I wrote here last night that it was sad but right that Grieve lost his vote. I was wrong to say that and apologise.
I've just read that the vote was orchestrated by a Kipper rival who has infiltrated the party. If anyone should be removed it is Kipper entryists not Grieve.
I'm sorry.
Actions have consequences.
And that applies to Grieve as well.
Agreed that was my thought last night. But we should act based on party members and Grieves actions. Not Banks and our opponents actions.
I’m not supporting either party but if a Labour MP had said they were ashamed to be in the party, and a week later they lost a no confidence vote would it be a surprise?
I have to say I agree.
Grieve comes across as thoughtful & intelligent, but he stood on a platform to implement Brexit in the 2017 election and he should honour that commitment.
An MP who says (s)he is ashamed to be a member of the party surely can't be too surprised at the consequences.
It is a pity for both Grieve and the Tory party, but I think the decision is correct.
I wrote here last night that it was sad but right that Grieve lost his vote. I was wrong to say that and apologise.
I've just read that the vote was orchestrated by a Kipper rival who has infiltrated the party. If anyone should be removed it is Kipper entryists not Grieve.
I'm sorry.
Actions have consequences.
And that applies to Grieve as well.
Agreed that was my thought last night. But we should act based on party members and Grieves actions. Not Banks and our opponents actions.
I’m not supporting either party but if a Labour MP had said they were ashamed to be in the party, and a week later they lost a no confidence vote would it be a surprise?
I have to say I agree.
Grieve comes across as thoughtful & intelligent, but he stood on a platform to implement Brexit in the 2017 election and he should honour that commitment.
An MP who says (s)he is ashamed to be a member of the party surely can't be too surprised at the consequences.
It is a pity for both Grieve and the Tory party, but I think the decision is correct.
Yes, I agree. Hes there because of his party not in spite of it. He can test that by standing on his own record if he wishes. Rather a lot of MPs are now transpiring to have said whatever needed to keep their seat and salary
Bollocks, Grieve and 6 or 7 EUlovers leaving the party won't be a historic split. We should still prevent it, however, getting rid of the last vestiges of the federalists is in keeping with the movement of the party over the last 30 years.
If Grieve had done his duty and voted for the WA I think No. 10 would be minded to step in.
Osborne coming out in favour of his privileged mates against his party members. No surprise there.
Indeed. I pursued one of those adolescent mistakes with that right through into adulthood, and have recently started reflexively adding the incorrect form again ; always was too attached to the idea of a bell ringing in the new weather, which is somehow a resounding image ;.)
There's a huge amount of nonsense being spouted about No Deal. Herdson now joins the Big Welsh chap in that camp.
No Deal will not happen. Why? Because it's the one certainty of the House of Commons. They will simply not permit it, quite aside from the EU. Do they have the power to stop it? Yes. Will they? Yes. If that means, at the wire, revoking Article 50, that is what they will do.
An excellent header as always and I agree that a No Deal exit is possible. As are Deal and No Brexit. It is all still to play for.
My take is that all possible outcomes are preceded by a General Election, the result of which will determine which one happens.
The key is Labour. Their goal is to get a winnable GE out of this impasse and they can be confident of achieving it if they maintain their discipline in opposing the Withdrawal Agreement.
The notion of a cross-party coalition being able to negotiate a Customs Union and pilot it through this Parliament is a unicorn. The politics of that simply does not work.
No Deal therefore beckons, but one final attempt will be made to avert it, and this will take the form of an extension to allow an accelerated Tory leadership change and a GE.
The election will present a clear Brexit choice between the Conservatives offering LEAVE ("and this time for real") and Labour offering a Referendum and therefore the chance to REMAIN.
There's a huge amount of nonsense being spouted about No Deal. Herdson now joins the Big Welsh chap in that camp.
No Deal will not happen. Why? Because it's the one certainty of the House of Commons. They will simply not permit it, quite aside from the EU. Do they have the power to stop it? Yes. Will they? Yes. If that means, at the wire, revoking Article 50, that is what they will do.
End of.
The HoC does not have the power to revoke article 50. If the PM refuses then we no deal unless they can get her out and a new one in before April 12
Bollocks, Grieve and 6 or 7 EUlovers leaving the party won't be a historic split. We should still prevent it, however, getting rid of the last vestiges of the federalists is in keeping with the movement of the party over the last 30 years.
If Grieve had done his duty and voted for the WA I think No. 10 would be minded to step in.
Osborne coming out in favour of his privileged mates against his party members. No surprise there.
The Conservative party was a mere stepping stone for George on his career path.
And now with regard to 'commitments' and 'manifesto pledges.'
Brexit, like EU membership always was and still is supra-divisive. It cuts across all parties, all political persuasions, backgrounds.
THE fundamental mistake of Theresa May, especially after losing her majority, was only appealing to the Conservative Party MPs. This is part of her own inherent weakness: someone with very little family of her own and few friends, whose life revolves around Philip and the party.
But membership of the Common Market came about because Ted Heath knew he couldn't do it through his Eurosceptics. He reached out across the floor.
Brexit ALWAYS should have been conducted on the same basis, especially so because the result of 52-48 exemplified a split nation.
Three years have been wasted. But the only solution now is one that is cross-party, reaching the centre ground. It will be consensual and therefore involve compromise, but it is quite simply the only way of Brexit.
Bollocks, Grieve and 6 or 7 EUlovers leaving the party won't be a historic split. We should still prevent it, however, getting rid of the last vestiges of the federalists is in keeping with the movement of the party over the last 30 years.
If Grieve had done his duty and voted for the WA I think No. 10 would be minded to step in.
