• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Our next unelected PM?

How is Boris going to "ensure that we leave"?

He is extremely unlikely to get any better deal from the EU (or even any different deal at all). And all previous votes in the HoC say he will not be able to get MP's to vote for a "No Deal" exit either ....

... so how on earth is he going to "ensure we do leave"?

So far, all the evidence is that Boris will NOT be able to get the UK to leave.

We've seen Boris in several interviews now (I just posted one above, with Laura Kuenssberg from the BBC), and he was 100% totally incapable of explaining any plan at all of how he was going to get the EU to make any more concessions …. his “plan” is apparently (according to Boris himself) to just bluff his way through and hope that his non-existent "charm" as an amiable buffoon persuades the EU to do what they have consistently insisted they will not do, and where they already showed they will not do it when Mrs May tried to re-negociate for a better deal.


Well, stranger things have happened in politics, and some catrastrophic worldwide event may change everything for everyone. But on the face of things it's cloud cuckoo land to think that Boris will achieve anything better at all from either the EU or from a vote amongst MPs in the HoC.

...And in the meantime, Parliament goes on a one-month summer recess, leaving BoJo about oh, six or seven weeks to renegotiate before Halloween.

So suddenly the governemt will concentrate on Brexit instead of silly leadership elections.
 
But it isn't like their votes are binding on anything anyway, what would a vote to refuse to leave with no deal actually do? How will parliament negotiate with the Eu when I thought that when through the PM?

So they get a vote, what would they be voting for that would be binding on Boris that would prevent this?

The Lords has already rushed through a statutory instrument that bars a 'no-deal'.

The government doesn't have a majority, with the DUP refusing to move on the Irish border issue and intra-party conflict.
 
Also, whilst I'm bing unkind/unfair to Boris - I don't know how many people have checked his actual name, but its rather showy/flamboyant in parts, i.e. Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson :eye-poppi.

Thanks. I was a bit curious about his name. Isn't Boris a Russian name?

In America we had these famous cartoon Russian villains named Boris and Natasha.
 
Isn't one of the things she yelled "Get off me"? That would tend to make me think he was the aggressor rather than her, but I wasn't there.
Perhaps. I haven't actually listened to whatever was recorded. My original point though was just that everyone assumed a lot of things about it based on gender stereotypes.
 
What the Actual **** is that??!!

It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Brexitman!!!

ETA: actual answer:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2012/aug/01/boris-johnson-stuck-zip-wire-video

The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, dangles 20ft in the air after getting stuck on a zip-wire while celebrating Team GB’s first Olympic gold. Johnson is left hanging for several minutes as he loses momentum and gets stuck over a crowd of people in Victoria Park, east London. As onlookers snap photos on their mobile phones, he jokes: ‘This is great fun - but it needs to go faster’
(from 2012)
 
Last edited:
In short – I don't think any political analyst (nor any legal anayst following the above) think it's a realistic opposition for Boris to attempt to force a No Deal exit by running down the clock so as to exclude MPs in the HoC from any vote on the issue.

I suppose it comes down to, when push comes to shove, will MPs approve Theresa May's deal (or something functionally identical to it in a floppy hat, fake moustache and glasses), vote for an alternative positive course of action (if they are allowed to even bring the vote), or support a no-confidence vote to prevent Brexit ?

There's a lot of talk about Tory rebels willing to vote against the government in a no-confidence vote to prevent a no-deal but IMO it's just that. When the three line whip is presented and the MPs actually have to put country before party (and career) I think the numbers will be vanishingly small and largely or wholly offset by no-deal Labour MPs voting in favour of the government.

It is possible that Boris or Jeremy Hunt will announce that they have managed to get EU concessions on Theresa May's deal and force it through. The concessions will be illusory and will amount to them claiming that the backstop is no more - it will be a lie. This is however a possible course of action, especially if Jeremy Corbyn decides that this should be the Labour way of breaking the deadlock.

MPs have had umpteen chances to find another way forward and have bottled it every time - I'm not sure what's so different this time.

I still think no-deal is the most likely outcome - but only because it is the default. :(
 
But it isn't like their votes are binding on anything anyway, what would a vote to refuse to leave with no deal actually do? How will parliament negotiate with the Eu when I thought that when through the PM?

So they get a vote, what would they be voting for that would be binding on Boris that would prevent this?


Well certain types of votes are not binding upon the PM, and other sorts of votes are binding. It depends what sort of votes you are thinking of. But afaik (a) the Speaker's decision is binding (and he won't allow the new PM to use any of those methods to prevent parliament voting on either a deal or a no deal exit from the EU, and (b) the LSE legal link above explains why the PM (eg Boris) could not force it through by simply doing nothing and letting the October deadline expire.

