Is The U.K. About To Get A Trumpist Prime Minister?

New polling is scaring the hell out of both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party in the U.K. Voters who want to leave the EU are abandoning the Conservatives for Nigel Farange's far right Trumpist Brexit Party and Labour voters who want to remain in the EU are abandoning their own flip-floppy party for the Liberal Democrats. The Guardian reported that a new Opinium poll for The Observer shows that "more voters now say they would back the Brexit party at the next general election than the Conservatives." The neo-fascists went from 3% to 24%, with the Conservatives at 22% and Labour at 29%.

That is for Parliament. Next week the Brits vote for representatives to the EU parliament and the poll shows this problematic score:

• Brexit Party- 34%
• Labour- 20%
• Liberal Democrats- 15%
• Conservatives- 12%

I hope everyone else is voting for the Pirates.

While the Remain vote remains split between several parties, the Lib Dems have become the top choice for Remain voters. The party increased its share of Remain voters to 29%, up seven points. Labour’s share of Remain voters was down three points on 28%.

The poll found that if Labour were to switch and clearly back a second referendum with an option to remain in the EU, the party could win back a large number of Remain votes in Thursday’s vote. In such a scenario, Labour’s vote share increased to 30%, a 10-point increase on its current position.

Support for Theresa May is ebbing away, even among Tory voters. Two in five (38%) 2017 Conservative voters think the prime minister should resign immediately. It has increased from a third (32%) since before the local elections in April.

Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn are now tied over who would make the better prime minister, though both have low ratings. Each has only 19%, with 55% saying that neither would be the best person for the job.

Support for May’s deal appears to have hit a ceiling. For the first time since the indicative votes in the House of Commons took place, more of the public think that MPs should vote the deal down (39%) than vote for it (36%).

The polling was completed even before Theresa May finally agreed to step down if her Brexit proposal loses in Parliament in the first week in June... for a 4th time-- as is all but certain. The clownish Boris Johnson (pictured on the right in full make-up) has offered himself as her successor. Conservative MPs are anything but thrilled, although Johnson has a great deal of support from the same kind of poorly educated and bigoted voters who support Trump. The BBC reported that top Conservative leaders are discussing a timetable for May to finally retire as prime minister and party leader. In the video below, The Economist discusses various other candidates who could save the Conservatives-- and perhaps Britain-- from the imbecilic Boris Johnson:

Brexit Indecision Has The U.K. In Turmoil-- General Election On The Horizon?

Brexit by Nancy Ohanian

On Friday, as her Brexit proposal went down to an unprecedented third defeat (by 58 votes) in Parliament, Theresa May didn't resign. Instead she said "This government will continue to press the case for the orderly Brexit that the result of the referendum demands." 34 of her own Conservative members voted against her, including former foreign secretary Boris Johnson, former Conservative Party Leader Iain Duncan Smith, Former Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab, and, of course, the "Honourable Member for the 18th century" Jacob Rees-Mogg. Both Jeremy Corbyn and the leader of the Scottish National Party, Ian Blackford demanded that May call a general election. Meanwhile EU President Donald Tusk called an emergency EU summit in front of looming April 10 departure date.

The two most plausible outcomes are a "no deal" withdrawal-- akin to suicide-- or a second Brexit vote, which may be too sensible for the Conservative Party. Here's how The Guardian sees the possible next steps:

Withdrawal agreement is rejected but Downing Street is unable to indicate a way forward by 12 April

The leaders said they would consider a lengthy extension to article 50 if the withdrawal agreement was rejected at the third time of asking. They said, however, that they would expect “the United Kingdom to indicate a way forward” before 12 April “for consideration by the European council”. If Downing Street is in complete paralysis or it rejects any solution that might emerge from the Commons second session of indicative votes on Monday, then the EU’s leaders will be in a spot. They will likely call a summit on 10 April come what may. The decision will be whether to cut the UK loose, with the expectation that the concomitant no-deal chaos will drag the UK government swiftly back to the negotiating table, or possibly appeal to MPs over the heads of the government. Brussels could offer a lengthy extension with conditions-- and let parliament decide what to do next. EU countries do not want to be on the wrong end of the inevitable blame game. Parliament may look chaotic. But it is inching towards a resolution.

UK Unplugged by Nancy Ohanian

The Commons backs a softer Brexit

If the Commons was to back a permanent customs union in its indicative votes next week, the EU could “within days” revise the political declaration, the non-binding outline of the future relationship, to set the two negotiating teams on that course. The wording will not be detailed. The negotiations over the terms of a customs union will be hard-fought when they come. Labour has said it would want the British government to have a say in EU trade policy in such a situation. This is likely to have a pretty messy collision with reality-- but that is for a later date once the UK is out. In such a scenario, it is still feasible that the withdrawal agreement and political declaration are ratified by parliament within weeks, and the UK leaves the EU by the 22 May.

The Commons backs a second referendum or the prime minister calls a general election

Both of these scenarios would require a lengthy extension beyond elections for the European parliament. At the summit on 10 April, leaders would decide on the length. Any extension to article 50 in this scenario would be no shorter than nine months, taking Britain’s membership of the EU up to 31 December 2019. A full year is far more likely and anything up to 21 months is possible, keeping the UK in the bloc until 2021.

We Get To Vote Again On Trump Next Year But Poor England May Never Get Another Chance To Vote On Brexit

Thursday, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn the the House that "After the last few days of government chaos and some defeats, all of us now have the opportunity and the responsibility to work together to find a solution to the crisis facing this country, where the government has so dramatically failed to do so. We have begun to hold meetings with members across the house to find a consensus and a compromise that meets the needs of our country." However, a vote "enable the House of Commons to find a way forward that can command majority support" was narrowly defeated-- 314 to 312. On the other hand, the vote for a second referendum, which seems the only sane thing to do, was overwhelmingly defeated-- 334-85.