Osborne coming out in favour of his privileged mates against his party members. No surprise there.
The Conservative party was a mere stepping stone for George on his career path.
Though blowing the referendum and getting the sack has taken him on a pretty unexpected detour...
I'm no fan of Boris, but if he wanted to bolster his leadership chances then surely he'd be praising Grieve's ousting purely to ingratiate himself with the membership. That he hasn't speaks volumes. It appears that - regardless of his Brexit views - Grieve was admired and respected across the political spectrum. The Beaconsfield Tories have misjudged the mood. Even I'm surprised at the breadth of the backlash.
There's a huge amount of nonsense being spouted about No Deal. Herdson now joins the Big Welsh chap in that camp.
No Deal will not happen. Why? Because it's the one certainty of the House of Commons. They will simply not permit it, quite aside from the EU. Do they have the power to stop it? Yes. Will they? Yes. If that means, at the wire, revoking Article 50, that is what they will do.
End of.
The HoC does not have the power to revoke article 50. If the PM refuses then we no deal unless they can get her out and a new one in before April 12
If a no deal is remotely on the cards then the Con party would want TM to be holding the grenade when it goes off.
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
We don't live in a Presidential autocracy! Parliament sets legislation and, especially with the Speaker on board, they will legislate to revoke Article 50. End of.
Don't forget too that the Government itself only operates on the basis of having the confidence of the House. Were the PM to even dream of disregarding the Commons about No Deal she would find herself losing a No Confidence motion instantly by a large margin.
Bollocks, Grieve and 6 or 7 EUlovers leaving the party won't be a historic split. We should still prevent it, however, getting rid of the last vestiges of the federalists is in keeping with the movement of the party over the last 30 years.
If Grieve had done his duty and voted for the WA I think No. 10 would be minded to step in.
Osborne coming out in favour of his privileged mates against his party members. No surprise there.
The Conservative party was a mere stepping stone for George on his career path.
Though blowing the referendum and getting the sack has taken him on a pretty unexpected detour...
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
Is there a majority to revoke article 50 at 5 to midnight on April 11th ?
Pippa was a former candidate for this constituency, Newport West, in 2010, 2015 and 2017.
So, that's 4 anti-semitic candidates in a row for the "Welsh" Greens in Newport West.
We might as well drop the "Welsh" as they voted against organising independently. They certainly have no discernible interest in Wales or the Welsh.
That wording is so blatant, David Irving would be so proud. The Greens have had some rather interesting characters with robust views on The Middle East.
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
No it can't. To revoke withdrawal from an international treaty the reserved power of HMQ is used via the executive not the legislature. HoC can vote to instruct TM but if she refuses it is not revoked until someone with authority to fo do revokes it (another PM or HMQ herself) - time would run out in the constitutional chaos. So if TM would rather no deal than no Brexit its likely to be no deal
Bollocks, Grieve and 6 or 7 EUlovers leaving the party won't be a historic split. We should still prevent it, however, getting rid of the last vestiges of the federalists is in keeping with the movement of the party over the last 30 years.
If Grieve had done his duty and voted for the WA I think No. 10 would be minded to step in.
Osborne coming out in favour of his privileged mates against his party members. No surprise there.
The Conservative party was a mere stepping stone for George on his career path.
Though blowing the referendum and getting the sack has taken him on a pretty unexpected detour...
Dunno - his income and influence has risen.
Not sure I'd agree about his "influence" ... Ultimately he's just sitting on the sidelines throwing stones and preaching to an echo chamber.
He's made himself look like the very bitter and very silly man that we always knew he was...
I'm no fan of Boris, but if he wanted to bolster his leadership chances then surely he'd be praising Grieve's ousting purely to ingratiate himself with the membership. That he hasn't speaks volumes. It appears that - regardless of his Brexit views - Grieve was admired and respected across the political spectrum. The Beaconsfield Tories have misjudged the mood. Even I'm surprised at the breadth of the backlash.
Beaconsfield Tories don’t have to care about anybody’s moods except their own voters. If Grieve is unsackabke then our parliamentary democracy is politically bankrupt. Associations have the right to choose their own members. May override that principle in the last election and it cost her seats. The fact that a few Remainers are upset about Grieve is frankly ludicrous and irrelevant
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
No it can't. To revoke withdrawal from an international treaty the reserved power of HMQ is used via the executive not the legislature. HoC can vote to instruct TM but if she refuses it is not revoked until someone with authority to fo do revokes it (another PM or HMQ herself) - time would run out in the constitutional chaos. So if TM would rather no deal than no Brexit its likely to be no deal
Nope. The House of Commons can become the Executive, as recently demonstrated, and enact law. It does not require the PM who is only in post by virtue of retaining the confidence of the House. Law is enacted by Parliament and Royal prerogative.
And the PM only inhabits the role by virtue of the Queen's appointment.
There's a huge amount of nonsense being spouted about No Deal. Herdson now joins the Big Welsh chap in that camp.
No Deal will not happen. Why? Because it's the one certainty of the House of Commons. They will simply not permit it, quite aside from the EU. Do they have the power to stop it? Yes. Will they? Yes. If that means, at the wire, revoking Article 50, that is what they will do.
End of.
You really are utterly divorced from reality aren't you.
Whether you, I or Parliament want No Deal is immaterial at this moment if nothing else is done instead. The Commons cannot revoke Article 50 against the wishes of May. They do not have the legal power to do so. If that is the route they wish to go down then the only way they can do it is to remove May from power through a VoNC. And even at that point they may not be able to stop it if she digs in.
If they pass a VoNC then in all likelihood there will be a GE. In that case May remains PM until such times as the new PM has been chosen. Alternatively they could try and get behind a new candidate for PM without a GE. But still that will take time and in the intervening period May remains PM.
