# UK snap general election 14 October? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 2, 2019, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598 "2019-09-02T18:52:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598/61 "2019-09-05T12:13:45Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Remember, “no deal” is not an existential threat to the UK. The evidence for that is the existence of countries that sit outside of the E.U. and still manage to come to alternative arrangements and not descend into anarchy and a mad-max wasteland. That does not follow. You yourself keep making the “unprecedented” argument about Brexit. None of those other countries have left the EU and none have had such an abrupt change of interaction with the EU without time to put appropriate policies and infrastructure in place. None have an issue similar to the Irish border; few have a sizable portion of the country already close to having a majority demanding independence as Scotland is. No deal _is_ a very real existential threat to the UK. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598/62 "2019-09-05T12:23:19Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Which is exactly my point. They don’t believe we mean it and so are free to craft the deal very much in their favour. Right. If they don’t find it a credible threat, then it doesn’t matter if Parliament has officially taken it off the table. It didn’t mean anything when it was on the table so it doesn’t mean anything to take it off. > [@](#): > > Remember, “no deal” is not an existential threat to the UK. The evidence for that is the existence of countries that sit outside of the E.U. and still manage to come to alternative arrangements and not descend into anarchy and a mad-max wasteland. 1. Things can be disastrous without being an existential threat. If your bar for considering a deal acceptable is “won’t technically destroy the UK” then you would presumably accept literally anything else no matter how shit. I don’t think that’s your actual position. Also, I haven’t referred to No Deal as an existential threat, nor used the terms “anarchy” or “mad-max wasteland” so while I appreciate hyperbole as much as the next man I’d appreciate it if you applied it to your arguments rather than mine. 2. “Manage to come to alternative arrangements” is doing a lot of work here. No Deal is precisely the absence of alternative arrangements. The EU is the UK’s major trading partner; there are no countries, bar perhaps North Korea, that don’t have trade agreements with their major trading partners. No Deal means in the first place that there will be enormous short term disruption (which the \*government \*believes will lead to food shortages, mass culling of lambs and deaths) followed by… a long period of negotiation with the EU to “come to alternative arrangements”. Going back to the analogy, we are _in the end_ going to buy a car. We can’t not trade with the EU, and we can’t do that indefinitely without a FTA. So all No Deal does is give us short term pain and put us back a the negotiating table thoroughly over a barrel. The idea that we could put ourselves through that mill and realistically claim we were basically in the same position as Indonesia just doesn’t fly. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598/63 "2019-09-05T14:10:37Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > Right. If they don’t find it a credible threat, then it doesn’t matter if Parliament has officially taken it off the table. It didn’t mean anything when it was on the table so it doesn’t mean anything to take it off. They don’t think it is credible because right from the start the U.K. didn’t committ to no deal being an option. That is the problem. No deal should have been the starting point. To do anything else and to show so publically that the parliament was a remain parliament meant it was doomed from the start. It was weak and the E.U. knew it. The only way to get the most beneficial deal was to mean it from the start. That is absolutely the iron rule of any negotiation. Don’t get involved in any negotiation that you aren’t willing to walk away from. It sounds glib and simplistic but that’s becuase it is. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598/64 "2019-09-05T14:36:52Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > They don’t think it is credible because right from the start the U.K. didn’t committ to no deal being an option. That is the problem. No deal should have been the starting point. To do anything else and to show so publically that the parliament was a remain parliament meant it was doomed from the start. It was weak and the E.U. knew it. > > The only way to get the most beneficial deal was to mean it from the start. That is absolutely the iron rule of any negotiation. Don’t get involved in any negotiation that you aren’t willing to walk away from. It sounds glib and simplistic but that’s because it is. But the point is that the UK could never put itself in a position where the threat to walk away was credible, because No Deal was such a colossal shift in its relationship with the EU,and had so many negative short term ramifications, that