But, a Brexit vote finally went Theresa May's way. 413 members voted to delay Brexit, while 202 voted against. It took support from Labour to pass it and 8 of her own cabinet ministers, including Brexit secretary Steve Barclay, voted against her. The delay is for at least 3 months but it could be a lot longer.

All 27 EU members have to agree to grant the UK an extension. EU Council president Donald Tusk favors an ever longer extension than the 3 months May is asking for. The Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, isn't as optimist and conciliatory as Tusk. "What’s the point of whining on for months on end while we have been going around in circles for two years?" he asked. "When Theresa May comes asking us for an extension, our response will be: 'For what? To what end?'"

Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland, wrote that May has finally got the Brexiters where she wants them. "MPs," he wrote, "had the chance to take back control of Brexit-- wresting this tortured process from a weak, flailing and moribund government-- and they ducked it... losing by just two votes, 312 to 314, but MPs passed up the opportunity to take charge and say, at long last, what kind of Brexit they want. They preferred instead to grant Theresa May yet another lifeline for her own deal-- which, incredibly, will come back for a third meaningful vote on Tuesday.

The lever that was offered to MPs, by which they might have finally got a grip on the Brexit crisis, was a proposal from Hilary Benn [Labour] that would have seen a series of votes allowing MPs to indicate their preferred Brexit plan-- whether that be Norway plus or a second referendum or every shade in between. No longer would May retain the initiative, with the power to confine MPs to a single, binary choice: my way or the highway.

Had it gone through, it would have confirmed what the rest of this week had already suggested: that power is haemorrhaging away from this prime minister, that this government is in office but not in power, that it is parliament rather than Downing Street that now calls the shots. But, by a whisker, May’s administration clung on, the party whip having lost not all of its sting. In fact, it was six Brexiter Labour MPs who saved May from what would have been further humiliation, voting against their colleague Benn and giving her a stay of execution.

It now means the prime minister can stage next Tuesday’s vote the way she wants it: as an ultimatum to the ultras of the European Research Group and the Democratic Unionist party. Thanks to another, much more comfortable vote this evening, approving in principle an extension of article 50, those intransigents will now face a sharp dilemma. The ERG and DUP either swallow their objections and vote for May’s deal, or they face the prospect of a long delay to Brexit-- perhaps for the best part of two years. Given the mayhem on show these past few days, who would bet what might happen to their precious Brexit project between now and 2021? They might lose it altogether.

That is the stark, binary choice May has always wanted to press upon the Brexiters, and the defeat of the Benn amendment allows her to do it. She-- and her plan-- get to live till Tuesday.

Some of her colleagues want to say that something else momentous was decided this evening: the rejection of a second referendum. It’s true that the Commons delivered a crushing rejection of that idea. True too that the margin of defeat will be used to taunt and torment people’s vote campaigners for days, maybe weeks, to come: “Your precious second referendum was rejected even more decisively than May’s plan back in January!” they’ll say.

But that taunt will only have a tenuous relationship to the truth, because this was hardly a real test of the idea. Labour abstained on the proposal, while even the official People’s Vote campaign said now was not the right time to push it. It was tabled by Sarah Wollaston of the Independent Group, perhaps to embarrass Labour and highlight the party’s lukewarm support for the campaign, but it was hardly smart tactics: it now allows opponents to claim there is no support in the Commons for a second vote when, in fact, there’s much more than tonight’s vote suggests. It was a misstep by the remain camp, which has demonstrated that it is far from united, and riven with tensions of its own.

One almost-clear thing does emerge from tonight’s vote. That date you had in your diary, circled in joyful red or in sombre black depending on your point of view-- you can now uncircle it. Whatever else happens, it is all but certain that Britain will not be leaving the European Union on 29 March.

That’s because MPs voted by 413 votes to 202 to request an extension of article 50. I say request, because it’s up to the 27 EU nations that Britain will soon leave behind to give their blessing to a delay. Still, given that they also don’t want a no-deal crash-out in 15 days’ time, it’s a good bet they will say yes. Even if May works a Lazarus miracle on Tuesday, winning approval for her Brexit deal buried twice over by successive Commons defeats, she will still need an extension into the summer to get all the technical stuff through, and that’s even before talks get started on the future relationship. So doomsday-- or day of liberation, if that’s how you see it-- is no longer scheduled for 29 March. This Brexit saga will go on and on.

How Flawed Is Too Flawed To Be An Effective Candidate?

I'm sure no one doubts that Trump and his allies have every intention in the world of causing as much chaos as they can-- and worse-- in the 2020 Democratic primaries. Writing for CNN yesterday, Jeff Zeleny and Kaitlan Collins reported that Trump is watching announcement rallies, tuning into televised town hall sessions with voters and listening carefully to commentary on the Democratic presidential race. His opinions fluctuate on who he will, or would like to, run against. But one sentiment is unwavering-- he has no plans to sit idly by and watch. [He] intends to play an active role in the Democratic primary and has instructed his aides to look for ways he can, according to more than a dozen Republicans involved in his campaign. His team is working to sow divisions among rivals and looking for opportunities to 'cause chaos from the left and right,' in the words of one adviser."

And despite the concerted effort by corporate media-- led, wittingly or not, by Rachel Maddow-- to white-wash Amy Klobuchar's transgressions, no one is giving Trump an easier target that the aggressively boring senior senator from Minnesota, whose claim to "Minnesota Nice is, at best, tenuous. No doubt Trump lapped up the noise, How Amy Klobuchar Treats Her Staff, by in the NY Times, yesterday. After interviewing dozens of Klobuchar staffers, Matt Flegenheimer and Sydney Ember wrote that "In private, she could deliver slashing remarks without particular provocation. Parched one day in the Capitol, she turned to a member of her team and said, 'I would trade three of you for a bottle of water,' according to a person who witnessed it." That's an example of what earlier in the month Maddow excused as her winning sense of humor. Had Bernie (or Trump) said it, Maddow would be accusing them of colluding with Russian aluminum barons.

