enough for them all. Even if they don't do a jot during their tenure

That's all its about for that lot.

There's also the lucrative lecture tours

Professor Moriarty

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There's also the lucrative lecture tours

Since last summer, Boris has earned £700,000. Of this, £407,000 was for speaking engagements at an average of £20,000 an hour.

KildareP

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think they are in an even worse situation than may, because i'm certain there will be much more resistance to another extension which gove has already suggested he'd look for and i think boris and a few others would go the same way too. I personally doubt they'd get it so no more can kicking. So they're left with the choice of taking the UK out, frustrating parliament in the process or bailing out altogether with a move to revoking A50. Either path likely leads to a vote of confidence and GE. I honestly dont know why anyone would wish to be tory leader at this particular point in history. Cant see any positive outcome to it.

Sadly, I don't think any of the reality as we see it matters.

The EU, and specifically us, are going to be blamed for everything that goes wrong and the British media will gleefully shout that from the rooftops whilst the public swallow it up.

Refusing another extension would play right into their gameplan.

Meanwhile the PM gets to play victim to the horrible EU, being unfairly steered by the pesky troublesome Irish who need to be put in their place. Who wouldn't want the glory of that?

jochenstacker

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

He's upset about his ill-received book and doesn't understand why all the nasty historians are laughing at it.

If he can't handle the Victorians, he has no hope with Brexit either.

I didn't know he wrote a book and probably for the better.

https://lithub.com/cartoon-brexit-villain-jacob-rees-moggs-book-is-getting-roasted-by-critics/

The name Jacob Rees-Mogg might not mean a lot to most Americans, hypnotized as they are by the orange glow of their own garbage fire, but alongside former London mayor Boris Johnson and former UKIP leader Nigel Farage, the ludicrously affected conservative ideologue (whose political views have been described as reactionary, uber-traditionalist, nationalist, socially conservative, and right-wing populist, and who famously once campaigned with his highborn family’s nanny) was one of the true pantomime villains of the Brexit debacle.

This article proves that true savagery doesn't require any swearwords whatsoever. This is still the kindest part. It's like watching a baby deer being torn apart by wolves.
I don't know why he would think that the literary circle would fawn over his claptrap like his DM reading fans.
He'll be licking his wounds for a while.

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1138193441131773952

BoJo way out ahead. A other role round or two of this and a lot of the others might throw in the towel

Bit cynical

BluePlanet wrote: »

The government has on several occasions said they are not planning to install border infrastructure, what else could that mean?

They have shifted somewhat in that position, but in general the official lack of preparation on our part would have strenghened the UK government in their negotiations with the EU. This makes sense as a deal which is good for the UK is also likely to be good for Ireland.


I agree with other posters that there will of course have been unofficial plans made in secret for the event of a hard border.

Enzokk

Enzokk wrote: »

Well the Conservatives has their process where the candidates have to present themselves as a contender today at 5pm. They will need the backing of 8 MPs to be allowed to run. From there they will be whittled down to the last 2 with MPs voting for their favourite (Conservative only obviously) every Tuesday and Thursday. When you are down to 2 they will go against each other to the Conservative Members who decide who is to become leader. Not sure if that is what you asked.

After the leader is elected from the Party, they will be appointed by the Queen with the implication that they hold the confidence of the House of Commons. They do not have to win a vote to become PM, but they could face an immediate vote of confidence from Labour to test how strong the majority of only 6 will hold up. This will be fascinating as promises will be made and they will have to say whether they are prepared to leave with no-deal. If they are there are some Conservative MPs who could decide to abstain from that vote if they feel the new PM will be a danger for the country.

Cheers. It's the appointed by the Queen bit (or however the process is put in nice language) that I wasn't clear on.

Enzokk

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

He's upset about his ill-received book and doesn't understand why all the nasty historians are laughing at it.

If he can't handle the Victorians, he has no hope with Brexit either.

He never had ambitions of power, he prefers to snipe from the back. That way he has no responsibility if it goes wrong. It is why he has not sought any cabinet positions either. He just happens to be in a power position now through the ERG and he will not want to give that up. Power without responsibility.

Capt'n Midnight

Boris plans to rise the 40% tax rate threshold to £80,000.

