ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
a bad economy always gets blamed on the party in power at the time the economy is bad
the “blame labour and the EU” play only works for him if they don’t get brexit done, which means the economy doesn’t go to shit, not if they get a no deal brexit, which means it does
a bad economy always gets blamed on the party in power at the time the economy is bad
the “blame labour and the EU” play only works for him if they don’t get brexit done, which means the economy doesn’t go to shit, not if they get a no deal brexit, which means it does
I dunno, the Tories got years and years out of the "it was all Labour's fault" excuse regarding the economy; most of this decade, really.
I think you'd be surprised at just how much mileage the "blame Labour and the EU" play has already gotten. Labour haven't been in power for nearly ten years but reading through some tabloids you'd get the impression that they're still in charge of economic policy.
+5
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
the economy, post recession, is going to improve nearly no matter what you do
so, it is unquestionable to anyone who knows how things work that austerity severely hindered the recovery
but that allows the tories to say hey, we're trying to make things better, but labour messed up so bad that we know things are still not great for a lot of people
it doesn't have to be true, it's clearly not true, but it works
it's also different from saying "it's all labour and the EU's fault that we got you exactly what you asked for and it all turned to shit" in the case of a no deal brexit
The EU will be blamed for forcing the UK into no deal
Because the EU wasn't willing to give the UK a deal which would give the UK full sovereignty over its own borders, so there was no alternative to no deal
That's going to be the narrative, not "we gave you what you wanted" - no deal is going to be portrayed as an act of self-defense
This article from LSE professor David Soskice, argues that Boris Johnson' best move to stay in power beyond October is to call a 2nd referendum.
I would like to hope he could be right, since I'm pretty sure Boris only operates based on naked self interest.
So what happens when no deal wins the referendum?
Everything's fucked. But hopefully there is some element in there that requires more than 50%+ to make a firm decision. Trigger another one in 3 years or something to allow more details to be hammered out, might be fairest if most frustrating - give time for the magic tech to get invented (there won't be, just having a second referendum is going to be seen as a betrayal enough as it is and we're going to be plagued by vox pops who think "No Deal is bad, but not respecting the 2016 Brexit vote is worse").
There's no safe way of getting out of this mess as it is, it's risk a GE with the Brexit party being the second largest party and the Tories deciding being King of the Wasteland is better than in the Shadow Cabinet, or just let the current government do No Deal anyway. Or do a second ref with explicitly those two options and pass the buck on to the people - it's not like we've not been warned now.
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
That tweet oversells it a bit. Support for independence is at 46%, rising to 52% if you strip out the people who don't know or say they won't vote. Still a hell of a thing though.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
That tweet oversells it a bit. Support for independence is at 46%, rising to 52% if you strip out the people who don't know or say they won't vote. Still a hell of a thing though.
It's standard in British polling to remove Don't Knows and refused to answer to produce a Headline figure.
Now in this case I actually agree that for Scottish Independence Polling the headline figure should be dispensed with and it should be reported as yes/no/DK as the evidence of last referendum was that over the campaign DKs switched to Yes but on Polling day the remainng DKs voted No.
It'll be interesting to see what happens to Indy polling if we drop out no deal style. Everything's shit and it's Westministers fault is going to be a powerful message if it plays out that way.
It'll be interesting to see what happens to Indy polling if we drop out no deal style. Everything's shit and it's Westministers fault is going to be a powerful message if it plays out that way.
There's a really grim historical irony that remaining as part of the EU was one of the bigger selling points for the "no" side of the Scottish independence referendum.
+14
Options
scherbchenAsgard (it is dead)Registered Userregular
It'll be interesting to see what happens to Indy polling if we drop out no deal style. Everything's shit and it's Westministers fault is going to be a powerful message if it plays out that way.
There's a really grim historical irony that remaining as part of the EU was one of the bigger selling points for the "no" side of the Scottish independence referendum.
that one has been grinding my gears for years now. I don't have any skin in the game but the sheer boldfaced turnabout just makes me so angry.