Former aides said Klobuchar frequently told them they were damaging her political career. On one occasion, a former aide recalled, Klobuchar accused her of "ruining my marriage," too. (The aide said she interpreted the comment to mean that Klobuchar, in her telling, was forced to work overtime, away from family, to overcome the aide's failings.)

Many staff members did warmly recall the misery-loves-company camaraderie that built among aggrieved aides. But the core truth of life with Klobuchar was never going to change, they said: She thought she was demanding their best and getting far less. And she was never going to apologize for pointing that out.

"I need to do some serious soul searching about our office," she said in one e-mail, lamenting the team's work product. "How can you treat me like this time and time again?"

One of the top and most respected Capitol Hill staffers sent me this last night-- word for word: "Off the record-- I have a former colleague who worked for her and said the coverage isn’t fair... he says she’s far worse than what has been reported."

Moments later, a member of Congress, unsolicited, sent me a note asserting that "a staggering number of staffers on Capitol Hill are self-important shitheads who waste all their time gossiping and never do anything useful. It is FAR more difficult to get anything useful out of the staffers than it is other Members, even Republicans. And the way I have been playing it, there is a lot more at stake than who cleans the salad out of the comb." He did, however, go on to say that what was really sad about the article is that "Klobuchar’s main legislative 'accomplishment' is swimming pool safety. If someone could find me a candidate who had instituted universal healthcare, I wouldn’t care if he or she held some staffer upside down out the window by his ankles, and shook him until the change fell out of his pockets.

"The other day, I looked into how someone as deeply incompetent and stupid as Theresa May could ever have been elected the head of the Conservative Party. The answer is this:

• One opponent pointed out that she had children and May did not, which was reported endlessly in the media as a vicious low blow.
• Another opponent sexted a woman who was not his wife.
• Another opponent came out in favor of a third runway at Heathrow Airport, which somehow was twisted by the media into a callous disregard for the right to peace and quiet.

"The only thing that even remotely resembled debate of a serious issue is that May was the only candidate who said that she 'would negotiate' to kick three million legal EU emigrants out on their asses when Britain left the EU, while the others said they could stay.

"I’m sorry about the salad and the comb, but this already is descending into trivial bullshit. And Trump will exploit it-- mark my words."

No one's going to ever have a White House as chaotic, miserable, paranoid and dysfunctional as Trump. But that's way too low a bar to set for aspiring politicians eyeing the White House. Her staffers say she crosses the line between being a demanding boss and being a dehumanizing boss. She told her staff that their tweeting (in her name) makes her look like a joke and that she feared there was "an in-house mole." She rate-fucked staffers who left her employee when prospective employers asked for recommendations. She sounds like exactly I would have avoided hiring as a department head when I was president of Reprise Records. She was "the steward of a work environment colored by volatility, highhandedness and distrust." Staff turnover in her office "perennially ranks near the highest in the Senate." People like Klobuchar fail leadership tests and produce crap results-- always... no, not sometimes-- always; I don't care how much Rachel Maddow appreciates the deference the senator pays her.



"She was known to throw office objects in frustration," wrote Flegenheimer and Ember, "including binders and phones, in the direction of aides, they said. Low-level employees were asked to perform duties they described as demeaning, like washing her dishes or other cleaning-- a possible violation of Senate ethics rules. One of those tasks was so disgusting that I'm not going to write it out at DWT.

While there was wide consensus in the interviews that women were often held to a different standard as bosses, former aides — female and male — said their concerns about Klobuchar's behavior should not be dismissed as gender bias. Many of the aides said they had worked for both men and women, for lawmakers both compassionate and unkind, without encountering anyone else like Klobuchar.

The world of congressional staffs is one of long hours and low pay, with much of the work shouldered by twentysomething junior aides who are learning on the job. Some members of Congress are notorious for round-the-clock phone calls, late-night e-mail and fierce attention to their own press coverage. Klobuchar is among them, but former aides said they were especially troubled by her willingness-- in excess of other senators', they said-- to embarrass staff members over minor missteps or with odd requests.

Most of those interviewed for this article-- describing memories that span from shortly after her election in 2006 to the much more recent past-- discussed their time with Klobuchar on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal from the senator. These concerns were not idle, they said. Saving potentially damaging e-mails from Klobuchar became something of a last-day ritual, the aides said, in case they ever needed evidence of her conduct for their own reputational protection.

She was known to throw office objects in frustration, including binders and phones, in the direction of aides, they said. Low-level employees were asked to perform duties they described as demeaning, like washing her dishes or other cleaning-- a possible violation of Senate ethics rules, according to veterans of the chamber.

Appraisals of perceived staff incompetence were delivered at all hours of the day and night:

"In 20 years in politics I have never seen worse prep," Klobuchar said in one e-mail, displeased at how a political event had been handled.

"This is the hands down worse thing you have ever given me," she wrote in another, questioning her team's grasp of policy as she rejected its "slop."

"This is the worst press staff I ever had," she announced once to employees, according to an aide present. This was effectively a rite of passage, the aide said: The senator had plainly said the same about both predecessors and successors in the office.

This much is not in dispute: For years, Klobuchar has had among the highest rates of staff turnover in the Senate, according to a review of congressional offices from the website LegiStorm. Over much of her Senate career, no one outpaced Klobuchar on this score; in 2017, two freshman senators, John Kennedy of Louisiana and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, surpassed her.

