Brexit frustrations make snap election a big gamble for Johnson

[snoop1130]

Brexit frustrations make snap election a big gamble for Johnson

By Andrew MacAskill

 

FILE PHOTO: British Prime Minister Boris Johnson marks London International Shipping Week in London, Britain September 12, 2019. Johnson is pushing for a snap election. Daniel Leal-Olivas/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

 

LINCOLN, England (Reuters) - James Bowkett is a long-time Conservative Party supporter who voted in 2016 for Britain to leave the European Union.

 

Three years later, the 58-year-old businessman is fed up waiting for Brexit to happen and is considering abandoning the Conservatives in a looming snap election.

 

“I am giving up on the Conservatives. There are too many people in that party who don’t want to listen to the public,” Bowkett, 58, said holding up an umbrella on a rainy day this week in Lincoln in eastern central England.

 

“I am beginning to doubt that Brexit will happen, and I don’t think the Conservatives can deliver it alone.”

 

Bowkett is just the sort of voter Prime Minister Boris Johnson needs if he is to win an election following parliament’s rejection of a Brexit deal agreed by his predecessor, Theresa May, and the EU’s refusal to renegotiate it.

 

Johnson wants an election to strengthen his mandate for pulling Britain out of the EU after his Conservative government lost its majority over his handling of Brexit. Opponents refuse to endorse an early election unless he rules out leaving the EU without a deal, which could cause a disorderly Brexit, but a snap poll is likely sooner or later.

 

It is a risky move. If Johnson fails to carry out a pledge to leave the EU on Oct. 31, frustrated Brexit supporters like Bowkett could be driven into the arms of the Brexit Party founded this year by eurosceptic Nigel Farage, polls show.

 

Johnson could lose power, the main opposition Labour Party could enter government and Brexit might never happen.

 

Even if Johnson can persuade the EU to accept a revision of the deal reached by Theresa May, it is unlikely to be enough to appease voters like Bowkett.

 

“If that (revision) happens, all this fighting will have been pointless,” Bowkett said. “We will be the laughing stock of the world.”

 

ELECTION GAMBLE

 

To win a majority in a general election, Johnson will be banking on winning in places such as Lincoln, a cathedral city that was an important settlement in Roman times and lies 120 miles (193 km) north of London.

 

The constituency, narrowly held by Labour, has been a bellwether of national trends in all but one election since 1979.

 

It voted 57% in favour of quitting the EU in the 2016 Brexit referendum - compared to the nationwide margin of 52-48 - and the Brexit Party finished top in local voting in European elections in May, as it did in the national vote.

 

The Brexit Party has proposed a non-aggression pact with the Conservatives to avoid diluting support for leaving the EU. But so far Johnson, who also risks losing votes to Labour and the pro-EU Liberal Democrats, has rejected its overtures.

 

Brexit supporters’ frustration is evident in the streets beneath Lincoln’s Norman castle. Many said they wanted to exit the EU so that some of the large sums Britain pays into the bloc’s coffers can be reinvested in their community.

 

They say there are few good jobs, the transport system is underfunded and that immigration since the EU took in 10 new member states in 2004, most of them from the former Soviet bloc, is putting extra pressure on local services. A local road called Portland Street is known to locals as Poland Street. The nearby town of Boston has experienced the highest levels of immigration in Britain.

 

John Roland, a retired engineer, said the main institutions in Britain were failing and he planned to back the Brexit Party.

 

“I feel like we need some fresh blood,” he said.

 

Brexit supporters broadly welcome Johnson’s Brexit stance but say some Conservative lawmakers have undermined him by opposing his strategy of threatening the EU that Britain will leave without a deal if the terms on offer are not good enough.

 

“When you take away his ‘atomic bomb’, you have no leverage,” said David Daniels, a Lincoln policeman and former member of the air force.

 

NON-AGGRESSION PACT?

 

The Conservatives lead Labour by between one and 14 points in opinion polls. The Brexit party trails further behind but an ICM poll last week found support for Farage’s party would double from nine percent to 18 percent in any election held after Oct. 31 if Britain had not left the EU by then.

