Illuminati-R-Us

Мастер wrote:Ah, I get it now. Originally, I thought maybe "Grauniad" was some Scottish term that I didn't quite get . . .

In a way, it kind of was.

You can't spell 'Guardian' without 'rag.'

Well, now. Roof might be right, after all. Of course, I doubt she was under the impression that Bojo would be compelled by Parliament to have a deal done.

Even if Parliament passes a no no-deal bill, what can be done if no deal is made?

Edit: Oh, I just read that the bill may stipulate that the UK rescinds its invocation of Article 50 should it come to that.

Edit the second: While that is one way to interpret what CNN has indeed written in one place, another CNN article says that the bill would obligate Johnson to seek an extension, instead. I imagine that is more likely.

To seek an extension.... The EU would be well within their rights to say “fuck off! You’ve had extensions and done fuck all with them.”

True. What most people on the island don't seem to recognize is that it is between No Deal, IM Mai's Deal , and No Brexit. There will be not "better" deal, beause the EU just cannot sign anything that, with its consent, erects a hard border in Ireland again. And the Boris is doing a very poor job of telling everyone how he and his team are in tough, hard and fast negotiations in Brussels to re-negotiate the deal, because there aren't any negotiations. There haven't even been any (none, zero, nada, zilch) new proposals from the British side. The negotiations are a smokescreen on which to project blame for what the Boris and his gang have actually wanted all along: No deal, so that they can glide to power in an impoverished, struggling Britain on the wings of "See what those EU foreigners did to us".

I don't like the trembling-with-contempt tone, but the Grauniad has a readable summary of affairs here.

Doesn't look to me like there's any way Boris Johnson wins this thing. Is there?

Only the most Pyrrhic of victories if it all goes completely tits up.

I think his bet is, he'll get enough support in the House of Lords to have the No No-Deal law critically delayed, then garner Labour's support for an election, then schedule it for Novemeber 1 and coast to victory on cheek and what would have been the Brexit party vote alone. Risky, but not impossible. Or if the law is passed and he is somehow forced to schedule the election for Oct. 14, coast to victory because he'll say, look, I'll repeat the no No-Deal law the day I'll be Prime Minister again. Then I'll start talking with the EU. They'll cave, and if not, it's their fault and I'll be the one who had the guts to set us free and will now lead the country into a glorious future, food shortages or not.

The problem with BoJo's plan is that he believes the same people who told I M Mai that she would increase her majority at the last snap election.

Boris and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week.

So if I understand it correctly, Monday’s call for an election will be rejected, and the conditional requirement to ask for a delay passes into law today. That means BoJo’s options are,

a) Negotiate a better deal with the EU, or get parliament to accept the current deal.

b) Resign

c) Die

d) Ask for an extension.

e) Refuse to ask for an extension and face the wrath of parliament.

Do I understand correctly?

I think you missed a couple:

f) Be abducted by aliens

g) Get kidnapped by a South American drug cartel

Also, can he comply with parliament's requirement that he ask for an extension, and then use the UK's veto power as a still-member of the EU to reject the extension?

I think that pretty much sums it up.

My best guess is that he tries a "dirty dishes" gambit. That's where, after much sulking and delay and some more sulking, you finally do the dishes as your parents asked. However, you do the most shoddy job you possibly can in the hopes that they will never ask you to do the dishes again.

So, Bob here makes the worst possible effort to get a deal done, and then when the deadline passes, he mumbles something like 'I guess we'll need an extension, although I doubt it'll turn out any better.' The EU denies the extension, and Bob will say to Parliament something like "Well, if you hadn't tied my hands behind my back, we'd of had the moon!"

Hopefully, the EU recognizes this and makes it clear that an extension would be granted if requested.

MM_Dandy wrote:My best guess is that he tries a "dirty dishes" gambit. That's where, after much sulking and delay and some more sulking, you finally do the dishes as your parents asked. However, you do the most shoddy job you possibly can in the hopes that they will never ask you to do the dishes again.

I tried that strategy this summer, when my wife asked me to power wash the patio. I did it all, apart from one bit which I left dirty but power washed the word “tits” into it. I thought I’d never be asked to power wash the patio again, but as it turned out I was told to do so almost immediately.

Lianachan wrote:I tried that strategy this summer, when my wife asked me to power wash the patio. I did it all, apart from one bit which I left dirty but power washed the word “tits” into it. I thought I’d never be asked to power wash the patio again, but as it turned out I was told to do so almost immediately.

That's when you wash 'seaward' in there and see how quick she is on the uptake.

Here is one thing I don't get. The opposition in the Commons, including the thrown-out lot from the Tories seems to have a majority of around 330 to 300. Why didn't they

a) put up a motion of no confidence in the current PM
b) declare confidence in a caretaker Prime Minister - a figure of integrity who is guaranteed not to have his or her own ambitions: Kenneth Clarke, Oliver Letwin, Anna Soubry or an old moderate Labour hand past their prime, and ask the Queen to appoint him or her
c) Make a referendum law laying out three options: Do you want
1 the UK to leave the EU on Oct. 31 without further negotiations ("NO-DEAL BREXIT")
2 the UK to leave the European Union on October 31st according to the agreement reached in February 2019 ("GOVERNMENT DEAL BREXIT")
3 the UK to revoke the referendum decision of 2016 and stay in the EU ("NO BREXIT")?
If no option reaches an absolute majority, the two with the most votes run off against each other two weeks later
d) offer the Tories to schedule a genreal election about two or three months after the referendum, so that the current House can bring in the legislation required to put the result of the new referendum in practice.

Apparently, a similar version of this failed because many MPs couldn't imagine voting for Jeremy Corbyn - and I get that. So Labour could say that, for the good of the country we'll even vote for a Tory who has shown they will put the good of the country above their own ambitions. It could have set something in motion.

Inner House of the Court of Session* has ruled that the prorogation of parliament is illegal. This is being appealed to the UK Supreme Court with a hearing next week.
*three judge appeal court.
As to Arneb's question:
a) would trigger a general election
b) Boris would have to stand down and Wee Betty ask a caretaker to form a government, Clarke would be ideal.
c) it wouldn't get passed in time, the Lords would have sent it back to th eCommons for further discussion or just blocked it.
d) Boris and Rees-Mogg are cunts.

Heid the Ba wrote:Inner House of the Court of Session* has ruled that the prorogation of parliament is illegal. This is being appealed to the UK Supreme Court with a hearing next week.
*three judge appeal court.
As to Arneb's question:
a) would trigger a general election
b) Boris would have to stand down and Wee Betty ask a caretaker to form a government, Clarke would be ideal.
c) it wouldn't get passed in time, the Lords would have sent it back to th eCommons for further discussion or just blocked it.
d) Boris and Rees-Mogg are cunts.

Previously, during the Indy ref, my attitude was, it’s not my business.

Now we are in a different situation. Go Scotland!

The three judges in the prorogation case have all given opinions and all on different points of law, leaving the government to argue the appeal on three fronts and have to win them all. They think what BoJo has done is seriously fucked up to the point of calling him a liar.
Interim report.

I'm willing to believe that he did, but I do wonder why BoJo would have bothered to lie to the Queen. From what I understand, the Queen would likely have approved prorogation even if he had told her the truth.

Prorogation of parliament should only be for administrative, not political, reasons so whatever Wee Betty thought she shouldn't have done it without the lie. It would have put the cat among the pidgeons with the Little Englanders if the queen had done something to thwart them.