It does look like we're getting the Boris Party, a fully fledged Machiavellian tyrant. Heading at full speed for a no idea Brexit (no deal Brexit), and a Trump deal. Fasten your seat belts.

The trouble is it is very high risk and he is a flawed character, the phrase on my lips today is,
Beware the ides of March.

Johnson plumbed a new low yesterday in Parliament, the sickest bit was when he said that the best way to honour the death of the mudered politician Joe Cox, was to leave the EU ( she was murdered by a far right extremist during the referendum campaign).

If you're not in the UK you can hear it by downloading the podcast on LBC radio, it was about 6pm last night.

Nooooooooooo! That's evil! :scream:

They're literally shaking in their boots, lol.

Boris's strategy - and Cummings' is simple. To be the man who despite all the remoaners and cowards achieved Brexit.

Yes the two aims are intertwined. I have long been of the opinion that he would prefer to go for a softer Brexit deal if his party was happy and the Brexit party wouldn't punish them at the ballot box. Firstly because he wasn't a brexiter until the referendum campaign and so is not himself a rabid leaver. Secondly he's intelligent enough to realise that a no deal Brexit will be hugely damaging, or at least a great risk and that he as prime minister would be in the firing line and fire fighting in crisis mode for months or years.

Also if you look back to Theresa May's term in office, she was visibly scared of the wrath of the ERG. This is why she felt unable to reach across the house and build a deal around a cross party consensus. Why she had to lay down her red lines and why they brought down her deal repeatedly, because they have always intended to ram through a no deal.

To me Johnson is like a cornered animal, not just cornered by parliament, but within his own party. With the spectre of Farage looking over his shoulder.

I don't think he's much interested in the Tory party as a historical institution, but only as a party in his own image - just like Trump and the Republicans. All the older generation who care about the party's past have gone from the Cabinet, replaced by young hard-liners who will follow his will. Populism is about individual demagogues. The disillisioned Brexit voters trust leaders, not parties..

I don't want to underplay the size of his ego/egomania. But party really does matter, because the support for the Conservatives is being squeezed in a few ways. To be in government requires a large number of MPs behind you and in our electoral system for those MPs to become elected comes down to votes on the ground, which are not easy to secure. And don't underestimate the fear amongst the party of a Corbyn government.

I don't know what his long time aims are, or his party, as he is surrounded by chaos and it is accepted that the strategy is in the hands of a shady unelected advisor Dominic Cummings. Who is a clever strategist who is well aware of how populism works at this time.

In my opinion, Johnson's long term strategy is to achieve the survival of the Conservative party, principally by winning back his support which has drained away to the Brexit party. This split has been going on for a couple of decades and will destroy the party if leaving the EU is not achieved. If he manages to secure a no deal Brexit he is the hero who fought off the Brexit party and restored the supremacy of the Conservative party. If he fails the party will sink into electoral oblivion and his supporters will be under attack from the socialist policies of a Corbyn government( they will have to pay fair taxes).

One might consider that the Conservative party is not in such peril considering their performance over recent times. But they are heading towards a demographic time bomb. They have virtually no support amongst the younger generation, which is swinging to the left. While their core support is steadily dying of old age.

So to answer you question he is not aiming to create an insensly partisan base, or something like that. But rather to restore the party and then everything can get back to normal and restore the good old days, which is, of course, a pipe dream.

Yes, Lord Sumption (former Supreme Court judge), on radio 4 this morning said that it was important that the court spoke with one voice because of the possibility that judges could be singled out for criticism of their judgement in the light of their views on the issue of Brexit. Thus compromising the independence of the judiciary. I'm sure that brexiters will be trying to do this and also worse, Johnson and his advisers are going to try to pit the people against the establishment remoaners, with Johnson as the champion of the people and their democratic decision. That the establishment is ignoring them and thinks that their decision was wrong and must be corrected.

Unfortunately for him, this course results in him undermining the constitution, parliament and the Crown, which will reflect very badly on him and his government. Also it will strengthen the opposition in Parliament.