 

The poll, commissioned by Represent Us — which is pushing for a second Brexit referendum — found the Conservatives’ lead over Labour would evaporate in these circumstances.

 

There is no longer enough time to hold an election before November and EU negotiator Michel Barnier is not optimistic a divorce deal can be reached on or before Oct. 31. [L5N2636V4]

Johnson’s ability to take Britain out without a deal has also been hindered by parliament passing a law forcing him to seek a delay - which he has said he will not do.

 

John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University, said a decisive factor in the election would be whether eurosceptic voters have more confidence in Johnson or Farage over Brexit.

 

“That could be the crucial debate on which any election might well turn,” he said.

 

Karl McCartney, the Conservative candidate for Lincoln and the local member of parliament between 2010 and 2017, acknowledged the threat from the Brexit Party.

 

“We know if we do not leave (the EU) ... the Brexit Party is the main danger, not the Labour Party,” he said.

 

Farage, who has spoken at two rallies in Lincoln in the last five months, sees few options for Johnson and has proposed Conservative and Brexit Party candidates do not run against each other in more than 80 of the 650 parliamentary constituencies.

 

“I very much hope that Boris Johnson will simply look at the numbers,” Farage told Reuters. “If we stand against them, they cannot win a majority.”

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-09-13

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Mavideol]

25 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

If that (revision) happens, all this fighting will have been pointless,” Bowkett said. “We will be the laughing stock of the world.”

no to worry, you already are 555

[Mavideol]

28 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

Farage told Reuters. “If we stand against them, they cannot win a majority.”

and so the used car sales guy said

[RichardColeman]

If I was the Tories I'd refuse to leave if I lost. I'd say the electorate did not know what they were voting for in electing a labour government an demand a second vote

[CharlieH]

reported troll comment removed.

[from the home of CC]

The political systems in play that basically say  'you are not intelligent enough to make important decisions, so vote us in and we'll make them for you' are not working too well in the age of information. There was less drama when people were more effectively kept in the dark. Since the advent of the internet, it's harder and harder to keep people stupid. In Canada we use a similar system and it's says the same thing - although your taxes pay for the whole mess, your money doesn't mean that you're clever enough to vote on individual issues that may directly affect your life. You vote us in and we'll make all the decisions for you and you just keep the money flowing in. Disgustingly bureaucratic, ineffectual and prone to corruption. How does it feel to be a grazing farm animal lol...  

[elliss]

3 hours ago, Mavideol said:

and so the used car sales guy said

 

   Who in their right mind would you buy a second hand motor off this spiv.  All tie and mouth. 

    However that said , there are those amongst us who...

 

[Slip]

Reuters trolls Brexiteers- I'm sure the irony flies directly over the heads of these brexit fans.

Quote

Johnson will be banking on winning in places such as Lincoln, a cathedral city that was an important settlement in Roman times

 

Quote

Brexit supporters’ frustration is evident in the streets beneath Lincoln’s Norman castle.

And it also seems that they have little understanding of the proven policies of the political right over the decades:
 

Quote

Many said they wanted to exit the EU so that some of the large sums Britain pays into the bloc’s coffers can be reinvested in their community.

 

[Slip]

9 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Oh dear arch remainers are trying to link Tommy Robinson to the genuine democratic referendum result.

 

Talk about desperate. You are at an all time low with tactics. Why don't you go to the various courts and try and stop Brexit that way.

 

Hold on you are already. There is no lows to what some remainers will do.

 

I expect next that Jimmy Saville would be dragged out of the woodwork and then the blame of Brexit, will be on him. The only fact is that he was friends with all the savage remainers, so even that avenue is false.

 

Quote

I expect next that Jimmy Saville would be dragged out of the woodwork and then the blame of Brexit, will be on him. The only fact is that he was friends with all the savage remainers, so even that avenue is false.

So you accuse them of being likely to do precisely what you have actually just done.  This seems to lack self-awareness to me.  

[Laughing Gravy]

3 minutes ago, Slip said:

 

So you accuse them of being likely to do precisely what you have actually just done.  This seems to lack self-awareness to me.  

