Brexit delayed

[Which Tyler]

It's apparently up for debate in their conference;

If they are going to debate Brexit at conference it'll be the first time Corbyn has allowed it, so it seems unlikely. Corbyn must be sad that when he said he'd usher in a new kind of democracy he hadn't reckoned on Boris coming along and closing Parliament in the name of freedom.

I can't recall where I saw it (or be bothered to hunt now I'm at work) but something like 72/80 motions put up for debate at the conference revolve around Brexit - so they'll either talk about it, or have nothing to talk about.

If Corbyn is tru to form, they'll just talk about nothing.

[Digby]

It's apparently up for debate in their conference;

If they are going to debate Brexit at conference it'll be the first time Corbyn has allowed it, so it seems unlikely. Corbyn must be sad that when he said he'd usher in a new kind of democracy he hadn't reckoned on Boris coming along and closing Parliament in the name of freedom.

I can't recall where I saw it (or be bothered to hunt now I'm at work) but something like 72/80 motions put up for debate at the conference revolve around Brexit - so they'll either talk about it, or have nothing to talk about.

If Corbyn is tru to form, they'll just talk about nothing.

the purity of the dream of socialism is all Corbyn ever needs (or seemingly wants) to discuss

[Son of Mathonwy]

Just for today, there's no paywall on the FT. If this one is true, it's VERY damning for Boris Gump (sorry, trying to come up with new names than BJ that can still show my disdain for him - still quite fond of "The Incredible Sulk", it's just a bit long)

https://www.ft.com/content/7453c686-d9b ... 216ebe1f17?

Boris Johnson’s nightmare in Luxembourg was more than just a public embarrassment delivered at the hands of the Grand Duchy’s Xavier Bettel.
The FT on Wednesday morning reports on a chastening encounter over lunch between Mr Johnson, Michel Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker, which one official described as a “penny dropping” moment for the prime minister over what it really means to replace the Irish backstop.
According to an account of the meeting, the prime minister was told by his EU counterparts in no uncertain terms that the UK’s plan to replace the backstop by allowing Northern Ireland to stick to common EU rules on food and livestock (known as SPS) was not enough to prevent customs checks on the vast majority of goods that cross the Irish border.
At that point, a befuddled Mr Johnson turned to David Frost, his chief negotiator, and Stephen Barclay, Brexit secretary, and said: “So you’re telling me the SPS plan doesn’t solve the customs problem?”
The exchange, according to one EU official, was part of an abrupt “learning curve” for Mr Johnson in his first face-to-face meeting with Mr Barnier and Mr Juncker since he took office.
Another official describes the prime minister gradually “slumping” in his chair as the reality of the UK’s negotiating position and the limited time left to strike an agreement dawned on him. “He wasn’t used to hearing it”, added the official.

Article Continues...

This is great too:

Number 10 official rejected descriptions of the lunch as “nonsense”.

Nonsense", of course, doesn't mean "not true".

[Which Tyler]

Denying there's a camera there on camera seems to sum up Brexit in a nutshell

[Sandydragon]

It's apparently up for debate in their conference;

If they are going to debate Brexit at conference it'll be the first time Corbyn has allowed it, so it seems unlikely. Corbyn must be sad that when he said he'd usher in a new kind of democracy he hadn't reckoned on Boris coming along and closing Parliament in the name of freedom.

I can't recall where I saw it (or be bothered to hunt now I'm at work) but something like 72/80 motions put up for debate at the conference revolve around Brexit - so they'll either talk about it, or have nothing to talk about.

If Corbyn is tru to form, they'll just talk about nothing.

Clause 4 baby, Clause 4.

Of course that is absolutely the top priority right now.

[Which Tyler]

This leaver is happy to die for his cause. 

A Darwin Award lies in his future, but I need a lot more convincing that he has the right to force it on others. 

Given that, I wonder if he'll happily take a back seat, and let someone who doesnt want to die of medical shortages have his share? 

