I know in America, the President can ignore subpoenas without any redress but I’m not so sure in this country.
What happens when a Prime Minister wilfully, and in full public view, ignores the law?
by 172 Comments
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I won’t tell you what I think should happen, ‘cos if I do, @chiz will be along in a minute to advise me that I should be trying to reach out to the PM, to understand his point of view and to deftly and diplomatically influence his behaviour. Not only that, but the rozzers would probably read my post via GCHQ and push my name up the naughty list a few notches.
Let’s leave it at “Grrrrr”.
Well, hopefully recent actions of containment will suffice until the election. Then you can deftly and diplomatically reach out with a sawn off ballot paper and take him out around the kneecaps.
I am sure we now have the full attention of GCHQ.
He should listen to a Rolling Stones compo?
Well Vulpes you must have noticed that some of the people you were wishing a horrible death on last week have done more to prevent a right wing dictatorship in the last few days than years of impotent polemical frothing from the left. You don’t have to agree with them on everything, but you’ll find it much harder to get them to use their influence if you’ve already strung them from the lampposts
Oh, you mean the Tories that have left/been heaved from the Boris Brexit Party to join the, er, er, um……
Successive PMs of Australia have ignored international law for years and locked up genuine refugees on offshore islands.
That’s international law, which nearly everybody regards as dispensable.
Unfortunately, this is very true.
Generally there’s little or no comeback if your nation is sufficiently powerful.
In The Times today it says clearly that if you break the law you go to prison, even the PM. Might be part of the master plan though, people against parliament etc.
I’d be interested to learn who the article was by and what the argument was. I would have thought any Act of Parliament that seeks to impose penalties for its breach would have to incorporate said penalties within the Act, for example the way the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 lists the penalties for murder.
Cummings is behind this confrontation believing that it encourages the ‘People versus Parliament’ narrative. The miscalculation has been that they assumed they would get the election before 31st October and run on that ticket, but he is now boxed in so much he has to either break the law or resign.
The problem for me is….it still seems to be working in a ghastly way. We seem to have now gone through the looking glass and there is support out there for a prime minister who lies, is reportedly considering defying the rule of law, not to mention for one that shows an utter contempt for Parliamentary democracy. I hope Cameron is pleased with what he has unleashed….
Looking glass indeed! Reading about Amber Judd’s resignation in the Guardian this morning, it seemed as though Basher Bozza was on the ropes. Time to throw in the towel! Her articulate attack on the Johnson cull of any MP that does not follow the line was a real body blow
But no! He still has many supporters. Incomprehensible.
Everybody seems to know what ‘the people’ want. The 2016 referendum result was Leave but the margin wasn’t a big one. Theresa May called an election to strengthen her hand. The people removed her majority and gave her an anti-No Deal parliament. The people want to leave the EU with a deal.
Has public opinion changed? The recent European elections was pretty much 50/50 between Brexit parties and second referendum parties, maybe a little in favour of the latter. Polls show that those who voted to leave still want to and those who voted to remain want to stay. Those that didn’t vote have a majority in favour of remain and a much bigger one rejecting no deal. Even so, public opinion isn’t moving enough to be decisive.
This people v parliament tactic appeals to half the population and appals the other half. Johnson’s own family is divided. An election now could well produce another hung parliament but this time with more hardliners on both sides. A second referendum is likely to be close and looks more like 48/52 remain, solving nothing.
We are in a mess that Boris doesn’t appear to be cleaning it up. I am impressed with the solidity of the alliance against him in parliament. I never thought they could be so clear-eyed, determined and united on preventing no deal.
We live in interesting times. I just feel sorry for my children and their children. Nothing will be resolved for a generation, methinks.
I suspect he won’t be displeased; I bet he won’t lose money on it, for a start.
I assume that Pritti Patel wants him to feel terrified.
For the first time in her public life she is keeping her brain dead thoughts very much to herself and inexplicably ducking every media opportunity.
I suspect she’s been instructed to shut up and stay out of the way and she is complying, in the absence of any ideas in that empty head of hers about what else she could be doing.
Complyin’, you mean.
I hope in the next few years someone writes an idiot’s guide to What Actually Happened. I don’t think I’m alone in being confused by the shenanigans and double-crossing going on, as well as the labyrinth of legislation and parliamentary procedures. Each day seems to bring up a new baffling twist in the tale. Today I’m trying to get my head around the puzzle of a Prime Minister possibly starting a motion of no confidence in himself, only to have his opponents reject and vote that they have confidence in him.
The whole thing smacks of ‘gaming’ and poor sportsmanship. Which is fine if you are talking about something inconsequential like a game of football (sorry, football fans) but is just depressing when you are talking about something that matters like running the country.
Anyway, with that appropriate ignorance disclaimer in place, here’s what I think will happen next.
I think Mr Johnson will NOT ask for another extension. I think he’ll just allow things to go ahead and take us to a No-Deal Brexit in October. Why?
One. I just don’t believe the legal repurcussions for him are as serious as people are making out. He would be ‘breaking the law’ by not complying with the command to delay Brexit if no deal is found, but there’s enough uncertainty over what that actually means to make me think the main short term effect will be months of lawyers arguing – and in the meantime in the background that No-Deal Brexit will just chug along nicely. I don’t think ‘breaking the law’ means there will be a horde of policemen camping outside his house waiting to throw him in jail if he disobeys. If there’s one thing our current political climate has shown is that politicians don’t need to be gentlemen any more. They don’t need to play by the rules, they can bend them and find loopholes. They can push things to breaking point just to see what happens (like lounging in the House of Commons instead of sitting up like a grown-up, to take a small scale example).
