11th Blob 2023
“Blobby blobby blob blob blobby,” blob Sir Jake Berry.
Blobby!
*
But.
Blobby blobby blob Brexit, blobby blob?
“Blobby blobby,” blob Mr Blobby.
Blobby blobby Privileges Committee, blobby blobby Boris Johnson?
“Blobby blobby,” blob Mr Blobby.
Well.
Blobby blobby blobby.
Blob, blob.
***
Blobby Policy
This blobby blob enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the blobby.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if blobsome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
Top notch and appropriate analysis of the comments of this Trussock.
If Sir Jake Berry believes that “direct democracy” is preferable to representative democracy, his logical recourse is to resign his seat.
I’ll take that as “No” then.
I think the direct quotes say it all, really.
A triple blobby at the end there
Face it, Johnson is a snivelling coward. Nothing more, nothing less.
Brave Sir Blobby ran away
Bravely he ran away away
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail, he fled
Yes Brave Sir Blobby turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave Sir Blobby
Packed it in and packed it up
Sneaking away he buggered off
Chickening out he f***ed right off
He’s so brave, Sir Blobby, so brave, so brave,
So brave, so brave, so brave, so ……… cowardly!
(Acknowledging and plagiarising the sheer brilliance of the authors of Monty Python)
I can’t disagree with a single word of this.
The Law and Policy Blob strikes again.
I remember the original film starring Steve McQueen.
This may be the time for The Blob to come to life again
As the Blob grew in size and strength it also grew more Red (and not in a Republican way), until a vilified local policeman used his ex-Army marksmanship to bring an electric power-line down on it.
“The Blob” ranks alongside “Them” (about giant ants) and “The Invasion of the Body-Snatchers” as a fine example of Hollywood’s contribution to Cold War propaganda, as well as a lesson to uppity teen-agers about the need to show due respect to their elders.
In the end it was the teen, McQueen, who discovered that the Blob couldn’t stand the cold from a fire-extinguisher, thus showing that, thanks to the bright minds of the up-and-coming generation, the future of the Free World would be in safe hands.
The original of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers (and Eugene Ionesco’s play Rhinoceros) apply aptly to the moronic supporters of both Johnson and Trump.
Is it rolling Blob?
Genius. From now on every time an mp mentions the blob on tv, Mr Blobby should appear to wreak havoc.
Oh the joshing, it’s so funny……but:
Not sure history will be too kind to the Oaf Johnson.
My hunch is he’ll go down in history as one of the key people to secure the Leave Referendum result and as the PM who got Brexit over the line despite the constraints set upon him by the previous 2017-2019 Parliament & the ‘ticking clock’ from Article 50.
The laughing then stopped.
To Lawrence Buckley – the utter tragedy of the Brexit Process in respect of our representative demos system, was to show us the people and others the paucity of knowledge of what the EU was, became & how it functions by our MPs , our representatives- during the myriad various debates & indicative motions it became excruciatingly apparent that few ( on any side) knew what the Single Market was or how the Customs Union worked especially in relation to EFTA/EEA countries.
Special mention ought, in my view, go to Nic Boles and Stephen Kinnock for attempting to explain the Norway Model 2.0 , which would have saved a lot of heartache.
Brexit might, I concede be seen to be an economic failure, albeit it will take a significant amount of time to find a new trading equilibrium – what the Brexit process has really done is to shine a light on the failure of the representative Parliamentary system of governance – that in itself is a prize worth having.
….despite the constraints set upon him by the previous 2017-2019 Parliament….
You mean the previous blob that caused the current blob to frustrate the succesful deblobbing of your favourite blobby horse called Norway Model who blobbed in sight of finish line? That blob?
……what the Brexit process has really done is to shine a light on the failure of the representative Parliamentary system of governance – that in itself is a prize worth having…..
Blob.
I suggest you read the thoughts of Dominic Cummings in his sub stack on precisely the legacy of Brexit.