Basically if (and I admit it is a big if) May is willing to countenance No Deal then Parliament does not have the power to force her to revoke. They can only remove her (and her Government) from office.
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
No it can't. To revoke withdrawal from an international treaty the reserved power of HMQ is used via the executive not the legislature. HoC can vote to instruct TM but if she refuses it is not revoked until someone with authority to fo do revokes it (another PM or HMQ herself) - time would run out in the constitutional chaos. So if TM would rather no deal than no Brexit its likely to be no deal
Nope. The House of Commons can become the Executive, as recently demonstrated, and enact law. It does not require the PM who is only in post by virtue of retaining the confidence of the House.
Parliament cannot take on the reserved powers of the monarchy
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
No it can't. To revoke withdrawal from an international treaty the reserved power of HMQ is used via the executive not the legislature. HoC can vote to instruct TM but if she refuses it is not revoked until someone with authority to fo do revokes it (another PM or HMQ herself) - time would run out in the constitutional chaos. So if TM would rather no deal than no Brexit its likely to be no deal
Nope. The House of Commons can become the Executive, as recently demonstrated, and enact law. It does not require the PM who is only in post by virtue of retaining the confidence of the House.
Parliament cannot take on the reserved powers of the monarchy
See below. That's my point. It's Parliament + HMQ. Not the PM per se.
Richard Tyndall, another of the wild Brexiteers, continues to cling to the far right fantasy. It does make me chuckle because his ilk have been the greatest of all possible gifts to Remainers.
No Deal will not happen. End of. The dream is over. It's just taking rather a while for the more slow-minded to move along the Kubler-Ross Stages of Grief.
There's a huge amount of nonsense being spouted about No Deal. Herdson now joins the Big Welsh chap in that camp.
No Deal will not happen. Why? Because it's the one certainty of the House of Commons. They will simply not permit it, quite aside from the EU. Do they have the power to stop it? Yes. Will they? Yes. If that means, at the wire, revoking Article 50, that is what they will do.
End of.
You are correct that this Parliament will not permit No Deal.
Neither will it permit a Referendum or Revoke.
The route to any of those 3 outcomes is via a General Election. Tories offering the Brady position or No Deal, Labour offering CU/SM plus REF2.
The only way that such a GE does not happen is if the May deal (or WA only) passes.
In which case I still see a GE but later in the year, Tories offering divergence, Labour offering close alignment.
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
No it can't. To revoke withdrawal from an international treaty the reserved power of HMQ is used via the executive not the legislature. HoC can vote to instruct TM but if she refuses it is not revoked until someone with authority to fo do revokes it (another PM or HMQ herself) - time would run out in the constitutional chaos. So if TM would rather no deal than no Brexit its likely to be no deal
Nope. The House of Commons can become the Executive, as recently demonstrated, and enact law. It does not require the PM who is only in post by virtue of retaining the confidence of the House. Law is enacted by Parliament and Royal prerogative.
And the PM only inhabits the role by virtue of the Queen's appointment.
No the House cannot become the Executive in the way you imagine. Whilst they may be able to take control of the business of the House, they are not able to increase the powers of the House over the Executive where that strays into the area of Royal Prerogative. The only way they could do that would be Primary legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament stripping away the last areas of Royal Prerogative.
Now in the long term it would be a good thing if they did this. But right now they have simply run out of time to do it. If May is so minded to take us out without a Deal then that is what will happen.
There's a huge amount of nonsense being spouted about No Deal. Herdson now joins the Big Welsh chap in that camp.
No Deal will not happen. Why? Because it's the one certainty of the House of Commons. They will simply not permit it, quite aside from the EU. Do they have the power to stop it? Yes. Will they? Yes. If that means, at the wire, revoking Article 50, that is what they will do.
End of.
Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I don't see how you can be so certain.
There are MP's who want No Deal, MP's who will tolerate No Deal, and MP's who don't want No Deal, but who believe they will gain electoral advantage from it.
<<The options were Remain with Cameron’s Deal that wasn’t passed by Parliament or Leave. The fact that the kind of Leave wasn’t specified isn’t the fault of anybody but the person who set the question.
In hindsight it should have been a two stage referendum if Leave won round one, with the second one being Deal or no deal. It still could, or I’d say should, be. >>
But the kind of Leave was specified, repeatedly ; and it was a deranged and impossible mix of zero immigration and of single market, soft Brexit :
Please don’t post that misleading nonsense, it has been long discredited.
We have established people wanted to leave, a referendum on how is fair enough. MPs deciding not to is not.
This isn't an argument, I'm afraid. As in all elections or referenda, there was a question or choice of words asked for , such as yes/no, in or out, supported by a campaign explaining what these words meant. Words never exist in a vacuum of explanation or context ; and the explanation given during the campaign was the one provided below.
Not one of those clips was filmed during the campaign.
Almost all of them are taken out of context to twist their meaning.
Leavers seem to say an awful lot of things "out of context".
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
No it can't. To revoke withdrawal from an international treaty the reserved power of HMQ is used via the executive not the legislature. HoC can vote
Nope. The House of Commons can become the Executive, as recently demonstrated, and enact law. It does not require the PM who is only in post by virtue of retaining the confidence of the House.
Parliament cannot take on the reserved powers of the monarchy
See below. That's my point. It's Parliament + HMQ. Not the PM per se.
Richard Tyndall, another of the wild Brexiteers, continues to cling to the far right fantasy. It does make me chuckle because his ilk have been the greatest of all possible gifts to Remainers.