Yes, the purpose of the Judgement was to maintain the integrity of the constitution, it had nothing to do with politics and certainly didn't stray into political affairs. It was necessary because if the judiciary hadn't acted in this way, it would have given carte blanche to Johnson to run rough shod over ( act as a dictator with) our political system at a critical juncture in our constitutional history. There was no choice, or alternative.

I doubt Trump is coming to the rescue, he's still being chased round the room by Greta.

This is what I expected, and is the crux of the attack on the constitution by those who are trying to ram through a no deal Brexit. The guarantee, which once I realised this is gave me confidence, was the realisation that once the request was made by Jacob Rees Mogg to the Queen to prorogue, the government had put the Queen and therefore the Crown in a compromised position, for political expediency. The courts would never allow this to happen. Which is why the judgement was kept as far away from the Queen as possible.

The Thick of it and In the Loop. Love 'em.

I like Dead Ringers too. The highlight at the moment is Alexie Sayle's imaginary sandwich bar.

True, but I hope it gets cancelled. I'd rather watch someone less interesting.

You could try political satire, it can be just as interesting, but less worrying, and It can be funny too.

Prepare for the second great sulk.

Yes, I had faith in Dominic Grieve, but Gina picked up the baton first.

All thanks to Gina Miller.

Sorry, you're right, I don't think I need to say any more though.

Then why did he turn up? He looked like petulant bully in a school playground, surrounded by his goons, who felt he needed to show his face because there was some other gig more important than his own going on.

Trump was upstaged by a sixteen year old girl today. I bet he didn't even recognise who she was when he breezed through the climate summit and breezed out again.

The Labour Party finds itself between a rock and a hard place on the Brexit issue. It will be decided in the next couple of days, as the party is deeply democratic and policy is made through a democratic process at the party conference. The split is over whether the policy is to campaign in favour of remain during a confirmatory referendum, or to campaign for the deal which the party will offer in the referendum on the assumption they win an election. I am personally conflicted over the issue, as which ever way it goes it could have either a good, or a bad outcome. It could help to win the election, or loose it and we know what might happen if they loose it.

It's difficult to say I think whether the lack of confidence in Corbyn is critical, as the media faces criticism of anti Corbyn rhetoric, also many people who don't like him might prefer him to the alternative. It has just been announced that the Supreme Court decision will be published Tuesday morning.

That should only be brought in if it wins in a referendum. We don't need another referendum on it, I'd say. The results would probably be more or less the same as last time. I would vote against it if given the option

l mentioned Pr because we are in a position of constitutional crisis and weaknesses in the system have become apparent. I realise that constitutional reform is a challenge, and that it should not be done now, but looked at when the dust settles.

I think our politics is very different to how it was in 2011. We have the two main parties moving further apart, to the right and the left before our eyes, unable to do anything about it, other than to swing one way or the other with them. The centrist ( Lib dems) party is not able to fill the gap electorally due to the way the constituency system is set up. We have the Greens growing in popularity, with an increased growth expected due to the climate change crisis developing at the moment.

I have been voting since the early 80's and my vote has never counted, as I have always lived in seats where there was a comfortable majority for either Conservative, or on one occasion Labour. There are many people in the same boat, their voices are ignored by the system as it is. The two main parties can become complacent, this has certainly happened with the Conservatives, I welcome Labour's return to socialism, but there may have been a complacency in their safe seats in the north(I'm no expert).

Take for example a talented person interested in politics who is thinking of a career in politics. If they are not a dyed in the wool Conservative, or Labour person, what choice do they have? If their politics is different to this choice they will have to spend years volunteering for the party they join, virtually no chance of becoming an MP and no chance of their party getting into the position to put their policies into action. There may be an issue with a brain drain in our jaded political system.

