I must have missed that one. Can you point me at it please, I couldn’t find it when I searched.
I would think that there is a pretty obvious strategy for Johnson here
He knows that he is not going to get a change to the WA
He knows that Labour will not support any changed deal anyway - they are just looking to secure power and that is far more important to them than a good outcome that delivers on the referendum
So he should simply do what he is doing - ensure that the EU is seen as the 'bad guy' and make that clear in many peoples minds
Make sure that Labour & LibDems are seen as those responsible for forcing another extension on the UK
Undertake a major PR campaign to emphasise these positions in the minds of all those voters that are not close-minded EU sycophants
Call an election campaigning on leaving the EU, ideally with a deal, with no-deal as the 'backstop' and also with a vote being held in N.I. to enable N.I. to determine for themselves whether there should be a sea or land border - thereby closing down that issue. Obviously he would need to secure a majority and not rely on the DUP
Now it is a gamble - he may not win a majority.
I suspect though, given the large number of Remain constituencies in the south that would not vote Labour under any circumstances and the number of marginal seats - he just might.
The prospects are increased due to the LibDems and a confused Labour causing a split in the remain vote in a lot of marginal constituencies
I made several references in a number of posts with regard to what I see as the obvious way that this should/will/would have unfold(ed) - such as the one above (500 pages ago).
In summary the steps would be:
Start by recognising the red lines of Summer 2019:
1. The EU cannot reopen the WA - even if they would have they cannot now after all that has been said
2. The current UK parliament will not sign-off on any arrangement that sees the UK leaving the EU
3. Johnson is committed to bring this to a close and has/will stake his political future on achieving this
4. The EU's revised 'Ideal' option is the WA with an unfettered backstop which keeps the UK under tight control for many years to come whilst removing the fly from the ointment. Failing that their 'realistic' option is the UK remaining in the EU and their 'fallback' option is reaching some accommodation with the UK that prevents No-Deal
5. Without a 'form of' No-Deal / walk-away scenario the EU are never going to need to move from their Ideal or Realistic options to their Fallback option - therefore they have observed and worked with their Westminster supporters to remove the threat of a No-Deal and kept their powder dry.
6. Leave supporters (in government) know that if the threat of No-Deal is removed then there is absolutely no incentive for the EU to make any shift from their Ideal and Realistic positions
So.………….
At the time of posting I was saying that the only approach that can satisfy all the above is to:
8. Engineer a situation where the EU is indeed facing the threat of a No-Deal ahead of their mid-October meeting
9. Determine a manner in which the backstop can be effectively fettered - ideally through a time-limit or otherwise by the achievement of pre-determined criteria that are achievable by the UK and under its control.
10. Draft the PD to include the fettering of the backstop as described above - so the EU does not have to reopen the WA and Johnson can claim that he has effectively 'removed' the backstop.
11. Provide a 'limited backstop' which would be e.g. at the end of the time-limit set out in the PD and should the pre-determined criteria not have been achieved then N.I. will remain in the backstop until the criteria has been achieved. This was the previous EU position and likely would have been adopted until May fucked up her 2017 election and became dependent on the DUP.
12. The above - setting DUP politics to one side - provides a unique position for the people of N.I. and should be welcomed.
13. Bringing N.I. politics back into the frame - bring forward a proposal for a referendum in N.I consistent with the provisions of the GFA to determine whether N.I. remains in the UK or transitions to a part of an 'all Island Ireland'. That would indeed be interesting for the ROI as the reality of what that means kicks in. If N.I. remains in the UK following the referendum then work on achieving the pre-determined backstop criteria continues until achieved.
14. The above means all the stress and drama disappears and allows all parties to feel a sense of 'victory' - history will demonstrate the entire issue was blown up/weaponised as a negotiating tactic - I would think sensibly so if I was on the EU side.
Since making these posts the legislation has been confirmed that will prevent the No-Deal scenario - see points 4 & 5 above. This does not really change anything in this scenario - except the weightings on how it will play out. For instance:
15. There was always going to have to be a GE as the HoC will not sign up to any WA without a Leave majority and the DUP would not support the proposals above - despite them being obvious and simple. Johnson was hoping though for that to be called after he had placed the EU in a position where it had to move to the Fallback position or genuinely see a No-Deal - IMO they would indeed move and be able to claim that they are only doing what they had always offered.
16. The legislation has potentially scuppered Johnson from enacting this series of events and provides more encouragement to the EU that they can secure their Ideal or Realistic options.
For the UK a GE is needed urgently so that this can be brought to a close - either way.
