It is possible to be bored with Brexit. I get why people are. But I did not expect the prime minister to be so bored that when he lost the programme motion on his Bill last night that he would then defer all further debate upon it.
Let's be clear: there was no reason to do so. It was entirely possible for Parliament to have debated the Withdrawal Agreement Bill today. That would, admittedly, have led to the tabling of a significant number of amendments to the Bill. And no doubt John Bercow might have called one or two of them. But that this is the parliamentary process should be no surprise to Johnson. He's been an MP, twice, for different constituencies and if he has any sense would be looking for a third right now, given the state of hospitals in the place he represents at present.
Instead Johnson had a tantrum. He pulled debate. He, in effect, told MPs that they could go back to debating the meaningless Queen's Speech that considers a range of legislation that absolutely no one thinks will ever see the light of day. Or he could, instead, have shown good intent on the issue of the day and built on his first ever significant parliamentary win, which has been a record a long time coming, and shown the EU we were serious about getting a deal by letting debate go on.
But he did not do that. And there is only one obvious explanation to suggest, which is that he is not serious about getting a deal.
The more people read the Bill the more apparent that is. Laden with Henry VIII powers that subvert Parliament and having within it what Caroline Lucas appropriately described as a trapdoor to No Deal, the Bill is just a charade. It is not a serious attempt to build a new relationship with anyone, whether that anyone be in the EU, the countries of the UK or the USA, where the puppet masters would appear to sit. It is instead just a way of creating the chaos that rentier capitalism can exploit. It is no more than an opportunity for profit for a few at cost to the many.
And that's been rumbled.
Johnson knows that his Bill might pass, but massively amended.
And not at a time of his choosing.
And that is not his plan. And so he will not proceed with Brexit. Instead another delay will be built in. This time it will be a general election.
Johnson thinks he will win a general election. He believes the polls. And it's true that the polls look good for him. They did too for May. And they didn't for Cameron. What we do know is that they are at most a deeply unreliable guide.
So all we actually have is Johnson pursuing the very worst of British politics and pretending that he wants a Brexit deal. That's precisely because he's now realised one is possible, and it's not the one he wants. It's not the one I'd want either. But he's the person who has said he wants a deal, and I have not. And that's why he has to be called out for lying, yet again.
This one has a long way to go.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Johnson’s first “win” in Parliament by 30 votes was dependent upon rebel Labour MPs who are scared of losing their seats as they have a large majority of Brexit voters in their constituencies. His position is by no means secure so he chose to chicken out with the usual huffing and puffing of Bullingdon Club arrogance. If Corbyn can get his MPs to unite, the Tories are scuppered.
Bill,
I don’t believe Boris is chickening out.
I think he has successfully laid a a series of political bear traps for the remainer backing opposition (including in his own party) from the moment he became PM.
This supposed chickening out is the culmination of that process and it gets him what he really wanted all along – a GE with a reasonable shot at securing a majority and a more cohesive (read universally eurosceptic) parliamentary conservative party.
I think brexit is mostly just a means to an end for Boris and that end is his own popularity and power rather than some US based neoconservative conspiracy. I only hope that his desire for popularity causes him to give thought to his story in the history books and that diverts him away from the worst case scenario feared by Richard here.
That’s my hope because I have close to zero hope that the opposition can succeed against him (in England at least). I think aiming for remain may have scuppered the opposition’s chances of securing election victory and a more progressive agenda for the UK in the near future.
They’ve gone for gold and the effort risks them blowing up and failing to finish the race.
Adam Sawyer – Yes you have made some valid points. “Chickening out” may not be on Cumming’s agenda but it could appear so to the general public . The opposition parties could make great play of this if the October 31 “deadline” promise does not come to pass. Caroline Lucas has pointed out the no deal Brexit “trap” in Johnson’s new deal with the EU. There will be more Downing Street red faces the more these new proposals are studied and publicised .
Adam Sawyer says:
“I think brexit is mostly just a means to an end for Boris and that end is his own popularity and power rather than some US based neoconservative conspiracy. ”
Hmmmm…. part one I agree with….Boris was not even firmly in favour of Brexit at all….. until he was. He was clearly disconcerted to have ended up on the winning side of the referendum. Since then he has jockeyed for position within his party until he got where he wanted to be.
As for the US neo-con’s conspiracy….. well it is quite possible that Boris is actually not a big enough fish to have been included in that, but he is mostly certainly now facilitating its aims; either in the hope of being let into the club as it were, Brexit being the admission ticket, or quite possibly as a willing fool.
Grand strategist he ain’t, clever tactician we may have to grant him. If he survives this ‘ripping yarn’ in which he has been given a star part.
This is a multiple identity posting and has been deleted
Meanwhile (if I may sidetrack the thread momentarily), it is reported that Sir Nicholas Macpherson, a past Permanent Secretary to the Treasury (notably during the Scottish Referendum in 2014), has radically changed his opinion on the post-Brexit case for Scottish independence, as reported in ‘The Times’: “the case for Scottish independence looks stronger post-Brexit”, with Britain’s decision to leave the EU changing the “terms of debate north of the border”. It is also reported he acknowledges the Scottish Government has enhanced its “fiscal credibility”, and apparently now he even supports a Scottish currency. This move is telling, not because of the case he makes, but for the source, and the context; how it will be received in Scotland, and read by the critical electoral audience. The optics are significant.
