BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Going von Pappen is a bad idea.

Farage in Westminster is a headache most MPs won't want.

I'm not sure he can engineer it so he gets in. And his previous proxies proved fairly ineffective.

He would take a Tory ERG role if it was offered tbf.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Going von Pappen is a bad idea.

Farage in Westminster is a headache most MPs won't want.

I'm not sure he can engineer it so he gets in. And his previous proxies proved fairly ineffective.

He would take a Tory ERG role if it was offered tbf.

After being leader of his own party? Not sure his ego could cope with a step 'down'.

kingstongraham

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Going von Pappen is a bad idea.

Farage in Westminster is a headache most MPs won't want.

I'm not sure he can engineer it so he gets in. And his previous proxies proved fairly ineffective.

He would take a Tory ERG role if it was offered tbf.

After being leader of his own party? Not sure his ego could cope with a step 'down'.

He'd take deputy PM.

rjsterry

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Interesting stuff from Peter Kellner of YouGov on the dilemma Farage's fanclub finds itself in with regard to a pro-Brexit pact.

So here is the paradox. A pact could advance the Brexit party’s main cause, but destroy the party itself: with no MPs, and watching Brexit happen from the sidelines, it would lose its purpose and its future. On the other hand, the refusal to enter into a pact may well kill Brexit, but it could also wound the Tories, possibly fatally, and lead to a political realignment in which Farage may well have a big impact and a shining future. Which future would he really prefer? We may not have long to find out.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... servatives

It's seriously dangerous for the Conservatives. Imagine only being able to proceed with anything in parliament if Farage agrees with it. He will not compromise, and will always blame the Conservatives for everything.

The key point in that article is that the few constituencies where the Tories can afford to step aside are not necessarily easy wins for Farage. He could quite plausibly opt for a pact only to win no seats at all, which only really helps the Tories.

That key point is the surely bit that is wrong though. Why would the Brexit party step aside only in constituencies that they are not going to win? Any pact would have to include seats that they would be likely to win.

Eh? I don't quite follow. The aim of the pact would be to ensure a pro-Brexit government, not seats for Farage. He has to choose what he wants more.

I'm sure he would take deputy PM, but someone has to offer it. Arlene isn't deputy PM for all the power she weilds.

kingstongraham

rjsterry wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Interesting stuff from Peter Kellner of YouGov on the dilemma Farage's fanclub finds itself in with regard to a pro-Brexit pact.

So here is the paradox. A pact could advance the Brexit party’s main cause, but destroy the party itself: with no MPs, and watching Brexit happen from the sidelines, it would lose its purpose and its future. On the other hand, the refusal to enter into a pact may well kill Brexit, but it could also wound the Tories, possibly fatally, and lead to a political realignment in which Farage may well have a big impact and a shining future. Which future would he really prefer? We may not have long to find out.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... servatives

It's seriously dangerous for the Conservatives. Imagine only being able to proceed with anything in parliament if Farage agrees with it. He will not compromise, and will always blame the Conservatives for everything.

The key point in that article is that the few constituencies where the Tories can afford to step aside are not necessarily easy wins for Farage. He could quite plausibly opt for a pact only to win no seats at all, which only really helps the Tories.

That key point is the surely bit that is wrong though. Why would the Brexit party step aside only in constituencies that they are not going to win? Any pact would have to include seats that they would be likely to win.

Eh? I don't quite follow. The aim of the pact would be to ensure a pro-Brexit government, not seats for Farage. He has to choose what he wants more.

bobmcstuff

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Interesting stuff from Peter Kellner of YouGov on the dilemma Farage's fanclub finds itself in with regard to a pro-Brexit pact.

So here is the paradox. A pact could advance the Brexit party’s main cause, but destroy the party itself: with no MPs, and watching Brexit happen from the sidelines, it would lose its purpose and its future. On the other hand, the refusal to enter into a pact may well kill Brexit, but it could also wound the Tories, possibly fatally, and lead to a political realignment in which Farage may well have a big impact and a shining future. Which future would he really prefer? We may not have long to find out.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... servatives

It's seriously dangerous for the Conservatives. Imagine only being able to proceed with anything in parliament if Farage agrees with it. He will not compromise, and will always blame the Conservatives for everything.

I don't really believe anything will be good enough for him - just look at the differences in what he's said before and after the referendum. Every time he's got what he's wanted he's just moved a step more hardline on it.

cruff

bobmcstuff wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Interesting stuff from Peter Kellner of YouGov on the dilemma Farage's fanclub finds itself in with regard to a pro-Brexit pact.