Two. I feel as if there MUST be some loophole where Johnson can do enough to be SEEN to be asking for an extension, when really he isn’t at all. So he skirts a fine line where he does just enough not to be breaking the law, but not enough to actually avoid this No-Deal Brexit happening.
Three. This is just a feeling I have. I think things need to come to a head in this whole debacle and…. well… it just feels like we’ve come so far in this weird Philip K Dick science fiction story, with all its bizarre twists, that now something has to give. The whole story just feels played out. At this point I think the likeliest result is a No-Deal in October. And I think there’s enough public support for that (the ‘best of a bad choice’) that it’s going to happen one way or another.
But let me climb back up on my fence, annoyingly, and say that the close run second possibility is Brexit not happening at all somehow. (At the moment, I know not how, but I think it will seem obvious in hindsight once – if – it happens). I don’t think there’s any inbetween. In the next few months we will be in or out, end of story.
Who knows how things end, or when. Though to answer the OP, I suspect that it would play well with the electorate.
The consequences for Johnson, if he chose to ignore the law are not particularly serious. He’s never going to end up with a set of handcuffs on him. He may possibly at some point be required to attend a police station, in his own time and when it suits him, and be charged with something or other. On the other hand it may be quietly decided that any charges should be dropped “in the public interest”.
If he does end up in court he most certainly will not be jailed or anything like that. A fine that his backers can quietly reimburse him for, perhaps.
His political career will not suffer, because it is effectively over already. He might choose to go and live in the USA, where he can carry on lying and spouting nonsense for Breitbart, Fox News and the like while being paid handsomely.
Would it not be in the public interest to make an example of a PM who defies the rule of law?
You may note that my In The Public Interest was in quotes.
Sometimes the Public Interest is deemed to be the same thing as not having the boat rocked.
I’m not optimistic as electoral funding rules were broken in 2015(battlebuses touring the country, visiting marginals and funded nationally), and 2016 (Cambridge Analytica, overspend), and probably in 2017 as well (illicit call centre in Wales).
Rees-Mogg sprawling over the front bench and Cummings drunkenly accosting Corbyn seem to be just more overt manifestations of a Party that is even more dangerously out-of-control and reckless than it was in 1997, belligerently challenging the niceties, norms and conventions of the unwritten Constitution.
Oh if the posh boys can break the rules, then so can their opposition. Trust me. Bring it on. The sooner the better; and we will all know who brought it on. It is becoming very clear.
I think this is what @chiz was referring to when he mentioned “impotent polemical frothing from the left” up there somewhere.
Ha ha! Where’s the fucking RESIGN movement, wankers? Impotent is playing by the rules when your opposition does not.
On the other hand, I think this is what I’d refer to as “incoherent polemical frothing from the left”.
Or what Barack Obama (remember him?) called” we go high”.
Maintain your own high standard; just because they cheat doesn’t mean you do – if you do, you lose the high ground.
Trouble was, in the end, it gained him very little. Every dirty trick in the book (and a few they invented specially) was used against him and ultimately he was unable to acheive the bulk of what he set out to do.
Barack who?
That was Michelle.
So what’s the plan, Tahir?
In my opinion? Force a resignation. But it is up to the opposition to work out a way of doing that — I’m not in the UK. But I do know that the prospect of a Trump-Boris alliance spells terrible trouble for the global community.
I think it can be done within the parliamentary system but backed up by popular demonstration, not by handwringing and apathy.
The problem is that if you decide to step outside the law, you’re gonna need rules
Songs for Johnson
“To live outside the law you must be honest”
Or probably
“I fought the law and the law won”
I wasn’t talking about outside the Law — it hasn’t got to that yet — I was talking about the rules of parliamentary behaviour. In other words creating a social movement for inter alia the removal of a PM who apparently DOES have contempt for the law.
You see the difference I have had with many here is that their argument for removal of the PM seems to be “Oh well that would bring Corbyn into power and … his personality you know … blah blah … nah!”
Parliamentary politics cannot be the whole of politics, social movements today are of the essence.
Ah yep gotcha. I thought you were going rogue for a minute there.
I’m a very reluctant convert to Corbyn, for the purely pragmatic reason that he’s got the best chance of providing an alternative to what we have. I think he’s a terrible leader and hopelessly mired in spiteful 1970s-style Trot cant, but your enemy’s enemy, and all that. We are where we are, and we have to go forward from here
Oh I’m roguish alright, just realistically rogue.
The time to Lib Dem is now.
What strikes me is that J. G. Ballard, wherever he is now, must be lung-bustingly convulsed with helpless laughter at the whole shit-show of Brexit.
The question that was posed was “what happens?” Well, what’s the answer? Nothing?
Serious suggestion here – an All Women Government encompassing every political persuasion headed by Anna, Jess, Jo et al. They all meet inside over a glass or three of prosecco whilst the menfolk argue in the garden about how best to barbecue the sausages and whether or not Stella is better than Carlsberg. An hour later it’s all sorted. The sausages are burnt, we’ve run out beer but them women have issued a one-line statement solving all the problems with Europe, The World, The Universe and Everything.
