Britain Nov. 1st Election?

[Kathianne]

Noir, Drummond thoughts?

https://spectator.us/britain-november-election/

[Noir]

Another general election -on the Eve of Brexit no less- sounds like an absolute disaster. So it’s almost certainly going to happen.

[Kathianne]

Another general election -on the Eve of Brexit no less- sounds like an absolute disaster. So it’s almost certainly going to happen.


I thought the hard date for Brexit was 10/31? So wouldn't that be the day after? All Saints Day. ;)

[Noir]

I thought the hard date for Brexit was 10/31? So wouldn't that be the day after? All Saints Day. ;)

Yeah the literal election date will be all saints day - the electioneering will of been over the previous 6 weeks, which you’d consider Brexit eve, and which our government would be busy, we, trying to not lose even more MPs.

[Drummond]

I thought the hard date for Brexit was 10/31? So wouldn't that be the day after? All Saints Day. ;)

Whether it's a 'hard date' is debatable. We had a previous 'hard date' set for the end of March, BUT, we asked for, and got, our latest extension to October. Part of (most of) the point of Boris being so emphatic about our leaving 'come-what-may' in October was to dispel others' thoughts that this process would be repeated.

Regardless, we've already heard from the EU that they could look favourably on yet another extension. Of course we have. They want our exit to be as dragged out as possible, or better yet, reversed entirely.

It's a hard date because Boris says it is. Simply that. There are plenty who'd want him to change his mind.

But things have moved on. The latest move from the Labour (Socialist) Party is one of an arrogant power-grab ... a form of political coup, in fact ... if they can't make the headway they want against Boris.

It comes down to this: Labour are planning a motion of No Confidence against the Conservatives, to be applied soon after Summer Recess. If they can get one to go their way, Boris has said he'll disregard it, for at least as long as it takes to get Brexit concluded.

Now, time is very tight. Say the No Confidence motion wins. The normal route, then, would be for a General Election to happen. This'd mean time taken out in fighting and winning one, instead of time taken to further fight in the Commons to do what would 'have to be' done to procedurally (even legislatively) throw yet more spanners at the 'no deal' exit scenario that Labour and the LibDems are desperate to stop.

[Tactically ... Boris could follow convention, call the election, making sure that the run-up period to polling day was entirely take up with canvassing for votes, which would deny Brexit opposers any chance of making headway in the Commons with further wrecking motions / directives.]

Labour have an answer for all this, though .... disgusting though it is ... !!! ....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/07/john-mcdonnell-threatens-march-palace-tell-queen-taking-boris1/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_fb&fbclid=IwAR1nZ_IQqN7KFhNPJ3di9LvMKStBiHbDkJtYBcIxJ ToscU8XVyIXAKvHDsY


John McDonnell has threatened to drag the Queen into a constitutional crisis by claiming Labour would “take over” if Boris Johnson refused to quit were he to lose a confidence vote.

The shadow chancellor suggested he would send Jeremy Corbyn to Buckingham Palace “in a cab” to tell the 93-year-old monarch the party was ready to assume power, in the latest sign that MPs seeking to stop a no-deal Brexit are planning to embroil Her Majesty in politics as they run out of parliamentary options.

In other words .... NO election, just a straight seizure of power.

The presumption would be that Labour, as the second biggest presence in the Commons, would be the 'natural' alternative to the present Government. Never mind that in the recent MEP election, the newly-formed Brexit Party (committed to our leaving) trounced Labour to win a lot more votes, this proving the Public's wish to see Brexit succeed !! No. In this scenario, Labour just seizes power, then, if it's true to the newly-affirmed official position of being pro-Remain, they could just revoke Article 50 and kill Brexit off entirely !!

I think this would finish Labour as an electable Party. They'd be defying the 2016 Referendum result. They'd be defying the well-established mood of the British people, who, today, have shown the great level of support Brexit commands. No ... Labour would be riding roughshod over all of that.

Labour could take another route. They could seize power, go to the EU and ask for (& get) yet another extension beyond October ... then use that time to fight a General Election, in the hope of winning a majority of MP's capable of allowing Labour to have a stronger power-base ... THEN revoke Article 50, claiming that their winning an election gave them all the mandate they need to do so.

But I don't think Labour have a prayer of winning that election. If they understand this ... IF ... then they'll just seize power and shun elections for as long as possible. Cue what I've described above. AND .. goodbye, Brexit !!

[Noir]

Drummond do you think it is improper for Boris to state that he will ignore the vote of no-confidence until he wants if he loses it?

[Drummond]

Drummond do you think it is improper for Boris to state that he will ignore the vote of no-confidence until he wants if he loses it?

I think it's entirely proper for Boris to make a promise to the peoples of the UK, then, to keep it !!

The point of the No Confidence motion would be to force him to not keep it.

The 2016 Referendum was perfectly clear. A majority wanted us to quit the EU. That Referendum gave Parliament a mandate, and a clear direction as to what should be the end result of our EU membership ... namely, that it should CEASE.

Boris is doing his damndest to honour that mandate.

Labour, the LibDems, and other rebels, are doing THEIR damndest to DEFY it.

Who has the greater honour, Noir ? Whose is the more reputable stance ? Who has the greater respect for the democratic Will of the People ?

WHO, THEREFORE, TRULY DESERVES TO WIN OUT IN THIS BATTLE ??

[Noir]

I think it's entirely proper for Boris to make a promise to the peoples of the UK, then, to keep it !!

and if Boris went to an election, and lost, who would be to blame for the ‘broken promise’ then?

