|
Post by Old Badger on Sept 11, 2019 19:23:00 GMT -5
What Brexit is about is much more complex. Simply,, the UK people voted to exit (secede?) from the EU, which is imploding either way. And the UK ruling political class has been (for 3 years) and remains determined to deny the little people (voters) their legal democratic choice. So similar in so many ways to ruling political class in US determination to deny the people their choice for President. I am not yet convinced Boris might not be a Trojan Horse for the corrupt "resistors", but we will see. They do hold another election & Farage might win it all. If the will of the UK people is,in the end, respected and the UK does leave the EU will be in existential danger. (might be anyway) Merkel turns to China (and Pelosi blocking US/Mex/Can deal) for help in fighting a tremendously strong UK:USA (plus Mex & Can.) economic engine, but China is in far worse shape than most recognize. A lot of shit may hit the fan in the next cpl months and Trump's American economy is by far in the best position to wade through it. You call the totalitarian bureaucrats in Brussels "diplomats"? funny. The American workers and taxpayers have protected & supported Western Europe far too long. If they want to work hard enough to pull their own weight we shoud work with them. If not, 'ef em all (except UK). You do know where Merkel grew up, right? High entertainment value here, jon. The EU is not "imploding". In fact, just the opposite. A few years ago, during the financial crisis, it appeared that several countries might leave, and some euro-zone countries might revert to their own currency. Neither happened. Instead, the European Central Bank intervened to help stabilize the national economies, particularly but not exclusively in Greece, and the Brexit experience has soured even many EU critics on the idea of breaking it up. I would put this into the same category as your prediction a decade ago that the NYT would fold "by May". What actually stopped Brexit, ironically, was the refusal of the hard Brexiteers to support Theresa May. If they had rallied around her deal while she still had a working majority this would have been over and done long ago. Instead, they decided to hold out for a crash-out without any deal at all, despite reports from their own sources and warnings from their business supporters that this would be a disaster. That forced May to call an election in hope of adding enough Tories to overcome her own internal opponents. Only she actually lost her majority, and had to rely on the votes of the Northern Irish Unionists to stay in power. And now Johnson has lost even that tenuous majority. This is what actually happened. And if the opposition parties get their way the "little people" will get to decide if the final Brexit bill is what they want. Boris isn't a "Trojan Horse" for anyone, lol. He's strictly out for himself. In fact, he had staff prepare two op-eds before he announced his position on the 2016 referendum. One accurately explained why it was a bad idea, in terms of economics, international politics, and national security. But he published the other one and took the lead in the "leave" campaign. He realized it was a better way to reach his lifelong ambition: becoming PM. He undermined May as her Foreign Secretary, then became a backbencher who consistently voted against the Brexit deal. Like Trump, he has no principles except self-aggrandizement. You think the EU's offices in Brussels are "totalitarians"? LOL! The entire bureaucracy amounts to about 24,000 people. By way of context, our own Department of Agriculture employs about 100,000. The EU does absolutely nothing of substance without the approval of its elected member governments. I realize that you're just mouthing back propaganda (get it on Fox, maybe?), but that's all it is. Finally, the statement that "The American workers and taxpayers have protected & supported Western Europe far too long" is too ill-informed for words. But I'll try. The US forces in Europe (as well as Asia and Africa) are there primarily to defend the vital interests of the United States. The lesson of WWI and WWII was that the US cannot rely on the Atlantic and Pacific for protection, and inevitably would be sucked into any wars in those regions, anyway. So we have pre-positioned forces in those regions so that we can react quickly in our own interests. They are the forward projection of US forces in defense of the US first and foremost. Indeed, populations in many of those countries would be happy if we left, but then we'd be hurting ourselves. I know you dodged the draft, but if you're going to talk about military policy at least learn something first.
|
|
|
Post by badgerjon66 on Sept 12, 2019 9:04:06 GMT -5
I am old enough to remember (and actually do remember) the formation of the "common market". Like all unaccountable bureucracies it has gradually usurped power and attacked the sovereignty of members. Recently---but apparently ending soon--- it has been dominated by a politician who grew up in communist E Germany and seems to still embrace that philosophy. Checked economic growth in EU lately? UE rates? Investing in -rate bonds? If the EU is as strong and benign as you claim, why are they so desperate to block a member leaving a supposedly voluntary union? Shades of 1861. townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2019/09/12/is-england-still-part-of-europe-n2552909 Good perspective. Or do you claim to understand history better than Hansen? A favorite analogy: US policy toward Europe after saving them from Hitler was akin to building someone a house. Free. then helping them maintain it while they "got on their feet". The recipients enjoyed for many years a life enhanced by living in a free house and having a benefactor continue picking up the bills. But eventually the house began to fall apart because they had neglected maintenance and they had saved nothing toward replacing it. Apparently they just assumed the benefactor would build them another. Time for some tough love from the benefactor.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Sept 12, 2019 10:18:12 GMT -5
