Isn't the City of London basically a city-state inside Greater London already?

You know, the City of London Corporation headed by the Lord Mayor of London, and all the money protected by the arrangement.



They'll surely survive.

I meant in the poltical sense. I don't think it helps the debate, the discussion of political outcomes, the weighing of options, the understanding the situation when either say predicts the end of the UK if they do or don't Brexit. — Coben

There's no denying that Brexit would damage the union. Scotland was clearly against Brexit. And the SNP - the party for an independent Scotland - have maintained control over most of Scotland for a number of years now. You don't know how future events will unfold, or to what extent they could effect the union. Dismissing the possibility of a breakup of the United Kingdom, as we know it, would be just as bad as rashly predicting it.

And there's nothing more annoying then someone who comments that we'll survive either way. Survival? Jeez, you're setting the bar real high. We'll be economically worse off in a Brexit scenario, and especially a No-Deal Brexit scenario, but hey, at least we'll still be alive!

And there's nothing more annoying then someone who comments that we'll survive either way. Survival? — S

I wasn't setting the bar. I was saying what I said, which was that the continued catastrophic predictions from both sides about something so incredibly complicated, especially in the long run, is not helping. I don't think people know as much as they claim about the consequences, yet there are so many experts, speaking with great certainty about a really quite unique situation. And there seems to be no difference between long and short term predictions and neither side will admit any possible differences or that there may be positive points on the other side. I see this pattern, as a Yank, in a wide range of issues over here also. No one can admit any point for the other team's position or even that there might be something positive there. Everything is clear and no one on 'my team' has motives other than the stated ones. No concerns on the other side are valid because the other team is, say, globalaists or racists. Or that any position they have might not be so cut and dry. And this affects how the other side is viewed: as stupid, evil and/or crazy. It's actually pretty common on the internet in philosophy forums for that matter - though this one is a bit better - where concessions around even small points are avoided at all costs. It seems to be the Zeitgeist. To think in binary terms and to demonize. To me that ain't working so well. I'd like to set that bar higher. And oddly that brings out sarcasm in others.

Would the Brits finally exit? I want to see what happens. I'm really starting to get bored with this. Let the train crash already.

The ones scaremongering tend to be those with a thinly veiled political agenda, such as the Lib Dems, the SNP, and the Brexit Party. That's to be expected. But it seems rather wasted to expend energy criticising these extreme positions when there are more credible arguments for or against to be addressed. Sure, as with the referendum campaigns, there are going to be incredible claims, like the notorious £350m claim and the World War 3 claim. These can simply be dismissed as not worthy of serious debate. But regarding predictions, one thing's for sure: there's a consensus among experts that Brexit will be economically disadvantageous.

Boris's Boy Sajid Javid bears a remarkable resemblance to Fester, one of the ghastly Addams Family.

But regarding predictions, one thing's for sure: there's a consensus among experts that Brexit will be economically disadvantageous. — S

Well, an economic downturn can happen in the fall too.

In the end, it's not a big hassle that you need a visa for a longer stay in the UK or when the queue line is different in the airport. Or books you buy online from a British bookstore etc. will be more expensive as the customs duties get added. Going to the UK will be like going to the US (and vice versa), which isn't such a huge deal in the end.

So what is the likelihood that a hard 'no-deal' Brexit will simply be a nonevent when it happens? Rather likely I'll say. The media still will milk the issue dry.

How the UK economy develops is more dependent on how the Global economy goes, but likely there will be an urge to blame / praise Brexit depending on the political stance of the commentator. So if the economy doesn't collapse, Boris will praise the decision and so on. Hardly anyone will admit the obvious that Brexit IS NOT the most important thing that decides if the UK will be in a recession or not. Nope, with or without Brexit, it's a globalized World.

I meant in the poltical sense. I don't think it helps the debate, the discussion of political outcomes, the weighing of options, the understanding the situation when either say predicts the end of the UK if they do or don't Brexit.