"ooh, I wouldn't do that if I were you. EU is never gonna accept you, just ask Spain"
"alright that silly nonsense is settled then, how about we leave the EU?"
That wasn't the intention - it was more: "now that sillyness is over and we're sticking with FTTP and keeping Scotland, any other dumb ideas people want shut down?"
That wasn't the intention - it was more: "now that sillyness is over and we're sticking with FTTP and keeping Scotland, any other dumb ideas people want shut down?"
It's a bold strategy, Cotton, etc.
I do think the Scottish Indyref emboldened Cameron. He probably already thought he couldn't lose (that Eton mindset again), was "proven" right again, and it sent the hubris level for the EU ref even more sky high. I wonder, if the Indyref had been more of a knife-edge, if the idea of a supermajority, or more (for want of better terms) checks & balances, might have occurred to be part of the Brexit ref. Not just the in/out, 50%+1, advisory in law but the government "will definitely enact" and all that shit that it ended up being because arrogant hubris-boy thought he couldn't possibly lose. (And then took his ball amd went home the moment he did).
It's being reported the Times and the Guardian (as an aside) that Dominic Cummings believes BoJo will ignore the result of a confidence vote and push on with no deal.
Boris Johnson would refuse to resign even after losing a confidence vote so he could force through a no-deal Brexit on October 31, under plans being considered by Downing Street.
Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s most senior aide, told colleagues last week that Mr Johnson would not quit if Tory Remainers voted with Labour to bring down the government.
The Times has been told that Mr Johnson could stay on as prime minister even if Tory MPs were able to form a “government of national unity” opposed to a no-deal Brexit. Mr Johnson would ignore the result of the confidence vote and call a “people v politicians” general election to be held shortly after Britain had left the EU.
Cummings is a dangerous asshole and Boris is craven compulsive liar and narcissist so it's not a shock they'd consider this.
It's being reported the Times and the Guardian (as an aside) that Dominic Cummings believes BoJo will ignore the result of a confidence vote and push on with no deal.
Boris Johnson would refuse to resign even after losing a confidence vote so he could force through a no-deal Brexit on October 31, under plans being considered by Downing Street.
Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s most senior aide, told colleagues last week that Mr Johnson would not quit if Tory Remainers voted with Labour to bring down the government.
The Times has been told that Mr Johnson could stay on as prime minister even if Tory MPs were able to form a “government of national unity” opposed to a no-deal Brexit. Mr Johnson would ignore the result of the confidence vote and call a “people v politicians” general election to be held shortly after Britain had left the EU.
Cummings is a dangerous asshole and Boris is craven compulsive liar and narcissist so it's not a shock they'd consider this.
So, uh
I know that we're in a continual state of political crisis at the moment, but Johnson trying to pull this would absolutely be a political crisis, right?
We'll see if Boris follows through. I don't doubt they are considering it and Cummings would try it if it were up to him alone but Boris is routinely full of it so who knows what he'd do if push came to shove.
It's being reported the Times and the Guardian (as an aside) that Dominic Cummings believes BoJo will ignore the result of a confidence vote and push on with no deal.
Boris Johnson would refuse to resign even after losing a confidence vote so he could force through a no-deal Brexit on October 31, under plans being considered by Downing Street.
Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s most senior aide, told colleagues last week that Mr Johnson would not quit if Tory Remainers voted with Labour to bring down the government.
The Times has been told that Mr Johnson could stay on as prime minister even if Tory MPs were able to form a “government of national unity” opposed to a no-deal Brexit. Mr Johnson would ignore the result of the confidence vote and call a “people v politicians” general election to be held shortly after Britain had left the EU.
Cummings is a dangerous asshole and Boris is craven compulsive liar and narcissist so it's not a shock they'd consider this.
So, uh
I know that we're in a continual state of political crisis at the moment, but Johnson trying to pull this would absolutely be a political crisis, right?
I'm pretty sure stopping Boris from doing it would be one of the few "Queen would be allowed to wield the power she has as Queen and get away with it," scenarios.
+3
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
It's being reported the Times and the Guardian (as an aside) that Dominic Cummings believes BoJo will ignore the result of a confidence vote and push on with no deal.