[Drummond]

and if Boris went to an election, and lost, who would be to blame for the ‘broken promise’ then?

I'm not sure I'm following this.

Is there an automatic assumption on your part that Labour would win that election ? State your basis for the 'certainty' that this would be the outcome.

Labour could 'win', but so narrowly that they failed to command a Commons majority. Cue, then, more of the mess we've been witnessing these last several months; with the added complication of who they'd have to share power with, to so much as run a functioning Government .. AND .. the demands those other allied Parties might make.

Then again, consider the stunning success the Brexit Party had, and the great electoral support they gained, just mere WEEKS after their very formation !! So ... imagine them having the balance of power, in a Labour minority Government. What, Noir, do you think THEY would demand, in return for support ?

Go on. Take a wild guess ... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

So don't be too sure that Boris's promise wouldn't be met, even IF unavoidably delayed by the shortest of margins.

Who knows. It's not totally impossible for the Brexit Party to win outright. Not from last May's showing, I suggest !

No, I think that - utterly disgusting and reprehensible though it'd be - the most tactically sound decision Labour could take would be to seize power, as McDonnell has threatened. Would it finish them for all time as a Party 'true to democratic principle' ? Absolutely, YES.

But if Corbyn is so short-sighted as to only care about grabbing power ASAP and stopping Brexit, he'll have to take that 'coup' route.

I can believe he will, if he gets the chance.

[Kathianne]

I'm back to seeing a sort of lack of functionalism to your system.

[Drummond]

I'm back to seeing a sort of lack of functionalism to your system.

I can understand that perception.

I don't see it as being a fault of our system, though. Rather, this is all down to individuals being voted into a position of power, then abusing that power.

How many Labour MP's represent a 'Remain' position, in complete defiance of what their constituencies want from them ?

All, repeat, ALL, Labour MP's are now members of a Party whose stated position at the time of our last election was different to the present pro-Remain one !!

Both major Parties have seen individual MP's rebelling against their own Parties over Brexit. It's created a dyfunctional mess.

Labour's position of so much as considering seizing power, MINUS the convention of a mandating General Election occurring, is another example of an abuse of power (this is why the Queen would have to Constitutionally rubber-stamp the move).

Had everything instead gone according to the proper route of democratic accountability, we'd have left the EU in March. Rebel spanner-throwing, in defiance of democratic mandate, put paid to that.

The system isn't the problem. Those defying it, and their responsibilities, IS.

[Noir]

I'm not sure I'm following this.

Is there an automatic assumption on your part that Labour would win that election ? State your basis for the 'certainty' that this would be the outcome.

I think in the case of a general election both Labour and Conservatives will lose seats, Lib Dem’s and Brexit Party will gain. It is unknown if a Remain party’s or Leave party’s would be able to form a majority.

If boris lost a vote of no-confidence, but refused to accept it, then pushed through Brexit, and then lost the election that followed, lol.

[Drummond]

I think in the case of a general election both Labour and Conservatives will lose seats, Lib Dem’s and Brexit Party will gain. It is unknown if a Remain party’s or Leave party’s would be able to form a majority.

If boris lost a vote of no-confidence, but refused to accept it, then pushed through Brexit, and then lost the election that followed, lol.

Things are as messy as anyone can imagine. You may be right. There's no way to judge who will gain (or lose) seats, not as things stand. Labour support is dire, thanks in part to their defying the 2016 Referendum, also partly because they've only recently managed to clarify their official status as a pro-Remain Party.

Conservative support ... also not doing well. There's the stagnation of progress thanks to Mrs May .. and her chronically myopic zeal in seeing the agreed deal as the ONLY possible route forwards ... which was very decisively voted down repeatedly. The general public, I think rightly, blame the Conservatives for that (the rebels added to that dysfunctionality, of course).

I think that Boris, because of his refreshing approach, CAN win outright. But there's no way to judge the likelihood of that. I'd say that if anyone can do it for the Conservatives, Boris can.

Then again ... the Brexit Party may leech much-needed votes from either main Party. They'll pick up votes from disaffected Labour supporters, who are from constituencies currently Labour 'represented' but voted to leave ......

I think that Boris will be very wise to avoid calling an election, even if he loses a No Confidence vote. Unorthodox or not, there's too much of a mess out there to work out what chance (if any) he really has to win. This'll maybe see Labour attempt their electoral coup .. which will kill them as a Party viewable as fit to be part of a democratic system !!

Possible third-Party allegiances permitting, Labour MAY win out in the short term. Just what they win, and what they can do, may be dictated to them by whoever props them up !

And in the longer term, they'll not be forgiven ... for defying the Referendum, for seizing power unelected, for betraying their formerly loyal voter base who really, actually, believed their 2017 Manifesto pledges ! I think it's very possible that a Corbyn-led Labour Party in Government may be the very last Labour Government we'll EVER see !

Brexit may be the dagger that stabs the Labour Party to death.

[Noir]

I think that Boris will be very wise to avoid calling an election, even if he loses a No Confidence vote. Unorthodox or not

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

“Unorthodox”

You’re happy to have an executive continue to rule by ignoring a no-confidence ruling, meanwhile you harp on about ‘the democratic process’ that you think the opposition are abusing. You’ve never been shy in broadcasting your hypocrisy, but come on.

[Drummond]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

“Unorthodox”

You’re happy to have an executive continue to rule by ignoring a no-confidence ruling, meanwhile you harp on about ‘the democratic process’ that you think the opposition are abusing. You’ve never been shy in broadcasting your hypocrisy, but come on.

