The Tory leadership race- that’s quite a bestiary there.

[Tony L]

Good Carol Cadwalladr article here highlighting Johnson’s clear links to far-right white-supremacist Steve Bannon and how much of a grip he has on what bile comes out of Johnson’s mouth.

PS Regarding post above: voting not to enable far-right extremism is an entirely unicorn-free zone. Labour gammon or conflicted triangulation specialists may never grasp this, but for those of us in the centre without any party tribalism it is a very easy decision!

 

[Seanm]

It’s not a unicorn, it’s what we have now.

Then everything must be great now, right? No, because it's one part - the key part - of a larger political picture.

For the foreseeable, whether we remain or leave the rest of the political landscape will take dismaying form around that decision.

What are you going to do if we remain, and things are still awful - and awful in particular ways relating to that decision to remain? Who's going to offer you a magical solution to that problem?

 

[Seanm]

Good Carol Cadwalladr article here highlighting Johnson’s clear links to far-right white-supremacist Steve Bannon and how much of a grip he has on what bile comes out of Johnson’s mouth.

PS Regarding post above: voting not to enable far-right extremism is an entirely unicorn-free zone. Labour gammon or conflicted triangulation specialists may never grasp this, but for those of us in the centre without any party tribalism it is a very easy decision!

So far the strategy for not enabling far-right extremism seems to be to split the progressive vote by supporting parties wilfully misleading people by promising things they can't deliver, giving the far right and excellent crack at the top spot. I'm sure it's an easy decision, but it's not what I'd call "reality-based", which used to be the big thing amongst those in the centre without any party tribalism.

 

[russel]

Then everything must be great now, right? No, because it's one part - the key part - of a larger political picture.

For the foreseeable, whether we remain or leave the rest of the political landscape will take dismaying form around that decision.

What are you going to do if we remain, and things are still awful - and awful in particular ways relating to that decision to remain? Who's going to offer you a magical solution to that problem?

If there is anything less than a free market in goods and services we have now, then watch car manufacturing in Birmingham and Newcastle wind down, Airbus manufacturing in Broughton and Bristol go to Toulouse, Rolls Royce shift Trent manufacturing to Germany and Singapore, apart from a few boutique manufacturers they won’t be anything left by the time new trade deals are negotiated. Where is all the money magic grandpa needs for his pet projects going to come from then?

 

[Seanm]

If there is anything less than a free market in goods and services we have now, then watch car manufacturing in Birmingham and Newcastle wind down, Airbus manufacturing in Broughton and Bristol go to Toulouse, Rolls Royce shift Trent manufacturing to Germany and Singapore, apart from a few boutique manufacturers they won’t be anything left by the time new trade deals are negotiated. Where is all the money magic grandpa needs for his pet projects going to come from then?

None of this is going to happen if we're in a customs union with dynamic alignment with the single market. Also doesn't address my point, which is that all the options are bad and we can't go back in time. Unless your magic grandpa is better than my magic grandpa?

 

[maxflinn]

What a contrast between Johnson and Corbyn:

Twitter.

 

[ks.234]

A lot of talk about tribalism here. It seems to me that many of those disavowing tribalism have joined together with a collective ideology that looks rather, well, tribal.

But it’s more complicated than that surely. Yes , one can be against Brexit and vote for principles and a party that pledges to be anti Brexit (though I wouldn’t trust a Lib Dem with a pledge if he wrote it on a big placard and waved it around for the all the world to see), but if that means enabling Boris then surely you have to ask yourself some questions and consider where the best practical place will be for you to put your X. I’m all for principles, but if they enable Boris, I’m not so sure.

It is possible to be tribal and ask yourself questions.

 

[Tony L]

But it’s more complicated than that surely. Yes , one can be against Brexit and vote for principles and a party that pledges to be anti Brexit (though I wouldn’t trust a Lib Dem with a pledge if he wrote it on a big placard and waved it around for the all the world to see), but if that means enabling Boris then surely you have to ask yourself some questions and consider where the best practical place will be for you to put your X. I’m all for principles, but if they enable Boris, I’m not so sure.

