Brexit.

[t_mac]

Big blow for Boris losing the by-election seat to the Lib Dems last night in a constituency that voted leave. . . great stuff!!!

Does this mean their majority hangs on Ian Paisley's seat. Is it any wonder all is quiet on that front?

Or the Shinners absenteeism.

[Rossfan]

Time for one of the Shinner MPs to be suspended from the Party?

[easytiger95]

A working majority of one. SF still keeping BoJo in power though...

Add in all the ex-cabinet ministers he shafted and the likes of Letwin and Grieve who were already outside the tent, plus throw in the 2 ERG members who said they would only accept No Deal, and poor auld Boris hasn't a majority for anything. Even if he promised SF an immediate United Ireland if they came in and supported a No Deal, their votes still wouldn't get him anywhere near a working majority.

So, let's game this out - what are his options

1. Tweak the deal, keeping DUP onboard and put it to Parliament again. Newton Emerson had an interesting piece in the IT yesterday in which he claimed that substantial progress had been made before BoJo's ascension - DUP were looking to climb down (which I had said in my last posts on this thread) and had apparently already accepted port based agri-food checks (making NI a different agri-food zone to the rest of Britain, but as long as no one labelled it a "sea-border" they were going to be pragmatic about it). However, BoJo's inflammatory rhetoric, followed by Leo's musings on a United Ireland scuppered this, leading to a bitter response from the DUP.
Assuming all that to be true, I still think with even the DUP's support this doesn't go through parliament. The two Spartans from the ERG will no doubt be joined by more swivel eyed loons, whilst Lib Dems and SNP are pro-Remain, and Corbyn will never do a deal with Boris, especially with an election in the offing. Boris could get 20 or so Lab defectors desperate to get something, anything over the line, but not enough to make up for his losses.

2. Call an election. Timing is the problem here. Great article in the Independent here explain the difficulties in getting anything done before Oct 31st, so get it out of your heads that he is going to call one before the exit date. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-general-election-snap-corbyn-brexit-vote-no-confidence-a9022336.html

3. If he can't call an election beforehand, if a tweaked deal isn't going to go through, and he knows it, then we need to take seriously the possibility that he will try to suspend parliament in an effort to run down the clock and exit with No Deal. This to me is both the most likely scenario (because there is nothing worse than an autocrat with zero respect for the democratic process, claiming he has a mandate in the form of a nebulous referendum result) and the one least likely to succeed (the one thing Parliament has consistently agreed on is that there should not be a No Deal exit, and that majority will find a way to make its voice heard). The optics around this could also bury the No Deal cause - if Boris, Jacob and Mark Francois are holed up in an empty Palace of Westminster behind police and possibly army lines, while the rest of the MPs are on the streets with demonstrators, you will have the fall of the government and the death of a No Deal scenario.

4. All of which leads to the last most unknowable scenario - what happens then? I think the only thing we could predict is that if such turmoil is taking place the EU would stand ready to offer another extension. But beyond that, I don't know how it will go.

I said before that a thought a No Deal was unlikely and that even if it happened, it would not be permanent. I still believe those statement to be broadly supportable - however, I do feel now that a large amount of civil unrest is not only possible, but likely, and that turbulence will have consequences we can't see.

[Denn Forever]

A general election would be suicide for either of the 2 main parties.  Lead to a miss mash parliament where there would be a hung parliament, nobody would trust anybody else and nothing could get done. 

[RedHand88]

A general election would be suicide for either of the 2 main parties.  Lead to a miss mash parliament where there would be a hung parliament, nobody would trust anybody else and nothing could get done.

I can possibly imagine what that would be like 

[haranguerer]

A working majority of one. SF still keeping BoJo in power though...

Do you actually think they should go?

[t_mac]

A working majority of one. SF still keeping BoJo in power though...

Do you actually think they should go?

I think they should try and explore every avenue to stop a devastating economic disaster that is no deal, on the Island of Ireland.

[haranguerer]

Their attendance wouldn't have any impact on the likelihood of a no deal brexit. It would be a serious shot in the arm for dissident republicanism however.

[t_mac]

The legal position is UK leaves on 31st October with or without a deal, Bojo isn't going to ask for another extension - well currently, with a majority of one every vote counts as the only way to stop a no deal, barring an election, another referendum etc etc etc is via parliament and don't forget there is plenty of Labour MP's who would rather a no deal than a no brexit.  Shinners are as you rightly pointing out thinking of their partys future rather than the future of the citizens who voted for them.

[haranguerer]

You're just spouting rubbish there. Read up on the likelihood of a no deal, and the ways it can come about. None of which SF attendance would have any impact on.

If you don't think increased violent republicanism would have a major impact on the future of citizens here then I really wonder what planet you're on.

[t_mac]

You're just spouting rubbish there. Read up on the likelihood of a no deal, and the ways it can come about. None of which SF attendance would have any impact on.

If you don't think increased violent republicanism would have a major impact on the future of citizens here then I really wonder what planet you're on.

No deal is the default position on 31st at this stage, and no deal could lead to civil unrest and be a breeding ground to dissents, you seem to be a bit angry when the truth is mentioned about the Shinners.

[t_mac]

You're just spouting rubbish there. Read up on the likelihood of a no deal, and the ways it can come about. None of which SF attendance would have any impact on.

If you don't think increased violent republicanism would have a major impact on the future of citizens here then I really wonder what planet you're on.

I'd also like a direct quote where I said this, else Ill be happy with an apology, ta.

[haranguerer]

You're just spouting rubbish there. Read up on the likelihood of a no deal, and the ways it can come about. None of which SF attendance would have any impact on.

If you don't think increased violent republicanism would have a major impact on the future of citizens here then I really wonder what planet you're on.

No deal is the default position on 31st at this stage, and no deal could lead to civil unrest and be a breeding ground to dissents, you seem to be a bit angry when the truth is mentioned about the Shinners.

I'm not at all angry. I'm trying (no doubt in futility) to point out that focusing on SFs abstentionsist policy as the root of all the issues in Westminster is seriously tired, and not very useful, especially when it is very unlikely there would be any positive impact, and actually there are very valid concerns about the detrimental impact attendance could have.

[screenexile]

Their attendance wouldn't have any impact on the likelihood of a no deal brexit. It would be a serious shot in the arm for dissident republicanism however.

Not having a go just interested as to why you think this is the case??

For what it's worth in my opinion a No deal Brexit does much more for the dissident cause than the Shinners taking their seats in Westminster!!

[t_mac]

You're just spouting rubbish there. Read up on the likelihood of a no deal, and the ways it can come about. None of which SF attendance would have any impact on.

If you don't think increased violent republicanism would have a major impact on the future of citizens here then I really wonder what planet you're on.

No deal is the default position on 31st at this stage, and no deal could lead to civil unrest and be a breeding ground to dissents, you seem to be a bit angry when the truth is mentioned about the Shinners.

I'm not at all angry. I'm trying (no doubt in futility) to point out that focusing on SFs abstentionsist policy as the root of all the issues in Westminster is seriously tired, and not very useful, especially when it is very unlikely there would be any positive impact, and actually there are very valid concerns about the detrimental impact attendance could have.

Are you going saying this is my position, again I'd like a quote to back that up or just take the one apology for the two inaccuracies you have spouted.  SF is not to blame David Cameron is the sole person to blame for the whole mess, but I question whether SF might put the citizens ahead of the party and whether they could help steer the path away from a devastating no deal.