I am genuinely unsure what you mean. Can you explain in greater depth please, as I really don't understand what you have written and mean

[Slip]

15 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I am genuinely unsure what you mean. Can you explain in greater depth please, as I really don't understand what you have written and mean

Apologies for not being clearer Laughing Gravy.  I was referring to your (I presume) tongue in cheek notion that the Leavers would  try to drag Jimmy Saville out of the woodwork to                try to discredit brexit and its supporters, but that in your very next breath you made exactly the same connection in an attempt to discredit the leave campaign and those who support it.

[welovesundaysatspace]

12 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

If I was the Tories I'd refuse to leave if I lost. I'd say the electorate did not know what they were voting for in electing a labour government an demand a second vote

And what laws would allow them to do so? 

[welovesundaysatspace]

 

Quote

Why don't you go to the various courts and try and stop Brexit that way.

 

Hold on you are already. There is no lows to what some remainers will do.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that people who favor to be governed by manipulated opinion polls can’t accept the rule of law and consider it a “low”. Good that there will never be a place in our free democratic societies for those who can’t abide the laws. 

 

 

 

 

[bannork]

13 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

If I was the Tories I'd refuse to leave if I lost. I'd say the electorate did not know what they were voting for in electing a labour government an demand a second vote

And you would have that second vote within 5 years at the latest, earlier if the government proved to be disastrous..

It's now well over 3 years since the Brexit vote and a lot has come to light since that day, especially the consequences of a no deal exit. Time to let the people vote again.

[Laughing Gravy]

8 hours ago, Slip said:

Apologies for not being clearer Laughing Gravy.  I was referring to your (I presume) tongue in cheek notion that the Leavers would  try to drag Jimmy Saville out of the woodwork to                try to discredit brexit and its supporters, but that in your very next breath you made exactly the same connection in an attempt to discredit the leave campaign and those who support it.

Thank you for clarification. I would not put any trick down that the remainers wouldn't pull to prevent Brexit.

 

When you have treacherous people like Blair and Mandelson, to name  a few why not bring an ex buddy out of the woodwork, one that they all seem toi want to dissociate themselves with.

[OneMoreFarang]

11 hours ago, from the home of CC said:

The political systems in play that basically say  'you are not intelligent enough to make important decisions, so vote us in and we'll make them for you' are not working too well in the age of information. There was less drama when people were more effectively kept in the dark. Since the advent of the internet, it's harder and harder to keep people stupid. In Canada we use a similar system and it's says the same thing - although your taxes pay for the whole mess, your money doesn't mean that you're clever enough to vote on individual issues that may directly affect your life. You vote us in and we'll make all the decisions for you and you just keep the money flowing in. Disgustingly bureaucratic, ineffectual and prone to corruption. How does it feel to be a grazing farm animal lol...  

Where do you get the idea from that people do actually inform themselves before they make decisions?

And what gives you the idea people make logical decisions based on facts?

When you look at reality and all the stupid and irrational things which people do all the time you will notice at some stage that it does not make sense to assume people make logical informed decisions based on facts. They mostly don't!

And this is the same for minor everyday questions like what do people eat and drink, bigger decisions about how they spend their money, how they (not) plan their future, and how they vote.

If people would make informed decisions this world would look a lot different.

[JAG]

5 minutes ago, bannork said:

And you would have that second vote within 5 years at the latest, earlier if the government proved to be disastrous..

There I are many on here (and elsewhere) who would claim that this government has proved to be disastrous. Personally I tend to think that the opposition has been disastrous, but never mind. Anyway, about that election which would sort it out?

 

Well, no,erm, well, you see, umh, perhaps later, it's coming, when the time is right...

 

Have we already forgotten Tony Blair's quote a couple of weeks ago about "elephant traps"?

 

So, time to let the people vote again?

 

[Laughing Gravy]

23 minutes ago, bannork said:

It's now well over 3 years since the Brexit vote and a lot has come to light since that day, especially the consequences of a no deal exit. Time to let the people vote again.

