[cherdano]

I think the tell was when Jacob Rees-Mogg pronounced that Johnson would not "give away too many concessions" before the final negotiations had even started - clearly much of the opposition to May's deal was opposition to May not opposition to the deal.

It also makes me think I may have been too hard on the cheesebrit - this deal seems most compatible with his "let's not care whether NI splits off from the union" position.

[cherdano]

Someone should have asked the DUP to vote in this poll.

[cherdano]

On a slightly more serious note, does anyone believe Boris Johnson changed his vote in this poll a few days ago? And that the DUP seriously hadn't thought about it until yesterday? Oh sorry, it's the DUP, maybe they really hadn't thought about it until yesterday. But still, I cannot imagine this deal passing parliament, and cannot imagine Boris Johnson Dominic Cummings thinking it will. So what's the deal? Johnson and the EU made a new deal that won't pass parliament so it's the parliament's fault that there is no deal, not Johnson's or the EU's.

[Zelandakh]

cherdano, on 2019-October-17, 07:36, said:

On a slightly more serious note, does anyone believe Boris Johnson changed his vote in this poll a few days ago? And that the DUP seriously hadn't thought about it until yesterday? Oh sorry, it's the DUP, maybe they really hadn't thought about it until yesterday. But still, I cannot imagine this deal passing parliament, and cannot imagine Boris Johnson Dominic Cummings thinking it will. So what's the deal? Johnson and the EU made a new deal that won't pass parliament so it's the parliament's fault that there is no deal, not Johnson's or the EU's.

Is this possible? The vote fails and BJ has to send the letter, which he does along with an additional letter saying that the UK Government under no circumstances wants an extension and the attachment should be disregarded as it concerns an internal UK matter. In the unlikely event that the EU were still to accept an extension, BJ sits on the response until the end of October, at which point he resigns as PM. There is now not enough time to pass a bill cancelling Brexit. BJ has thus more or less fulfilled his requirements under the law but nonetheless managed to get a (NoDeal) Brexit through. It sort of fits with the things he has said but I am not sure how viable it is given the strictures contained within the last Brexit bill.

[cherdano]

But Johnson doesn't care about Brexit - what he wants is to win reelection and as being seen as someone who has done great things.
Also, your scenario assumes the EU wants to play along and keep their reply secret. Some in the EU might favour a no deal Brexit over continuing having to deal with internal British politics contradictions, but none of them want to be at fault for it.

[Zelandakh]

cherdano, on 2019-October-17, 10:12, said:

But Johnson doesn't care about Brexit - what he wants is to win reelection

I think that BJ and other senior Conservatives are much more fearful of the conservative vote being split than the Labour party just now and see going into a General Election without Brexit as the biggest single danger to reelection. Any Brexit, whether with or without a deal, will effectively cement the Conservative right flank. So my view is that BJ cares very much about Brexit, not for ideological reasons but because he thinks getting it done is his pass card to staying in power for as long as Corbyn commands Labour.

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2019-October-17, 10:50, said:

I think that BJ and other senior Conservatives are much more fearful of the conservative vote being split than the Labour party just now and see going into a General Election without Brexit as the biggest single danger to reelection. Any Brexit, whether with or without a deal, will effectively cement the Conservative right flank. So my view is that BJ cares very much about Brexit, not for ideological reasons but because he thinks getting it done is his pass card to staying in power for as long as Corbyn commands Labour.

If Boris is still having problems, I'll give him the yellow-stained copy of "Art of the Deal" I found in a trash can in Moscow.

[fromageGB]

Zelandakh, on 2019-October-16, 07:24, said:

Could someone on the Brexit side of things perhaps explain how this (essentially creating an economic border within the UK) is in any way better than the May deal that everyone seems to agree was catastrophic?

It is better in that May's plan was to keep Britain in the EU customs zone while the Boris Bodge takes Britain out of the customs zone. Better for Britain, worse for Northern Ireland.
(Note for novices : the UK at the moment is Britain plus Northern Ireland. I say at the moment, because if Boris's agreement succeeds, Northern Ireland will secede, in my view.)
Other ways it is better include no commitment to future EU law adoption, or shadowing of EU rules. No doubt such shadowing will be later agreed, though.
Many ways it is no better. May's was an appalling plan; this is merely a terrible plan.

I will agree with commentators who suggest Boris is more about selfish power than ideology. His plan (now speaking after the plan had been non-bindingly agreed by the non-functional parliament, but they refused to enact it and we are to have a parliamentary election) was the best that was probably achievable in the ludicrous circumstances where a nominal government was forced to continue without governing because the opposition realised they could make laws themselves without being elected, while they themselves had no chance of winning an election. Why allow an election at all? Only because one part of the opposition decided they could pounce on the weakness of another part of the opposition to gain relative power. Again, selfishness wins over ideology. Nevertheless, we are now in a different ball game and the rules are different. An ideological Boris could at this point combine forces with the Brexit party to come to power with a better plan - one that Boris originally supported - but the selfish Boris refuses to "power-share".

If it continues like this my expectation will be a hung parliament with a remain majority that will formally renounce leaving the EU.