I don't really understand what you're saying. The Hard Brexiters (our government), say that we have a great future, one in which we are set free of the shackles of over regulation and protectionism. They point out that we will be free to make our own trade deals ( ye haa! )

I don't really understand what you're saying. The Hard Brexiters (our government), say that we have a great future, one in which we are set free of the shackles of over regulation and protectionism. They point out that we will be free to make our own trade deals ( ye haa! ) — Punshhh

I was saying that those on either side who argue that it is the end of things if what they want does not happen are not helping the debate or the discussions. I think they don't know this will be the case, in either the short or the long term. They are speculating,and wildly, but presenting it is as if it is a clear and obvious rational conclusion.

How the UK economy develops is more dependent on how the Global economy goes, but likely there will be an urge to blame / praise Brexit depending on the political stance of the commentator. So if the economy doesn't collapse, Boris will praise the decision and so on. Hardly anyone will admit the obvious that Brexit IS NOT the most important thing that decides if the UK will be in a recession or not. Nope, with or without Brexit, it's a globalized World.

This was my opinion shortly after the referendum result ( although the leave narrative at that time was one in which we would have the "exact same benefits" etc). However as time has gone by the magnitude of what it means to leave the EU has started to become evident.

This morning Johnson has been saying that there will be lots of support for all the farmers, small and medium sized businesses, drug supplies, even heavy industry, I expect the next thing he's going to say is that he will prop up/ bribe the car plants, who are all saying they will move to Southern Europe(where there is a large desperate workforce, just waiting to pick up the pieces) following a no deal Brexit. All this while spending all the money that has been planned for to be borrowed( this morning stated at £2.1 billion) to mitigate the chaos, at the ports and for customs.

So he will have to borrow an unknown amount to do this while the £ is plummeting, our credit rating is down graded, our international reputation is trashed, no one who we are expecting to agree trade deals with will trust a word we say, especially with our current administration, which, if you listen to the media has lost touch with reality. Just listen to the words coming out of Johnson's mouth.

[qoute]
I was saying that those on either side who argue that it is the end of things if what they want does not happen are not helping the debate or the discussions. I think they don't know this will be the case, in either the short or the long term. They are speculating,and wildly, but presenting it is as if it is a clear and obvious rational conclusion. [/quote]
Oh, I see, thanks for clarifying. Yes, I agree. The problem from where I'm standing is that the majority of the electorate who voted and will vote if there is another referendum don't ever find out what the real issues are, what reality will be like. All they hear is the popularised slogans on each side.

I follow the media quite closely and I'm struggling to get down to the facts and realities. A case in point is the BBC, the one news organisation one can rely on. Or so I thought, but they rarely point out the implications of the events they report on, they just give a simplified gloss of the events of the day. They do have some more indeapth analysis, but you have to watch news night, or politics live to get it, which the majority of the population don't do.

I am beginning to have doubts about their impartiality, or at least their editorial decisions. They appear to be falling for the anti Corbyn, anti labour rhetoric and giving to much credence to the hard right dogma. While relentlessly attempting to analyse the minutiae of the internal politics of the Labour Party and continuously failing to call out the Tory bluster about the political psycho drama and undemocratic power struggles within the Tory party and with their corporate supporters.

Oh, I see, thanks for clarifying. Yes, I agree. The problem from where I'm standing is that the majority of the electorate who voted and will vote if there is another referendum don't ever find out what the real issues are, what reality will be like. All they hear is the popularised slogans on each side. — Punshhh

I'm primarily a Yank (though also a Brit) so the above sounds to me like, well, politics. I mean, when is it not so. The difference is a huge decision made via direct democracy rather then representational. I can think of other decisions made via representational democracy, in Britain and the US, where similar descriptions fit. In fact it is the norm. Which is not to say one should not complain about it, but to my eyes and ears it is the rule and not a recent phenomenon.