Dr Strangelove

The in-out question was too simple, as has become all too obvious in the 3 years since

Yes, there should have been more detail, or follow up on what kind of Brexit the people want and I think a super majority of 60%. As soon as one looks into this, the means of using a referendum to decide these things rapidly becomes problematic, or divisive. Which leads into my other point "the view of the people". I agree that the way I put it "the view of the people is not of importance in democracy" might give the impression to the populous that it sounds as though the democracy doesn't serve the people. But the way in which I use it is as part of a philosophical discussion amongst people who have a more intellectual grasp of the issues we are discussing.

What is the view of the people? Well it may be very difficult to find out, and when you find out, it might not actually be their view, but rather them saying something else with the limited options you gave them when you asked. Or it might be an amplified view of a small focussed group of people, while the silent majority didn't bother speaking for some reason. Half the people asked might not understand the question, or might for some reason mis construe it. An example I heard from a political analyst while discussing this recently, I don't remember who, was "you might ask the population whether they want an apple, or an orange, and the answer is I want a ham sandwich. Then what do you do". This kind of situation might have come about because in the run up to the referendum, a prominent person in the public sphere might have done something with a ham sandwich.

I suggest that all of the above did to some degree happen in this referendum and that the actual view of the people may have been more nuanced or conciliatory on the issue. They might vote "out" so as to have curved cucumbers, rather than straight, but "remain" to maintain the integrity of NATO in the current global political turmoil.

Many people in the UK have an idealised view of democracy, that it must be upheld to the ends of the earth, or something like that. But that is a naive view, along with the thought that a one off referendum is democratic and must be respected even after much time has passed, or circumstances have changed. I think that this is due to the perception that Great Britain is where democracy was born and that it is in some way sacred. That democracy is more important than anything else. They don't realise that a perfect democracy is an impossibility and that our democracy only expresses a very remote and handfisted view of what the people think.

Such, views are flawed and vulnerable to exploitation by forms of nationalism and populism. In reality democracy works in two ways, firstly that some vestige of a democratic process is maintained, even if the people are not actually expressing their view on issues. Secondly the government can be changed at short notice and regularly through a process of a public vote. Hence we have the sovereignty upheld by a representative parliamentary democracy. At no point is any specific issue democratically decided by the people, it is only the parliamentarians who are chosen by the people and they then appoint a government to carry out their wishes. The important democratic principle in this system is that they can be thrown out, if they go wrong, as is the case at the moment. We have adopted this system to prevent rule by despots and people who don't have a democratic mandate, or who can hold on to power beyond the point when they fall out of favour. These things are what are important in democracy, not what the people think about something at some point.

A referendum does not follow any rules like these and the view of the people is inevitably going to change over time, but the result of the referendum is set in stone. so it is a mistake to think that the result of the referendum must be upheld and that another referendum cannot be held at a future point, to test the view of the people. People who support leave keep stating that the referendum must be honoured, or democracy is broken, but this is a flawed argument, as the democracy we have is in the form of a parliamentary democracy as I pointed out above and the referendum was simply an advisory snapshot of the people's view about something at some point. Actually the view of the people is not of importance in democracy, their view can be expressed, although in a remote and broad brush way through a general election.

Yes, the constitution will have to be reformed now and perhaps proportional representation brought in.

As I see it the UK population has become polarised following the credit crunch, austerity has angered a lot of less well off people, often who already had quite nationalistic tendencies, or quite crude/naive political understanding. This was a fertile breeding ground for the nationalist movement.

Alongside this there is a large group of middle to upper middle class mainly older conservative supporters who live in a relatively affluent bubble. They often have quite outdated Thatcherite views.

I am generalising for brevity, these two groups have been exploited by hardline Conservatives who are rabid anti EU and the right wing press, especially The Telegraph and The Daily Mail. In this new climate of 24hr news and social media, mainly Facebook. News and political ideology has become sloganised and the angry populous has lappped it up.

I will reiterate that this whole Brexit mess was conceived developed and delivered to us on a plate by the internal machinations of the Conservative party.