I am old enough to remember (and actually do remember) the formation of the "common market". Like all unaccountable bureucracies it has gradually usurped power and attacked the sovereignty of members. Recently---but apparently ending soon--- it has been dominated by a politician who grew up in communist E Germany and seems to still embrace that philosophy. Checked economic growth in EU lately? UE rates? Investing in -rate bonds? If the EU is as strong and benign as you claim, why are they so desperate to block a member leaving a supposedly voluntary union? Shades of 1861. townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2019/09/12/is-england-still-part-of-europe-n2552909 Good perspective. Or do you claim to understand history better than Hansen? A favorite analogy: US policy toward Europe after saving them from Hitler was akin to building someone a house. Free. then helping them maintain it while they "got on their feet". The recipients enjoyed for many years a life enhanced by living in a free house and having a benefactor continue picking up the bills. But eventually the house began to fall apart because they had neglected maintenance and they had saved nothing toward replacing it. Apparently they just assumed the benefactor would build them another. Time for some tough love from the benefactor. Glad to see you finally admit that you are pro-Confederate. The Confederates were traitors, and in most countries Jeff Davis, Robert E. Lee, etc. would have been hanged in 1865, instead of retiring to the Mississippi beach or becoming a college president. It's taken 150 years, but we're finally coming to grips with this fact. As for Hanson: yeah, of course you'd find a historian who argues that whites are superior to everyone else. But he's really become a National Review hack, a guy who once extolled Western values based on "consensual government, a tradition of self-critique, secular rationalism, religious tolerance, individual freedom, free expression, free markets, and individualism," but most recently defended Trump's insults and vile language as "uncouth authenticity", and praised Trump for "an uncanny ability to troll and create hysteria among his media and political critics." In short, he no longer even believes in his own ostensible theory of history. As for that piece, it doesn't refute a single point I've made. Indeed, Hanson explicitly, if unintentionally, makes clear my point about English nationalism: "England is an island. Historically, politically and linguistically, it was never permanently or fully integrated into European culture and traditions...To the degree that England remained somewhat suspicious of EU continentalism by rejecting the euro and not embracing European socialism, the country thrived. But when Britain followed the German example of open borders, reversed the market reforms of Margaret Thatcher, and adopted the pacifism and energy fantasies of the EU, it stagnated." First of all, England is not an island. England is a country on an island, which it shares with two other countries, Scotland and Wales. But of course Hanson conflates the two because he's writing about England, not the United Kingdom, which includes the three countries of Great Britain, plus Northern Ireland and a few other islands that are part of none of the above. The second sentence is instructive: "England thrived...Britain followed the German example and stagnated." See, the English got it right, but the broader UK made this big mistake. Yes, that's subtle, but academicians are good at subtlety. Unmentioned by Hanson is that if Johnson gets his way the odds are at least 50-50 that the UK as a country will be dismantled. Scotland may pull out to re-join the EU, and for the first time ever Northern Islanders of both religious communities are talking about joining the Republic. But I suspect Hanson would see that as a plus because it would free England from those Celtic nations. Finally, as a military historian Hanson should be thinking twice about saying things like "Europe is alarmingly unarmed." Alarming to whom? After chronicling the 20th Century history of warfare on the Continent why would any sane person wish for high-level re-armament there? Right now, only the UK and France have nuclear weapons, but any serious arms build-up in Europe almost certainly means a nuclear-armed Germany. Has Hanson learned nothing at all from the history of German invasions of France in 1870, 1914, and 1940? Does he really not understand that the entire EU project was designed to make Germany and France so economically integrated that they would not go to war again? That a major part of NATO's mission is to keep these two former enemies in the same alliance? If he does not get any of this, then yes, I "claim to understand history better than Hansen." BTW, I laughed at your "Investing in -rate bonds" comment. Perhaps you missed this news: "President Trump escalated his attacks on the Federal Reserve on Wednesday, demanding that it slash interest rates to zero 'or less' [ie, -rate] so that the federal government can refinance the public debt that has ballooned during his administration. The president has repeatedly complained that the European Central Bank’s use of negative interest rates to spur growth tilts global markets against U.S. companies." link I guess you posted that before you got your WH talking point feed, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Sept 12, 2019 16:30:43 GMT -5
"John Bercow has threatened Boris Johnson that he will be prepared to rip up the parliamentary rulebook to stop any illegal attempt by the prime minister to take the UK out of the EU without a deal on 31 October. In a direct warning to No 10, the Speaker of the House of Commons said he is prepared to allow 'additional procedural creativity' if necessary to allow parliament to block Johnson from ignoring the law. 'If we come close to [Johnson ignoring the law], I would imagine parliament would want to cut off that possibility … Neither the limitations of the existing rulebook or ticking of the clock will stop it doing so,' he said, delivering the annual Bingham lecture in London." linkJohn Bercow is one of the great, larger-than-life characters in modern UK politics. Starting out from university days as an extreme right-winger, his election as Speaker 10 years ago was something of a surprise. He's been a controversial figure, with his sharp tongue and reputed bullying of House staff. But especially through the 3-year trauma of Brexit he's also made himself a pop icon, something unprecedented for his office, a sort of British Ruth Bader Ginsburg, complete with lines of t-shirts featuring his famous, bellowing charge: "Order!" Of course, it's a bit worrying to see the formally neutral Speaker of the House become increasingly associated with one side of any political debate. But it's clear that over time Bercow has become more and more frustrated with his own erstwhile party's drift to the most extreme position on the issue available, and especially to the un-parliamentary tactics of the current PM. And he's long been, as he promised when elected to the job, an advocate for the backbenchers who normally have little say in what happens in the body. Now that he's announced he's leaving at the end of next month, he seems to have been completely liberated. Following the quotation above he made this comment, aimed directly at Johnson: "If I have been remotely ambiguous so far, let me make myself crystal clear. The only form of Brexit that we have, whenever that might be, will be a Brexit that the House of Commons has explicitly endorsed.”
Bam!