I'll take no abuse from you, Noir ... is that crystal clear ??

Boris is doing everything he possibly can to bring Brexit to the conclusion that the 2016 Referendum mandates. Finishing this is an already overdue task, thanks to the combined vandalism of rebel MP's, and, OF COURSE, Labour !! If you consider anything 'hypocritical' or 'undemocratic' in Boris's conduct, when all he's doing is OBEYING THE WILL OF THE ELECTORATE, then that in itself is offensive.

I want you, Noir, to admit that Labour has betrayed its voters. It is no longer loyal to its own 2017 Manifesto, instead choosing to betray all those who voted the current crop of Labour MP's to where they are, believing they were going to DO what THEY SAID THEY'D DO, IN PARLIAMENT.

Given all this, what exactly would that No Confidence motion represent, if not Labour's efforts to further defy its own electorate ??

Chew on that one -- and desist from further insults, please !

[Gunny]

Whether it's a 'hard date' is debatable. We had a previous 'hard date' set for the end of March, BUT, we asked for, and got, our latest extension to October. Part of (most of) the point of Boris being so emphatic about our leaving 'come-what-may' in October was to dispel others' thoughts that this process would be repeated.

Regardless, we've already heard from the EU that they could look favourably on yet another extension. Of course we have. They want our exit to be as dragged out as possible, or better yet, reversed entirely.

It's a hard date because Boris says it is. Simply that. There are plenty who'd want him to change his mind.

But things have moved on. The latest move from the Labour (Socialist) Party is one of an arrogant power-grab ... a form of political coup, in fact ... if they can't make the headway they want against Boris.

It comes down to this: Labour are planning a motion of No Confidence against the Conservatives, to be applied soon after Summer Recess. If they can get one to go their way, Boris has said he'll disregard it, for at least as long as it takes to get Brexit concluded.

Now, time is very tight. Say the No Confidence motion wins. The normal route, then, would be for a General Election to happen. This'd mean time taken out in fighting and winning one, instead of time taken to further fight in the Commons to do what would 'have to be' done to procedurally (even legislatively) throw yet more spanners at the 'no deal' exit scenario that Labour and the LibDems are desperate to stop.

[Tactically ... Boris could follow convention, call the election, making sure that the run-up period to polling day was entirely take up with canvassing for votes, which would deny Brexit opposers any chance of making headway in the Commons with further wrecking motions / directives.]

Labour have an answer for all this, though .... disgusting though it is ... !!! ....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/07/john-mcdonnell-threatens-march-palace-tell-queen-taking-boris1/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_fb&fbclid=IwAR1nZ_IQqN7KFhNPJ3di9LvMKStBiHbDkJtYBcIxJ ToscU8XVyIXAKvHDsY



In other words .... NO election, just a straight seizure of power.

The presumption would be that Labour, as the second biggest presence in the Commons, would be the 'natural' alternative to the present Government. Never mind that in the recent MEP election, the newly-formed Brexit Party (committed to our leaving) trounced Labour to win a lot more votes, this proving the Public's wish to see Brexit succeed !! No. In this scenario, Labour just seizes power, then, if it's true to the newly-affirmed official position of being pro-Remain, they could just revoke Article 50 and kill Brexit off entirely !!

I think this would finish Labour as an electable Party. They'd be defying the 2016 Referendum result. They'd be defying the well-established mood of the British people, who, today, have shown the great level of support Brexit commands. No ... Labour would be riding roughshod over all of that.

Labour could take another route. They could seize power, go to the EU and ask for (& get) yet another extension beyond October ... then use that time to fight a General Election, in the hope of winning a majority of MP's capable of allowing Labour to have a stronger power-base ... THEN revoke Article 50, claiming that their winning an election gave them all the mandate they need to do so.

But I don't think Labour have a prayer of winning that election. If they understand this ... IF ... then they'll just seize power and shun elections for as long as possible. Cue what I've described above. AND .. goodbye, Brexit !!Wow. This sounds as dumb as the US House of Representatives.

[Drummond]

Wow. This sounds as dumb as the US House of Representatives.

At its heart, literally ALL of this comes down to our Labour Party and its obsession with winning power, any way it can.

They've betrayed the electorate, by reversing a key 2017 Manifesto pledge .. one that no doubt did a lot to get their MP's elected in the first place. Whole communities now have their MP's fighting for exactly the opposite of what they wanted them to help bring about, and what they SAID they'd help facilitate.

The Labour Party is committed, now, to fighting the outcome of the 2016 Referendum. Where the People gave Parliament a mandate to GET BREXIT DONE.

Parliament has done a lot to frustrate that mandate -- the chief culprits, being -- LABOUR.

Now, we have Boris Johnson doing everything he possibly can to get it all done by 31st October, the deadline.

The latest on this is that Labour's leader has officially questioned whether a Government in the throes of a General Election is justified in saying that the election process must stall moves to stop Brexit until after October (typically, our elections take around 2 months from beginning to end, and Parliament doesn't return from its Summer Recess until September). Corbyn questions whether, if Boris CAN delay until after the cutoff day, it'd be 'anti democratic' to do that (!!!).

Labour's sheer hypocrisy doesn't get any more blatant than that !! Their anti-democratic efforts to nullify Brexit, Labour want to see succeed .. and if they're stopped, that's somehow 'anti democratic' !!!

[High_Plains_Drifter]

So Noir... could you explain exactly what it is you find so objectionable about Brexit?

I know you dont' answer me so, pretend you're not. Pretend you're addressing everyone else on the board....