Here is Sir John Major's intervention in the appeal at the Supreme Court. Pretty damming stuff.
It looks to me that the court will find against the government, but may take a less controversial route, that of it was unlawful to Proroge due to the loss of bills in process and the inability for parliament to legislate and hold the executive to account for more time than necessary during a time critical political crisis. Rather than that Johnson mislead the Queen.


https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/written-case-for-sir-john-major.pdf

The hearing is fascinating, I can now point out what I think it will hinge on. It is quite a Gordian knot for the judges to undo.

The appeal is contending that the Prime minister, acted improperly in prorouging, because his motive was to prevent (stymie) Parliament so as to avoid the risk that parliament could interfere, or stop his free reign to enact his policies.

The argument for the defence is essentially that the prime minister has free reign to proroge for whatever purpose, for as long as he likes, and whenever he wants. And that the courts can't stray into his powers to do it, because it is a political act and would breach the separation of powers.

There are serious flaws in the argument for the defence in my opinion,
Firstly, it is well established in law that no one is above the law, so if the Prime minister acts unlawfully, he can be sanctioned by the court.
Secondly, it is established that the executive(government), is accountable to parliament, as sovereignty rests in parliament and not the executive. So if the exectitive silences parliament to continue on a course for which it does not have parliamentary consent, this relationship becomes reversed. The tail is wagging the dog, rendering the constitution broken. So the Supreme Court must sanction the Prime minister so as to maintain, or protect the constitution.
Third, if they rule in favour of the defence, the government, then the prime minister will have free reign to proroge again on the 14th of October ( when parliament is due to return) until after the 31st of October, enabling the Prime minister to take the UK out of The EU with no deal, simply by inaction and parliament and the Queen would be powerless to stop him. Well I think the Queen could refuse him, but it would compromise her impartiality. So the Supreme Court must sanction the Prime minister so as to protect the Queen and therefore the Crown.
Fourth, I think it can be argued that sanctioning the Prime minister for certain conduct is not actually becoming embroiled in politics, but rather protecting the systems and working of parliament, so as to maintain parliamentary sovereignty. And the proper working of the constitution.

So I can't see how the Supreme Court could do anything other than to find the Prime minister to have acted unlawfully and sanction his powers.

Im looking forward to the intervention of John Major tomorrow.

It is being live streamed on Sky news and BBC news.

Just watching the opening statements in the Supreme Court hearing. Looks like a slam dunk for Gina Miller.

↪Punshhh While I agree there are consequences to how the EU operates resulting from the way it is constituted I would resist the notion that flexibility is a goal in and of itself. I'm not a proponent of an EU à-la-carte, which would be optimal flexibility. In fact, I think it would be disastrous. That Cameron didn't get what he wanted was necessary to ensure no precedent was created.

Then the inevitable leaving of the UK was a fait accompli from a much earlier point in the development of the EU. Not only in regards to free movement, but in regards of other unifications on the cards.

I suspect in this case then that the inviolable nature of the four freedoms, is in a collision course with the realities of this expansion and that welcoming the UK in the the 1970's was one instance where this collision of opposing forces was going to end in the circumstances we find ourselves in. Perhaps this is the beginning of a trend.

The hulk has morphed into the invisible man, it'll be the incredible shrinking man next.

I'm not arguing, I making the point that the way the EU is set up is flawed and it's inflexibility and lack of reform is one of the reasons why the UK may leave. A analogous situation is developing in Italy with the number of migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea. Fortunately an agreement has been made for other member states to take some of the migrants. But if this had not been agreed and Italy was given no choice but to accept all the migrants, a similar situation might have developed there. The point is that the EU appears blind to the demographic consequences of its expansion.

Yes I'm aware of the status of Turkey and that it is unlikely to join now. I used it as an example as it was exploited in the leave campaign.

Could you explain why that's problematic? Is it a problem with resources to accommodate the immigrants

Its problematic because, certainly in my area, a lot of people think the amount of incomers has reached saturation point.* There is some impact of resources, but this is not the main beef. In other areas such as the north of England and the south west, where lots of people have become right wing populists fuelled by the notion of foriegners coming in, even though there are none in their area, or ghettoisation and division of immigrant populations that arrived a generation ago.