Stella would be one of the key figures in any such government, but who is Carlsberg?
Played for Aberdeen FC in the late sixties did our Carl. Took a while to get used to kick, kick, rush and kick but soon settled in as one of the most cultured right-halfs ever seen at Pittodrie. Such a shame that one indiscretion, a rather large indiscretion it must be admitted (although how was he to know “Petra” was in fact Peter?), meant it was straight back to Denmark on the first available steamer.
But knowing our luck, the all-woman government would be Priti Patel, Kate Hoey, Nadine Dorries and Anne Widdicombe.
I don’t know where the idea came from that women are more sensible or nicer than blokes. Has nobody ever heard of Katie Hopkins, Julia Hartley-Brewer, Carole Malone et al?
Ok, what I really meant was those nice sensible women what agree with my liberal-leftie views
Yes they’re the ones I like too. Add Mary Creagh, Alison McGovern, Sarah Wollaston, Lisa Nandy, Maria and Angela Eagle and Antionette Sandbach to the list.
If there is still time there is still one certain way to stop Johnson taking us out on 31 October (because I think Arthur is right, they reckon they have some semantic way of challenging the idea that to ignore the motion would be breaking the law). The opposition could agree to call a vote of no confidence, form an interim unity government with Corbyn or someone else (Nicholas Soames would be a good gag) in charge; seek the deferral from the EU and then call an election. Of course it would need a huge degree of unity and someone swallowing their pride to either accept Corbyn, or for him to accept someone else. But the impetus to stop Johnson, and the lack of trust in him, seem so strong that it might just work. The real problem is that when the election comes, Johnson’s message will be that everyone else has delayed Brexit thus far, and that only he can be relied on to finally get us out. And I am very afraid that that might just be an election winner.
Scarily convincing, Blue. Boris certainly can be relied upon to crash the UK out of Europe. He does not have the persistence and willingness to deliver a deal. One can only hope that the days to come continue to dent his credibility.
A stormy week ahead.
Seemingly disastrous week for PM and yet Tories still ahead in polls, he’s still considered the best person to be PM over Corbyn and Swinson. Corbyn should have been well ahead in the polls when May was Tory leader. There is a distrust of his leadership. People aren’t convinced. How bad do the Tories have to be?
The threat to break the law and now to bring emergency powers in to repeal the new law outlawing no deal on the 31 Oct, are desperate measures intended to frighten their opponents into going for an election fearful that no deal can still happen. Also presumably to spur the EU into action as a negotiating tool. These threats have been rubbished by those who study the law is my understanding, which gives the impression they are not as smart as they would have us believe. Nevertheless the people versus parliament narrative is cutting through with enough people, as is ‘just get it done’ as a strong emotion, despite the fact that a no deal outcome just means more Brexit, more prolonged wrangling to get some sort of deal, not any sort of closure. The backstop issue is still there. The Tory leadership knows that the nuance, the more difficult reality does not cut through and they have support in their mission but is it enough?
Johnson’s whole plan isn’t to tackle Corbyn. Corbyn is more than capable of doing that himself. It’s to tackle Frage by winning over those who thought May’s Brexit deal wasn’t sufficiently Brexitty.
And May was miles ahead in the polls before the 2017 election. The landscape is a bit different now, it’s true, but I’m still incredibly sceptical about polling generally, because it’s not the real thing, and the hypothetical is always easier to toss around.
May’s party got he second highest number of votes for any party in a UK general election (behind Major in 1992). It was the arithmetic of the electoral system which was against her. Tactical voting could be a huge factor in an upcoming election, and whereas May was seen as dull at worst by many people, those who loathe Johnson really loathe him. But you could say the same of Thatcher.
Tactical voting and electoral arithmetic were big issues in 17, and are very likely to be huge factors again. As I said, I don’t trust the polls at all, for any number of reasons (and not really political ones. Psephology tends to perform best when it’s working with smooth historical trend data; I think it’s really up a creek when looking at the massively discontinuous stuff that’s going on now. All bets are off, I think)
All polling is flawed because it relies on the answers of the sort of people willing to talk to pollsters.
The pollsters have been seriously caught out in the past and, despite constant refinements to their methodology, could easily be caught out again.
It would always be helpful for the poll stats to include the category “number of persons polled who told us to fuck off”.
I see that the Torygraph’s headline story is that Boris “can legally stop Brexit extension” and that he is drawing up plans to do so, yet the Times is leading “Boris in retreat over Brexit De;ah” and the article that he has privately indicated to cabinet that he will abide by the law.
I do love unbiased reporting…….. (and tend to believe the Times slant)
The Times also references a YouGov poll that reckons only 75% of Leavers agree with no deal. Which rather stuffs up the “will of the people” line.
Johnson won’t break the law. Cummins wants a people vs parliament election and it’s all playing out pretty well so far.
We keep hearing that the Man in the Street is bored and just wants Brexit sorted no matter the cost. I fully accept that this may well be the case with a significant number of the people who voted Leave but where is the evidence that any significant number of Remainers are now saying “Fuck it, let’s go”??
I have no idea of the numbers, though that’s my position. Democracy before anything else.
Don’t want to open up old debates again but how many Leavers or Remainers actually knew what they were voting for? None of my intelligent (?) friends in the UK had the slightest idea of backstops or Canada-style etc. Hardly “Democracy” is it?