[Noir]

I'll take no abuse from you, Noir ... is that crystal clear ??

Boris is doing everything he possibly can to bring Brexit to the conclusion that the 2016 Referendum mandates. Finishing this is an already overdue task, thanks to the combined vandalism of rebel MP's, and, OF COURSE, Labour !! If you consider anything 'hypocritical' or 'undemocratic' in Boris's conduct, when all he's doing is OBEYING THE WILL OF THE ELECTORATE, then that in itself is offensive.

I want you, Noir, to admit that Labour has betrayed its voters. It is no longer loyal to its own 2017 Manifesto, instead choosing to betray all those who voted the current crop of Labour MP's to where they are, believing they were going to DO what THEY SAID THEY'D DO, IN PARLIAMENT.

Given all this, what exactly would that No Confidence motion represent, if not Labour's efforts to further defy its own electorate ??

Chew on that one -- and desist from further insults, please !

Sure man, sorry for “abusing” and “insulting” you by point out you are stating that the opposition parties are trying to abuse the democratic process by motioning a vote of no confidence that could lead to a general election, while you don’t believe it’s undemocratic or an abuse of power for an executive to ignore a lost vote of no confidence and refuse to hold an election :laugh:

[Noir]

Reports from inside Downing Street that staff holidays/leave have been cancelled until November. So the smart money is a late October election. Joy.

[CSM]

Reports from inside Downing Street that staff holidays/leave have been cancelled until November. So the smart money is a late October election. Joy.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic here or not.

I must admit that UK politics are quite confusing to me. It helps to read the opposing opinions between Noir and Drummond. I should state that I do not favor either one over the other.

[Drummond]

Not sure if you are being sarcastic here or not.

I must admit that UK politics are quite confusing to me. It helps to read the opposing opinions between Noir and Drummond. I should state that I do not favor either one over the other.

Possibly, Noir is getting a little creative. I've not seen any news about staff holidays / leave being cancelled (Downing Street staff, I take it ?). But so what if they are ? At 'best', it's possible preparation for a chain of events we don't even know will happen yet, or precisely how they'll play out !

[Drummond]

Sure man, sorry for “abusing” and “insulting” you by point out you are stating that the opposition parties are trying to abuse the democratic process by motioning a vote of no confidence that could lead to a general election, while you don’t believe it’s undemocratic or an abuse of power for an executive to ignore a lost vote of no confidence and refuse to hold an election :laugh:

Since you evidently don't mean your apology, there can hardly be a point to accepting it, now, can there ?

As for your 'argument' ... this all has, as its basis, Boris's determination to get Brexit DONE AND DUSTED.

Boris wants a good deal from Brussels, as he's said time and again. Brussels is showing no interest at all (surprise, surprise) in moving towards one. Result ... unless the EU quits its intransigence, our default position is to leave minus a deal on 31st October. And ... Boris's default position is to see our Brexit become a reality ON THAT DATE.

Now ... WHY IS THAT ?

Answer: because Boris is doing the democratic thing of heeding a democratic vote, one mandating our exit ! Were he to choose, for whatever reason, to defer our leaving to a later date, he'd be defying that mandate. This has already happened once (thanks to all the shenanigans on Theresa May's watch). The mandate given is to LEAVE, not to DELAY LEAVING.

Enter, ahem, 'democratic' and 'un-hypocritical' Labour on to the scene. They're pushing for a 'no deal' Brexit to be an impossibility (even though an alternative one isn't even on the horizon, and they've defeated ratification of the current one, three times over !!) ... & they've now adopted a pro-Remain position, in complete defiance of the 2016 Referendum vote (and many of their own supporters !!). They're acting in contravention of their own 2017 election mandate by being pro-Remain now, meaning, they're providing a form of opposition they were never electorally sanctioned to perpetrate (!!). They're threatening a No Confidence motion in Boris and his Government, because Boris IS trying to respect the Referendum fully (!!) ... and they've even threatened to just TAKE OVER GOVERNMENT, WITHOUT BEING ELECTED TO DO SO BEFOREHAND, if Boris defies the 'No Confidence' vote !!

They even want to defy Parliamentary convention, which has it that major policy & / or legislative decisions cannot be submitted to Parliament during a General Election campaign .. one which could start the very day after Boris (IF he does !) loses a No Confidence motion. That election campaign could easily last until after the Brexit leaving date.

So, Noir. Your so-called 'point of democratic principle' ... and any criticism you may attempt against BORIS on those grounds ... looks decidedly shaky, not to even mention 'hypocritical', when you view all that LABOUR are getting up to ! Their very existence as a pro-Remain Party itself defies what many of their former supporters THOUGHT they were voting for, in 2017 !!

My suggestion, Noir, is that you acknowledge the clear hypocrisy being shown, today, by the Labour leadership, before sounding off on any suggestion of Boris Johnson's so-called hypocrisy.

Boris is respecting and following through on democratically-expressed wishes. Your side, that of the Left, is making a career of defying such wishes and mandates, as I've detailed above.

.. Seems to me that you don't have a leg to stand on, Noir ...

[Kathianne]

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/08/14/pelosi-bolton-no-chance-brexit-related-uk-trade-deal-without-backstop/




Pelosi To Bolton: No Chance On Brexit-Related UK Trade Deal Without Resolving Ireland Issue
ED MORRISSEYPosted at 8:01 pm on August 14, 2019


It didn’t take Nancy Pelosi long to shoot down John Bolton’s trial balloon. Monday evening, Donald Trump’s national security adviser tried to encourage the Brits on their Brexit adventure by promising tasty new bilateral trade arrangements. Unfortunately, that’s not entirely up to the White House:



With Britain’s economy suffering a battering in recent days because of the country’s impending exit from the European Union, the United States sent a familiar face to offer assurance: White House national security adviser John Bolton.