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Sept 16, 2019 20:55:52 GMT -5
Johnson humiliated by Luxembourg PM at 'empty chair' press conference - Guardian headline 9/16 Boris Johnson was left humiliated and his claims of progress in the Brexit negotiations in tatters after a chaotic visit to Luxembourg ended in the prime minister being mocked by a fellow European leader for cancelling a press appearance to avoid protesters...The prime minister’s dash to Luxembourg was supposed to have been a key moment for him to illustrate that Brexit talks were moving towards a deal, with Downing Street briefing after the meeting with Juncker that negotiations in Brussels would move from being bi-weekly to daily. But the anger from Britons living in Luxembourg, and the exasperation of the EU leaders spilled over as Johnson moved between meetings. He mocked the varying suggestions in recent weeks from Johnson that there had been good progress in the Brexit talks and that it would take the strength of the comic hero, the Incredible Hulk, to leave the EU with a deal." linkYes, just a few days ago Boris likened himself to The Hulk whose anger would break the UK out of the chains of the EU. Then he went to Luxembourg, got frightened by about 70 ex-pat Brits waving signs, and became an empty dais. Some Hulk. Johnson's just putting on a sham show right now. In the 26th day since he agreed with Angela Merkel to work out a fix for the Irish border he still hasn't proposed squat. And he's not going to, either. What he is trying to do is create the impression the Europeans are blocking a deal by claiming falsely that "great progress" has been made, when in fact his Government has been stonewalling. He claims the threat of leaving without a deal will bring the EU to bargain for a better deal for the UK, but reports now are that EU businesses want the UK gone because they fear any deal with give the UK a competitive edge--entry into the Common Market without having to meet its rules and regulations. The thinking now is that the EU can sustain the coming disruption better than the UK; it still will have a market of more than 450 million, compared with the UK's 67 million, and a network of trade deals around the world that the UK has not been able to replicate in three years of trying. So the attitude has become F-them.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Sept 18, 2019 11:03:07 GMT -5
"Boris Johnson expressed surprise to his advisers during lunch with Jean-Claude Juncker as he was informed about the scale of checks still needed on the island of Ireland under his alternative plan for the Irish border, according to EU sources...During talks with Juncker and the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, the prime minister was shown in detail how allowing Northern Ireland to stick to common EU rules on food and livestock, known as sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS), would still fail to avoid checks on the vast majority of goods that cross the Irish border." link
Well, duh! In typical posh school-boy style Boris had blithely tossed off unworkable ideas without bothering to learn whether they were practical. When presented with the details of their unworkability, he naturally turns to his advisors, as if it's their fault he oversold what he could do. After all, the Brexit Secretary who accompanied him had been an architect of the May deal that Boris trashed and voted against three times, actually explaining why the Irish backstop was necessary. I guess Boris was too busy yukking it up with the other backbench Brexiteers to pay attention at the time. Now it's SURPRISE! What a dope.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Sept 20, 2019 9:51:03 GMT -5
In case you think The Brexit Show has gone dark for the season, it hasn't. It's merely gone on the road. Reviews are not good: "Downing Street’s secrecy over its 'underwhelming' Brexit proposals has caused a fresh rupture in the negotiations in Brussels where the two sides appear to be increasingly at loggerheads. The row centres on a demand that the EU’s negotiating team treat a long-awaited cache of documents outlining the UK’s latest ideas as 'Her Majesty’s government property'. Whitehall told the European commission team that the three 'confidential' papers should not be distributed to Brexit delegates representing the EU’s 27 other member states. Sources in Brussels said that in response the point was being made forcefully to the British negotiating team that all proposals would need to be made available for the EU’s capitals to analyse for talks to progress. With just six weeks until 31 October when the UK is due to leave the EU, there is despair in Brussels at the state of the talks, with the latest ideas seen as 'more of the same' from Downing Street." linkAll this "negotiating" is just a gimmick by Johnson & Co.'s troupe of clown-actors to blame someone else--someone with a "foreign" accent--when they do just what they want to do, which is pull out of the EU without and trade deal at all, perhaps to turn the UK into a tax haven for the world's rich, while impoverishing their own people. But if they can blame the "bloody foreigners" for this catastrophic decision that's all right then, i'nit? Posh toffs doing what posh toffs do.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Sept 24, 2019 10:04:30 GMT -5
The supreme court has ruled that Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen that parliament should be prorogued for five weeks at the height of the Brexit crisis was unlawful. The unanimous judgment from 11 justices on the UK’s highest court followed an emergency three-day hearing last week that exposed fundamental legal differences over interpreting the country’s unwritten constitution." linkThis judgement is devastatingly clear: “The court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.” No beating about the bush here, just a simple statement, understandable to lawyer and layman alike. Then they laid out the implications of that finding: "This court has … concluded that the prime minister’s advice to Her Majesty [ to suspend parliament] was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the order in council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect should be quashed. This means that when the royal commissioners walked into the House of Lords [to prorogue parliament] it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued.” And further, the Court invited Parliament to get back to work, with our without Johnson's blessing: “It is for parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker, to decide what to do next. Unless there is some parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each house to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the prime minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court.” John Bercow will be calling for "Ohhh-daah" shortly, I'm sure. The UK Supreme Court is a relatively new institution; previously, this function had been served by the House of Lords, or rather a committee of that House. This is by far the biggest case it has heard, and the precedent it set here would seem to be their equivalent to Marbury v. Madison, asserting forcefully the authority of the Court to decide "what the [unwritten] Constitution is." It's a triumph for checks and balances in a system that has been very weak in this area historically. Bravo!
