You will find by morning that there are a significant number of leading Tory's who are skeptical about whether they should go for a snap election. Cummings and Johnson are gunning for one, but there are a lot of Tory's near the top of their party who have had to hold their noses to go along with the stench coming out of No10 already. Some don't want an election now and others want to try and pass the bill anyway, allowing more time.

I agree with your view about Corbyn.

Today Downing Street has got its knickers in a twist (which was going to happen when the thing we had to get done was described). No wonder Johnson wanted the whole bill bounced through in three days.

Two cabinet ministers have contradicted themselves in the House of Commons, regarding customs checks between NI and Britain. This has erupted into a political storm in the commons.

No10 is splitting today, the're like cats in a sack.

Oh, also Farage is kicking up a stink, the deep split between a sensible deal and no deal is yawning.

there are a lot of Tory's near the top of their party who have had to hold their noses to go along with the stench coming out of No10 already. Some don't want an election now and others want to try and pass the bill anyway, allowing more time. — Punshhh

The problem for the Tories if they delay is the bill getting amended. There is very close to a majority for adding a customs union to it - all opposition plus a handful of Tories would support it. So Boris can't really aford to risk going throught the rest of the bill. He would ideally like to stick to Oct 31st, but that's surely now impossible, so an election it'll have to be. As Wayfarer says: Corbyn cannot really refuse when the EU offer an extension and no deal is no longer possible before the new govt gets in.

Are you confident that the British public won't eventually see through this smoke and mirrors and doublethink of the vote leave campaign. — Punshhh

I think the general public are totally bamboozled by the whole Brexit farrago, and just want it to end. They don't understand what's going on and that leads to fear of the unknown. Basically, they'll give anything for certainty - even a bad deal...

Yes, I know about the problem with amendments, a gift for the opposition. I expect they will be saying let's get Brexit done now while the government wants to waste time with an election.

Regarding the public, there are a lot of voters who think that "getting it done", means it will all be sorted. This is one of the worst deceits of the government, they know it won't be done, we will have another decade of it. There certainly won't be any certainty. The only way to stop it is to revoke, support for a people's vote may be increasing now, it's difficult to read though along with anything else at the moment.

Regarding the public, there are a lot of voters who think that "getting it done", means it will all be sorted. This is one of the worst deceits of the government, they know it won't be done, we will have another decade of it. There certainly won't be any certainty. The only way to stop it is to revoke, support for a people's vote may be increasing now, it's difficult to read though along with anything else at the moment. — Punshhh

I agree it won't all be sorted for years yet, and there will certainly be an outcry against the continuing payments the UK has to make in the transition period. Indeed I've just read the UK will lose its rebate, so we'll be paying more than whilst in, still be subject to EU laws, and with no say! But once the withdrawal deal is passed it becomes a matter of when rather than if. I can't see support for another referendum doing anything but reducing from here as even hardened remainers start to accept the inevitable - assuming, that is, Boris wins the election..

It's a problem caused by the hung Parliament — Tim3003

No, the hung parliament is not the problem since many conservative MPs have also voted against the various deals proposed by May and Johnson. In the old days, when the prime minister was elected by parliament and not by party members, the whip had power and could force his MPs into line with their leader. It was in their own interest to support the PM from their own party even if they didn’t agree with him a hundred percent. Those days are gone. By introducing this foolish rule that the leaders must be directly elected by party members, the unintended consequence has been to turn the distinguished British parliament into a messy American Congress where every representative is on his own without responsibility for the overall functioning of government. No plan can be expected from a group of people without a common purpose and they certainly don’t feel obligated to support a leader they have not chosen themselves.

A hung parliament is uncommon in British politics, but it’s very common on the continent and even there the representatives almost always support the countries leader when he is from their own party. That’s the natural thing to do in a parliamentary democracy. Britain is not a parliamentary democracy anymore, but a strange American hybrid.