Apart from the realisation that Cummings didn’t just want to bring Schumpeterian disruption to our economy, but also to the political firmament (no Tory he), he is candid about why Brexit has failed to be implemented.
I doubt there will be many kind words about Brexit at all – “it was a great idea poorly executed” remains an exercise in assertion.
The people who misunderstood the EU were the Bexiteers. They didn’t know what it was they wanted to leave, just that they wanted to leave it. And having left it they didn’t realise the damage they had caused, blaming it all on not having left correctly.
Johnson only joined the Leave campaign for his own political gain. He didn’t believe in Brexit. No one believed the £350m promise either. He didn’t expect to win. The person most responsible for the referendum victory was Farage and his last minute appeal to Little English Xenophobia with that disgusting Leave.eu poster.
I’m not convinced that many remainers knew what the EU is/was either – I re-iterate that few people of either group actually understand the basis of the Single market or the Customs Union.
Worse, most people don’t understand that the EU is as much a rule taker as maker when it comes to the Single Market, where rules effectively flow from global intergovernmental organisations such as the WTO, WCO, UNECE (for most food standards ) , ICAO (aircraft/airspace safety etc).
Now the UK is out of the EU (& by virtue the SM) we have rightly taken our seat at the top table of these organisations with both vote and veto. We do however have to re-learn our voice and muscles at such bodies in order to make informed interventions for the betterment of the UK.
Uninformed Leavers really ought to understand the concept of the’ double-coffin lid’ of international standards and obligations that the UK signed up to when agreeing the TCA with the EU – the ‘double coffin lid’ applies to much of the single market acquis (law) which we are still obliged to follow and actually facilitates world trade globally.
It is with much regret that the Remain side (inc the then government) didn’t explain the benefits of the inter-governmental systems that facilitates & governs world trade. as this might have led to a more informed and flexible BREXIT outcome per EFTA/EEA. Nonetheless, the TCA provides a firm building block on which to improve trade and relationships with the EU.
My point was not the public, though I think remain voters knew more about what they would lose than leavers who now feel betrayed that what they voted for was a fiction.
No, I meant the Bexiteers running the Leave campaign and the Euro-sceptic MPs supporting it. They didn’t understand what the EU really was. What leaving really meant. They didn’t think they’d win and hadn’t made a plan. Still they complain a real Brexit has been prevented by this non-existent blob. They certainly didn’t want to stay in the EEA. Farage thought that was a good idea for years – until he realised EU regulations would still apply.
Yes of course the EU is also a rule taker. Every trade agreement involves rule taking and shared sovereignty.
This is sub-Richard North stuff. As you well know, non-tariff barriers represent a far greater barrier to closer trade relationships than the WTO and UNECE.
Why have our shellfish exports collapsed since Brexit? Why are European supply chains moving away from using our automotive OEMs in supply chains – just in time manufacturing is worth a Google. Why are our chemicals industry struggling to come up with an alternative to REACH?
They are all examples of sectors – in two cases, important export sectors – that have been damaged by Brexit. 3rd country rules need to be applied consistently – or Argentinian seafood exporters will demand equal treatment. But you know this.
You could retort by identifying sectors that are benefiting from our historic freedoms. I’m happy to wait – because UNECE, like fine words, doesn’t butter any parsnips.
Or perhaps the biggest benefits – such as making the post war-welfare state unaffordable – are the real point. Perhaps, just like the myth that Brexit was a populist uprising rather than an elite project funded by City financiers, you should have put Vote Leave, Abolish the NHS on the side of a bus?
When the UK rightly takes its seat at the top table of these organisations with both vote and veto, in order to make informed interventions for the betterment of the UK, will it be taken more seriously if the UK representative is wearing a Mr. Blobby costume?
John, sorry, this is all smoke and no substance.
Brexit can not succeed. Because Brexit means Brexit, remember? You left the EU, but you did not re-invent yourself by doing so, you went on a backward nationalist trip down Dad’s Army and On the Buses. And lo and behold, the dog caught the car. You won.