Anybody with any brains pus integrity now knows that another referendum must be held on this issue. The thing is the tories cannot be trusted with putting the options forward.
They’ll all tell you they understood every possible outcome. I think this unlikely.
For a start I suspect only a small minority in England/Wales/Scotland gave any thought to a UK/EU border in Ireland, and those who did just assumed it would get sorted out diplomatically.
I don’t blame you for returning to this point, but the thing is that it IS an old debate, and think it is a bit of a blind alley.
I voted remain. And do I think everyone that voted leave understood what they were voting for? Honestly, no, but I feel really patronising saying that so I tend not to.
But I think that to believe a second referendum will resolve this is questionable- because the result will either be the same or as near as dammit. The best and most succinct demonstration of this was a while ago by comedian Henning Wen on Question Time. He asked the audience, “Who voted leave?” (large show of hands). Then, “Who voted remain?” (equally large show of hands). Then finally, “And how has changed their mind since they voted?” – No hands went up.
And every week on Question Time without fail someone in the audience still makes the same point, that Leavers were “lied to” and “tricked”, so we need to do it all again properly. But crucially, it is ALWAYS a Remainer who says this. I sympathise hugely with the point of view, and the frustration, but since no Leavers share this view it’s just an argument that will go nowhere.
That’s cos the leavers who realise they were sold a lemon would rather hide in the crowd than own up to their own mistake. It’s what most children do in the same dilemma.
It’s a fair point. I understood that leaving was going to a be problem for
* the Irish border
* trade deals (becasue we hadn’t had do it for a very long time, and we were less attractive as a market compared tot he Single Market)
* international regulations and bodies and renegotiating all that
I had an idea of the tone of the problems, and knew it would be bad. But I perhaps even underestimated the scale, and the severity of some of the details. All along I was saying to friends that, even with a deal, were were going to be mostly paralysed for the next decade, renegotiating deals we were already part of as being in the EU, only probably with worse terms because we had less clout., scrambling to stay still for no reason. And I still didn’t see how fucked up they could make it. It is almost beyond comprehension how screwed it is.
Curiously abstract definition of “democracy”.
If in the coming election, Labour win by a small margin, but we are told that the result is an economic disaster for the country and cannot be permitted to happen; I won’t agitate to overturn the result.
Not the same thing. Leave maintained deals would be struck easily and barely mentioned crashing out with nothing. The Irish border didn’t get a mention. It”s not democratic to claim such a misleading and incomplete campaign provides a mandate which now must be adhered to.
You’re suggesting that a government that disappoints can be removed.
No, I’m suggesting it’s an abuse of the term “democracy” to take a referendum result based on promising deals being struck and then appropriating this as support for no deal. They aren’t “dissapointing” – they have failed abjectly to deliver what they trumpeted during the referendum campaign. And having failed they now expect to redefine what we were told in the campaign because it suits them.
Elections are advisory now? When did that happen?
Ours is a parliamentary democracy, not one run by plebiscite.
This is anecdotal of course, but I do get the feeling from people I know that we should just leave and then deal with the consequences, no matter how they voted way back in 2016. For me, I’m starting to tell Leave friends ‘Sod it, you want this? Bring it on and see what you bloody voted for – when the chaos happens, I hope you will be pleased’. Another referendum would simply produce a similar result, albeit probably marginally for remain I’m guessing, but just imagine the rancour and hatred that would be unleashed during it? I really think we need to leave and then look to rejoin after the real effects are experienced.
It’s strange, and might possibly be an unpopular point of view, but perversely, I think No Deal now actually NEEDS to happen. I say this as someone who wanted to stay in the EU, voted Remain, and still wants to stay. I said it was perverse.
I think a No-Deal Brexit, and the pain that will follow would be the very final, self-immolating act of the British Empire. And maybe it needs to be.
Ever since the end of WWII especially, we have constructed a myth about ourselves as a nation, and about our place in the world. We have employed Exceptionalism to a huge extent. We’ve managed to get away with it too sometimes, with the concessions we got in our EU membership. And because of some legacy residuals, like being a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and being a nuclear power.
Suez was the first main warning that the order was changing. At that point we pretty much admitted to ourselves finally that we were no longer an independent military actor on the world stage. The effects of the war rumbled on, and economic issues started to be felt during the 60s and 70s, when we struggled to keep pace with the changing world economy. It’s kind of why EU (then EEC) membership was so needed.
But still, there was a belief inculcated in many people that we were “special”. And it has been amplified over the years. It clearly got worse after 2008, when as is usual in major recessions and economic crises, people look inward and worry about protecting the sometimes scarce amounts they already have. Such times do foster insular, nationalistic patterns of behaviour. They lean on those notions of nationhood to cope.
But perhaps the very people who have had this belief planted in them need to see that it’s really not true, and the world has moved on. Perhaps we need to be utterly denuded of that sense of superiority many carry with them. It has already started, of course, because the world looks askance at the chaos that has rained down already, and shaken its head with mix of pity, bewilderment, and (in some cases) not a little schadenfreude, reminding themselves of all the times when we would say that the British could never behave like that, because we were too rational and pragmatic.
Perhaps it needs to happen. And perhaps we need it to hurt, a lot, before we come out of the other side, understanding where our place is, and might be in the future. Maybe we need to see ourselves properly as the rest of the world truly sees us. And maybe that balmy night in London in 2012 when we presented that myth of ourselves to the world was actually the beginning of the end of it.