The churn has produced a bit of a vicious circle. Democrats in Washington say she has struggled to recruit and retain top talent. Some operatives say they have shied away from her 2020 campaign, mindful of Klobuchar's reputation.

Among other concerns, her office's paid parental leave policy has been described as unusual on Capitol Hill. Two people familiar with the policy said that those who took paid leave were effectively required, once they returned, to remain with the office for three times as many weeks as they had been gone. The policy, outlined in an employee handbook, called for those who left anyway to pay back money earned during the weeks they were on leave.

After receiving questions about the policy from the Times, Klobuchar's office said it would be revised. "We offer 12 weeks of paid maternity and paternity leave for our staff and have one of the strongest paid leave policies in the Senate," said a spokeswoman, Elana Ross. "We've never made staff pay back any of their leave and will be changing that language in the handbook." She declined to provide a copy of the current policy as written.

This kind of stuff should point journalists to ask tough questions about how her behavior could portend for the office she's seeking-- although, Maddow might say, that it's so much easier to just let it slide and guarantee herself another first-in-the-nation interview if she ever needs one again on a slow news night. Axios managing editor David Nather pointed out why this matters: "As a new candidate without a well-defined national profile, Klobuchar's treatment of her staff has become a damaging storyline that could overwhelm what she has to say about issues." Klobuchar and her cronies would like to say criticism of her behavior is sexist-- but Amanda Terkel, writing late yesterday for HuffPo recognized that identity politics bullshit argument for what it is: offensive to feminists. One former Klobuchar staffer: "It’s not that there’s not merit to the argument that other men have been abusive and gotten away with it. It doesn’t make it OK for anybody. We don’t say, we haven’t held men accountable in the past for this on Capitol Hill, so why start now?"

Advocates for women in politics have long been focused on dismantling the barriers that kept men in power and shut women out. And while the 2020 Democratic primary is the first time in history when a significant portion of the candidates running are women, many of those barriers still exist. Women still face more questions about their fitness for office in ways that men don’t.

But with women in power, there are going to be good bosses. And there are going to be bad ones. And criticizing a female politician doesn’t mean that it’s a sexist attack. Feminism is, of course, ultimately about more than getting women into elected office.

“The only way to excuse the Klobuchar allegations is to conflate cruelty with feminism,” wrote Jezebel writer Ashley Reese. “It’s the reductive Bad Ass #GirlBoss model of empowerment that celebrates virtually anything women do-- because a woman did it. It’s about getting ahead, not other women.”

Klobuchar faced allegations of mistreating her staff as far back as 2006, when she was the Hennepin County attorney in Minneapolis-- undercutting the Wall Street Journal’s view that the upset aides are just a bunch of snowflake millennials.

  “I’m hearing people saying, ‘They just didn’t know how to work in a high-pressure environment,’ or ‘they couldn’t take the high stakes or the tough boss or the tough feedback.’ It’s incredibly insulting. It’s gaslighting,” said one of the former Klobuchar staffers. “It’s the kind of thing people tell people who have been abused. It’s not abuse, you just didn’t live up to the standards, and that’s your fault.”

Obviously, Klobuchar's shortcomings and foibles aren't the only targets Trump is tucking away in a fold of his malevolent reptilian brain. Right now it doesn't look like New Jersey junior senator Cory Booker is going to break through into the top ranks of major candidates. But if he does, Eliana Johnson's 2014 piece in the National Review will serve as a guide post to paint him as just another corrupt New Jersey pol. A former Booker staffer confirmed the general accuracy of the report, in as much as Booker ran a culture-of-corruption administration in Newark, and the crippling damage it would do to candidate Booker if he ever had to face Trump. "You know as well as I do," he told me, "it's impossible to come up in New Jersey politics without being tainted by corruption. Democratic politics in New Jersey, just like Republican politics in New Jersey is a swamp where anything goes-- and everything does. Has there every been an above-board politician from New Jersey? If you find one, let me know." At the time of the National Review piece, there was bipartisan support for demanding that the New Jersey Legislative Select Committee on Investigation look into "abuses of power and cover-ups" in the seven years that Cory Booker was mayor of Newark. Booker-- like his pal Chris Christie-- has always painted himself as someone working to root out corruption. And isn't that what corrupted politicians always do? Johnson wrote that "the comptroller’s report on the Newark Watershed Conservation and Development Corporation (NWCDC) paints a different picture-- of, at best, Booker’s inattentive oversight in allowing the agency, which until recently was responsible for providing all of the city’s water, to fleece millions from the public fisc while his political allies enriched themselves. At worst, it suggests Booker knowingly let his friends profit on the city’s dime." It would be a shame if the Democrats deprive themselves of the corruption weapon in a battle with the most corrupt "president" in American history by nominating a candidate with questionable credibility in the area.

I want to bring up something I referred to last night, Brian Hanley's Medium post about why Democrats ought to nominate Bernie. He enumerated 20 reasons but I'm just going to reproduce one-- the third in his list:

He’s the most popular politician in the country.

While Trump broke the record for the worst favorability ratings of any nominee in history, Sanders maintains the highest favorability scores of any elected official. Sanders continues to be the most popular politician in the country by a large margin. He’s the only one on either side who the majority of voters like. Even a Fox News survey found that no other politician was more well liked and most Republicans say that he’s honest.

This chart was from 2016 but it's still instructive today, especially when you look at some of the other Democrats vying for the nomination, particularly Biden, Gillibrand, Booker and Klobuchar-- the centrists, all liars who the best you can say about is that they don't lie as much as Trump. Oh boy!

Will The U.K. Face Up To The Catastrophe BREXIT Has Become?