You gave up influence, you diminished yourself and you keep parroting the semi-facts and irrelevancies about international organisations you obviously picked up from the likes of Richard North and other bitter contrarians.
When I hear you dreaming out loud about Britain re-learning its muscle and voice and rightly taking a seat at top tables- to me it sings a shrill tune: you despise international cooperation when Great Britain cannot dominate.
The world in which Brexit could have succeeded does not exist any more. That Spitfire has crashed.
Wash, spin, repeat…. Rome wasn’t built in a day.
“You gave up influence, you diminished yourself and you keep parroting the semi-facts and irrelevancies about international organisations you obviously picked up from the likes of Richard North and other bitter contrarians….”
Been re-thinking a more formal response.
Let’s keep to the pesky facts – annoying though they are.
By virtue of Brexit, the UK has recused itself of having to vote in a block of 28 – the EU has to to do that in a messy compromise. This complex compromise for 27 competing different ‘voices’ (of member states) makes the ‘one size fits all’ approach to decision making extremely difficult and sub-optimal. Truth is, as we found out over 45 painful years, the outcome of wholesale compromise is messy and one that hardly any one member state would want in its own right. It’s sub-optimal and the lowest common denominator.
The UK has to formally take its seat at the top table of global standard and international trade making bodies – this isn’t or ought to be contentious.
Rightly, the UK moving forward can make its own decisions on their own merits for the benefit of the UK.
Looking at the very short term, the UK and US is likely to side with each other take a very different stance on AI regulation than the EU. The EU is a laggard in AI with relatively little expertise or capability in AI. Digital trade and the linkage of AI will not be dictated to by an EU permissive approach of times gone by. Too late for all that.
I genuinely hope that the current TCA can be built up for the UK and the EU in goods and services . But I’m a realist and recognise that in some instances like new AI regulation and other digital services the UK will travel in parallel boats from the EU for the benefit of the UK first and foremost.
My view – it’s early days in Brexit terms – since 31 Jan 2021 that is – it’s going to take 10 or more years to disentangle from the morass of supranational law – we ought to retain those global laws that dictate many of the rules of the SM without the political clap-trap that comes from a supranational organisation. The UK is amazingly resilient when the skies didn’t fall in – we’ll survive , likely thrive just not needing permission from Brussels and Frankfurt to do so.
There’s none so blind as those who will not see.
We are now just one isolated voice amongst all the others at the WTO, not at the top table at all. The top table consists of the most influential players: the USA, China, India and the EU. Almost all of our “new” trade deals are simply copy and paste of what the EU negotiated. There isn’t much conflict among the remaining 27 about what trade priorities should be. The EU is able to negotiate good terms from a position of strength. We gave that up and can now only negotiate from a position of weakness.
But more to Cameron for being seduced by the threat of Farage, plus posing a stupidly simple yes/no, 50% question.
The 50/50 was voted on by Parliament – it could be argued that a super majority say 60% leave or over was required.
It’s likely Labour, Libs & SNP asleep on the watch.
Plus, Referendum questions aren’t in the gift of the government – that is the role of the Electoral Commission.
But it was Cameron who ran scared of Farage and I’m sure by some means or another he could have influenced the way the Referendum was set up.
The referendum was explicitly set up as consultative only. Hence 50:50. It wasn’t a mistake, it was deliberate on Cameron’s part. The Leave campaign was fought as if it was a binding referendum. The result became “the will of the people” and that was the end of that.
In response to Kevin Hall – the Guardian did a great piece on the advisory nature of the referendum:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/23/eu-referendum-legally-binding-brexit-lisbon-cameron-sovereign-parliament
The challenge being that we have a Parliamentary representative democracy ie we entrust MPs to make decisions for us & referendums kind of don’t align with our usual way of working. I’ve some sympathy with remainers on this point.