Boris Johnson would refuse to resign even after losing a confidence vote so he could force through a no-deal Brexit on October 31, under plans being considered by Downing Street.
Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s most senior aide, told colleagues last week that Mr Johnson would not quit if Tory Remainers voted with Labour to bring down the government.
The Times has been told that Mr Johnson could stay on as prime minister even if Tory MPs were able to form a “government of national unity” opposed to a no-deal Brexit. Mr Johnson would ignore the result of the confidence vote and call a “people v politicians” general election to be held shortly after Britain had left the EU.
Cummings is a dangerous asshole and Boris is craven compulsive liar and narcissist so it's not a shock they'd consider this.
So, uh
I know that we're in a continual state of political crisis at the moment, but Johnson trying to pull this would absolutely be a political crisis, right?
A political crisis of a like not seen since the Regency, yep.
Could the Queen just tell Boris to get fucked at that point? None of this is actually codified right, its just tradition?
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Could the Queen just tell Boris to get fucked at that point? None of this is actually codified right, its just tradition?
Procedures for a no-confidence vote are actually codified in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. Like as awful as that legislation is and has been Boris Johnson can’t just ignore it and act with impunity. Not in any legal sense at least.
Could the Queen just tell Boris to get fucked at that point? None of this is actually codified right, its just tradition?
Procedures for a no-confidence vote are actually codified in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. Like as awful as that legislation is and has been Boris Johnson can’t just ignore it and act with impunity. Not in any legal sense at least.
How would not resigning even work? He would have been fired. By Parliament. From running Parliament.
Unsurprisingly with all this going on the EU have said no to further talks and I can really blame them. Anything they do or some will be misconstrued and used against them by Boris:
The EU has said there is no basis for any further Brexit talks while the UK continues to insist on making changes to Theresa May's withdrawal agreement.
EU negotiators told European diplomats changes suggested by the new UK government, such as scrapping the Irish border backstop, were unacceptable.
This plays into the whole "it's all the EUs fault" narrative but the EU can't compromise so it's no difference to them either way.
Could the Queen just tell Boris to get fucked at that point? None of this is actually codified right, its just tradition?
Yes. The queen still officially holds (let me check...) all... yes all the power of the government. The official power of the state flows from and is derived from the crown. This is explicit in the treaty that restored the Monarchy. Traditionally the monarchy never weilds this power because the treaty that restored the monarchy came essentially right after a war in which the monarchy was deposed by Parliament.
So the Crown more or less rubber stamps parliament. The queen has, in modern times, removed a prime minister without a no confidence vote (iirc, could be wrong on this but it was i think due to a failure to form) and has also officially asked non-plurality parties to form governments(generally the queen asks the party that has the most votes to form a party. I want to say these were during the same incidents) both of which are actual uses of the royal power (rather than a rubber stamp of what parliament wants)
So the Queen does have the power to sack Boris. And if Parliament no-confidenced him and he ignored it she very well could exert her power.
Could the Queen just tell Boris to get fucked at that point? None of this is actually codified right, its just tradition?
Procedures for a no-confidence vote are actually codified in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. Like as awful as that legislation is and has been Boris Johnson can’t just ignore it and act with impunity. Not in any legal sense at least.
How would not resigning even work? He would have been fired. By Parliament. From running Parliament.
The Prime Minister does not run parliament he runs the government. He is like an appointed President. He essentially has the executive power of the crown.
Its true that the Prime Minister cannot be the prime minister without the support of parliament and true that the PM usually is a MP but the ministereal positions are executive separate from the legislature
Edit: as an example. This is the (almost) full text of the brexit legislation encompassing the complete operative statements.
Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
1Power to notify withdrawal from the EU
(1)The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.
(2)This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.
The fixed term Parliament act provides a way to do this (according to a judge on the Today programme just now). Or he could just schedule an election for after the October deadline.
I can’t see the UK population at any level standing quietly aside while he goes despot by loophole and he’d have to realise he’d be killing the Tory party forever more.
It’s stupid brinksmanship. I can’t believe he’d actually do it.