Not Johnson, he’s working for what he believes in
— Congau
What's that then? — Evil

A quick Brexit whatever the cost

I agree it won't all be sorted for years yet, and there will certainly be an outcry against the continuing payments the UK has to make in the transition period. Indeed I've just read the UK will lose its rebate, so we'll be paying more than whilst in, still be subject to EU laws, and with no say! But once the withdrawal deal is passed it becomes a matter of when rather than if. I can't see support for another referendum doing anything but reducing from here as even hardened remainers start to accept the inevitable - assuming, that is, Boris wins the election..

There won't just be an outcry about payments,( I noticed Farage was going on about this today) people will begin to understand the implications of the deal as the government won't be able to hide them from their supporters anymore. For example the customs arrangements, complexity and a blizzard of red tape on the border between the mainland and NI, Remember 80% of trade in NI is with the mainland. Not to mention the demands for a independence referendum from Scotland. Also Michel Barnier has said now that the new future agreement will take a minimum of 3 years to finalise. So the transition period will stretch out into the distance and given the incompetence of the government, it could last a decade. The ECJ will have jurisdiction over EU nationals for 8 years. I'll stop there (for it is a long list), because the people who Johnson and the press have duped are not concerned with what happens next, as far as they are concerned the goal is getting Brexit done. But remember, it won't be done, not for a number of years. So outcry again.

It's interesting, if they have adopted this mindset, that the goal is simply to get it done. It doesn't matter what it is. They are happy to buy the shiny car without looking under the bonnet. The car sold to them by populist decievers, but they can't look under the bonnet, because it doesn't matter if the engine doesn't work, because all that matters is to buy it. Once it's bought it doesn't matter if it is a wreck, because they have got it done. The brainwashing is complete. For others they are looking forward to unicorns appearing over the horizon, while trying not to think what they are throwing away, those pesky Europeans.

If Johnson wins an election, ( a majority, because no one would go into coalition with such a divisive regime), then hardened remainers may accept the inevitable, because it would be reality. But I doubt they would adopt that stance until such a majority were secured. I wonder if hard brexiters would accept it if the decision were reversed, or we had a soft Brexit, somehow I doubt it. Because they would have to admit that they played a part in such a charade.

The withdrawal bill won't be passed before an election, as I said in my previous post, there isn't a majority for Johnson's deal amendments or not. So his offer tonight for a two week window to scrutinise the deal, if an election is agreed for 12 of December is playground games.

It's a problem caused by the hung Parliament — Tim3003

No, the hung parliament is not the problem since many conservative MPs have also voted against the various deals proposed by May and Johnson. — Congau

The likes of Maggie Thatcher and Tony Blair always had large enough majorities to allow them to disregard the 'extremists' in their own parties. Since 2010 we have not had such a stable majority govt. Maybe the times are changing and we'll have to get used to coalitions like much of the rest of Europe has..

In the old days, when the prime minister was elected by parliament and not by party members, the whip had power and could force his MPs into line with their leader. It was in their own interest to support the PM from their own party even if they didn’t agree with him a hundred percent. — Congau

The whips still have that power - hence the 20-odd expelled Tory MPs. But Brexit is an issue where some MPS are putting the country before party loyalty, and good on them for doing so! I think Brexit is such a huge decision that with no majority govt the normal Westminster tactics are creaking under the strain. But that doesnt mean normality won't be restored in time..

No, the diminishing sense of party loyalty is not just about Brexit. It’s clearly seen regarding other issues as well, and in both parties. The Labour leader is also facing rebellion for different reasons, among them anti-Semitism. That would not have happened prior to 2015 when the leader was first directly elected by party members.

Party loyalty is not a basic instinct among MPs, it follows logically from what is at stake for them personally. When the leader was elected by them, they had to be loyal or else they would be responsible for the failure of their own favoured policy. Now they don’t have much to lose by voting against their leader since he was never their real leader in the first place.