the only way to make it seem like an actual option the UK might pick would be to spend a minimum of 5 years investing a fortune in preparation. Even if a government committed to doing that, the politics of saying “We won’t submit A50 for the next five years because our negotiating position is too weak” just don’t stand up. May would have been slaughtered by the right of her party and Farage’s lot and utterly monstered in the press if she’d attempted such a thing. Parliament made a massive error in allowing A50 to be submitted before the UK had worked out its negotiating strategy. Pretty much everything that’s happened in the negotiations and in UK Brexit politics since then has simply been the consequences of that decision playing out. But given that it did make this error, legislating \*now \*to avoid No Deal in 8 weeks time is exactly the right thing to do for the country, because we’re not prepared for it. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598/65 "2019-09-05T15:26:14Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > But the point is that the UK could never put itself in a position where the threat to walk away was credible, So we come back to the point that, if you don’t think it is ever possible to leave the E.U. then at what point was that line crossed and why are you not outraged that there was no referendum to endorse such an irreversible change to the country? > [@](#): > > Parliament made a massive error in allowing A50 to be submitted before the UK had worked out its negotiating strategy. Pretty much everything that’s happened in the negotiations and in UK Brexit politics since then has simply been the consequences of that decision playing out. I agree we should have taken our own sweet time to work out what we wanted to do and how and only then invoke article 50. Corbyn, the dense shit, wanted to invoke it the day after. Astute political mover that he is. > [@](#): > > But given that it did make this error, legislating \*now \*to avoid No Deal in 8 weeks time is exactly the right thing to do for the country, because we’re not prepared for it. At this point there is a pretty large of chunk of the country that would happily vote for a no deal or revoke the whole thing and the recent electoral results back this up. They at least have the benefit of being decisive and final. If the “no no-deal” passes and an election looms then the agony continues. I don’t see a decisive end absent an article 50 revocation or a no deal. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598/66 "2019-09-05T15:27:43Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > Parliament made a massive error in allowing A50 to be submitted before the UK had worked out its negotiating strategy. Pretty much everything that’s happened in the negotiations and in UK Brexit politics since then has simply been the consequences of that decision playing out. But given that it did make this error, legislating \*now \*to avoid No Deal in 8 weeks time is exactly the right thing to do for the country, because we’re not prepared for it. But No-Deal Brexit happens on Oct. 31 regardless of how often they vote that No Deal can’t happen. The only alternatives are: 1. Withdraw Article 50, which nobody will suggest because then they’d have to admit they made a mistake; 2. Vote for May’s Deal, the only one on the table, which they’ve already voted down seventy-bajillion times; 3. Ask for, _ **and get** _, an extension from the rest of the EU. “Just insist that no deal can’t happen and hope the universe aligns” is not a viable option. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598/67 "2019-09-05T16:48:32Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > So we come back to the point that, if you don’t think it is ever possible to leave the E.U. then at what point was that line crossed and why are you not outraged that there was no referendum to endorse such an irreversible change to the country?. That’s not what I think. We could have left in March if hard-core pro Brexit fanatic MPs from the ERG had voted for May’s deal instead of against. Their votes were decisive in defeating the bill. But for them, we’d be out. If May hadn’t set her contradictory and stupid red lines, we could have had cross party support for a soft Brexit EEA deal and been out by now. It’s very possible to leave the EU. What’s not possible is to leave and keep all the trade benefits of remaining. That self evident truth has been the case since 1975, when we had a referendum. But even if we hadn’t had a referendum, I wouldn’t be outraged because referendums are anti-democratic exercises in dodging accountability and need to be avoided at all costs. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598/68 "2019-09-05T16:54:40Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > But No-Deal Brexit happens on Oct. 31 regardless of how often they vote that No Deal can’t happen. The only alternatives are: > > 1. Withdraw Article 50, which nobody will suggest because then they’d have to admit they made a mistake; > > 2. Vote for May’s Deal, the only one on the table, which they’ve already voted down seventy-bajillion times; > > 3. Ask for, _ **and get** _, an extension from the rest of the EU. > > “Just insist that no deal can’t happen and hope the universe aligns” is not a viable option. Yes, and Parliament are currently successfully legislating to force the government to ask for an extension. The EU will agree because the UK will shortly have an election eg create a material change in circumstances. This is a Bill with teeth, not an indicative vote with no effect. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598/69 "2019-09-05T17:37:23Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > Yes, and Parliament are currently successfully legislating to force the government to ask for an extension. The EU will agree because the UK will shortly have an election eg create a material change in circumstances. Boris has made it quite clear he will not ask for an extension and, as the bill does not in fact have teeth, nothing will happen when he doesn’t. Macron has also made it clear that he will not allow an extension even if one is requested. So, for an extension to happen, two men known best for their stubbornness and lack of concern for consequences will have to change their minds. That is about as likely as Trump sending a gramattically correct tweet. ---
**Author:** ![kevlaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kevlaw/32/2281_2.png) [@kevlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kevlaw)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598/70 "2019-09-05T18:51:41Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > We could have left in March if hard-core pro Brexit fanatic MPs from the ERG had voted for May’s deal instead of against. Their votes were decisive in defeating the bill. This needs to be repeated over and over and it drives me mad when the BBC interviewers don’t challenge hard-core brexiters when they claim that the likes of Ken Clarke et al want to overturn the result of the referendum. > [@Stanislaus](#): > > If May hadn’t set her contradictory and stupid red lines, we could have had cross party support for a soft Brexit EEA deal and been out by now. Yes, again. May was more concerned with keeping her party together than keeping her country together. After a referendum that split the country almost down the middle, for her to tack way over to the right was irresponsible and insane. > [@Stanislaus](#): > > It’s very possible to leave the EU. What’s not possible is to leave and keep all the trade benefits of remaining. That self evident truth has been the case since 1975, when we had a referendum. I’m enraged that the pro-Brexit people are still denying this obvious truth. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598/71 "2019-09-05T20:05:22Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > From a point of negotiation it doesn’t really matter. The worst case scenario for both the UK and the E.U. may well be a no deal (that is very much open to question) but if either side takes it off the table they are fucked and the other side has them over a barrel and can offer a deal that maximises their own benefit. > > I assume that you wouldn’t recommend the E.U. start their negotiations by saying a “no deal” is not an option? > > I think it is true to say that the UK has potentially more to lose from a “no deal” than the E.U. does. That doesn’t mean that the E.U. loses \*nothing \* with a “no deal” and by the UK taking it off the table completely it means that the E.U. can now draft a deal that ensures they lose as little as possible, that is so obviously the case that it beggars belief that anyone can think otherwise. > > I do wonder whether people failing to see this have ever actually negotiated before. Try walking into a car dealership and stating upfront that you will not accept walking back out without a vehicle no matter what. The other party has to believe that your commitment to walk away is credible otherwise you are walking out with shitty 1998 hyundai and paying 20k for the privilege. I don’t see the difference, everyone already knows how catastrophic no deal would be to the UK, any real negotiation already starts from the point of understanding no deal is not viable. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598/72 "2019-09-06T00:23:11Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Boris has made it quite clear he will not ask for an extension and, as the bill does not in fact have teeth, nothing will happen when he doesn’t. The Bill imposes a legal obligation on a public officer, which is enforceable through court action. But it probably won’t come to court action. A Prime Minister deciding that he is not going to comply with the law is effectively overthrowing the rule of law, the notion that government actions must be lawful, which is a necessary foundation of democracy. Even the present-day Tory Party will find this hard to stomach. The monarch certainly will. If Johnson find the legal obligations attached to his office uncongenial the proper courses open to him are: - Peform the obligations, while whingeing about them - Persuade parliament to change the law, so that the obligations no longer apply - Resign, and make way for someone who is willing to do the job. Clinging