I am beginning to have doubts about their impartiality, or at least their editorial decisions. They appear to be falling for the anti Corbyn, anti labour rhetoric and giving to much credence to the hard right dogma. While relentlessly attempting to analyse the minutiae of the internal politics of the Labour Party and continuously failing to call out the Tory bluster about the political psycho drama and undemocratic power struggles within the Tory party and with their corporate supporters. — Punshhh

My guess is if there was a hard right candidate, they would be biased against him. I think there is a kind of radical center and anything that does not follow that line has any potential fault highlighted and often things that even that radical center would agree with glossed over, put in the footnotes so to speak. I could see this with Trump - who I do not like, just so that's clear, but who did actually have some good ideas, but these were treated as insanity or absolutely ignored, because he was not to be President. And whatever sympathy I might have with that particular goal, that ain't journalism. And that pattern takes place when you are dealing with much more interesting individuals and groups. They also get marginalized and mistreated by much of the media.

In fact this pattern, a kind of radically rejecting things not well understood, or that seem threatening, or might give someone or something a positive light and they 'should' not have it, the my paradigm is right and anything not fitting that paradigm must be treated like the immune system treats any intruder I find endemic and pernicious. My frustration with it online is ready to undermine all participation.

People just won't play fair when it comes to anything they have ego/paradigmatic stake in, which now seems to be everything. Politics, ontology, interpersonal relations, psychology. I find few people willing to concede anything, willing to say things like 'nice point, I still disagree, but I need to come back when I am sure why I disagree' or even willing to actually respond to specific points. There are jihads in the strangest places, including people advocating science.

I am surprised I am still surprised by this, given how this has frustrated me and no doubt many others, including many of those who I think do this, but, well, there are always parts of oneself that are slow to learn.

(and I am sure I have engaged in this type of thing myself.)

And you needn't respond to (or even read, too late) my rant. It's off topic. It just occurred to me and I found a way to articulate it which was, heh, beneficial to me.

Well said. I have been surprised for years now how polarised the US electorate is. While I thought politics was more fluid in the UK. Now we are equally, if not more so, polarised and it is quite a surprise. I realise that the split had been developing beneath the surface for years, but I thought the EU scepticism was in a minority amongst the hard right and a little amongst the hard left. What surprised many was a large group of traditionally working class labour voters in the north who voted leave and a strong leave vote in agricultural areas ( who will suffer most from leaving).

Unfortunately this has resulted in the hard right seizing power, so we're in for a rollercoaster ride now.

But then the nearby hinterlands could be converted to banana plantations to take advantage of the change in the climate.

A banana republic, lol

Plenty of workers available, I dare say :grin:

Well said, I have been surprised for years now how polarised the US electorate is. While I thought politics was more fluid in the UK. Now we are equally, if not more so, polarised and it is quite a surprise. I realise that the split had been developing beneath the surface for years, but I thought the EU scepticism was in a minority amongst the hard right and a little amongst the hard left. What surprised many was a large group of traditionally working class labour voters in the north who voted leave and a strong leave vote in agricultural areas ( who will suffer most from leaving).

Unfortunately this has resulted in the hard right seizing power, so we're in for a rollercoaster ride now. — Punshhh

I'm a benficiary of the EU, in that it let me move fast to a third country from the US. I have to say I have long term concerns about it. I don't feel well read enough to demonstrate the validity of my fears. But I do think that larger entities, in the long run, are more subject to control by the private sector. And the governments are less connected to the people on the street. I feel this is the case with the USA, which can be seen as having similarities to the EU in that there is semi-independent smaller parts with their own laws,then there are federal laws that overlap, supercede or cover other areas.

I think the issue often gets couched as nationalistic or not. But in practical terms we are dealing with a small nation or a batch of small nations and the formation of a large nation. The latter nation will have specific values and goals. So, it is not as if wanting the EU is simply wanting a neutral non-nation thing.

I do get the ideas here. The huge wars. The increasing the economic power of members through group negotiation and more. I do get the idea of being a more unified center for certain values and something to offset the massive power and influence of the US and potentially a USSR again and China.

I just have a feeling that the EU will end up being a corporate entity. This doesn't mean smaller nations are immune to this. Nor do I think the current powers and policies of the EU make this easy for the corporations to manage, yet. But I think that is why they - the corpoations in general - are so, so pro EU. Any centralization of power, allows centralization of influence and control. And degrees of separation between representatives and the represented allow more sweeping disconnected changes.