I have just returned from a holiday in the USA where I did not find myself being poisoned by chlorinated chicken, nor could I detect a difference. Nevertheless, I suspect a trade agreement with the USA - should Boris win - will not be possible because of his agreement to keep agricultural and biological alignment with the EU. We may have launched ourselves a lifeboat, but it remains tethered to the Titanic.

[fromageGB]

PS : Zel, as you know, the guardian is one of the most pro-EU-biased newspapers there is. You must expect any analysis to pick the flaws and ignore the benefits.

[Cyberyeti]

fromageGB, on 2019-November-03, 17:51, said:

PS : Zel, as you know, the guardian is one of the most pro-EU-biased newspapers there is. You must expect any analysis to pick the flaws and ignore the benefits.

The Guardian ceased to be a newspaper as we know it several years ago and became a pro-Labour pro-remain propaganda organ in the way the Sun and the Fail are for the right wing leavers.

[cherdano]

Which UK newspapers are less biased?

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on 2019-November-04, 07:25, said:

Which UK newspapers are less biased?

Not quite a newspaper and not really unbiased, but I have always felt that The Economist is quite reasonable about stuff.

(Most of the British newspapers are complete rubbish. When I first spent a summer living in the UK way too many years ago I was shocked that there didn't seem to be any equivalent to the NYT, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, or the the like)

[PeterAlan]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-November-04, 05:49, said:

The Guardian ceased to be a newspaper as we know it several years ago and became a pro-Labour pro-remain propaganda organ in the way the Sun and the Fail are for the right wing leavers.

I think you have to be reading it with very blue-lensed glasses to come to this conclusion. Yes, The Guardian's centre-left-leaning and pro-remain, but to describe it as a "propaganda organ" is a massive overbid. Propaganda is the Mail's front page banner headline labelling pictured Supreme Court judges as "Enemies Of The People": the Guardian does not resort to this sort of trash journalism. The Guardian and the Mirror provide some counterweight to the generally right-to-very-right-wing, heavily pro-leave press (Telegraph, Express, Mail, Sun), but the overall result is nevertheless far from balanced.

[Cyberyeti]

PeterAlan, on 2019-November-04, 08:30, said:

I think you have to be reading it with very blue-lensed glasses to come to this conclusion. Yes, The Guardian's centre-left-leaning and pro-remain, but to describe it as a "propaganda organ" is a massive overbid. Propaganda is the Mail's front page banner headline labelling pictured Supreme Court judges as "Enemies Of The People": the Guardian does not resort to this sort of trash journalism. The Guardian and the Mirror provide some counterweight to the generally right-to-very-right-wing, heavily pro-leave press (Telegraph, Express, Mail, Sun), but the overall result is nevertheless far from balanced.

The Guardian runs enormous numbers of stories along the lines of "Brexit COULD do this", "Tories eat babies", "an unnamed source close to ..." when they've basically just made stuff up.

[PeterAlan]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-November-04, 12:03, said:

The Guardian runs enormous numbers of stories along the lines of "Brexit COULD do this", "Tories eat babies", "an unnamed source close to ..." when they've basically just made stuff up.

Evidence, please, in particular of your "made stuff up" assertion.

[Cyberyeti]

PeterAlan, on 2019-November-04, 18:18, said:

Evidence, please, in particular of your "made stuff up" assertion.

Have you really read it much, there are loads of "a source close to the Brexit team say ...." or "a source in Tory HQ ..." which are UTTERLY implausible for them to get, as they would be VERY unlikely to have sources there, and those sources would be much more likely to go to a less left wing paper (the Times for example which has been pro remain).

Also the "There is a chance Brexit could do ..." stories where the chance is like 0.000001% but it will scare people, and they'll present it like it's a decent chance.

[fromageGB]

hrothgar, on 2019-November-04, 07:57, said:

(Most of the British newspapers are complete rubbish. When I first spent a summer living in the UK way too many years ago I was shocked that there didn't seem to be any equivalent to the NYT, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, or the the like)

I could say the same about USA television news channels. CNN is 100% Trump bashing, Fox is 100% Trump praising, or so it seemed to me EVERY TIME I flicked through channels. At least in the UK I can watch BBC if I want a Guardian equivalent, or Sky or RT for a more balanced view, or Al Jazeera or RT when I want more world-wide news.

[fromageGB]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-November-05, 05:40, said:

... Also the "There is a chance Brexit could do ..." stories where the chance is like 0.000001% but it will scare people, and they'll present it like it's a decent chance.

Or present at as a fact, or a certainty.

[Cyberyeti]

PeterAlan, on 2019-November-04, 08:30, said:

I think you have to be reading it with very blue-lensed glasses to come to this conclusion.

I'm a politically homeless centrist, my spectacles are not very blue if blue at all, I don't think you realise how far it has fallen. Years ago I used to read the Guardian whenever I was abroad because it published on the continent, the other papers didn't so it was MUCH cheaper. It was obvious then that the international edition (which I enjoyed) had a very different editorial line than the British edition and was much more centrist even then (c 1985-90 I think), but the Guardian now is pretty much worthless.

[Zelandakh]

fromageGB, on 2019-November-05, 05:51, said:

At least in the UK I can watch BBC if I want a Guardian equivalent

The BBC as "a pro-Labour pro-remain propaganda organ". Now I have heard everything.