# WHats the strategy in calling an election for BJ?



## zxcvbnm (31 Jul 2019)

Can someone please explain to me what the whole point of the strategy of BJ looking for an election?
News outlets keep saying it is his secret strategy. But none of them ever go on to explain for what reason.

So lets say he gets a majority meaning he doesn't need to DUP? What then? In what way does that benefit him? I genuinely don't understand.


----------



## Steven Barrett (31 Jul 2019)

Confirmation of a no deal brexit. 

Still don't see how he can get around the backstop though as the Good Friday Agreement is an internationally agreed deal. Members of the US congress have come out and said that if he breaks the Good Friday Agreement there's no chance of him getting a trade deal with the US, something that would take 4/5 years to negotiate anyway. And there's enough members of the Friends of Ireland caucus on both sides of the aisle to make sure a deal doesn't happen.


----------



## zxcvbnm (31 Jul 2019)

SBarrett said:


> Confirmation of a no deal brexit.



Really? So a vote for the tories would imply a vote for no deal? That's a bit of a leap is it not?


----------



## orka (31 Jul 2019)

zxcvbnm said:


> So lets say he gets a majority meaning he doesn't need to DUP? What then? In what way does that benefit him? I genuinely don't understand.


He could then go with the NI-only backstop that the EU originally offered.  It's supported by a majority in the North and gives NI the best of both worlds - it really is an excellent deal for them. It could have been sold that way from the start (NI already has some regulatory differences, agricultural differences etc. / best of both worlds) but the DUP became entrenched in a 'we don't want to be treated differently' mode, insisted on UK-wide backstop (which was major concession by the EU) and here we are.  No DUP - no need for UK-wide backstop - NI-only backstop has a chance of getting through.

There's still a chance they'll end up with NI-only backstop as one way to avoid no deal but ditching the DUP as partners would help enormously.


----------



## Firefly (31 Jul 2019)

orka said:


> He could then go with the NI-only backstop that the EU originally offered.  It's supported by a majority in the North and gives NI the best of both worlds -* it really is an excellent deal for them*. It could have been sold that way from the start (NI already has some regulatory differences, agricultural differences etc. / best of both worlds) but the DUP became entrenched in a 'we don't want to be treated differently' mode, insisted on UK-wide backstop (which was major concession by the EU) and here we are.  No DUP - no need for UK-wide backstop - NI-only backstop has a chance of getting through.
> 
> There's still a chance they'll end up with NI-only backstop as one way to avoid no deal but ditching the DUP as partners would help enormously.



+1

The only jurisdiction with free access to the UK and the EU and English speaking. A decent IDA type authority and I could see a lot of multinationals here going up the road for cheaper labour to boot...


----------



## Firefly (31 Jul 2019)

OP...I think the logic is with an election, Boris can get a clear mandate to pull the UK out of the EU with or without a deal. Given how he has filled his positions since becoming PM I think it's clear he's looking for no deal, but blame the EU and then stand back as the EU will inevitably put in the border infrastructure..


----------



## Purple (31 Jul 2019)

Wats the strategy in calling an election for BJ?

... the first reply that popped into my head would have seen me banned... then I realised that this was a UK political question.


----------



## orka (31 Jul 2019)

Firefly said:


> I think it's clear he's looking for no deal, but blame the EU and then stand back as the EU will inevitably put in the border infrastructure..


I agree that seems to be his plan but I really don't understand this thinking from them. 

'Leaving with no deal' is a waypoint, not a destination.  After they triumphantly (hmmm...) leave with 'no deal', they then need to sort out their future relationship with their biggest customer and nearest neighbours with, well, a deal...  But they'll be negotiating the deal from a greatly weakened position with no transition period and no rolled over deals with the likes of Japan (which has already said the UK will get a less favourable deal than the EU has because it's a smaller market) . 

Future (post no deal exit) negotiations with the EU require unanimity from all 26 EU states rather than a majority in the current exit negotiations (so Spain will want Gibraltar in negotiations, several countries will want better fishing rights etc.) - why on earth would they put themselves in that situation? It's really quite bizarre.

That's why I don't think Ireland should budge from its firm stance.  'No deal' won't last for long.  There'll have to be a deal and the first 3 items on the EU's list will be NI, the 39B and citizens rights.


----------



## torblednam (31 Jul 2019)

Purple said:


> Wats the strategy in calling an election for BJ?
> 
> ... the first reply that popped into my head would have seen me banned... then I realised that this was a UK political question.



Did you read it in a Japanese accent...?!


----------



## Itchy (31 Jul 2019)

zxcvbnm said:


> Can someone please explain to me what the whole point of the strategy of BJ looking for an election?
> News outlets keep saying it is his secret strategy. But none of them ever go on to explain for what reason.
> 
> So lets say he gets a majority meaning he doesn't need to DUP? What then? In what way does that benefit him? I genuinely don't understand.



The context of the situation at the moment is that UK politics is fractured, or rather the two main parties in the HoC (Con and Lab) can't state a coherent policy position that MPs can unite around and that will be voted through, one way or the other. Between all the tooing and froing over the last 3 years, positions on all sides have hardened. Including from those who want to stay in the EU (They cant bring themselves to vote for anything that would make the UK economically poorer or make them a rule taker). The most significant factor of course is the rise of Farage. His association with the leave campaign and the success of the Brexit party in the EU elections has changed the political landscape in the UK. The key thing to recognise is that, electorally, the enemy of the Tories is now Farage and not Corbyn.

Without the UK, the EU market is 450m people, on their doorstep. The bottom line is that the UK needs a deal, one way or the other. The EU recognises this. For example Switzerland pay ~€100m a year into the EU for the privilege of access and commits to being a rule taker. There is no way the EU can upset the apple cart and has no incentive to. The UK rhetoric pre-Johnson and now has not given the EU a reason to concede anything. There is no sign of any good faith from the UK so even if the backstop went, it may not be the end of the story for the EU. From the EUs perspective the backstop is already time limited. The backstop will not come into force until the time comes that there can be no agreeable alternative arrangements. AA is not necessarily technological, its a legal agreement, yet some of the ERG are saying that even if the backstop went, they wouldn't vote for the WA. BJ can see the same thing, thats why he voted for the deal the third time it was put. There is nothing that he can deliver that will satisfy the UK factions.

So in that context, BJ has come out of the blocks hard. The rhetoric has been dialled up and his Brexiteer cabinet are heading full steam ahead for Oct 31st. He knows there is no chance of the tory red lines being renegotiated in time for Oct 31st, which is his hard stop. This sits well with BJ and the gang because they have the talking points, the political spin but they dont have the time they need to work the detail through with the EU, at least not enough to make anything "saleable".

If he approaches Oct 31st without a deal there will surely be a no confidence vote in him and he will most likely lose. There are torys who have said that they will bring him down to avoid a no deal, so he will be forced into an election, Grieve et al. If an election is coming, he has two choices; call it himself or be forced in to it.

If he calls it himself, he has a chance of putting forward some sort of plan, he is a good debater and more of the same 'Vote Leave' rhetoric. If he is forced into the election he looks like (from the party faithfuls point of view) he wont be able to deliver. In that scenario the Torys have nobody else that can take over. 

Thats where Farage fills the void. Now it doesn't matter if Farage and BJ have enough seats to cobble a majority in that scenario. What matters is that the Conservative party will be irreparably damaged. The DUP are largely irrelevant. They are holding the conservatives in power, they are largely the reason that the Backstop is being held up as they sticking point. It happens to be convenient for the tories. In an election scenario the Brexit Party will likely make the DUP votes redundant. The Brexit Party are not fundamentally opposed to the backstop but more so the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

If by some miracle he does get through Oct 31st. He is still goosed. He still needs the deal, he still has to address the same initial issues (Backstop, money, citizens rights), the merry-go-round starts again. He will have two and half years to the next GE in the UK (if he holds on). He will have border polls and all sorts to contend with in the mean time. And unless there is some glimmer of hope after leaving, he winds up with the same problem, Farage who will have a stronger pool of candidates because they will be out as MEPs and back on the campaign trail. 

TLDR (!) In conclusion; BJ wants an election before he has to take responsibility for his failures. Farage is lying in wait. BJs only concern is the preservation of the conservative party. The EU have no reason (strong enough) to change their own fundamental rules any more than they have to.

All courses of action will be negative for Ireland. In the event of a hard Brexit the EU will require a frontier to be erected (as is right). However, politically, I think it is impossible for an Irish government to erect any kind of infrastructure resembling a border. Here is the fudge, I think Irish goods entering the continent will be subject to some sort of checks entering the mainland. In terms of movement of poeple, we are already outside Schengen. In terms of goods, the EU dont only really care that there is no open door into the single market, it is politically expedient for Ireland to solve the border question amicably. The North can continue to be managed bilaterally and the status quo can largely prevail i.e. with EU citizenship, freedom of movement and goods etc.


----------



## Steven Barrett (1 Aug 2019)

Great post Itchy

Farage and the Brexit Party are an interesting addition to the mix. For decades, Farage has been able to say whatever he wants because there was never a chance for him to put his money where his mouth is. If the Brexit party become a relevant party in the UK, he will have to try to implement what he spouts on about.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Aug 2019)

SBarrett said:


> Great post Itchy
> 
> Farage and the Brexit Party are an interesting addition to the mix. For decades, Farage has been able to say whatever he wants because there was never a chance for him to put his money where his mouth is. If the Brexit party become a relevant party in the UK, he will have to try to implement what he spouts on about.


A Brexit party coalition would certainly bring diversity to the cabinet.  Anne Widdicombe in Health would have as her main mission the search for a pill to cure gayness.  Claire Fox, being a supporter of the Provos would be disbarred from being NI secretary, however as Minister for Arts she would introduce free access to child porn.
Getting back to Bojo and a GE, todays's bi-election is interesting.  An expected Lib-Dem win will reduce his majority to the very minimum of One, making an early GE almost an imperative.  However if the Tories win (8/1 against on Betfair) it would be a massive suggestion of a Bojo honeymoon which would make an early GE very tempting.  Betfair go 6/4 against Brexit happening before a GE.


----------



## EmmDee (1 Aug 2019)

Short version....

HoC is pretty much deadlocked - or at least they would struggle to pass any meaningful legislation in it's current form. As stated, even a "No Deal", though legally the default, would probably be scuppered (either legislation or no confidence vote).

He has two options - call an election and aim to win a workable majority, get rid of the DUP and de-select some of the conservative problem MP's. Or have a second referendum with "Remain" and "No deal" as the options. It seems the thinking is that they are more likely to achieve the first rather than the second. And referendum option doesn't get rid of some of problems like the DUP and back-benchers

In my view they are right. They can probably defuse the Brexit Party as well by saying "we wanted to leave but HoC wouldn't let us - so give us a proper majority". Maybe even have a pact where the BP target Labour leave-voting seats (Labour voters are unlikely to ever vote conservative but they have been shown to transfer to BP)

(Edit : when I say "they are right", I mean given that choice I think they are right. A second referendum is likely to be lost and at the very least would completely splinter both main parties)


----------



## john luc (2 Aug 2019)

What could pan out and this would fit with the type of person Boris is, Boris drops the DUP by backing a deal leaving the North with the backstop only. Then with Brexit delivered he would call a general election to win back the Brexit voters from Farage as he would claim to have delivered.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Aug 2019)

Lib Dems take a seat in Wales, reducing Tory government to one seat majority. 
Notably the combined Tory/Brexit Party vote was just under 50%. 
Brexit party securing 10%, significant, but more a case of splitting Tory vote than a hardline move for no-deal Brexit.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Aug 2019)

john luc said:


> What could pan out and this would fit with the type of person Boris is, Boris drops the DUP by backing a deal leaving the North with the backstop only.


But this would not only be defeated as was Theresa May's third vote, it would have the DUP voting against it as well.
It seems that some how or other, if we are to have a deal, it must be along these lines.  It has only been stopped because of the key role the DUP occupies in current parliamentary arithmetic.  Only a GE can change that but calling one would be very high risk for Bojo.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Lib Dems take a seat in Wales, reducing Tory government to one seat majority.
> Notably the combined Tory/Brexit Party vote was just under 50%.
> Brexit party securing 10%, significant, but more a case of splitting Tory vote than a hardline move for no-deal Brexit.


Combined Tory/Brexit/UKIP vote 51% almost identical to the 2016 referendum result both in this constituency and nationwide.  And the 1 seat majority is not as skinny as it seems.  There are a number of independents who would be Tory minded especially on Brexit.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Combined Tory/Brexit/UKIP vote 51% almost identical to the 2016 referendum result both in this constituency and nationwide.  And the 1 seat majority is not as skinny as it seems.  There are a number of independents who would be Tory minded especially on Brexit.



True, but there is also a, not-insignificant rump in the Tory party that are opposed to a no-deal Brexit. A few 'extremists' in the Tories also wanting to Remain, with speculation of defections to Lib Dems. 
Its finely balanced I would say. Not an ideal scenario for demanding unilateral changes to an agreement negotiated by the British government and its counterparts in the EU.


----------



## EmmDee (2 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> True, but there is also a, not-insignificant rump in the Tory party that are opposed to a no-deal Brexit. A few 'extremists' in the Tories also wanting to Remain, with speculation of defections to Lib Dems.
> Its finely balanced I would say. Not an ideal scenario for demanding unilateral changes to an agreement negotiated by the British government and its counterparts in the EU.



Renegotiating wouldn't happen even if the EU were of a mind to do it - if they ask BJ what he would need to be able get something passed the HoC, he wouldn't be able to answer the question. The ERG have just said they won't vote for any withdrawal agreement irrespective of a back-stop. But no-WA wouldn't get passed either. Labour wouldn't support anything proposed by BJ. At the moment he'd struggle to get a resolution wishing for end of world poverty through.

That's the main reason for not going over there to talk - he doesn't want to have the joint press conference afterwards where the EU say "We asked Boris what WOULD be possible to get through the HoC and there is nothing"


----------



## Early Riser (2 Aug 2019)

EmmDee said:


> At the moment he'd struggle to get a resolution wishing for end of world poverty through.



But he doesn't have to get anything passed through parliament for no deal to happen - it is the current default. To prevent it parliament would have to pass a resolution to revoke Article 50 (ie, to remain in the EU) , which is also unlikely to pass, or else pass a vote of no confidence in the Government. As I understand it, even this does not necessarily annul the no deal exit but the thinking of some is that the Government would ask for another extension in this scenario. This may be what Bojo wants - go to the country claiming that it is only parliament preventing him leading the UK into glorious "independence". He could take the opportunity to get the more ardent Tory remainers de-selected before the election.


----------



## Early Riser (2 Aug 2019)

Deleted - duplication.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Aug 2019)

Early Riser said:


> But he doesn't have to get anything passed through parliament for no deal to happen - it is the current default.



Is it though? The British government as mandated by its parliament, agreed to a deal. Ok, it hasn't got through parliament, but neither has a crash out. 
The default position is that the British government has signed up to a deal. In the absence of an alternative, why should no-deal, which has been agreed by no-one, get preference over the deal that was agreed? 
There are international obligations on the UK, if they crash out with no deal - instead of the WA - could they be liable for sanction at WTO?


----------



## Early Riser (2 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Is it though?



Once they triggered Article 50 they had a deadline of two years to leave. The default is leaving without a deal. The only other options are to agree and pass a withdrawal agreement within this period, revoke Article 50 (which cancels the whole process) or both sides agree an extension (as happened at the end of March).

I doubt Bojo will ask for an extension unless he is forced to go to the country - to do so would shatter his credibility and make him look like Theresa May. Anyway there is big doubt that the EU (especially the French) would agree to an extension unless there was a major change, such as an election being called or the British Government changing its red lines (or a referendum). I don't think Bojo can creditably change the UK red lines before an election.


----------



## Early Riser (2 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> There are international obligations on the UK, if they crash out with no deal - instead of the WA - could they be liable for sanction at WTO?



There are debts still owed to the EU. Presumably the EU could pursue this through international courts, but the more likely scenario is that they would insist on this being settled before entering into future trade deal with Britain - and generally making life very difficult for them. They have said that they would also insist on a backstop at this stage before any future trade deal.


----------



## EmmDee (2 Aug 2019)

Early Riser said:


> But he doesn't have to get anything passed through parliament for no deal to happen - it is the current default. To prevent it parliament would have to pass a resolution to revoke Article 50 (ie, to remain in the EU) , which is also unlikely to pass, or else pass a vote of no confidence in the Government. As I understand it, even this does not necessarily annul the no deal exit but the thinking of some is that the Government would ask for another extension in this scenario. This may be what Bojo wants - go to the country claiming that it is only parliament preventing him leading the UK into glorious "independence". He could take the opportunity to get the more ardent Tory remainers de-selected before the election.



I think that's exactly what they are thinking

They are apparently discussing bringing a budget to the house when they return. If it is defeated it is an automatic vote of no confidence (being a finance bill) - it's almost a challenge to the HoC


----------



## tomdublin (2 Aug 2019)

He won't get an absolute majority but will be able to strike a deal with the Lib. Dems which will give him cover for a U-turn on the withdrawal deal or for a second referendum.  On most issues other than Europe Johnson and the Lib. Dems are quite close and a coalition would offer him (a) a stable government not dependent on  the DUP and (b) a face-saving climb-down on non-deal Brexit.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Aug 2019)

tomdublin said:


> He won't get an absolute majority but will be able to strike a deal with the Lib. Dems which will give him cover for a U-turn on the withdrawal deal or for a second referendum.  On most issues other than Europe Johnson and the Lib. Dems are quite close and a coalition would offer him (a) a stable government not dependent on  DUP nutters and (b) a face-saving climb-down on non-deal Brexit.


Interesting idea.  _Prima_ _facie_ Bojo and Jo look to be at opposite ends of the Brexit spectrum.  However traditionally a Lib Dem/Tory coalition is fairly natural.  It is still difficult to see Lib Dems propping up a Bojo government.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Lib Dems take a seat in Wales, reducing Tory government to one seat majority.
> Notably the combined Tory/Brexit Party vote was just under 50%.
> Brexit party securing 10%, significant, but more a case of splitting Tory vote than a hardline move for no-deal Brexit.


I watched it live on Sky News.  The returning officer was taking the p*ss.  He read out the results in Welsh.  The poor Sky folk were all geared to populate on the screen a Table of the results as he read them, but they hadn't  a clue.  To rub it in when he came to the Monster Looney party and UKIP he actually read their results in English, so we had this ridiculous Table on the screen with only the two complete outsiders' results populated.  He never even gave the main figures in English as an after thought.  It was at least 10 minutes before Sky could fully populate the Table


----------



## tomdublin (2 Aug 2019)

BJ is basically a metropolitan liberal who would have been unelectable for most of the reactionary grassroots of his party had he not opportunistically embraced Brexit.  But now he's leader he doesn't have to worry about the grassroots anymore.   As do all Tory leaders he will ultimately be guided  by the various business lobby groups and those are overwhelmingly against a hard Brexit.


Hi





Duke of Marmalade said:


> I watched it live on Sky News.  The returning officer was taking the p*ss.  He read out the results in Welsh.  The poor Sky folk were all geared to populate on the screen a Table of the results as he read them, but they hadn't  a clue.  To rub it in when he came to the Monster Looney party and UKIP he actually read their results in English, so we had this ridiculous Table on the screen with only the two complete outsiders' results populated.  He never even gave the main figures in English as an after thought.  It was at least 10 minutes before Sky could fully populate the Table


JH


----------



## joe sod (2 Aug 2019)

Itchy said:


> All courses of action will be negative for Ireland. In the event of a hard Brexit the EU will require a frontier to be erected (as is right). However, politically, I think it is impossible for an Irish government to erect any kind of infrastructure resembling a border. Here is the fudge, I think Irish goods entering the continent will be subject to some sort of checks entering the mainland. In terms of movement of poeple, we are already outside Schengen. In terms of goods, the EU dont only really care that there is no open door into the single market, it is politically expedient for Ireland to solve the border question amicably. The North can continue to be managed bilaterally and the status quo can largely prevail i.e. with EU citizenship, freedom of movement and goods etc.



all courses of action will be negative for ireland you say, but the best course of action for ireland was to facilitate theresa may getting her deal through the house of commons, a fudge then on the backstop would have done it as she came close enough to getting it through then with boris johnson and rees mogg voting for it. There was a bit of momentum then and theresa may desperately wanted a deal, we would have done our bit and even if that didn't get through the blame would have been shifted to the no voters and the dup .
That opportunity has passed and everything has hardened now with boris johnson and the brexiteer cabinet. Leo varadker was in a very powerful position then, all he had to do was throw theresa may a softer backstop, prevented a hard brexit, gained huge goodwill. It was a win win situation but he scuppered it. If there is hard brexit leo varadker will be gone at the next election.
As for being forced to erect a border by the EU to prevent the fabled"chlorinated chicken" entering what does it matter now anyway, trump has done a deal with the EU anyway to allow in US beef .


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Aug 2019)

joe sod said:


> all he had to do was throw theresa may a softer backstop



What would a softer backstop involve?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> What would a softer backstop involve?


5 year time limit. Border poll in 2025. United Ireland follows, so no need for backstop after all.


----------



## Early Riser (3 Aug 2019)

joe sod said:


> As for being forced to erect a border by the EU to prevent the fabled"chlorinated chicken" entering what does it matter now anyway, trump has done a deal with the EU anyway to allow in US beef .



I am not sure about the point you are making about the chicken. That it should not be an issue ? That it is the only issue that will necessitate a customs border in the event of no deal ?
As regards the beef, it is confined to hormone free beef imports and limited to 45000 tons (a tiny amount) phased in over 7 years. Trump is making a big deal about it, presumably to try to show he can make deals in the context of ongoing trade wars which is impacting on US farmers. In is relatively small fry. 
Anyway, there is nothing wrong with trade deals in principle but the US has indicated that in a trade deal with the UK they are looking for a radical reduction in regulatory requirements which would  allow free access for US produce - including what you describe as "fabled" chlorinated chicken.

Meanwhile an influential cross party group of US politicians has indicated that Congress will block any trade deal that does not respect the backstop.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> 5 year time limit. Border poll in 2025. United Ireland follows, so no need for backstop after all.



And Unionists would be on board for this?


----------



## joe sod (3 Aug 2019)

Early Riser said:


> I am not sure about the point you are making about the chicken. That it should not be an issue ? That it is the only issue that will necessitate a customs border in the event of no deal ?



as an aside I thought @Itchy post was excellent from where I quoted from initially. The point I was making that a huge issue is being made about Ireland needing to do border checks to keep out the fabled "chlorinated chicken", however this argument is bogus and Itchy has rightly pointed out that it will be fudged. It has become ridiculous because of the new trade deals which the EU is now doing with the mercusor countries and the US . Whatever about the US the EU will not be able to guarantee the provenance of this food from mercusor. Its also the case that the UK being a rich country will not allow in dubious food products like the fabled "chlorinated chicken", just as Norway and Switzerland  dont.


----------



## orka (3 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> 5 year time limit. Border poll in 2025. United Ireland follows, so no need for backstop after all.


And what if the border poll votes to stay in the UK (and lord knows electorates worldwide have proven in recent years that they can vote against what was expected...)?  Backstop expires.  All cards in UK court.
And even if the border polls is yes to a united Ireland, this still hands all the power to the UK.  Ireland can't afford the 11B or so that gets sent the North's way every year - a united Ireland would need some sort of financial transition from the UK - and if we have the ticking time bomb of an expiring backstop hanging over us, it removes all our leverage.


joe sod said:


> as an aside I thought @Itchy post was excellent from where I quoted from initially. The point I was making that a huge issue is being made about Ireland needing to do border checks to keep out the fabled "chlorinated chicken", however this argument is bogus and Itchy has rightly pointed out that it will be fudged. It has become ridiculous because of the new trade deals which the EU is now doing with the mercusor countries and the US . Whatever about the US the EU will not be able to guarantee the provenance of this food from mercusor. Its also the case that the UK being a rich country will not allow in dubious food products like the fabled "chlorinated chicken", just as Norway and Switzerland  dont.


Maybe not chlorinated chicken but it's used to illustrate the principle of the EU protecting its market from goods it deems undesirable.  There will undoubtedly be some divergence of standards on some products at some stage so how does the EU protect its borders?  How can you prevent someone driving to Belfast and loading up their van with chlorinated chicken/powerful vacuum cleaners/whatever and driving back down south into the EU?


----------



## Early Riser (3 Aug 2019)

joe sod said:


> however this argument is bogus and Itchy has rightly pointed out that it will be fudged.



There may be some fudge but I think it will be limited. In the event of the UK going the hard Brexit crashout route we will be essentially faced with a difficult choice between establishing a border of some sort between north and south, or between us and Europe (ports, etc). Although the latter seems logistically easier it will lead to increasing detachment from the EU and will have worse consequences economically and politically as time goes on. We should maintain our full EU committments.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Aug 2019)

The partition of Ireland was brought about by the British government succumbing to the threat of terrorist violence by the minority population of Unionists. 
The devolved parliament for Ireland, achieved through exclusively peaceful and democratic means, was usurped, in the interests of Britain's war effort in Europe. 
Partition, led to civil war, economic war, the IRA 'border campaign'. 
It facilitated a program of anti-catholic discrimination in the NI state. It was used as cover for IRA attacks in the 'Troubles' and also their sectarian campaign against Protestants living in the border area. 

The border in Ireland is insidious, a relic of a sector of people who refuse to accept commonality with their neighbors. It is testament to everything that is wrong with a monarchy. 

Clorinated chicken or not, smuggled diesel, tobacco and alcohol, are all secondary issues to the primary problem of a no-deal Brexit.
 That is, there will be no return to a border in Ireland.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> The partition of Ireland was brought about by the British government succumbing to the threat of terrorist violence by the minority population of Unionists.


And if Catalonia becomes independent, who would you blame for the partition of Spain?
In 1920 Southern Ireland had been part of a union for the previous 120 years.  The War of Independence led to its secession from that union and hence partition.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> And if Catalonia becomes independent, who would you blame for the partition of Spain?



????



Duke of Marmalade said:


> In 1920 Southern Ireland had been part of a union for the previous 120 years.
> The War of Independence led to its secession from that union and hence partition.



Well aside from the inherent anti-Catholic bias prevailing through the British parliament of the time of the Act of Union, it was the usurpation of British law, the 'postponing' of the Home Rule parliament, under the threat of UVF violence that paved the way for a violent republican reaction. 
As I have said, Ireland's interests in the 'United' Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (now NI) have always been secondary to Britains interests.

The fundamental point is the usurpation of democracy. 
Its why some Brexiteers cite "social unrest" if Brexit is not delivered. 
Ditto, talk of a return to violence if anything resembling a hard border, which should never have existed in the first place, is returned.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> ????(re partition of Spain if Catalonia secedes)


Can’t see why you are quadruple puzzled.


			
				“Wikipedia” said:
			
		

> Partition is the division of a territory into two or more autonomous regions


Sometimes this is enforced by external agencies as in India/Pakistan or the two Koreas.  Sometimes it is by mutual consent between equals as in Czech Republic/Slovakia.  And sometimes it is by secession of a smaller unit from the larger union as in 26 counties and possibly at some future point in Spain or even Great Britain.
It is not necessarily a bad thing but where it has negative repercussions it is natural to look for who was to blame for the partition.  In the case of secession of the smaller part that blame must mainly accrue to the secessionists.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Sometimes this is enforced by external agencies as in India/Pakistan or the two Koreas. Sometimes it is by mutual consent between equals as in Czech Republic/Slovakia.



Mutual consent is wonderful. But like India/Pakistan, the Korea's etc, are shining examples of disputed borders and the potential for conflict that they bring. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> In the case of secession of the smaller part that blame must mainly accrue to the secessionists.



The secessionists being those who were prepared to pull the gun on their neighbors to prevent the implementation of British law, as prescribed by the British parliament. 
The seccessionists being those officers in British army who would rather resign than implement the law of His Majesty the King. 

Let there be no doubt who the secessionists were. 

The alternative is to suggest that Ireland, should yield to the threat of violence and cement its secondary position to Britian, within the UK.


----------



## joe sod (4 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> The border in Ireland is insidious, a relic of a sector of people who refuse to accept commonality with their neighbors. It is testament to everything that is wrong with a monarchy.



are you not confirming what the unionists have thought all along, that the backstop is being used by the irish government to force northern ireland out of the UK rather than a technical arrangement to avoid a border. There were decades of violence about the future of northern ireland with the only consensus being that everybody there wanted to live in peace. Surely  leo and the government should have been more mature rather than using brexit to open up this can of worms. 
As for partition, remember we had a brutal civil war where irishmen of very similar viewpoints and nationalism killed each other, imagine the result if northern unionists were also thrown into this mix. In the case of pakistan it was the best result for them, if the state of pakistan had not been formed the indian muslims would have been wiped out by the new indian state.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Aug 2019)

joe sod said:


> are you not confirming what the unionists have thought all along, that the backstop is being used by the irish government to force northern ireland out of the UK rather than a technical arrangement to avoid a border.