At a briefing with British reporters on Monday evening, Bolton said Britain would be at the “front of the trade queue” for a new trade deal with the United States, adding that any agreement could be worked out “sector by sector” to speed up the process.


Bolton added that he and President Trump were “leavers before there were leavers” who supported Britain’s 2016 vote to end its membership in the E.U. His message from Trump was simple, he said: “We are with you.”


Bolton also dropped this bon mot on the European Union:



“The fashion in the European Union when the people vote the wrong way from the way that the elites want to go is to make the peasants vote again and again until they get it right,” he said, according to the BBC.


That’s apparently a reference to the EU’s Lisbon Treaty, which failed in Ireland on its first vote in June 2008. The EU then got a second vote in Ireland fifteen months later, when the referendum passed and the EU’s constitutional amendments went into effect. It’s unclear why Bolton made this reference, however, since the EU had no role at all in the UK’s own Brexit referendum three years ago except to oppose it altogether, and isn’t “making” the UK vote on it again. The EU negotiated an exit agreement with the UK government in good faith, which then failed to pass it, and Brussels doesn’t think it’s incumbent on the EU to fix the UK’s political issues as they leave. That’s a gratuitous and contemptuous non-sequitur, aimed at our allies and major trading partner.


Before we get to Pelosi’s response, though, it’s worth asking why Bolton is commenting on trade agreements at all. He’s not the ambassador, the trade representative, nor at State or Commerce, so he has no official role in trade negotiations anyway. Bolton’s making a promise that echoes similar statements from Trump, of course, but without any authority at all to speak on those subjects. Mike Pompeo and Wilbur Ross might be asking what Bolton’s thinking in injecting himself into this debate — especially as awkwardly as he did, too.


Pelosi then reminded Bolton that Congress has to actually incorporate trade agreements into statutes, and she’s not going to lift a finger unless the UK resolves the Irish border situation. That comes from a bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill, where the status of the Good Friday Agreement is a source of considerable concern:



In a statement on Wednesday, the House speaker, who commands a Democratic majority, warned that the Trump administration would not be able to sidestep congressional approval.




“Whatever form it takes, Brexit cannot be allowed to imperil the Good Friday agreement, including the seamless border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, especially now, as the first generation born into the hope of Good Friday 21 years ago comes into adulthood.” Pelosi said. “We cannot go back.” …




The existence of a powerful bipartisan Irish American voting bloc, adamant that it will not be complicit in any arrangement that undermines the 1998 Good Friday accord, is almost certain to complicate US-UK trade negotiations still further.




Brendan Boyle, the Democratic co-chairman of the Friends of Ireland caucus, told the Guardian: “The nonsensical utterings of John Bolton should not be taken seriously. He has no role in trade agreements. Zero.”


In other words, Boris Johnson had better know that Bolton’s floating checks his writ can’t cash. It’s not the first time Pelosi has warned that Congress won’t take up any trade agreements without a safeguard on the open border in Ireland, either. Trade agreements don’t take the usual form of treaties, which can be ratified with a two-thirds vote in the US Senate alone. The agreement has to be written into statutory law, which requires the House to act as well. Pelosi has a lot more say on trade policy, in other words, than a national security adviser.

...

[Drummond]

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/08/14/pelosi-bolton-no-chance-brexit-related-uk-trade-deal-without-backstop/

Yes, Pelosi's little declaration is certainly making news here.

I daresay that most of us over here won't fully 'appreciate' the reality in play; namely, that what Pelosi is really doing is resurrecting Obama's own opposition to our breaking with the EU. It seems to be a 'cause' in American politics, just as it is here.

Obama told us that we'd go to the back of the queue for trade deals if we exited the EU. Then ... there was a mixture of surprise and resentment at Obama's declaration. Surprise, because Obama was very well thought of, here .. and the perception was one (if you can believe it) of a 'decent' politician -- much preferred, overall, over his predecessor. Resentment, too, as we saw Obama as meddling in our politics, unacceptably so. It left a sour taste in the mouth.

Now, Pelosi's at it. I think her concern (so-called) about the Good Friday Agreement is just an excuse to resurrect Obama's hostile position of before. I can't see it going down well !! But I also suspect that, yes, some will blame Trump for 'falsely' giving us hope of great trade deals which maybe won't now come about.

Fact is, though, that Pelosi, like Obama before her, IS meddling in OUR politics, OUR business !! She's entitled to a viewpoint, as are we all. But to strong-arm us into a position where we supposedly have to rethink our current Brexit position (no doubt to force us to quit trying to leave, as 'the deal' as it stands is unratifiable, and there aren't any changes in prospect to it !!) is unacceptable.

It's yet more madness added to a chaotic mix. We can't get another deal out of the EU, so far as we know, or changes agreed to the current one. Opposition to the 'backstop' in the deal made it so unacceptable to the Commons that votes against it were historically high !

So, what's left ? Only that we give up on Brexit altogether .. IF, we knuckle under to Pelosi (and Obama, before her).

I say: to hell with your interfering Left !! HOW DARE they try this on us.

Both on your side of the Pond, as on ours, it's extremely clear that, to the Left, democratic mandate isn't respected, when its outcome is 'disapproved of'. Well --- TOUGH.