In America there’s very little party loyalty and that’s not for any psychological reasons but simple because the election process is different. It’s a perpetual state of American politics and it’s not at all restricted to important issues. They don’t need to be loyal to their president. Now that the British PM has got his base removed from Parliament he has unfortunately become more like a president. A wedge has been driven between Westminster and Downing Street and its name is not Brexit.

Party loyalty is not a basic instinct among MPs, it follows logically from what is at stake for them personally. When the leader was elected by them, they had to be loyal or else they would be responsible for the failure of their own favoured policy. Now they don’t have much to lose by voting against their leader since he was never their real leader in the first place. — Congau

I agree that election by the members means the likes of Boris will win vs Jeremy Hunt any time - a populist who simplifiies things will get his priorities through quicker than someone whose approach is more nuanced. But don't forget, before the Tory members voted, their MPs whittled the candidates down to 2. And Boris was way ahead all the way through that process. I don't think you can say the majority of his MPs don't support him, or that they'd elect a different leader given sole choice.

The problem was the introduction of a referendum, with a close to 50/50 result, demanding close on half the population undergo a forced change of circumstances against their will. Whereby, if the half of the population who were in favour of the change would if the reverse happened be forced to continue with the status quo, or in other words no change in their circumstances.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Finally a decision from the EU on a Jan 31st extension. Hopefully now Corbyn will have to man up. If he keeps looking like he's running from a December election it can only harm his chances. He's repeatedly talked about agreeing to one as soon as no deal is no longer an option. Well, that's now. Or maybe he won't want to disturb his Christmas shopping..

I think they'll be playing twister in the house this afternoon. Will Johnson fall into the ditch, or will it be papered over, I wonder.

Interestingly, if Johnson goes for the SNP, Lib Dem deal today, he may be endorsing a second Scottish referendum.

Just in, we have a Cummings plan to table an equivalent bill to this tomorrow.

Wooptiedo. 3 more months of insecurity.

They’ve voted down the proposed election for Dec. I think the UK Parliament is just being bloody-minded now. The possibility of leaving without an agreement is now effectively zero, I can’t see how the Opposition can plausibly deny an election - it does look like they’re running scared.

It's a bit more complicated than that. The offer made by Johnson was under the fixed term parliament act, meaning it required a two thirds majority(434) votes to pass. So there wasn't any chance of it passing without support from both sides of the house. Labour didn't support it because it included a commitment to debate and pass Johnson's withdrawal bill in approx 5 sitting days, with the aim of having the bill passed before the election period begins. Also there was a worry that no deal wasn't removed entirely. Johnson could play political games leading to a change of polling day and there is a trap door of a no deal at the end of 2020, during the future negotiations.

What was expected to pass was a one line bill tabled today by the SNP and Lib Dems, requiring a majority of one and a fixed poling date of 9th of December. If Johnson had accepted this he would have secured his election today. But he rejected this offer and decided to play games again and is apparently going to bring an equivalent one line bill tomorrow of their own. Presumably there will be some wheeze hidden in there which won't be acceptable to the SNP, or Lib Dems. They want cast iron guarantees of the poling date and no no deal.

So let's see if they get an election tomorrow, I'm not holding my breath.

The possibility of leaving without an agreement is now effectively zero — Wayfarer

Why do you say that? If Parliament won't vote to pass a deal or to revoke Article 50 then we'll leave without a deal when the EU stops granting an extension. They won't keep offering one every 3 months forever.

Also there was a worry that no deal wasn't removed entirely. — Punshhh

The only way to do that is to pass a bill that commits to revoking Article 50 if a deal is not passed by a certain date, and I doubt there are the numbers in Parliament for that.

Yes, I know, but Labour couldn't agree to that because it would alienate their leave support, resulting in a clear path to a majority for Johnson in the election. Labour is effectively boxed into a narrow course of action by its divided supporters. This is why they have formulated a policy to hold a second referendum and let the people decide the issue.