No Deal will not happen. End of. The dream is over. It's just taking rather a while for the more slow-minded to move along the Kubler-Ross Stages of Grief.
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
No it can't. To revoke withdrawal from an international treaty the reserved power of HMQ is used via the executive not the legislature. HoC can vote to instruct TM but if she refuses it is not revoked until someone with authority to fo do revokes it (another PM or HMQ herself) - time would run out in the constitutional chaos. So if TM would rather no deal than no Brexit its likely to be no deal
Nope. The House of Commons can become the Executive, as recently demonstrated, and enact law. It does not require the PM who is only in post by virtue of retaining the confidence of the House.
Parliament cannot take on the reserved powers of the monarchy
See below. That's my point. It's Parliament + HMQ. Not the PM per se.
Richard Tyndall, another of the wild Brexiteers, continues to cling to the far right fantasy. It does make me chuckle because his ilk have been the greatest of all possible gifts to Remainers.
No Deal will not happen. End of. The dream is over. It's just taking rather a while for the more slow-minded to move along the Kubler-Ross Stages of Grief.
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
No it can't. To revoke withdrawal from an international treaty the reserved power of HMQ is used via the executive not the legislature. HoC can vote to instruct TM but if she refuses it is not revoked until someone with authority to fo do revokes it (another PM or HMQ herself) - time would run out in the constitutional chaos. So if TM would rather no deal than no Brexit its likely to be no deal
Nope. The House of Commons can become the Executive, as recently demonstrated, and enact law. It does not require the PM who is only in post by virtue of retaining the confidence of the House.
Parliament cannot take on the reserved powers of the monarchy
See below. That's my point. It's Parliament + HMQ. Not the PM per se.
Richard Tyndall, another of the wild Brexiteers, continues to cling to the far right fantasy. It does make me chuckle because his ilk have been the greatest of all possible gifts to Remainers.
No Deal will not happen. End of. The dream is over. It's just taking rather a while for the more slow-minded to move along the Kubler-Ross Stages of Grief.
Given I am not in favour of a No Deal and have advocated a soft Brexit since long before the referendum you are as wrong on that as you are on everything else.
Just sitting at your typewriter making stuff up doesn't make it fact. I am afraid it just makes you delusional.
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
No it can't. To revoke withdrawal from an international treaty the reserved power of HMQ is used via the executive not the legislature. HoC can vote to instruct TM but if she refuses it is not revoked until someone with authority to fo do revokes it (another PM or HMQ herself) - time would run out in the constitutional chaos. So if TM would rather no deal than no Brexit its likely to be no deal
Nope. The House of Commons can become the Executive, as recently demonstrated, and enact law. It does not require the PM who is only in post by virtue of retaining the confidence of the House. Law is enacted by Parliament and Royal prerogative.
And the PM only inhabits the role by virtue of the Queen's appointment.
No the House cannot become the Executive in the way you imagine. Whilst they may be able to take control of the business of the House, they are not able to increase the powers of the House over the Executive where that strays into the area of Royal Prerogative. The only way they could do that would be Primary legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament stripping away the last areas of Royal Prerogative.
Now in the long term it would be a good thing if they did this. But right now they have simply run out of time to do it. If May is so minded to take us out without a Deal then that is what will happen.
In the exertion therefore of those prerogatives, which the law has given him, the King is irresistible and absolute, according to the forms of the constitution. And yet if the consequence of that exertion be manifestly to the grievance or dishonour of the kingdom, the Parliament will call his advisers to a just and severe account. - Blackstone
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
No it can't. To revoke withdrawal from an international treaty the reserved power of HMQ is used via the executive not the legislature. HoC can vote to instruct TM but if she refuses it is not revoked until someone with authority to fo do revokes it (another PM or HMQ herself) - time would run out in the constitutional chaos. So if TM would rather no deal than no Brexit its likely to be no deal
Nope. The House of Commons can become the Executive, as recently demonstrated, and enact law. It does not require the PM who is only in post by virtue of retaining the confidence of the House. Law is enacted by Parliament and Royal prerogative.
And the PM only inhabits the role by virtue of the Queen's appointment.
No the House cannot become the Executive in the way you imagine. Whilst they may be able to take control of the business of the House, they are not able to increase the powers of the House over the Executive where that strays into the area of Royal Prerogative. The only way they could do that would be Primary legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament stripping away the last areas of Royal Prerogative.
Now in the long term it would be a good thing if they did this. But right now they have simply run out of time to do it. If May is so minded to take us out without a Deal then that is what will happen.
In the exertion therefore of those prerogatives, which the law has given him, the King is irresistible and absolute, according to the forms of the constitution. And yet if the consequence of that exertion be manifestly to the grievance or dishonour of the kingdom, the Parliament will call his advisers to a just and severe account. - Blackstone
Absolutely. The problem Parliament have is that, short of the Cromwell solution, they have left it far too late.
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
No it can't. To revoke withdrawal from an international treaty the reserved power of HMQ is used via the executive not the legislature. HoC can vote to instruct TM but if she refuses it is not revoked until someone with authority to fo do revokes it (another PM or HMQ herself) - time would run out in the constitutional chaos. So if TM would rather no deal than no Brexit its likely to be no deal
Nope. The House of Commons can become the Executive, as recently demonstrated, and enact law. It does not require the PM who is only in post by virtue of retaining the confidence of the House. Law is enacted by Parliament and Royal prerogative.
And the PM only inhabits the role by virtue of the Queen's appointment.
No the House cannot become the Executive in the way you imagine. Whilst they may be able to take control of the business of the House, they are not able to increase the powers of the House over the Executive where that strays into the area of Royal Prerogative. The only way they could do that would be Primary legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament stripping away the last areas of Royal Prerogative.