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-st ... 1-6279075

[canta_brian]

If they are going to debate Brexit at conference it'll be the first time Corbyn has allowed it, so it seems unlikely. Corbyn must be sad that when he said he'd usher in a new kind of democracy he hadn't reckoned on Boris coming along and closing Parliament in the name of freedom.

I can't recall where I saw it (or be bothered to hunt now I'm at work) but something like 72/80 motions put up for debate at the conference revolve around Brexit - so they'll either talk about it, or have nothing to talk about.

If Corbyn is tru to form, they'll just talk about nothing.

the purity of the dream of socialism is all Corbyn ever needs (or seemingly wants) to discuss

. Yep , this.
Corbyn seems to be an all or nothing politician. When the all is so near impossible then nothing is what you get.

If he could be all or something he might just work out that he might achieve more change in the EU from within. His reasons for disliking the EU are very different from those or Rees-mogg or Farage. He might just find that there are a lot more people sympathetic to his views across Europe than there are in the UK.

[Stom]

I can't recall where I saw it (or be bothered to hunt now I'm at work) but something like 72/80 motions put up for debate at the conference revolve around Brexit - so they'll either talk about it, or have nothing to talk about.

If Corbyn is tru to form, they'll just talk about nothing.

the purity of the dream of socialism is all Corbyn ever needs (or seemingly wants) to discuss

. Yep , this.
Corbyn seems to be an all or nothing politician. When the all is so near impossible then nothing is what you get.

If he could be all or something he might just work out that he might achieve more change in the EU from within. His reasons for disliking the EU are very different from those or Rees-mogg or Farage. He might just find that there are a lot more people sympathetic to his views across Europe than there are in the UK.

Because he's a theoreticist. He likes the purity of the argument.

Reality is different.

[canta_brian]

the purity of the dream of socialism is all Corbyn ever needs (or seemingly wants) to discuss

. Yep , this.
Corbyn seems to be an all or nothing politician. When the all is so near impossible then nothing is what you get.

If he could be all or something he might just work out that he might achieve more change in the EU from within. His reasons for disliking the EU are very different from those or Rees-mogg or Farage. He might just find that there are a lot more people sympathetic to his views across Europe than there are in the UK.

Because he's a theoreticist. He likes the purity of the argument.

Reality is different.

And it’s much easier to maintain that purity if you are opposing than leading. You don’t have to own the problems in the same way. Regardless of how you see the validity of the Labour antisemitism debates it is impossible to say that Corbyn has taken a strong lead on the matter.

[Puja]

. Yep , this.
Corbyn seems to be an all or nothing politician. When the all is so near impossible then nothing is what you get.

If he could be all or something he might just work out that he might achieve more change in the EU from within. His reasons for disliking the EU are very different from those or Rees-mogg or Farage. He might just find that there are a lot more people sympathetic to his views across Europe than there are in the UK.

Because he's a theoreticist. He likes the purity of the argument.

Reality is different.

And it’s much easier to maintain that purity if you are opposing than leading. You don’t have to own the problems in the same way. Regardless of how you see the validity of the Labour antisemitism debates it is impossible to say that Corbyn has taken a strong lead on the matter.

I think the anti-semitism thing is again a case of Corbyn being outfoxed by actual politicians due to his lack of political skill. He's a massive supporter of the Palestinians (for understandable reasons) and attempted to be nuanced and try to make sure that it was clear that he was against anti-semitism, but also pro-Palestinian and therefore didn't want the wording of one of the examples in the international anti-semitism definition of the basis that it could stifle legitimate criticism of the state of Israel... at which point everyone had either fallen asleep or realised it was an open goal to point out that "Jeremy Corbyn rejects the international definition of anti-semitism and will not adopt it!"

A capable politician would have realised the bear trap in front of him, not offered his own opinions about how Jewish people had got their definition of anti-Semitism wrong, and signed up to it while fighting for Palestinian rights in a completely separate event. As it is, he scored a massive own goal both for his own credibility and for the Labour party ever taking up the Palestinian cause ever again. Not to mention giving a tacit signal to actual anti-Semites that Labour was the place to be.