Unionists can think all they want what they think the backstop to be or mean. Ditto, nationalists. 
In a democracy, it is the will of the people that matters. In NI, the will of the people is to Remain in the EU. 
The DUP cling to the concept of not being treated separately from the UK. Simultaneously, they are open in supporting no return to a hard border, frictionless trade, CTA - this is totally at odds with Brexit which is set on taking control of borders, ending free movement, making their own rules and regulations for trade. 
The DUP position is a minority position in the constituency of NI. It is a flag-waving, drum beating exercise emanating from a mindset that cannot, and will not, accept parity of esteem for those that they live it. As it was in 1914, as it is now.



joe sod said:


> Surely leo and the government should have been more mature rather than using brexit to open up this can of worms.



Surely David Cameron, UKIP et al, should have been more mature rather than open up this can of worms? 
But in fairness to them, they gave absolutely scant, if no consideration to what impact Brexit may have on Ireland.
Nothing inconsistent about that, Ireland's interests have always been secondary to Britains interests in the 'United' Kingdom. 
To lay blame at the Irish government for wanting to ensure no return to a hard border is disingenuous. It is the default position of any Irish government considering the history of that border. Its invisibility was hard won. It should not be given up at the behest of English nationalism. 



joe sod said:


> if the state of pakistan had not been formed the indian muslims would have been wiped out by the new indian state.



Without wanting to diverge too far off topic, the acquiring of nuclear weapons by both countries suggests the wiping out of Muslims, or otherwise, is a prospect that still festers.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Aug 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Let there be no doubt who the secessionists were.


There is no doubt.





			
				“dictionary” said:
			
		

> secessionist
> /sɪˈsɛʃənɪst/
> _noun_
> 
> ...



Are you suggesting that the Curragh mutineers, for example, were secessionists?


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Aug 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> There is no doubt.
> 
> Are you suggesting that the Curragh mutineers, for example, were secessionists?



We can get pedantic about the language all you want, but officers of the Crown, not willing to obey their orders can be called all sorts of things. 

synonyms:withdrawal, break, breakaway, separation, severance, schism, apostasy, leaving, quitting, split, splitting, disaffiliation, resignation, pulling out, dropping out, desertion, defection


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Aug 2019)

But I was hoping to avoid such rudimentary discourse in order to keep flow. 

Ulster Volunteers, in direct threat of violence, were prepared to usurp the law of parliament, supported by senior officers of the British Army.


----------



## AileenWalsh (27 Aug 2019)

He does not have a choice his majority is too small and sooner or later he will have to call an Election.  My feeling is sooner.


----------



## Seagull (27 Aug 2019)

He'd have to win an outright majority. No major party would go anywhere near a tory coalition right now. The lib dems are making slow gains after being almost obliterated after their last coalition. Joining the conservatives would see them wiped out again. The issue right now is that there is no obvious party for the protest votes who dislike both conservative and labour. Lib dems was the option, but I don't think they've recovered enough yet.

Given that parliament have ruled out a no deal exit, trying to go that route will probably trigger a motion of no confidence in the government, and could well have enough tory revolt to pass.


----------



## EmmDee (27 Aug 2019)

Seagull said:


> He'd have to win an outright majority. No major party would go anywhere near a tory coalition right now. The lib dems are making slow gains after being almost obliterated after their last coalition. Joining the conservatives would see them wiped out again. The issue right now is that there is no obvious party for the protest votes who dislike both conservative and labour. Lib dems was the option, but I don't think they've recovered enough yet.



You haven't factored in the Brexit Party Ltd. - I can see a scenario where Conservatives and BP Ltd come to an agreement where BP go after Labour leave areas in the North (where the Labour vote would never switch to the Conservatives but there is a history of strong nationalist voting. LibDems, Green, Plaid and SNP will end up in a non aggression pact - but they will also target Labour seats where the MP is a leave voter. Labour will be targeted by both sides




Seagull said:


> Given that parliament have ruled out a no deal exit, trying to go that route will probably trigger a motion of no confidence in the government, and could well have enough tory revolt to pass.



Yes and no - Parliament hasn't ruled out anything. There have been motions but really they have no legal weight. The legal default is for Brexit on Oct 31st. Unless Parliament passes legislation (rather than motions) that remains the case. Legislation instructing the PM to request a further extension is possible but it requires the EU to agree (and Boris could request an extension in a way that was unacceptable to the EU). The other option is for legislation to withdraw the Article 50 notification - which doesn't require EU consent.

The danger with a VONC, and the reason why there is still concern about pulling that trigger, is that it doesn't force a general election immediately. So it could lead to a situation where a new government is elected after 31st October. And as stated above, that would be after the UK had exited.

Edit - the will need up to about 50 Tory MP's to rebel on a VONC to get over the number of Labour MP's who will support a Brexit at any cost. So it really does need to the "last option remaining" to have a chance


----------



## Seagull (27 Aug 2019)

There's actually nothing legally binding about the referendum. The UK can change their mind at any time until the deadline. There's no legislation required.


----------



## EmmDee (27 Aug 2019)

Seagull said:


> There's actually nothing legally binding about the referendum. The UK can change their mind at any time until the deadline. There's no legislation required.



True - it was an advisory referendum. But following that, Parliament passed legislation to enact the referendum and trigger the Article 50 process. So that is legally binding.

Under EU law, the UK can change its mind and withdraw the A50 notification. But under UK law, there would need to be amending or new legislation.


----------



## Early Riser (27 Aug 2019)

I think they believe that they can get an overall majority by attracting Brexit Party votes ( and neutralising it) and, also Labour votes in Brexit constituencies. Hence the hardline Brexit rhetoric and Labourite spending promises. With an overall majority they can ditch the DUP. They will then pass an agreement with a revised version of the original backstop ,ie, a NI only backstop.


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2019)

PatrickSmithUS said:


> An axis between Labour and the SNP would finish them. if they can get the Ulster Unionists on board, providing an alternative for the anti-Brexit Unionist voters in Northern Ireland, then we could be looking at the end of the Tory party and a softer Brexit with a back stop.


As long as the Tories have their greatest asset in place they will be fine. I am of course referring to Jeremy Corbyn.


----------



## Seagull (29 Aug 2019)

Jeremy Corbyn is actually surprisingly popular with younger voters, but he alienates all slightly left of middle to right leaning voters who might otherwise vote labour. Persuade Jeremy Corbyn to resign, and Boris would start back pedalling very fast. I still think the Tories have made themselves unelectable for a generation at least. I wouldn't be hugely surprised to see something like a labour, lib dem, SNP coalition.


----------



## john luc (29 Aug 2019)

Not so sure about the demise of the conservatives. People often like a decisive leader and this decision by Boris will appeal to them. I think he is angling for a general election and if he can win an overall majority ha may ditch the DUP and agree a deal with the border down the Irish sea. This deal would be a good deal for the north as it's a win win even if the DUP  will not like it.


----------



## joe sod (29 Aug 2019)

I think this proroguing of parliament for 4 weeks is a step too far by johnson, it is blatantly obvious what he is doing and it has enraged both the opposition and many in his own party. It might seem a very smart move at first glance but it is very high risk and could bring people onto the streets in their droves like what happened during the poll tax riots of 1990. Its also very unbritish something you would expect from putin.
         It also exposes the ridiculous policy of the irish government of sticking to the backstop and not yielding a little bit to theresa may when she was desperate for a deal. There is always a time to do a deal and that was the time. Even Ken Clarke who might vote no confidence in boris johnson if it is tabled in the house of commons and a staunch remainer wants an extension to article 50 and a new deal not the current withdrawal agreement, therefore the backstop is already dead and the irish government are looking more and more ridiculous by not getting off it.


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Aug 2019)

joe sod said:


> It also exposes the ridiculous policy of the irish government of sticking to the backstop and not yielding a little bit to theresa may when she was desperate for a deal.



I agreed with your post until this point. 
The backstop applicable to the whole of the UK, is a UK term in the WA. If they want to change it, the UK need to offer a credible alternative. They have failed to do so thus far. 
A NI only backstop is credible. It is in line with how the people of NI voted. It is in line with majority sentiment of people in NI. It protects the integrity of the GFA, and the UK governments obligations under that agreement.
It does not dilute NI status within the UK as it is merely a trade arrangement (a best of both worlds arrangement). 
And it will only ever apply after the transition period and in the event of no UK/EU trade deal.


----------



## Andrew365 (30 Aug 2019)

Can somebody simply explain what the backstop would entail? 

Now that it looks like they will leave either without a deal or with some form of a backstop. My concern is what is going to happen to the border on 1st November? 

Selfishly I am trying to make plans for christmas involving crossing the border!


----------



## EmmDee (30 Aug 2019)

Andrew365 said:


> Can somebody simply explain what the backstop would entail?
> 
> Now that it looks like they will leave either without a deal or with some form of a backstop. My concern is what is going to happen to the border on 1st November?
> 
> Selfishly I am trying to make plans for christmas involving crossing the border!



Individual travel across the border won't be an issue for Irish passport holders either way. The Free Travel Area continues irrespective.

I guess it could, with no deal, revert back to the days where they might spot check cars for goods etc. But other than that it should be fine


----------



## WolfeTone (31 Aug 2019)

EmmDee said:


> Individual travel across the border won't be an issue for Irish passport holders either way. The Free Travel Area continues irrespective.



But how will UK authorities know if you are Irish, unless they stop you and ask for id?


----------



## cremeegg (31 Aug 2019)

In 2016 the people voted to leave the EU. For 3 years Britain under Theresa May failed to leave. In 3 months Boris succeeds in leaving the EU. 

Can anyone explain in words that will fit on the side of a bus, what’s wrong with that. 

I think Boris will be PM for a decade.


----------



## Ceist Beag (2 Sep 2019)

On the one hand you would have to agree cremeegg that Boris is doing exactly what he set out to do and at least he is being decisive and getting closure on Brexit. Also, despite all the howls of protest, does anyone really think that parliament could come to any agreement between now and October 31 if it was not shut down? They have had 3 years to get this right so I very much think the cries of unfairness ring hollow.
There is still a little chink of hope that all BJ is doing here is trying to force an early election so that he can get his majority and secure a deal on Brexit after, however it is only a tiny chink of hope!
All that said, you can't help but think that Boris is quite reckless in his approach here and if the gamble doesn't pay off it will be Britain that suffers most ... and Ireland of course will suffer quite badly as a result.


----------



## Itchy (2 Sep 2019)

cremeegg said:


> I think Boris will be PM for a decade.



Yeah you should definitely bet the house on that one.


----------



## Seagull (3 Sep 2019)

It will be interesting to see the number of current conservative MPs who stand as independents if we do wind up with an October election.


----------



## john luc (3 Sep 2019)

The level of damage being done to the UK reputation is unbelievable. Confucius really had his tongue in his cheekwen he said, "May you live in interesting times ".


----------



## Steven Barrett (3 Sep 2019)

cremeegg said:


> In 2016 the people voted to leave the EU. For 3 years Britain under Theresa May failed to leave. In 3 months Boris succeeds in leaving the EU.
> 
> Can anyone explain in words that will fit on the side of a bus, what’s wrong with that.
> 
> I think Boris will be PM for a decade.



May failed to take the UK out with a deal. Johnson doesn't care about having a deal and is quiet happy to crash out of the EU no matter what. 

Very interesting watching what is going on at the moment. Brexiteer Tories saying an election will be about a lot of issues including policing and education. What nonsense, it will be a referendum on Brexit, nothing else.


----------



## Sunny (3 Sep 2019)

To be fair to Johnson, he is playing a good game. No matter what happens, he can't really lose. Lose the vote, he will call for a general election which Labour despite all their talk will probably not support. He can now turn around to the British people  and say 'I had the EU running running scared until the British Parliament cut the legs from underneath me. Not my fault. It's theirs......' He can then call a general election on this own terms as the Saviour of Brexit and will probably win an overall majority so goodbye DUP.... Followed closely by a deal with the EU....

Or else we are heading for a black hole that no one really knows what it looks like....


----------



## Gorteen (3 Sep 2019)

It's like watching an act of deliberate self harm


----------



## Drakon (3 Sep 2019)

cremeegg said:


> In 2016 the people voted to leave the EU. For 3 years Britain under Theresa May failed to leave. In 3 months Boris succeeds in leaving the EU.
> 
> Can anyone explain in words that will fit on the side of a bus, what’s wrong with that.
> 
> I think Boris will be PM for a decade.


The big problem here was that the Tories chose a Remainer rather than a Leaver. That was the main fault of May. 
In a democratic referendum the electorate chose to leave the EU. Soon after the Tories chose a new leader (and PM) and it was madness not to chose a Brexiteer, or at the very least, a Leaver. Hence three years of mess.
Now they have a Brexiteer PM. He intends to get the job done and move forward thereafter. 
This can be the least worst scenario.


----------



## EmmDee (3 Sep 2019)

Drakon said:


> The big problem here was that the Tories chose a Remainer rather than a Leaver. That was the main fault of May.
> In a democratic referendum the electorate chose to leave the EU. Soon after the Tories chose a new leader (and PM) and it was madness not to chose a Brexiteer, or at the very least, a Leaver. Hence three years of mess.
> Now they have a Brexiteer PM. He intends to get the job done and move forward thereafter.
> This can be the least worst scenario.



Essentially this is all nonsense.

It all started going wrong for May when she laid out her red lines - whether to prove her credentials or to appease an element in her party, she laid out red lines which were much more extreme than necessary and went way beyond what was campaigned on in the referendum. That was the point she painted herself into a corner and that was the point it became virtually impossible to meet the red lines AND deliver a Brexit that met other expectations (such as smooth and easy trade).

She didn't need to do that. Even Leave.EU (The Farage vehicle) when it made it's submission to be the official leave campaign before the referendum, put forward a plan that stated that leaving the EU fully would take up to 10 years and would initially require staying inside the single market as part of a staged exit. If she had used that as a template for a plan and managed expectations of the complexity of fully leaving, she would have been in a better position. But her speech did something else as well as putting the UK in an impossible position - it also changed the definition of what the leave vote meant. During the campaign, all leave campaigners quoted Norway, Switzerland and others as the type of leave they wanted - after this speech, the definition of what leave meant became "crashing out"

Boris won't get any job done. He has managed in a few months to put himself in an even worse position than May. He is unlikely to get an exit on Oct 31st, he has lost his majority, his party has split even further and he may soon expel a raft of MP's and there open talks of alliances with the Brexit Party. He has also probably even lost the ability to persuade the Commons to support a General Election on his timing. I suspect the next few weeks will be a horror show for him and senior ministers. Today was bad enough but it's only the start of it.  

And one thing that hasn't really been appreciated by Boris et al - even if they got an exit on Oct 31st, they seem to view this as the end of a messy 3 years and just want to get past it. But in reality, that would just be the start - the last 3 years would be the preamble of having to actually negotiate trade deals with the EU and other parties. It won't improve any time soon


----------



## Purple (4 Sep 2019)

EmmDee said:


> even if they got an exit on Oct 31st, they seem to view this as the end of a messy 3 years and just want to get past it. But in reality, that would just be the start - the last 3 years would be the preamble of having to actually negotiate trade deals with the EU and other parties. It won't improve any time soon


Indeed it would.


----------



## cremeegg (4 Sep 2019)

EmmDee said:


> Boris won't get any job done. He has managed in a few months to put himself in an even worse position than May.



While I agree with most of the rest of your post, especially that TMs redlines were a disaster. Boris if he can get an election (thanks to the fixed term parliament act, that may not be easy) is in an excellent position. He has a clear message for the electorate, which is consistent with his actions over recent months, and he can promise, however unrealistically to get Brexit done. If he can neutralise Fragae, I think he would sweep an election.


----------



## Sunny (4 Sep 2019)

cremeegg said:


> While I agree with most of the rest of your post, especially that TMs redlines were a disaster. Boris if he can get an election (thanks to the fixed term parliament act, that may not be easy) is in an excellent position. He has a clear message for the electorate, which is consistent with his actions over recent months, and he can promise, however unrealistically to get Brexit done. If he can neutralise Fragae, I think he would sweep an election.



I think that is the problem. This is all about taking Farage out of the equation. Imagine being a normal voter in the UK for the general election though who either doesn't support Brexit or has no problem with the backstop if it means a deal getting done. Who do they vote for? Conservatives are not an option. Labour is even a worse option. They will never vote for the Brexit Party so they are left with the liberal democrats who are just 'blah'. That doesn't take into account that it is likely that the Conservatives will be wiped out in Scotland. The DUP will probably suffer in the North albeit the sectarian voting along religious grounds will save them from the worst. I wonder will a new counter party to the Brexit party be set up to run the election on a single issue instead of a referendum? Problem is that they have no-one like Farage and his German dictator like charisma.


----------



## Early Riser (4 Sep 2019)

Maybe Bolsanero Johnson can work miracles. He is beginning to make Corbyn look statesmanlike.


----------



## Ceist Beag (4 Sep 2019)

You would certainly have to admire the 21 tories who pretty much sacrificed their political careers to make their stand last night. That took some courage.


----------



## Ceist Beag (4 Sep 2019)

Not everyone believes Boris is in quite such a strong position cremeegg!


----------



## Sunny (4 Sep 2019)

Ceist Beag said:


> Not everyone believes Boris is in quite such a strong position cremeegg!



Yeah I am not sure. The key will be if he can force an election. This is all built on lies. Borris is promising that he will deliver Brexit come what May. He doesn't care about a deal with Europe. He cares about winning the next general election and defeating the Brexit Party. He might well achieve that.

It is right about one thing though. He as destroyed the Conservative party just like Corbyn has destroyed the Labour party. UK politics is moving into very dangerous times. I can see why Ken Clarke was so happy to getting out last night....


----------



## cremeegg (4 Sep 2019)

Sunny said:


> He cares about winning the next general election and defeating the Brexit Party. He might well achieve that.



Agreed.



Sunny said:


> He as destroyed the Conservative party




If Boris wins an election the Conservative party will be remade in no time


----------



## Early Riser (4 Sep 2019)

cremeegg said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If he wins and leaves with a deal (which will be essentially similar to Theresa May's) then Yes. If he wins and the UK crashes out the Tories will get the full blame.


----------



## Seagull (4 Sep 2019)

Ceist Beag said:


> You would certainly have to admire the 21 tories who pretty much sacrificed their political careers to make their stand last night. That took some courage.


It will be interesting to see whether they opt to become independents, or move to one of the other parties, or even form a new party. I'm not entirely sure they've sacrificed their political careers. It depends on the voting dynamics in the seat, and whether they were elected purely on being the conservative candidate, or if they were elected in their individual right.


----------



## Ceist Beag (4 Sep 2019)

Seagull said:


> It will be interesting to see whether they opt to become independents, or move to one of the other parties, or even form a new party. I'm not entirely sure they've sacrificed their political careers. It depends on the voting dynamics in the seat, and whether they were elected purely on being the conservative candidate, or if they were elected in their individual right.


I'm no expert on UK politics but I very much get the impression there is no tradition of independent MPs there the way we tend to favour them here. It seems to be very much party based politics.


----------



## odyssey06 (4 Sep 2019)

Ceist Beag said:


> I'm no expert on UK politics but I very much get the impression there is no tradition of independent MPs there the way we tend to favour them here. It seems to be very much party based politics.



Yes multi-seat constituencies mean that people vote as much for this particular candidate of party X so there is a personal vote.
In the UK there are a lot of 'safe' constituencies, that almost always vote Conservative or Labour.

This quote sums it up...
"I voted against Gerald Nabarro in my first general election, but my defiance made no difference. If you had put a Conservative rosette on a mustachioed hamster, it would have been elected. "
- Jeremy Paxman


----------



## john luc (4 Sep 2019)

Interesting position that may be a Boris plan. He knows the numbers are against him so after parliament pass the bill forcing him to ask for an extension he gets them to vote an election and he has the British EU representative veto the request


----------



## Sunny (4 Sep 2019)

Another interesting aspect of all this is the arrogance of the UK Parliament that they think they can just pass a law for an extension and ignore the fact that the EU have to grant one and they have been messing them around for three years.....I would say the patience of the Germans and the French and most of Europe is fading fast even if Ireland would love to keep kicking it down the road....


----------



## EmmDee (4 Sep 2019)

cremeegg said:


> While I agree with most of the rest of your post, especially that TMs redlines were a disaster. Boris if he can get an election (thanks to the fixed term parliament act, that may not be easy) is in an excellent position. He has a clear message for the electorate, which is consistent with his actions over recent months, and he can promise, however unrealistically to get Brexit done. If he can neutralise Fragae, I think he would sweep an election.



Let me propose a possible alternative outcome.....
1) Johnson loses control of Parliament and legislation is passed forcing him request an extension
2) Because he can neither get a 2/3 majority nor control Parliament, he is unable to unilaterally call an election by either route available and is therefore held in place unable to do anything until after the extension is guaranteed and can't be rescinded
3) At that point a VoNC happens and either he loses the second vote 14 days later or he agrees to an election under the FTPA
4) Boris now goes into the election without having delivered a Brexit and therefore the Brexit Party contest seats. So he has a choice of fighting them or going into a pact with them. Either way he has to fight the election on a "no deal" manifesto but will have to beat independent conservatives and LibDems in England, the SNP in Scotland and Plaid in Wales (who knows what happens in NI but I saw a report that 3 DUP are now under threat)

I don't think I would consider this "an excellent position" or strategy. I also don't think that a "no deal" manifesto would sweep anything. More likely he would lose more seats in my opinion. His message (if you even just look at the last two days) is anything but clear. 

Plus it is seeming possible that his Government will be facing serious legal problems - while the legal challenge to Poroguation probably has little chance of success, the discovery process seems to be kicking up evidence that his "advice" to the Queen was made under false pretences. I'd watch this one as it could lead to real problems


----------



## EmmDee (4 Sep 2019)

john luc said:


> Interesting position that may be a Boris plan. He knows the numbers are against him so after parliament pass the bill forcing him to ask for an extension he gets them to vote an election and he has the British EU representative veto the request



I believe they have addressed this. Statements today make it clear that they won't vote for an election until after an extension is implemented


----------



## EmmDee (4 Sep 2019)

Sunny said:


> Another interesting aspect of all this is the arrogance of the UK Parliament that they think they can just pass a law for an extension and ignore the fact that the EU have to grant one and they have been messing them around for three years.....I would say the patience of the Germans and the French and most of Europe is fading fast even if Ireland would love to keep kicking it down the road....



They are fully aware of it. For a start it is clear they have been talking to the EU in the background. But an extension in these circumstances where it is clear the Parliament are driving it and will lead to an election will be agreed to


----------



## joe sod (4 Sep 2019)

cremeegg said:


> While I agree with most of the rest of your post, especially that TMs redlines were a disaster. Boris if he can get an election (thanks to the fixed term parliament act, that may not be easy) is in an excellent position. He has a clear message for the electorate, which is consistent with his actions over recent months, and he can promise, however unrealistically to get Brexit done. If he can neutralise Fragae, I think he would sweep an election.



i think boris johnson has really crashed now, he was too clever by half in paroguing for 4 weeks he has now been outsmarted by parliament and is looking more and more ridiculous as each day of this continues. This is the first time that boris johnson has really been tested and when an election does happen boris johnson will be a busted flush. When he cant get brexit delivered on 31 october he will be targetted by the brexit party ,nigel farage is much smarter than johnson, indeed farage could swallow up the tories and become leader himself thats how damaged johnson is.
The decision to expel the tory rebels was catastrophic, they wont recover from this.


----------



## galway_blow_in (4 Sep 2019)

Forgive my dumb nature but is the vote result tonight a plus for Ireland? 

I realise yesterday's vote was


----------



## EmmDee (4 Sep 2019)

galway_blow_in said:


> Forgive my dumb nature but is the vote result tonight a plus for Ireland?
> 
> I realise yesterday's vote was



Well... Today's vote stopped a quick election which was Johnson's plan B... Have an election and a new government could withdraw any extension request

So on balance... Probably yes. I don't see any Johnson strategy that is good for the island. So as a rule of thumb any defeat is probably in our interest


----------



## Sunny (5 Sep 2019)

Yeah I give up at this stage. They have me completely stumped. Deal/No deal, extension/no extension, election/no elections. MP's sacked. MP walking across the aisle in the middle of a speech. Brother resigning. If this was some banana State, I would say something but this is the UK. Thought the US was in bad place but the UK is actually destroying itself...


----------



## Seagull (5 Sep 2019)

Boris Johnson has achieved one of his promises. He said he'd unite the country. I think pretty much everyone is now agreed he's an arrogant, power-hungy, self-centred tosspot.


----------



## elacsaplau (5 Sep 2019)

If only Mike Halfpence had urged Jo to discuss things with his brother in good faith


----------



## Gorteen (6 Sep 2019)

It's interesting to watch the decline of what could have been regarded as a well-functioning democracy and parliament! A bit like watching someone you know commit an act of deliberate self harm.


----------



## Ceist Beag (6 Sep 2019)

Can someone explain one thing to me in regards to the general election. Why are people so confident in an increased majority win for Boris if he can persuade Farage to abstain from competing? Is the expectation that a large number of people (a large majority) will vote for Brexit again? Everyone knows this election will be essentially another referendum on Brexit and everyone also knows that if Boris wins he will pull the UK out deal or no deal. As a no deal looks almost certain if Boris is in charge then essentially a vote for the Conservatives is a vote to leave without a deal. 
All the recent talk about the last referendum was that the people didn't really understand what they were voting for but if the UK do put him in with a large majority then they cannot complain a second time that they didn't really know what they were voting for!


----------



## elacsaplau (6 Sep 2019)

Ah, come on Ceist Beag………….you're trying to look at this rationally...………….when logic has left the room many moons ago!


----------



## odyssey06 (6 Sep 2019)

Listening to Winds of Change radio podcast on BBC Radio, De Gaulle had the right idea when he vetoed UK entry.


----------



## Early Riser (6 Sep 2019)

Ceist Beag said:


> Why are people so confident in an increased majority win for Boris if he can persuade Farage to abstain from competing? Is the expectation that a large number of people (a large majority) will vote for Brexit again? Everyone knows this election will be essentially another referendum on Brexit



So if Boris can sideline the Brexit Party and win the Brexit vote he can draw on approximately 50% of the electorate, which would guarantee a majority. Well that is the theory anyway. He will seek to portray all other parties as remainers either in principle or by default and as there will be at least 2, and generally more, such parties in any constituency he will seek to split the vote  (Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, Change UK, Welsh Nationalists , etc). Also, he will rely on Corbyn's unpopularity in traditional northern working class areas.

But all this depends on the Tories being able to define the election as a Brexit Referendum in all but name. Labour will attempt to frame it otherwise, eg, austerity, Boris Johnson's character, etc. Also, if they can force him to ask for a Brexit extension and have an election after that they will hope to bring the Brexit Party back into play and split the Brexit vote.



Ceist Beag said:


> everyone also knows that if Boris wins he will pull the UK out deal or no deal. As a no deal looks almost certain if Boris is in charge then essentially a vote for the Conservatives is a vote to leave without a deal.



 He is certainly giving this impression but how much of it is an election ploy is open to question. The more he can position himself as likely to embrace no deal the more he sidelines the Brexit Party and sucks up those votes. My guess is that if he should succeed in getting an overall majority he will most likely negotiate a deal - one not greatly different from the current one (but with some face saving changes) - perhaps a version of the original NI only backstop. If he is not dependent on the DUP he would be able to get that through.


----------



## Ceist Beag (6 Sep 2019)

Makes sense Early Riser - so the real dilemna for anyone wishing to remain in the EU is who to vote for in a way to make that vote count!

As I see it you have those very much in favour of Brexit who won't have changed their stance since the referendum.
You have those very much against Brexit who won't have changed their stance since the referendum.
But by all accounts there is a large swathe who originally voted for Brexit and are now very much questioning the wisdom of that and are leaning more towards remain rather than leave with no deal (or even risk leaving with no deal).
Are there many on the original remain side who are now looking to leave? It's hard to imagine this number has increased by anything like the same margin.

So based on all that you would come to the conclusion that were this a referendum, not an election, Brexit would be defeated. But as you say, if it is an election then the Brexit vote could be consolidated into a vote for the Tories but a Remain vote could be very much split and therefore diluted.


----------



## Sunny (6 Sep 2019)

Problem for everyone is that I don't see how the election will solve anything. The Country is too divided. By the time, they will reach a consensus, there will be little spaceships carrying out x-ray checks of trucks crossing the border from the sky so we won't need a backstop.....

It's getting ridiculous at this stage. Ireland can't plan a budget. The EU doesn't want the UK part of any budget discussions. Businesses across Europe are cutting back. Countries are heading into recession again. Interest Rates are going negative with no sign of inflation. Not all the fault of Brexit but it still one big uncertainty that is really beginning to bite. It is time to bring this circus to a close.


----------



## john luc (6 Sep 2019)

If only they had PR


----------



## Early Riser (6 Sep 2019)

Ceist Beag said:


> Are there many on the original remain side who are now looking to leave? It's hard to imagine this number has increased by anything like the same margin.



I don't know whether many remainers may have changed their minds. But there is probably quite a swathe of people who are fed up with the whole thing and just want it finished. Johnson is pitching to them too with the fixed deadline and no extension.