Now in the long term it would be a good thing if they did this. But right now they have simply run out of time to do it. If May is so minded to take us out without a Deal then that is what will happen.
In the exertion therefore of those prerogatives, which the law has given him, the King is irresistible and absolute, according to the forms of the constitution. And yet if the consequence of that exertion be manifestly to the grievance or dishonour of the kingdom, the Parliament will call his advisers to a just and severe account. - Blackstone
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
No it can't. To revoke withdrawal from an international treaty the reserved power of HMQ is used via the executive not the legislature. HoC can vote to instruct TM but if she refuses it is not revoked until someone with authority to fo do revokes it (another PM or HMQ herself) - time would run out in the constitutional chaos. So if TM would rather no deal than no Brexit its likely to be no deal
Nope. The House of Commons can become the Executive, as recently demonstrated, and enact law. It does not require the PM who is only in post by virtue of retaining the confidence of the House. Law is enacted by Parliament and Royal prerogative.
And the PM only inhabits the role by virtue of the Queen's appointment.
No the House cannot become the Executive in the way you imagine. Whilst they may be able to take control of the business of the House, they are not able to increase the powers of the House over the Executive where that strays into the area of Royal Prerogative. The only way they could do that would be Primary legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament stripping away the last areas of Royal Prerogative.
Now in the long term it would be a good thing if they did this. But right now they have simply run out of time to do it. If May is so minded to take us out without a Deal then that is what will happen.
In the exertion therefore of those prerogatives, which the law has given him, the King is irresistible and absolute, according to the forms of the constitution. And yet if the consequence of that exertion be manifestly to the grievance or dishonour of the kingdom, the Parliament will call his advisers to a just and severe account. - Blackstone
Absolutely. The problem Parliament have is that, short of the Cromwell solution, they have left it far too late.
The FTPA has ballsed everything up. Before 2011 any government that was defeated by a record majority on its signature policy aim would have had to resign.
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
No it can't. To revoke withdrawal from an international treaty the reserved power of HMQ is used via the executive not the legislature. HoC can vote to instruct TM but if she refuses it is not revoked until someone with authority to fo do revokes it (another PM or HMQ herself) - time would run out in the constitutional chaos. So if TM would rather no deal than no Brexit its likely to be no deal
Nope. The House of Commons can become the Executive, as recently demonstrated, and enact law. It does not require the PM who is only in post by virtue of retaining the confidence of the House. Law is enacted by Parliament and Royal prerogative.
And the PM only inhabits the role by virtue of the Queen's appointment.
No the House cannot become the Executive in the way you imagine. Whilst they may be able to take control of the business of the House, they are not able to increase the powers of the House over the Executive where that strays into the area of Royal Prerogative. The only way they could do that would be Primary legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament stripping away the last areas of Royal Prerogative.
Now in the long term it would be a good thing if they did this. But right now they have simply run out of time to do it. If May is so minded to take us out without a Deal then that is what will happen.
In the exertion therefore of those prerogatives, which the law has given him, the King is irresistible and absolute, according to the forms of the constitution. And yet if the consequence of that exertion be manifestly to the grievance or dishonour of the kingdom, the Parliament will call his advisers to a just and severe account. - Blackstone
Absolutely. The problem Parliament have is that, short of the Cromwell solution, they have left it far too late.
The FTPA has ballsed everything up. Before 2011 any government that was defeated by a record majority on its signature policy aim would have had to resign.
In turn, though, that made it much easier for governments to win such votes. All they had to do was to make it a vote of confidence.
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
No it can't. To revoke withdrawal from an international treaty the reserved power of HMQ is used via the executive not the legislature. HoC can vote
Nope. The House of Commons can become the Executive, as recently demonstrated, and enact law. It does not require the PM who is only in post by virtue of retaining the confidence of the House.
Parliament cannot take on the reserved powers of the monarchy
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
l
e.
Parliament cannot take on the reserved powers of the monarchy
See below. That's my point. It's Parliament + HMQ. Not the PM per se.
.
End of is not much of an argument.
The Queen will not take sides against government.
No indeed. But let's say that hypothetically the current Prime Minister decided to try and defy the House of Commons voting against No Deal (again) and let's suppose they had passed legislation so to do, which they totally have the statutory ability to complete. Then it is quite inconceivable that, under such grievous circumstances, she would continue to command the confidence of the House. In such circumstances the current governing party would have two weeks to get their sh&t together, to quote Erskine-May, and come up with a less incompetent leader. In all such circumstances it is simply the delusional dreams of the swivel-eyed loons that No Deal will be enacted.
It's over for No Deal, if not by the EU side, then certainly by the HoC and HMQ.
As for the EU ... this is more complex. On balance, exasperated though they are, they are unlikely to let it happen IF there is a chance of something else. To that end, Monday is vital. If the House of Commons do find a majority for a form of Brexit with, or without, a confirmatory public vote, then the EU will I think 90%+ grant a longer extension.
In this light I think we need, tentatively and not arrogantly, place some of Macron's sabre-rattling in the context of his domestic strife, and indeed his falling out with Italy.
I wrote here last night that it was sad but right that Grieve lost his vote. I was wrong to say that and apologise.
I've just read that the vote was orchestrated by a Kipper rival who has infiltrated the party. If anyone should be removed it is Kipper entryists not Grieve.
I'm sorry.
I expect that most who voted against him were members of long standing.
Saying you're ashamed to be a Conservative is likely to queer your pitch with party members.
I thought that was de rigueur for the modernisers?