So, bottom line - Boris would be insane to try it, and if he did try it then it would be (should be) blocked either by the Speaker or by legal action in the courts.


Understood, and the bookies' odds of it are around 3/1 (25%)

I disagree and think it is significantly more likely than that too.



Then these bookies could not have been looking at the rules of parliament or looking at the law of the country. Because according to all rules of parliamentary UK democracy, and according to UK law, Boris/anyone would almost certainly not be able to exit Europe by any such artifice as attempting to exclude all elected MP of the HoC from deciding the matter … that is simply illegal for any PM to do.

Odds of 3:1 might be a reasonable guess on whether or not Boris would actually try any of those tactics to force us to leave by default on Oct 31st. He might try it, but the odds of him actually succeeding will be vastly less than that (though it still might succeed if opposition MP's failed to take up the precisely correct sorts of parliamentary and legal procedures in time … but they are all receiving constant expert legal and constitutional advice on that, so it seems unlikely they would make a major blunder like that).

We should also recall that Mrs May did try quite a bit of that sort of artifice and slight-of-hand with parliament herself. She tried to run down the clock on many of the crucial votes, so that she disrupted the opposition attempts to counter what she was doing. And she did cause a lot of problems doing that. But in the end she was not able to succeed with that tactic.
 
Last edited:
Then these bookies could not have been looking at the rules of parliament or looking at the law of the country.

Ah, the common misconception about how bookmakers operate.....

The bookies don't have to look at anything, they don't have to have an opinion at all. They merely reflect which way punters' money is flowing.

If more money comes in for a "no deal" then they will shorten the odds for that outcome (and possibly lay off some of the bets on external exchanges to manage their risk). If more money is coming in for other outcomes then they will lengthen the odds for "no deal" to attract bets for that outcome in an effort to balance their book.

Aside from the initial market making, the bookmakers are not expressing any kind of opinion, merely reflecting the way in which bets are being placed.
 
Then these bookies could not have been looking at the rules of parliament or looking at the law of the country.
Of course they are not. They are making a financial market in prediction, and the price it trades at reflects the expectation of the marginal agent.
 
£350 fine appears par for a chucking milkshakes. I'll chip in £100.

Damn! I didn't see this until this morning so I refrained from milkshaking Farage last night, though I did see him getting out of his chauffeur-driven Range Rover and putting on a school blazer, which looked ridiculous. If I'd known my costs would be at least partly covered - well, it probably wouldn't have made much difference actually. I'm a bit of a coward. But it might have!
 
Ah, the common misconception about how bookmakers operate.....

The bookies don't have to look at anything, they don't have to have an opinion at all. They merely reflect which way punters' money is flowing.

If more money comes in for a "no deal" then they will shorten the odds for that outcome (and possibly lay off some of the bets on external exchanges to manage their risk). If more money is coming in for other outcomes then they will lengthen the odds for "no deal" to attract bets for that outcome in an effort to balance their book.

Aside from the initial market making, the bookmakers are not expressing any kind of opinion, merely reflecting the way in which bets are being placed.

Of course they are not. They are making a financial market in prediction, and the price it trades at reflects the expectation of the marginal agent.


Well then it's just the betting public who are unaware of how very unlikely Boris/anyone would be to succeed in trying a move like that! So, what is the difference? How does that make it a 1 in 3 chance that Boris could simply stop any votes and leave on the 31st of October? :rolleyes: (and by the way it was not me who offered bookmakers odds as the correct way to determine if PM Boris could simply leave the EU if he wanted to).
 
Last edited:
He went to Eton on a full scholarship so isn't that posh.

Wikipedia says he was a King's Scholar (based on academic merit) so I would say that makes him even posher. The reduced fees would not be necessarily have anything to with financial hardship (and in any case having or not money does not necessarily equate to poshness) but as a scholar he would be helping to enhance Eton's academic reputation. Also he went to a prep school, rather than say a state primary school.
 
Wikipedia says he was a King's Scholar (based on academic merit) so I would say that makes him even posher. The reduced fees would not be necessarily have anything to with financial hardship (and in any case having or not money does not necessarily equate to poshness) but as a scholar he would be helping to enhance Eton's academic reputation. Also he went to a prep school, rather than say a state primary school.

Academic ability at Eton?

What's that? the ability to walk and whistle at the same time?
 
Wikipedia says he was a King's Scholar (based on academic merit) so I would say that makes him even posher. The reduced fees would not be necessarily have anything to with financial hardship (and in any case having or not money does not necessarily equate to poshness) but as a scholar he would be helping to enhance Eton's academic reputation. Also he went to a prep school, rather than say a state primary school.

Next to the likes of the rather dim Prince Harry, Boris would come across as a genius.
 

Back
Top Bottom