None of my concerns are easy to demosntrate in terms of probability. I just note that they are not even considered. I remember when the State I lived in began to make noises about seceding - and not for racist or other reasons. Jus the sense, held by some, that it could represent the people's own needs better. This was treated as a kind of sin/sign of retardation. It would necessarily economically collapse. I doubt it. I think people in Canada and other parts of the US would find it fascinating there was a little nation there, an ally of course, and Tourism would have increased radically. Not that I could prove this, but i was skeptical about all the doomsayers - this would not have been the same as Brexit, I do not conflate the two. I think smaller governments can be more fair since they are known to their neighbors. More interconnected. It was also treated as not sharing values such as democracy. IOW the idea fell under so many guns that were extremely certain. Me, I think in the long run it would be better to evolve into smaller countries. I don't think we can think at the levels of megacountries.

Is now the right time? I don't know.

Were the motives of the Brexiters like mine? Not on the surface.

But remember people often justify their beliefs and reaction and emotions after the fact.

I don't think the working class is wrong that the elites don't really give a shit about them. That there is something off going on at a systematic level and that the EU in the long run likely will not have their interests at heart and will be, perhaps, even harder to influence.

Now my reactions are coming in part from the fact that the media where I am paints anyone wanting Brexit as per se stupid and evil. That message gets put through over and over. Nothing grey in it. No possible points of concern about the EU. Nothing. It is black and white, good versus evil, intelligence versus the fucking stupid manipulated proletariat.

That does not play well with me.

I remember when the country I now live in was going to swithc to the EURO. The government lost the referendum and immediately started to try to set up another one, democracy be damned. It was a drop in the bucket of controversy compared to Brexit, but the same patterns. TElling people they were stupidd and stuck in the past. Dire warnings about catastrophy predictions - in fact, it protected the country several times not having the Euro.

I distrust the powers that be have the same ideals as the people who voted against Brexit. IOW I am not sure that the very good values that most pro-EU brits have are actually what the goals of the designers and players involved in the EU have. I can't demonstrate this. I am not sure where the EU will go. But finding myself bombarded with the pro EU in all media with not the slightest possible future problem or disadvantage or concern, I find myself saying things like I did above.

And heck, I don't think demonizing the opposition is helping at all as a strategy. People just dig in their heels more. Adn you get the populist political groups gaining ground.

So project fear was in fact reality?': readers on no-deal Brexit funding
Readers have been reacting to the government’s £2.1bn funding boost for no-deal Brexit preparations

Funny how the old magic money tree * can cough up some dosh if required. But of course there is no chance of money for social provision. Instead we can be proud that we are a society with food banks where Tory MPs can take selfies.

In the distant pre-unicorn days I remember when George Osborne talked about an emergency budget necessitated by Brexit it was lambasted as project fear. But now it’s “planning”. pipini

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/01/so-project-fear-was-in-fact-reality-readers-on-no-deal-brexit-funding


* The magic money tree

"Theresa May has come under fire for telling nurses “there is no magic money tree” to increase their pay as living costs continue to rise.

The Prime Minister was responding to a member of the audience at an election special of BBC Question Time, who asked: “My wage slips from 2009 reflect exactly what I'm earning today. How can that be fair, in the light of the job that we do?“

The moderator, David Dimbleby, asked whether the Prime Minister could “sleep happily”, adding: ”Do you think it is fair that the nurses get just a 1% increase year in, year out, regardless of inflation, so they get poorer, so some of them we're told go to food banks?”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-nurse-magic-money-tree-bbcqt-question-time-pay-rise-eight-years-election-latest-a7770576.html

Thanks for your thoughts, its interesting to hear insight from someone outside the UK. I sympathise with your concerns. Where I differ in my analysis is that I don't see the EU becoming a corporate entity, in the short term at least. I see how this is an issue in the US and I can see how corporate interests would move in on the touted trade deal with the US. Also I realised that the Ttip negotiations hinged around corporate access into the EU from the US. In my view the EU has quite good social democrat values and processes and it cannot be overstated that the Union was an important remedy to thousands of years of conflict between different regions within Europe.