It’s just a thought.
I’m inclined to this view, too.
Well put!
Lets pretend that the Industrial Revolution was something that happened abroad.
I just deleted a whole screed of mockery about this comment.
I’ll settle for “WTF are you on about?”.
He’s referring to our native British genius, you degenerate traitor.
Those laurels must be well and truly flattened by now.
We were the first to start polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases.
Before cows?
We are talking man-made emissions. Makes you proud to be a Brit.
When I eat beef, there are certainly… well I’ll stop there.
What a brilliant comment. Applause from me.
I’m so glad you posted that because I was toying with the idea of posting something similar but I just couldn’t get the words out, as you managed to do so eloquently. I also was worried I sounded naive. Maybe a bit of suffering and a bit of a reality check is needed to engender a new era of tolerance and togetherness.
You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one… (because illuminatus thinks this as well)…
* edit… and Tigger….
Will you be one to suffer, or will it be mostly ‘other people’? Them, you know Not us.
A fair question. It’s hard to say, isnt it, how far up the wealth chain this will affect?
And just another thought. How many people you knew back then were actively discussing the EU (apart from the obvious scandal (ie made up by Boris) of straight bananas)?? We seem to forget that Cameron offered up a referendum whose only purpose was to silence for once and all those mad right-wing bastards who incredibly are now in power. The so-called Peoples Vote was nothing of the sort.It was all to do with which faction governs the Tory Party.
Most of us voted on gut instinct and gut instinct alone. A second referendum even if it throws up an equally close result is the only, repeat only, way forward.
And I’m sorry Illuminatus but proposing that we throw our country into economic chaos, a chaos that will mostly hit the working class, just to prove we are a rather silly bunch who still think we are better than all the rest is perfiffle
Tell ’em, oh wrong one!
We are all going to suffer. Well, except the very wealthiest, partly because they have insulated themselves. And because some of them are actively planning how to make money out of it. But they were always going to manage anyway.
Remember, I didn’t say I wanted it to happen. I said I thought it needed to. Maybe it’s the only way to actually lance the postulant growth the whole sorry mess has become. I didn’t say we’d have to not like it, or find it easy. Short of revoking article 50 (which ideally is the thing I want to happen most of all), we’re going to have a bad ride. The only question is one of degree. And even revocation is politically horrific. None of the options are good now.
I’ve spent the bet part of the last three years advising the Government on what will happen to food distribution if we go straight to WTO. It won’t be pretty, but – good news! – the vast majority of us won’t starve. It’ll just be the ones who are barely coping now. We’ve asked Defra to set up a Hardship Fund for the most in need, especially as we think donations to food banks will drop dramatically. We’re also concerned for free school dinners, breakfast clubs and ‘holiday hunger’ provision. State care, with its specific food needs, is already bursting apart on its current budget. So No Deal will hurt the worst off more than austerity ever did. This is why I find it bewildering that the Leader of the Opposition and the party that claims to represent these people – none of whom voted for No Deal – isn’t screaming the house down about this.
” good news! – the vast majority of us won’t starve. It’ll just be the ones who are barely coping now”
The whole sorry fucking shitshow in microcosm. It really does make my piss boil. And you, my friend, have my deepest sympathy for having to deal with that shit.
I’m slightly put out that it appears that two of my medications are on a probable list of shortages in the event of No Deal. Not cutting edge, £100k a year medications but generic, made for decades items. I might not starve but I could have a stroke.
It’s true. Most of us didn’t think actively about our place in the EU. I thought about it sometimes, and embraced it. But then, I work in the HE sector and the places I have worked have engaged with EU projects and funding more than a lot of other places, so I realise I’m unusual.
But yes, Cameron has much to answer for. A device he offered to keep his right wing quiet, and didn’t even think he’d need to use, as I suspect he wasn’t preparing to get a majority in the 2015 election. I think he was expecting a second coalition, and having to “regretfully” not use when it would be negotiated away in a redrafted coalition.
But he didn’t learn his lesson after Scotland, when he nearly didn’t get away with IndyRef, and sowed the seeds of the the same kind of divisive damage we’ve seen on a larger scale post 2016. A complacent, hateful creature who either doesn’t realise how much damage he’s wrought, or perhaps just doesn’t care.
Yeah but yeah – as the Irish PM said just now there is no such thing as a clean break. I’m absolutely certain that a substantial number of people think that after the 31st October we’ll have a few months of lorry queues at Dover and a critical shortage of their favourite muesli.
The reality is that everything agreed, everything, with the EU disappears. Just imagine the chaos as Dom tells every single EU diplomat to fuck off….
Oh, it’s going to be the clusteriest fuckiest clusterfuck ever, which ever way things fall now.
Do you think that would be the real result? The only result? Apply a bit more imagination!
Personally I think Remain would win by a substantial majority but given my prediction success these last few years (0%) I simply don’t have a fucking clue
The ‘result’ that I was arguing about was the result of a no-deal Brexit. It would surely not JUST be what Illuminatus and Tigger are suggesting. Please consider the manifold of possible outcomes.
AND it would be effectively irreversible. Bear that in mind before embracing reckless ideas.