|
|
|
Post by badgerjon66 on Sept 24, 2019 10:18:41 GMT -5
Yup. In UK just as in USA the ruling class digs in to fight the will of the people. Not sure if the leftists/globalists in UK are as deceitful as left/dems here. I don't think they have the near total media support there as here, but maybe they do. Dems here have quite openly shown they will never, ever, accept the results of an election they lose. but the little people here are hanging on and maybe even gaining a little. www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_sep24Farage just announcing he will help Johnson win a majority in election, whenever it comes. I think people of UK will hang on too. EU walking dead. Else tear up our Constitution & the Magna Carta.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Sept 24, 2019 11:20:25 GMT -5
Yup. In UK just as in USA the ruling class digs in to fight the will of the people. Not sure if the leftists/globalists in UK are as deceitful as left/dems here. I don't think they have the near total media support there as here, but maybe they do. Dems here have quite openly shown they will never, ever, accept the results of an election they lose. but the little people here are hanging on and maybe even gaining a little. www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_sep24Farage just announcing he will help Johnson win a majority in election, whenever it comes. I think people of UK will hang on too. EU walking dead. Else tear up our Constitution & the Magna Carta. Yep, jon, there you are again taking the side of those undermining democracy and the rule of law, and repeating lies while doing it. To clarify: The UK Government has a majority that opposes the current Prime Minister, so he closed down Parliament. Your side has not been able to win the popular vote for President in 6 of the last 7 elections, so your answer is to prevent people from voting at all. Referring to posh-toff Johnson and "billionaire?" swindler Trump as champions of "the little people" is ludicrous on its face; both have pushed tax cuts for their fellow rich people and cuts in services for everyone else. So the ones actually "tear[ing] up our Constitution & the Magna Carta" are Trump and the GOP here and Johnson and the Tories there. Quit lying...it'll make your nose grow. Meanwhile, John Bercow is calling the House of Commons back into session--or rather resuming its seating--tomorrow:
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 1, 2019 19:31:49 GMT -5
Update: Boris says Brexit is t-30 days from now. Meanwhile, the Opposition--which actually holds a majority in the House of Commons, is still trying to figure out how to stop him from breaking the law they've passed to prevent Brexit without a deal with the EU. The big sticking point: who would head an interim government once they defeat Johnson on a confidence vote? Unless they can form a new majority, Parliament will be pushed out of session for a new election, and Johnson will be able to pull out of the EU on Oct. 31. Labour insists that, as by far the biggest Opposition party, it must lead such a government. But other Opposition leaders--notably Jo Swinson of the Lib-Dems--will not countenance having Jeremy Corbyn as PM, even temporarily. Part of this, I'm sure, is the Swinson's calculation that her party will pick up more seats in the next election by bashing Corbyn and Johnson both, which it can't do as easily if it's facilitated Corbyn becoming PM. Why to politicians so often prioritize petty concerns over existential ones, until it's too late? *sigh*
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 2, 2019 21:05:33 GMT -5
Today Boris revealed a letter sent to European Commission President Jean-Claude Junker timed to his speech to the Conservative Party Conference. In it he laid out his proposals for re-writing the UK-EU deal, basically getting rid of the Irish backstop. Instead, Northern Ireland would leave the EU Customs Union with the rest of the UK at the end of a transition period on Dec. 21, 2020. However, NI would remain aligned with EU standards on goods, provided the NI devolved government agreed, and subject to renewal every 4 years. Of course, the NI government has been suspended for the past several years, which makes this seem rather impractical. But more important, if that government should decide to end EU standards alignment the UK proposes that there be a treaty-level agreement that there never would be checks at the border. Effectively, NI could become a smuggler's paradise under this rule. Naturally, the EU has not reacted well. EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier: “The EU would then be trapped with no backstop to preserve the single market after Brexit.” EU Brexit coordinating group leader Guy Verhofstadt: “[The reaction is] not positive in that we don’t think really there are the safeguards that Ireland needs.” Irish PM Leo Varadkar: “[The legal texts] do not fully meet the agreed objectives of the backstop.” Basically, the Tories have come up with a proposal designed to appeal to the Democratic Unionist Party of NI; Johnson & Co. believe that the DUP's opposition to Theresa May's plan is what doomed it among hard-line Brexiteers, so getting them on board will bring enough votes to get them close to a majority. That, they think, will convince the EU to agree at an Oct. 17 summit of member countries. If he does not succeed in getting a deal at that meeting, under the Benn Act passed this summer he will be required to ask for an extension, which he insists he will not do. At which point, if they reach it, there will be a constitutional crisis. Hey, just like here in the USA! www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/02/boris-johnson-unveils-brexit-plan-for-alternative-to-backstop
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 3, 2019 15:23:48 GMT -5
Something I just learned: Queen Elizabeth has given thought to removing Boris Johnson as PM. That's astounding because in modern UK history it's...well, it's just not done! But when the Supreme Court ruled last month that Johnson had acted illegally when he got the Queen to prorogue Parliament he dragged her into his political mess. Apparently she was not amused: "the monarch asked her aides for the first time for clarification on just when and how she could dismiss a prime minister who refuses to step aside." linkThis is not to say she's planning to fire Johnson. But in more than 67 years on the throne she's been careful not to I inject herself into politics, so the fact that she raised the question shows just how concerned she is about the direction HM Government are taking. And here's the thing: in 2003 a House of Commons select committee found that one of the "personal discretionary powers" retained by the monarch is the right to act without or contrary to the advice of the Government in times of "grave constitutional crisis". So, if Elizabeth determines that, for example, Johnson's attempt to pull the UK out of the EU on Oct. 31 without a deal, in defiance of the Benn Act is such a crisis she could dismiss him before it happens and appoint a caretaker PM. It would be an amazing act on her part, utterly out of character, but the fact that she's asked should give Johnson and his cronies pause.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 4, 2019 10:50:01 GMT -5
"The UK government has promised a court that Boris Johnson will send a letter to the EU seeking an extension to article 50 as required by the Benn act. The undertaking appears to contradict the prime minister’s statements the UK will leave the EU on 31 October regardless and unattributed claims from Downing Street that he will find a way to sidestep the act. The pledge has been given in legal papers submitted to the court of session in Edinburgh after anti-Brexit campaigners began legal action to force Johnson to uphold the act’s requirements." linkWill the real Boris Johnson please stand up, assuming there is one?