So here is the paradox. A pact could advance the Brexit party’s main cause, but destroy the party itself: with no MPs, and watching Brexit happen from the sidelines, it would lose its purpose and its future. On the other hand, the refusal to enter into a pact may well kill Brexit, but it could also wound the Tories, possibly fatally, and lead to a political realignment in which Farage may well have a big impact and a shining future. Which future would he really prefer? We may not have long to find out.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... servatives

It's seriously dangerous for the Conservatives. Imagine only being able to proceed with anything in parliament if Farage agrees with it. He will not compromise, and will always blame the Conservatives for everything.

I don't really believe anything will be good enough for him - just look at the differences in what he's said before and after the referendum. Every time he's got what he's wanted he's just moved a step more hardline on it.

He thrives on the oxygen of publicity. He won't go away until the country lurches so far to the right he's allowed to say what he REALLY thinks, or he over steps the mark and says it anyway beforehand. Populism is a horrific thing - you start off with someone saying something that might appear reasonable to start with - something that gets them attention - and they realise that they only way to maintain that attention is by saying the same thing, only a little bit more outrageous. Eventually, this becomes 'the norm' and they push the envelope a bit more. This cycle repeats until they say something that is unpalatable to a huge majority of people. Hopefully by then they haven't got to a position where they're powerful enough to command the security forces...

Here's what I think will happen.

The Tory Party will elect Johnson. He will, predictably, be an embarrassing failure, the WA will not get through - and A50 will be either postponed for a year or cancelled. A general election will be called - which will result in more chaos as both major parties will lose votes to The Brexit Party or whatever the f*** they're calling themselves at that point, and the Lib Dems will also make gains. Whichever coalition gets in will put another vote to the masses, and Remain will 'win' by about 58/42. Following that, another general election will be called, with two 'tory' parties (one of the 'official' tories, the majority of whom are Europhiles, the other the 'far right tories' - basically the UK version of Le Pen et. Al, with Farage as its figurehead) contesting seats, and two 'labour' parties (one of the chattering middle classes, the other a 'new labour' - very different to the 'new labour' of the nineties, this one more like a 'Gammon party'). What happens from there, nobody knows. The salient point is that Brexit won't happen.

rick_chasey

Ireland's EU commissioner Mr Hogan told @rtenews: “I take hope from the fact that [Mr Johnson] voted for this particular deal [WA] on one occasion in recent times and if he sticks to this particular agreement...
"and concentrates on the future relationship we may get a deal in the autumn...
“Elections to the leadership of a party are much different [compared] to when you get the job as prime minister. You have to behave a little bit differently.
“I hope that at the end of the day that common sense will prevail and that there will be an orderly exit from the EU by the UK, and that that ultimately is what business and people generally in the UK will demand of their politicians in the autumn.”
Mr Hogan acknowledged he was robust in his criticism of Brexiteers during the negotiations. “It was not always popular [in the UK]. It was a truthful view, and now we’re seeing the difficulties emerging in terms of the implementation of what [the UK] voted for in 2016.
6/ “I’m very satisfied I played a role in crystalising the issues for the benefit of the EU within the UK. I tell it like it is in any situation so [the rhetoric] shouldn’t be any surprise.”

rick_chasey

Rick Chasey wrote:

This US ambassador memo leak and subsequent spat is a good lens through which to see Britain's international new status post-Brexit.

These two tweets are good.

Anyone who thinks a Trump second term wouldn’t result in the end of NATO is not paying attention. There is no such thing as an ally in Trump’s world - just fools to be used and discarded.

If the Tories weren't so blinded by Brexit they would realise that @POTUS is taking a baseball bat to all three pillars of Britain's post-war geopolitical strategy: Atlanticism, multi-lateralism and free trade. Instead they have left Britain rudderless.

rjsterry

It would be useful to know whose tweets those were.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

It would be useful to know whose tweets those were.

In order Edward Luce and Simon Nixon

rick_chasey

FWIW a decent sign of sovereignty would be to reciprocate an ambassador boycott, but presumably the U.K. won’t, as it is cap-in-hand to the same nation.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

It would be useful to know whose tweets those were.

In order Edward Luce and Simon Nixon

Thanks. Assume you mean the Times writer, rather than the moneysupermarket chap.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

FWIW a decent sign of sovereignty would be to reciprocate an ambassador boycott, but presumably the U.K. won’t, as it is cap-in-hand to the same nation.