----------



## Drakon (6 Sep 2019)

Who ever is the PM/Government, Brexit has to happen,  sooner or  later. 
There was a democratic referendum. The people voted to Leave. The fact that most MPs are Remainers is just an example of the disconnect between the electorate and the political establishment.

There will be protesting, serious protesting, if Brexit isn’t implemented. 1980ies miners style protesting, pitched battles between the people and the police. 
Not socialites wandering around in yellow vests or with black umbrellas. 
I’ve seen footage of some of the anti-Brexit “protesters” outside Westminster. Laughable. It’s more like fancy dress than protest. Every one of them heading to the boozer before last call for a gin and ton-tons.

Too much media coverage is about how Londoners feel about Brexit. But they’re living in a group think bubble. London is booming doesn’t mean that England is booming. 
Look at dumps like Luton or Gloucester. The dregs of society felt (rightly or wrongly) left behind by the EU. So they voted to Leave. They won the argument. And if the establishment, be it Tory or Labour or Whig, don’t practice democracy, I expect there will be unrest on a national scale. 
And when the reporters ask some chav from Sunderland why he’s stealing that Burberry cap, don’t be surprised is he says, “Brexit, innit!”


----------



## elacsaplau (6 Sep 2019)

Drakon said:


> The fact that most MPs are Remainers is just an example of the disconnect between the electorate and the political establishment.



Most lung cancer patients are smokers. This could mean that there is a disconnect between patients and their doctors or it could mean that the medics are just better informed! Personally, I think medics are more in the know...….but, hey, what do I know?!


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Sep 2019)

I think Brexit has peaked.
There are two possible outcomes. That somehow Boris succeeds in crashing the UK out on 31Oct, or Brexit can is kicked down the road, facilitating an election.

If it is kicked down the road and an election called I expect the Remainers, or those running under the guise of "brexit, but not without a deal" will triumph over the Brexiteers.
An election will give everyone a focus in an effective re-run of the referendum. The difference being, this time Remainers might actually put some impetus into their campaigning.
An election will offer opportunity to persuade those, on either side of the debate, to change minds by actually providing some specifics.
This is where the Brexiteers will fall down. Their whole campaign is underpinned by emotive nationalism (which im not discounting) and very little on specifics. A second campaign propagating the same mantra without providing specifics will soon begin to look shallow - especially if the anti-Brexit side can provide some real specifics on jobs and immigration, on specifics about rules and regulations, and tackle the barmy stuff about fishing waters and trading with the rest of the world (which UK already does). Specifics about how trade deals are a negotiation between two or more parties where all sides give up something to another side in order to obtain other stuff from the other parties. Trade deals are not a one-sided arrangement with one party demanding the terms (except where military might is concerned).

It wont be enough to extinguish the Brexit movement, but it will be enough to thwart it this time around.
It may lead to the establishment of a parliament for England, heralding the slow demise of the UK.


----------



## Sophrosyne (6 Sep 2019)

I agree in part.

But I also think that a lot of people - not just in the UK - are swayed by emotive slogans rather than reasoned debate or fact-checking.

Boris's simple "lets get it done" appeals although it is nonsense.

The fact that many of those who rely on the EU for their business are still committed to leave is a case in point.

It reminds me of an article written in 1941 by the despicable Joseph Goebbels, himself guilty of the same "Big Lie" propaganda:

"The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous"


----------



## Seagull (6 Sep 2019)

The easiest way to ensure Boris won't win an election is for Corbyn to resign. Put anyone in his place, and labour will hoover up significant numbers of traditional conservative voters.


----------



## Drakon (6 Sep 2019)

elacsaplau said:


> Most lung cancer patients are smokers. This could mean that there is a disconnect between patients and their doctors or it could mean that the medics are just better informed! Personally, I think medics are more in the know...….but, hey, what do I know?!


That’s like something Boris would say if he was a remainer.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Sep 2019)

Sophrosyne said:


> But I also think that a lot of people - not just in the UK - are swayed by emotive slogans rather than reasoned debate or fact-checking.



Absolutely. But since the referendum it has become obvious to a lot of British people that they were sold short on specifics, other than the big fat red bus NHS lie. 

Simple questions like - "Do you know British fishing industry is reliant on 40% immigrant fishers?"
Or, "under WTO rules, preference is afforded to developing nations for fishing rights. The only reason UK waters can be exploited to the extent that they are is because they are part of a single European market. If UK is out of SM then fishing rights will diminish greatly under WTO"

Or, "Home Secretary Priti Patel has stated that only skilled workers will be able to come to UK. Does this mean that all the low skilled work, cleaning, fast-food, deli counters, will be left for the British?"

Or, "if the PM has stated categorically, that under no circumstances will there be border checks on the island of Ireland, why then have border checks on the island of Britain?
Is NI somehow separate, different, from rest of UK?" 

There are dozens more. Brexiteers like Farage and Johnson just need to be exposed to some truths. The pomp of "take back control" and "leave means leave" will start to ring hollow and enough for the election to favour remainers.


----------



## johnwilliams (6 Sep 2019)

i agree with seagull  
a/b/c
anyone
but
corbyn
"The easiest way to ensure Boris won't win an election is for Corbyn to resign. Put anyone in his place, and labour will hoover up significant numbers of traditional conservative voters."


----------



## EmmDee (6 Sep 2019)

Ceist Beag said:


> Can someone explain one thing to me in regards to the general election. Why are people so confident in an increased majority win for Boris if he can persuade Farage to abstain from competing? Is the expectation that a large number of people (a large majority) will vote for Brexit again? Everyone knows this election will be essentially another referendum on Brexit and everyone also knows that if Boris wins he will pull the UK out deal or no deal. As a no deal looks almost certain if Boris is in charge then essentially a vote for the Conservatives is a vote to leave without a deal.
> All the recent talk about the last referendum was that the people didn't really understand what they were voting for but if the UK do put him in with a large majority then they cannot complain a second time that they didn't really know what they were voting for!



That's not really what is being said. The problem is if the Brexit Party Ltd run candidates against the Tories in marginal or even safe seats, they will split the vote and potentially hand a "safe leave" seat to the LibDems or such.... Same as happened in the recent bye election in Wales

But on the flip side, there is a lot of seats where, if the other parties coordinate, they could win from the Tories. 

I suspect the Brexit Party Ltd will target labour leave seats rather than Tories to a large extent.

It's funny... We are seeing UK politics starting to get into tactical vote management which we would be quite used to here

But I would say... If you see a spread bet price offering a large Tory majority I would jump all over it and bet against. It's doubtful he'd get anywhere close to a large majority... Or any majority


----------



## EmmDee (6 Sep 2019)

Drakon said:


> Who ever is the PM/Government, Brexit has to happen,  sooner or  later.
> There was a democratic referendum. The people voted to Leave. The fact that most MPs are Remainers is just an example of the disconnect between the electorate and the political establishment.
> 
> There will be protesting, serious protesting, if Brexit isn’t implemented. 1980ies miners style protesting, pitched battles between the people and the police.
> ...



Pretty much all of this is logical fallacies. For a start the parliament actually pretty closely matches the population e.g. just under 20% of both favour a no deal Brexit. And that's the problem... Trying to rewrite history by claiming the majority voted for crashing out is demonstrably false.

People were asked to vote for ""this thing or something else" without defining the "something else". And there started the mess.

It is likely that in a vote for stay or crash out, remaining would command a large majority. Which is why Johnson/Cummings don't want to have a validation referendum. But they think they can win an election because labour is a mess... Hence all the current drama


----------



## joe sod (7 Sep 2019)

I bet Leo varadker must be the most relieved man after the last week, the crashing of boris johnson has given him a get out of jail card.
If boris johnson again loses the vote on monday for an election in october he is history. The longer this goes on the more ridiculous he looks, jeremy corbyn is actually playing him beautifully now. The longer he can keep johnson there the worse it is for johnson and the tories. The paroguing of parliament is now working against johnson. Boris Johnson is now starring in his own greek tragedy


----------



## Early Riser (7 Sep 2019)

EmmDee said:


> But on the flip side, there is a lot of seats where, if the other parties coordinate, they could win from the Tories.



In theory this could be a Remain/Second Referendum path to victory. But it is hard to see it coming off in practice in the context of a general election (as opposed to a by-election). Labour is split on Europe and the only thing uniting them is the prospect of winning and getting in government. They will go after the other parties as well, eg, the Liberals and their history in the coalition.

For this to work it really depends on voters coordinating tactically and this is difficult without PR.


----------



## cremeegg (7 Sep 2019)

My turn for a few sweeping generalisations about the English.

English people are reasonable, and like to see themselves as reasonable.

Most English people who voted leave or remain, probably decided on the balance of probabilities rather because they were committed on either side.

Most English people pay little attention to what is happening in politics.

Boris wants to leave, Parliament is fooling about to stop him. That is what people are seeing.

Most English people think, we decided on Brexit so lets get on with it, I think that applies to lots of those who voted remain as well as nearly all those who voted leave. No one will change their minds on the merits of the leave/remain question.

The two worst things that have happened to Boris so far are his brother leaving cabinet and the photo of Rees-Mogg lolling on the seats in Parliament. But I don't see those derailing him. 

If Boris can hold himself in check, not do anything stupid, he will sweep an election. In Oct or Nov.


----------



## joe sod (7 Sep 2019)

cremeegg said:


> Most English people think, we decided on Brexit so lets get on with it, I think that applies to lots of those who voted remain as well as nearly all those who voted leave. No one will change their minds on the merits of the leave/remain question.
> 
> The two worst things that have happened to Boris so far are his brother leaving cabinet and the photo of Rees-Mogg lolling on the seats in Parliament. But I don't see those derailing him.



yes most english people did, but parliament should have allowed theresa may get her deal through, she did all the graft on the withdrawal agreement only to have it thrown in her face by the brexiteers led by johnson and also to a lesser extent by varadker. 
Now parliament has got its revenge on johnson's unbelievable arrogance and hubris. Yes there will be a brexit but it will not be boris johnson,s brexit, it could still be a tweek on theresa mays brexit, she could have the last laugh yet after all these shenanigans.



cremeegg said:


> If Boris can hold himself in check, not do anything stupid, he will sweep an election. In Oct or Nov.



he is the worst prime minister to ever grace the house of commons, a buffoon, he thought he could act like trump but he cant and has been found out immediately after just one week in the commons


----------



## cremeegg (7 Sep 2019)

joe sod said:


> yes most english people did, but parliament should have allowed theresa may get her deal through, she did all the graft on the withdrawal agreement only to have it thrown in her face by the brexiteers



All most people see is that it was thrown in her face by Parliament, and in fact it wasn't just Brexiteers who voted against the WA.





joe sod said:


> he is the worst prime minister to ever grace the house of commons, a buffoon, he thought he could act like trump but he cant and has been found out immediately after just one week in the commons



Maybe he can't get away with it in Parliament, but it remains to be seen if he can get away with in the country.


----------



## Drakon (8 Sep 2019)

joe sod said:


> he is the worst prime minister to ever grace the house of commons, a buffoon, he thought he could act like trump but he cant and has been found out immediately after just one week in the commons


I think Chamberlain was worse.


----------



## Drakon (8 Sep 2019)

And Gascogne-Cecil was worse again!


----------



## joe sod (8 Sep 2019)

Drakon said:


> I think Chamberlain was worse.


No Chamberlain wasn't that bad actually, he was in a very difficult situation, it's easy to say now that he should have stood up to Hitler but Britain and France were not strong enough to do that then,  this was subsequently proven by Germany's rapid defeat of France and the evacuation of British army from Dunkirk. 
Boris Johnson is not dealing with Hitler or a powerful German army , everything is of his own making and his shambolic handling of it. Chamberlain has actually been very unfairly treated by history , it was easier for Churchill afterwards because it was already proven that you.couldn't deal with Hitler but Chamberlain had to try that first because nobody wanted a war .


----------



## john luc (8 Sep 2019)

The best newspaper headline last week was in the Scottish red tops, "floppy Boris fails to get an election".


----------



## odyssey06 (8 Sep 2019)

joe sod said:


> No Chamberlain wasn't that bad actually, he was in a very difficult situation, it's easy to say now that he should have stood up to Hitler but Britain and France were not strong enough to do that then,  this was subsequently proven by Germany's rapid defeat of France and the evacuation of British army from Dunkirk.



I don't get the logic here.
They weren't strong enough in 1939, so they must not have been strong enough in 1938?
Maybe they weren't strong enough in either year, but in 1938 the Czech armed forces would have been on their side, far stronger and more capable than Poland's.
Germany hadn't signed the non aggression pact with the Soviets, who may well have intervened against Germany.
Between going to war in 1938 over Czech Republic or 1939 over Poland, 1938 had more plusses.

Chamberlain should have stood up to Hitler or gotten out of the way entirely and let Germany and USSR fight it out in Eastern Europe.
Why was he even there? He was in a difficult position partly because he had taken onto himself the task of sorting out the borders of Central Europe, something which Britain would not previously have considered their role. Remember in WW1 they debated going to war over the invasion of Belgium, on their doorstep.

Germany's success in 1940 proves nothing about a 1938 war, especially as their tank forces in the invasion of France included tanks produced in Czech plants.


----------



## lledlledlled (8 Sep 2019)

cremeegg said:


> My turn for a few sweeping generalisations about the English.
> 
> English people are reasonable, and like to see themselves as reasonable.
> 
> ...



The fact that most English people pay little attention to politics is one of the reasons they voted to Leave. Lots didn't bother even thinking about what they were voting for, just wanted to stick two fingers up to the govt. 
Even though this has subsequently become clear, as has the fact that they were lied to throughout the campaign, as has the likelihood that the decision will have disastrous consequences, their continued lack of interest in politics means that Brexit will happen. Most other countries citizens would have forced a second referendum. 
It's difficult to feel sorry for the English and Welsh public for this reason. It's the Scots and Northern Irish I feel for but I suspect they'll both leave the UK eventually.  
An interesting decade ahead. Well for those of us who have an interest in politics anyway...


----------



## Sophrosyne (8 Sep 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Absolutely. But since the referendum it has become obvious to a lot of British people that they were sold short on specifics, other than the big fat red bus NHS lie.
> 
> Simple questions like - "Do you know British fishing industry is reliant on 40% immigrant fishers?"
> Or, "under WTO rules, preference is afforded to developing nations for fishing rights. The only reason UK waters can be exploited to the extent that they are is because they are part of a single European market. If UK is out of SM then fishing rights will diminish greatly under WTO"
> ...




I agree that UK voters should think about these matters.

However, the majority view from the British channels' vox pops from all over England in particular is that people are completely fed up with Brexit and just want it over even if it means leaving without a deal.

There is widespread Brexit fatigue.


----------



## Early Riser (8 Sep 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> They weren't strong enough in 1939, so they must not have been strong enough in 1938?
> Maybe they weren't strong enough in either year, but in 1938 the Czech armed forces would have been on their side, far stronger and more capable than Poland's.
> Germany hadn't signed the non aggression pact with the Soviets, who may well have intervened against Germany.



All of this is much easier to see in retrospect. When should other countries intervene militarily to stop aggression? Nobody intervened when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 to "protect"  ethnic Russians in Abkhazia and South Assetia. Nobody intervened militarily when they invaded Crimea to "protect" ethnic Russians there. Noone has militarily intervened to stop their intervention in Eastern Ukraine. These are all posited as being on the side of ethnic Russians or Russian speakers. Is this appeasement?

Hitler's occupation of the Sudetenland in 1938 was on the basis of "protecting" the ethnic German population there (who welcomed them).  At the same time Poland was making demands for territory in eastern Czechoslovakia where there were Polish speaking majorities. All these borders and (some of the countries) were less than 20 years old and imposed by the Paris Peace Conference. Many were disputed. 

Britain did not have any treaty obligations to Czechoslovakia in 1938 (although France had) and was probably limited in what it could do. Also overwhelming public (and press) opinion was against war. Chamberlain did subsequently try to organise a mutual defence pact with France, Russia and Poland but this was vetoed by the Poles who feared the Russians as much as the Germans. Also, both the French and British thought the Russian military had little to offer at that stage because of Stalin's purge of the officers. The Russians subsequently signed their pact with Germany.

British army recruitment increased substantially after 1938 and, importantly, the RAF was strengthened. But in retrospect not confronting Hitler earlier was a mistake.


----------



## tomdublin (9 Sep 2019)

Sunny said:


> To be fair to Johnson, he is playing a good game. No matter what happens, he can't really lose. Lose the vote, he will call for a general election which Labour despite all their talk will probably not support. He can now turn around to the British people  and say 'I had the EU running running scared until the British Parliament cut the legs from underneath me. Not my fault. It's theirs......' He can then call a general election on this own terms as the Saviour of Brexit and will probably win an overall majority so goodbye DUP.... Followed closely by a deal with the EU....
> 
> Or else we are heading for a black hole that no one really knows what it looks like....
> [/QUOTE
> OR he doesn't get an absolute majority but instead has to do a deal with the LibDems at the cost of abandoning or reversing hard Brexit (about which he doesn't really care either way), still leaving him as the winner


----------



## EmmDee (9 Sep 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> I don't get the logic here.
> They weren't strong enough in 1939, so they must not have been strong enough in 1938?
> Maybe they weren't strong enough in either year, but in 1938 the Czech armed forces would have been on their side, far stronger and more capable than Poland's.
> Germany hadn't signed the non aggression pact with the Soviets, who may well have intervened against Germany.
> ...



In 1938 (or even prior), England were in no position to fight a ground war. And Chamberlain knew they didn't have the ability to conscript a large ground army and send overseas (they were just out of the Depression and post WW1). He also didn't have the US anywhere near willing to join - the opposite. When war was declared, there was a significant gap before fighting actually started in France and they were still wiped out pretty quickly.

He did authorise a ramp up of air and sea hardware and eventually that saved them from being overrun in the early stage of WW2. There is a good case to be made that if he had ramped up the army and not the airforce and navy, that they would have been taken out in the Battle of Britain. The strategic advantage for Britain over Germany in a war was that Britain had access to raw materials if they could keep sea lanes open. Germany didn't. So the only German tactic in any war was to build up early, hit hard and hope to win quickly. For Britain it was about surviving that initial phase.

While I don't think he was without fault, I also don't think he was the worst PM. He probably made tough decisions that laid the ground for Churchill to be a success.

As for the Soviet / German "non aggression pact" - I'm open to correction but the it is badly named as it was a lot more than a non-aggression pact. It was in effect a cooperation agreement with the aim of dividing Poland between them. It was probable that the Soviets would have gone that direction even if Britain had intervened earlier. It didn't help that the invasion of Czech Republic was welcomed by many of the people there.


----------



## odyssey06 (9 Sep 2019)

EmmDee said:


> In 1938 (or even prior), England were in no position to fight a ground war. And Chamberlain knew they didn't have the ability to conscript a large ground army and send overseas (they were just out of the Depression and post WW1). He also didn't have the US anywhere near willing to join - the opposite. When war was declared, there was a significant gap before fighting actually started in France and they were still wiped out pretty quickly.



But Chamberlain had no idea there would be that significant gap. He can get zero credit for that.

Yes, Britain increased its military resources between 1938 and 1940, but people are assuming in 1938 they would have confronted a 1940 level 
Germany. But Germany was much weaker then too, it would have faced a two front conflict between France and Czechs, in that conflict Britain would not have needed the air defences of 1940.
In the gap the German strength was increased because of the munitions plants captured in Czechoslovakia in 1938 & the flow of materials from the USSR as part of the pact.

Britain's land army in 1940 was still small by Continental standards. Nobody expected Britain in 1938 to be fighting alone a ground war against Germany in Central Europe. So why was Chamberlain getting involved? 
Stalin signed the pact with Hitler because he expected Britain and France to go to war versus Germany and so buy Stalin time to prepare for war with Germany. 
If Britain and France had left Germany to its own devices re: Poland and Czech Republic, Stalin would have had to confront him earlier and certainly would not have signed a pact with him to supply resources and move his frontier forwards to a less defensible position. Britain and France could have waited for Germany and USSR to wear themselves out then intervened.

Or, they should have confronted Germany in 1938 along with the French, Czechs and with Germany also worried about what the USSR would do.
I don't see the case for not going to war in 1938 over Czechoslovakia and instead going to war in 1939 over Poland.

I'm still sticking with Chamberlain as a dreadful prime minister. And Lord North of the American War too.


----------



## john luc (9 Sep 2019)

Just watched Boris and Leo on the telly and I know Leo was being diplomatic with his comments about the supposed great Churchill but maybe from an Irish Leader he should not as from an Irish history perspective, Churchill was a blatant Terrorist. It was him that sent the Augillary's AKA the black and Tan's to ireland and gave them clear instructions to terrorise the People with murder and burning down towns and torture. Even the regular British army officer's complained about their actions to their superior's at the time. Churchill was not our friend and we should not apologise for calling his record out and maybe burst some bubbles about his greatness.


----------



## 24601 (9 Sep 2019)

john luc said:


> Just watched Boris and Leo on the telly and I know Leo was being diplomatic with his comments about the supposed great Churchill but maybe from an Irish Leader he should not as from an Irish history perspective, Churchill was a blatant Terrorist. It was him that sent the Augillary's AKA the black and Tan's to ireland and gave them clear instructions to terrorise the People with murder and burning down towns and torture. Even the regular British army officer's complained about their actions to their superior's at the time. Churchill was not our friend and we should not apologise for calling his record out and maybe burst some bubbles about his greatness.



That would be a wonderfully diplomatic approach and would no doubt further progress on Brexit.


----------



## Early Riser (9 Sep 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> Or, they should have confronted Germany in 1938 along with the French, Czechs and with Germany also worried about what the USSR would do.
> I don't see the case for not going to war in 1938 over Czechoslovakia and instead going to war in 1939 over Poland.



In 1938 the dispute was over the Sudentenland - an ethnic German region of Czechoslovakia. The Germans and Sudentans skilfully framed this as an ethnic rights issue and this got considerable sympathy (at least it neutralised a lot of hostility to them). It is the same way the Russians have framed the disputes and territorial aggression against Georgia and Ukraine more recently. Should other countries go to war over this? Is it only encouraging Putin in his ways? The answer to the latter is probably yes, but I don't think most people would see it as justifying military intervention (by their own country, at least).

Of course Hitler was only using the Sudeten issue as a ploy. The Czechs had built their military defences against the Germans in the Sudeten lands and when Hitler marched into the rest of Czechoslokakia the following years they were practically defenceless. And the Slokaks were at best ambivalent about this.

Britain had no pact committments to Czechoslovakia in 1938. The French had but abandoned them. The French from the point of view of military intervention were also weak. They had a much lower military spending than the Germans and what the did spend was on defensive strategies. The biggest beneficiary was the Maginot Line. But even leaving this aside, the prevailing French military orthodoxy was defence - this was a legacy of WW1 when their offensive tactics in the early years war were blamed for their appalling (and militarily pointless) losses, particularly in 1915. Even when war was declared in 1939 the French waited behind their defensive lines (apart from a few mild sallies) until the Germans attacked in May 1940.

Britain had a defensive pact with the Poles in 1939 - unlike with the Czechs.

Hindsight can fight many battles. Sure the Germans were stronger in 1940 than 1938 but they were still strong relative to the British and French in relation to a standing land army (and tanks) and airforce. I do think an earlier military intervention may have stayed Hitler - but at the time of the occupation of the Rhineland in 1936. It would have been against popular opinion though - which ranged from pacifism to anti defense-spending, to sympathy for the Germans ( overt and covert).


----------



## odyssey06 (9 Sep 2019)

Early Riser said:


> Britain had a defensive pact with the Poles in 1939 - unlike with the Czechs.



Not disagreeing with anything else you have written but just pointing out they only signed that pact with Poland in March 1939. 
No fundamental British interests were jeopardised by Poland being under German control, unlike say Belgium or France. 
And Britain and France's ability to actually defend Poland was negligible. It was a voluntary pact which put Britain & France on path to conflict with Germany, thereby making it easier to Stalin to sit back.
If they weren't able or willing to defend Czechs in 1938, nothing had changed re: defending Poland in 1939. 
The only thing that changed was British public opinion, but Chamberlain had no idea that that change would come.


----------



## cremeegg (9 Sep 2019)

Could the people who want to talk about the reasons for and against military intervention abroad, and the people who want to talk about the origins of WW2 please start a new thread. Please.



Sophrosyne said:


> I agree that UK voters should think about these matters.
> 
> However, the majority view from the British channels' vox pops from all over England in particular is that people are completely fed up with Brexit and just want it over even if it means leaving without a deal.
> 
> There is widespread Brexit fatigue.



Neither a no deal exit nor an exit based on the WTA agreement will bring an end to Brexit dominating the news for a long time to come.

The WTA is designed as a withdrawal agreement and directly envisages a post withdrawal trade agreement being negotiated.

A no deal Brexit would mean that Britain would need to agree a framework for trade negotiations.


----------



## Early Riser (9 Sep 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> If they weren't able or willing to defend Czechs in 1938, nothing had changed re: defending Poland in 1939.



Agreed that nothing had changed - although the strenghening of the Navy and RAF did contribute in the longer term (would the RAF have withstood the Luftwaffe if the confrontation had come in 1938 -39?). 

The defence pact with Poland can with some justification be viewed cynically. Neither the British or French were in a position to come to Poland's aid militarily in 1939 and they knew it. By that stage they were just buying time. 

The Russians had been willing to join the Pact but the Poles rejected this because they believed that if the Russians came in to aid them they would never leave again. (Subsequent history fairly much justifies this belief). Anyway the British were wary and slow to conduct negotiations with the Russians as they didn't trust Stalin. And there was a certain belief that the Poles were at that time militarily stronger than the Russians as a result of Stalin's purge of the officers.


----------



## Early Riser (9 Sep 2019)

cremeegg said:


> Neither a no deal exit nor an exit based on the WTA agreement will bring an end to Brexit dominating the news for a long time to come.



Sorry cremeegg - posted before I saw your post and I will refrain myself further!


----------



## so-crates (9 Sep 2019)

Sophrosyne said:


> I agree that UK voters should think about these matters.
> 
> However, the majority view from the British channels' vox pops from all over England in particular is that people are completely fed up with Brexit and just want it over even if it means leaving without a deal.
> 
> There is widespread Brexit fatigue.


Had this very conversation at the weekend with a visiting cousin, undoubtedly there is severe fatigue in the UK regarding Brexit. Worryingly though, they do not seem to realise that "just leaving" will not put an end to the wall-to-wall coverage and the overwhelming demands of managing Brexit. Is no-one in the UK actually joining the dots on this?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Sep 2019)

BBC reporter suggested that Boris  has the following plan.  He will send a letter to EU on October 19th requesting an extension.  This will be the letter dictated by Parliament.  He will then send a follow up letter saying if they do give an extension he will behave like the neighbours from hell.  He won't appoint a commissioner and he will veto everything etc.  Cumming plan or what?


----------



## odyssey06 (9 Sep 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> BBC reporter suggested that Boris  has the following plan.  He will send a letter to EU on October 19th requesting an extension.  This will be the letter dictated by Parliament.  He will then send a follow up letter saying if they do give an extension he will behave like the neighbours from hell.  He won't appoint a commissioner and he will veto everything etc.  Cumming plan or what?



It occurs to me the best time for Britain to Brexit would have been during negotiations for a future EU Treaty. 
But that would have required a consistent majority in Parliament biding their time to wait for that moment.


----------



## Sophrosyne (9 Sep 2019)

cremeegg said:


> Neither a no deal exit nor an exit based on the WTA agreement will bring an end to Brexit dominating the news for a long time to come.
> 
> The WTA is designed as a withdrawal agreement and directly envisages a post withdrawal trade agreement being negotiated.
> 
> A no deal Brexit would mean that Britain would need to agree a framework for trade negotiations.



Agreed, but I referred to the views as expressed by people in vox pops.



so-crates said:


> Had this very conversation at the weekend with a visiting cousin, undoubtedly there is severe fatigue in the UK regarding Brexit. Worryingly though, they do not seem to realise that "just leaving" will not put an end to the wall-to-wall coverage and the overwhelming demands of managing Brexit. Is no-one in the UK actually joining the dots on this?



You are right! I don't think anyone is joining the dots.  Have you seen British news channels' coverage?

It is frustrating to watch.

They are so bogged down with the daily minutiae that they miss the big picture.

I have yet to see a decent programme/discussion/debate on the post-Brexit fall out.

So the persistent public view is that once we leave, there may be some _short-term_ problems but nothing we cannot sort out, or that we should see Brexit as an opportunity.


----------



## Sunny (9 Sep 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> BBC reporter suggested that Boris  has the following plan.  He will send a letter to EU on October 19th requesting an extension.  This will be the letter dictated by Parliament.  He will then send a follow up letter saying if they do give an extension he will behave like the neighbours from hell.  He won't appoint a commissioner and he will veto everything etc.  Cumming plan or what?



Baldrick would be proud of that one...…. 

Beginning to think that they actually haven't thought past the 31st October either way. I can imagine the 1st of November after the above. 'Hi Angela, Borris here. Just wondering about the trade deal. Thought we could get it done over a cup of tea and crumpets this afternoon'. Sorry about all the mess you know. But I showed how cunning I was in the end....I am sure the recession won't last long'


----------



## cremeegg (9 Sep 2019)

*Downing Street November 4th 2019* (The first Monday after Brexit).