The next challenge is – what does the government then do with the result of an advisory referendum – if it ignores it, it gets criticised.
The government clearly thought it best to stay in the EU – it campaigned to do so & somewhat unfortunately, it then spent c. £9m on leaflets that went to everyhouse ( still awaiting mine) telling everyone that it would implement the will of the people.
The unexpected outcome combined with the political momentum at the time, effectively forced the government to ‘accept’ the advisory Referendum result.
To be fair to MPs – when Gina Millar subsequently went to The Supreme Court to force the Government to have a vote in Parliament to allow the PM to effectively involve Article 50 – there was moment – for all MPs of all parties to vote against giving the PM permission to invoke Article 50. This didn’t happen.
I’d suggest that paradoxically those very MPs who hated the advisory referendum result & then saw the raw power of the government being checked by the Supreme Court were effectively obliged to then vote for the PM to invoke Article 50.
Ultimately we the people succeeded – but I accept it has had and will continue to have significant ramifications.
“Ultimately we the people succeeded …”
Oh dear, you really don’t grasp that those of us who disagreed/disagree with you are “the people” too.
Old adage – the people get the politicians they deserve.
The good voters of the UK put the current government in. It’s highly likely the good voters of 2024 will kick out this tired & incompetent government.
Then the cycle begins again.
That’s a silly, lazy adage because it leaves out the various factors combined in arriving at votes. For example, in this case the effect of Jeremy Corbyn’s lacklustre campaign and the Remain campaign being pathetic. Also, as Kevin Hall, Andrew, and others point out, the figures are hardly compelling when the voting is analysed. Half the country – at least – is still very troubled. It’s not a good way to run anything based on such division.
52% of the people who voted got their way. That’s hardly “we the people” is it?
Accepting the referendum result should then have led to a cross party approach to leaving the EU. It was after all not an opinion based on party lines. Sadly May chose to exclude opposition parties, drew some unnecessary red lines then promptly lost her majority.
Had she taken a cross party approach we might well have ended up with a good Brexit agreement and no Johnson government. As it was she was held hostage to a very hard Brexit by the ERG.
“Failure” or “fallibility”? The latter holds out the hope that failure is not inevitable.
I’m blobbing sick of blobbing conspiratorial MP’s and their blobbing enablers blaming the blobbing blob for doing the blobbing job. It makes me so blobbing upset. I’ll go off and have a blobbing blub…
A predictable response by Berry to Johnson’s splenetic cowardice and attempt to reframe the news from the Report on his criminality. Let us hope it is all over bar the shouting for this populist and his diminishing band of disciples. “Blob” and “swamp” both interestingly indeterminate objects of hate, so very populist. Let’s hope though that the populace have seen the sleight of hand of these fabricants of lies.
I am currently reading about the rise of the Nazis and it is chilling how effectively they, and their supporters, subverted the truth. Not just putting a ‘positive spin’ on things as we have become so used to, but completely reversing the truth. And now we see a similar style of rhetoric from dangerous right wing factions on both sides of the Atlantic.
You are slipping Sir, you missed a blob
Perhaps Mr B should stand in for the next PMQs – and it probably doesn’t matter which dispatch box.
What’s this – a growing Blobby Lobby – for someone who’s the very embodiment of inflation? Now??
Anyway, after Sir (Knight of the People?) Jake’s bold and exhilaratingly misguided attempt to face both ways in that interview, I’m wondering how he will hedge his bets if (like Sir Toby Belch with the hapless Sir Andrew) his Tory friends encourage him (“For the Commons of England, Sir Jake”) to challenge Mr Blobby to a duel.
Blobby blobby!
Blobby off blobby!
All the blobin’ and blubbin ‘ amongst the anti Johnson afficianados ain’t gonna change the fact that we’ve got Brexit not BRINO.
Not sure who is laughing the most.
Ah. Good you show your true colors once more.
“You lost. Get over it.”
And this, John Jones, is the prize you consider to be “worth having”.