I just returned from Istanbul on Sunday evening and I'm happy to share some of the observations I had while I was there-- even beyond the fact that when I first went there in 1969 the only Americans who went there were looking for cheap dugs and that today it's the same thing, except instead of hash they're buying pharmaceuticals that are too expensive back home-- before I forget them all, likely by this evening. Even in Turkey, where many people are still seething about not being accepted into the EU, everyone is talking about BREXIT, even without having John Oliver to make it all somewhat comprehensible. I got the impression that Turks were not unhappy to watch the turmoil-- and fascinated. And on the way home Sunday I flew the once great British Air-- now a flying garbage can-- which had lots of British newspapers obsessed with BREXIT from every possible angle. And that includes which Tory will be able to oust her and move into #9.

Britain finds itself with 3 possibilities:

• Accept the universally hated deal Theresa May negotiated with the EU
• Just say eff-you to the EU and walk away, probably wrecking Britain's economy
• Call a revote which would likely result in the end of BREXIT, unless the Russians intervene again

A revote is being supported by more and more people inside and outside of government but conventional wisdom is that it can't happen. I'm not sure why, but that's conventional wisdom for you. Yesterday May tried to recapture the initiative from mutinous members of Parliament from her own party who are trying to trigger a no confidence vote in her government. She told an annual business conference that "Getting back full control of our borders is an issue of great importance to the British people" and said that EU citizens-- meaning eastern Europeans primarily-- will no longer be able to "jump the queue ahead of engineers from Sydney or software developers from Delhi." Red meat to the pro-BREXIT factions who have already decided she's offering too little.

Most Brits Want A Brexit Do-Over So The U.K. Could Stay

The headlines about the new YouGov poll for The Times is bizarre. 38% of respondents prefer a further right government-- so Boris Johnson rather than Theresa May. OK, so 62% don't? And 24% of respondents are out-right racists. Ummm... so 76% aren't? Yet the headlines are all about the right-wing loons. Why not about how a new referendum on Brexit would come up with 54% remaining and 46% wanting to leave. Odd.

Former Tory Prime Minister Sir John Major has said a second Brexit referendum is “morally justified”-- as a new poll revealed support for staying in the EU over crashing out without a deal.

Sir John said PM Theresa May was “boxed in” by hardline Brexiteers and warned stalemate in the Commons could leave Britain facing a no-deal scenario.

His comments came as polling showed support for staying in the EU over leaving with no deal if a new referendum was held.

Remaining in the EU would beat leaving with no deal by 54 per cent to 46, according to a YouGov poll for the Sunday Times.

Just 11 per cent of voters would back leaving the EU on the terms put forward by Mrs May in her Chequers deal, with 38 per cent backing a no-deal Brexit and 50 per cent saying they would vote to remain in the EU, the poll showed.

Former Conservative PM Sir John admitted a second referendum has “democratic downsides”, adding: “It has difficulties. But is it morally justified? I think it is.

"If you look back at the Leave campaign a great many of the promises they made were fantasy promises. We now know they are not going to be met.

"A referendum isn't an easy option, but it's not one at this stage that I would rule out."

Referring to the "irreconcilable" stance taken by hardline Tory Brexiteers, Sir John said: "That has boxed the Government and particularly the Prime Minister into a corner.

"They are a minority of the House of Commons, a substantial minority of the House of Commons, but they are larger than the Government's majority.

"The danger at the moment is that they will frustrate every move the Government seek to make and by accident, because nothing can be agreed, we will crash out without a deal."

It's like the Freedom Caucus and the Republican Study group holding the U.S. House hostage to the crazy far right ideas while being a minority of Congress but with the power to control the GOP. This all seems like very bad news for Theresa May but perhaps good news for Jeremy Corbyn, as the Conservative government splinters and falls apart.

Trump's Horribly Failed Trip To Europe

Here in the U.S., Trump is the least popular American "president" at this point in his term. It's much worse in the rest of the world. Except for outright fascist countries like Hungary and dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Trump is almost universally hated. Even before he went to the U.K. and made an ass out of himself, YouGov polling showed him with an 11% approval rating. 67% of Britons say he's either a "poor" or "terrible" leader.

Scotland hates him even more than the rest of the U.K. and they're pissed off that his vacation/advertisement for his failed Turnberry golf resort, a money laundering machine, is costing them $6 million.

Before he flew up to Scotland, he did a 30 minute interview with right-winger Piers Morgan aboard Air Force One. Morgan wrote a long article about it for the Daily Mail but I'm just excerpting a tiny bit:

Trump spectacularly blew up his trip this week with an incendiary interview in The Sun that attacked Theresa May for watering down her Brexit plan to such an extent that it might kill off hopes of a trade deal with America.

It was the political equivalent of going to someone’s house for dinner and telling them their food is inedible.

He tried to rein back on his criticism when they appeared for a joint press conference on Friday, but a lot of the damage was already done with May’s critics leaping on the belief that her new Chequers plan which caused David Davis and Boris Johnson to resign, doesn’t allow Britain to do a bi-lateral deal with America.

I was curious if Mrs May had managed to change his mind during their series of private meetings.

‘No, no, I think my position is the same-- I just think it’s really their choice. And if you speak to the Prime Minister, she’s really saying: “No, it is Brexit, it is what it was, but we’re leaving certain things.”

‘Do you believe that?’

‘Well honestly it’s not for me to say.’

‘Most people don’t believe it.’

‘Well yeah, I know, but…’

‘They think it doesn’t allow for America to actually trade.’

‘Well that would be bad, I mean look, I think it’s worse for UK than it is for us because we’re doing very well, and we’re doing very well at trade, and we’re doing incredibly well overall, and we’re having the best numbers we’ve ever had as a country-- best employment numbers, best GDP numbers.’

‘If we were free, Britain, to do a genuine free trade deal...’

‘We would make a tremendously big deal.’

‘People say: “Come on. The President of the United States, Donald Trump, he wants to put America first, we’re not going to get a great deal.”