You seem to be making an argument that because of leaving the EU with a no deal then we should stay in this rotten to the core otrganisation. Also the consequences as you say are speculation, using the common remain words such as could, maybe, possibly, potentially etc etc

 

Just like the day we voted to leave and the 900,000 jobs would vanish overnight. We all know what happened there don't we.

[Laughing Gravy]

19 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Where do you get the idea from that people do actually inform themselves before they make decisions?

And what gives you the idea people make logical decisions based on facts?

When you look at reality and all the stupid and irrational things which people do all the time you will notice at some stage that it does not make sense to assume people make logical informed decisions based on facts. They mostly don't!

And this is the same for minor everyday questions like what do people eat and drink, bigger decisions about how they spend their money, how they (not) plan their future, and how they vote.

If people would make informed decisions this world would look a lot different.

A few years ago and even now still some remain posters are jumping on the bandwagon that the leave campaign had irregularities with spending. turns out to be rubbish. Surprise surprise. Just shows how facts are sprouted when they are actually lies. So who people on their informed choice were wrong.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1177849/Brexit-news-Nigel-Farage-Leave-EU-Brexiteer-EU-exit-referendum-Metropolitan-Police

 

[sammieuk1]

Choices and conundrums for the ballot paper 1 the liar, 2 the whispering PLO hugger, 3 NF in a different name, 4 liberals and the voice of reason hard choice is it not????  

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:

A few years ago and even now still some remain posters are jumping on the bandwagon that the leave campaign had irregularities with spending. turns out to be rubbish. Surprise surprise. Just shows how facts are sprouted when they are actually lies. So who people on their informed choice were wrong.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1177849/Brexit-news-Nigel-Farage-Leave-EU-Brexiteer-EU-exit-referendum-Metropolitan-Police

 

Yesterday the Spectator, today Express, what's next?

[Laughing Gravy]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Yesterday the Spectator, today Express, what's next?

How about the Dandy and Beano.

[whimsicalmike]

15 hours ago, from the home of CC said:

 Since the advent of the internet, it's harder and harder to keep people stupid. 

 

Not hard to keep them stupid when most of the population is stupid and more information will never fix that

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

And what laws would allow them to do so? 

The law of false equivalence.

 

[blazes]

4 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Where do you get the idea from that people do actually inform themselves before they make decisions?

And what gives you the idea people make logical decisions based on facts?

When you look at reality and all the stupid and irrational things which people do all the time you will notice at some stage that it does not make sense to assume people make logical informed decisions based on facts. They mostly don't!

And this is the same for minor everyday questions like what do people eat and drink, bigger decisions about how they spend their money, how they (not) plan their future, and how they vote.

If people would make informed decisions this world would look a lot different.

 

Thank you for this defence of all of us here on TV, who, of course, DO make logical decisions based on facts. 

[Percy P]

18 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

If I was the Tories I'd refuse to leave if I lost. I'd say the electorate did not know what they were voting for in electing a labour government an demand a second vote

That won't be needed because I can't see Labour winning. I'll vote Brexit which I hope in turn will reach out to the Conservative party and keep the PM in power. It essential. If you don't vote your letting candidates in that shouldn't be in.

Take note of MPs who have betrayed their constituents by not carrying out the wishes.

[Chomper Higgot]

23 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

Thank you for this defence of all of us here on TV, who, of course, DO make logical decisions based on facts. 

And yet, in the light of the electorate being now aware of the factual reality of Brexit, Brexiteers vehemently argue against the nation being given a second vote .

[blazes]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And yet, in the light of the electorate being now aware of the factual reality of Brexit, Brexiteers vehemently argue against the nation being given a second vote .

As Basil Fawlty would say, "Yes dear, whatever you say, you know best."

[bannork]

5 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

You seem to be making an argument that because of leaving the EU with a no deal then we should stay in this rotten to the core otrganisation. Also the consequences as you say are speculation, using the common remain words such as could, maybe, possibly, potentially etc etc

 

Just like the day we voted to leave and the 900,000 jobs would vanish overnight. We all know what happened there don't we.