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 4, 2019 12:24:59 GMT -5
And on the EU front: "Boris Johnson’s Brexit plans look to be falling apart as the European commission said there are no grounds to accept a request from the UK for intensive weekend negotiations two weeks before an EU summit...A senior EU diplomat said: 'If we held talks at the weekend, it would look like these were proper negotiations. The truth is we’re still a long way from that. We need to work out quickly whether there is the opportunity to close that gap'.” linkIn other words, the Brits were hoping to pretend progress was being made by looking busy, while accomplishing nothing, so when it inevitably collapses Boris can blame the EU and raise the nationalism temperature going into the election. The EU knows this and isn't playing ball.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 6, 2019 14:12:45 GMT -5
Boris's efforts to evade blame if there's a no-deal Brexit are not working: "The French president has given Boris Johnson until the end of the week to fundamentally revise his Brexit plan, in a move that increases the chances of the negotiations imploding within days. The UK proposals tabled last week are not regarded in Brussels as being a basis for a deal and Emmanuel Macron emphasised it was up to the UK to think again before an upcoming EU summit...Macron’s message to Johnson echoed the words of the Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, who reportedly told the prime minister in a call on Saturday that the EU27 would not accept an agreement that created a customs border in Ireland...Meanwhile Latvia’s prime minister, Krišjānis Kariņš, told the BBC the onus was on Johnson to make a move. He said: 'If the offer from the UK turns out to be a take-it-or-leave-it, it’s going to be very difficult I see in agreeing. It’s fully dependent on the will of Mr Johnson because from the European side, we’re always open and looking towards a deal'.” linkJohnson's been playing a game here, pretending to negotiate in good faith for domestic political consumption, while actually making proposals that, as one EU diplomat is quoted as saying, create “the impression the legal text was tabled to be rejected and never meant to be a basis for discussion.” In short, they know the game and aren't going to play it. Other ploys also won't work: "In response to claims in the Sunday Telegraph that Johnson would seek to provoke the EU to veto an extension by threatening to be an obstructive member state, one EU official described the government as 'beyond pathetic'. Claims that the government could veto the EU’s budget or impose Nigel Farage as the British commissioner were said to be 'nonsense'. The budget is unlikely to be finalised and put to a vote until June next year. The commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, or the European parliament can reject a member state’s nomination for a commissioner portfolio." Beyond pathetic nonsense. Yep, that about sums up Boris and his Government, which really is being run by Dominic Cummings, an "advisor" who also led the Leave campaign in 2016. These people are pushing a great nation to the brink of a breakup just because they can't stand being merely equal to other European nations. Pathetic hardly covers it.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 8, 2019 11:59:06 GMT -5
Just as Michael Gove put out a "happy-face" report on Brexit preparations today, the fishing industry told the House the actual bad news: "The UK’s fishing fleets could face a de facto blockade within 48 hours of a no-deal Brexit, MPs have been told. Representatives of the fishing industry said it was 'a bit of an understatement' to describe the UK’s preparations for no deal as 'a shambles'. Not only is the country not ready, but there are not enough vets to stamp paperwork for every boatload of fish, which would be mandatory in a no-deal scenario, MPs heard." link
Yeah, the UK lacks enough veterinarians to fill out the paperwork it would take to export fish across the English Channel to the EU. The industry spokeswoman asked: “Would it not be an irony that the UK fishing fleet, who loyally, almost unanimously, voted for Brexit, got tied up because the government didn’t help and intervene to make sure the exports they so heavily rely on could continue?” Yes, it would be ironic. No moreso than the way those Iowa soybean farmers who voted for Trump have found 90 percent of their market dried up in his tariff war, but still ironic. Old lesson re-learned: be careful what you wish for.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 9, 2019 9:35:21 GMT -5
Brexit is about to destroy the Conservative Party, as predicted: "Conservative MPs have launched a furious backlash against a mooted general election manifesto that pushes explicitly for a no-deal Brexit, with some threatening to quit. Boris Johnson’s chief whip, Mark Spencer, and his parliamentary private secretary, James Heappey, have received a series of complaints in the past 24 hours from backbench MPs who say they cannot stand on a no-deal platform, after a Downing Street memo was sent out. Concern around how Boris Johnson might want to fight a general election was heightened after a No 10 source wrote in a memo to the Spectator how to 'to marginalise the Brexit Party, we will have to fight the election on the basis of ‘no more delays, get Brexit done immediately’."
Those of a certain age will see the similarity to the answer one American commander gave when asked about US troops burning down a Vietnamese village during that war: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." In this case, to defeat the Brexit Party the Conservative Party will have to be destroyed and resurrected as...the Brexit party. This note was the obvious handiwork of Leave campaign manager, and now Johnson advisor, Dominic Cummings, who also wrote an anonymous missive over the weekend lying about Angela Merkel's phone call with Johnson, designed to show that she was responsible for the no-deal Brexit that Johnson clearly is pushing; German sources said they did not recognize the summary as the call they'd heard. Now Cummings is laying the cards on the table for all to see, and between 50 and 100 Tory MPs are threatening to not run as party candidates when the inevitable election is called.
Most Tory MPs oppose Brexit, but have been willing to follow the results of the 2016 referendum, provided there's a deal in place to minimize disruption to the UK economy. Instead, the current PM and his crew want to take a wrecking ball to both the party and the economy, turning the former into an extremist right-wing nationalist minority and the latter into a tax haven and source of cheap-labor. If the Labour Party hadn't been taken over by a militant, highly-organized union group they would win any election in a walk; alas, with Jeremy Corbyn in charge they're still likely to come in second, and the other parties are not going to form a majority coalition with him in charge, as they've shown in recent weeks. The crisis deepens, yet again.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 15, 2019 17:40:51 GMT -5
"Boris Johnson appears to be on the brink of reaching a Brexit deal after making major concessions to EU demands over the Irish border...It is understood that the negotiating teams have agreed in principle that there will be a customs border down the Irish Sea. A similar arrangement was rejected by Theresa May as a deal that no British prime minister could accept." link
Theresa May did not anticipate Boris Johnson as PM, apparently, lol! Basically, the aptly-initialed BJ is telling the Northern Irish "F-U" in capital letters. Legally, NI will remain part of the UK's customs union; but in practice it will have to follow the EU's rules, over which neither it nor the government in London will have any say. And BJ's proposal to give the NI devolved parliament an opportunity to get out of this deal every 4 years is dead. Over the course of years that customs border in the Irish Sea is likely to turn into a hard border, and NI almost certainly will drift out of the UK and into the Republic. Already support for such a move is at an all-time high and climbing. Not that the Brexiteers care. This has been about English nationalism, so don't be surprised if they allow NI to leave, and Scotland, too. Alas for Wales, it's likely stuck in a country that laughs at its accents for the long haul. It's not a sure thing that BJ can get this through the House. He "will need almost all Conservatives, most of the former Tories from whom he withdrew the whip, and either the DUP or a bloc of about a dozen Labour MPs to pass the deal through the Commons." Might happen, but not a sure thing.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 17, 2019 16:08:38 GMT -5
The UK and EU have announced a Brexit deal that will be voted on by the House on Saturday. To get it he literally threw the DUP under the bus by leaving NI in the EU customs union and in "regulatory alignment" with the EU, effectively drawing a trade border down the Irish Sea, which will be policed. The DUP have denounced the deal, naturally, but some of the ERG Members who promised to vote in solidarity with them now are...well, I don't need to finish the thought. Johnson had wanted the EU leaders to announce they would not grant any further extensions, thereby forcing MPs to either vote for his deal or face a no-deal exit. Instead, they agreed to stay available Monday to vote an extension should the House refuse to endorse the deal. (The Benn Act requires the PM to seek an extension in that case, and it's clear one will be granted in the expectation that Johnson will have to call an election if this proposal fails.)