The issue of "ever closer union" is a different matter and is at the heart of the crisis in the UK. I should stress that I see a deep existential crisis within the UK. This was a surprise to the EU and has been realised and spoken about by Michel Barnier, the EU chief negotiator. Leading to them bending over backwards to accommodate the UK and their flexibility in granting extensions, while the Conservatives fight amongst themselves.

As I see it the issue in this crisis is the love hate relationship between the UK and other parts of Europe which has been ongoing for thousands of years. The dichotomy between the concept of us being in Europe, or out of Europe is a conundrum occupying the thoughts of British people repeatedly over this period, without a resolution. So periodically we are revisited with crises hinging on this point.

On this ocassion it appears to have manifested inside the Conservative party, which is tearing itself apart and may soon implode, while visiting considerable flack on the population at large.

Doesn’t it at all concern you that Brexit is what Putin wants? Hmm. I suppose Putin and the common people of the UK could have interests in common by accident and for different reasons... Never thought of it that way actually. You say the EU would be another step removed from the people they are supposed to represent, so that would be bad for the common folk. Putin doesn’t want a strong and united Europe for a couple of reasons, probably because they are his historical enemies, but also maybe because they won’t then need Russia for trade as much? I don’t know. That would be a common goal by coincidence, the common people of the UK and Putin. I don’t know. That sounds like a bit of a stretch to me that the corporate media is solely trying to line its pockets by hoodwinking the commoners who have a common goal as Putin?? Hmm. Maybe? Perhaps the corporate media isn’t all evil? In the US, there is MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News. Fox News is the corporate media and so is MSNBC, but they don’t see the world from the same lens. Fox News is pro-Trump while MSNBC is anti-Trump. Where is the conspiracy there? Both are corporate enterprises, so where is the conspiracy? Does the UK have a pro-Brexit network and an anti-Brexit network, too? I’d be interested to know.

Doesn’t it at all concern you that Brexit is what Putin wants? — Noah Te Stroete

It is something to notice, sure.

I suppose Putin and the common people of the UK could have interests in common by accident and for different reasons — Noah Te Stroete

Absolutely.

You say the EU would be another step removed from the people they are supposed to represent, so that would be bad for the common folk. — Noah Te Stroete

Yes, if that was the only factor, it would be a bad move to stay in the EU. It is however a complicated situation, extremely. I do think that the closer the electorate is to the representatives, the better the chances they will actually be represented, other factors being equal. I also think that centralized distant governments are more easily control by industry and potentially also military/intelligence players.

Putin doesn’t want a strong and united Europe for a couple of reasons, probably because they are his historical enemies, but also maybe because they won’t then need Russia for trade as much? — Noah Te Stroete

There's Nato and there's the EU, both forms of European unification, the former tying it in with the US. I am sure Putin for purely practical reasons - perhaps some negative, some neutral, some simply taking care of his country's and his own interest - would see benefits in being able to negotiate with, engage in dimplomacy with and barter with a diverse group instead of a block. I would guess he is also concerned about US hawks and how they want to use Europe.

That sounds like a bit of a stretch to me that the corporate media is solely trying to line its pockets by hoodwinking the commoners who have a common goal as Putin?? — Noah Te Stroete

I haven't asserted that, nor do I think it. That's another extremely complicated set of causes and motives. I don't however think that most of the conservative and many of the labor players want EU because of farmers and working class people. They have steadily increased the gap between the rich and the poor through their polices going back to Thatcher. IOW all their talk about caring about migrants and caring about the state of the working class sounds like BS to me. They are pro EU for other reasons. Yes, some of these might trickle down to benefit those classes, but that's not their motivation. Does this mean that Brexit is right? No, but the fog of BS is huge and I understand why the working classes did not see the positions for EU as for them.