Civil Servant 1: "Good morning Prime Minister, the EU trade delegation has arrived, may I show them in ?"

Boris: "yes, yes and be sure to introduce them on the way in."

Civil Servant 1: "Prime Minister may I present the chief EU negotiator Mr. Philip Hogan"

Big Phil: "Howya Boris, just a couple of things on the agenda for today, the border and ah! the Brexit bill, once we have those cleared up we can get onto the tarrifs and regulatory issues.


----------



## Sunny (9 Sep 2019)

Ha ha. It is the ultimate revenge by the EU. You messed us around for three years. Now you can spend the few years dealing with Phil...….


----------



## EmmDee (9 Sep 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> BBC reporter suggested that Boris  has the following plan.  He will send a letter to EU on October 19th requesting an extension.  This will be the letter dictated by Parliament.  He will then send a follow up letter saying if they do give an extension he will behave like the neighbours from hell.  He won't appoint a commissioner and he will veto everything etc.  Cumming plan or what?



Probably a Cumming plan but like all the others (so far) it's utter nonsense. From a legal point of view, doing the above is tantamount to not signing the letter in the first place and they would be open to an injunction and potential contempt proceedings.

There is a great clip of a senior barrister being asked on TV whether is a legal way of BJ not sending the letter and the response was "No - unless he put himself into a self induced coma of course"


----------



## Sunny (9 Sep 2019)

EmmDee said:


> Probably a Cumming plan but like all the others (so far) it's utter nonsense. From a legal point of view, doing the above is tantamount to not signing the letter in the first place and they would be open to an injunction and potential contempt proceedings.
> 
> There is a great clip of a senior barrister being asked on TV whether is a legal way of BJ not sending the letter and the response was "No - unless he put himself into a self induced coma of course"



The second letter is nonsense of course. But there is probably enough wiggle room there. The EU will receive the request and ask why the UK need it. Borris just has to say because Parliament is making him ask for it. That's not against the law and it puts the EU in a pickle. They can refuse the extension and Borris get's what he wants. They can grant the extension and forget about passing anything important where the UK has a Veto for yet another three months while Borris and Nigel go off and win an election.....And back to where we are now...….

This is going to end with a NI only backstop...The DUP are worthless to Borris now. Considering how little the rest of the UK care about NI, I would imagine that even Borris could gather enough cross party support. And meanwhile Therese May will be banging her head against a wall...….


----------



## EmmDee (9 Sep 2019)

Sunny said:


> The second letter is nonsense of course. But there is probably enough wiggle room there. The EU will receive the request and ask why the UK need it. Borris just has to say because Parliament is making him ask for it. That's not against the law and it puts the EU in a pickle. They can refuse the extension and Borris get's what he wants. They can grant the extension and forget about passing anything important where the UK has a Veto for yet another three months while Borris and Nigel go off and win an election.....And back to where we are now...….
> 
> This is going to end with a NI only backstop...The DUP are worthless to Borris now. Considering how little the rest of the UK care about NI, I would imagine that even Borris could gather enough cross party support. And meanwhile Therese May will be banging her head against a wall...….



Refusing to nominate a commissioner doesn't block the commission but probably leaves UK open to sanction (if that matters). Also - there isn't a blanket veto so it doesn't halt the workings of the EU. So if they are convinced there will be an election called they would grant it - nothing to lose (other than the will to live!!!)

But even if he did what you say, the legislation passed states that he has to seek an extension through a request letter. If he were to act in a way that underlined the seeking of an extension, it would leave him open to an injunction - as well as a criminal charge under standards in public office. There is also significant personal liability in theory because if he were to cause harm by breaking the law, he would be personally open to civil liability cases.

I would think (if they want to get utterly messy with it) he could resign, try to force Corbyn as an interim PM, have Corbyn sign the extension and then campaign on the fact that Corbyn did it and he resigned to avoid doing it. Which is why it would make sense from a Labour party point of view, to have a "neutral" interim PM (e.g. Ken Clarke) who could sign the letter without political consequences. Otherwise, even if he managed to get an election called, he'd have to sign the letter as he would be acting PM


----------



## Sunny (9 Sep 2019)

EmmDee said:


> Refusing to nominate a commissioner doesn't block the commission but probably leaves UK open to sanction (if that matters). Also - there isn't a blanket veto so it doesn't halt the workings of the EU. So if they are convinced there will be an election called they would grant it - nothing to lose (other than the will to live!!!)
> 
> But even if he did what you say, the legislation passed states that he has to seek an extension through a request letter. If he were to act in a way that underlined the seeking of an extension, it would leave him open to an injunction - as well as a criminal charge under standards in public office. There is also significant personal liability in theory because if he were to cause harm by breaking the law, he would be personally open to civil liability cases.
> 
> I would think (if they want to get utterly messy with it) he could resign, try to force Corbyn as an interim PM, have Corbyn sign the extension and then campaign on the fact that Corbyn did it and he resigned to avoid doing it. Which is why it would make sense from a Labour party point of view, to have a "neutral" interim PM (e.g. Ken Clarke) who could sign the letter without political consequences. Otherwise, even if he managed to get an election called, he'd have to sign the letter as he would be acting PM



There is actually a blanket veto for lots of EU votes. The UK could block all votes on Foreign Affairs, Taxation, Justice and even the EU budget....


----------



## EmmDee (9 Sep 2019)

Sunny said:


> There is actually a blanket veto for lots of EU votes. The UK could block all votes on Foreign Affairs, Taxation, Justice and even the EU budget....



EU includes a condition that during the extension the UK abstains from voting in areas subject to a veto - this was the "gentleman's agreement" previously but given Cummings is involved they might make it a formal condition


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Sep 2019)

EmmDee said:


> Refusing to nominate a commissioner doesn't block the commission but probably leaves UK open to sanction (if that matters). Also - there isn't a blanket veto so it doesn't halt the workings of the EU. So if they are convinced there will be an election called they would grant it - nothing to lose (other than the will to live!!!)
> 
> But even if he did what you say, the legislation passed states that he has to seek an extension through a request letter. If he were to act in a way that underlined the seeking of an extension, it would leave him open to an injunction - as well as a criminal charge under standards in public office. There is also significant personal liability in theory because if he were to cause harm by breaking the law, he would be personally open to civil liability cases.
> 
> I would think (if they want to get utterly messy with it) he could resign, try to force Corbyn as an interim PM, have Corbyn sign the extension and then campaign on the fact that Corbyn did it and he resigned to avoid doing it. Which is why it would make sense from a Labour party point of view, to have a "neutral" interim PM (e.g. Ken Clarke) who could sign the letter without political consequences. Otherwise, even if he managed to get an election called, he'd have to sign the letter as he would be acting PM


Sajid Javid on the Andrew Marr show gave a trinity of straight answers:
Boris will not break the law
Boris will not ask for an extension
Boris will not resign
Now that seems to be a mystery to rival the Blessed one.
Possible solutions include the self induced coma or his being fired by a vote of no confidence tabled by himself.


----------



## Sunny (9 Sep 2019)

EmmDee said:


> EU includes a condition that during the extension the UK abstains from voting in areas subject to a veto - this was the "gentleman's agreement" previously but given Cummings is involved they might make it a formal condition



Isn't the point though. Send a letter saying he wants an extension. He has met the conditions of the legislation. He doesn't have to send a second letter. He just makes it clear to the EU during informal discussions that the 'Gentlemans Agreement' ends on the 31st October. The EU has no way to block the UK from using it when it is still part of the EU. And that is what Cummings is planning. He wants the EU to the job that the UK parliament has failed to do. Brexit by the 31st October. I am not saying it will work or that is what will happen but that legislation was flawed. It was based on the assumption that the EU would grant an extension while the UK messed around for another three months. 

I see both the Irish and UK government are now laying down the groundwork for a NI only backstop. Foster is shouting about undemocratic and unconstitutional stuff again...So we have basically gone back in time 6 months


----------



## Early Riser (9 Sep 2019)

Sunny said:


> I see both the Irish and UK government are now laying down the groundwork for a NI only backstop.



Also some suggestion that the EU may consider adding something to the WA to the effect that if the UK decided in the future to re-apply for EU memebership it could do so under their current (ie, favourable) membership conditions. The thinking being that this might be enough to tempt enough opposition soft brexiters and remainers to vote for the deal to get it over the line (even without DUP support, given a NI only backstop). Maybe this is too far-fetched to work out in practice but it has some plausability.


----------



## cremeegg (9 Sep 2019)

Sunny said:


> So we have basically gone back in time 6 months



Hard to credit, but it is 9 months since Arlene made the phone call.


----------



## cremeegg (9 Sep 2019)

cremeegg said:


> *Downing Street November 4th 2019* (The first Monday after Brexit).
> 
> Civil Servant 1: "Good morning Prime Minister, the EU trade delegation has arrived, may I show them in ?"
> 
> ...





Sunny said:


> Ha ha. It is the ultimate revenge by the EU. You messed us around for three years. Now you can spend the few years dealing with Phil...….



Why the Ha Ha. Did you think I was joking. https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0909/1074903-phil-hogan-europe/

Remember you read it here first.


----------



## EmmDee (10 Sep 2019)

Sunny said:


> Isn't the point though. Send a letter saying he wants an extension. He has met the conditions of the legislation. He doesn't have to send a second letter. He just makes it clear to the EU during informal discussions that the 'Gentlemans Agreement' ends on the 31st October. The EU has no way to block the UK from using it when it is still part of the EU. And that is what Cummings is planning. He wants the EU to the job that the UK parliament has failed to do. Brexit by the 31st October. I am not saying it will work or that is what will happen but that legislation was flawed. It was based on the assumption that the EU would grant an extension while the UK messed around for another three months.
> 
> I see both the Irish and UK government are now laying down the groundwork for a NI only backstop. Foster is shouting about undemocratic and unconstitutional stuff again...So we have basically gone back in time 6 months



The legislation that was passed allows the PM some discretion if the EU offer a different date than 31st Jan but it doesn't give discretion on accepting an extension otherwise. It also proscribes the exact wording of the letter.

So if BJ sends the letter and the response is yes but with conditions, my reading is that he would have to accept as is or else bring it the parliament for approval to reject. And bear in mind the A50 notification and any extension is governed by a treaty.

So I don't think he could have side conversations. Firstly it would be a dreadful look to be seen to be undermining a treaty. But it would also probably be seen as illegal under UK law given the legislation passed... It's pretty tight wording.


----------



## Sunny (10 Sep 2019)

EmmDee said:


> The legislation that was passed allows the PM some discretion if the EU offer a different date than 31st Jan but it doesn't give discretion on accepting an extension otherwise. It also proscribes the exact wording of the letter.
> 
> So if BJ sends the letter and the response is yes but with conditions, my reading is that he would have to accept as is or else bring it the parliament for approval to reject. And bear in mind the A50 notification and any extension is governed by a treaty.
> 
> So I don't think he could have side conversations. Firstly it would be a dreadful look to be seen to be undermining a treaty. But it would also probably be seen as illegal under UK law given the legislation passed... It's pretty tight wording.



It's not tight at all. It is written based on the big assumption that the eu will offer an extension. The eu want to offer an extension but Cummings cunning dastardly plan is to try and manoeuvre the EU so that it has no choice but to not offer the extension and bypass parliament. I am not saying it is a good plan but that seems to be their plan b. Their plan A as I said now looks like the NI only backstop which is just plain funny.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Sep 2019)

They should close the bars at late night sittings of the HoC.  The Scots, Welsh and Commies drunkenly singing their hymns, made Boris and his ministers look good.
In another thread I argued the Eoghan Harris/Dan O’Brien/Lucinda Creighton line that Leo was being reckless in his dogged sticking with the backstop.  We look to have got that spectacularly wrong, I wonder will EH eat humble pie in the _Sindo_.


----------



## Early Riser (10 Sep 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I wonder will EH eat humble pie in the _Sindo_



Of course he will - and the earth will start spinning backwards!


----------



## peemac (10 Sep 2019)

Sunny said:


> I see both the Irish and UK government are now laying down the groundwork for a NI only backstop. Foster is shouting about undemocratic and unconstitutional stuff again...So we have basically gone back in time 6 months



I said that the day Boris was elected.

It is the only solution on the table and now that BJ want an election he couldn't care less about Foster and NI.

The EU will agree it, BJ will agree it, Ireland will agree it. UK will be out with no "British" backstop and frankly no-one in Britain (except those from NI) gives a second thought about NI.

Sinn Fein will be happy as pigs in S and Foster will return to be a nobody in UK politics

Wins all round.

I'd be taking the 5/2 odds on an October 31st withdrawal. - damn, odds cut this morning to 13/8


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Sep 2019)

peemac said:


> I said that the day Boris was elected.
> 
> It is the only solution on the table and now that BJ want an election he couldn't care less about Foster and NI.
> 
> ...


Still 5/2 on Betfair


----------



## EmmDee (10 Sep 2019)

Sunny said:


> It's not tight at all. It is written based on the big assumption that the eu will offer an extension. The eu want to offer an extension but Cummings cunning dastardly plan is to try and manoeuvre the EU so that it has no choice but to not offer the extension and bypass parliament. I am not saying it is a good plan but that seems to be their plan b. Their plan A as I said now looks like the NI only backstop which is just plain funny.



The legislation determines how exactly the extension request can be worded - any attempt to alter that (or other games) will run the risk of being illegal. Not that he won't try to come up with some scheme but it is now clear that Cummings is great with a big emotional debate or election but isn't quite so smart when it gets down to details - legal or procedural

The assumption is not that big given the EU were in contact with the team drafting the bill. So at the very least indicated an extension would likely be granted. Possibly assisted in the drafting though that team have plenty of drafting expertise and are very familiar with Parliamentary procedures.


----------



## EmmDee (10 Sep 2019)

peemac said:


> I said that the day Boris was elected.
> 
> It is the only solution on the table and now that BJ want an election he couldn't care less about Foster and NI.
> 
> ...



You'd have to think through the numbers carefully. He'd lose the ERG (probably) and DUP (definitely). He'd lose any remain votes. He'd gain back some Labour leave and some of the Tory soft Brexit MP's he expelled. It runs the risk of opening a huge door to the Brexit Party Ltd at the following election - which seems throughout all of this to be the real target. He himself said he'd never accept it - which would be a big U turn.

I think I'd want more than 5/2


----------



## Early Riser (10 Sep 2019)

peemac said:


> The EU will agree it, BJ will agree it, Ireland will agree it. UK will be out with no "British" backstop and frankly no-one in Britain (except those from NI) gives a second thought about NI.



Agreed - but there will be some finessing of the details (and maybe some sort of sweetener) and it will be called something else. The term  "Backstop" is toxic from a face-saving viewpoint.


----------



## Early Riser (10 Sep 2019)

EmmDee said:


> You'd have to think through the numbers carefully. He'd lose the ERG (probably) and DUP (definitely). He'd lose any remain votes. He'd gain back some Labour leave and some of the Tory soft Brexit MP's he expelled. It runs the risk of opening a huge door to the Brexit Party Ltd at the following election - which seems throughout all of this to be the real target. He himself said he'd never accept it - which would be a big U turn.



 There could be some sort of sweetener to bring enough of the opposition on board. I saw a suggestion yesterday that the EU might give an agreement that should the UK decide at a future date to re-apply for membership they could be accepted on their existing terms. This might be tempting as it would make it easier for any future re-application referendum to pass. Not having to adopt the Euro, keeping the budget rebate, opt out of Schengen, etc. Perhaps this concession won't come to pass but it would be very tempting for opposition members positively disposed towards the EU.


----------



## EmmDee (10 Sep 2019)

Early Riser said:


> There could be some sort of sweetener to bring enough of the opposition on board. I saw a suggestion yesterday that the EU might give an agreement that should the UK decide at a future date to re-apply for membership they could be accepted on their existing terms. This might be tempting as it would make it easier for any future re-application referendum to pass. Not having to adopt the Euro, keeping the budget rebate, opt out of Schengen, etc. Perhaps this concession won't come to pass but it would be very tempting for opposition members positively disposed towards the EU.



Yeah possible. Still leaves Boris vulnerable to the Brexit Party in the election afterwards. And, as I understand it, Cummings is out to destroy them as much as anything else. It also sounds (almost) too "normal, conciliatory politics" for Cummings.

If I had to try to guess what "dastardly, system-breaking" scheme Cummings could try, it wouldn't surprise me to start hearing about (a) extending Porougation (sp?) or (b) coming back to Parliament with a deal (thus meeting the criteria of the new law) but the deal being so toxic that it could never pass Parliament. My quick read of the law doesn't seem to address what would happen in that case - I think it meets the criteria of the law and leaves them back where they were i.e. a crash out being the default.

The problems are obviously (a) a legal challenge to an extension and (b) whether the EU would agree a revised deal that they knew wouldn't pass Parliament - I think they would spot this one and just not agree a deal.


----------



## Early Riser (10 Sep 2019)

EmmDee said:


> Yeah possible. Still leaves Boris vulnerable to the Brexit Party in the election afterwards.



I think once Brexit is passed the Brexit Party's ship will have sailed. The NI only backstop will mean Britain leaving the Customs Union and Single Market (and ECJ - and Freedom of Movement) - once the transition period has passed. They will be free to pursue US and other trade deals as they wish. The Brexit Party will have very little concrete left to campaign on.


----------



## EmmDee (10 Sep 2019)

Early Riser said:


> I think once Brexit is passed the Brexit Party's ship will have sailed. The NI only backstop will mean Britain leaving the Customs Union and Single Market (and ECJ - and Freedom of Movement) - once the transition period has passed. They will be free to pursue US and other trade deals as they wish. The Brexit Party will have very little concrete left to campaign on.



They have said they'll come after the Tories if they sign up to any withdrawal bill. You can almost see Farage at it - "Traitor Johnson", "Remain by the backdoor" etc etc.

They'll run - on the basis of probably ending the WA early or withdrawing from it all together to try to remove an easier option back into the EU. That's the only reason he is talking up the "no deal" bluster. It's not for the sake of the EU - it's a domestic audience he is talking to


----------



## john luc (10 Sep 2019)

The center will hold. I believe that at some point the politic's in Britain will swing back to the center. Could be awhile though.


----------



## Sophrosyne (11 Sep 2019)

More of it!

The Scottish court of appeal has ruled the prorogation of parliament unlawful.


----------



## EmmDee (11 Sep 2019)

Sophrosyne said:


> More of it!
> 
> The Scottish court of appeal has ruled the prorogation of parliament unlawful.



Importantly it ruled that BJ lied to the Queen about the reason for it. Honestly - every "wheeze" Cummings comes up with falls apart under process and procedure.

It will probably be reversed at Supreme Court but it just adds a ton more negative news and puts further pressure on the Parliamentary Party

Edit - watch out for a couple more legal moves. Specifically the release of documentation. There's a time bomb there as well


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Sep 2019)

EmmDee said:


> It will probably be reversed at Supreme Court



If the SC holds up the Scottish verdict then Boris and Farage could always appeal to ECJ


----------



## elacsaplau (11 Sep 2019)

EmmDee said:


> It will probably be reversed at Supreme Court but it just adds a ton more negative news and puts further pressure on the Parliamentary Party
> 
> Edit - watch out for a couple more legal moves. Specifically the release of documentation. There's a time bomb there as well



Hi EmmDee,

Why do you think that it will probably be reversed by the SC?

Any chance that you can elaborate on your tantalising edit please?!


----------



## EmmDee (12 Sep 2019)

elacsaplau said:


> Hi EmmDee,
> 
> Why do you think that it will probably be reversed by the SC?
> 
> Any chance that you can elaborate on your tantalising edit please?!



Hi,

So - to start with (apologies if you are already aware of all of this), there are significant differences between English and Scottish law; both in terms of the whole basis of the law but also in terms of the conventions around the legal system's interaction with the executive and vice versa. English law has long standing conventions that the courts shouldn't stray into matters for the executive and vice versa. Scottish courts don't place such tight restrictions on themselves. In both cases (and Northern Ireland), the Queen and decisions made by her are not subject to judicial review - though the Queen acts on the advice of her PM

The first case brought to the English High Court last week tried to claim the 5 week shutting down of parliament was unprecedented and illegal. The court ruled, not that the action was legal, but rather that the length of the prorogation was a political decision and therefore not a matter for the court ("non justiciable" is the phrase). That case is being appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Scottish case was slightly different. The case here was not to do with the length of prorogation but rather it questioned the validity of the advice. Essentially the case was that the PM was not honest about the reason for the prorogation - rather than the stated case of being to prepare for a new Parliament, it was actually done to stifle Parliament's oversight of the executive. Crucially, the Government failed to lodge a sworn statement to justify the decision. David Allen Green (follow him on twitter if you like this sort of stuff) spotted this during the case - he likened it to the Sherlock Holmes case where the biggest piece of evidence was actually the lack of what should be there - "The dog that never barked". The Scottish judges took an inference from this that because the Government couldn't provide (or wasn't willing to) a sworn statement that they did indeed have a reason for the advice other than the one publically stated.

Both of these case are now going to the Supreme Court. Up to a couple of weeks ago, any legal commentators I have read in the UK, gave little hope to an appeal to the Supreme Court i.e. after the English High Court case. The thinking being that the Supreme Court would take a similar "non-justiciable" view. The Scottish case raises the chances from 0% to something else but who knows what. It is still an act of the executive being challenged in a UK court which historically is slow to interefere in the executive. It is complicated by the fact that the Scottish case also used civil law standards which would be valid in England and was brought on a different basis to the English case. So while I say the balance of probabilities is that it won't succeed, it is certainly not zero. And in fact - given the track record - I wonder if it brings a significant risk of unintended disclosures during the case i.e. another "dog that won't bark" - or an order to provide documentation. So even if it doesn't succeed, it has the potential to backfire on BJ

As to my edit - I was referring to the Dominic Grieve "Humble Address" that he got through Parliament on Monday before it closed. It essentially required the Government to publish the advice about a no deal exit (Project Yellowhammer) and to publish all correspondence between Ministers and named advisors relating to the decision to Porogue - both on official communication channels AND private/personal. You may have seen a lot of noise last night about the publication of the Yellowhammer document (essentially confirming the leaked document published by the Sunday Times) but the Government refused to publish any internal communications (citing privacy).

The latter is the bit, I think, Grieve was really after. The rumour / suspicion is that there were explicit discussion about using Porogation as a tactic for Brexit. Which would both confirm the judgement in the Scottish courts AND explain why no Minister or Civil Servant was willing to swear evidence into the court. There is also rumour / suspicion that Cummings and others are avoiding formal Government channels such as email and instead using burner phones, encrypted messaging etc to avoid leaving discoverable evidence.

I think the release last night was really just a distraction - though politically terrible for the Government. The real jeopardy for BJ is if, as I suspect will be the next step, a case is brought to attempt an injunction to force the Government to comply with the release of communications. That has the potential to be open up a can of worms

Apologies for that - bit long. I would definitely follow David Allen Green on twitter (also in the FT and has blogs) if you're into this type of thing - there are a number of other UK QC's also commentating on twitter - legal Twitter is pretty active these days!!!


----------



## Sophrosyne (12 Sep 2019)

I don’t think prorogation was dreamed up by Dominic Cummings though of course, he may have ran with it.

On 14 June last, Gerald Warner, wrote an article for Reaction.life, an online magazine for extremists that “Proroguing parliament is legal and should be on the table”.

Warner or James Gerald Warner of Craigenmaddie to give him his full title, was a journalist and in the 1990s became Special Adviser to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

He detested David Cameron and what he perceived as the left-leaning direction of the Conservative Party.

At the time, senior Tories spoke out against prorogation to force through Brexit.

The English and now the Belfast courts dismissed the cases on the basis that it was none of their business. The Supreme Court may do the same.

That would leave the Scottish Court of Session as the only court to give a ruling having examined the facts.

So on the one hand the prorogation is unlawful but on the other hand it doesn’t matter!

I don’t think this will go away.


----------



## elacsaplau (13 Sep 2019)

EmmDee,

I gave your post a like. However, I feel a mere like is not a sufficiently adequate way of recording my gratitude for taking the time to make such an informative and well-written post. Bualadh bos, bualadh bos croíléiseach.


----------



## EmmDee (13 Sep 2019)

Sophrosyne said:


> I don’t think prorogation was dreamed up by Dominic Cummings though of course, he may have ran with it.
> 
> On 14 June last, Gerald Warner, wrote an article for Reaction.life, an online magazine for extremists that “Proroguing parliament is legal and should be on the table”.
> 
> ...



The idea of shutting down parliament to get over the exit date was one that was raised even earlier than that. I think I recall Rees-Mogg suggesting early this year. It was a topic during the Tory leadership contest



Sophrosyne said:


> The English and now the Belfast courts dismissed the cases on the basis that it was none of their business. The Supreme Court may do the same.
> 
> That would leave the Scottish Court of Session as the only court to give a ruling having examined the facts.



Important to remember a few things. The English, Scottish and Northern Irish High Courts hold equal legal weight - three high courts from three jurisdictions. A Supreme Court decision is binding on all jurisdictions but it isn't like a game where best of 3 wins. I also believe the appeal is judged under the law of the jurisdiction i.e. the Scottish appeal is judged on Scottish law.

Interesting (well to me anyway) fact - the UK Supreme Court was established 10 years ago. Before that, the appeal court was a committee of the House of Lords. Which - in this case - would have been porogued


----------



## EmmDee (13 Sep 2019)

elacsaplau said:


> EmmDee,
> 
> I gave your post a like. However, I feel a mere like is not a sufficiently adequate way of recording my gratitude for taking the time to make such an informative and well-written post. Bualadh bos, bualadh bos croíléiseach.



Gosh thanks. And - you're welcome


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Sep 2019)

EmmDee said:


> there are significant differences between English and Scottish law; both in terms of the whole basis of the law but also in terms of the conventions around the legal system's interaction with the executive and vice versa.



You mean to say, that there is divergence within the UK legal system itself, from one country to another?
Kind of puts a gaping hole in the DUP hoax that there cannot be divergence from laws, rules and regulations.

*excellent post by the way.


----------



## EmmDee (13 Sep 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> You mean to say, that there is divergence within the UK legal system itself, from one country to another?
> Kind of puts a gaping hole in the DUP hoax that there cannot be divergence from laws, rules and regulations.
> 
> *excellent post by the way.



Lol. 

It's a (geeky) interesting history. They are three "nations" legally. And while I'm no expert, the Scottish legal system has a lot of continental influence - more so than English. Apparently Irish and English law are a lot closer than English and Scottish.

It's not the only divergence - There are no university fees in Scotland where there are in England. Which, because of reciprocity in the EU, means a Scottish citizen gets free Uni here while an English person would have to pay (likewise an Irish person pays fees in England but not in Scotland). The NHS is different (e.g. yesterday NHS Scotland announced it was making a cystic fibrosis drug available free which is not available in England). Contract law is very different.

There is already divergence in NI - the obvious gay marriage and abortion laws for example. There are also separation on animal and food checks (all Ireland as opposed to all UK).

The history of what is now the UK is actually really interesting and, just as we criticise our neighbours for not being au fait with our history, I don't think we learn enough of the nuances of theirs


----------



## Purple (13 Sep 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> You mean to say, that there is divergence within the UK legal system itself, from one country to another?
> Kind of puts a gaping hole in the DUP hoax that there cannot be divergence from laws, rules and regulations.
> 
> *excellent post by the way.


Scottish Law is quite distinct from English Law in both its origins, structures and common law precedents. If anything they are more closely aligned now than at any time in history.
Northern Ireland Law is also different from English and Welsh Law in that it has its origins in Irish Common Law but it is far less distinctive than Scottish Law in both its structures, application and case law precedents. The Northern Ireland Act of 1998 established the Northern Irish Assembly and gave it Legislative Powers (and therefore in effect acts as a Northern Irish Constitution), before that (post 1972) the courts effectively acted as the legislature. Weird, them Nordies.


----------



## Sunny (13 Sep 2019)

EmmDee said:


> The history of what is now the UK is actually really interesting and, just as we criticise our neighbours for not being au fait with our history, I don't think we learn enough of the nuances of theirs



That's a very good point. On the flip side, I would imagine that there are a lot people in the UK who don't understand it. Try spending Scottish and NI Sterling in London is always good for a laugh. I know people in England who can't understand why the Welsh and Scottish would cheer against England since they are the same Country....


----------



## EmmDee (13 Sep 2019)

Can I correct something I said in my post above....



EmmDee said:


> ....
> I think the release last night was really just a distraction - though politically terrible for the Government. The real jeopardy for BJ is if, as I suspect will be the next step, a case is brought to attempt an injunction to force the Government to comply with the release of communications. That has the potential to be open up a can of worms
> ....



I was mistaken. The "Humble Address" passed isn't legislation and therefore if the Government doesn't comply there is no court injunction option. It could only lead to the Parliament deciding to vote the Government in contempt - which is something that almost happened earlier this year on another Grieve motion but the Government complied before the vote. Whether they would care this time is probably open to question


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (13 Sep 2019)

EmmDee said:


> They are three "nations" legally.