Good news
But I have reached my Times quota…
I have dipped into the Bill myself.
To me it is trojan horse bill, dripping with mendacity and Lucas (bless her) is right. It’s intentions are so thinly veiled.
I have to say though that I am still struggling with Juncker and the ‘deal’ that Johnson got.
It does seem however that we are to leave. What remains to be determined is how.
I hope we leave well and not badly. But I’d rather stay in.
The deal and this law are not the same thing….
In this instance, quite.
I have to respectfully disagree. There are two “deals” that will have to be agreed. This first “deal” relates solely to the terms of the UK’s departure from the EU. The second, and much more important, “deal” relates to the UK’s future relationship with the EU. The PM wants this first deal. The PM’s frustration and apparent boredom is being caused by his not having sufficient lobby fodder in the Commons to ram this first deal through unamended. His focus has always been on forcing a general election in the hope that he can secure sufficient lobby fodder. But he doesn’t want to ask the EU to give him the time to do this. He wants the EU to offer him the time to do this.
So, perhaps, the EU should give him the time up to June 2020 (after which the EU’s 2021-2027 budget will be agreed) with the option that the UK can leave anytime between now and then whenever this first deal has been ratified by Parliament. (it should also allow sufficient time in the unlikely event that a non-Tory government emerges from a general election for it to renegotiate this “deal”.) However, the more likely alternative to a Tory majority is another hung parliament with the Tories being the largest party. And we will be back to a variant of the current situation.
The real heavy-lifting on the UK’s future relationship with the EU will begin whenever this first deal (or some variant of it) is ratified. The EU is assembling its resources to negotiate the second deal. Michel Barnier has been appointed as the point-man and Sabine Weyand and many of the team who negotiated the first deal are in place. It is on this that the risk of a no deal is greatest. And that’s when the most serious economic damage would be caused.
Paul,
Good point well made.
This is why I get annoyed by the opposition’s tactics. In trying to frustrate the first step towards brexit entirely (or stitch up the second step before we even get to it) they are at great risk of strengthening the Tories position when it comes to that second and more important negotiation.
I’d rather brexit were accepted as happening and a GE have already been held on how it is going to be delivered.
Instead we’re now going to have a GE on whether brexit is delivered at all and that’s going to heavily favour Tory success at the polls and result in them having a free hand in his they deliver it over the next parliament.
@Adam Sawyer,
Thank you for your reply. The outcome of this totally misguided application of plebiscitary democracy (2016 referendum) – even if it is in conflict with the time-hallowed use of representative democracy – must be honoured asap. And, I agree, ideally before a general election. I salute the courage of the 19 Labour “rebels”. Of the original 19 MPs who wrote to the EU expressing their desire to support departure terms that were acceptable to the UK government and the EU, four bottled it yesterday. But they were replaced by four more. And I think Lisa Nandy, one of the four replacements, made a very good case for this “rebellion”.
If and only if the terms of departure are agreed will it be possible to a have a general election where Labour might have some chance. And a Labour government, irrespective of the imbecility, the incompetence, the sectarianism and the adherence to out-dated dogmatic ideological clap-trap being exhibited by much of the high command and shadow cabinet, is the only hope we have. It just shows how low we have sunk politically.
I think most voted for it to amend it
I could not see a third reading majority
Paul
You beat me to it, I was going to say more or less the same thing.
The problem is that right from the start the debate in the UK around a deal has always been talked about as a deal in a singular sense, when in fact there has always been two deals to be negotiated. The first is the WT, the orderly withdrawal. The second is the future relationship deal. Johnson has managed to separate the 2 in such a way that if passed the option of no deal on part 2 is still very much in play for him.
Initially, May’s Government tried to get it all lumped together, remember David Davies and the argument of the summer? The EU basically laid down the law that the future relationship could only be discussed once the UK had left and was a third country, but a political declaration of intent could be given by both sides. That political declaration has no legal backing and that is why many MP’s have woken up to the fact that if Johnson gets this deal through he could basically leave with no deal on part 2 next year. It’s also why the ERG Militant Tendency support it and why both they and Johnson sold the DUP down the river.
I think that Johnson would probably want his deal for three reasons. 1) It gets the UK out of the EU in an orderly fashion of sorts, 2) It gives him more breathing room to plan for what comes next, no immediate cliff edge as there is a transition, 3) it still gives him a no deal option on what is arguably the most important part, the future relationship with the EU. However, he failed to pull the wool over Parliament’s eyes given what it would really mean if implemented without scrutiny.