Oh yes. It will be irreversible. There has been a steady, plodding path to No Deal ever since the referendum and the 2017 election, which gave the hardline Brexiteers far too much influence. Labour has slowly made up its mind and it is only in the last week it has shown some statesmanship and determination to prevent No Deal (Corbyn has been performing very impressively in the Commons recently). However, I fear it is too late. I don’t feel an election nor a People’s Vote will solve anything now. BoJo is behaving appallingly but, if anything, it seems to be attracting voters rather than repelling them. The united opposition might get No Deal off the table for now but a BoJo government will simply repeal the law & we are back to where we were.
Have you seen Helena Handcart in the tags to the OP?
When your computer or device stops working the advice is to turn it off and turn it on again.
That I feel is what this country is going through at the moment.
I think those that think Britain still rules the waves will continue with their delusions after a no deal debacle, the economic crisis will be a global slowdown, not a no deal problem, the EU will have been unreasonable and not prepared to give us a fair deal, the remainers will have compromised our negotiating position, it will everbody else’s fault, apart from the UK, and a phoney blitz spirit will emerge in the usual quarters, bringing out the famed bulldog spirit, meanwhile the vulnerable and least powerful will face the brunt of the brutal consequences. Things will be worse than ever. The gloating of the Brexiteers, the despair of Remainers. Meanwhile the negotiation starts again, the backstop won’t go away.
Agree with you … chum
The same “fuck you all” response has crossed my mind too, but I can’t bring myself to line up behind it as a serious direction forward. Far too many people will suffer as a result, mostly those with little resilience upon which to rely when the shit hits the fan.
I don’t wish to live in a country that’s so foolishly and selfishly been damaged by those who have squandered our history for crass purposes.
If we could afford to emigrate now we would, but alas my colours are – at least for now -nailed to this mast, so we cling to the hope of turning things around. If that hope proves hollow, maybe we will move anyway, tighten our belts and battle on elsewhere.
I agree. It is tempting to feel that only crashing out on no deal will put this whole issue to bed, because there will be nowhere for the hard right Brexiteers to hide. With any other version of Leave, never mind, Remain, they will keep banging on poisonously that the People have been betrayed by the Metropolitan Elite, and this is why the country is going to pot. But, but – to be tempted to allow No Deal to put this to a stop would be to give in to their aggression and bullying – to let them have exactly what they want. They won’t be the ones who suffer from the fallout.
Exactly. It is too cavalier an attitude to assume a crash and burn ‘will teach them’. Teach them what?
The people with most to gain from no deal will be relatively unaffected. The great majority may stew in the consequences of their decision, but, stiff upper lip and all that. The losers, as ever, will be those who have the least to lose.
The most percentage-wise.
Yes, but they have the least now and are likely to have less.
I know what you mean.
If everyone loses £2, those on £10 a week lose a heck of a lot more than those on £100.
The same ones that were so easily persuaded that the EU was the root of their problems, will be the ones easily persuaded that Brexit has left them in the shit because the EU didn’t give us the amazing deal that we deserved. Just watch them.
Yeah, my dad before the referendum, “This (the EU) isn’t what I voted for in 1974.”
My dad, standing in a food queue after No Deal, “This isn’t what I voted for.”
Guess what Dad? You had no fucking clue what you were voting for. That’s not a criticism of you Dad, just an observation, and maybe a rueful commentary on the perils of “democracy”.
My dad wouldn’t admit he made a mistake. How he avoided getting his lights punched out over the years, I’ll never know. He’s the most infuriating, opinionated person I know.
You haven’t met my wife then.
My opinion FWIIW.
Firstly, I must say that I voted remain & would do so again in any hypothetical future referendum.
IF there were to be another referendum, it could go one of 2 ways. Leave or remain (yes, I know I am stating the obvious, but please bear with me).
Leave win on a slogan of tell them again & say “how many more times do we have to tell you “?
Remain (yet again) find a reason to not accept the result, leave feel vindicated & emboldened & leave politicians of all stripes demand that we leave the EU, now, no ifs or buts.
IF there is still prevarication then I believe that we will see civil unrest like never before.
Remain win & try to say that the issue has now been dealt with & no further action will be taken towards our leaving the EU, & the UK will now make peace/play nice with the EU.
Leave will never accept that & will have no problem with provoking their supporters into civil unrest.
Any attempts prior to this hypothetical referendum to alter the terms of reference (super majority, stating that the government are not bound to accept/honour the result, lowering the age of eligibility to take part etc) will be vigorously opposed & could even lead to civil uproar before it takes place.
I know from my experience of armed forces & Royal Navy veterans sites/forums that a lot of ex military would happily take to the streets to enforce their views. (Or say that they will which isn’t the same thing). Can I just say that not all veterans are leavers either.
So, FWIIW, that’s how I see things panning out.
In a personal level, I cannot remember a time when I felt so nervous & concerned about the future. I think the country will/is becoming a less welcoming/friendly place to live & I genuinely worry about the future. But what do I know?
As ever OOAA.
If we remain, and some are unhappy, they can offer to fork out for all the EU funding from their own pockets, and we’ll let them keep their blue passport.
My opinion FWIIW.
Firstly, I must say that I voted remain & would do so again in any hypothetical future referendum.
IF there were to be another referendum, it could go one of 2 ways. Leave or remain (yes, I know I am stating the obvious, but please bear with me).
Leave win on a slogan of “tell them again” & say “how many more times do we have to tell you “?
Remain (yet again) find a reason to not accept the result, leave feel vindicated & emboldened & leave politicians of all stripes demand that we leave the EU, now, no ifs or buts.