‘That’s true. Sure, but you’re going to put UK first, and we’re going to, you know, we’re going to argue, we’re going to fight, and we’re going to end up making a deal.’

‘Is it in your interests?’

‘We are putting America first but you have to put your country first, and other people have to put their country first.’

‘The sceptic in me would say: ‘What is the incentive for America to do a great deal with the United Kingdom?”

‘We would make a great deal with the United Kingdom because they have product that we like. I mean they have a lot of great product. They make phenomenal things, you know, and you have different names-- you can say “England,” you can say “UK,” you can say “United Kingdom” so many different-- you know you have, you have so many different names-- Great Britain. I always say: “Which one do you prefer? Great Britain? You understand what I’m saying?’

‘You know Great Britain and the United Kingdom aren’t exactly the same thing?’

‘Right, yeah. You know I know, but a lot of people don’t know that. But you have lots of different names. The fact is you make great product, you make great things. Even your farm product is so fantastic.’

Trump revealed at the press conference he had privately suggested Mrs May activate a ‘brutal option’ to bring the EU to heel.

I asked what it was.

‘Well I recommended her something, I gave her an option, I’d rather not tell you what that option is, but I think she might. I think it would’ve been great, but it’s not too late for her to do that necessarily.’

One more thing from Morgan's interview that was kind of hilarious-- and a little sad: When the ass-kissing Piers asked him about the hundreds of thousands of protesters, Trump told him that "Some of them are protesting in my favour, you know that? There are many, many protests in my favour." Among the imaginary pro-Trump protesters were not members of the royal family which largely boycotted Trump, although, poor Queen Elizabeth couldn't. Her husband, Prince Philip found something else to do and so did their son and grandsons, Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry, who are all friends with the Obamas and who are still fuming that Trump threatened England if the Obamas were invited to Prince Harry's wedding.

Now, back to Piers' unanswered question on Air Force One, the one about the "brutal option" he had given Theresa May. Because he shot off his fat mouth and because Morgan wrote about it, the Prime Minister had no choice but to reveal it when Andrew Marr asked her about it on the BBC the next day.

The prime minister was asked on the BBC’s The Andrew Marr Show what the “brutal” Brexit negotiating advice was that Trump had talked about in their joint press conference outside the prime minister’s Chequers country retreat.

Revealing it for the first time, May said: “He told me I should sue the EU.” After being prompted by a surprised Marr, May repeated: “Sue the EU, not go into negotiations with them, sue them.

The prime minister smiled, and indicated she had disregarded the advice, saying “actually we’re going into negotiations with them”, in remarks that will be interpreted as a put-down of the president.

At least in Finland, not all the protests, scorn and hatred were directed at Trumpanzee. That was all shared between him and his buddy Putin-- and the weather, the hottest day (86 degrees) in years. Even before Trump arrived, Helsinki police were reporting that at least 10 16 demonstrations were planned to protest the two of them, primarily in support of human rights and democracy. During the Sunday rally, Heidi Hautala, a popular Finnish member of the European Parliament told the crowd of several thousand that "The current world order... has been challenged by admiration of force and an attitude of 'every man for himself.' And this is what these two men, Trump and Putin, have in common-- contempt for democracy, contempt for international agreements, contempt for human rights." The Finnish neo-Nazi party also organized a Welcome Trump event at Narinkkatori, a pedestrian plaza across from the train and bus station which also includes the Chapel of Silence, a church dedicated to the absence of sound, an odd place to hold a pro-Trump demonstration.

Before the meeting, Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs tweeted that they agree with Trump that the bad relations with our country are the fault of... our country-- "U.S. foolishness" and the "witch hunt"-- a word for word interpretation of Señor Trumpanzee's morning tweet. America First?

Trump kept Putin waiting 20 minutes before the summit started, it lasted 90 minutes. That was some weird press conference! David Frum summed it up like this: "We still do not know what hold Vladimir Putin has upon President Trump, but the whole world has now witnessed the power of its grip. Russia helped Donald Trump into the presidency, as Robert Mueller’s indictment vividly details. Putin, in his own voice, has confirmed that he wanted Trump elected. Standing alongside his benefactor, Trump denounced the special counsel investigating the Russian intervention in the U.S. election-- and even repudiated his own intelligence appointees. This is an unprecedented situation, but not an uncontemplated one. At the 1787 convention in Philadelphia, the authors of the Constitution worried a great deal about foreign potentates corrupting the American presidency... The reasons for Trump’s striking behavior-- whether he was bribed or blackmailed or something else-- remain to be ascertained. That he has publicly refused to defend his country’s independent electoral process-- and did so jointly with the foreign dictator who perverted that process-- is video-recorded fact."

Senator John McCain, watching from home in Arizona, issued a statement that one could only hope some of his colleagues in DC will pay attention to: "one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory. The damage inflicted by President Trump’s naiveté, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate. But it is clear that the summit in Helsinki was a tragic mistake."

Trump proved not only unable, but unwilling to stand up to Putin. He and Putin seemed to be speaking from the same script as the president made a conscious choice to defend a tyrant against the fair questions of a free press, and to grant Putin an uncontested platform to spew propaganda and lies to the world.

It is tempting to describe the press conference as a pathetic rout-- as an illustration of the perils of under-preparation and inexperience. But these were not the errant tweets of a novice politician. These were the deliberate choices of a president who seems determined to realize his delusions of a warm relationship with Putin’s regime without any regard for the true nature of his rule, his violent disregard for the sovereignty of his neighbors, his complicity in the slaughter of the Syrian people, his violation of international treaties, and his assault on democratic institutions throughout the world.

Coming close on the heels of President Trump’s bombastic and erratic conduct towards our closest friends and allies in Brussels and Britain, today’s press conference marks a recent low point in the history of the American Presidency. That the president was attended in Helsinki by a team of competent and patriotic advisors makes his blunders and capitulations all the more painful and inexplicable.