Enough of this foolery. If there is to be a fourth vote next week, then May has to make it a Vote of Confidence. Any Tory MP, be they ultra Brexiteer or implacable Remainer, who fails to support, will be automatically refused reselection and Conservative Associations that don’t comply dissolved and new candidates imposed. Yesterday there were 29 rebels, I would have thought that most will fall into line, but the likes of Bridgen, Baker, Bone, Cash, Jenkyns, Francois, Jenkin et al won’t, so let’s celebrate their political martyrdom as they vanish into obscurity. By way of ‘balance’ I don’t have much sympathy for Grieve.
Sure, the Govt would fall, and Corbyn and far left Labour will take over and probably win the subsequent election, but we simply cannot go on like this. Oh, and sod the DUP.
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
No it can't. To revoke withdrawal from an international treaty the reserved power of HMQ is used via the executive not the legislature. HoC can vote to instruct TM but if she refuses it is not revoked until someone with authority to fo do revokes it (another PM or HMQ herself) - time would run out in the constitutional chaos. So if TM would rather no deal than no Brexit its likely to be no deal
Nope. The House of Commons can become the Executive, as recently demonstrated, and enact law. It does not require the PM who is only in post by virtue of retaining the confidence of the House. Law is enacted by Parliament and Royal prerogative.
And the PM only inhabits the role by virtue of the Queen's appointment.
No the House cannot become the Executive in the way you imagine. Whilst they may be able to take control of the business of the House, they are not able to increase the powers of the House over the Executive where that strays into the area of Royal Prerogative. The only way they could do that would be Primary legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament stripping away the last areas of Royal Prerogative.
Now in the long term it would be a good thing if they did this. But right now they have simply run out of time to do it. If May is so minded to take us out without a Deal then that is what will happen.
In the exertion therefore of those prerogatives, which the law has given him, the King is irresistible and absolute, according to the forms of the constitution. And yet if the consequence of that exertion be manifestly to the grievance or dishonour of the kingdom, the Parliament will call his advisers to a just and severe account. - Blackstone
Absolutely. The problem Parliament have is that, short of the Cromwell solution, they have left it far too late.
The FTPA has ballsed everything up. Before 2011 any government that was defeated by a record majority on its signature policy aim would have had to resign.
In turn, though, that made it much easier for governments to win such votes. All they had to do was to make it a vote of confidence.
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
No it can't. To revoke withdrawal from an international treaty the reserved power of HMQ is used via the executive not the legislature. HoC can vote to instruct TM but if she refuses it is not revoked until someone with authority to fo do revokes it (another PM or HMQ herself) - time would run out in the constitutional chaos. So if TM would rather no deal than no Brexit its likely to be no deal
Nope. The House of Commons can become the Executive, as recently demonstrated, and enact law. It does not require the PM who is only in post by virtue of retaining the confidence of the House. Law is enacted by Parliament and Royal prerogative.
And the PM only inhabits the role by virtue of the Queen's appointment.
No the House cannot become the Executive in the way you imagine. Whilst they may be able to take control of the business of the House, they are not able to increase the powers of the House over the Executive where that strays into the area of Royal Prerogative. The only way they could do that would be Primary legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament stripping away the last areas of Royal Prerogative.
Now in the long term it would be a good thing if they did this. But right now they have simply run out of time to do it. If May is so minded to take us out without a Deal then that is what will happen.
In the exertion therefore of those prerogatives, which the law has given him, the King is irresistible and absolute, according to the forms of the constitution. And yet if the consequence of that exertion be manifestly to the grievance or dishonour of the kingdom, the Parliament will call his advisers to a just and severe account. - Blackstone
Absolutely. The problem Parliament have is that, short of the Cromwell solution, they have left it far too late.
Thank you @david_herdson for the header. I agree with you that a No Deal exit is inevitable now. I have said so for a while. It is extremely sad. The ERG - a group as loathsome, destructive and stupid as Militant Tendency and the Corbynistas - will win and are acting as the Corbynistas’ useful idiots.
What do you have to say about Corbyn whipping all of his MPs to also oppose the deal in all circumstances too then?
If we had just 30-40 Labour MPs breaking ranks on this, this wouldn’t be happening.
And furthermore, if all the Tories had supported yesterday TM would have won without the DUP.
Yes, but the WA should really be basing on the same basis the vote for enacting A50 did.
Anyway, returning to the real world, Monday really is very important. If the Commons do find a common ground solution for Brexit then, all things considered, that will be game over. There will be some heel dragging from the goddam-awful incumbent of No.10 but I think the resolution to move on will surpass this.
Her deal is only still feebly beating if the HoC fail to find a majority. A question there revolves around whipping. There's going to be bad feeling if they don't allow free votes.
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
No it can't. To revoke withdrawal from an international treaty the reserved power of HMQ is used via the executive not the legislature. HoC can vote
Nope. The House of Commons can become the Executive, as recently demonstrated, and enact law. It does not require the PM who is only in post by virtue of retaining the confidence of the House.
Parliament cannot take on the reserved powers of the monarchy
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
l
e.
Parliament cannot take on the reserved powers of the monarchy
See below. That's my point. It's Parliament + HMQ. Not the PM per se.
.
End of is not much of an argument.
The Queen will not take sides against government.
No indeed. But let's say that hypothetically the current Prime Minister decided to try confidence of the House. In such circumstances the current governing party would have two weeks to get their sh&t together, to quote Erskine-May, and come up with a less incompetent leader. In all such circumstances it is simply the delusional dreams of the swivel-eyed loons that No Deal will be enacted.
It's over for No Deal, if not by the EU side, then certainly by the HoC and HMQ.