It certainly doesn’t mean enabling Boris. Every Lib, Green or SNP MP elected will fight against the far-right UKIP/Tory Brexit project. Yet, as we have seen today, at least 26 Labour MPs are very actively trying to push this project through, and that’s before we get to Labour’s gammon paymaster McCluskey and the considerable influence he wields. I’m sorry, but I can’t trust Labour at all on the key issue the UK faces at present. They really are a non-starter. If you sort your party out and get rid of the vile UKIP stain that runs through it then we might start to take it seriously, but I suspect that is a long way off after a change of leadership and a lot of expulsions. At present it is useless to me and many millions of likeminded people.

The letter is on Twitter here, and Hoey isn’t even a signatory, so that’s at least 27 gammons in the Labour party!

PS I’ve mentioned many times that I have a decision tree where I’d vote Labour in a Lab/Tory marginal, but against them everywhere else that might return a proper progressive or save a progressive’s deposit. I’d now amend that decision tree in that I would vote Green, Lib Dem, SNP or PC against any of the 27 gammons even if it meant that seat falling to the Tories.

 

[ks.234]

It certainly doesn’t mean enabling Boris. Every Lib, Green or SNP MP elected will fight against the far-right UKIP/Tory Brexit project. Yet, as we have seen today, at least 26 Labour MPs are very actively trying to push this project through, and that’s before we get to Labour’s gammon paymaster McCluskey and the considerable influence he wields. I’m sorry, but I can’t trust Labour at all on the key issue the UK faces at present. They really are a non-starter. If you sort your party out and get rid of the vile UKIP stain that runs through it then we might start to take it seriously, but I suspect that is a long way off after a change of leadership and a lot of expulsions. At present it is useless to me and many millions of likeminded people.

But if you want to stop a Boris Brexit, don’t you have to vote for the party most likely to beat him in a GE?

I’ve said that I’ll never vote for the lying, cheating, austerity empowering Lib Dems ever again, but if come a GE they’re in the best position to beat Boris, wouldn’t I be right to reconsider my personal principles and vote for the greater good?

 

[Brian]

No. May and the EU agreed a deal. Only for her to fail to get it through and then return wanting to re-negotiate.

Well, only if you think the "deal" was arrived at by negotiation carried out in good faith and that the EU was prepared to compromise on anything, let alone in perhaps equal amount to the UK. Isn't the aim a mutually agreeable outcome where both sides perhaps gain something they want but lose something as well?

I'm no apologist for May or the tory party, but I wouldn't say she failed to get the deal through as though it should have gone through and she caused it to fail. Fact is, the EU wouldn't agree a deal that is a decent one for the UK as well as for the EU, it was always going to be rightly rejected by Parliament and that's why it failed to go through.

Having seen May's deal fail to get through parliament so spectacularly multiple times there should have been movement from the EU on something. But I guess it wasn't to be. After all, May's deal is potentially a remain forever deal which only a fool would sign up for if considering future generations, so the EU won't want to change it while they don't believe we will leave without a deal. It's why those on the hard-leave side have become more resolute about leaving on WTO rules, imo.

You could almost be forgiven for believing our friends in the EU want the UK govt to collapse and for the UK to be in desperate times.

 

[SteveS1]

It was always going to be the EU’s fault, or people who voted Remain. No fault attached to people voting Leave without knowing what the terms would be, no sir.

 

[Romulus]

Well, only if you think the "deal" was arrived at by negotiation carried out in good faith and that the EU was prepared to compromise on anything, let alone in perhaps equal amount to the UK. Isn't the aim a mutually agreeable outcome where both sides perhaps gain something they want but lose something as well?

I'm no apologist for May or the tory party, but I wouldn't say she failed to get the deal through as though it should have gone through and she caused it to fail. Fact is, the EU wouldn't agree a deal that is a decent one for the UK as well as for the EU, it was always going to be rightly rejected by Parliament and that's why it failed to go through.

Having seen May's deal fail to get through parliament so spectacularly multiple times there should have been movement from the EU on something. But I guess it wasn't to be. After all, May's deal is potentially a remain forever deal which only a fool would sign up for if considering future generations, so the EU won't want to change it while they don't believe we will leave without a deal. It's why those on the hard-leave side have become more resolute about leaving on WTO rules, imo.

You could almost be forgiven for believing our friends in the EU want the UK govt to collapse and for the UK to be in desperate times.

So if Boris Johnson becomes Prime Minister of UK and has the guts to make UK leave EU without a deal on halloween
you would be happy or do you prefer a deal?