No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant. Not only did President Trump fail to speak the truth about an adversary; but speaking for America to the world, our president failed to defend all that makes us who we are—a republic of free people dedicated to the cause of liberty at home and abroad. American presidents must be the champions of that cause if it is to succeed. Americans are waiting and hoping for President Trump to embrace that sacred responsibility. One can only hope they are not waiting totally in vain.

I wondered if any congressional candidates would have the courage to call it like it is. Kara Eastman (D-NE) sure did-- and fast! "Today, we all watched as Trump committed treason on live television. He sided with Russia over his own appointed staff, despite evidence of Russian meddling in our past election. He has continued to alienate our allies and ignore the advice of our intelligence community, while catering to dictators. This is not how our government is supposed to operate. We have a system of checks and balances, and right now, Republicans in Congress are not doing anything to stop the reckless and dangerous behavior of the president. Despite Trump’s actions, Don Bacon has promised to be a “firewall against impeachment” and has stood by Trump regardless of how far he debases the presidency and our democracy. We need principled leadership in this district-- a leader who will condemn this behavior and ensure the investigation into Trump’s possible collusion with Russia continues."

I want to leave you with one thought. Most people I know probably agree with the sentiment Karoli from Crooks and Liars told me after watching the shocking circus in Helsinki today: "I have never seen a press conference that made me cry, but that one did. It was absolutely treason and he should be arrested when his feet hit American soil."

Traitor! by Chip Proser

Señor Trumpanzee, Try To Remember, Vladimir Putin Is No Friend Of America

You probably read that Trump told Putin, during a phone call, that his staff-- none of whom were chosen by Hillary or Obama or the "Deep State"-- are "stupid people." He's right... though it was probably stupid of him to tell Putin and go even further by telling him "not to listen to them." That's not the kind of thing you talk to Putin about... nor to John Malkovich's character in Billions.



As Trump was leaving for the NATO meeting yesterday he told journalists "I have NATO, I have the UK, which is in somewhat turmoil, and I have Putin. Frankly, Putin may be the easiest of them all, who would think?" The Brits-- as people, if not as a government, hate him. They're making Green Day's 2004 smash, "American Idiot," a hit all over again in his honor. It's already the #1 song on the UK Amazon chart. There's a campaign, "Make American Idiot Great Again," to also make it #1 on iTunes, Google Play, Spotify and YouTube.

If you were wondering what Trump meant when he pronounced the U.K. "in somewhat turmoil," he may be dreading the reception planned for him but it was really about Theresa May's cabinet calling apart, particularly the departure of their own Trump-like imbecile, Blundering Boris, who claimed Britain was "headed for the status of colony."

Monday’s flurry of resignations from Theresa May’s cabinet is causing consternation and frustration around European capitals, with politicians and commentators expressing concerns that chaos in Westminster will paralyse Brexit negotiations and accelerate Britain’s departure from the geopolitical stage.

The prospect of further disarray would more likely cause consternation than schadenfreude in Berlin, said Josef Janning, who heads the Berlin office of the European council on foreign relations. Although that sentiment did not extend to the recently departed foreign secretary, Boris Johnson.

“The sorrow caused by Johnson’s departure in German government circles will be in short supply,” Janning said. “German politicians were alienated by the way in which he carried out his office from the beginning. He was seen as a player, an opportunist.”

...“During Johnson’s tenure, Britain’s desire to shape the framing of European foreign policy has sunk to zero. On the key questions-- how to deal with China, or the future of transatlantic relations-- May has been more responsive than her foreign minister,” said Janning.

Brussels has greeted the resignations with bemusement, interest and froideur. Diplomats said neither the former Brexit secretary David Davis nor Johnson had been big figures in the Brexit talks, but raised concerns that Theresa May’s hard-fought Chequers compromise could be in doubt.

“The question is, can she pull it through,” said one EU diplomat. “The stability of the government is called in question and now we will see what happens. But even if the government were to fall … we have no other option to deal with this or the next government.

...Le Monde conceded the British political crisis had not taken Europeans totally by surprise because “an implosion of the Conservative government one day or another” was expected with the Tories still so divided over Brexit.

As for Davis, the French daily Libération said his departure “didn’t make too many waves” because “he had not, for months, been seen as the principle interlocutor of European negotiators.” The paper added: “His minimal presence in Brussels [four times since the start of the year], his lack of knowledge of the details of the negotiations, even a persistent impression of dilettantism, had left people weary.”

In Germany, Frankfurter Allgemeine was concerned that Europe was witnessing only the beginning of Britain’s descent into political chaos. “After an eventful Monday it looks more likely that the rebellion in the Conservative party will build momentum and a vote of confidence in their leader could become inevitable,” wrote the paper’s political correspondent Jochen Buchsteiner.

On Tuesday, two Conservative Party vice-chairs, Maria Caulfield and Ben Bradley, quit over the soft Brexit plan. Brits shudder at the thought of Trumpanzee sticking us nose into their internal politics now, which is entirely likely. May warned her party's rebels-- Brexit hardliners, to fall in line or risk handing the keys of No. 10 Downing Street to Jeremy Corbyn.

Stormy Times Ahead For The U.K.-- Northern Ireland Particularly

Foster and May: bed news for the U.K.