Without the DUP Johnson's shopping for votes among the ERG (which sabotaged May's deal), Tories he'd pushed out of the caucus earlier and others who'd left voluntarily, and Labour MPs from pro-leave constituencies. The key for some former Tories may be that the deal means there will not be a no-deal Brexit. Plans to attach an amendment requiring a "confirmatory vote" (referendum) if the deal passes are on hold, partly because Corbyn's been cagey on supporting it, and partly because of a concern that even if passed it could be jettisoned on second reading of the bill.
If this passes, the ERG will be able to claim that in rejecting May's deal they forced Johnson to negotiate a much more extreme one that drops many provisions to maintain alignment between the UK and EU. But the price is cutting their NI allies off at the knees, and increasing the possibility that Scotland will leave the Union altogether. This may sound like a high price, but as I've noted before Brexit largely is a project of right-wing English nationalists who really don't much care what the Celtic countries of the UK do--stay or leave it's all the same to them. The thing is that they can regain the glorious feeling captured by Ogden Nash in the 1938 poem "England Expects": "Every Englishman is convinced of one thing, viz.: That to be an Englishman is to belong to the most exclusive club there is." (The title comes from Adm. Nelson's signal to the Royal Navy just before the Battle of Trafalgar against Napoleon's French fleet: "England expects that every man will do his duty.") That's the nostalgia driving Brexit, and it's definitely not about the Northern Irish, Scots, or even Welch. Just the English.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 19, 2019 17:21:53 GMT -5
So Boris now is 0-8 in House votes, as the MPs voted 322-306 for an amendment that would block his Brexit package until all the necessary legislation is passed, effectively requiring him to ask the EU for another delay, something he's promised repeatedly not to do. In the event he obfuscated: "Johnson sent three letters: an unsigned photocopy of the request he was obliged to send under the Benn act, an explanatory letter from the UK’s ambassador to the EU and a letter explaining why Downing Street did not want an extension." Technically he, BJ, did not request an extension; some Guy With No Name did on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, He personally asked the EU to ignore the other letter. Word leaking out from Brussels: "little doubt that an extension request would be granted, despite the prime minister’s attempts to throw doubt on such a decision." But they may delay until as late as Oct. 29 to give the Brits a chance to get their act together. As if.
The vote was along party lines. 283 Tories supported the Government while 3 abstained. The were joined by 17 Independents, mostly ex-Tories, and only 6 Labour MPs--far short of what they'd hoped for. In the end, Labour kept their members mostly in tow, with 231 voting for the amendment and 6 abstaining in addition to the 6 who voted against. Even some of the pro-Brexit Labourites, such as Stephen Kinnock, voting for the amendment. Voting with them were the other 17 Independents, all Scottish National (35), Liberal Democratic (19), The Independent Group (5), Welch Plaid Cymru (4), and Green (1) party members. Crucially the 10 Members in the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist contingent, which had held up the Government for months while steadfastly voting for its various Brexit plans, flipped an voted against, largely because Boris stabbed them in the back agreeing to leave them in the EUA customs and free trade zones, effectively moving the border to the Irish Sea. Flip those 10 votes and it's 316-312 against and Boris wins.
Meanwhile, up to 1,000,000 Britons marched to the Houses of Parliament demanding that any Brexit deal passed by that body be put to a "confirmatory vote" in a referendum. In the end, there's really not other solution to this mess. Voters were given a vague choice in 2016, with lots of conflicting promises about what Brexit did/didn't mean. An actual plan is concrete, and something voters can decide they want or don't want. Short of that, any action by the Government, whether to push through Brexit (Tories) or scuttle it (Lib-Dems) without a vote won't be accepted as legitimate by at least half the voters. That's no way to make an existential decision, one that could lead to the breakup of the Kingdom itself.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 21, 2019 14:10:05 GMT -5
Speaker John Bercow today ruled the Government's motion to consider BJ's latest Brexit deal "repetitive and disorderly" (meaning out of order) because the same motion was considered and amended just Saturday. By longstanding precedent Parliament is not permitted to take up the same bill repeatedly in the same session. Typically, only the government can make these motions (there are exceptions), so allowing them to call the same bill over and over is seen as a way to browbeat unwilling MPs. Bercow, himself a Tory, is known to oppose Brexit, so this will be seen through that lens, but I'm sure a majority of MPs breathed a sigh of relief--and I'm equally sure that he did his own head count before making this decision, particularly among fellow Tories who don't want to support BJ's bill but also don't want to buck the PM publicly. Bercow's retiring at the end of this Parliament, likely before the end of the year, so he really has nothing at all to lose. It's a "Let Bercow Be Bercow" moment, lol.