* by saturation point, I mean the numbers are causing the towns, shops, businesses to change and become like the towns in the country they came from.

Agreed.

My point stands, free movement is ok in principle, but when you then invite large populations into the club without examining and mitigating the demographic consequences, you are exposed to unforeseen consequences. For example Turkey was being considered as one of the next countries to join. Indeed Michael Gove used the fear of this in the leave campaign during the referendum. The UK could quite possibly have had a million or two Turkish people coming in, with no way of controlling it.

On the freedom of movement issue, I agree, it is a good thing. There is an issue with numbers of Polish people moving into East Anglia and Lincolnshire. This is not exclusively due to their taking jobs and scrounging. It is more to do with the changing of identity of small and medium sized towns in these areas. Many of which feel more like Polish towns than English towns( ref my post a few pages back).
Also perhaps the EU should have considered such consequences when forming the union better than they did, or revised policy when enlarging the EU. I see no sign of any flexibility here.
I agree there is, or so I've heard, more the UK could have done, but didn't. But the perception was that there wasn't.

In Europe the main problem is that there hasn't been a proper way or entity to critique the flaws or the shortcomings of the EU integration

This is my perception, it appears rigid and inflexible. In a world which is changing in ways which were not foreseen when the project was conceived the EU appears to be caught in the headlights and unable to act. I am no expert on the EU, as it is perceived as a distant entity from inside the UK, indeed until the referendum was announced, it was very low on the agenda for the majority of the population. It was issues brought about by free movement of people which was causing anti EU sentiment in places like East Anglia where I live and the right wing populist movement in the north of the country.

David Cameron travelled to Europe in 2015 to explain to the leaders of the EU 27 and the commissioners that this was a serious and growing issue and that he was seeking some kind of remedy, otherwise it could result in a referendum to leave. He pressed his case hard but the EU was unable to provide sufficient flexibility. I can't see how they could have prevented this crisis by showing sufficient flexibility, as they are to rigid. So this outcome was inevitable and yet the EU appeared helpless to adapt to a changing world, or to have sufficient foresight when they welcomed in the Eastern European countries, to put in place rules which would enable members to mitigate issues brought about by such expansion.

It seems now, following the publication of David Cameron's memoirs, that many people did not realise the strength of the hard right within the Conservative party. Or how much leverage they would find once the referendum was announced. He was surprised how ugly the campaign became and depressed watching the groundswell of anti EU sentiment which developed. In the three areas of, right wing anti EU Conservatives, the population in East Anglia and Lincolnshire who experienced the influx of EU workers and the right wing populist movement in the north of England and the West Country.

I've seen it first hand. Older upper middle class Conservatives, became spooked by the Germans in the 70's and 80's. I don't think it was justified, I think it was an outdated wartime mind set which was becoming paranoid. It happened to my parents, who were Conservative councillors, who were involved in the twinning movement and went on many local government exchanges to German cities, and French ones too. But at some point, they became infected with this suspicion and once it had started, it became set in. This incubated under the surface for many years until the development of UKIP, which only deepened the mistrust and widened splits of opinion within the Conservative party. The rest is history.

A bumbling dictatorship.

Quite, when I think about the philosophy of this, I see populists muddying the waters and rubbishing any chance of the public considering the choices involved, or any means of determining the will of the people. All I can say is that the British parliament needs reforming now.

Breaking news, Johnson is going to re-name Great Britain the Titanic.

Yesterday he announced the commissioning of two new warships, which will be built in Belfast. More bribes to the DUP to get them onside. It's not going to work though, as it's their nature to never agree to anything.

I was watching him on the TV lastnight playing with some kids with a model container ship, he was just like a two year old toddler playing with toys.

I like the wood used to make the fire, as the Palace of Westminster is undergoing major refurbishment, it is constructed from timber taken from the Houses of Parliament.