Schadenfreude towards who you consider losers.
Blobtastic. It’s the only kind of language they seem to understand.
I think what did for Johnson is that he ran out of people willing to lie to cover up his misdemeanours. And once he had reached that situation, in his mind, of course the rest of the world (‘the Blob’) was against him. God knows what his family life is like. Does the current Mrs Johnson (the bit on the side who hung on in) ever dare tell him that he might be wrong about anything?
“A succinct and cogent analysis of the causes, trajectory and collapse of the Johnson era.”
The Daily Blob.
Allow me to translate for those of a certain age:
Floba loba loba loba loba lob
Weeeeeeeed
You’re using terms I can understand. Loba floba lob.
It sounds like we have a real-life version of Ghostbusters 2 happening here with the mysterious Blob taking over Parliament and forcing Boris Johnson to resign. But instead of proton packs, they should probably use marmalade sandwiches to defeat him. Just remember, never cross the streams… unless you want to create another disaster akin to Brexit! #MarmaladeForTheWin
In James Thurber’s wonderful book, the Thirteen Clocks the wicked Duke is threatened by a sinister force, the Todal if he fails. The Todal is described as a “blob of glup” and is “an agent of the devil, sent to punish evildoers for having done less evil than they should”.
Jake Berry’s tweet seems to have a very loose connection with truth.
I did not vote for Brexit, and yet we have Brexit on the basis of 17.5 million votes in that advisory referendum in 2016, from an electorate of 46+ million people, out of the 60+ million people who live in the UK. As a matter of fact, the establishment did not block Brexit: it already happened, more than three years ago already.
I have voted in almost every national and local election I have been entitled to vote in since I came of age, but I have never voted for Johnson – him never being a candidate in a seat for which I had a vote – nor indeed for his party when he was its leader. I’ve also lived under many governments of different stripes when I have not voted for their candidates. I suspect I’ve voted for losing candidates and parties more often than winners. Cry me a river.
The establishment did not force Johnson out. He resigned, as PM last year and then as MP this year. The first because his own party lost faith in him, and the second as a result of (it seems) him seeing a draft of an adverse report from a Parliamentary committee; a committee which has no disciplinary powers itself, and a majority of members from his own party. If anyone has forced him out, twice, it is his own party. Because of who he is, and what he has done.
As to who is in charge: remind me again when I will get to cast one vote in a general election, and how much influence that gives me as a voter over the membership and policies of the UK’s government?
Blobby genius. Well blobbed.
The “blob” is based on a conspiracy theory which originated in the USA. It needs to be called out for what it is and debunked.
Apart from anything else the inference is that everyone agrees with what the government is doing, everyone wants the government to do that and it’s only rogue Civil Servants, activist lefty lawyers and others (TBD) in the “blob” who are preventing it. It’s absurd.
Blob, blob indeed.
That’s even worse. Only 43% of the people voted for Johnsons’s Government in 2019.
43% is not “the people”.
Gotta see the world as it is, not as you’d like it.
FPTP is what we’ve got – we repudiated AV way back when. It’s a really unfortunate fact but you have to abide by the rules of the voting system albeit you might not like the result.
Demos and the system we currently use can be a bitter pill.
AV isn’t remotely proportional and wouldn’t help the FPTP situation much.
I agree we have to deal with the electoral situation as it is, but you can’t claim the people voted for Johnson when only a minority voted for him and his party.
I’m not claiming AV is proportional – it was a voting system that was rejected, funnily enough, in a binding referendum as an alternative to FPTP back in 2011. AV is known as semi proportional as it still gives minority votes to be better represented.
Johnson was able to form a government in 2019 precisely because his party was most ( easily) able to form a government at the time. This approach to forming government has been around since c1948.
Indeed it was c. 1935 that any party ( Tories) got over 50% of the popular vote. Tis a quirk of FPTP – unfortunately, like it or not, ‘thems the rules ‘ as a disgraced former PM might say.