But one sovereign state.  A mystery, you might say.  Any thoughts of which are the Father, Son and  Holy Ghost? England, Scotland and NI for me.


----------



## EmmDee (13 Sep 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But one sovereign state.  A mystery, you might say.  Any thoughts of which are the Father, Son and  Holy Ghost? England, Scotland and NI for me.



They should adopt, as a national symbol, a plant or flower that reflects three objects as part of one whole.... there's got to be something out there


----------



## joe sod (13 Sep 2019)

@EmmDee  you made the point that Irish and English law are a lot closer than English and Scots, as Irish law comes from English law, but would it not be more correct that Irish law is much closer to the English law as it existed in 1920. As we all know the Irish legal system is very slow to reform, probably the most unreformed legal system on these islands. Also it is worth noting that the English system baulked on stepping on the toes of the parliament, it more or less said that these issues were outside its remit. 
On the other hand the Irish courts are very quick to over rule decisions made by the dail using very dubious mechanisms, usually relating to very liberal interpretations of the constitution. And the Irish politicians seem to very meek and compliant with these rulings. I think there would be uproar in the house of commons if the English courts made similar decisions and muscled in to the work of the parliament.


----------



## cremeegg (14 Sep 2019)

joe sod said:


> @EmmDee  you made the point that Irish and English law are a lot closer than English and Scots, as Irish law comes from English law, but would it not be more correct that Irish law is much closer to the English law as it existed in 1920.



With the major exception of the constitution.



joe sod said:


> On the other hand the Irish courts are very quick to over rule decisions made by the dail using very dubious mechanisms, usually relating to very liberal interpretations of the constitution.



The absolute power of the courts to interpret the constitution is clearly laid out in the constitution. Nothing dubious about it at all.


----------



## AileenWalsh (16 Sep 2019)

Seagull said:


> Jeremy Corbyn is actually surprisingly popular with younger voters, but he alienates all slightly left of middle to right leaning voters who might otherwise vote labour. Persuade Jeremy Corbyn to resign, and Boris would start back pedalling very fast. I still think the Tories have made themselves unelectable for a generation at least. I wouldn't be hugely surprised to see something like a labour, lib dem, SNP coalition.


Jeremy Corbyn resign?  Never you would have to kill him first.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Sep 2019)

Oliver Callan: DUP objections to NI-only backstop are phoney
					

North already diverges from many significant laws enacted across the rest of the UK




					www.irishtimes.com
				




Oliver Callan demonstrating in one page what 22 pages of another Brexit topic tried to do!


----------



## Purple (17 Sep 2019)

John Fitzgerald outlines the economic disaster that a United Ireland world be here.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Sep 2019)

Purple said:


> John Fitzgerald outlines the economic disaster that a United Ireland world be here.



I think this would merit a thread by itself. I would find it hard to agree with much, if anything at all, in this article.


----------



## Purple (17 Sep 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I think this would merit a thread by itself. I would find it hard to agree with much, if anything at all, in this article.


What, in your opinion, did he get factually wrong?


----------



## Ceist Beag (17 Sep 2019)

Are there actually any facts in that article? I know he's an economist but just how many could/might/may/ifs can one squeeze into one article? Answers below.

might=2
could=12
may=3
if=11


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Sep 2019)

Purple said:


> What, in your opinion, did he get factually wrong?



Its just an opinion piece. I disagree with his assessment.


----------



## Purple (17 Sep 2019)

Ceist Beag said:


> Are there actually any facts in that article? I know he's an economist but just how many could/might/may/ifs can one squeeze into one article? Answers below.
> 
> might=2
> could=12
> ...


It is based on an ESRI report "Northern Ireland Economy: Problems and Prospects" by John Fitzgerald and Edgar Morgenroth. I am hoping that the full report will be published on the ESRI website.


----------



## Purple (17 Sep 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Its just an opinion piece. I disagree with his assessment.


The school dropout rate, the subsidy from the UK exchequer, the cost to the Irish State in the event of Irish unity. Which bit do you think he got wrong?

Edit; link to report on TCD website.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Sep 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Oliver Callan: DUP objections to NI-only backstop are phoney
> 
> 
> North already diverges from many significant laws enacted across the rest of the UK
> ...


Don't want to start another 22 pages.  Of course the DUP and UUP case is phoney.  It is in response to the phoney pan nationalist argument that any tweak to the border spells the end of the peace process.


----------



## Purple (17 Sep 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Don't want to start another 22 pages.  Of course the DUP and UUP case is phoney.  It is in response to the phoney pan nationalist argument that any tweak to the border spells the end of the peace process.


Chicken and Egg, me thinks.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Sep 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Don't want to start another 22 pages.



Granted.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Of course the DUP and UUP case is phoney. It is in response to the phoney pan nationalist argument that any tweak to the border spells the end of the peace process.



I don't think there is any parallel here. The DUP position is based on argument that is factually shown to be untrue.
The Irish government/EU position is based on political aspiration.
John Bruton summed it up nicely. The GFA is about bringing communities in NI closer together (in theory), bringing North and South closer to together, bringing Ireland and Britain closer together. It is about convergence.
Brexit is about divergence, the opposite of what the GFA is about.

*_thats my last comment on this thread. _


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Sep 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> *_thats my last comment on this thread. _


Great, you have given me the last word
Leo's "we will not desert Northern Nationalists _this time_" is going down in notoriety with you know who's "they haven't gone away you know".  With business and farming leaders in favour of an all Ireland backstop and with the UUP initially anti Brexit, this should never have become a Catholic/Protestant issue.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (24 Sep 2019)

EmmDee said:


> It will probably be reversed at Supreme Court but it just adds a ton more negative news and puts further pressure on the Parliamentary Party


----------



## Brendan Burgess (24 Sep 2019)

Apparently Boris is thinking of appealing the decision of the Supreme Court to the European Court of Justice. 

Brendan


----------



## Drakon (24 Sep 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Apparently Boris is thinking of appealing the decision of the Supreme Court to the European Court of Justice.
> 
> Brendan



Oh, the irony. May as well, squeeze the last out of EU membership.


----------



## Sunny (24 Sep 2019)

Drakon said:


> Oh, the irony. May as well, squeeze the last out of EU membership.



I think you might have missed the joke!


----------



## cremeegg (24 Sep 2019)

And Boris' pitch to the people rolls on. Despite the remoaners, despite Parliament, despite the Courts, Boris delivers Brexit.

He started 10 points ahead of Labour in the polls, he was 15 points ahead recently, I bet he goes further ahead after this.

Whether Brexit actually happens on 31st October Boris will walk the election.


----------



## Sunny (24 Sep 2019)

cremeegg said:


> And Boris' pitch to the people rolls on. Despite the remoaners, despite Parliament, despite the Courts, Boris delivers Brexit.
> 
> He started 10 points ahead of Labour in the polls, he was 15 points ahead recently, I bet he goes further ahead after this.
> 
> Whether Brexit actually happens on 31st October Boris will walk the election.



Yeah just another sign of the 'establishment' keeping the people down...….Always said Boris can't lose this no matter what he does. The UK, Ireland and Europe will lose but Boris will be ok.... And he will always have others to blame...


----------



## cremeegg (24 Sep 2019)

Sunny said:


> Yeah just another sign of the 'establishment' keeping the people down



I dont follow you there.

If the people elect Boris with a thumping majority at the next election, as I suspect they will, the people can blame whoever they like, Europe, Ireland, Immigrants, the Media, but it will be no ones fault but their own.


----------



## Sunny (24 Sep 2019)

cremeegg said:


> I dont follow you there.
> 
> If the people elect Boris with a thumping majority at the next election, as I suspect they will, the people can blame whoever they like, Europe, Ireland, Immigrants, the Media, but it will be no ones fault but their own.



Because that is how it will be spun and it will work. The Supreme Court were just full of remainers (all 11 of them). They were all biased. They were all corrupt. There is a conspiracy. It all sounds ridiculous but after spending some time in the Uk recently, don't under estimate how messed up it has become. Most of the media have taken sides and people are only reading media that matches what they think anyway so they are just re-enforcing their own beliefs. You will never convince a daily mail reader that the UK is not under attack from anti-democratic forces......

If and when the UK leaves, there is going to be a crash in the UK. The people are going to want to blame someone and now Boris has lined up everyone else to take the fall....


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (24 Sep 2019)

cremeegg said:


> Whether Brexit actually happens on 31st October Boris will walk the election.


You might be right _cremeegg_ as you were on The Donald.   All the same Theresa May didn't get a majority with 42% of the vote in 2017 and Boris is currently standing at 32%.  The weird FPP system can produce bizarre outcomes but I wonder has a majority ever been won on 32% of the vote.  Anyway Betfair go 2/1 against an overall majority for Boris and if you really are that confident why not have a piece of 4/1 against more than 340 seats?


----------



## EmmDee (24 Sep 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


>



I know!!!

Trying to keep up with the various commentators... It was the unanimous verdict that was the big put down

David Allen Green... Who I mentioned... Has been very good


----------



## EmmDee (24 Sep 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> You might be right _cremeegg_ as you were on The Donald.   All the same Theresa May didn't get a majority with 42% of the vote in 2017 and Boris is currently standing at 32%.  The weird FPP system can produce bizarre outcomes but I wonder has a majority ever been won on 32% of the vote.  Anyway Betfair go 2/1 against an overall majority for Boris and if you really are that confident why not have a piece of 4/1 against more than 340 seats?



I got pretty good odds on no Brexit by end Oct and end of year about 6 weeks ago... Bit early to choose numbers on GE at this point. But if you want a long odds punt I'd check out number of seats for Lib Dems... Not a majority but I'd look at the long end


----------



## john luc (25 Sep 2019)

Given the Soviet style vote the Labour party passed I would not be surprised if the libs don't blow them out of the water.


----------



## Purple (25 Sep 2019)

john luc said:


> Given the Soviet style vote the Labour party passed I would not be surprised if the libs don't blow them out of the water.


Don't forget their Soviet style leader.


----------



## cremeegg (25 Sep 2019)

The next UK general election in will be a 4 horse race in England. Cons, Lab, Lib Dems, Brexit party will all poll in excess of 10%, even the greens may make an impact.

This is something new for them and none of the UK commentators has the slightest idea how this will work out. Unless perhaps the FT brings Ganan Janesh back from the US.

The betting indicates that the vote split may look something like this, Cons 35%, Lab 25%, Lib Dems 24%, Brexit 10%. 

I suspect that Boris may successfully copper fasten his position as the Brexit champion and so break the Brexit party, but Farage may yet find a way to counter this, (he did well today, "the honourable thing is for Boris to resign") the campaign will tell. 

I can see the remainer drift away from labour accelerating, though the dislike of the Lib Dems of the young educated is still strong. Swinson's personality on the campaign may make or break them.

Then the issue of how % will translate into seats. The election is straight FPTP, so whoever is ahead on the first count wins, there is no second count. If Little Worsted on the Weade (loved that, thanks Duke) votes Cons 27%, Lab 25%, Lib Dems 24%, Brexit 18%. The Tories take the seat and everyone else goes home.

The broad mass of reasonable middle England, who think "we had a referendum and we voted for brexit now we should follow through" will vote Tory. This will include many who voted remain. All the goings on are just noise, people trying to frustrate the referendum result. Boris no longer even needs to deliver Brexit by 31st Oct to be the Brexit champion, no one can deny he has tried, (before anyone says he frustrated TMs efforts to deliver Brexit, that doesn't fit on a bus and so is irrelevant, anyway that was centuries ago).

Lots of Labour support will melt away for lots of obvious reasons. People who want Brexit, people who want Remain, people who don't like the infighting, people who have grown tired of Corbyn. (Actually although I would be a total remainer, I like Corbyn's approach, in an ideal world he could sell it to the public, revoking Art 50 could cause serious unrest.)

The regional (or even local) distribution of the vote is the crucial issue and this is not well examined. 

For what its worth I think that the big shift will be Labour losses in London and the university cities. They will loose seats here. Even though the Labour votes may go to Lib Dems or Greens the seats may well go to the Tories. Where we had Lab 50% Tories 40%, Lib Dems/Others 10% we may get Tories 40%, Lab 35% Lib Dems/Others 25%

The second change I see is working class Labour voters in the north will move to the Brexit Party and this will let the Cons win seats where they have not previously been competitive.

Seats: the Tories will a greater % of seats than their % of the vote, this is inevitable under the FPTP, but it will work more effectively for the Tories than Labour. Labour will also get above their % but the regional distribution of votes will deliver the Tories a bigger increase in seat numbers over their vote share than Labour..

The Lib Dems will get 35 seats but that's not a break through. The SNP will get more, maybe as many as 50.

The Brexit Party will get less than 10 seats.

Final result, no overall majority, no Lab, Lib Dem, SNP coalition, even if they get the numbers they won't do the deal. Another election within the year.


If anyone wants a bet 8/13 on the Brexit party to take one or more seats seems like a deal.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 Sep 2019)

Great stuff _cremeegg_.  The main thing is can we make money on this.  8/13 isn’t very appetizing


----------



## Drakon (26 Sep 2019)

Sunny said:


> I think you might have missed the joke!


Aye, but at this stage I’d believe anything, especially anything contradictory.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Sep 2019)

cremeegg said:


> The next UK general election in will be a 4 horse race* in England*. Cons, Lab, Lib Dems, Brexit party will all poll in excess of 10%, even the greens may make an impact.





Drakon said:


> It’ll be a two and two halves election again. The Cons vying for power against Labour, with the SNP (*who you fail to consider*) and the Lib Dem’s fighting out the place money.


Drakon, do _you _think the SNP are a factor in England?  Maybe you should have read the whole post to see that _cremeegg_ did consider the SNP.





> The Lib Dems will get 35 seats but that's not a break through. The SNP will get more, maybe as many as 50.


----------



## elacsaplau (26 Sep 2019)

I watched both Michael Gove and the Boris at the despatch box yesterday. Depressing yet compelling viewing. In my opinion, they were both absolute disgraces. The problem is, much like the idiot in the U.S., there's a significant chance that their depravity will be rewarded by the electorate who invariably get the politicians they deserve.


----------



## dereko1969 (26 Sep 2019)

Wow, way to miss the point of the post @Drakon! @cremedgg's point that those 4 parties will all poll more than 10% is very likely to be true. 
The FPTP system skews the impact of this in all the individual constituencies, the Lib Dems will win Tory seats in the South West, Labour seats in London and South West. Brexit Party may well win seats from Labour in Wales, NE England, Midlands and South East. Tories will benefit from Brexit taking Labour votes in the North East and Midlands too. Labour may win some seats due to similar impacts on Tories losing votes to Brexit party.
We're not in Kansas anymore that's for sure.


----------



## Drakon (29 Sep 2019)

The big negative of the Lib Dem’s is that they were in power when the Brexit referendum was held. They have blood on their hands, so to speak.


----------



## Early Riser (29 Sep 2019)

Drakon said:


> The big negative of the Lib Dem’s is that they were in power when the Brexit referendum was held



  Except they weren't - they were in opposition.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (29 Sep 2019)

Early Riser said:


> Except they weren't - they were in opposition.


Exactly.  David Cameron promised a ref in the 2015 GE, expecting that he would be continuing the Lib/Dem coalition and therefore saved from having to keep that promise.  As it happened he won a surprise albeit thin majority and decided to quickly get his promise out of the way - and the rest is history.


----------



## Drakon (29 Sep 2019)

Ah, I stand corrected, thanks. If the UK electorate genuinely regret choosing to leave then I expect the Lib Dems will score hugely in the next UK general election. They seem to be the only established unequivocal anti-Brexit party apart from the SNP. Popcorn politics at its best.


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2019)

I think the Tories will get a majority. Nobody ever lost seats by underestimating the intellect of the electorate. Just look at the vote the Shinners and looney-left get here.


----------



## elacsaplau (30 Sep 2019)

Absolutely Purple,

And just to add - at election time - the public are more than happy to reward politicians that lie to them and punish those that don't! Added to that, there are constituencies in England were, literally, a dead goat with a Tory rosette would get elected and in the marginal constituencies, the crude appeal to very base instincts coupled with a moron of a Labour leader will probably be enough for a Tory victory.


----------



## odyssey06 (30 Sep 2019)

elacsaplau said:


> And just to add - at election time - the public are more than happy to reward politicians that lie to them and punish those that don't! Added to that, there are constituencies in England were, literally, a dead goat with a Tory rosette would get elected and in the marginal constituencies, the crude appeal to very base instincts coupled with a moron of a Labour leader will probably be enough for a Tory victory.



Point of order. The goat would have to be alive (see earlier hamster comments). In fairness, the same is true of many Labour constituencies also.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Sep 2019)

Boris just received a big election boost - he is a groper.  Remember how it got his pal The Donald into the White House


----------



## john luc (30 Sep 2019)

The bulk of voters are not idealolists and vote for what they believe brings middle of the road government, normally.......


----------



## Drakon (30 Oct 2019)

12th December.  We should know the outcome on Friday 13th. 
Hopefully there will be a majority government of some kind.


----------



## odyssey06 (30 Oct 2019)

Drakon said:


> 12th December.  We should know the outcome on *Friday 13th*.



Ominous!
I think it boils down to whether the UK voting public are more sick of (a) the Conservatives and their Brexit antics or (b) Brexit and want it over with.
Anything other than a Conservative majority means more delay and more uncertainty and re-negotiation of the withdrawal agreement.
A Conservative majority is a mandate to exit on the basis of the deal just agreed (and ignore the DUP).
I think, this is just a guess, that it's (b) and so a Conservative majority.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Oct 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> Ominous!
> I think it boils down to whether the UK voting public are more sick of (a) the Conservatives and their Brexit antics or (b) Brexit and want it over with.
> Anything other than a Conservative majority means more delay and more uncertainty and re-negotiation of the withdrawal agreement.
> A Conservative majority is a mandate to exit on the basis of the deal just agreed (and ignore the DUP).
> I think, this is just a guess, that it's (b) and so a Conservative majority.


I expect Bojo to be dead in a ditch this Friday, if one can trust him


----------



## odyssey06 (30 Oct 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I expect Bojo to be dead in a ditch this Friday, if one can trust him



Saturday is the Day of the Dead. So I expect resurrection by Sunday.


----------



## Purple (1 Nov 2019)

BoJo got a big boost with support from The Donald in his interview with Nige on LBC. 
 Great leaders in Nige and BoJo and a great country being held back by the EU. It's all going to be fantastic!


----------



## cremeegg (3 Nov 2019)

Purple said:


> It's all going to be fantastic!





Every paper is telling us that this UK election will be the most difficult to forecast. The IT has 6 possible results. They are like sports channels telling us about a MASSIVE weekend of sport evert second weekend. It's all hype and nonsense to interest the jaded public. 

Here are some simple predictions.

1. The Tories will win the most seats.
2. Labour will win the second most seats.
3. The SNP will win the third most seats.
4. The Lib Dems will win fourth most seats.

The only issue in the election is whether the Tories will win an overall majority. They will lose seats in Scotland to the SNP, they will lose seats in the South of England to the Lib Dems. Although these two things are certainties, they are small certainties in total that's only 20 seats lost for the Tories.

Will the Tories take seats from Labour in leaving voting seats in the Midlands and North. 60% of labour seats voted leave, thats a lot of seats, more than 150. 

This might happen _en masse_ and the Tories win a thumping majority, or it may not happen at all and there will be no overall majority in parliament.

I think this is all to play for in the campaign. If the coverage is all about Brexit, then I think the Tories will sweep the board, lets get Brexit done is a winning line, if the NHS, austerity etc. etc. dominate the headlines then Boris will struggle to replace his losses in Scotland and to the Lib Dems.

Now isn't this more fun than Liverpool and Spurs


----------



## Seagull (5 Nov 2019)

What seats will Brexit party be running candidates in, and will they steal votes from Tories?


----------



## Drakon (7 Nov 2019)

Seagull said:


> What seats will Brexit party be running candidates in, and will they steal votes from Tories?


They’re targeting Labour seats in constituencies that voted Leave. 
I get the impression that Brexit is bigger than the Brexit Party. They’d rather Brexit happen than get elected themselves.


----------



## cremeegg (7 Nov 2019)

Seagull said:


> What seats will Brexit party be running candidates in, and will they steal votes from Tories?



They claimed that they would run candidate in all seats and I think that they will come near to that.

Recently they take votes almost exclusively from the Tories. Look at this graphic, Brexit party up Tories down, Tories back up brexit party down. The dotted line is the day Johnson became PM. From the Tory point of view he was a brilliant choice, as a campaigner if not as PM.

The labour / Lib Den relationship is similar though not as strong.


----------



## Drakon (11 Nov 2019)

The Brexit Party are going to field fewer than 300 candidates in total and will not be running candidates in the 317 constituencies won by Tory MPs in the last election.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Nov 2019)

Drakon said:


> They’re targeting Labour seats in constituencies that voted Leave.
> I get the impression that Brexit is bigger than the Brexit Party. They’d rather Brexit happen than get elected themselves.


Conservative majority now 1.63 fairly strong favourite with Betfair (the Duke has an insurance bet at 2.08).  Combination of Boris/Dominic playing a blinder and Corbyn/Abbot/McDonnell etc. a walking disaster.


----------



## Seagull (11 Nov 2019)

If Corbyn wanted to act in the best interests of the labour party, he'd resign as leader right now. Put almost anyone else as party leader and there would be conservative remainers who would be prepared to vote labour to try and get a second referendum. With Corbyn in place, they won't do it.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Nov 2019)

Seagull said:


> If Corbyn wanted to act in the best interests of the labour party, he'd resign as leader right now. Put almost anyone else as party leader and there would be conservative remainers who would be prepared to vote labour to try and get a second referendum. With Corbyn in place, they won't do it.



Unless it's a "pure" Labour Party adhering to his principles I think he sees it as a Tory trojan horse.
And he has always been ambivalent about the EU.
As far as he's concerned the best interests of the Labour Party are only served by a Corbyn platform.
He'd prefers a "pure" Labour Party in opposition and the UK out of the EU; then a sullied Labour Party in government and in the EU led by a Blairite.
_(Not saying he's correct, just that's his perspective)_


----------



## cremeegg (12 Nov 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Conservative majority now 1.63 fairly strong favourite with Betfair .



For some reason I cannot get my head around the way odds are quoted. Is this 1.63 the same as the 4/7 Paddy Power is offering. Calculated as 1+ (4/(7+4)).

The probability of a Tory majority has to be less than one. So I think the above suggests that, in the bookmakers opinion, the probability of a Tory majority is 0.63. Is that correct.

If so, in my opinion, the bookmakers are too generous to the Tories


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Nov 2019)

cremeegg said:


> For some reason I cannot get my head around the way odds are quoted. Is this 1.63 the same as the 4/7 Paddy Power is offering. Calculated as 1+ (4/(7+4)).
> 
> The probability of a Tory majority has to be less than one. So I think the above suggests that, in the bookmakers opinion, the probability of a Tory majority is 0.63. Is that correct.
> 
> If so, in my opinion, the bookmakers are too generous to the Tories


1.63 is .63/1;  4/7 is .57/1, similar but, as usual, Betfair slighty better odds
1.63 =  100/1.63 = 61% chance
4/7 =  700/11 = 64% chance

Probably the best way to see Betfair quotes is to regard the price of each event as 1 and the Betfair quote is what the event will pay if it comes up.  Thus Betfair is 1.63 Buy and 1.65 Lay, meaning if you buy the event for 1 and it comes up you get 1.63 i.e. a profit of .63 and if you Lay (sell) it for 1 and it comes up you will pay the buyer 1.65 i.e. a loss of .65


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Nov 2019)

Farage and his Brexit Party have absolutely capitulated. They have given free reign to Tories in Tory held seats to shore up votes for the "second worse deal of all time".

I dont see any point for their existence now. They will split the Leave vote from disenchanted Labour supporters in Labour seats, ensuring Labour returns.

Farage should move aside altogether now, and the Brexit party too. He has figured that no-deal, clean break Brexit, will never happen. So the only deal in town is Boris's "its a great deal for NI - they get to stay in SM and CU" deal which will threaten the future of the UK.


----------



## Drakon (13 Nov 2019)

I don’t see this as a capitulation at all. Their main aim is getting Brexit over the line. 
In the world of Real Politik it’s a choice between no Brexit or a “second worse deal of all time”.
If the Conservatives get a majority, Brexit will happen, either on 01/01/2020 or 01/02/2020.
If Labour gets in there will be another referendum, eventually, and that throws the cat amongst the pigeons. 

By giving free reign to the Tories in those 317 constituencies they enhance the chances of a Brexit-voting MP being elected. 
There’s a good chance of the Tories getting at least 295 Leaver MPs elected. 
By targeting Labour seats in <300 constituencies where the electorate are Leavers but the MP is a Remainer, they have a great chance of winning seats. 
Diehard Labour voters that are Leavers will never vote Tory. Not even once. But by “lending their votes” to Farage just this once, they’ll get Brexit over the line.
If those aforementioned 295 Tory Leavers get elected, only another 30 or so Leavers are needed. About 10 per cent of the Brexit Party candidates being elected will see this whole Brexit debacle put to bed forever.


----------



## Drakon (13 Nov 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> ...deal which will threaten the future of the UK.



You may be confusing the BP with the DUP here?

The Brexit Party is about “Brexit”.
The Democratic Unionist Party is about “The Union”.

Farage and Co would gladly damage the Union to see Brexit, any Brexit, happen. 

BTW, say this whole Brexit malarkey leads to a Border Poll in de north. 
And the electorate choose to leave the UK. 
Will there be a poll here too? A United Ireland poll? And what happens if it is rejected. Will NI become a sovereign nation?


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Nov 2019)

Drakon said:


> Farage and Co would gladly damage the Union to see Brexit, any Brexit, happen.



Thats exactly my point.


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Nov 2019)

Drakon said:


> Their main aim is getting Brexit over the line.



Yes, but not just any Brexit. Otherwise they could have backed Teresa Mays WA.
Farage has labelled Johnsons deal as "Brexit in name only" and the second worse deal of all time.
If the objective is to get Brexit over the line, then they should stand aside altogether.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (13 Nov 2019)

Drakon said:


> By targeting Labour seats in <300 constituencies where the electorate are Leavers but the MP is a Remainer, they have a great chance of winning seats.
> Diehard Labour voters that are Leavers will never vote Tory. Not even once. But by “lending their votes” to Farage just this once, they’ll get Brexit over the line.
> If those aforementioned 295 Tory Leavers get elected, only another 30 or so Leavers are needed. About 10 per cent of the Brexit Party candidates being elected will see this whole Brexit debacle put to bed forever.


There is no doubt NF's decision has improved the Tory position as the betting shows, but not as dramatically as might have been expected. 

The BP are odds on not to win a single seat.  20/1 against double figures.  There is even an argument that BP running in Labour seats could be counterproductive in that the Tories might see a chance to reverse the surprise 2017 win for Labour in some marginals but could have that thwarted by the BP vote.
NF is playing a canny game in his own self interest.   He saw a real danger that he would be seen as the villain of the piece if he resulted in a hung parliament and his cozy relationship with The Donald and Boris would be in smithereens. Now he can envisage a situation where Boris just gets over the line.  I can just picture the tweet from The Donald.  "Well done Boris and congratulations Nigel for following my advice".

This will not be a comfortable place for Boris.  Because no, the Brexit debacle is certainly not put to bed forever. It is just beginning and with everything requiring the stamp of approval from The Donald and Nigel he will be just as hamstrung as Theresa May before him.
BTW under the GFA a Border poll must take part in both parts of the island.


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Nov 2019)

In case anyone is in any doubt, here is what the Brexit Party says on its website about BJ's deal

[broken link removed]

"_The Prime Minister's deal is not a proper Brexit". 
"...that reheats 95per cent of Theresa May's deal". _


----------



## Drakon (13 Nov 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The BP are odds on not to win a single seat. 20/1 against double figures.


Apples Jade went off at 1/4 in the Lismullen Hurdle in Navan at Sunday, seeking a three-in-a-row in that race. She lost. The bookies/exchanges aren’t always right.

After 22:00 on 23/06/2016 they had Leave at 10/1 to win that referendum.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (13 Nov 2019)

Drakon said:


> After 22:00 on 23/06/2016 they had Leave at 10/1 to win that referendum.


Yep, after the Sunderland result I helped myself to a bit of 8/1 on Betfair  
There is no way the BP will get 30 seats - 1 or 2 at most.  But that does not mean they can't influence the make up of the next UK parliament.


----------



## Purple (15 Nov 2019)

Drakon said:


> BTW, say this whole Brexit malarkey leads to a Border Poll in de north.
> And the electorate choose to leave the UK.
> Will there be a poll here too? A United Ireland poll? And what happens if it is rejected. Will NI become a sovereign nation?


That's the nightmare scenario for me; Norn-Ireland getting foisted on us.


----------



## Drakon (15 Nov 2019)

Purple said:


> That's the nightmare scenario for me; Norn-Ireland getting foisted on us.



RTÉ had a special broadcast about it a couple of years ago. It was only a straw poll but most in the south said they’d vote in favour of it. 
However, in the second poll where they were informed that it would involve austerity and recession a là the Troika days, 75% voted against.