By a strange coincidence the basic pay for an MP is £79,468


So this would put an extra three grand in their pockets.

You could cut out the £9.6Bn cost to the tax payer by buying 30 pieces of silver here.

That £9.6Bn projected cost to the tax payer is more than the nett cost of EU membership and close to what NI costs.

jochenstacker

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1138193441131773952

BoJo way out ahead. A other role round or two of this and a lot of the others might throw in the towel

It was never even a question. He's a Panto and cartoon character.
It is an absolute certainty he'll get it. It is just this kind of insane situation and he's the right lunatic.

CrabRevolution

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Jeremy Hunt adamant Merkel and Macron told him they will renegotiate Brexit deal.

Think the EU/Irish govt need to nip that in the bud if it's untrue.

I don't understand how this would even theoretically make sense. Why would Macron and Merkel tell Jeremy Hunt that they'd renegotiate the deal with him, but apparently wouldn't say the same to the actual leader of the UK?

Even allowing for the fact that Macron and Merkel didn't negotiate the deal to begin with.

Laois_Man

BluePlanet wrote: »

So i've read.
But trade deals with the EU take a long time.
So waiting for the UK to rollover in some way is probably not the best plan here.

In that chaos goods leaving ireland may end up being treated differently due to the lack of customs enforcement on our nothern border.

In fact i am surprised media are not taking Leo to task over lack of planning here.

You seem to have a notion that under a no-del Brexit, the UK can leave the border open and won't have to care a jot.

You must remember, leaving the EU on WTO leaves the UK with 2 choices regarding the border

1. Put up a NI/RoI border

or

2. Put up no border but open their border to all the other 163 WTO members as they would have to do under Most-favored-nation rules, thereby literally decimating their economy - which would be ironic for a country who wanted to leave the EU so that they will have more control of its borders!

4068ac1elhodqr

Thought there would be money rolling in for them after the brexit,
but now the BBC is going after the 75ys+ (which equates to more households than on the Island of Ireland, i.e. 3.6m).

By 2020, the corp that likes to send as much of it's staff as it can, off to Glasto for a jolly,
is going to churn +£745m by going after the old and frail who used to get free £150+ tv licences.

bilston

Jazmine Big Dragonfly wrote: »

Thought there would be money rolling in for them after the brexit,
but now the BBC is going after the 75ys+ (which equates to more households than on the Island of Ireland, i.e. 3.6m).

By 2020, the corp that likes to send as much of it's staff as it can, off to Glasto for a jolly,
is going to churn +£745m by going after the old and frail who used to get free £150+ tv licences.

I like to bash Brexit as much as the next sane thinking individual, but I don't see the connection with the BBC's decision today.

4068ac1elhodqr

bilston wrote: »

I like to bash Brexit as much as the next sane thinking individual, but I don't see the connection with the BBC's decision today.

(State) broadcaster choosing to target the most vulnerable in society. Essentially a form of taxation, that's very difficult to opt out of.

Yes there are market forces presenting challenges to the Beeb, but it's up to them to adapt and innovate to the new market.

Reckon this decision will actually backfire, old folks will fling their their telly boxes or refuse to pay. Maybe their grandkids will show them how to get alternative free services.

Surely £3.8bn pa is enough already to run a few tv channels, couple of radio stations and an hour or two for smaller regional news slots.

Capt'n Midnight

bilston wrote: »

I like to bash Brexit as much as the next sane thinking individual, but I don't see the connection with the BBC's decision today.

Consider how many OAP's voted for Brexit anyone who rang up should be told the results were 52% - 48% ,"will of the people etc."

Considering that the UK economy has fallen behind it's not even wrong to suggest that this belt tightening is in part due to Brexit.
Graph here Report says British economy to be hit 7 times harder than the rest of the EU
NB if there's a new exit date then there may be yet more economic disruption.


It's part of the process where the UK is becoming a land of "haves" and "have nots". The sort of thing that the EU regional funds tries to fix.

Or you could look at as further hobbling of the BBC by Tory party.


Labour gave the OAP's the free licence, then the Conservatives took it away.

"Make no mistake, if this scheme goes ahead we are going to see sick and disabled people in their eighties and nineties who are completely dependent on their cherished TV for companionship and news forced to give it up."