I hope Boris continues to show the backbone he currently is. The Peoples' wishes MATTER. If we want to be shot of a bunch of empire-building control freaks, we have that right !

Too bad if Pelosi and her ilk are incapable of comprehending this.

The one good feature of all this is that your President is reputable enough to treat us decently (even despite severe provocation from Darroch !). He's been a good friend to us. I for one appreciate that.

[Elessar]

Yes, Pelosi's little declaration is certainly making news here.

Obama told us that we'd go to the back of the queue for trade deals if we exited the EU. Then ... there was a mixture of surprise and resentment at Obama's declaration. Surprise, because Obama was very well thought of, here .. and the perception was one (if you can believe it) of a 'decent' politician -- much preferred, overall, over his predecessor. Resentment, too, as we saw Obama as meddling in our politics, unacceptably so. It left a sour taste in the mouth.

Now, Pelosi's at it. I think her concern (so-called) about the Good Friday Agreement is just an excuse to resurrect Obama's hostile position of before.

So, what's left ? Only that we give up on Brexit altogether .. IF, we knuckle under to Pelosi (and Obama, before her).

Too bad if Pelosi and her ilk are incapable of comprehending this.

The one good feature of all this is that your President is reputable enough to treat us decently (even despite severe provocation from Darroch !). He's been a good friend to us. I for one appreciate that.

Above snipped for brevity.

Was it not Obama sent Sir Winston Churchill's bust that was in the White House back to the U.K.?

It shows where his loyalty was. Then send a bunch of CD's that could not be played to the PM.

He is /was an idiot that shit in the faces of allies and close friends to the USA.

[Drummond]

Above snipped for brevity.

Was it not Obama sent Sir Winston Churchill's bust that was in the White House back to the U.K.?

It shows where his loyalty was. Then send a bunch of CD's that could not be played to the PM.

He is /was an idiot that shit in the faces of allies and close friends to the USA.

'Yes' on all counts (except it was DVD's, not CD's). He gave us Region 1 encoded disks, fine for America, but ... we use Region 2 !

He also came up with some very strong criticism over BP's role over an oil spill, if I remember correctly ... but insisted on referring to it as 'British Petroleum', which was that Company's old name, emphasising that name as if BP was only British-run. In fact, it's a multinational Company these days, as it also was, back then.

[Drummond]

Jeremy Corbyn - Labour leader - is making his bid for power.

Here's what he is proposing (I'm pretty sure I've got this right, it's v recently been announced) --

As soon as he reasonably can, following Parliament's return from Summer Recess, he'll try for his 'No Confidence' vote in the Commons, against Boris and his Government. Now, I'm not sure if he'll try this after calling it, or before (I think before .. it makes more sense that way ?) .. but he'll be casting around for support for a new caretaker Government, initially unelected, which takes power from Boris in the event of winning the No Confidence vote.

Not exactly surprisingly, Corbyn wants the top job of PM, to immediately depose Boris Johnson.

This caretaker Government will exist specifically to put a stop to efforts to close down Parliament, to also ensure that the process of moving towards a No Deal Brexit is killed off. Corbyn, as Leader will be empowered to ask the EU for a further extension of the Brexit deadline beyond October.

This in place, he'll then call a General Election.

Assuming he wins, he'll then arrange a Second Referendum, to hopefully reverse the vote of the first one.

'All being well' (by Corbyn's reckoning, and his own Party's new policy direction), he'll then have the authority to kill Brexit off entirely.

[Noir]

Fact is, though, that Pelosi, like Obama before her, IS meddling in OUR politics, OUR business !!

When Trump and Bolton etc are commenting on Brexit are they also “meddling in OUR politics, OUR business!!”?

[Drummond]

When Trump and Bolton etc are commenting on Brexit are they also “meddling in OUR politics, OUR business!!”?

Sorry, what ? What 'meddling' are you talking about ?

They are in agreement with the present direction that Boris is taking. Show me evidence of their trying to influence Boris into doing what he's doing.

Or, do you think they're trying to stop him ? I say again: WHAT 'meddling' .. ?

Compare the present status quo with the one that existed in Obama's day. We were gearing up for the Referendum vote. Obama tried to strong-arm us into voting to Remain in the EU ... by issuing a threat of adverse trading conditions, if we didn't do what HE wanted.

Trump and Bolton, of course, have done no equivalent meddling, no strong-arm stuff whatsoever. All they've done is comment ... and that commentary has been to agree with our current direction.

All of this, of course, is in line with the democratic decision our people reached, back in June 2016. A decision we had a right to make ..

... AND A DECISION WE NOW HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE IMPLEMENTED !!

[Kathianne]

Sorry, what ? What 'meddling' are you talking about ?

They are in agreement with the present direction that Boris is taking. Show me evidence of their trying to influence Boris into doing what he's doing.

Or, do you think they're trying to stop him ? I say again: WHAT 'meddling' .. ?

Compare the present status quo with the one that existed in Obama's day. We were gearing up for the Referendum vote. Obama tried to strong-arm us into voting to Remain in the EU ... by issuing a threat of adverse trading conditions, if we didn't do what HE wanted.

Trump and Bolton, of course, have done no equivalent meddling, no strong-arm stuff whatsoever. All they've done is comment ... and that commentary has been to agree with our current direction.

All of this, of course, is in line with the democratic decision our people reached, back in June 2016. A decision we had a right to make ..

... AND A DECISION WE NOW HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE IMPLEMENTED !!

Promising to do x if/when y is completed is pretty comparable to what Obama was doing, in reverse.