It’s stupid brinksmanship. I can’t believe he’d actually do it.
Hold his beer.
I can absolutely see him doing this, and I can absolutely see it working. LabourCorbyn will embrace it because it gets them what theyhe wants, which is an election.
I can see Boris and Farage riling the 'Brexit At Any Cost' crowd to their banner, while Corbyn just assumes he'll get the remainers by default, so he courts the 'Brexit At A Slightly More Reasonable Cost If You Don't Mind, Maybe We Could Wait Until There's A Sale' crowd.
The actual remain parties (Lib-Dem and Green) will get a serious boost, but there's still the optics of them being no-hopers, so some people will refuse to throw their vote away.
And the SNP will turn it into Indyref 2 By Proxy in Scotland.
If this ends up happening, I'm going to put actual money on it ending with a Brexit Party/Tory coalition. That way at least I'll have drinking money.
So the Queen does have the power to sack Boris. And if Parliament no-confidenced him and he ignored it she very well could exert her power.
Saying she "could very well" sack the Prime Minister is, to put it mildly, quite a leap. The Queen's powers exist on the understanding that she never use them on her own, and claiming that this will be the thing that means she steps into the ring is a judgement that flies in the face of everything the Queen has done in the course of her reign.
She has appointed a PM once, but was explicitly following the advice of the outgoing PM (who was ill). This was Alec Douglas Home, who followed MacMillan.
Heath tried to continue in office in a hung Parliament but was unable to form a majority, so Wilson, the leader of the Labour party, which had the most seats, was asked to form a government as the next most logical choice. The Queen was not picking and choosing off her own bat in any way that would make sacking Johnson off her own bat a likely prospect in the future.
If Johnson's government were to lose a vote of no confidence there would be 14 days in which he and Corbyn would scrabble around trying to form a new working majority. A third possibility is a national unity government that crossed the major parties but wasn't run on party lines. None of these seem very likely. After this the PM can dissolve Parliament, which would mean an election in 25 days. Note, however, that dissolving Parliament doesn't immediately follow on after the 14 day period. The PM picks the day to dissolve Parliament.
So Johnson can wait until parliament comes back after its jolly summer hols in September, eat a no confidence vote held that day, wait two weeks while an alternativ government wasn't found, then twiddle his thumbs for a couple more and then dissolve Parliament, ensuring we leave the EU before the election. All perfectly legal.
Other things might happen in the meantime, but the Queen playing her fight music and entering the ring to bodyslam Leave is right up there with King Arthur returning to claim his rightful throne of Logres.
I can’t see the UK population at any level standing quietly aside while he goes despot by loophole and he’d have to realise he’d be killing the Tory party forever more.
2 million people marched for a second referendum. 6 million signed a petition for revoke. They were utterly ignored, and those people are, I think, unlikely to riot. As for the Tory party, well, if he chickens out of Leave they're done for, and if he follows through, they're probably done for.
A short term thinker like Johnson is going to do what May did, which is make the decision that keeps him in power tomorrow, and keep doing that until he runs out of decisions. Jumping off a cliff satisfies the Tory supporters who think he can fly, and he has until he hits the ground to think of something else.
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
edited August 2019
The obvious solution to that sort of crass machination isn’t the queen: it’s a cross-party interim government with the sole purpose of pulling us out from under the sword of Damocles that is the October deadline and calling a general election.
Edit: and any MP who doesn’t want a no-deal exit needs to be planning this shit now.
The obvious solution to that sort of crass machination isn’t the queen: it’s a cross-party interim government with the sole purpose of pulling us out from under the sword of Damocles that is the October deadline and calling a general election.
But by the rules, he can keep that from happening, can't he? If they do manage a no-confidence vote, he can refuse to step down, call an election that's just too late for them to do anything, and then it's all fucked.
Posts
the “blame labour and the EU” play only works for him if they don’t get brexit done, which means the economy doesn’t go to shit, not if they get a no deal brexit, which means it does
I dunno, the Tories got years and years out of the "it was all Labour's fault" excuse regarding the economy; most of this decade, really.