 

[SteveS1]

We’ve been down the club and rules discussion before and most understand that but still expect the UK to be an exception. Encouraged by some charlatans to believe the EU were not serious when they indicated what the terms of leaving would look like, even when the UK helped draft them, they deserve a chance to confirm they wish to proceed on that basis.

 

[drummerman]

So if Boris Johnson becomes Prime Minister of UK and has the guts to make UK leave EU without a deal on halloween
you would be happy or do you prefer a deal?

Deal but to do so 'no deal' has to be a real and present option.

I would have been happy with May's deal but as the house has elected to reject it no deal is the obvious option unless there is a willingness to compromise on the EU side.

 

[SteveS1]

Deal but to do so 'no deal' has to be a real and present option.

I would have been happy with May's deal but as the house has elected to reject it no deal is the obvious option unless there is a willingness to compromise on the EU side.

Your ‘compromise’ is what exactly?

 

[drummerman]

Your ‘compromise’ is what exactly?

Everything that we currently have including full access to European markets plus end of free movement either way, the right to strike trade deals with whomever we want internationally on our terms, an end to the EU Central Court over riding UK courts, an end to the EU fisheries policy.

I am sure there is more I can come up with but that's a good start

No need to sit in Europe as a member. It costs way too much to be worth it.

You then likely point out 'so what are the EU getting in return?

I don't care. They will have to reform because if the UK leaves with no deal or a deal ... others will follow.

It's like a house of cards and me thinks the EU as we know it is near it's end.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Well, only if you think the "deal" was arrived at by negotiation carried out in good faith and that the EU was prepared to compromise on anything, let alone in perhaps equal amount to the UK. Isn't the aim a mutually agreeable outcome where both sides perhaps gain something they want but lose something as well?

I'm no apologist for May or the tory party, but I wouldn't say she failed to get the deal through as though it should have gone through and she caused it to fail. Fact is, the EU wouldn't agree a deal that is a decent one for the UK as well as for the EU, it was always going to be rightly rejected by Parliament and that's why it failed to go through.

Having seen May's deal fail to get through parliament so spectacularly multiple times there should have been movement from the EU on something. But I guess it wasn't to be. After all, May's deal is potentially a remain forever deal which only a fool would sign up for if considering future generations, so the EU won't want to change it while they don't believe we will leave without a deal. It's why those on the hard-leave side have become more resolute about leaving on WTO rules, imo.

You could almost be forgiven for believing our friends in the EU want the UK govt to collapse and for the UK to be in desperate times.

The, literal, deal breaker was the NI backstop. Designed to prevent a reversion to the NI sectarianism of the seventies and eighties, and thus to prevent many deaths.

Anybody advocating leaving with a WTO ‘no-deal’ outcome needs to be aware that the bombing, the kneecapping and the shooting will resume. Recent bomb incidents in Belfast were a clear statement to that effect.

Support no deal, you’ll have blood on your hands.

 

[drummerman]

The, literal, deal breaker was the NI backstop. Designed to prevent a reversion to the NI sectarianism of the seventies and eighties, and thus to prevent many deaths.

Anybody advocating leaving with a WTO ‘no-deal’ outcome needs to be aware that the bombing, the kneecapping and the shooting will resume. Recent bomb incidents in Belfast were a clear statement to that effect.

Support no deal, you’ll have blood on your hands.

So, the UK is held ransome by terrorists.

 

[Colin L]

Everything that we currently have including full access to European markets plus end of free movement either way, the right to strike trade deals with whomever we want internationally on our terms, an end to the EU Central Court over riding UK courts, an end to the EU fisheries policy.

I am sure there is more I can come up with but that's a good start

No need to sit in Europe as a member. It costs way too much to be worth it.

You then likely point out 'so what are the EU getting in return?

I don't care. They will have to reform because if the UK leaves with no deal or a deal ... others will follow.

It's like a house of cards and me thinks the EU as we know it is near it's end.

So, a whole herd of unicorns then.

 

[drummerman]

You need to start to believe in yourself rather than being someone's b***.

The UK should demand everything and more.

This is the beginning. Not the End.

Just a question of who in the EU is the first.

Still, I prefer a 'deal' as long as it strongly favours the UK.