It's easier to 'like' meddling or whatever we call it, when it fits what we want.

[Drummond]

Promising to do x if/when y is completed is pretty comparable to what Obama was doing, in reverse.

It's easier to 'like' meddling or whatever we call it, when it fits what we want.

Are you assuming that people voted for Brexit in the UK based on anything at all that American politicians said or did ?

The British electorate had freedom from EU domination firmly in their minds in voting for Brexit (and we knew nothing about lucrative US-UK deals, if I'm recalling this correctly, back in June 2016). I don't accept that the Trump Administration meddled.

The reverse has to be said about Obama.

[Noir]

Are you assuming that people voted for Brexit in the UK based on anything at all that American politicians said or did ?

The British electorate had freedom from EU domination firmly in their minds in voting for Brexit (and we knew nothing about lucrative US-UK deals, if I'm recalling this correctly, back in June 2016). I don't accept that the Trump Administration meddled.

The reverse has to be said about Obama.

It is genuinely astonishing that across a range of topics you are able to view near identical situations completely differently in the favour of your political preference. Ain’t that something.

[Kathianne]

Are you assuming that people voted for Brexit in the UK based on anything at all that American politicians said or did ?

The British electorate had freedom from EU domination firmly in their minds in voting for Brexit (and we knew nothing about lucrative US-UK deals, if I'm recalling this correctly, back in June 2016). I don't accept that the Trump Administration meddled.

The reverse has to be said about Obama.

I assume the people of UK voted for Brexit. I'm assuming those who didn't have their panties in a bunch. I'm assuming a lot of time has gone by since the original vote. I'm assuming that the change in leadership has been felt now.

Other than that, I'm assuming we all like the things we like and not so much those we disagree with.

[Drummond]

It is genuinely astonishing that across a range of topics you are able to view near identical situations completely differently in the favour of your political preference. Ain’t that something.

Since it isn't true, I'd have to disagree. It's actually nothing at all.

Would you care to debate your charge further ? That's to say, make your case: because, so far as I'm concerned, mine is made already.

[Drummond]

I assume the people of UK voted for Brexit. I'm assuming those who didn't have their panties in a bunch. I'm assuming a lot of time has gone by since the original vote. I'm assuming that the change in leadership has been felt now.

Other than that, I'm assuming we all like the things we like and not so much those we disagree with.

1. Yes
2. Most definitely, & then some (we call it 'getting your knickers in a twist').
3. Yes
4. Not only felt, but it's got his opposition's, as I'd say, 'knickers in a twist' with a vengeance. Corbyn wants his political coup, and is starting to lash out at anyone not favouring him, personally, in the role of PM.

That is one Leftie leader who's power mad ! He wants it by any means at all, whether or not it's arrived at democratically.

None of this has any connection with 'interference' from America, simply because there's been none ! The days of Obama trying to blackmail us into voting as HE wants, are long gone, and we've seen no equivalent since.

[Drummond]

Since it isn't true, I'd have to disagree. It's actually nothing at all.

Would you care to debate your charge further ? That's to say, make your case: because, so far as I'm concerned, mine is made already.

You were challenged to make your case, Noir. Instead ... silence from you.

.... there y'go ....... :rolleyes::rolleyes::laugh:

[Noir]

Over 100 MPs from every party (except the DUP) have signed a letter calling for Parliament to be recalled immediately, and that there can be no further days without parliament sitting until 31st October.


Since it isn't true, I'd have to disagree. It's actually nothing at all.

Would you care to debate your charge further ? That's to say, make your case: because, so far as I'm concerned, mine is made already.

Obama talks about trade with U.K. after Brexit - Meddling.
Trump talks about trade with U.K. after Brexit - Not Meddling.

[Drummond]

Over 100 MPs from every party (except the DUP) have signed a letter calling for Parliament to be recalled immediately, and that there can be no further days without parliament sitting until 31st October.

First I've heard of it. What's your source ?

Still, if true, it only goes to show how hopelessly fractured voting now is. What other reason could there be for an early resumption of Parliament, if not to try & push through legislation mandating rejection of No Deal ... to say nothing of the threatened No Confidence vote ....


Obama talks about trade with U.K. after Brexit - Meddling.
Trump talks about trade with U.K. after Brexit - Not Meddling.

Correction: Obama did more than talk. He tried to blackmail us into voting in HIS preferred way. Now, that is meddling.

Trump has issued no threats, or applied any pressure at all on the UK to do things his preferred way. He has a view, and we all know what it is. But NO threats ... NO meddling.

Perhaps you prefer to mischaracterise, specifically when it suits you to .. ?

[Noir]

First I've heard of it. What's your source ?

Still, if true, it only goes to show how hopelessly fractured voting now is. What other reason could there be for an early resumption of Parliament, if not to try & push through legislation mandating rejection of No Deal ... to say nothing of the threatened No Confidence vote ....

We’ve got something like 10 weeks until Brexit and many MPs would rather not spend several of those weeks on holiday or at party conferences, seems reasonable.


Correction: Obama did more than talk. He tried to blackmail us into voting in HIS preferred way. Now, that is meddling.

Trump has issued no threats, or applied any pressure at all on the UK to do things his preferred way. He has a view, and we all know what it is. But NO threats ... NO meddling.

Perhaps you prefer to mischaracterise, specifically when it suits you to .. ?

Blackmail or incentivise it’s either all meddling or it’s not.

[Drummond]

We’ve got something like 10 weeks until Brexit and many MPs would rather not spend several of those weeks on holiday or at party conferences, seems reasonable.