Perhaps the corporate media isn’t all evil? — Noah Te Stroete

I think very little of it is evil. Like sitting around rubbing their hands with glee evil movie villain. I am sure that when they repeat the views the neo cons want them to have, the neo cons, as one example, have found a way to make it seem obvious (whatever the particular issue is) and those reporters, editors and owners to a great degree think they have the right editorial opinions, have investigated the right things, have taken facts to support their articles and so on. I would think very, very few journalists and editors thought the Bush Admin was making shit up about Hussein's WOMD to get both the US and Britain into Iraq. I am sure that a number deep down didn't really care, but even these still bought the ideas because it was comfy for them. There are so many reasons why even good people can end up supporting bad ideas, not doing due diligence, decided not to air their doubts. This is especially true when one would be damned as crazy, evil, hating your country, moronic for doing so.

Fox News is pro-Trump while MSNBC is anti-Trump — Noah Te Stroete

Fox News was anti-trump before he was elected. I see you're right about where they are now. Sure, there have always been differing views, though anyone outside of the democrats and republican views, in the US will be marginalized and pathologized. No journalist could point out that the US is an oligharcy. No candidate who has not kissed Wall St. ass has come in the White house in, what 40 years. Obama made noises, but the moment he got in he put people in his cabinet who would toe the Wall st. line. And at the best time to push back in recent history on Wall St. Clinton, a theoretical liberal slashed social services, allowed a bill that radically increased the number of poor and black people brought up on drug charges and freed Wall st and banks in precisely the ways that led to the 2008 collapse. Fox news also needs to compete with other networks that are mainly staffed with liberals. If all stations are attacking trump, Fox news, which is branded as different, loses a lot of that difference. Further Trump - who I will repeat, I do not like at all - hasn't really done many of the things he promises. He is not or was not allowed to be the candidate that even freaked out the Republicans. He did end up intervening in Syria, despite long saying he would not play that game. He is still not really getting a wall - which by the way Clinton and Obama added to. Many his policies have been blocked by congress and the courts. He sure has made a lot of noise and said a lot of things that conservatives have bitten their tongues over. Fox news knows who hates him most. They have a brand and target audience to work with.

Where is the conspiracy there? — Noah Te Stroete

I may have missed it but I didn't say there was a conspiracy. Not in any gett he main players together have a sit down and decide. People are actually much more easily led by people with power than to need their being in on whatever changes those in power want to make.

But let's go back to Putin. The US has entered militarily, well, I don't know how many nations in the years since 9/11, and left behind it a wake of not quite functioning countries. It has been screaming about Iran and Syria and just as the neo-cons announced in the years prior to 9/11, it has wanted to get into these two countries, along with the others it already has. Putin is a typical strong man dictator type. He's no one I want to be ruling my country. That said, I think he has good reason to be concerned about what the US is planning and just because the US is the cavalry of democracy and goodness, butrut because they are the most actively violence destabilizing country these days and they definitely have long term eyes on Russia and China. Of course Putin would like to see diversity in the Allies - in the Allies of the US. The better the chance that whatever polices and military movies, and destabilization moves are made using the US by the neocons, might meet criticism by US allies. Of course Britain, via Blair, a neocon in labor clothing, hopped right into Iraq. Putin would be a fool to think he has any guarantees of independent thought. But the more potentially separate voices and actors, the better off Russia is. That's just practical. Does this mean he cares about British workers? nah? Does it mean that it might be of benefit to both? Sure. And it certainly might be a benifit to poor young men in the US who will be the main cannon fodder, as they have been since ww2, the next time the US puts people on the ground somewhere at the behest of Wall St. and the Oil industry.

You give a very nuanced analysis. It SEEMS like it could be a good model of reality, so I don’t know how I would disagree. Anyway, there is too much there to respond to each point, but like I said, it seems like what you say might be true. Much of it speculates on motives, but what you describe as potential motives may very well be the true motives of the parties in power. That said, we’ve enjoyed a relatively long stretch of relative peace since WWII, so there’s that to be said for the powers that be, and I think free trade is a good means of helping to ensure peace, at least among nations states when it comes to hot wars. All of what I’ve said can be argued against, as its not very nuanced, and my simplistic explanations may just be what the neocons want us to believe. I would add that institutions aren’t inherently bad, but there are always selfish actors.