Sovereignty has always been a false prospectus for Brexit. It's just handy for whipping up nationalist support.

pblakeney

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FWIW a decent sign of sovereignty would be to reciprocate an ambassador boycott, but presumably the U.K. won’t, as it is cap-in-hand to the same nation.

Sovereignty has always been a false prospectus for Brexit. It's just handy for whipping up nationalist support.

.... amongst those who still believe that we have an empire.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FWIW a decent sign of sovereignty would be to reciprocate an ambassador boycott, but presumably the U.K. won’t, as it is cap-in-hand to the same nation.

Sovereignty has always been a false prospectus for Brexit. It's just handy for whipping up nationalist support.

Indicative of current state of both U.K. realpolitik and where we’re at re culture wars.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FWIW a decent sign of sovereignty would be to reciprocate an ambassador boycott, but presumably the U.K. won’t, as it is cap-in-hand to the same nation.

Sovereignty has always been a false prospectus for Brexit. It's just handy for whipping up nationalist support.

Indicative of current state of both U.K. realpolitik and where we’re at re culture wars.

If it is not about sovereignity what do you think it is about?

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FWIW a decent sign of sovereignty would be to reciprocate an ambassador boycott, but presumably the U.K. won’t, as it is cap-in-hand to the same nation.

Sovereignty has always been a false prospectus for Brexit. It's just handy for whipping up nationalist support.

Indicative of current state of both U.K. realpolitik and where we’re at re culture wars.

If it is not about sovereignity what do you think it is about?

Part of me thinks it’s just the culture war tail wagging the dog.

Trump is one of theirs and so trump is right - that attitude.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FWIW a decent sign of sovereignty would be to reciprocate an ambassador boycott, but presumably the U.K. won’t, as it is cap-in-hand to the same nation.

Sovereignty has always been a false prospectus for Brexit. It's just handy for whipping up nationalist support.

Indicative of current state of both U.K. realpolitik and where we’re at re culture wars.

If it is not about sovereignity what do you think it is about?

I meant that those leading the campaign are not particularly interested in sovereignty but it is a useful word to make nationalism sound more intellectual.

pblakeney

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FWIW a decent sign of sovereignty would be to reciprocate an ambassador boycott, but presumably the U.K. won’t, as it is cap-in-hand to the same nation.

Sovereignty has always been a false prospectus for Brexit. It's just handy for whipping up nationalist support.

Indicative of current state of both U.K. realpolitik and where we’re at re culture wars.

If it is not about sovereignity what do you think it is about?

I meant that those leading the campaign are not particularly interested in sovereignty but it is a useful word to make racism sound more intellectual.

FTFY.
Going by the “debates” that I’ve had at least

robert88

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FWIW a decent sign of sovereignty would be to reciprocate an ambassador boycott, but presumably the U.K. won’t, as it is cap-in-hand to the same nation.

Sovereignty has always been a false prospectus for Brexit. It's just handy for whipping up nationalist support.

Indicative of current state of both U.K. realpolitik and where we’re at re culture wars.

If it is not about sovereignity what do you think it is about?

Rolling back the frontiers of the state of course. The survival of the fittest.

rick_chasey

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FWIW a decent sign of sovereignty would be to reciprocate an ambassador boycott, but presumably the U.K. won’t, as it is cap-in-hand to the same nation.

Sovereignty has always been a false prospectus for Brexit. It's just handy for whipping up nationalist support.

Indicative of current state of both U.K. realpolitik and where we’re at re culture wars.

If it is not about sovereignity what do you think it is about?

Part of me thinks it’s just the culture war tail wagging the dog.

Trump is one of theirs and so trump is right - that attitude.

Fairly shocking the ambassador felt he had to resign after BoJo refused to back him in the debate.

What a day for British power.

TheBigBean

His position was untenable. He should have just been given a new posting, but presumably retirement combined with constructive dismissal was preferable.

Firing Sir Ian Blair was one of the few good things BoJo did as mayor of London

pblakeney

Trump's lackey in action , or more precisely, inaction.
Sign of things to come.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

His position was untenable.

This I would agree with (through not fault of his own either), but reflexively you must back your ambassadors unless they have royally screwed up and if the foreign nation insists on expelling the ambassador for giving critical internal frank views on their host's leaders, they should also reflexively be held in place, just to ensure everyone knows who the ambassador serves.