No source, then ?

I can see you're worried. You'd much rather that the Commons was open for business for longer, so that MP's - and particularly, the Labour Party - had the maximum time available to push motions, establish legislation, making a No Deal Brexit hard to impossible to implement.

That's despite the fact that the EU have no interest in a deal, beyond the one already being rammed down our throats. That's despite the fact that most if not all of those trying to make 'no deal' an impossibility, insist upon rejecting the ONE deal we DO have !!!

You want Parliament open, for longer, for ... what ? A perpetuation of nonsense ???


Blackmail or incentivise it’s either all meddling or it’s not.

Rubbish, Noir.

Obama flat-out meddled .. tried to blackmail us into doing what he wanted ... THAT is meddling.

'Insentivising' ... eh ? You mean, outside powers aren't even allowed to offer us trade deals, is that your position ? You'd like that, presumably, to help make us feel irrevocably tied to Europe ....

America's lucrative trade deal offer was only on the table as a prospect once we do what Parliament is ALREADY mandated to do. No meddling was, or is, involved. That's simply the outcome of a chain of events that the British people voted for, back in 2016. Such an offer was made literally years after that Referendum vote. So ... what meddling ??

It's a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, Noir. Have you ever heard of a pot of gold doing any 'meddling' .. ?

[Noir]

You can use your preferred search engine to located the letter MPs signed if for some reason you don’t think it exists even though it’s been discussed in the news for several days now.

As for the meddling - would you of been happy if Obama had said before the Brexit referendum ‘If the U.K. chose to remain part of the EU then I will ensure that extra funding is made available to them, and that are current partnerships will be strengthened’?

[Drummond]

You can use your preferred search engine to located the letter MPs signed if for some reason you don’t think it exists even though it’s been discussed in the news for several days now.

As for the meddling - would you of been happy if Obama had said before the Brexit referendum ‘If the U.K. chose to remain part of the EU then I will ensure that extra funding is made available to them, and that are current partnerships will be strengthened’?

'Before the Brexit Referendum' is what's pivotal here.

It was then, that threats against us would've counted ... and, sure enough, Obama issued one.

Since it was literally YEARS, AFTER the Referendum, that Trump told us he'd give us good trade deals once we exited the EU .. you can't credibly claim that there was any way he could, in fact, 'meddle'.

Remember also that, thanks to the disgusting trading straitjacket we're in, thanks to EU rules .. we cannot finalise any trade deals as a standalone national entity, until after Brexit is a fact of life. So, for Trump to say we can have some, after Brexit is completed, does nothing more than acknowledge a status quo which Trump has no say in influencing.

[Noir]

'Before the Brexit Referendum' is what's pivotal here.

It was then, that threats against us would've counted ... and, sure enough, Obama issued one.

Since it was literally YEARS, AFTER the Referendum, that Trump told us he'd give us good trade deals once we exited the EU .. you can't credibly claim that there was any way he could, in fact, 'meddle'.

Remember also that, thanks to the disgusting trading straitjacket we're in, thanks to EU rules .. we cannot finalise any trade deals as a standalone national entity, until after Brexit is a fact of life. So, for Trump to say we can have some, after Brexit is completed, does nothing more than acknowledge a status quo which Trump has no say in influencing.

So if timing is the differentiator - Do you think what Pelosi is saying now is meddling?

[Drummond]

So if timing is the differentiator - Do you think what Pelosi is saying now is meddling?

It's rather difficult to see it as meddling ... UNLESS ... she's trying to place pressure on us to revoke Article 50 (which we can unilaterally do, at any time). If that's the intention -- you have your answer. If she has hopes of convincing us that Brexit may be a disaster-in-waiting unless we give Brexit up altogether, then THAT is definitely meddling !

We voted as we did, back in June 2016. How can it be right for a foreign power to so skew trading conditions, as a deliberate act, so that we suffer for voting AS WE CHOOSE TO ?

Our fate, I suggest, is OURS to determine .. and it cannot 'need' the likes of Pelosi to nudge it in the direction of her choosing.

Hers ... and, Obama's. Let's not forget that.

Trump's done nothing to interfere in our decisions. Can you say the same for America's Dems (their version of Lefties, don't forget !!) .. ?

[Noir]

It's rather difficult to see it as meddling ... UNLESS ... she's trying to place pressure on us to revoke Article 50 (which we can unilaterally do, at any time). If that's the intention -- you have your answer. If she has hopes of convincing us that Brexit may be a disaster-in-waiting unless we give Brexit up altogether, then THAT is definitely meddling !

We voted as we did, back in June 2016. How can it be right for a foreign power to so skew trading conditions, as a deliberate act, so that we suffer for voting AS WE CHOOSE TO ?

Our fate, I suggest, is OURS to determine .. and it cannot 'need' the likes of Pelosi to nudge it in the direction of her choosing.

Hers ... and, Obama's. Let's not forget that.

Trump's done nothing to interfere in our decisions. Can you say the same for America's Dems (their version of Lefties, don't forget !!) .. ?

:laugh:

Drummond you are a political vampire - look deep into the mirror and marvel that you see no reflection cast back at you.

[Drummond]

:laugh:

Drummond you are a political vampire - look deep into the mirror and marvel that you see no reflection cast back at you.

Ho ho.

Better to make snide comments, and devote an entire post to their like, than address the subject-matter in an objective manner ?

If you think my viewpoint is questionable, then address it with a counter-argument, if you actually have one. On the other hand .. if you think my point had merit, why not acknowledge the fact ?