Puja

[Digby]

Labour do have a problem with a growing influence of a lot of Muslim members, which doesn't ensure but does mean it's easier to find a bias against Jews, and even more worrying for a party reliant on the vote of women that they're still as so misogynistic, the traditional working man wasn't famed for an enlightened view and the Muslim world tends to be rather patriarchal. Corbyn is seemingly unwilling to go against that as it's part of his base, but it's very off putting for many.

[Digby]

Rudd hadn’t stayed mute. She was very vocal about it.

in the last 7 days I heard nothing until today from her. which left she'd gone mad, was hanging around for the worst time to put the knife in, or was going to claim things would be worse if she left

in the event she's just gone, and quite down key in fashion it was too

We’ll, if you hadn’t heard it can’t have happened. Down key fashion..... sounds good given all the hyperbole and grandstanding that’s sadly become the norm.

As per Rudd's latest comments down key was the route out because she wanted and wants Boris to succeed in getting a deal though she was and is alarmed there seems to be no cabinet focus on a deal with all efforts going to no deal.

The specific problems in cabinet were there was no discussion in cabinet about closing parliament in advance, on the day the news leaked there was a cabinet conference call wherein Boris was asked if he'd make the legal advice about closing parliament available to cabinet members and he said he would, but then oddly never got around to making available the advice, at least not during the period Rudd remained in cabinet as she never saw it

[Which Tyler]

I'd seen the suggestion before, and felt it a bit too tin-foil to repeat, but now Dominic Greive has suggested it too (in the Daily Hate, so here's a DoNotLinkIt: https://donotlink.it/RvJkG).

“I have been astonished to hear ministers talking up the possibility of civil disorder if we do not leave the EU on October 31.

“They are consistent with Mr Johnson’s response in the Commons to female Labour MPs who said they had received threats because of Brexit. In effect, he told them the way to stop the threats was to deliver Brexit.

“And it is in line with Dominic Cummings’ comment that the Government will leave on October 31 ‘by any means necessary’.

“The message coming from Downing Street is we have to leave by October 31 or there will be riots.

“My worry is that this is part of an orchestrated script and part of a Government policy to get around the law drafted by Labour MP Hilary Benn and approved by the Commons – with my support – designed to prevent the Prime Minister taking the UK out of the EU next month without a deal.

“MY SUSPICION IS THAT THEY MAY BE PLANNING TO USE THE 2004 CIVIL CONTINGENCIES ACT TO SUSPEND THAT LAW ON THE GROUNDS THAT OTHERWISE THERE WILL BE RIOTS BEFORE AND AFTERWARDS" .

“What I find most shocking is that ministers seem to be actively promoting this idea to justify invoking the Civil Contingencies Act and declaring a state of emergency.”

[Son of Mathonwy]

I'd seen the suggestion before, and felt it a bit too tin-foil to repeat, but now Dominic Greive has suggested it too (in the Daily Hate, so here's a DoNotLinkIt: https://donotlink.it/RvJkG).

“I have been astonished to hear ministers talking up the possibility of civil disorder if we do not leave the EU on October 31.

“They are consistent with Mr Johnson’s response in the Commons to female Labour MPs who said they had received threats because of Brexit. In effect, he told them the way to stop the threats was to deliver Brexit.

“And it is in line with Dominic Cummings’ comment that the Government will leave on October 31 ‘by any means necessary’.

“The message coming from Downing Street is we have to leave by October 31 or there will be riots.

“My worry is that this is part of an orchestrated script and part of a Government policy to get around the law drafted by Labour MP Hilary Benn and approved by the Commons – with my support – designed to prevent the Prime Minister taking the UK out of the EU next month without a deal.