IF there is still prevarication then I believe that we will see civil unrest like never before.
Remain win & try to say that the issue has now been dealt with & no further action will be taken towards our leaving the EU, & the UK will now make peace/play nice with the EU.
Leave will never accept that & will have no problem with provoking their supporters into civil unrest.
Any attempts prior to this hypothetical referendum to alter the terms of reference (super majority, stating that the government are not bound to accept/honour the result, lowering the age of eligibility to take part etc) will be vigorously opposed & could even lead to civil uproar before it takes place.
I know from my experience of armed forces & Royal Navy veterans sites/forums that a lot of ex military would happily take to the streets to enforce their views.
So, FWIIW, that’s how I see things panning out.
In a personal level, I cannot remember a time when I felt so nervous & concerned about the future. I think the country will/is becoming a less welcoming/friendly place to live & I genuinely worry about the future. But what do I know?
As ever OOAA.
This is why the sensible path now is, firstly, keep no-deal off the table, otherwise what was the point in uniting the opposition, the elected reps of the people, to outvote it?
Then, negotiate new Europe-friendly deal. Corbyn would do that because he wants it and so do the EU. This of course requires Boris to be pressured by the citizenry to resign and the united opposition to accept, however grudgingly, that Corbyn will negotiate with Europe on a sounder basis.
Then put said deal to the electorate as a choice between it and remain, a result of which would have to be accepted. No?
And, by the way, I think it is entirely reasonable for Labour to allow their members and supporters to vote either way in such a scenario.
Wouldn’t Corbyn’s deal that the EU would accept, look rather like the deal we already have, as negotiated under May? Maybe Labour should have voted for that one in the first place then it would now all be over. Sounds rather appealing. Of course some modifications here and there could have been made once the thing went ahead.
You really could not and should not try to push any deal through, as May tried to do, without testing it in a referendum against Remain.
Fi-fi Bruce did a proper number on Emily Thornberry on Question Time last week, and it did seem to sum up the preposterous nature of where we are politically (watch it on the iPlayer – it’s bizarre: Thornberry basically admitted that if Labour win a soon-to-be-announced election, it would try to negotiate a deal with the EU, then back a second referendum supporting Remain – thereby effectively campaigning against their own deal).
I voted Remain, but the strange lack of self-awareness on all sides is depressing. Again, on Question Time, the Lib Dems basically said that if Leave won a second referendum, they still wouldn’t honour the result. The Lib Dems seem keen to point out how their opponents aren’t honouring democracy, whilst seeking to overturn the result of a democratic vote. And I voted Lib Dem last time. I’d never vote Tory, and I don’t like Corbyn or McDonnell.
I said when the 2016 votes came in that we’d never actually leave, and I don’t think we will. Europe was never going to give us a good deal, and the political will to leave isn’t there.
It was certainly an interesting debate. I love Question Time. I think it remains a key platform to get politicians speaking honestly and off the cuff (while trying to avoid doing so!) – I certainly don’t envy them. It’s a bit of a bear pit at times, but I don’t agree with people who say Question Time is just bluster and pointless arguing.
Thornberry made an unholy mess of QT, but I disagree that her position is ridiculous. She believes that the best thing for the country is still to remain. But she respects that the referendum required the government to get us out of the EU, and to do so in a way that was best for the country. So Labour would look to get the best deal they can in the circumstances, and then put it to the voting public to check that, now the terms of leaving are clear, we still wish to do so. But whatever that deal is, her view (whether it will be the official Labour one remains to be seen) would still be that staying in the EU is the best thing for the country. This seems to me to be an entirely logical and reasonable position. The problem with it is that it’s nuanced, and not an absolute ‘Remain’ or ‘Leave at all costs’ position, and we live in a time in which there isn’t much room for nuance.
Damn well said! Labour’s position all along has been the least dogmatic and most nuanced.
I agree – I actually think Labour’s position now makes sense, but I really can’t see people stomaching another referendum, as much I would love to see us stay in.
It looks now as though Johnson may be looking to bring the Teresa May deal back onto the table, albeit with some sort of reworked backstop wording and political statement. That way we still leave on 31st October and he can then go to the country on the back of that ‘success’, and also argue he would have got a better deal if Parliament hadn’t tied his hands.
So…he will now be supporting a deal which is essentially one he hated a few months ago, and it puts Labour in the position (presumably) of having to support something they also opposed a few months ago. You couldn’t make this up.
Eh? Labour have spent virtually the whole time since the last General Election trying to have their cake and eat it – trying to appease the old school rank and file Eurosceptics (of which there is none more evident than JC) whilst trying not to alienate the new Corbyn fans that chanted his name at Glastonbury. The old “decide and you divide” adage ensured months of Starmer trying his best to explain the 7 tests and various tables that would rest on.
Putting the final deal back to a referendum makes a lot of sense but it’s taken years to emerge.
Yes, I seem to have heard this line once or twice before. It’s getting boring and what’s more totally out of tune with the present moment, but keep on repeating it if it feels good.
Dogmatists are lazy thinkers and will always be so.
Ohh come on poppet. Explain to me where I’ve got that wrong? Corbyn always wanted Remain?
I think you’re not up to speed with the debate. In what way does your single minded Corbyn-phobia take us anywhere at this stage? You didn’t even understand my last couple of posts. I refuse to debate on your level, which is where the whole problem lies in this debate. People drag it down all the time to that same base level of stupidity.