Brexiteers were not happy:
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 22, 2019 10:45:52 GMT -5
The never-ending Brexit saga (really, crisis is a misnomer; it's now a chronic rather than acute malady) continues today as the Government tables actual legislation to begin the actual exit from the EU. Here's the latest: "Boris Johnson has threatened to pull the Brexit legislation and seek an election before Christmas if MPs vote to stop him rushing it through the House of Commons in three days...A No 10 source highlighted the key caveat that the bill would be pulled only if the EU grants a three-month extension – the length of delay requested under the Benn act. It raises the possibility that Johnson could accept a shorter extension if one were to be offered by the EU...Johnson made the threat as Downing Street tries to face down soft-Brexit Conservative MPs who are refusing to agree to the accelerated timetable without further concessions to stop a no-deal Brexit at the end of 2020...No 10’s threat to pull the bill appear intended to scare MPs who want a Brexit deal passed before an election." linkCareful observers will have noticed that BJ reverts to "scare tactics" regularly, largely because he has nothing much else to use in this battle. A majority of MPs, including a large contingent of his fellow Tories, simply do not trust BJ or his ERG supporters. And without that trust they're not willing to pass complex legislation that will change the UK fundamentally--and perhaps destroy the Union itself--without time to consider what's in the bill and particularly to look for pitfalls. Uppermost at the moment: "Many MPs have voiced fears that a clause of the WAB [withdrawal agreement bill] allowing an extension to the transition period beyond the end of 2020 can only be triggered by ministers, not parliament, and that if no trade deal was completed before then, it could be a 'trapdoor' to no deal." In fact, that's almost exactly why that provision is in the bill. So a number of MPs, led by former Tories (those kicked out of the party for refusing to toe BJ's line), will propose an amendment that would allow the House to extend the implementation period beyond December 31, 2010; and one is proposing that a 2-year extension be automatic if there's no trade deal by then. Other Tory and Labour MPs are backing an amendment that would require BJ to negotiate a customs union with the EU; this would keep trade flowing seamlessly, while obviating the need for a customs border separating Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. link
Yet another bumpy week in London.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 22, 2019 14:08:19 GMT -5
Exciting day in Parliament again today. BJ finally got a majority to support his withdrawal bill to a second reading, 229-199. To get that they had to promise that if there was no deal by July 31 next year the House would get to vote to extend the implementation period beyond December 31 (which EU President Donald Tusk already has said is a target date that won't be met.) But despite that preliminary victory, the key vote was on the timetable for floor action (in our House that would be the rule on the bill, often a vote used to block action without voting on the bill itself). The Government proposed to complete work in 3 days--no really, they just published the bill last night and wanted it passed this week, the better to avoid scrutiny of those thorny details. But a coalition led by skeptical ex-Tories and supported the opposition parties blocked that on a 322-308 vote, whereupon BJ announced that, rather than agreeing to a more reasonable timetable, he's "delaying" consideration while waiting to see whether the EU now will grant the extension he was forced to request Saturday.
Let's be clear: October 31 is, as the most-senior MP (aka, Father of the House) told the PM yesterday, a completely arbitrary date pulled out of a hat by the EU leaders in response to the last request for an extension in July, but lacking any extrinsic meaning. It's purpose for BJ is political only. By insisting the UK "must" leave by October 31 or face a no-deal solution, by refusing to the request for an extension required by law, and by proroguing Parliament for weeks (preventing any action on his agreement) he's been setting up a general election run on a "People versus Parliament" slogan masterminded by Leave campaign organizer turned Downing Street advisor Dominic Cummings. It's going to be ugly, of course, but that's the only way they can win...assuming they can win. Last time they tried this, in 2017, they lost their majority. It's not clear two years later that they're better situated after still more foundering over Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 23, 2019 16:00:45 GMT -5
Here's how tenuous things are in the House of Commons just now. Conservatives: "Boris Johnson’s cabinet is divided over how to proceed with Brexit, as the prime minister faces the stark choice of pressing ahead with his deal or gambling his premiership on a pre-Christmas general election...Some Tory MPs said there also were serious misgivings on the back benches about the idea of an immediate election. 'There’s a big, big fight going on, basically,' one said. 'The parliamentary party is split 50/50. Personally, I don’t think an election is a very good idea.' ” linkLabour: "Jeremy Corbyn is facing significant pressure from his own MPs to resist any government calls for an immediate general election, as Labour refused to confirm when they might back such a poll even if a lengthy Brexit extension is agreed...The deliberate ambiguity is partly caused by extreme anxiety among Labour MPs about the prospect of abandoning the idea of a Brexit referendum for a pre-Christmas election, especially with the party a dozen or so percentage points behind the Conservatives in recent polls." linkBoth sides are anxious, neither has a crystal ball, so don't expect a quick decision on what comes next.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 26, 2019 22:55:25 GMT -5
See if this sounds familiar: "Ever since Mr. Johnson became prime minister this summer the question facing him has been whether his ambitions — that is, winning five more years in Downing Street — are best served by delivering Brexit and then pushing for an election as the man who succeeded, or whether it would be safer to go for an election with Brexit still a conveniently mythical destination, open to many comforting and contradictory interpretations. Over the past week, ever since Parliament started debate on Mr. Johnson’s deal, but then made clear that it would use its power to amend it substantially, his closest advisers have been utterly split on the best strategy... "An election fought after a Brexit had been agreed to would be on orthodox territory; parties would offer competing visions of a better Britain. One fought beforehand, with nothing settled, will be on the stark populist territory that Mr. Johnson’s chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, one of the chief architects of the referendum campaign, has been urging and preparing for. In such an election, the Conservatives’ only chance of success would come by presenting opponents as saboteurs, stoking resentment and populism, whipping up fury against Westminster elites. Such a campaign would abandon the moderate Tory territory of prosperous parts of London and the liberal southeast. Instead Mr. Johnson would hope to win seats by focusing on inciting and harnessing the rage of left-behind Leave voters in traditional Labour areas. The message will be one not of legitimate political disagreement but of betrayal. “It will be nihilism,” one insider told me, flatly. If it works, the consequences will be a government under huge pressure to cater to that anger. 