Jack Bernhardt is a British comedy writer. His stuff for The Guardian is witty and well-worth your time. This week though, his most important writing wasn't in The Guardian, but in a Twitter storm about the Unionists this weekend. Actually, it all did start in a Guardian column, Feeling blue about May’s disaster? Reasons to be cheerful if you’re Tory, where he had some politically incorrect laughs at Northern Ireland's expense. "I know that to most of you," he wrote, "Northern Ireland is just where Jeremy Corbyn’s terrorist friends come from-- but it turns out it’s also a country now! Who knew? Not you guys, certainly, given that under the Conservatives power-sharing collapsed last year and you did sweet strong and stable butts about it, but now it’s suddenly become incredibly important with your new, slightly scary bestie Arlene Foster! And that means you’ll be going over there to see the sights: Titanic Belfast, the Giant’s Causeway, the populace that voted over 60% remain and is becoming increasingly concerned about the prospect of a hard border post-Brexit, and Victoria Square! It’s fancy, it’s got a House of Fraser and everything! Sure, you may have to a deal with some slightly unsavoury members of the DUP, many of whom have some pretty retro ideas about things such as same-sex marriage and abortion, but think of it more like making new friends. Who you have to get along with, and make concessions to, otherwise they’ll fire you from your job. Fun!"

OK, so what's this all about? As you know, Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May managed to lose her parliamentary majority-- down 13 seats to 317 (9 fewer than needed to elect a prime minister). Arlene Foster is the head of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP, or the Unionists), Northern Ireland's biggest party, and they managed to win 10 seats in Parliament Thursday. The party was founded by far right Protestant extremist Ian Paisley, a terrorist, in 1971. Foster took over in 2015. She has agreed to support Theresa May's minority government, something the Daily Mirror commemorated with this memorable front page:

The party is virulently anti-gay and anti-Choice, xenophobic, anti-EU and is riven with climate change deniers and religionist lunatics. Below are a series of Bernhardt tweets that began with this one: "So the DUP's inherent bigotry, homophobia, climate change and evolution denial should disbar them from mainstream politics, full stop. But." And was followed by this eye-catcher:

• I sound like a broken record but please please please can we talk about how powersharing has collapsed in Northern Ireland?

• It's been like this for three months. This crisis dates back to the Cash for Ash scandal involving current head of the DUP Arlene Foster.

• It's a frankly unbelievable story of sleaze at the top of NI politics. It would be difficult for most governments to deal with.

• Add in the inherent sectarian tension in Northern Irish politics, plus heightened fears over a hard border post-Brexit, and it's paralysing.

• Sinn Fein pulled out of the executive in protest at Arlene Foster, triggering elections which eventually gave SF an increased vote share

• They had six weeks after that point to form a government. SF demanded Foster quit as head of DUP, she refused. Again. Things got more tense.

• The deadline for forming government passed. At that point either ANOTHER election had to be called, or you revert to Direct Rule.

• At this point Westminster woke up. The idea of Northern Ireland slipping back to Direct Rule months before Brexit negotiations = NOT GOOD.

• So at the end of March James Brokenshire went over to NI to generally just ask people to get along/be totally useless. It didn't work.

• He said there was no appetite for another election (true) and no appetite for Direct Rule (also true). So they just extended the deadline.

• Keep in mind, this is end of March. We've just triggered Article 50 and we're currently having a totally pointless argument about Gibraltar.

• Should we have been having a discussion about the steady erosion of the peace process in Northern Ireland instead? YEAH MAYBE.

• The deadline is shunted on further. Talks between SF & DUP are going nowhere. But at least the UK government is aware of the problem now.

• Things are tense, complicated and messy. You know what the situation doesn't need? A snap general election.

• Suddenly Northern Ireland is facing the prospect of ANOTHER election, for Westminster this time, while dealing with a constitutional crisis.

• So the deadline gets shunted until after the election. The parties are now negotiating and campaigning at the same time. Great stuff.

• And so to yesterday. SF get 8, DUP 10. The more moderate SDLP, UUP and Alliance fall away. Northern Ireland is more polarised than ever.

• Before today, TM's government has been criminally negligent of Northern Ireland. Think about how little you've heard about NI this election.

• It was only ever brought up in relation to Corbyn and the IRA. There was NO discussion of Stormont impasse, or even the border post-Brexit.

• You'd think we'd have learnt our lesson after the EU referendum and actually thought about the consequences of a Hard Brexit in NI. But no.

• So here we are, June 9th, 10 days before Brexit negotiations, with no Stormont government and mass confusion over the NI Brexit border.

• We have three months of inaction. We have the DUP and SF in a stalemate. The deadline is approaching again. Direct rule looms.

• These problems will only be solved by careful, strategic leadership from Westminster, working with both parties to deescalate the situation.

• What Theresa May has done today has destroyed any hope of that. At one of the most dangerous times in its recent history, May has done this.

• Any pretense that the UK government could be neutral in this is gone. Their entire existence is now dependent on the DUP.

• Direct rule is not an option because the DUP has an unrealistic amount of sway over Westminster. It throws the balance of power totally off.

• Arlene Foster, who should have resigned months ago for her rank corruption, now holds more power over the UK government than...anyone?

• The next deadline, by the way, is June 29th. But now the DUP is in bed with the UK government, will James Brokenshire have any authority?

• Has anyone in gov thought about what happens when THAT expires? Why should Sinn Fein treat the UK gov as a neutral arbiter after that?

• Power-sharing relies on a neutral UK government. If the government is beholden to one side in power-sharing, it is fatally undermined.

• It's hard to see what happens in N Ireland without power-sharing or without direct rule. Either it will float on, pushing that deadline...

• ...or the whole thing is irrevocably damaged and the system implodes.

For what, a two seat majority?

• I may be wrong - there may be some incredible fudge that Tories/DUP/SF have planned. Maybe the DUP are hoping the SF will just accept it.

• I pray TM has a plan beyond "keep the DUP onside, stay in power". If she doesn't, she's thrown Northern Ireland into chaos for nothing.

Meanwhile, Theresa May is working on a new cabinet that will be dealing with Brexit and... oh, all sorts of other important stuff governments do (or don't do, as the case may be):