If Labour offered to restore the free licence fee would they win many votes ?

Rain Ascending

Watching the increasingly introspective discussions in the Conservative party, I get the sense that the Tories have two basic choices:

The first is to tack back to a softer Brexit, build a coalition with Labour, and deliver something with either a border in the Irish Sea or a Norway-like arrangement. Frankly, no Tory leadership candidate can get elected as party leader with that as a manifesto. And that's before considering the practical difficulties in getting and keeping Jeremy Corbyn on board while the ERG eggs him to call a vote of no confidence. A general election to change the basic arithmetic doesn't help because the Brexit Party would wipe them out.

The second is to tack towards a harder Brexit that holds on to the ERG. The EU, however, would surely harden its stance and a no-deal Brexit would quickly loom. Again, the only sure-fire mechanism to stop this would be a vote of no confidence, this time with Remainers like Grieve, Clarke, Gauke, etc. voting against the government to avoid the horrors of no deal. A general election gets called. Here's where it gets interesting: the Conservatives would nearly certainly lose, but because of their tack to a no-deal Brexit, coupled with the de-selection of the Remainer wing, they would hold on to enough of the Leaver vote to neutralize the Brexit Party.

So the leader of the Conservative Party becomes the leader of the opposition and gets to present himself as the champion of "pure" Brexit. This would be done without having to take the opprobrium that would deservedly would fall to the Conservatives in the event of an actual no deal Brexit and all the damage that would do to the UK. The challenge of Brexit then falls to Labour and the <ahem> inestimable leadership skills of one Jeremy Corbyn.

I don't like the Conservative Party and believe Brexit is crazy, but this is the only strategy that I can see where the Tories avoid complete wipeout due to pushing a a soft Brexit or triggering a disastrous no-deal Brexit: get out of government and go for ideological Brexit purity. The good news for the UK is that it gets to have another try with a somewhat more sensible set of actors while the Tories go off and redefine themselves.

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1138193441131773952

BoJo way out ahead. A other role round or two of this and a lot of the others might throw in the towel

Except that this is the views of the '92 Group, who repfresent the ultra-brexiter right of the party. They're not representative of the party as a whole. So this tells us that Johnson seems set to emerge as the standard bearer of hard brexit, but not necessarily that he will win the support of the party as a whole.

Another tot - I've lost the link to it, I'm afraid - suggests that of total declarations of support so far:

- 3 went to Sam Gyimah, the remainer (who has since withdrawn)
- 96 went to candidates who might be considered to favour a softer brexit; and
- 96 went to candidates who might be considered hard brexiters.

Given that two candidates go forward to the membership and 105 votes will be enough to get any candidate into the top 2, if the hard-brexiters and the soft-brexiters can cluster around one candidate each, it seems that the final election will be between a hard-brexiter and a soft-brexiter. Johnson seems well on his way to becomeing the successful hard-brexiter; the successful soft-brexiter has yet to emerge but there are powerful incentives for the soft-brexit group to find one, probably Hunt or Gove.

Enzokk

Rain Ascending wrote: »

Watching the increasingly introspective discussions in the Conservative party, I get the sense that the Tories have two basic choices:

The first is to tack back to a softer Brexit, build a coalition with Labour, and deliver something with either a border in the Irish Sea or a Norway-like arrangement. Frankly, no Tory leadership candidate can get elected as party leader with that as a manifesto. And that's before considering the practical difficulties in getting and keeping Jeremy Corbyn on board while the ERG eggs him to call a vote of no confidence. A general election to change the basic arithmetic doesn't help because the Brexit Party would wipe them out.

The second is to tack towards a harder Brexit that holds on to the ERG. The EU, however, would surely harden its stance and a no-deal Brexit would quickly loom. Again, the only sure-fire mechanism to stop this would be a vote of no confidence, this time with Remainers like Grieve, Clarke, Gauke, etc. voting against the government to avoid the horrors of no deal. A general election gets called. Here's where it gets interesting: the Conservatives would nearly certainly lose, but because of their tack to a no-deal Brexit, coupled with the de-selection of the Remainer wing, they would hold on to enough of the Leaver vote to neutralize the Brexit Party.