As for the EU ... this is more complex. On balance, exasperated though they are, they are unlikely to let it happen IF there is a chance of something else. To that end, Monday is vital. If the House of Commons do find a majority for a form of Brexit with, or without, a confirmatory public vote, then the EU will I think 90%+ grant a longer extension.
In this light I think we need, tentatively and not arrogantly, place some of Macron's sabre-rattling in the context of his domestic strife, and indeed his falling out with Italy.
The vote to revoke will not happen until the 11th hour. It has zero chance of passing before then. And, as detailed, there is then no time to get rid of TM before no deal becomes fact
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
No it can't. To revoke withdrawal from an international treaty the reserved power of HMQ is used via the executive not the legislature. HoC can vote to instruct TM but if she refuses it is not revoked until someone with authority to fo do revokes it (another PM or HMQ herself) - time would run out in the constitutional chaos. So if TM would rather no deal than no Brexit its likely to be no deal
Nope. The House of Commons can become the Executive, as recently demonstrated, and enact law. It does not require the PM who is only in post by virtue of retaining the confidence of the House. Law is enacted by Parliament and Royal prerogative.
And the PM only inhabits the role by virtue of the Queen's appointment.
No the House cannot become the Executive in the way you imagine. Whilst they may be able to take control of the business of the House, they are not able to increase the powers of the House over the Executive where that strays into the area of Royal Prerogative. The only way they could do that would be Primary legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament stripping away the last areas of Royal Prerogative.
Now in the long term it would be a good thing if they did this. But right now they have simply run out of time to do it. If May is so minded to take us out without a Deal then that is what will happen.
In the exertion therefore of those prerogatives, which the law has given him, the King is irresistible and absolute, according to the forms of the constitution. And yet if the consequence of that exertion be manifestly to the grievance or dishonour of the kingdom, the Parliament will call his advisers to a just and severe account. - Blackstone
Absolutely. The problem Parliament have is that, short of the Cromwell solution, they have left it far too late.
No they haven't. They need 24-48 hrs max.
The problem with this is the parliamentary terror of being held accountable for revocation may be greater than that for no-deal. Both are dangers, but one may expose MP's to more direct abuse from committed people. That would lead us back to May, ofcourse, but it's all very hard to foresee at the moment. Extreme pressures can lead to extremely unpredictable outcomes.
The WA is a 800 odd page document that in large part seeks to tidy up our departure from the EU and identify and resolve our various outstanding obligations. It does 2 other things of substance.
Firstly, it commits us to the backstop so that if we fail to come to any other deal the NI border remains largely unregulated. Secondly, it provides a transitional period in which we retain many of the benefits of being in the EU so that our businesses can continue to trade without additional impediment.
The first of these might be thought to tie our hands to some degree on the future relationship and is thought to be problematic. The second of these is genuinely important given the incompetent and inept way this government has sought to facilitate preparations for our departure.
I am just beyond exasperated with those self indulgent prats who have voted against this document 3 times now. Their reckless disregard for British business in rejecting the transitional period is contemptible. Why are they doing this?
Obviously most just do not want to leave. They want longer extensions, second referendums, pretty much anything that stops us from actually leaving. When these people were re-elected as recently as 2017 on an undertaking to implement Brexit that is disgusting behaviour, truly shameful.
Some do want to leave (they say) but not on these terms. When asked what is wrong with these terms they immediately start discussing the future relationship which is non binding and in the PA. The fact that these things are up for grabs in the second stage really seems to pass them by.
I am beyond fed up with our politicians, their stupidity, their self important arrogance, their ignorance and their complete indifference to the consequences of this continued uncertainty on our economy. They are scum.
Why can't May even talk about a Customs Union or any other permissible adjustment to the Deal that might be the basis of a consensus? She has had four opportunities to do so and hasn't moved a millimetre
Because she is a completely incompetent politician. Completely. It has been obvious for at least 2 months that the way to a majority for her deal is adding the CU. Committing us to the CU at this stage is a stupid idea but that is really not the point. The point is how to get to yes and she doesn't have a clue.
The FTPA has ballsed everything up. Before 2011 any government that was defeated by a record majority on its signature policy aim would have had to resign.
I agree. And again I am not saying I think this is a good thing. Both the FTPA and Royal Prerogative limit the power of the House in ways I think are unacceptable.
But we are where we are and Mysticrose does not seem to recognise that Parliament is as limited in its options right now as the rest of us. If they really had the courage of their convictions they would No Confidence May and get a new PM in place ASAP. But for what ever reason they seem to be unwilling to do that. Simply saying they can force her to do something against her will whilst keeping her and her Government in office is denial of reality.
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
Is there a majority to revoke article 50 at 5 to midnight on April 11th ?
Jezza would rather the bomb went off..
Jeremy Corbyn cannot revoke Article 50. Theresa May can.
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
No it can't. To revoke withdrawal from an international treaty the reserved power of HMQ is used via the executive not the legislature. HoC can vote
Nope. The House of Commons can become the Executive, as recently demonstrated, and enact law. It does not require the PM who is only in post by virtue of retaining the confidence of the House.
Parliament cannot take on the reserved powers of the monarchy
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
l
e.
Parliament cannot take on the reserved powers of the monarchy
See below. That's my point. It's Parliament + HMQ. Not the PM per se.
.
End of is not much of an argument.
The Queen will not take sides against government.
No indeed. But let's say that hypothetically the current Prime Minister decided to try and defy the House of Commons voting against No Deal (again) and let's suppose they had passed legislation so to do, which they totally have the statutory ability to complete. Then it is quite inconceivable that, under such grievous circumstances, she would continue to command the confidence of the House. In such circumstances the current governing party would have
It's over for No Deal, if not by the EU side, then certainly by the HoC and HMQ.