Johnson probably knew that Parliament would not fall for it, but he gave it a go anyway because his plan B is an election. He wants to go to the people as the man who delivered Brexit but was stopped by a Parliament that wants to defy the original referendum. It’s the same old people v Parliament line and in an election where emotions will run high it’s a powerful argument for him. Johnson is a much better campaigner than May, a con-artist and liar of the highest order. Given the state of the opposition, he’s still the one most likely to get a majority on the back of winning FPTP little England seats.
Paul
Not sure who you are addressing but you are right – there are ‘deals’ within deals so to speak but the first deal (how we leave) will affect the quality thereof of any deal we strike with the EU afterwards as well as the rest of the world. A bad end with the EU will leave us vulnerable for traditional ‘trade as warfare’.
Whichever deal however, under Johnson and the economic vandals he has appointed to his cabinet, it can only be one shitty deal after another for the ordinary people of this country.
The Law as it is written in his Bill says one thing but intends another.
That is why I can see the sense in amending the WA and shoving in a customs union, right up Boris’ annus horrblis if you pardon my turn of phrase.
One of the biggest successes of the Leave campaign is turn the concerns about the EU in the ruling elite (such as sovereignty) into concerns for the common man in the street, when really all they need to be concerned with is the cost of living and (say) security. Leaving with a customs union agreement therefore is very, very sensible. The ERG are NOT very, very sensible at all.
I think the EU should grant us a longer leave by date personally. This would I think be gesture of goodwill but also highlight that Johnson’s 31st October date is the equivalent of a kamikaze mission on which he has sent too many of the ordiary people of this country.
On a GE.
The Johnsonites made exactly the same mistake as Brown did – they didn’t call an immediate election – they have wasted their honeymoon period with the public.
If they really wanted an election they would have made ditching the ftpa their first act – and got it through in a week , but that would have required asking the EU for an extension, until the election was done and a suitable period for a new government to formulate its plans – thus missing their hard brexit 31st Oct deadline.
On Brexit.
I trust that my incessant claim that a ‘hard brexit’ was the only plan is now not sounding like a paranoid delusion (or conspiracy theory).
The EU now has an open goal – it should say that there will be NO deadline to a hard brexit (A50) from their end, they can’t keep reconvening every few weeks!
They should instead put the onus back on the British government to give the EU 6 months notice (say) if and when they decide to leave rather than keep messing around the 27 other states with the British pantomime.
———
(Deep breath – not sure if you want this next bit on your site prof so feel free to edit it out)
On the referendum.
I am still sticking to my ‘paranoid delusion’ and alleging that it was rigged and ballot boxes were stuffed. The data I want for proof is not easily available as a individual member of the public with no resource, but the circumstantial evidence for that crime is there… (I won’t post it here unless asked by the Professor)
These people don’t ‘win’ free and fair plebiscites they STEAL them.
They even get away with murder in far off places but they have had to use their devious methods at ‘home’ – shall we let them get away with it?
Agreed re: your last para.
The unquestioning acceptance of the referendumb vote when there has been so much that is bad about its conduct revealed is one of the things that marks down all sides who accepted it as far as I am concerned.
There are far too may unheard voices on this front.
2016’s referendum is still to my mind totally illegitimate.
But if we have to go, the least I would expect is a customs union. But for me staying is best.
I came across this: Perfect Brexit deal finally revealed – see https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/satire/perfect-brexit-deal-finally-revealed/17/10/?doing_wp_cron=1571858904.9671208858489990234375
I have to say I followed the link and am bemused….
PSR,
I believe that the Scotland Independence Referendum in 2014 was subject to the same methods.
Also the general elections from 2010 onwards with increasing scale. I haven’t looked at any others – the european is probably worth checking.
I posted something similar on Off-G a few days ago and had a troll hound land on me pretty sharpish. I held my ground to elicit further response, but that site seems to have gone dark for the last 24 hours.’under maintenance’. (For an alt news site there is certain hard brexity vibe there…’spiked’ maybe!)
Btw It seems that the EU are going with my suggestion Dom’s obviously going to respond with ‘see they’ll never let us go! Lets have all nighters for a week or so and show them’.
I do hope the EU makes it a 3 month notice period minimum, from whenever our parliaments actually approves something. Whether this govt or the next or a ensuing referendum.
The rotund female vocalist isn’t quite ready to take stage yet!
What amazed me more than anything is why Jeremy Corbyn believes he could possibly get a compromise Withdrawal Agreement Bill through Parliament with Boris Johnson when the latter is the gopher for the “Phoney Brexit Slave Rebellion” being promoted by the extremist right-wing tax-exiled media moguls who are fascist dog-eat-dog capitalists at heart!
Clearly Corbyn is still in the stranglehold grip of Unicorn Fantasy which is probably why he never spells out the exact nature of the deal he would strike with the EU given he’s anti-EU Freedom of Movement! I guess if he said it would have to be a version of the Canada or Japanese trade deal the EU has struck he’d be laughed out of court, especially amongst a great many Labour supporters! Phoniness is all in this Brexit farce!
And so what do you support?
Your comments here have been pretty negative so far
Most regular commentators develop themes on what they so support
What’s yours?
Remain!