“MY SUSPICION IS THAT THEY MAY BE PLANNING TO USE THE 2004 CIVIL CONTINGENCIES ACT TO SUSPEND THAT LAW ON THE GROUNDS THAT OTHERWISE THERE WILL BE RIOTS BEFORE AND AFTERWARDS" .

“What I find most shocking is that ministers seem to be actively promoting this idea to justify invoking the Civil Contingencies Act and declaring a state of emergency.”

We need a government of national unity right now.
Hopefully this kind of thing will focus minds and unite the opposition.

I know it would look better for Labour if Johnson were forced to ask for the extension, but I don't think he's going to write that letter - he will try a succession of delaying stunts like the one above (including another prorogation), and if all else fails, resign at the last minute. He needs to delay things for 12 days at most.

[Which Tyler]

Plan A: BJ requests the extension, owns it, parliament has another go pushing for a referendum, followed by GE, whilst BJ continues being humiliated every day until a GE around the first anniversary of the first Brexit day.
Plan B: BJ requests extension, owns it, loses VONC, GNU sets up a referendum, followed by a GE fought with some thought on domestic politicies.
Plan C: BJ doesn't request extension, criminal proceedings start, VONC happens, PM Corbyn requests an extension and calls a GE, BJ goes to jail.

Plan A just grinds BJ further into the dust, and makes removes any way out for him.
Plan B requires PM Clarke/Harman.
Plan C hands a political victory to Corbyn, and rules out a referendum until after any GE.

They'll still be horse-trading, though Sturgeon sticking her oar into Blackford's pond really, really doesn't help

[Banquo]

we are fckd. At least the Remain zealots can look on with some satisfaction as ERG members explode, having missed their chance to take us out of the EU. Meanwhile, the rest of the country looks on with disbelief.

Gawd help us if Corbyn gets anywhere near power, or more pertinently, Momentum do.

[Sandydragon]

Has Johnson got the stones to try and use the civil contingencies act to avoid following the Benn Act? Whilst it might be the trick he wants to avoid asking for an extension, it will almost certainly result in another court case. Can he survive another court loss? Could this one have more severe consequences?

For someone who joined the Leave team to further his career, that seems a long way for Boris to go.

[Which Tyler]

Frogface doesnt want BJ to get all the "incitement to violence" credit...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 24286.html

Police have launched an investigation after Nigel Farage vowed to “take the knife to the pen pushers in Whitehall” after Brexit.

The Brexit Party leader made the comments to around 500 supporters last week after criticising civil servants at a rally in Newport, South Wales.

Article continues

[canta_brian]

we are fckd. At least the Remain zealots can look on with some satisfaction as ERG members explode, having missed their chance to take us out of the EU. Meanwhile, the rest of the country looks on with disbelief.

Gawd help us if Corbyn gets anywhere near power, or more pertinently, Momentum do.

Which momentum policies are you most alarmed by?

[Banquo]

we are fckd. At least the Remain zealots can look on with some satisfaction as ERG members explode, having missed their chance to take us out of the EU. Meanwhile, the rest of the country looks on with disbelief.

Gawd help us if Corbyn gets anywhere near power, or more pertinently, Momentum do.

Which momentum policies are you most alarmed by?

sequestering assets eg of private schools, re-nationalisation, state intervention at scale to name but a couple. Blanket attacks on the 'privileged'. There are others that are a worry, but those are the headlines. (Of course Momentum don't have policies per se more principles (aggressive wealth re-distribution, 'empowering' the 'many', and rolling back privatisation), so your question doesn't really match my point, which is more about Momentum's approach in taking over the Labour party's structures and processes, but thought I'd save a bit of time).

Are you a fan?

[Son of Mathonwy]

Plan A: BJ requests the extension, owns it, parliament has another go pushing for a referendum, followed by GE, whilst BJ continues being humiliated every day until a GE around the first anniversary of the first Brexit day.
Plan B: BJ requests extension, owns it, loses VONC, GNU sets up a referendum, followed by a GE fought with some thought on domestic politicies.
Plan C: BJ doesn't request extension, criminal proceedings start, VONC happens, PM Corbyn requests an extension and calls a GE, BJ goes to jail.