So the leader of the Conservative Party becomes the leader of the opposition and gets to present himself as the champion of "pure" Brexit. This would be done without having to take the opprobrium that would deservedly would fall to the Conservatives in the event of an actual no deal Brexit and all the damage that would do to the UK. The challenge of Brexit then falls to Labour and the <ahem> inestimable leadership skills of one Jeremy Corbyn.

I don't like the Conservative Party and believe Brexit is crazy, but this is the only strategy that I can see where the Tories avoid complete wipeout due to pushing a a soft Brexit or triggering a disastrous no-deal Brexit: get out of government and go for ideological Brexit purity. The good news for the UK is that it gets to have another try with a somewhat more sensible set of actors while the Tories go off and redefine themselves.

I agree with most of this, but from a Labour perspective it goes 2 ways as well. They keep straddling the fence which means they are not near enough MPs to govern but are the largest party in the HoC and has to form a government with the LibDems and SNP. This would surely mean the end of Corbyn as he lost their chance to lead and he will not have a majority to get his policies through parliament (LibDems would never vote for all of Labour policies).

Or they pivot to second referendum and not just a choice to remain but actively remaining. This could be done with or without Corbyn, with him they have a small majority and while they can get Brexit over with and out of the way, they will have trouble getting their more extreme policies through. If he resigns or is forced out they get a big majority behind a remainer like Starmer or Thornberry even, Brexit is out but their manifesto will not be as extreme as it would have been under Corbyn.

lawred2

Some list of giveaways promised by these candidate leaders especially when one considers the extent of austerity still being brought to bear in Britain. Austerity that most of these will have repeatedly voted for.

Economy staggering punch drunk and yet this pro austerity shower suddenly see the fiscal space for giveaways..

Well costed I'm sure.

Especially Boris' tax cut for the wealthier. Play straight out of Trump's playbook.

Roger_007

lawred2 wrote: »

Some list of giveaways promised by these candidate leaders especially when one considers the extent of austerity still being brought to bear in Britain. Austerity that most of these will have repeatedly voted for.

Economy staggering punch drunk and yet this pro austerity shower suddenly see the fiscal space for giveaways..

Well costed I'm sure.

Especially Boris' tax cut for the wealthier. Play straight out of Trump's playbook.

The electorate that the candidates are appealing to in this contest are mostly middle aged, middle class residents of the shire counties. Austerity is not a factor with these people. They will vote for whatever or whoever is in their own best financial interest.

BonnieSituation

Jazmine Big Dragonfly wrote: »

(State) broadcaster choosing to target the most vulnerable in society. Essentially a form of taxation, that's very difficult to opt out of.

Yes there are market forces presenting challenges to the Beeb, but it's up to them to adapt and innovate to the new market.

Reckon this decision will actually backfire, old folks will fling their their telly boxes or refuse to pay. Maybe their grandkids will show them how to get alternative free services.

Surely £3.8bn pa is enough already to run a few tv channels, couple of radio stations and an hour or two for smaller regional news slots.

I'm sure you're aware as to WHY they wish to charge over-75s now?

But just in case I'll update you.

The free licence for over-75s was introduced in 2001 by Gordon Brown. Crucially the cost of this was borne by the Exchequer.

In 2015, George Osborne announced that from 2020 that the BBC will have to absorb the cost of this shortfall.

What the BBC announced yesterday was that they can't afford this but they are limiting the effect to lower income pensioners.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48583487

Also this lament of the most vulnerable in society needs to be challenged. In a lot of cases they are the most cosseted and protected.

So, a bit of perspective please.

lawred2

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I'm sure you're aware as to WHY they wish to charge over-75s now?

But just in case I'll update you.

The free licence for over-75s was introduced in 2001 by Gordon Brown. Crucially the cost of this was borne by the Exchequer.

In 2015, George Osborne announced that from 2020 that the BBC will have to absorb the cost of this shortfall.

What the BBC announced yesterday was that they can't afford this but they are limiting the effect to lower income pensioners.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48583487

Also this lament of the most vulnerable in society needs to be challenged. In a lot of cases they are the most cosseted and protected.

So, a bit of perspective please.

100% - same crap goes on here

Yet Irish pensioners are some of the wealthiest in Irish society.