----------



## Drakon (15 Nov 2019)

The irony is that there’s only ever been a United Ireland under Saxon/English/British rule. 
Before they arrived here it was a very divided island.


----------



## Purple (15 Nov 2019)

Drakon said:


> The irony is that there’s only ever been a United Ireland under Saxon/English/British rule.
> Before they arrived here it was a very divided island.


We had a  High King system, a single language and, crucially, a single legal system. We were as much a nation as any other place in the world. The Nation State is a relatively recent creation.


----------



## Purple (15 Nov 2019)

Drakon said:


> However, in the second poll where they were informed that it would involve austerity and recession a là the Troika days, 75% voted against.


It would be far worse than that. The cost would be €11 billion a year, every year, along with terrorism from Unionist groups and the general poison of tribalism, racism, bigotry and intolerance that is so pervasive all over Northern Ireland.


----------



## elcato (15 Nov 2019)

Purple said:


> he general poison of tribalism, racism, bigotry and intolerance that is so pervasive all over Northern Ireland


That's very racist .....


----------



## Royanne (16 Nov 2019)

Purple said:


> We had a  High King system, a single language and, crucially, a single legal system. We were as much a nation as any other place in the world. The Nation State is a relatively recent creation.


What?-Ireland had clans which spent a lot of time stealing cattle, taking slaves and generally fighting with each other. 
The only time it was united was in the U.K. but the fightin Oirish with their bigotry, narrow nationalism, coupled with an inferior culture left the U.K. and set up a big council known as the Dail. A priest ridden backwater which specialised in burning homes, religious discrimination against other denominations as well as killings might confirm the view of the self deceptive South Irish who major exports have been child molesters and drunks.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Nov 2019)

Royanne said:


> ... who major exports have been child molesters and drunks.


Worse than that, think Bono, Geldoff


----------



## Purple (18 Nov 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Worse than that, think Bono, Geldoff


And terrorism, don't forget about the terrorism!


----------



## Purple (18 Nov 2019)

Royanne said:


> What?-Ireland had clans which spent a lot of time stealing cattle, taking slaves and generally fighting with each other.
> The only time it was united was in the U.K. but the fightin Oirish with their bigotry, narrow nationalism, coupled with an inferior culture left the U.K. and set up a big council known as the Dail. A priest ridden backwater which specialised in burning homes, religious discrimination against other denominations as well as killings might confirm the view of the self deceptive South Irish who major exports have been child molesters and drunks.


Love it!
We did help the UK sort out it's last civil war though, even when it spilled over into our country.
So show a little gratitude. 
I do agree that by the time the English invaded Ireland England was a united country though it was united under their French conquerors. The english always knew to tug the forelock to their masters so accepted their status as a conquered people quite readily. In fairness it was the making of them as a nation. It does make Brexit quite ironic though.  

The strange thing about immigration to Britain from here is that when an Irish person moves to the UK the average IQ of both countries goes up.


----------



## odyssey06 (18 Nov 2019)

Am reading a book covering the UK from 1979-1982, "Who Dares Wins" by Dominic Sandbrook.

I thought it was remarkable that polls during that period regularly showed large majorities in favour of leaving the then EEC (66%), and it was a policy of the Labour party under Michael Foot, agreed at the party conference - but not the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher.


----------



## Leo (18 Nov 2019)

Royanne said:


> which specialised in burning homes, religious discrimination against other denominations as well as killings



Where do you think we learned all those practices?


----------



## Purple (18 Nov 2019)

Leo said:


> Where do you think we learned all those practices?


In fairness we were never as good at those things as the British but they were world class at that sort of thing.


----------



## Royanne (18 Nov 2019)

The Irish have been practicing their national sport for hundreds of years and still blaming those dastardly British.

 Sure, didn't the British cause blight on the potatoes as well and the Irish  had to go to Amerkay as well as the cattle boats to the ould enemy.

Mind you, the Irish made sure the  sons of the Emerald Paddies got all the good jobs in the police and fire departments in the great cities  of Amerikay on merit alone.  As for religion the Irish were always great at Christianity-is that not self evident even in the Oirish Republic.
A peace loving tolerant people as long as you are not a refugee or a 'non catholic', black, or traveller.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (19 Nov 2019)

What did the English ever do for us?
Oh, they gave us our legal system.
Oh, and our parliamentary democracy.
Oh, and the language of global technology, commerce and diplomacy
Oh, they saved us from Nazi domination of Europe (Godwin's Law)
Oh, they saved us from tearing ourselves apart in a sectarian civil war
Oh, they defeated a guerrilla army intent on making us a 32 county socialist republic
And of course they gave us the BBC for free!


----------



## Purple (19 Nov 2019)

Royanne said:


> The Irish have been practicing their national sport for hundreds of years and still blaming those dastardly British.
> 
> Sure, didn't the British cause blight on the potatoes as well and the Irish  had to go to Amerkay as well as the cattle boats to the ould enemy.
> 
> ...


Feel better now?
Were you making an actual point there?

The British have given the world a lot; one of the biggest empired the world had seen and therefore one of most comprehensive mass oppressions ever as all empires are built on blood, murder and suffering. They also gave the world the concentration camp, deliberate germ warfare, a good few genocides, mass religious oppression and so much more. 
This country has many dark chapters in our history and many bad points now. Some of the Brits glorify their savagery, their murder, their oppression and try to Brexit their way back to those days of glory.


----------



## Purple (19 Nov 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> What did the English ever do for us?
> Oh, they gave us our legal system.
> Oh, and our parliamentary democracy.
> Oh, and the language of global technology, commerce and diplomacy
> ...


We had a legal system before they got here and they didn't speak english at that time anyway due to the evolution of their own language and the fact that their leaders spoke the language of their conquerors; French. My daughter is learning Spanish in school. I don't see an invasion by Spain as an essential part of that particular curriculum. 

The Russians defeated the Nazis and the Americans stopped the Russians roiling across Europe. The British did help but they were bit players.

Why were we having a Civil War in the first place?

I don't think the IRA would have overthrown the State since even by the mid 70's they had lost any sort of popular support here due to the fact that they were murdering scum.

I do like the BBC but we'd get that anyway.


----------



## Leo (19 Nov 2019)

Royanne said:


> Sure, didn't the British cause blight on the potatoes as well and the Irish had to go to Amerkay as well as the cattle boats to the ould enemy.



It's a sad day when you find the guy who tried to blame the famine on a volcano was actually making more sense,


----------



## Purple (19 Nov 2019)

Leo said:


> It's a sad day when you find the guy who tried to blame the famine on a volcano was actually making more sense,


The people who exported food during the Famine were Irish. We do have a tendency to ignore the fact that while they may have been British as well they were also Irish born. The biggest crime those who starved committed was that they were poor. Poor people didn't matter.


----------



## Leo (19 Nov 2019)

Purple said:


> Poor people didn't matter.



Indeed, same reason the great fire of London only recorded 6 deaths.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (19 Nov 2019)

Purple said:


> We had a legal system before they got here and they didn't speak english at that time anyway due to the evolution of their own language and the fact that their leaders spoke the language of their conquerors; French. My daughter is learning Spanish in school. I don't see an invasion by Spain as an essential part of that particular curriculum.
> 
> The Russians defeated the Nazis and the Americans stopped the Russians roiling across Europe. The British did help but they were bit players.
> 
> ...


Ah _Purple_, except for the Beeb the only one of my points to escape your withering dismissal was parliamentary democracy. It was the one I was least sure of


----------



## Purple (19 Nov 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Ah _Purple_, except for the Beeb the only one of my points to escape your withering dismissal was parliamentary democracy. It was the one I was least sure of


Oliver Cromwell; the man who gave us Parliamentary democracy and religious political fundamentalism all in one go. Complex chap, wouldn't have made it as a stand-up comic and not full of Christmas cheer.
The Roman Senate was probably similar enough to what passed for the Commons of that time and, as far as I remember, predates the shenanigans of Charlie and Oliver.


----------



## Purple (19 Nov 2019)

Leo said:


> Indeed, same reason the great fire of London only recorded 6 deaths.


The guy who compiled that list must have been Irish.


----------



## Royanne (19 Nov 2019)

Purple said:


> Feel better now?
> Were you making an actual point there?
> 
> The British have given the world a lot; one of the biggest empired the world had seen and therefore one of most comprehensive mass oppressions ever as all empires are built on blood, murder and suffering. They also gave the world the concentration camp, deliberate germ warfare, a good few genocides, mass religious oppression and so much more.
> This country has many dark chapters in our history and many bad points now. Some of the Brits glorify their savagery, their murder, their oppression and try to Brexit their way back to those days of glory.


The South Irish were in the U.K. then and if there was oppression, mass murder and religious oppression the Irish have a case to answer. Two wrongs dont make a right, but what did the Belgians do in the Congo, the French in Algeria, the Spanish and their inquistion and treatment of Jews and Protestants? See 1641, in Ireland and the massacres of Protestants. The IRA campaign in Co Down where massacre in a small town of Protestants influenced by a  later Irish govt minister?

  The point to be made is that selective use of facts and confirmation coupled with the Irish talent for self deception and 'what aboutery' is well known. I suggest the Irish are a violent, intolerant, bigoted people who are too dishonest to look at their own history and find blaming the British much more convenient.


----------



## Purple (19 Nov 2019)

Royanne said:


> *The South Irish* were in the U.K. then and if there was oppression, mass murder and religious oppression the Irish have a case to answer. Two wrongs dont make a right but what did the Belgians do in the Congo, the French in Algeria, the Spanish and their inquistion and treatment of Jews and Protestants.


 I agree. The point I'm making is that we don't glory in it and look wistfully back to the days when we could take the kings shilling and go cracking the darkie's heads in the colonies. The History of the UK is long, bloody and shameful, interposed with a few good points. When we were a British colony we shared that history. It's nothing to be proud of. 



Royanne said:


> See 1641, in Ireland and the massacres of Protestants. The IRA campaign in Co Down where massacre of a small town of Protestants took place led by a  later Irish govt minister.


 A whole town wiped out by the IRA, lead by a man who later became a government minister? Can you share more information on that please?


Royanne said:


> The point to be made is that selective use of facts and confirmation coupled with the Irish talent for self deception and 'what aboutery' is well known. I suggest the Irish are a violent, intolerant, bigoted people who are too dishonest to look at their own history


 We share those traits with everyone  else on Earth.


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Nov 2019)

Royanne said:


> The only time it was united was in the U.K



The UK established in 1801. I think you will find that Ireland, as a singular and united political entity, existed a long time before that. 



Royanne said:


> coupled with an inferior culture left the U.K.



Inferior cultures tend to exude resistance to other cultures, ultimately dissipating and become relics of their society.

Ireland has been many times, and for far too long, on the bended knee to Britain. She has never submitted. 
The pursuit of the re-unification of Ireland, and all her people, is as pivotal in 2019 as it ever was. It is a constitutional imperative for every elected Irish government. 
Far from inferior culture, it is manifestly a culture that has successfully expanded and embedded itself amongst all cultures and it is globally recognized as such.

With the obvious exception within pockets of the north east of the island. 
That might have something to do with resistance to other cultures.


----------



## Royanne (19 Nov 2019)

I don't think colony is the right word. We were in the U.K. and not a colony. Elected representative sat in the House of Commons and representatives sat in the House of Lords. Wales is not a colony or N.I.or indeed Scotland. Ireland benefitted financially and considering the threats from foreign powers (France, Germany) Ireland  was in a stronger position.  N.I. receives over 9.2 Billion in funds yearly and the culture of a great nation. The commonwealth of which Canada, Aust. NZ etc are members don't have the bigotted attitute of the Irish. The British legacy and culture is respected with the exception of Oirish Nationalists.

The contributions His Grace, The Duke of Marmalade speaks of in his comments above is self evident and many positive  aspects  continue throughout these countries today. Countries of which many of the Irish flock to make a living as there own country has mostly been an economic failure  and has been a society where skilled writers / intellectuals left willingly. 

Canada and Aust have addressed issues over native land rights, educational schools etc  etc.
  The Irish simply ignore and misrepresent.
The bigotted Irish don't even wear poppies and ignore that 60K Irish who fought in WW1 and a considerable number in WW2.
German and British armed forces have taken part in remembrance occassions. 

The atrocity  in Co Down can easily be easily researched but you won't find them in Irish history books. Self deception rules! The  South Irish are deplorable.


----------



## Royanne (19 Nov 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> The UK established in 1801. I think you will find that Ireland, as a singular and united political entity, existed a long time before that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Bended knee? 

Strange the Oirish would flood into the U.K. then. Let's hope with Brexit the Irish can be stopped going there and they can return to their Eire paradise? Too many Irish must loathe the place as they don't seem to want to live there.

 Ireland is seen as' Britain light' world wide, now a supported by U.S. multinational on a tax holiday much to the annoyance of the E.U.who would like to see the Irish play fair.

 Thankfully the IMF can bail out Ireland every few years and Britain can give them loans again.
 Ireland was never one, and the Ireland has a parliament like a county council  with its comical members .The Irish appear obsessed with a big Ireland. The would rather fight that f---k. Good oul fightin' Oirish. 

A diddly die culture, low ideals, a kiddy fiddler friendly religion and a dead lingo. A violent bigotted, incompetently run country  
A terrorist haven ever there was one. How dare they say the Northern Irish are Irish. What an insult from the Oirish.


----------



## Purple (19 Nov 2019)

Royanne said:


> I don't think colony is the right word. We were in the U.K. and not a colony. Elected representative sat in the House of Commons and representatives sat in the House of Lords. Wales is not a colony or N.I.or indeed Scotland.


 Wales and Scotland didn't have a Viceroy.



Royanne said:


> Ireland benefitted financially and considering the threats from foreign powers (France, Germany) Ireland  was in a stronger position.


 The greatest threat from a foreign power Ireland ever faced was from Britain.



Royanne said:


> N.I. receives over 9.2 Billion in funds yearly and the culture of a great nation.


 They get that money because Britain has, in the words of our esteemed former Taoiseach who did the country some service, created a "failed economic entity" in Northern Ireland. I agree that they do have the culture of a great Nation but it has been diluted and polluted by the British influence.



Royanne said:


> The commonwealth of which Canada, Aust. NZ etc are members don't have the bigotted attitute of the Irish. The British legacy and culture is respected with the exception of Oirish Nationalists.


 I'm not a nationalist so I can't really comment on that other than to say that I have a great deal of respect for English and Scottish culture (is there such thing as British culture?). I've no time for craven west-Brit, little-englanders, nationalists of any hue, bigoted tribalists who dress their racism up in the cloak of patriotism or those who think that "glory" and "national pride" excuse the crimes of the past or present.



Royanne said:


> The contributions His Grace, The Duke of Marmalade speaks of in his comments above is self evident and many positive  aspects  continue throughout these countries today. Countries of which many of the Irish flock to make a living as there own country has mostly been an economic failure  and has been a society where skilled writers / intellectuals left willingly.


We cast off the cancer of our colonial masters only to have it replaced by priests and bishops. We cast that cancer off in the 1990's and since then have become one of the richest, freest, happiest and liberal countries in the world. We have our share of bigots but for the most part we are an open and accepting people. We have many shameful things in our past, both recent and not so recent but most Irish people acknowledge that.
I don't want a united Ireland until the people there rid themselves of their tribalism, bigotry, homophobia and racism. I feel more at home in London than I do in Belfast.


Royanne said:


> Canada and Aust have addressed issues over native land rights, educational schools etc  etc.
> The Irish simply ignore and misrepresent.


 You'll have to explain what you are talking about there. Is that a dig at the DUP about the Irish Language Act?


Royanne said:


> The bigotted Irish don't even wear poppies and ignore that 60K Irish who fought in WW1 and a considerable number in WW2.


The Ulster Unionists do  wear poppies, and they are Irish, so you are factually incorrect.
They are not worn by most people here because they commemorate all British war dead, not just those who died in the two World Wars. Why would we commemorate the people who oppressed and murdered us?



Royanne said:


> The atrocity  in Co Down can easily be easily researched but you won't find them in Irish history books. Self deception rules! The  South Irish are deplorable.


 Can you offer a source to substantiate your claim that a government minister was responsible for the murder of an entire town in Northern Ireland. Otherwise withdraw it.


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Nov 2019)

Royanne said:


> Strange the Oirish would flood into the U.K.



Not really. Ireland was an economic backwater after independence. Britain provided a crutch for many of its people. The linkage between the Irish and British is inseparable. 



Royanne said:


> Ireland is seen as' Britain light' world wide, now a supported by U.S. multinational on a tax holiday much to the annoyance of the E.U.who would like to see the Irish play fair.



True in many respects. Its not unusual to hear foreigners refer to the island of Britain as England. Reducing Scotland and Wales as bit players. 



Royanne said:


> and Britain can give them loans again.



The same loans used to bail out British banks? Sure.



Royanne said:


> Ireland was never one,



Well in 1801, the Acts of Union, which abolished the Irish parliament, and established the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, would emphatically suggest otherwise. 
Perhaps you are comparing political entities with cultural and religious origins?



Royanne said:


> A diddly die culture, low ideals, a kiddy fiddler friendly religion and a dead lingo. A violent bigotted, incompetently run country
> A terrorist haven ever there was one.



Did I touch a nerve with my previous post? 



Royanne said:


> How dare they say the Northern _*Irish*_ are Irish.



God forbid! Next they will saying that Southern Irish originated from Africa.


----------



## Purple (19 Nov 2019)

Royanne said:


> Strange the Oirish would flood into the U.K. then. Let's hope with Brexit the Irish can be stopped going there and they can return to their Eire paradise? Too many Irish must loathe the place as they don't seem to want to live there.


 There are about 300,000 people who were born in the UK living in Ireland. That's about 6% of the population. There are about 870,000 people who were born in Ireland living in the UK. That's about 1.3% of the population. "English" is our biggest ethnic minority. One in 5 people living here were born in a different country. 




Royanne said:


> Thankfully the IMF can bail out Ireland every few years and Britain can give them loans again.
> Ireland was never one, and the Ireland has a parliament like a county council  with its comical members .The Irish appear obsessed with a big Ireland.


 The UK has been bailed out by the IMF before and the City of London is the biggest tax haven in the world. I'd take Leo or Michael over Boris or Jeremy any day of the week. 



Royanne said:


> A violent bigotted, incompetently run country
> A terrorist haven ever there was one. How dare they say the Northern Irish are Irish. What an insult from the Oirish.


 I'm confused; I thought you were talking about Northern Ireland. 
The Good Reverend said that he was Irish. His Irishness just included that British planter tradition. Are you saying he was wrong?
I don't consider him any less Irish than me and I reject that narrow, ignorant Provo definition of Irishness.


----------



## Royanne (19 Nov 2019)

You can call the First  Minister for Wales, or NI. a Viceroy  or whatever title  you wish. ex  The First Minister or  Scottish or Irish minister. It would appear the  title upsets you. I don't know what the Representative of  the U.K. call him or herself in Gibraltar and frankly am not bothered. The people in Northern Ireland did not seem to mind what they call their ministers.
An odd ball name  is Teeshuck ( or whatever it is  ) but then the Irish like to think they speak Irish.

A nationalist you may not claim to be,  however  it would appear you have the  ugly disease that  has  caused  the  South Irish so much grief.

The  ignorant lack of respect for the old soldiers  and the selected memories of  violent, irish Catholic heroes gives credibility to their  undemocratic  and unwarranted action.  The Oirish love dying  for Ireland  or  should  I say  killing, maiming and  blowing up things. The poppies support old veterans and frankly if some Vets defeated bigoted lefty killers,  I  say well done for making  the   place safe. Oppressing German and  aggreesion and defeating the  men  of violence  of  any hue  is not oppressing us. 

Dublin even wants to have a Battle Site made in rememberance of the great freedom fighters ? -the  site  in  Moore  st was a house in which  they surrendered in and  now it's a battle site.- is  that not comical?-since when  is   a house a battle  site

Don't know about esteemed Teashuck's-i  do know about others who seemed to trouser large sums  of money and forgot about tax-Heck even  Ireland  had a Min of Finance who  didn't have a  chequing account ( cash only)

The atrocity in Ulster ( who said an  entire  town) can be found by a detailed search and out of respect for his family I will not embarrass them.

Transfer payments from central  u.k govt is the   norm regardless of the  views  of  the  'esteemed Teashuk) I would think  the  South  Irish  lived in failed political state for  most of  its  existence  and prospered only because of its  British exports and  the E.U.( hand outs)

The West Brit name  calling slur is just as offensive as I  would imagine  as Green Wog. Might I suggest  that  you recognise that some cultures are very different and  also some  like the Irish South culture appear to leave a lot to be desired and  are not  really  of much  significance in the world.

Might I recommend you research  how the grade A countries ie Aust and Canada etc handle diversity  as the Oirish lack maturity and competence in  such  matters. A racist, bigoted, violent place  which thankfully can be ignored by the rest of the world.


----------



## Royanne (19 Nov 2019)

Purple said:


> There are about 300,000 people who were born in the UK living in Ireland. That's about 6% of the population. There are about 870,000 people who were born in Ireland living in the UK. That's about 1.3% of the population. "English" is our biggest ethnic minority. One in 5 people living here were born in a different country.
> 
> 
> The UK has been bailed out by the IMF before and the City of London is the biggest tax haven in the world. I'd take Leo or Michael over Boris or Jeremy any day of the week.
> ...



At least you referred to him as a Reverend-much of the Oirish media referred to him as Ian ---
He may have  seen  himself as Irish in the same way Canadians see themselves as NORTH Americans but they are Canadian-Leo is good-not  blinkered by being too Green.-The Irish  diaspora in  the U.K. seems huge-they  left because Eire was a s--t hole.


----------



## Purple (19 Nov 2019)

Royanne said:


> You can call the First Minister for Wales, or NI. a Viceroy or whatever title you wish. ex The First Minister or Scottish or Irish minister. It would appear the title upsets you. I don't know what the Representative of the U.K. call him or herself in Gibraltar and frankly am not bothered. The people in Northern Ireland did not seem to mind what they call their ministers.


 Do you really not know the dfference between a Viceroy and a Minister?




Royanne said:


> An odd ball name is Teeshuck ( or whatever it is ) but then the Irish like to think they speak Irish.


 I speak very little Irish but I do know that Taoiseach means leader. If you are having trouble spelling, pronouncing or understanding words then Google is your friend… then you don’ have to appear stupid (about that at least).



Royanne said:


> A nationalist you may not claim to be, however it would appear you have the ugly disease that has caused the South Irish so much grief.


 What’s that then?



Royanne said:


> The ignorant lack of respect for the old soldiers and the selected memories of violent, irish Catholic heroes gives credibility to their undemocratic and unwarranted action. The Oirish love dying for Ireland or should I say killing, maiming and blowing up things. The poppies support old veterans and frankly if some Vets defeated bigoted lefty killers, I say well done for making the place safe. Oppressing German and aggreesion and defeating the men of violence of any hue is not oppressing us.


I’ve a great deal of respect for old soldiers and have given to the British Legion in the past and would happily do so again. I just wouldn’t wear the poppy. I’d defend anyone else’s right to wear it though.





Royanne said:


> Dublin even wants to have a Battle Site made in rememberance of the great freedom fighters ? -the site in Moore st was a house in which they surrendered in and now it's a battle site.- is that not comical?-since when is a house a battle site


Who is “Dublin”?




Royanne said:


> Don't know about esteemed Teashuck's-i do know about others who seemed to trouser large sums of money and forgot about tax-Heck even Ireland had a Min of Finance who didn't have a chequing account ( cash only)


 Again, Google is your friend here. I wou;dn’t play a game of “who has the most corrupt leaders, the UK or Ireland?” if I was you.



Royanne said:


> The atrocity in Ulster ( who said an entire town) can be found by a detailed search and out of respect for his family I will not embarrass them.


 You said an entire town. You said “See 1641, in Ireland and the massacres of Protestants. The IRA campaign in Co Down where massacre of a small town of Protestants took place led by a later Irish govt minister.” I see that you’ve edited it since but I had already quoted your original post. Oops! Go on though; at least name the tow that was wiped out.



Royanne said:


> Transfer payments from central u.k govt is the norm regardless of the views of the 'esteemed Teashuk) I would think the South Irish lived in failed political state for most of its existence and prospered only because of its British exports and the E.U.( hand outs)


 Yep, it took generations to shake off the Brits and the Vatican. Now we are really free and prospering. The EU has been great for us, just as it has been great for Britain.



Royanne said:


> The West Brit name calling slur is just as offensive as I would imagine as Green Wog.


 You started.




Royanne said:


> Might I suggest that you recognise that some cultures are very different and also some like the Irish South culture appear to leave a lot to be desired and are not really of much significance in the world.


 I agree but why drag Cork into this?




Royanne said:


> Might I recommend you research how the grade A countries ie Aust and Canada etc handle diversity as the Oirish lack maturity and competence in such matters. A racist, bigoted, violent place which thankfully can be ignored by the rest of the world.


 Ireland has a problem with racism but we don’t have racist political parties in power or racist political parties getting large proportions of the popular vote (like they do in the UK). Violence isn’t a major problem and bigotry in general isn’t a big problem either. We don’t have openly bigoted political parties, unlike the DUP in Northern Ireland or UKIP in England. I really think you should visit here or, if you live here, leave your bunker once in a while.


----------



## Purple (19 Nov 2019)

Royanne said:


> At least you referred to him as a Reverend-much of the Oirish media referred to him as Ian ---
> He may have  seen  himself as Irish in the same way Canadians see themselves as NORTH Americans but they are Canadian-Leo is good-not  blinkered by being too Green.-The Irish  diaspora in  the U.K. seems huge-they  left because Eire was a s--t hole.



The name of this country is "Ireland", not Eire. If you are speaking Irish the name of the country is Éire but, just as if you were talking about Germany in English you wouldn't call it _Deutschland, _you shouldn't mix up the two languages. Just letting you know.

Anyway, there are many people of Irish descent in Britain but there are many in Britain of Irish descent , though most probably trace their roots back a bit further (like me).
I do agree that Ireland was a depressed and depressing place but that was mainly due to Anglo-Irish and later British rule as well as the RC Church. All colonies are run for the enrichment of their colonial masters. To a great extent Wales and Scotland, former raw material superpowers, now impoverished backwaters sucked dry by England, are really English colonies as well. We would be as poor as Northern Ireland, Wales or Scotland if we were still under the British yoke.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (19 Nov 2019)

Purple said:


> The Russians defeated the Nazis and the Americans stopped the Russians roiling across Europe. The British did help but they were bit players.


Straying somewhat off topic; BTW looking forward to Bojo vs JC tonight.
Anyway with this synopsis of WWII you are being a tad unkind to our neighbours.
Consider the contra-factual: what if the Brits had rolled over in face of the blitz as the French did, or what if they had lost the Battle of Britain?  Hitler would then have had access to the British war materiel, but most importantly the USA would find it very difficult to launch an attack against the Nazi European Empire.  That presumes of course that he would have overrun Eire.  But Dev would have welcomed his RC hero with open arms and would get his beloved United Ireland into the bargain.  So, continuing the contra-factual, I suggest that not having to fight on two fronts and with the capture of the British war machine the Russians would have been an easy touch.
An interesting further speculation is whether the US would ultimately have used nuclear weapons against the NEE.


----------



## Sophrosyne (19 Nov 2019)

Royanne said:


> A diddly die culture, low ideals, a kiddy fiddler friendly religion and a dead lingo. A violent bigotted, incompetently run country
> A terrorist haven ever there was one.




Ok we get it. You hate the Irish.

Indeed, you have devoted 8 out of your total of 9 contributions to this website telling us this and little else.

However, your view is irrelevant to this thread.


----------



## Purple (19 Nov 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Straying somewhat off topic; BTW looking forward to Bojo vs JC tonight.
> Anyway with this synopsis of WWII you are being a tad unkind to our neighbours.
> Consider the contra-factual: what if the Brits had rolled over in face of the blitz as the French did, or what if they had lost the Battle of Britain?  Hitler would then have had access to the British war materiel, but most importantly the USA would find it very difficult to launch an attack against the Nazi European Empire.  That presumes of course that he would have overrun Eire.  But Dev would have welcomed his RC hero with open arms and would get his beloved United Ireland into the bargain.  So, continuing the contra-factual, I suggest that not having to fight on two fronts and with the capture of the British war machine the Russians would have been an easy touch.
> An interesting further speculation is whether the US would ultimately have used nuclear weapons against the NEE.


The Germans didn't have the Navy to invade Britain. If they did then the British couldn't have stopped them without American support. The British were kept in the war by American equipment and the Battle of Britain was won using American fighters. The top Ace's were mostly Polish and Eastern Europeans.
The Free State, later Ireland or, in Irish, Éire (not Eire) supported the Allied war effort, not the German one. The French didn't roll over, indeed many of them died fighting to protect the fleeing British when they failed utterly trying to fight the Germans alongside the French in France without American leadership and men.


----------



## Purple (19 Nov 2019)

Sophrosyne said:


> Ok we get it. You hate the Irish.
> 
> Indeed, you have devoted 8 of out of your total of 9 contributions to this website telling us this and little else.
> 
> However, your view is irrelevant to this thread.


