WHats the strategy in calling an election for BJ?

zxcvbnm

Frequent Poster
Messages
265
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.
 

SBarrett

Frequent Poster
Messages
3,126
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.
 

orka

Frequent Poster
Messages
1,010
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

Frequent Poster
Messages
3,062
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

Frequent Poster
Messages
3,062
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..
 

orka

Frequent Poster
Messages
1,010
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.
 

Itchy

Frequent Poster
Messages
287
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.
 

SBarrett

Frequent Poster
Messages
3,126
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

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,424
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

Registered User
Messages
198
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

Frequent Poster
Messages
403
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

Registered User
Messages
265
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

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,424
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.
 
Last edited:

Duke of Marmalade

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,424
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

Registered User
Messages
265
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

Registered User
Messages
198
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

Frequent Poster
Messages
630
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.
 
Top