You can't refuse to back an ambassador for doing their job. Ridiculous.

coopster_the_1st

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FWIW a decent sign of sovereignty would be to reciprocate an ambassador boycott, but presumably the U.K. won’t, as it is cap-in-hand to the same nation.

Sovereignty has always been a false prospectus for Brexit. It's just handy for whipping up nationalist support.

Indicative of current state of both U.K. realpolitik and where we’re at re culture wars.

If it is not about sovereignity what do you think it is about?

Part of me thinks it’s just the culture war tail wagging the dog.

Trump is one of theirs and so trump is right - that attitude.

Fairly shocking the ambassador felt he had to resign after BoJo refused to back him in the debate.

What a day for British power.

Yes, of course, it's all the fault of Boris! :roll:

Not the fault of the Ambassador who digitally recorded his thoughts thus massively increasing the risk of them being leaked.

Or the fault of the person who leaked this information!

No, it's all Boris! :roll:

All this sits fits with the rumour going round that this was a remainer led leak who wanted to intentionally damage UK-US relations.

rick_chasey

Big fan of the ignore function btw. More of you should use it.

rjsterry

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FWIW a decent sign of sovereignty would be to reciprocate an ambassador boycott, but presumably the U.K. won’t, as it is cap-in-hand to the same nation.

Sovereignty has always been a false prospectus for Brexit. It's just handy for whipping up nationalist support.

Indicative of current state of both U.K. realpolitik and where we’re at re culture wars.

If it is not about sovereignity what do you think it is about?

Part of me thinks it’s just the culture war tail wagging the dog.

Trump is one of theirs and so trump is right - that attitude.

Fairly shocking the ambassador felt he had to resign after BoJo refused to back him in the debate.

What a day for British power.

Yes, of course, it's all the fault of Boris! :roll:

Not the fault of the Ambassador who digitally recorded his thoughts thus massively increasing the risk of them being leaked.

Or the fault of the person who leaked this information!

No, it's all Boris! :roll:

All this sits fits with the rumour going round that this was a remainer led leak who wanted to intentionally damage UK-US relations.

Oh please. Isabel Oakeshott is really a pro-remain double agent?

Nobody is suggesting it is Johnson's fault that the comments were leaked, but the PM and Foreign Secretary managed to back him. Can you think of a good reason why Johnson shouldn't back our ambassador for merely doing his job. He seems to agree that the leak shouldn't have happened, but for some reason couldn't answer a really easy question. You have to wonder why.

darkhairedlord

rjsterry wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FWIW a decent sign of sovereignty would be to reciprocate an ambassador boycott, but presumably the U.K. won’t, as it is cap-in-hand to the same nation.

Sovereignty has always been a false prospectus for Brexit. It's just handy for whipping up nationalist support.

Indicative of current state of both U.K. realpolitik and where we’re at re culture wars.

If it is not about sovereignity what do you think it is about?

Part of me thinks it’s just the culture war tail wagging the dog.

Trump is one of theirs and so trump is right - that attitude.

Fairly shocking the ambassador felt he had to resign after BoJo refused to back him in the debate.

What a day for British power.

Yes, of course, it's all the fault of Boris! :roll:

Not the fault of the Ambassador who digitally recorded his thoughts thus massively increasing the risk of them being leaked.

Or the fault of the person who leaked this information!

No, it's all Boris! :roll:

All this sits fits with the rumour going round that this was a remainer led leak who wanted to intentionally damage UK-US relations.

Oh please. Isabel Oakeshott is really a pro-remain double agent?

Nobody is suggesting it is Johnson's fault that the comments were leaked, but the PM and Foreign Secretary managed to back him. Can you think of a good reason why Johnson shouldn't back our ambassador for merely doing his job. He seems to agree that the leak shouldn't have happened, but for some reason couldn't answer a really easy question. You have to wonder why.

At least we are taking back control....

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

His position was untenable.

This I would agree with (through not fault of his own either), but reflexively you must back your ambassadors unless they have royally screwed up and if the foreign nation insists on expelling the ambassador for giving critical internal frank views on their host's leaders, they should also reflexively be held in place, just to ensure everyone knows who the ambassador serves.

You can't refuse to back an ambassador for doing their job. Ridiculous.

I just don't see this as a story. He can be backed as an excellent ambassador, but his time as the US one was over.

Of course it isn't his fault, but that doesn't change the situation.