WHats the strategy in calling an election for BJ?

Early Riser said:
But he doesn't have to get anything passed through parliament for no deal to happen - it is the current default.
Click to expand...

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?
 
WolfeTone said:
Is it though?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 

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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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 JH
 

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 .
 
Last edited:
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 .
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
5 year time limit. Border poll in 2025. United Ireland follows, so no need for backstop after all.
Click to expand...
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.
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?
 
joe sod said:
however this argument is bogus and Itchy has rightly pointed out that it will be fudged.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
And if Catalonia becomes independent, who would you blame for the partition of Spain?
Click to expand...

????

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register