Yea but it's great fun.


----------



## Sophrosyne (19 Nov 2019)

Purple said:


> Yea but it's great fun.



You're easily amused


----------



## Purple (19 Nov 2019)

We are so bigoted and racist that we elected an openly gay half Indian as Taoiseach.
The Brits keep electing Etonian old-boys because, as I previously pointed out, as a conquered people they know their place.


----------



## Purple (19 Nov 2019)

Sophrosyne said:


> You're easily amused


That I am. It's the simple things in life that keep me happy and there's no shortage of simple here for me to choose from.


----------



## Opus2018 (19 Nov 2019)

Purple said:


> That I am. It's the simple things in life that keep me happy and there's no shortage of simple here for me to choose from.


Purple,

Why are you bothering to feed the troll?  If you ignore the poster, they will go away in time and post his verbal diarrhea somewhere else.
At least we won't have to deal with it anymore!

Best, 

Opus2018.


----------



## Purple (19 Nov 2019)

Opus2018 said:


> Purple,
> 
> Why are you bothering to feed the troll?  If you ignore the poster, they will go away in time and post his verbal diarrhea somewhere else.
> At least we won't have to deal with it anymore!
> ...


Light entertainment.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (19 Nov 2019)

Purple said:


> We are so bigoted and racist that we elected an openly gay half Indian as Taoiseach.


Yes and we have the sense not to carry things too far and have weemin in charge. OMG Mary Lou


----------



## odyssey06 (19 Nov 2019)

Purple said:


> We are so bigoted and racist that we elected an openly gay half Indian as Taoiseach.
> The Brits keep electing Etonian old-boys because, as I previously pointed out, as a conquered people they know their place.



We didn't actually elect him, think that was FG members only vote... unless you're outing yourself as a FG member...
And I see your old Etonian old-boys and raise you Eoghan Murphy.

Anyhow, back to the election. Has Boris won yet? This thing seems to be going on forever.


----------



## cremeegg (19 Nov 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> We didn't actually elect him, think that was FG members only vote...



Leo was elected by the Dáil, as is every Taoiseach.

In contrast Boris was appointed by the Queen without any vote in parliament. The Queen appointed him because Theresa May told her that he had the support of Parliament, now subsequent events have shown this to be untrue. He has lost many more votes in Parliament than he has won. Following on from the courts ruling that the prorogation of Parliament never happened, because it was based on incorrect advice to the Queen, it seems to me that Boris has no real claim to be PM.


----------



## cremeegg (19 Nov 2019)

Mr Pink said:


> I h



Welcome to_ New_ member Mr Pink.

Its nice to see new members getting engaged with the long threads. Good to see that you have been keeping right up with things down to post 300.


----------



## Purple (20 Nov 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> We didn't actually elect him, think that was FG members only vote... unless you're outing yourself as a FG member...
> And I see your old Etonian old-boys and raise you Eoghan Murphy.


Really? €5500 a year versus £32,000 a year?


----------



## Purple (20 Nov 2019)

Mr Pink said:


> With over 1600 postings might i suggest that you go away and get a life or an education.


Do I know you?


----------



## Purple (20 Nov 2019)

Mr Pink said:


> I would think the views expressed are relevant to  views which are expressed here by previous posters. What is happening in the U.K. and the anti U.K. views expressed here invite a reply. A conservative majority will most likely happen and calling an election now may assist in getting Brexit through.


 Yes, but it won't bring back the Empire, the 1950's, remove Jonnie-foreigner or get rid of the Darkies so the little-Englanders will still not be happy. It will make the Etonian old-boys happy as it will keep the biggest tax and dirty money haven in the world open and away from proper oversight but it will hurt middle-income working people, not that the Etonians care about them.



Mr Pink said:


> The  quality of education at Eton and Oxford are excellent.


 I should certainly hope so! The playing fields of Eton and all that...




Mr Pink said:


> Interesting post indeed. If Ireland is the name of the country why is Eire on the stamps and on uniforms in the Irish Navy. -well not a navy really is it?-as for Wales sucked dry by England and are colonies it would be news to the Welsh-What happened to the names of Eireann, The Free State, or the Republic of Ireland-maybe they should have called it Hibernia and not confuse themselves


 The Welsh who are aware of their economic history won't be surprised. The name of this country is clearly defined in our Constitution. We even wrote our one down!

I like England and the English. I like Wales and Scotland and their people too. I dislike class systems, assumptions of status and inherited privilege. I dislike bigotry, racism and all forms of Nationalism. For those reasons I strongly dislike the current leadership of the British Conservative and Unionist Party, the leadership of the Brexit movement and the entire premise of Brexit.


----------



## Drakon (20 Nov 2019)

Saw the highlights of last nights debate. 
Didn’t notice it before, but Jezzer’s eyes are totally mismatched. 
His left eye is normal enough, maybe slightly oversized. 
Then his right eye is very closed, slit-like. 

Very similar eyes to Eileen Dunne. 

I wonder if he’s got a neck like hers?


----------



## Purple (20 Nov 2019)

Drakon said:


> Saw the highlights of last nights debate.
> Didn’t notice it before, but Jezzer’s eyes are totally mismatched.
> His left eye is normal enough, maybe slightly oversized.
> Then his right eye is very closed, slit-like.
> ...


So temped to edit one word in your post... remove one little "s"...


----------



## Sunny (20 Nov 2019)

I am joining this late but have the Brits invaded AAM??? I was concerned enough that people from Cork were being allowed to express views. This is completely unacceptable. He even changed from Royanne to Mr.Pink to trick us. There is no end to these guys cunning. I reckon if we trace their IP address it will lead straight back to Conservative Press Office a.k.a. Factcheck UK...…..


----------



## Purple (20 Nov 2019)

Sunny said:


> I am joining this late but have the Brits invaded AAM??? I was concerned enough that people from Cork were being allowed to express views. This is completely unacceptable. He even changed from Royanne to Mr.Pink to trick us. There is no end to these guys cunning. I reckon if we trace their IP address it will lead straight back to Conservative Press Office a.k.a. Factcheck UK...…..


"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." 

Obviously Noam Chomsky wasn't talking about Cork people when he said that but those from Perfidious Albion and her vassals should be free to air their views (or shout into the void, depending on your perspective).


----------



## cremeegg (20 Nov 2019)

Purple said:


> "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
> 
> Obviously Noam Chomsky wasn't talking about Cork people when he said that but those from Perfidious Albion and her vassals should be free to air their views (or shout into the void, depending on your perspective).



Of course they should, that does not mean there is any obligation on anyone to respond to deliberately provocative nonsense.


----------



## Purple (20 Nov 2019)

cremeegg said:


> Of course they should, that does not mean there is any obligation on anyone to respond to deliberately provocative nonsense.


Absolutely... though in responding it does show just how silly the nonsense is.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Nov 2019)

Guys - this has degenerated into a Letting Off Steam topic.

Brendan


----------



## Sunny (20 Nov 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Guys - this has degenerated into a Letting Off Steam topic.
> 
> Brendan



Is there anything underneath Letting Off Steam because it has degenerated a fair bit...….

Still, it was entertaining to see Purple defending this great Nation from its oppressive imperialistic overlords....


----------



## Purple (20 Nov 2019)

Sunny said:


> Is there anything underneath Letting Off Steam because it has degenerated a fair bit...….
> 
> Still, it was entertaining to see Purple defending this great Nation from its oppressive imperialistic overlords....


Thank you very much sir, my work here is done. I have single handedly thwarted yet another foreign aggressor from our fair shores!


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Nov 2019)

Sunny said:


> Is there anything underneath Letting Off Steam because it has degenerated a fair bit...…



Letting Out Wind?

Kudos to @Purple for defeating the anti-Irish racist bigoted troll in a dignified and resolute way, arguably, in a quintessentially British (in a good) way.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Nov 2019)

1/4 million Jews in UK, 2.5 million Muslims - I think the Chief Rabbi has made a mistake; escalating this issue will drive Muslims and Jews to polarise between Labour and Tory resp.  although admittedly Labour probably had the Muslim vote in its pocket anyway.
As for the rest of voters I think they are inclined to give JC the benefit of his stout denials whilst Bojo's letter box gaffe leaves him with little denial room.
I also think the CR revealed a political motivation.  He made a point of mentioning JC's support for Hammas - and this is what he really fears; a UK government sympathetic to the Palestinian side of that conflict - a bit disingenuous to play the racism/anti-semitism card.


----------



## cremeegg (27 Nov 2019)

Well said Duke. I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought this.


----------



## john luc (28 Nov 2019)

One thing that seems to be pushed is a criticism of Israel is considered anti Semitic which of it is not


----------



## Purple (28 Nov 2019)

Jeremy is anti anyone who isn't a raving socialist so he won't like Israel anyway but I agree that opposing Israeli foreign policy is not anti semitic. That said the criticism of Corbyn as anti semitic is broader and deeper than just being anti Israeli.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2019)

Corbyn is not anti-Semitic, neither is the UK Labour party.
Certainly, some members who joined up have expressed anti-Semitic rhetoric and should be rightly condemned. The Labour party and Corbyn should be rightly criticised for not heeding the reports of anti-semitism within the Labour party and dealing with it more promptly and effectively.


----------



## Purple (3 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Corbyn is not anti-Semitic, neither is the UK Labour party.


Doesn't the next bit sort of contradict the first bit?


WolfeTone said:


> Certainly, some members who joined up have expressed anti-Semitic rhetoric and should be rightly condemned. The Labour party and Corbyn should be rightly criticised for not heeding the reports of anti-semitism within the Labour party and dealing with it more promptly and effectively.


So there are anti semites in the UK Labour Party who have said and done anti semitic things and the leadership has failed to criticise them. I think Jeremy's silence spoke volumes. The fact that he's a petty, thin-skinned generally unpleasant humourless person doesn't help his case. Boris loves him though, I'm sure.


----------



## Seagull (3 Dec 2019)

Swapping Jeremy Corbyn for pretty much anyone would probably boost labour's chances by about 10 points. There are a lot of disgruntled anti-brexit conservative voters who want to vote for someone else who might get brexit reversed, but they can't bring themselves to vote for labour under Corbyn. They'd rather have brexit than a Corbyn government.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> Doesn't the next bit sort of contradict the first bit



Not really. 




Purple said:


> So there are anti semites in the UK Labour Party who have said and done anti semitic things and the leadership has failed to criticise them.



Corbyn and the Labour party have been forthright in their condemnation of anti-Semitism within the Labour party and anywhere else for that matter. 
Corbyn has given an explicit apology for the failures of the Labour party and leadership for not dealing sooner with accusations of anti-Semitism in the Labour party, a failure that he and the party have been rightly criticised for. 
But in no way shape or form can this failure, in consideration of long-standing and continuing party policy and activism, be reasonably be deduced as anti-Semitic.


----------



## Firefly (3 Dec 2019)

Seagull said:


> Swapping Jeremy Corbyn for pretty much anyone would probably boost labour's chances by about 10 points. There are a lot of disgruntled anti-brexit conservative voters who want to vote for someone else who might get brexit reversed, but they can't bring themselves to vote for labour under Corbyn. They'd rather have brexit than a Corbyn government.



I've often wondered what would be worse of the UK....

Brexit + BoJo
or
Remain + Corbyn

Brexit + Corbyn of course would be the perfect storm...


----------



## Purple (3 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Corbyn and the Labour party have been forthright in their condemnation of anti-Semitism within the Labour party and anywhere else for that matter.


 He said it after senior people left the party in protest about his failure to criticise what they said was a deep rooted culture of anti semitism which was flourishing under his leadership.  Whether it's forthright or not is a matter of opinion. 



WolfeTone said:


> Corbyn has given an explicit apology for the failures of the Labour party and leadership for not dealing sooner with accusations of anti-Semitism in the Labour party, a failure that he and the party have been rightly criticised for.


 He's never apologised for his explicit support for terrorists who made killing Jews their life's work. I think his dislike of jewish people is linked to a deeply bigoted and ignorant view about them controlling banking and international finance. 



WolfeTone said:


> But in no way shape or form can this failure, in consideration of long-standing and continuing party policy and activism, be reasonably be deduced as anti-Semitic.


 Corbyn's activism is all about ruling Labour with an iron fist, rooting out the moderates and re-making it as a marxist-socialist party which, hopefully, is completely unelectable.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> what they said was a deep rooted culture of anti semitism



What "they said" and what is actual fact are two separate things. The term "deep rooted" is subjective.
It is my view the only thing that is deep rooted in the Labour party, in the context of this discussion, is its policy against racism, such as anti-Semitism.
My view, that anti-Semitism is marginal and very much on the fringes of the UK Labour party. It is no more, no less an issue with the Labour party than is with British society in general.
This view is supported by the UK Parliament Home Affairs Select committee inquiry into anti-Semitism. It concluded that Britain has the least issue of anti-Semitism in Europe.



Purple said:


> He's never apologised for his explicit support for terrorists who made killing Jews their life's work.



Did he ever explicitly supported terrorists who made killing Jews their lifes work?



Purple said:


> I think his dislike of jewish people is linked to a deeply bigoted and ignorant view about them controlling banking and international finance.



What evidence do you have that Corbyn has a dislike of Jews, relative to the evidence that shows his support of Jews?



Purple said:


> Corbyn's activism is all about ruling Labour with an iron fist, rooting out the moderates and re-making it as a marxist-socialist party which, hopefully, is completely unelectable.



None of which points to anti-Semitism, but it does point to the real agenda of the Blairite wing of Labour.
The anti-Semitic tag is a useful tool to beat down on Corbyns leadership.
Im not saying he hasn't handled the issue well, far from it, he has made a dogs dinner of it.
But the evidence that either Corbyn or Labour party, or both, are deep-rooted in anti-Semitism is next to non-existent. I certainly haven't seen it.


----------



## Ceist Beag (3 Dec 2019)

The one thing the electorate won't factor in here is that Brexit is permanent (or at least it will be a substantial period before it is revisited) whereas the next leader could be gone within a year! If people genuinely want to remain (I'm not sure a majority do given all they have been through) they should vote Lib Dems and damn the consequences in terms of the government. 
But people won't think like that.


----------



## EmmDee (3 Dec 2019)

john luc said:


> One thing that seems to be pushed is a criticism of Israel is considered anti Semitic which of it is not



That's clear. But that isn't the issue in the Labour party. What has been happening over the last few years is that critique of Israel has morphed into anti-semitic tropes; which is to say that commentary ahs moved away from "Israel" to "Jews". And also an increase in early 20th century imagery and comments about "Jewish conspiracies" - the usual "Soros" thing



WolfeTone said:


> Corbyn is not anti-Semitic, neither is the UK Labour party.
> Certainly, some members who joined up have expressed anti-Semitic rhetoric and should be rightly condemned. The Labour party and Corbyn should be rightly criticised for not heeding the reports of anti-semitism within the Labour party and dealing with it more promptly and effectively.



A bit more nuanced than that though - there has always been a wing in the hard left who peddle in what I mention above. They were largely removed from the Labour party in the late 80's / 90's. But they were always around. There has been an influx back into the party since 2016 and this is what they are trying to deal with. 

I think they had lost the institutional memory to even recognise this faction and certainly the processes weren't up to dealing with it quickly. But I think Corbyn's problem is that he doesn't even see it... to the extent that at his launch last week of the "Race and Faith Policy" (designed to tackle this issue), one of people on the stage (who is a candidate) had posted about "Zionist Masters" and had to apologise for it. And when they asked if anyone from the Jewish News was in the room during the press questions (and nobody was), there were shouts of "Good" from the supporters. It's this type of thing that he hasn't sorted out.

But on the broader question of his electability - I don't think this will really be the key issue. Don't underestimate the pure distaste moderate England has for him and his political background. Anyone who recalls Labour prior to Kinnock find him tough to digest. And I think that could be his problem - some people will vote Conservative because they couldn't bear to put him into No 10. Whether that outweighs those that will hold their nose and vote for Labour is the interesting thing to play out - and I suspect the polls to date are phony wars... the next week will see a lot of people having to decide which crap option they will take. It's Realpolitik now


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2019)

EmmDee said:


> There has been an influx back into the party since 2016 and this is what they are trying to deal with.



There hasn't. It is marginal, on the fringes. It has emerged on a couple of occasions from candidates selected at local elections. It was the failure of the party to address this that leads to genuine criticism.
This however is being disingenuously conflated as "deep rooted", "institutional", etc by political enemies for narrow political agendas.



EmmDee said:


> had posted about "Zionist Masters" and had to apologise for it.



Being anti-Zionist is not anti-Semitic.
Its true, many Jewish people identify themselves as Zionists. But many, and not an insignificant amount, also do not identify as such. There are also Jews who believe that the state of Israel can only be delivered by the coming of the Messiah and that the Israel we know of today is fraudulent. Are these people anti-Semitic too?
The term "Zionist masters" may illicit anti-Jew connotations and is by its application derogatory towards those who support the continued establishment and advancement of the State of Israel. But by itself is not anti-Semitic.



EmmDee said:


> And when they asked if anyone from the Jewish News was in the room during the press questions (and nobody was), there were shouts of "Good" from the supporters.



The Jewish News is a newspaper with an agenda of propagating the Labour anti-Semitic label.
Not being open to warmly embrace members of a publication that consistently conflates anti-Semitism in the Labour party is not anti-Semitic.



EmmDee said:


> Don't underestimate the pure distaste moderate England has for him and his political background.



And ultimately, we arrive at the real agenda (again). That is, to make sure Labour dont get into 10 Downing St under Corbyns leadership.
Its no coincidence when listening to the allegations of anti-Semitism in Labour party that such criticism tend to divert to criticisms of Corbyns socialist policies.
This is the real agenda.


----------



## EmmDee (3 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Being anti-Zionist is not anti-Semitic.
> Its true, many Jewish people identify themselves as Zionists. But many, and not an insignificant amount, also do not identify as such. There are also Jews who believe that the state of Israel can only be delivered by the coming of the Messiah and that the Israel we know of today is fraudulent. Are these people anti-Semitic too?
> The term "Zionist masters" may illicit anti-Jew connotations and is by its application derogatory towards those who support the continued establishment and advancement of the State of Israel. But by itself is not anti-Semitic.



Hmmmm - it's a well know trope. I think Corbyn does try to explain these things away (a bit like the mural a year or two ago) by making these types definitional explanations. But phrases like the above pre date WW2 and have always been used in conjunction with an anti-Semitic political movement. They are dog-whistles. And maybe Corbyn doesn't see this and genuinely can't see the problem. But he needs to do a lot more.

On the other side - there is equal levels of delusion and blindness in the Tories over Muslims and other issues. This isn't limited to one party




WolfeTone said:


> The Jewish News is a newspaper with an agenda of propagating the Labour anti-Semitic label.
> Not being open to warmly embrace members of a publication that consistently conflates anti-Semitism in the Labour party is not anti-Semitic.



I get that - but this was a press event to launch a policy. And from the podium there was obviously an interest to engage that part of the press. It just looks bad - like they can't control their own. He did say something to the crowd when Kuenssberg asked a question and they started to Boo her. If you're holding a press event - don't invite Militant for God's sake

Brexit Party had a similar issue recently. It just looks dreadful



WolfeTone said:


> And ultimately, we arrive at the real agenda (again). That is, to make sure Labour dont get into 10 Downing St under Corbyns leadership.
> Its no coincidence when listening to the allegations of anti-Semitism in Labour party that such criticism tend to divert to criticisms of Corbyns socialist policies.
> This is the real agenda.



This is PART of the agenda. Yes there is a reaction to his brand of policies. But they were hardly going to vote for him anyway. But there is also a segment of the electorate who are looking for a way of not voting for BJ. I just don't think Corbyn is hitting home - he definitely will lock down parts of his core. But there has to be questions how he isn't close to a majority. He's struggling to hold seats in traditional Labour heartlands

HOWEVER - as I said, up to now I think the polls are reflecting how people would like to vote in an ideal world. Over the next week it becomes real and in many areas, people are going to have to make hard choices. And possibly Labour win seats they currently aren't looking like winning.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2019)

EmmDee said:


> They are dog-whistles



I agree, it is a stupid and naive comment to make. It is not anti-Semitic, but it is open to being interpreted as such. 



EmmDee said:


> If you're holding a press event - don't invite Militant for God's sake





EmmDee said:


> If you're holding a press event - don't invite Militant for God's sake
> 
> Brexit Party had a similar issue recently. It just looks dreadful



I agree, it looks dreadful. Corbyn and party leadership have made a dogs dinner of the anti-Semitic issue.
My point is that, despite all of that, neither Corbyn nor the Labour party are deep rooted in anti-Semitism. The opposite in fact, which only goes to emphasise the woeful handling of the issue by Corbyn.


----------



## odyssey06 (3 Dec 2019)

Never mind New Labour, I don't think Corbyn even reconciled himself to the Labour of Kinnock, Wilson, Foot, Callaghan etc


----------



## Seagull (4 Dec 2019)

Even the looney left of the 60s/70s would consider Corbyn a radical extremist.


----------



## Purple (6 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I agree, it is a stupid and naive comment to make. It is not anti-Semitic, but it is open to being interpreted as such.


I think it's fair to say that it probably isn't anti-semitic but it might be.





WolfeTone said:


> I agree, it looks dreadful. Corbyn and party leadership have made a dogs dinner of the anti-Semitic issue.
> My point is that, despite all of that, neither Corbyn nor the Labour party are deep rooted in anti-Semitism. The opposite in fact, which only goes to emphasise the woeful handling of the issue by Corbyn.


 I don't see how you could say that the are the opposite of anti-semitic. If that is the case why have life long MP's and other party members who are jewish left in protest?


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> I don't see how you could say that the are the opposite of anti-semitic. If that is the case why have life long MP's and other party members who are jewish left in protest?



Corbyns record for standing in solidarity with minority groupings, including Jews, against human rights abuses over the last 40yrs is open for all to see. 
Its his handling of allegations of anti-Semitism within the Labour party that is under fire. I say 'allegations' because while no doubt some moronic attitudes have come to the fore, it is mostly on the fringes and margins of the Labour party. 
This, is quite opposite from the allegation of former Labour MP Louise Ellman, who claimed that under Corbyn, anti-Semitism had become "mainstream" in the Labour party - it hasn't. Borne out by the UK Home Affairs Select committee inquiry into anti-Semitism that found that anti-Semitism was less of an issue in British society than most European countries and is not centred with any particular grouping. 

"_120.Despite significant press and public attention on the Labour Party, and a number of revelations regarding inappropriate social media content, there exists no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party.

 121.A representative YouGov poll carried out in May 2016 found that Labour voters were no more likely than voters from other parties to express antisemitic attitudes, with UKIP voters demonstrating the highest levels of antisemitism.

122.Other political parties have not been immune to accusations of antisemitism, albeit apparently with a smaller number of reported incidents, 

129*.Other political parties must not assume that antisemitic political discourse is an issue affecting the Labour Party alone. The Liberal Democrats in particular should pay heed to the need to act swiftly and decisively to deal with antisemitism within their ranks. We were disappointed by the manner in which their Leader, Tim Farron, referred to disciplinary processes rather than explicitly condemning antisemitic remarks made by members of his Party, "*_
(Bold is from the publication)

So when I hear MPs leaving the Labour party because of "mainstream" anti-Semitism, I am skeptical of their ulterior motives. 
It wasn't just Jewish MPs that left the Labour party under Corbyn. 
The anti-Semitic tag is the stick to beat Corbyn with, the real agenda is to stop him entering number 10 and implementing programs of social justice for the people of Britain.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Dec 2019)

Six days to go, Corbyn going for the jugular - effectively calling Johnson out as delusional liar by releasing "secret" Tory papers. 

Is anybody paying attention?


----------



## EmmDee (6 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Corbyns record for standing in solidarity with minority groupings, including Jews, against human rights abuses over the last 40yrs is open for all to see.
> Its his handling of allegations of anti-Semitism within the Labour party that is under fire. I say 'allegations' because while no doubt some moronic attitudes have come to the fore, it is mostly on the fringes and margins of the Labour party.
> This, is quite opposite from the allegation of former Labour MP Louise Ellman, who claimed that under Corbyn, anti-Semitism had become "mainstream" in the Labour party - it hasn't. Borne out by the UK Home Affairs Select committee inquiry into anti-Semitism that found that anti-Semitism was less of an issue in British society than most European countries and is not centred with any particular grouping.
> 
> ...



Have a read of the submission to the EHRC. While only a submission, there are very specific examples. There are definite themes which don't seem to be getting addressed.


----------



## EmmDee (6 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Six days to go, Corbyn going for the jugular - effectively calling Johnson out as delusional liar by releasing "secret" Tory papers.
> 
> Is anybody paying attention?



Probably not. I thought at the beginning of the campaign that it would be another hung parliament. But Labour seem to be losing their own voters.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Dec 2019)

EmmDee said:


> Have a read of the submission to the EHRC. While only a submission, there are very specific examples. There are definite themes which don't seem to be getting addressed.



Whose submission?


----------



## Purple (6 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Corbyns record for standing in solidarity with minority groupings, including Jews, against human rights abuses over the last 40yrs is open for all to see.
> Its his handling of allegations of anti-Semitism within the Labour party that is under fire. I say 'allegations' because while no doubt some moronic attitudes have come to the fore, it is mostly on the fringes and margins of the Labour party.
> This, is quite opposite from the allegation of former Labour MP Louise Ellman, who claimed that under Corbyn, anti-Semitism had become "mainstream" in the Labour party - it hasn't. Borne out by the UK Home Affairs Select committee inquiry into anti-Semitism that found that anti-Semitism was less of an issue in British society than most European countries and is not centred with any particular grouping.
> 
> ...


You're referencing a report from an investigation from 2016, 3 years ago and 2 years before the current allegations came to light.
The report was published in October 2016 so the investigation obviously predates that.


----------



## Purple (6 Dec 2019)

Corbyn is a nasty, humourless, marxist bully. He may well also be an anti-semite. He is the reason that Labour will lose and Brexit will happen.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> You're referencing a report from an investigation from 2016, 3 years ago and 2 years before the current allegations came to light.
> The report was published in October 2016 so the investigation obviously predates that.



Admittedly im unfamiliar with the current allegations.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> Corbyn is a nasty, humourless, marxist bully. He may well also be an anti-semite. He is the reason that Labour will lose and Brexit will happen.



Humourless, marxist, yes. Nasty, bully, im not sure. 
You seem to have made a giant step from Boris, Farage , 10yrs of Tory governance following an economic crash and programs of austerity and 17.4m UK voters in declaring Corbyn the reason for Brexit!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Dec 2019)

What makes me think that the majority of Irish opinion is against a Bojo victory?  It is quite an irrational stance to take.  Bojo has given the Teashop everything he asked for in terms of no border on the island.  A comfortable majority for Bojo will put the DUP firmly in their box, will boost sterling, and will lead to a sensible Brino, all favourable to Ireland's interests.
I had a small flutter on Betfair early doors at 2.08 a Conservative majority.  Sitting on a 44% Cash Out profit but no way am I going to cash out  I have to say Dominic Cummings has played a blinder, okay JC made it easy for him.
Sorry, _Wolfie_, you are going to have to wait a tad longer for your socialist paradise.


----------



## Purple (6 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> You seem to have made a giant step from Boris, Farage , 10yrs of Tory governance following an economic crash and programs of austerity and 17.4m UK voters in declaring Corbyn the reason for Brexit!


 If Corbyn wasn't the leader the Tories would probably lose the election. No Corbyn = No Brexit.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> *If* Corbyn wasn't the leader the Tories would *probably* lose the election. No Corbyn = No Brexit.



If Cameron wasn't leader of Tories there probably wouldn't have been a referendum in the first place.
If there hadnt been an economic crash under the Brown/Blair regime then the rise of UKIP probably would have dwindled away.
If US and its Western allies hadn't spent the last 16yrs bombing the crap out of African and Middle East countries there probably wouldn't be the refugee crisis feeding into irrational xenophobia and the rise of Farage. 
If my sister had a penis she probably be my brother. 

No Cameron/neo-liberal economics/neo-con war mongering/transgender identity  = No Brexit.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Dec 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Sorry, _Wolfie_, you are going to have to wait a tad longer for your socialist paradise.



While I believe and support alot of what Corbyn stands for, I do admit that in his role as leader he failed to galvanise and exploit the wave of optimism that greeted his appointment.
However, from what im reading today Corbyn has actually delivered, if not a knockout punch, a bloody eye at least - too little, too late?

In terms of no border in Ireland, Bojo has delivered nothing that TM didn't already deliver. To suggest otherwise is pure Bojo speak. 
As for your bet, you may be onto a winner. But my advice would be to cash in. I think it will be squeaky bum stuff. 
My bet is for DUP to lose seats. They have been led up a merry path by Bojo. 
Corbyn has played a blinder today. Imagine, it is the socialist marxist Corbyn that is calling out BJ's WA as weakening the Union. 
The DUPs only friend is Corbyn!


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Dec 2019)

Former PM John Major weighing in _against _hard-Brexit Tories. 
Is it half-time yet?