Steam | XBL
so, it is unquestionable to anyone who knows how things work that austerity severely hindered the recovery
but that allows the tories to say hey, we're trying to make things better, but labour messed up so bad that we know things are still not great for a lot of people
it doesn't have to be true, it's clearly not true, but it works
it's also different from saying "it's all labour and the EU's fault that we got you exactly what you asked for and it all turned to shit" in the case of a no deal brexit
Because the EU wasn't willing to give the UK a deal which would give the UK full sovereignty over its own borders, so there was no alternative to no deal
That's going to be the narrative, not "we gave you what you wanted" - no deal is going to be portrayed as an act of self-defense
So what happens when no deal wins the referendum?
Everything's fucked. But hopefully there is some element in there that requires more than 50%+ to make a firm decision. Trigger another one in 3 years or something to allow more details to be hammered out, might be fairest if most frustrating - give time for the magic tech to get invented (there won't be, just having a second referendum is going to be seen as a betrayal enough as it is and we're going to be plagued by vox pops who think "No Deal is bad, but not respecting the 2016 Brexit vote is worse").
There's no safe way of getting out of this mess as it is, it's risk a GE with the Brexit party being the second largest party and the Tories deciding being King of the Wasteland is better than in the Shadow Cabinet, or just let the current government do No Deal anyway. Or do a second ref with explicitly those two options and pass the buck on to the people - it's not like we've not been warned now.
Demographics are interesting - there is now no ABC1/C2DE class split in support, they are basically identical.
And my hot take is that the poll didn't include 16-17 year olds so you can nudge that figure up by some tenths of a percentage point as well.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
It's standard in British polling to remove Don't Knows and refused to answer to produce a Headline figure.
Now in this case I actually agree that for Scottish Independence Polling the headline figure should be dispensed with and it should be reported as yes/no/DK as the evidence of last referendum was that over the campaign DKs switched to Yes but on Polling day the remainng DKs voted No.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
There's a really grim historical irony that remaining as part of the EU was one of the bigger selling points for the "no" side of the Scottish independence referendum.
that one has been grinding my gears for years now. I don't have any skin in the game but the sheer boldfaced turnabout just makes me so angry.
"ooh, I wouldn't do that if I were you. EU is never gonna accept you, just ask Spain"
"alright that silly nonsense is settled then, how about we leave the EU?"
It's a bold strategy, Cotton, etc.
I do think the Scottish Indyref emboldened Cameron. He probably already thought he couldn't lose (that Eton mindset again), was "proven" right again, and it sent the hubris level for the EU ref even more sky high. I wonder, if the Indyref had been more of a knife-edge, if the idea of a supermajority, or more (for want of better terms) checks & balances, might have occurred to be part of the Brexit ref. Not just the in/out, 50%+1, advisory in law but the government "will definitely enact" and all that shit that it ended up being because arrogant hubris-boy thought he couldn't possibly lose. (And then took his ball amd went home the moment he did).
Fuck.
Steam | XBL
It's nice to see that we're really committing to extorting our neighbours by threatening to burn our own house down.
"Nobody move, or the Sheriff gets it!"
If you don't give us what we want then we won't get what we want!
These people wish they were as smart as Bart.
Frankly, they wish they were as smart as what my cat left in the litter tray this morning.
Steam | XBL
Worse, they assume that they are.
And that of course the EU will cave, because what else can they do? Say no to England?
Cummings is a dangerous asshole and Boris is craven compulsive liar and narcissist so it's not a shock they'd consider this.
So, uh
I know that we're in a continual state of political crisis at the moment, but Johnson trying to pull this would absolutely be a political crisis, right?
I'm pretty sure stopping Boris from doing it would be one of the few "Queen would be allowed to wield the power she has as Queen and get away with it," scenarios.
A political crisis of a like not seen since the Regency, yep.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Procedures for a no-confidence vote are actually codified in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. Like as awful as that legislation is and has been Boris Johnson can’t just ignore it and act with impunity. Not in any legal sense at least.