to the office while refusing to perform the office is not an option and it’s absurd to say that there are no sanctions for doing so. He can be compelled by court order to perform the duty; if he defies the order he can be imprisoned for contempt. But political constraints are likely to operate more rapidly than judicial ones; the party will put up with a lot, but it will not put up with coup d’etat, which is what Johnson announcing that he is no longer subject to the law would amount to. > [@Steophan](#): > > Macron has also made it clear that he will not allow an extension even if one is requested. I don’ think he has, actually. > [@Steophan](#): > > So, for an extension to happen, two men known best for their stubbornness and lack of concern for consequences will have to change their minds. That is about as likely as Trump sending a gramattically correct tweet. Um, Johnson is noted for changing his mind. About Brexit, to pick but one example. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598/73 "2019-09-06T09:03:21Z")
Very much what UDS said. Johnson is the guy who was going to lie down in the front of the bulldozers at Heathrow; when it was time to merely vote against the third runway, he didn’t even show up. He can put on a good show, but when it comes to doing anything remotely difficult, he caves. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598/74 "2019-09-06T10:00:49Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Clinging to the office while refusing to perform the office is not an option and it’s absurd to say that there are no sanctions for doing so. He can be compelled by court order to perform the duty; if he defies the order he can be imprisoned for contempt. I hope you’re right about this. I’ve tried to find out what would happen if he did ignore the bill, I’ve asked here and elsewhere, and not gotten an answer. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598/75 "2019-09-06T10:26:44Z")
> [@kevlaw](#): > > This needs to be repeated over and over and it drives me mad when the BBC interviewers don’t challenge hard-core brexiters when they claim that the likes of Ken Clarke et al want to overturn the result of the referendum. The BBC, and its news division in particular, are now pretty much overrun with Tory appointees. For example, Sarah Sands, the editor of the Today programme since 2017, is formerly of the Telegraph and a friend of Boris; her son and husband are both materially involved in pro-Brexit advocacy work and the current government. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Bredin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@John\_Bredin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Bredin)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598/76 "2019-09-06T20:01:35Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Remember, “no deal” is not an existential threat to the UK. The evidence for that is the existence of countries that sit outside of the E.U. and still manage to come to alternative arrangements and not descend into anarchy and a mad-max wasteland. A revival of the Troubles – bombs, bloodshed, fortified police stations, etc. – sure sounds like “Mad Max” anarchy to me. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598/77 "2019-09-06T20:04:51Z")
Definitely not anarchy. If it were then I’m sure people would have name-dropped the Troubles in a famous song about anarchy. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598/78 "2019-09-06T20:23:02Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Remember, “no deal” is not an existential threat to the UK. Yes, it is: If Scotland leaves, there is no more UK. The Kingdoms are no longer United. There will be England and Wales on one side of a hard border, and Scotland on the other, with Scotland being inside the EU and England and Wales being outside of it. The UK was created by the Act of Union in 1707 and it would cease to exist were that to be undone. By Scotland leaving, most likely. Cease to exist means existential threat. ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598/79 "2019-09-06T20:24:58Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > For those of us having a hard time keeping score: Who (parties or prominent individuals) are opposed to Brexit, and what are their current numbers? Is there anyone who might plausibly get into power and say “Nope, sorry, Brexit’s off, if you want it back, then negotiate a deal first”? I don’t get it. Why hold referendum votes if TPTB can just say “Nope, sorry”? Makes it seem like a suggestion, not a mandate. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598/80 "2019-09-06T20:52:42Z")
> [@Ashtura](#): > > I don’t get it. Why hold referendum votes if TPTB can just say “Nope, sorry”? Makes it seem like a suggestion, not a mandate. Democracy is not one and done. If the people really want something, they’ll elect representatives who will do it. The current Parliament is more recent than the Brexit vote, so it has greater democratic legitimacy than the referendum (which was billed as “non-binding” in any case). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-snap-general-election-14-october/839598.md?page=5)