Johnson may have been nominated by the Tory MPs, but since the ultimate responsibility was out of their hands, they don’t have any strong allegiance to him. That even happened to Theresa May, who was a moderate and could have been chosen under the old system of exclusive MP election as well. Since they were not uniquely responsible for giving her the power, they didn’t have to go along with her proposals. It’s quite unheard of in the history of British parliamentarism that MPs from the ruling party have consistently voted against their own prime minister, but now, with the change in the leadership election process, that has become possible.

The whips still have that power - hence the 20-odd expelled Tory MPs. — Tim3003

On the contrary, the expulsion of the twenty Tories proves the new impotence of the whip. In the past the whip had power because he could threaten consequences in case of non-abidance. There was no need to carry out the threat.

The fact that an MP rebellion is also seen in the Labour party and concerns issues that have nothing to do with Brexit, shows that the link between the MPs and their leaders has been severely weakened.

It’s being argued that power of Parliament has increased in the process, but the opposite is the case. Parliament, a body elected by the entire populace, used to have the sole power to appoint the prime minister, but now it has to share it with some random party members. When the PM came from Parliament only, that distinguished assembly had the ultimate responsibility for all government policy and thereby all the power.

There was an interesting Despatches on Channel 4 tonight about how the NHS would be compromised in the Trump trade deal with the US. Apparently government officials have already discussed this with US officials. Estimates suggest that the current drug bill for US drugs for the NHS (approx £18 billion per year) would increase to approx £45 billion. Working out at an increase of £500 million per week which the NHS would have to pay. It also suggests that there would be legal requirements for the NHS to buy only from the US suppliers at the higher rates, rather than buy generic equivalent drugs from elsewhere. Apparently Trump has accused the UK of "free loading" from US drug suppliers.

There was an interesting Despatches on Channel 4 tonight about how the NHS would be compromised in the Trump trade deal with the US. Apparently government officials have already discussed this with US officials. Estimates suggest that the current drug bill for US drugs for the NHS (approx £18 billion per year) would increase to approx £45 billion. Working out at an increase of £500 million per week which the NHS would have to pay. It also suggests that there would be legal requirements for the NHS to buy only from the US suppliers at the higher rates, rather than buy generic equivalent drugs from elsewhere. Apparently Trump has accused the UK of "free loading" from US drug suppliers. — Punshhh

And that's a big reason for why Brexit shouldn't go ahead. Don't fuck with my healthcare.

If Parliament won't vote to pass a deal.... — Michael

They voted for the Johnson deal last week, remember? That was Johnson’s only win thus far: that he actually got the Brexit bill through, immediately followed by another vote delaying it’s implementation. (Although as Punshhh points out, nothing is clear cut.)

They voted for the Johnson deal last week, remember? That was Johnson’s only win thus far: that he actually got the Brexit bill through, immediately followed by another vote delaying it’s implementation. — Wayfarer

Not quite. It passed the second reading which means it moves onto the committee stage where the first round of amendments can be added. It's not until passing the third reading (which is actually the 5th stage) that it moves to the House of Lords to consider, where the process is repeated before returning back to the Commons for the final vote.

But then of course any amendments would need to be accepted by the EU...

I see. Must have missed those details.

We're going to have an election, Labour is supporting it now. (there is also a rumour that it might be followed by a no confidence vote)

We're going to have an election, Labour is supporting it now. (there is also a rumour that it might be followed by a no confidence vote) — Punshhh

Don't be too certain just yet. The election bill can now be amended. So it may include votes for EU nationals, 16-17 yr olds; and be on Dec 9th, which will be a public holiday, before MPs have finished. Boris could yet be so afronted he'll pull the bill. It's not a no-confidence vote, so he has that right, just as (he says) he's doing for the Brexit Withdrawal bill..

A bill on the GE was just... announced? But I've no idea who or what won

Well it's gone through now. Dec 12th it will be. I must admit that after hearing the result of the 2017 election I did not believe a Brexit deal could be agreed by parliament. Finally my prediction has been proved right. I should have bet the house on it!