How would not resigning even work? He would have been fired. By Parliament. From running Parliament.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49240809
This plays into the whole "it's all the EUs fault" narrative but the EU can't compromise so it's no difference to them either way.
So the Crown more or less rubber stamps parliament. The queen has, in modern times, removed a prime minister without a no confidence vote (iirc, could be wrong on this but it was i think due to a failure to form) and has also officially asked non-plurality parties to form governments(generally the queen asks the party that has the most votes to form a party. I want to say these were during the same incidents) both of which are actual uses of the royal power (rather than a rubber stamp of what parliament wants)
So the Queen does have the power to sack Boris. And if Parliament no-confidenced him and he ignored it she very well could exert her power.
The Prime Minister does not run parliament he runs the government. He is like an appointed President. He essentially has the executive power of the crown.
Its true that the Prime Minister cannot be the prime minister without the support of parliament and true that the PM usually is a MP but the ministereal positions are executive separate from the legislature
Edit: as an example. This is the (almost) full text of the brexit legislation encompassing the complete operative statements.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I can’t see the UK population at any level standing quietly aside while he goes despot by loophole and he’d have to realise he’d be killing the Tory party forever more.
It’s stupid brinksmanship. I can’t believe he’d actually do it.
Hold his beer.
I can absolutely see him doing this, and I can absolutely see it working. LabourCorbyn will embrace it because it gets them what theyhe wants, which is an election.
I can see Boris and Farage riling the 'Brexit At Any Cost' crowd to their banner, while Corbyn just assumes he'll get the remainers by default, so he courts the 'Brexit At A Slightly More Reasonable Cost If You Don't Mind, Maybe We Could Wait Until There's A Sale' crowd.
The actual remain parties (Lib-Dem and Green) will get a serious boost, but there's still the optics of them being no-hopers, so some people will refuse to throw their vote away.
And the SNP will turn it into Indyref 2 By Proxy in Scotland.
If this ends up happening, I'm going to put actual money on it ending with a Brexit Party/Tory coalition. That way at least I'll have drinking money.
Saying she "could very well" sack the Prime Minister is, to put it mildly, quite a leap. The Queen's powers exist on the understanding that she never use them on her own, and claiming that this will be the thing that means she steps into the ring is a judgement that flies in the face of everything the Queen has done in the course of her reign.
She has appointed a PM once, but was explicitly following the advice of the outgoing PM (who was ill). This was Alec Douglas Home, who followed MacMillan.
Heath tried to continue in office in a hung Parliament but was unable to form a majority, so Wilson, the leader of the Labour party, which had the most seats, was asked to form a government as the next most logical choice. The Queen was not picking and choosing off her own bat in any way that would make sacking Johnson off her own bat a likely prospect in the future.
If Johnson's government were to lose a vote of no confidence there would be 14 days in which he and Corbyn would scrabble around trying to form a new working majority. A third possibility is a national unity government that crossed the major parties but wasn't run on party lines. None of these seem very likely. After this the PM can dissolve Parliament, which would mean an election in 25 days. Note, however, that dissolving Parliament doesn't immediately follow on after the 14 day period. The PM picks the day to dissolve Parliament.
So Johnson can wait until parliament comes back after its jolly summer hols in September, eat a no confidence vote held that day, wait two weeks while an alternativ government wasn't found, then twiddle his thumbs for a couple more and then dissolve Parliament, ensuring we leave the EU before the election. All perfectly legal.
Other things might happen in the meantime, but the Queen playing her fight music and entering the ring to bodyslam Leave is right up there with King Arthur returning to claim his rightful throne of Logres.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
2 million people marched for a second referendum. 6 million signed a petition for revoke. They were utterly ignored, and those people are, I think, unlikely to riot. As for the Tory party, well, if he chickens out of Leave they're done for, and if he follows through, they're probably done for.
A short term thinker like Johnson is going to do what May did, which is make the decision that keeps him in power tomorrow, and keep doing that until he runs out of decisions. Jumping off a cliff satisfies the Tory supporters who think he can fly, and he has until he hits the ground to think of something else.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Edit: and any MP who doesn’t want a no-deal exit needs to be planning this shit now.