'If you campaign in fury, you will govern in the interests of rage,' a former cabinet minister said." linkYeah, I think we can recognize that. And it has real-world consequences. Consider this: "Already this week, a shocking report into the electorate’s attitudes shows that for the first time ever, a majority of voters on both sides of the Brexit debate say that the risk of violence against members of Parliament is a price worth paying for the Brexit outcome they support. Most expect and accept that violent protests, in which people are hurt, will also take place. Aggression and distrust is being legitimized as never before." Again, doesn't that have a familiar ring? This kind of politics is bad for democracy, and while Johnson talks about "respecting democracy" by passing his Brexit bill he is developing a "people vs. Parliament" campaign that explicitly undermines belief in the legitimate institutions of democracy. We've already seen that and its destructive power on this side of the Atlantic. Apparently, it's now an American export. NOTE: This piece does not come from some lefty nut-case but from Jenni Russell, opinion writer for The Times of London, owned by Rupert Murdoch. Russell has been critical of both Labour and the Conservatives during her long and successful career as a journalist.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 27, 2019 15:01:29 GMT -5
"The EU is preparing to sign off on a Brexit extension to 31 January 2020 with an option for the UK to leave earlier if a deal is ratified, according to a leaked draft of the agreement seen by the Guardian. Despite objections raised by the French government, a paper to be agreed on Monday circulated among member states suggests the EU will accede to the UK’s request for a further delay. The UK would be able to leave on the first day of the month after a deal is ratified, according to the paper." linkNo surprise here at all, though this is the first time EU officials actually have put a date on paper (or in electrons, most likely). I wonder what the betting is that this time Brexit's going to be settled by the new (fourth?) drop dead date? My guess (and it's only that): the UK has yet another election before year's end and it results in another minority government, and further indecision.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 28, 2019 14:25:18 GMT -5
For the third time since becoming PM Boris tried to get the House to approve an early election. Under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act of 2011 (designed to reassure the Lib-Dems who had joined a Tory-led coalition government that they wouldn't be jettisoned the first moment it appeared advantageous to Cameron) it takes a vote of 2/3 of the Members to call an election before the 5-year term ends. Boris wants one now because he's leading Labour by a lot polls, and could run a campaign based on completing Brexit. But once more Labour abstained en masse, and the vote of 299-70 was 135 short of the number needed, about the same as the two earlier votes. Now Boris says tomorrow he'll table a bill similar to one proposed by the L-Ds and SNP that would amend the Act to allow the vote, which can be done by simple majority. Almost as a footnote, the EU agreed to extend the deadline to January 31, with the option to leave earlier if both sides approve an agreement. Meanwhile, the People's Vote campaign, seeking a referendum to approve any deal the Government reaches, has splintered badly: "Dozens of staff at People’s Vote have staged a walkout in protest at moves by the PR guru Roland Rudd to force two leading figures out of the organisation, plunging the campaign for a second referendum further into chaos. The campaign was in disarray on Monday after James McGrory, the director, and Tom Baldwin, the head of communications, were asked to leave with immediate effect...Rudd has formed a new company to oversee a remain campaign in the event of a second referendum, even though parliament is still some way off support for one." Oh, my! Another rich guy who doesn't seem to understand that politics and business are fundamentally different. The PV campaign is a coalition of a number of groups, only one of which is headed by Rudd. Somehow he decided that he was running the whole show, so without talking with the other organizations he unilaterally decided on this "restructuring" as if it was one of his private companies. The result: "About 35 staff members working for the various organisations that make up People’s Vote decided to walk out of the office in protest at Rudd’s actions, with only a handful left in the building." There's a reason I generally am not sanguine about electing high-level businesspeople to political office, particularly to executive positions: mostly, they have not internalized the concepts of checks and balances that are necessary in the public sector. Just listen to Trump, who clearly cannot differentiate between loyalty to the country and loyalty to him, and has no respect for legal processes or the Constitution. As one former PM's aide put it: “He’s making the mistake that I think a lot of businessmen do when they dabble in politics, which is to think that because they have a certain title and a board they then own the campaign.” link
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 28, 2019 19:21:23 GMT -5
Johnson has pulled the Brexit bill and is trying to get the L-Ds and SNP to support an early election. With the bill gone, this should be easy, but Boris wants it on Dec. 12, the L-D leader on Dec. 9. That must sound trivial, but it seems that the later date comes after college kids have gone home for the holidays, and they mostly vote for Labour, the L-Ds, and Greens, so... As one British columnist observed today: "For 589 days during 2010 and 2011, Belgium had no functioning government. Lucky, lucky Belgium."
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 29, 2019 17:12:53 GMT -5
The Brexit Crisis now is over! The House voted, 438-20, to dissolve next week and to hold a general election on December 12. With the extension to January 31 granted by the EU, and therefore the possibility of a no-deal exit now effectively off the table, the opposition parties joined the Tories in voting for a third election in three years. The final vote came after an amendment to set the date at December 9 was defeated.
While Brexit certainly won't be the only issue in the election, it will be the most obvious one, with the Tories offering Boris's "hard" Brexit, the L-Ds pushing to rescind Brexit, and Labour in the middle, pushing for the opportunity to negotiate a soft Brexit that then would be subjected to a popular vote (perhaps too complex a position for an election manifesto). But Labour in particular wants to make this election about a much broader set of issues, promising the most "radical" government ever. It's not at all clear that's the direction the country really wants to go, but to everyone's surprise Corbyn led his party to a net gain of 32 seats in the last election, so don't count him out.
In any case, this is not now an actual crisis. On December 12 either their will be a majority for Brexit in the House or there won't. If there isn't, then we may again see the UK in a crisis over Brexit. May early, only slightly-informed guess is that there's going to be another hung Parliament, another minority Conservative government, and in January another Brexit crisis. But perhaps there'll be a surprise and either the Tories or Labour--with support of some other parties; they're unlikely to get an outright majority--will be able to put together a working majority to settle Brexit one way or the other. We'll see. But at least for the next five weeks UK politics will look a lot more normal than it has for the past many months.
|
|