You’re not my real dad.
I don’t see how you can negotiate a deal you don’t really believe in. How do you know what you want? The majority of Labour has wanted remain. This is a fudge because the leadership wanted Brexit.
Ho hum …
Aren’t you rum?
Someone can put me right here I’m sure, but I don’t see how any transitional deal (and I think we forget that this is all this bloody argument has been about – we haven’t even started on the future trading relationship with the EU) can be very different to the one we have…i.e. carry on as now while we talk.
The EU are going to protect the integrity of the Union. They are not simply going to let us leave having our cake while eating it. Let’s just keep everything as it is while we talk has never been an option once we triggered Article 50. We could have talked as long as we liked beforehand.
Think of it in the same way that we parents deal with our children when they have birthday money or vouchers to spend. We often negotiate with them regarding what they want and what we would allow them to buy, but then ask them one last time if they are totally sure that it really is what they want to spend their money on!
In other political news, I’ve voted Liberal in every election bar one and, 32 years after reaching the voting age, I am finally living in a constituency with a Liberal MP. However, it is the most recent election when I didn’t vote Liberal…yet I voted for our Liberal MP. Work that one out!
Your MP Angela Smith has moved from Labour to Change and has now joined the Lib Dems.
Quite astonishing watching the events in the House of Commons last night. It was like a football match – jeering, shouting, chants… and even singing at the end. I can’t decide if I’m (a) pleased to see MPs on both sides engaging passionately with the issues, or (b) depressed at how ridiculous and childish it all seems.
We’ve all done it, haven’t we?
2am after a long night out, hugged our best mate on our way home, had a lairy sing-song.
I bet the Parliament Square kebab van was busy.
Ha ha! I wonder if they all made friends with each other again while waiting in the queue for a kebab? Johnson and Corbyn with arms round each others shoulders, “You’re my besht mate, really, you know that?”…
Until Jeremy says, “Hang on..is that…meat…?”
To which BoJo replies, “Don’t worry Jezza, whatever that is, it hasn’t ever had a pulse. Steer clear of the chilli sauce though, Carrie spilled some on my knob once, cripes what a malarkey!”.
You can’t make it up:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/10/duty-free-purchases-of-cigarettes-and-alcohol-to-return-under-no-deal-brexit?CMP=share_btn_link
Cheers.
I see the Scottish courts think he’s broken the law already.
The judicial verdict in full:
I see that The Daily Mail has carried out an in-depth investigation on them Scottish judges. One bastard “loves France” and the other degenerate “loves Jazz”. Maybe time for me and the Mrs to move back to Scotland – sounds my kind of place
Moi aussi. Are the any High Court judges on the Afterword, by any chance?
No. They’re a lonely lot, and tend to hold grudges, so I’ve heard. However, the correspondent is known to be somewhat…unreliable.
Truculent too.
Devious I reckon Moose.
Me or Morrissey?
Justifiable, either way, btw.
Most ‘jazz fans’ are a lonely lot.
We suffer but we soldier on.
“Good soldiers are defined by what they can endure, not by what they can inflict.”
Parrrrp!
None of them are gay then? That was one of the problems last time.
Some people thing the Culture Wars are just happening in America.
Wow! What a story! Is that honestly what they are running with?
Anyway, yeah up here our court judges are all beatniks, of course.
Hey, Daily Mail!! Yes, Daily Mail, YOU. Look over here now, Daily Mail.
Pay attention, as I vill say zis only once:
FUCK YOU.
The Daily Mail’s hot take on Yellowhammer yesterday:
“the document released today show that there will not be food shortages in the event of a no deal exit, but instead simply reduction in ‘availability and choice of products’. ”
What’s another word for ‘reduction in availability’? 🤔
Operation Orwell Mayhem.
Very good. Is that one of yours?
I hadn’t taken on board the fact that the documents were signed in Scotland. There will be legal justifications for the fact that it isn’t actually unlawful because :
1. She’s the bloody Queen,
2. English law is the proper one, not Scottish law.
Meanwhile someone’s in court for claiming a weekly disability benefit that they technically should not have been paid.
The Daily Mail (a paper lampooned as far back as Colin MacInnes’s “Absolute Beginners”), cheap cigarettes and booze, Rees-Mogg dismissing medical opinion re: a no-deal etc. etc. etc.
Why are people so thick?
The sad, and amazing, thing is that I think the great unwashed are going to fall for it.
Whatever the last three-and-a-half years have taught us about those in power, I still have infinitely more faith in Parliament than I have in the British public.
Imagine if the original legislation on Homosexuality, abortion and capital punishment had been subject to a public vote.
Cameron’s best achievement may be the legalisation of same sex marriage, not something you’d normally expect gammon to approve of.
Never mind that, amongst other things the prorogation has put paid to a pesky bill on domestic abuse. Hooray! A victory for good old-fashioned family values.
Also put paid to:
A debate on “Disenfranchisement of EU27 Citizens in the UK and British Overseas Voters, from the European Elections in 2019”, due to have been held on September 11th, which came about as a result of a Change.org petition campaign.
Over a million entitled voters were (possibly deliberately) denied a vote because they weren’t able to get registered in time.
And tax relief on public toilets. Comes of no relief to me, I can tell you.
Well. The most supreme court in the country has unanimously declared his actions illegal. Astonishing really.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261