The Yellowhammer Report was written and released by the government itself. Of course It is speculation, it hasn't happened yet, but it is the Boris Johnson's government own report and it ain't a pretty picture.

Many claim it is in fact the base scenario as opposed to the alleged Black Swan report, the worst case scenario.

As they say, it is the poor who will suffer most.

Why would anyone want to inflict suffering on their own people by a No Deal, unless........they hoped to make a lot of money from it.

From Byline Times-

From the financial data publicly available, Byline Times can reveal that currently £4,563,350,000 (£4.6 billion) of aggregate short positions on a ‘no deal’ Brexit have been taken out by hedge funds that directly or indirectly bankrolled Boris Johnson’s leadership campaign. 

Most of these firms also donated to Vote Leave and took out short positions on the EU Referendum result. The ones which didn’t typically didn’t exist at that time but are invariably connected via directorships to companies that did. 

Another £3,711,000,000 (£3.7 billion) of these short positions have been taken out by firms that donated to the Vote Leave campaign, but did not donate directly to the Johnson leadership campaign.

Currently, £8,274,350,000 (£8.3 billion) of aggregate short positions has been taken out by hedge funds connected to the Prime Minister and his Vote Leave campaign, run by his advisor Dominic Cummings, on a ‘no deal’ Brexit.

Does this £8 billion bet explain why the Prime Minister has said that he would rather “die in a ditch” before asking the EU for an extension? Is it the reason why Johnson is willing to defy the Benn Act that stops a ‘no deal’ Brexit? Is the £8 billion any kind of motivation to prorogue Parliament?

Under the Ministerial Code, Government ministers must have “no actual or perceived conflicts of interest”. But what could be a bigger conflict of interest than those bankrolling the Prime Minister also having a vast financial interest in a catastrophe for Britain?

Byline Times has approached Boris Johnson and the Cabinet Office for a response, but has yet to receive a reply.

 

 

[blazes]

55 minutes ago, bannork said:

The Yellowhammer Report was written and released by the government itself. Of course It is speculation, it hasn't happened yet, but it is the Boris Johnson's government own report and it ain't a pretty picture.

Many claim it is in fact the base scenario as opposed to the alleged Black Swan report, the worst case scenario.

As they say, it is the poor who will suffer most.

Why would anyone want to inflict suffering on their own people by a No Deal, unless........they hoped to make a lot of money from it.

From Byline Times-

From the financial data publicly available, Byline Times can reveal that currently £4,563,350,000 (£4.6 billion) of aggregate short positions on a ‘no deal’ Brexit have been taken out by hedge funds that directly or indirectly bankrolled Boris Johnson’s leadership campaign. 

Most of these firms also donated to Vote Leave and took out short positions on the EU Referendum result. The ones which didn’t typically didn’t exist at that time but are invariably connected via directorships to companies that did. 

Another £3,711,000,000 (£3.7 billion) of these short positions have been taken out by firms that donated to the Vote Leave campaign, but did not donate directly to the Johnson leadership campaign.

Currently, £8,274,350,000 (£8.3 billion) of aggregate short positions has been taken out by hedge funds connected to the Prime Minister and his Vote Leave campaign, run by his advisor Dominic Cummings, on a ‘no deal’ Brexit.

Does this £8 billion bet explain why the Prime Minister has said that he would rather “die in a ditch” before asking the EU for an extension? Is it the reason why Johnson is willing to defy the Benn Act that stops a ‘no deal’ Brexit? Is the £8 billion any kind of motivation to prorogue Parliament?

Under the Ministerial Code, Government ministers must have “no actual or perceived conflicts of interest”. But what could be a bigger conflict of interest than those bankrolling the Prime Minister also having a vast financial interest in a catastrophe for Britain?

Byline Times has approached Boris Johnson and the Cabinet Office for a response, but has yet to receive a reply.

 

 

 

Since we are now into conspiracy theories, why not bring in the name of good old Uncle George Soros, who made his billions in shorting the pound sterling in (?) 1992?

 

At least the Soros story was true!