----------



## Seagull (6 Dec 2019)

Loads of senior conservative members have spoken out against brexit.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Dec 2019)

Seagull said:


> Loads of senior conservative members have spoken out against brexit.



Indeed. And one week before the vote, here they come again. This is far from over.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> In terms of no border in Ireland, Bojo has delivered nothing that TM didn't already deliver. To suggest otherwise is pure Bojo speak.


To be absolutely correct neither have delivered anything.  Bojo came close and is now on the verge of actually delivering.


----------



## cremeegg (6 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> In terms of no border in Ireland, Bojo has delivered nothing that TM didn't already deliver.



Certainly not my understanding of the two agreements.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Dec 2019)

cremeegg said:


> Certainly not my understanding of the two agreements.



Both agreements ensure that a hard border on the island of Ireland will be avoided. 
The difference between TM and BJ's deal is that despite all his promises, BJ is prepared to partition NI from Britain, whereas TM wasn't prepared to cut them loose. 
The DUP chose to stand behind BJ.


----------



## cremeegg (6 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Both agreements ensure that a hard border on the island of Ireland will be avoided.
> The difference between TM and BJ's deal is that despite all his promises, BJ is prepared to partition NI from Britain, whereas TM wasn't prepared to cut them loose.
> The DUP chose to stand behind BJ.



Yes. BJ was prepared to draw a line down the Irish Sea to avoid a hard border between North and South. TM wasn't. Big difference I thought.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Dec 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> is now on the verge of actually delivering.



Being on the verge in political circles can be highly precarious. Forget my advice to cash in on a Conservative majority, instead I have put my money where my mouth is and lay the Conservative majority at 1.41


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Dec 2019)

cremeegg said:


> Yes. BJ was prepared to draw a line down the Irish Sea to avoid a hard border between North and South. TM wasn't. Big difference I thought.



Certainly is, in DUP circles anyway. They now have a border between NI and Britain - their (second) worst nightmare. 
Under TM deal, the whole of UK would be treated the same when dealing with EU.


----------



## john luc (6 Dec 2019)

The problem with the UK voting system is the 1 vote only and the rest doesn't matter,so the strategy of Boris calling the vote is to get a dictatorship single party rule with less than 4 out of the 10 who vote. If PR was in place than peoples voting choices would have to be respected. One of the worst abusive acts was a Thatcher  led government who had no seats in Scotland introduced poll tax there first to see how it would work.


----------



## cremeegg (6 Dec 2019)

This really has been a lacklustre campaign. The Brits just dont love their politics the way we do.

Looking back at my thoughts from the start of the campaign



cremeegg said:


> The only issue in the election is whether the Tories will win an overall majority. They will lose seats in Scotland to the SNP, they will lose seats in the South of England to the Lib Dems. Although these two things are certainties, they are small certainties in total that's only 20 seats lost for the Tories.
> 
> Will the Tories take seats from Labour in leaving voting seats in the Midlands and North. 60% of labour seats voted leave, thats a lot of seats, more than 150.
> 
> ...



I think that the Lib Dems have spluttered and Tory losses there and to the SNP will be 20 or less.

The labour vote in the midlands and north might collapse. It seems Corbyn is a communist and not at all a patriot. 

Some dissatisfied voters will vote against their incumbent MP even if Labour hasn't been in Govt for 9 years. We voted labour before and look where that got us. If that happens it could happen across a number of seats. And yet I don't think it will. Labour will by and large hold on. I think.

The Tories started and finished the 2017 election in or around 44%. Labour started it around 25% and got 41%. The story of that election was Labour doing well in the campaign.

The Tories started this campaign around 38% and have moved up to about 43%, almost exactly their result last time. Labour started around 25% and have edged up to around 33%. Thats well below their result last time.

Some at least of this Labour loss will translate into seat losses. BJ needs to win about 35 Labour seats in England to form a stable majority. Thats to cover 10 DUP seats and 20 SNP Lib Dem losses plus 5 for insurance.

The Tories lost a net 22 seats to Labour in England last time out. Despite all the talk about % not transferring to seats I think that means the Tories will will an overall majority. 

Are the reduced Labour poll numbers concentrated in Labour held seats. Maybe they are people outside traditional Labour areas who like Labour in 2017 have little reason to change now. Although certainly Corbyn mania has ebbed.

People in traditional Labour areas have been falling away from Labour for a number of elections, maybe BJ is the man to complete the break.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Dec 2019)

One thing for sure the Remain alliance have been completely outwitted by DC/Bojo.  It is clear now that they should have put JC in as a caretaker PM, have a second referendum to sort out Brexit and then go for a GE.  The Lib/Dems probably take most of the blame for refusing to countenance JC as even a caretaker PM and they are the big losers.  
_Wolfie _when it comes to investment you should not let the heart rule the head.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Dec 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Wolfie _when it comes to investment you should not let the heart rule the head.



Indeed. Notably im a not trumpeting a Labour triumph, but rather a Tory failure to secure a majority - particularly at confidence levels of 1.41. I think there is plenty of scope to drift back close to evens in the week ahead.

@cremeegg analysis above are useful here. The Tories are polling now around the same they got last time - short of a majority.
Labour are on 33%, the last pre-election polls they were 25% but got 41% in actual poll. That was some understatement!

Today, pre-election they are at 33%, is there any chance their vote is being understated once more?
It certainly makes sense the vastly overblown anti-Semitism row in the media.

God forbid the media had to tackle him on socialist policies such as protecting the NHS, increasing low incomes, taxing wealth, building social housing, how on earth would the electorate, in 2019, react to that?


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Dec 2019)

Watched the Johnson/Corbyn debate. 

A comfortable 3-0 win for Johnson, even if two of the goals were disputed penalty and an o.g. 
Corbyn, despite his sincerity and efforts cannot convert. He resembles the efforts of Roberto Soldado (who? - Gareth Bales £26m replacement for Tottenham). 
Scored six goals in first season, four from penalty spot! 
But chances galore, just couldn't hit the net.


----------



## EmmDee (7 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Whose submission?



I believe it was 70 Labour staffers made the submission. It came out yesterday


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Dec 2019)

EmmDee said:


> I believe it was 70 Labour staffers made the submission. It came out yesterday



Yes, I have read the damning headlines. Cant find a link to the actual submission.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Watched the Johnson/Corbyn debate.
> 
> A comfortable 3-0 win for Johnson, even if two of the goals were disputed penalty and an o.g.
> Corbyn, despite his sincerity and efforts cannot convert. He resembles the efforts of Roberto Soldado (who? - Gareth Bales £26m replacement for Tottenham).
> ...


I put it a draw and pretty boring at that. But draw was enough for Conservative majority to harden to 1.37 and my cash out to go over +50%.


----------



## EmmDee (7 Dec 2019)

As I said, I have a small bet on no overall majority. I think the opposition parties are doing their best to give the conservatives a majority but there are a couple of big unknowns going into the last week....

Firstly, the overall LibDem poll numbers are bad but it's hard to know if that reflects a general decrease or a concentration in certain constituencies where they have the best chances. If the later, it could be a problem for the conservatives.

Secondly, the "ground war" on the day... Labour have significantly more activists. Getting the vote out could be massive. And if it came to bad weather and the need for organisation, labour will be more effective.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Dec 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But draw was enough for Conservative majority to harden to 1.37 and my cash out to go over +50%.




Back to 1.41

With some €10.3m already matched, it is a very tight market. Movement either way of a couple of points is somewhat significant. Movement any greater than that will signify some profound event occurring in the campaign. If such movement is not in your (or my) favor, it would be time to bail out.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Back to 1.41
> 
> With some €10.3m already matched, it is a very tight market. Movement either way of a couple of points is somewhat significant. Movement any greater than that will signify some profound event occurring in the campaign. If such movement is not in your (or my) favor, it would be time to bail out.


1.25 and +65%


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Dec 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> 1.25 and +65%



I could be facing a bit of a hiding so! 

Everything says I should cash out and cut my losses, but that gut feeling still persists. 
Its the final week, the Tory press and Tory backers will be hyperbole this week predicting the landslide majority for Boris. 
My instinct tells me it will be close, very close - im going to take up some more of this value market


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Dec 2019)

Bad day for Bojo 1.32


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Tory backers will be hyperbole this week



Sterling shrugs off weak economic data

And they are off! Despite weak data, the Tory backers have strengthened Sterling against the Euro reaching a seven month high!

Time to dig in the trenches now, will I fall flat on my face or could this be my George Soros moment?*

*_accepting that the scale of my potential rewards is closer to paying out for a round of drinks at the Christmas party and taxi fare home. _


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

1.39.
Im now in positive territory, 10%.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

1.46

+25%


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> 1.46
> 
> +25%


1.48 and only up 39%
Actually I really want him to lose, my bet is sort of insurance


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Dec 2019)

1.46

YouGov Sky News Poll

Im guessing this poll is the reason for price movement from 1.25 back to 1.46.

The landslide is still on, the majority Tory government still on more,  but the prospect of a hung parliament...still festers.

Some points, and this is just my interpretation of information provided - _lest anyone accuse me of being 'pointless' at some later stage whilst simultaneously providing pointless comments all by themselves. _

The poll above gives the Brexit party a miserly 3.1%. This is the party that dominated the EU elections on 31% on the single issue of Brexit only 7 months ago.

As suggested here afterwards when dropping candidates for this election;



WolfeTone said:


> Farage and his Brexit Party have absolutely capitulated. They have given free reign to Tories in Tory held seats to shore up votes for the "second worse deal of all time".
> 
> I dont see any point for their existence now. They will split the Leave vote from disenchanted Labour supporters in Labour seats, ensuring Labour returns.



The Labour returns may, or may not, materialize, but noticeably in the above poll, the decline in the Labour vote matches very close the increase in the Lib Dem (Remain) vote. 
And in true David McWilliams style - I  was travelling in a taxi in Liverpool recently, the taxi driver derided Jeremy Corbyn, but ultimately said "no Labour man will ever vote Tory". 
So while a big Labour vote shifted to Brexit Party, it was a one issue party that has since capitulated to the demands of the Tories. 
And with that, the protesting Labour vote is realising a sudden reality check - who have we put our trust in? 

The Brexit Party is dead, traditional tribalism is the order of the day, and where there is doubt, it is falling towards Remain parties, like Lib Dems. 

That's my take, there are other factors of courses, but 

@1.46 

Im happy to lay some more.


----------



## cremeegg (11 Dec 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> 1.25 and +65%





WolfeTone said:


> @1.46
> 
> Im happy to lay some more.



Help. What does this mean.


----------



## EmmDee (11 Dec 2019)

cremeegg said:


> Help. What does this mean.



WolfeTone has bet against the Conservatives getting a majority (I'm guessing on Betfair). The bet is at 1.46 - so if you backed a Conservative majority at 1.46 it would mean for every €100 bet, you would win €46. WolfeTone is the other side of this bet - he is risking €46 for a €100 win (actually I don't know what odds he originally laid at - but the quote above means he is thinking of increasing his stake at odds of 1.46).

With Betfair, you can essentially trade a bet. So as the odds move up and down you can close out your bet for a smaller gain or loss. Hence, as the odds move Duke is calculating how much the bet is "in the money"

For the record - I also have a small bet against a Conservative majority from a little while back

Edit : Though I think Duke may have it wrong way around. If the odds for a Conservative majority are tightening, then WT is out of the money. As they lengthen, he'll be in profit as he has bet against the majority - I could be wrong


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Dec 2019)

EmmDee said:


> (actually I don't know what odds he originally laid at - but the



I have 5 bets of varying amounts on odds ranging from 1.45 into 1.26. 
It averages at 1.34 so im in the green at the moment. 
I dont have large sums at stake, so I wont be cashing out before the result.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Dec 2019)

EmmDee said:


> WolfeTone has bet against the Conservatives getting a majority (I'm guessing on Betfair). The bet is at 1.46 - so if you backed a Conservative majority at 1.46 it would mean for every €100 bet, you would win €46. WolfeTone is the other side of this bet - he is risking €46 for a €100 win (actually I don't know what odds he originally laid at - but the quote above means he is thinking of increasing his stake at odds of 1.46).
> 
> With Betfair, you can essentially trade a bet. So as the odds move up and down you can close out your bet for a smaller gain or loss. Hence, as the odds move Duke is calculating how much the bet is "in the money"
> 
> ...


I have bet for a majority at 2.08, as an insurance against that unwanted outcome.  The bet is in the money as it has fallen to 1.43.  The cash out is actually calculated by Betfair and is available at the push of a button and interestingly is now 44.44%.


----------



## EmmDee (11 Dec 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I have bet for a majority at 2.08, as an insurance against that unwanted outcome.  The bet is in the money as it has fallen to 1.43.  The cash out is actually calculated by Betfair and is available at the push of a button and interestingly is now 44.44%.



Apologies - I thought you were commenting on WolfTone's bet when you were posting % gain etc. You were actually commenting on your own - in which case it totally makes sense


----------



## cremeegg (11 Dec 2019)

EmmDee said:


> WolfeTone has bet against the Conservatives getting a majority (I'm guessing on Betfair). The bet is at 1.46 - so if you backed a Conservative majority at 1.46 it would mean for every €100 bet, you would win €46.






Duke of Marmalade said:


> I have bet for a majority at 2.08,



Does that mean you win €208 for a €100 stake if the Tories win a majority ?? Surely a Tory majority was always the favoured outcome.   

Or maybe I'm just not getting it.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Dec 2019)

Not sure what to make of this... postal votes loom grim for Labour?








						UK election watchdog issues warning after BBC political editor's live comments about postal votes
					

The BBC said it doesn’t believe it or Laura Kuenssberg breached electoral law.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Dec 2019)

cremeegg said:


> Does that mean you win €208 for a €100 stake if the Tories win a majority ??



You get €208 which includes your initial stake of €100, so you win €108. 
One way to work it out compared to traditional fractional odds is to minus the decimal odds by 1. 
So 5.00 is 4/1, 4.00 is 3/1, 2.00 is evens 1.25 is 1/4.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Dec 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> Not sure what to make of this... postal votes loom grim for Labour?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



After reading that im tempted to cash out. Take my stake back and enough profit to buy a free lunch tomorrow


----------



## cremeegg (11 Dec 2019)

OK last chance for a prediction.

First off the Tories will lose seats to the SNP and Lib Dems. I put this at 20 seats back on 3 Nov. I still think that's is close enough, although it is more likely to be less rather than more.

After that either of two things will happen.

*Thing 1*

The Tories will gain seats from Labour in England in line with the polls.

By my reckoning would need to take a net 28 seats from Labour in England for a majority. They won 317 last time out, less 20 gives 297, means they need 28 more for the magic 325. On a national basis the polls clearly indicate they are likely to get this or a bit more, maybe 335.

*And Thing 2 (as the immortal Dr Seuss once said)*

Labour is 7 ish points in the polls below the level it won at the last election. 33% vs. 40%. That's just over 2 million people. 

Where do these people live. Hardly in the major cities, they still support Labour. In the Tory shires where Labour never win seats anyway, maybe. 

Or perhaps in the areas of Wales, the midlands and the north where Labour holds many seats. Constituencies which nearly all voted leave, the Tories have been canvassing hard there in the latter stages of the campaign. They scent victory here.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Dec 2019)

cremeegg said:


> Does that mean you win €208 for a €100 stake if the Tories win a majority ?? Surely a Tory majority was always the favoured outcome.
> 
> Or maybe I'm just not getting it.


I receive 208, a win of 108.  Tory majority was about even money with no majority until Labour blew it, also in the beginning the Brexit party were a big threat to a Tory majority


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Dec 2019)

Watching Newsnight on BBC2. Permanent Secretary of the Department of Exiting the EU is giving his take on Brexit and future trade deal and relationships with EU. 

He seems to be making a lot of sense to me. But who is listening to stuffy civil servants at this time of night?


----------



## EmmDee (12 Dec 2019)

cremeegg said:


> Does that mean you win €208 for a €100 stake if the Tories win a majority ?? Surely a Tory majority was always the favoured outcome.
> 
> Or maybe I'm just not getting it.



The way Betfair quote, it is total return for your initial stake. So in this case €100 would win €108 plus original €100 back.

In a bookies this would essentially be evens. If you want to convert Betfair prices to bookies odds, subtract 1 from the price. So in this case 1.08 / 1.

This is the most favoured outcome. The closest next outcome is "no overall majority" at about 3/1


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Dec 2019)

1.54 and +33.33% (44.44% yesterday). What is happening?


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Dec 2019)

Heard a piece on Newstalk this morning where the prospect of Johnson losing his seat was considered. Whilst deemed unlikely by the British pundit, the idea that it is even being considered - on Irish media - suggests that as a prospect it is being considered in British media too. 
Its signals like this, along with reports of significant increase in voter registration and a return to traditional tribal bases that make me think that this will be a close call, in terms of whether or not the Tories secure a majority.


----------



## EmmDee (12 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Heard a piece on Newstalk this morning where the prospect of Johnson losing his seat was considered. Whilst deemed unlikely by the British pundit, the idea that it is even being considered - on Irish media - suggests that as a prospect it is being considered in British media too.
> Its signals like this, along with reports of significant increase in voter registration and a return to traditional tribal bases that make me think that this will be a close call, in terms of whether or not the Tories secure a majority.



His majority is not as big as a very safe seat - I think 5k or something. So they were certainly fighting it. I've seen a plan reported that if he loses his seat they have a friendly safe seat where the MP would be promoted to the Lords and they run a bye-election within weeks.

More interesting to watch is Raab, IDS and a couple of the other hardliners


----------



## Drakon (12 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Heard a piece on Newstalk this morning where the prospect of Johnson losing his seat was considered. Whilst deemed unlikely by the British pundit, the idea that it is even being considered - on Irish media - suggests that as a prospect it is being considered in British media too.


Yes, there is a 25 year old Iranian running for Labour who is a high profile “Not Tory” tactical voting suggestion, running in BoJo’s constituency.
It’s pure political theatre.


----------



## Drakon (12 Dec 2019)

Read an interesting piece about a seat in Wales that Labour hope to win off the Tories, as part of their “Unseat A Tory” campaign, targeting traditional Conservative seats. The incumbent has left the Conservatives and is now running as an independent. The Tories have parachuted in an English candidate from Suffolk. 

The Labour hopeful’s name is Owen, I can’t remember her first name though. Her political advisor has been a staunch Labour socialist since he was only seven years of age and she regards him with much reverence. He is twelve!


----------



## Seagull (12 Dec 2019)

I'm surprised there aren't more conservative MPs changing to run as independents, especially in remain constituencies.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Dec 2019)

Just hit the 1.60 mark!


----------



## Drakon (12 Dec 2019)

1.5 again


----------



## Drakon (12 Dec 2019)

In lay mans terms though, anything less than 2.0 indicates that BefFair users/traders/bots think that a Tory majority is more likely than not.


----------



## Drakon (12 Dec 2019)

I’d say the Tories will have 345 seats.


----------



## Drakon (12 Dec 2019)

Labour 227

Lib Dems 14

Scots 45

Greens 1

Nordies 18


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Dec 2019)

Whats the magic figure btw? 321?


----------



## Drakon (12 Dec 2019)

326


----------



## EmmDee (12 Dec 2019)

Drakon said:


> 326



Technically true but depends on how many Sinn Fein win. Because they don't sit, a working majority is half of (650 - SF)


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Dec 2019)

Squeaky bum time! Im somewhat resigned to idea of losing my stake as the betting market didn't move as I anticipated.
Sunderland I think is expected first, if Labour dont take it, I will head to bed early.


----------



## Sophrosyne (12 Dec 2019)

Exit poll suggests 368 for Conservatives.


----------



## EmmDee (12 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Squeaky bum time! Im somewhat resigned to idea of losing my stake as the betting market didn't move as I anticipated.
> Sunderland I think is expected first, if Labour dont take it, I will head to bed early.



Exit poll due out but I think could be misleading... The global % won't reflect local variances.

The early returns from the north will probably go with the Tory's. But I've been hearing of a lot of problems for them down south. 

If you wanted a really ballsy move... Letting the odds react to first few announcements and then betting against it... But wouldn't do it with my pension pot or rent money!!!


----------



## odyssey06 (12 Dec 2019)

Alastair Campbell on RTE putting boot into Boris, Corbyn and Lib Dems...

Also I thought 20 seat win for Tories more likely. If exit poll right that would be huge.


----------



## EmmDee (12 Dec 2019)

EmmDee said:


> Exit poll due out but I think could be misleading... The global % won't reflect local variances.
> 
> The early returns from the north will probably go with the Tory's. But I've been hearing of a lot of problems for them down south.
> 
> If you wanted a really ballsy move... Letting the odds react to first few announcements and then betting against it... But wouldn't do it with my pension pot or rent money!!!



Though I wasn't thinking it would be that strong!!!

Interesting... To say the least. The experiment goes on


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Dec 2019)

EmmDee said:


> Exit poll due out but I think could be misleading... The global % won't reflect local variances.
> 
> The early returns from the north will probably go with the Tory's. But I've been hearing of a lot of problems for them down south.
> 
> If you wanted a really ballsy move... Letting the odds react to first few announcements and then betting against it... But wouldn't do it with my pension pot or rent money!!!



Interesting tactic. The price for overall majority has tightened to 1.04 from 1.38 just before the closing booths. 

If I lay another €200 I can collapse my average. If one or two early results go my way I might cash out and break even.


----------



## Sophrosyne (12 Dec 2019)

Exit poll for Labour 191 seats. Worst result since 1935.

Time for Corbyn to step aside.


----------



## Drakon (12 Dec 2019)

EmmDee said:


> Exit poll due out but I think could be misleading... The global % won't reflect local variances.


368 is overwhelming


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Dec 2019)

Drakon said:


> 368 is overwhelming



Very true. And wipes my predictions to the floor.
Im off to BBC NI for the Finucane v Dodds clash. Hopefully something to cheer me up there.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Dec 2019)

I told you so


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Dec 2019)

Labour will be soul searching. Corbyn is dead....and so is my €45.


----------



## EmmDee (12 Dec 2019)

Drakon said:


> 368 is overwhelming



Yes... Think I acknowledged that. The quote was prior to the exit poll being published (or at least before I saw it)


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2019)

Well Corbyn is gone and Labour might eventually be able to make itself electable again after two dreadful leaders. It will take time though and the deconstruction of the Marxist structure  that Corbyn imposed on the party. 
I hope it is now clear that only a lunatic fringe want 1900’s extremist socialism in England.

Good riddance to a horrible, intolerant (probably anti Semitic), arrogant, nasty man.


----------



## elacsaplau (13 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> Good riddance to a horrible, intolerant......arrogant, nasty man.



But Purple, Johnson has won?!  

Arguably a case of the evil of two lessers  winning?!


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2019)

I can’t stand either of them. It makes me thankful for the political leaders we have here; I’d take Leo or Michael over those two jokers any day of the week!


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2019)

Hopefully Momentum and the Trade Union poison will be cleaned out of the Labour Party over the next year or so.


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2019)

Worst Labour Party result since before the Second World War.


----------



## Sophrosyne (13 Dec 2019)

The election was Labour’s to lose.

Wrong leader, confused message.


Yes we can!

Put America first!

Take back control!

Get Brexit done!

Today’s bread today!


Simple slogans work!


----------



## cremeegg (13 Dec 2019)

That will be Thing 2 then.

Astounding result which will change Britain.


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2019)

Sophrosyne said:


> The election was Labour’s to lose.
> 
> Wrong leader, confused message.
> 
> ...


“It’s the economy stupid”


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2019)

I think BJ’s comment that "It is a day that many of us have dreamed of, a day when the Conservative party genuinely speaks for every part of the country." Tells us a lot about how much BJ’s One Nation Conservatism is BS when they were wiped out on Scotland and still have no seats in NI


----------



## Sophrosyne (13 Dec 2019)

Of course Brexit went beyond the economy.

I just went by the vox pops on the various UK channels for the past year or so.

Whether they had voted leave or remain the overwhelming view _in England and Wales_ was we are sick to the teeth of Brexit; just get on with it!

Get Brexit done, in a simple way, encapsulated how those voters felt.

Labour misjudged the mood.


----------



## odyssey06 (13 Dec 2019)

Am I right in saying that since WWII only 3 Labour leaders have actually won a general election - Attlee, Wilson and Blair?
Callaghan and Brown were PM but succeeded one of the above?
They don't seem to know how to pick 'em.


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> Am I right in saying that since WWII only 3 Labour leaders have actually won a general election - Attlee, Wilson and Blair?
> Callaghan and Brown were PM but succeeded one of the above?
> They don't seem to know how to pick 'em.


They can only work with what they have. The last guy who could have won an election runs a charity in New York now.


----------



## odyssey06 (13 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> They can only work with what they have. The last guy who could have won an election runs a charity in New York now.



He would never be acceptable to the Corbyn brigade. There's a reason why they are working with such a narrow pool. 
It's not random chance -  they've designed the system that way.


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> He would never be acceptable to the Corbyn brigade. There's a reason why they are working with such a narrow pool.
> It's not random chance -  they've designed the system that way.


I know. That's why the are unelectable. Only a small minority of the public are thick enough to vote for the hard left (or racist/bigoted enough to vote for the hard right) so they will never win an election.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (13 Dec 2019)

Thoughts from Norn Iron.  
Catholic parties 37.6% of vote; 9 seats
Protestant parties 42.3% of vote; 8 seats
Gerrymandering?
Also 50% of winning candidates RCs; must be a first


----------



## Sunny (13 Dec 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Thoughts from Norn Iron.
> Catholic parties 37.6% of vote; 9 seats
> Protestant parties 42.3% of vote; 8 seats
> Gerrymandering?
> Also 50% of winning candidates RCs; must be a first



Surely the big story isn't the usual Catholic/Protestant division. Both SF and the DUP got a bit of a kicking albeit the DUP to a much greater extent. The interesting story is the Alliance party taking votes from traditional unionist parties and winning a seat following on from the gains at local and European elections. Shows that the DUP's Pro Brexit stance was a complete disaster even among their own support who were looking for a remain party that wasn't Sinn Fein. Dodds losing his seat was the headline but to be fair to him, thought he handled himself really well. Unlike Foster. 

Bet the DUP wish they could take the May deal now!


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2019)

Sunny said:


> Bet the DUP wish they could take the May deal now!


----------



## EmmDee (13 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> They can only work with what they have. The last guy who could have won an election runs a charity in New York now.



Keir Starmer probably has what it takes. Whether he would be selected is another thing.

LibDems also looking - again from a small pool


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2019)

EmmDee said:


> Keir Starmer probably has what it takes. Whether he would be selected is another thing.
> 
> LibDems also looking - again from a small pool


Starmer is too wooden but is probably the best option. Another Grammar school boy and a rich lawyer. He'd fit right in with the Irish Labour Party!


----------



## joe sod (13 Dec 2019)

So Cornyn is finished, the young student activists that made him labour leader were wrong, he was not popular, hard left socialism while popular with the media is not popular among the vast majority of voters. 
The Irish government should take note of this result there is only so far they can push their new green environment policies , people will not accept extremism in any form.


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2019)

joe sod said:


> So Cornyn is finished, the young student activists that made him labour leader were wrong, he was not popular, hard left socialism while popular with the media is not popular among the vast majority of voters.
> The Irish government should take note of this result there is only so far they can push their new green environment policies , people will not accept extremism in any form.


He was made leader by people who were "young student activists" 40 years ago!
New green environment policies... will you go way outa that.


----------



## Conan (13 Dec 2019)

Boris may be the first PM of England and Wales


----------



## joe sod (13 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> He was made leader by people who were "young student activists" 40 years ago!
> New green environment policies... will you go way outa that.


It was the change in the criteria to become a member of the labour party where you only had to pay a pound to become a member that elected Jeremy Corbyn. Then hordes of students joined and voted for corbyn like sheep . They were too young to remember the disaster of 70s Britain and the summer of discontent.


----------



## EmmDee (13 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> Starmer is too wooden but is probably the best option.



Possibly but he is thoughtful and I think much more strategic.

Jess Phillips impresses me as well


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2019)

joe sod said:


> It was the change in the criteria to become a member of the labour party where you only had to pay a pound to become a member that elected Jeremy Corbyn. Then hordes of students joined and voted for corbyn like sheep . They were too young to remember the disaster of 70s Britain and the summer of discontent.


It was the 70's socialists who had him in the race.


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2019)

I really wanted to like Joe Swinson but she just didn't have the charisma or delivery to take her seriously.


----------



## joe sod (13 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> I really wanted to like Joe Swinson but she just didn't have the charisma or delivery to take her seriously.



I was surprised that she did so badly, I thought she was quite good and I dont understand why remain voters didn't switch to the liberals when corbyn was unelectable. Thats the thing I dont understand about british politics, in ireland she would definitely have been elected at least. But also on the other end of the scale the brexit party got no seats also hard to believe.


----------



## Seagull (27 Dec 2019)

There was probably a certain amount of concern that using the Lib Dems as a protest vote would let Corbin in. If you look at the percentage of the vote, the Lib Dems didn't do too badly. Their problem is that they could come second in a load of constituencies, and still not have anyone elected. In a PR system, they'd have a significant presence in parliament.


----------