Plan A just grinds BJ further into the dust, and makes removes any way out for him.
Plan B requires PM Clarke/Harman.
Plan C hands a political victory to Corbyn, and rules out a referendum until after any GE.

They'll still be horse-trading, though Sturgeon sticking her oar into Blackford's pond really, really doesn't help

Plan D:BJ doesn't request extension but attempts to use Civil Contingencies act to suspend the Benn act, this chews up time in court, say it fails, BJ prorogues parliament till Nov 1st, court action to force him to extend takes place, BJ resigns (perhaps halfway through court case), Parliament attempts to form GNU... does it succeed (is there a candidate with majority support?)?, does it have time left before 31 Oct at this point??

[Banquo]

Plan A: BJ requests the extension, owns it, parliament has another go pushing for a referendum, followed by GE, whilst BJ continues being humiliated every day until a GE around the first anniversary of the first Brexit day.
Plan B: BJ requests extension, owns it, loses VONC, GNU sets up a referendum, followed by a GE fought with some thought on domestic politicies.
Plan C: BJ doesn't request extension, criminal proceedings start, VONC happens, PM Corbyn requests an extension and calls a GE, BJ goes to jail.

Plan A just grinds BJ further into the dust, and makes removes any way out for him.
Plan B requires PM Clarke/Harman.
Plan C hands a political victory to Corbyn, and rules out a referendum until after any GE.

They'll still be horse-trading, though Sturgeon sticking her oar into Blackford's pond really, really doesn't help

Plan D:BJ doesn't request extension but attempts to use Civil Contingencies act to suspend the Benn act, this chews up time in court, say it fails, BJ prorogues parliament till Nov 1st, court action to force him to extend takes place, BJ resigns (perhaps halfway through court case), Parliament attempts to form GNU... does it succeed (is there a candidate with majority support?)?, does it have time left before 31 Oct at this point??

Is the GNU the same as forming a minority govt, just with a friendlier title?

[Son of Mathonwy]

Hopefully this kind of thing will focus minds and unite the opposition.

I know it would look better for Labour if Johnson were forced to ask for the extension, but I don't think he's going to write that letter - he will try a succession of delaying stunts like the one above (including another prorogation), and if all else fails, resign at the last minute. He needs to delay things for 12 days at most.

On reflection, there is some logic to Labour holding back on a VONC at this point:
1)The VONC could fail - it's not at all guaranteed that all the 21 ex-tories would vote against BJ. This would be extremely embarrassing for Corbyn.
2) If it succeeds there's no guarantee that there is enough unity to find an acceptable (caretaker) PM. This would be disaster and could deliver us to No Deal.
3) Even if it all succeeds, and the GNU extends article 50, there will presumably be a general election (although - as I would prefer - a second referendum could happen at this point). If and when there is a GE, BJ will be able to claim he was within inches of the most amazing deal with the EU (he can claim all kinds of things at this point) when parliament stopped him. This could play very well with him in the election. And if he fights the election on a Brexit ticket (whether or not Brexit has been stopped by a 2nd referendum), this could be very popular. If he wins the election (even with Farage's support) he could (probably would?) make No Deal happen.

[Digby]

Frogface doesnt want BJ to get all the "incitement to violence" credit...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 24286.html

Police have launched an investigation after Nigel Farage vowed to “take the knife to the pen pushers in Whitehall” after Brexit.

The Brexit Party leader made the comments to around 500 supporters last week after criticising civil servants at a rally in Newport, South Wales.

Article continues

it remains of interest how many of Farage, JRM and so on do we need to kill as a society to end Brexit? If we're being told civil disobedience (which I do like as a phrase) gets you what you want it's there to build on

[Son of Mathonwy]

Is the GNU the same as forming a minority govt, just with a friendlier title?

Not if the coalition has a majority in Parliament.