You give a very nuanced analysis. It SEEMS like it could be a good model of reality, — Noah Te Stroete

I appreciate that reaction since we tend to think differently about it. And I certainly don't claim to know. Those are my concerns.

Anyway, there is too much there to respond to each point — Noah Te Stroete

Of course. I realized after the enormous post that this could be a tactic, just swamp other people with too much to respond to. I wrote it mainly to work out where my own reactions were coming from, and to at least make it seem not completely irrational to someone with differing views.

I agree with what you say in the rest.

My guess is that in 2 years, we will still have a bit of a muddle knowing what is happening, what caused what and who is benefiting and losing and what this means about the long run.

But we'll see.

There are so many reasons why even good people can end up supporting bad ideas, not doing due diligence, — Coben

In the US these days it has a lot to do with the near death of investigative reporting and taking news releases from the government (not inherently bad but run by neo-cons for the most part as you said) as news itself.

In the US these days it has a lot to do with the near death of investigative reporting and taking news releases from the government (not inherently bad but run by neo-cons for the most part as you said) as news itself. — Noah Te Stroete

Exactly. No need for any conspiracy. The merging of huge media companies, the reduction of money for positions and investigation, the entertainment-izing of news, and dependency not just on government but also on private industry releases for news. And the background desperation for advertising is also problematic. It leads to conservative approaches to challenging the private sector especially if there is the threat of lawsuits which would almost always be the case if the reputation of the company was in question.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

Question to the UK members: was the prospect of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and the consequent risk of a return of the Troubles, highlighted in the referendum campaign as a likely consequence of leaving?

If not, surely that alone is sufficient reason to have a second vote, as it would be reasonable to assume that many people were not aware of that very significant consequence when they cast their first vote.

Sorry I missed this. In my recollection this was not mentioned at all during the campaign. And I agree with Michael, that the risk of the Good Friday agreement failing is sufficient reason to revoke article 50 and return to the decision to leave after a public debate.

We have an interesting twist developing at the moment. At a meeting of representatives of the EU 27 yesterday, it was stated that there is currently no basis for any talks with the UK and that the EU is working on the assumption that there will now be no deal.

While back at home Boris appears to have boxed himself in. He cannot negotiate with the EU, because they will not agree to what he wants, I don't think he knows what he wants and he hasn't announced it. He would come back from the EU with egg on his face and be judged weak by his party, which would resume the implosion of the party, which he's only just managing to hold together.

He can't adopt no deal as the official policy of the government because Parliament would bring the government down. Which would also resume the implosion of the party and could bring in a party of national unity before 31st October. So he just blusters on claiming that he wants a deal, while not meeting or approaching the EU, or the leaders of our European neighbours. Something which is, by the way, highly disrespectful to neighbourly relations.

He has to string us along as far as possible so that he can instigate a general election less that 5 weeks before 31st October( a general election takes a minimum of 5 weeks). As an alternative to pirogueing parliament(which he can't do now, as Dominic Grieve would take him to court at that point). So that there is no government on 31st October and we leave the EU by default.

Oh and of course, the EU would be to blame with their "undemocratic backstop".

This is how he saves the Conservative party from oblivion, because there would then be no need for the Brexit party.

Are there any leavers out there who want to point out how this is not putting party before country and a perversion of democracy?

So that there is no government on 31st October and we leave the EU by default. — Punshhh

But Johnson will be PM until 10/31. And then there's an election? I don't get it.

Johnson will be PM until 10/31. — frank

I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I would bet that this won't be true, that's his leadership and/or government is going to fall before that date.

But Johnson will be PM until 10/31. And then there's an election? I don't get it.
7 hours ago Options

There isn't a working government during an election campaign. Also the election hasn't been called as yet.