As for the EU ... this is more complex. On balance, exasperated though they are, they are unlikely to let it happen IF there is a chance of something else. To that end, Monday is vital. If the House of Commons do find a majority for a form of Brexit with, or without, a confirmatory public vote, then the EU will I think 90%+ grant a longer extension.
In this light I think we need, tentatively and not arrogantly, place some of Macron's sabre-rattling in the context of his domestic strife, and indeed his falling out with Italy.
If the Commons passes a VONC in the government, it is indeed possible that a Corbyn-led government could revoke A50. But, that's a big if.
I am just utterly baffled by the extent to which politicians seem oblivious to what the European Council said about 12 April.
Westminster is often described as a bubble, but now it seems to have detached itself altogether from external reality and floated off into Cloud Cuckoo Land.
There is a remarkable lack of urgency. All these people who claim - to my mind falsely claim - to think no deal is a terrible scenario, are still just ambling along, refusing any and all options so far presented to them. It's astonishing even noting the hyper partisan nature of the debate still (it is still a Tory Brexit or Labour Brexit or No Brexit fight, stupidly).
Someone's just told me that local councillors motivation is err... the salary ?
I've always thought it was unpaid (Or at a minimal rate) and only out of pocket expenses were reimbursed ?
Parish councillors are unpaid. Local authority councillors receive a basic allowance, which I've seen be anywhere between 6-13k per annum for what surveys generally say is around 20-25 hours a week, though of course some do more and some less. Those with special responsibilities like Leader generally receive an additional allowance which is quite a bit more, but you are essentially full time at that point, plus any other commitments you have.
In my area taking basic and special responsibilities and expenses into account the Leader gets around 55-60k, and definitely puts the hours in to earn it and then some for the nature of the role, but most get around 15k.
Grieve is a genuine old school conservative, but also smart and outward looking. It is shocking that he has no place in today’s Conservative Party, which seems to prefer ideological purity over conservatism. Real Tories need to take a hard look at what is going on and act before it’s too late.
Grieve’s failing is that he has insisted on MPs having a vote. He has been no ruder about the Tory manifesto than Ken Clarke.
Today’s Tory party has been taken over by UKIP. The nasty little rally in Parliament square last night with Farage talking about “enemy territory” and Tommy Robinson ranting about immigrants is where the road the Tories have embarked on leads to.
The rally in the square last night had nothing to do with the Tories.
The ugly strand of intense yet poorly articulated autochthonous rage was completely a creation of the post 2016 tory party.
Own it.
(I did a Casino style coup-de-grâce line at the end just to try it on for size.)
That's just a smear.
Tommy Robinson and the BNP way predate Brexit, and were winning seats in the 2009 European Parliament elections and before.
Parliament cannot take on the reserved powers of the monarchy
Ollie Cromwell thought and did otherwise ....
Yeah but we aint gonna fit a civil war in before April 12
The shortest war on record is 39-45 minutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War. A Week is ages. even the 6-day war could be fought - twice. The Indo Pakistani war in 1971 lasted 13 days so we would have to start our own pretty quickly to fit it in that timescale.
Anyway, returning to the real world, Monday really is very important. If the Commons do find a common ground solution for Brexit then, all things considered, that will be game over. There will be some heel dragging from the goddam-awful incumbent of No.10 but I think the resolution to move on will surpass this.
Her deal is only still feebly beating if the HoC fail to find a majority. A question there revolves around whipping. There's going to be bad feeling if they don't allow free votes.
I don't know how she can not allow free votes at this point. We know the Cabinet is riven by splits between those accepting or supportive of no deal and those who will not countenance that outcome, and she's had her MV2.5 so she can claim her option is technically the most popular, now it is time to see what MPs really think about the rest, no abstentions because that makes the exercise pointless.
I am just utterly baffled by the extent to which politicians seem oblivious to what the European Council said about 12 April.
Westminster is often described as a bubble, but now it seems to have detached itself altogether from external reality and floated off into Cloud Cuckoo Land.
There is a remarkable lack of urgency. All these people who claim - to my mind falsely claim - to think no deal is a terrible scenario, are still just ambling along, refusing any and all options so far presented to them. It's astonishing even noting the hyper partisan nature of the debate still (it is still a Tory Brexit or Labour Brexit or No Brexit fight, stupidly).
Someone's just told me that local councillors motivation is err... the salary ?
I've always thought it was unpaid (Or at a minimal rate) and only out of pocket expenses were reimbursed ?
Parish councillors are unpaid. Local authority councillors receive a basic allowance, which I've seen be anywhere between 6-13k per annum for what surveys generally say is around 20-25 hours a week, though of course some do more and some less. Those with special responsibilities like Leader generally receive an additional allowance which is quite a bit more, but you are essentially full time at that point, plus any other commitments you have.
In my area taking basic and special responsibilities and expenses into account the Leader gets around 55-60k, and definitely puts the hours in to earn it and then some for the nature of the role, but most get around 15k.
If, say, you're Deputy Leader of a Council, a member of the GLA, and sitting on a couple of quangos, you can be earning more than the PM.
Thank you @david_herdson for the header. I agree with you that a No Deal exit is inevitable now. I have said so for a while. It is extremely sad. The ERG - a group as loathsome, destructive and stupid as Militant Tendency and the Corbynistas - will win and are acting as the Corbynistas’ useful idiots.
What do you have to say about Corbyn whipping all of his MPs to also oppose the deal in all circumstances too then?
If we had just 30-40 Labour MPs breaking ranks on this, this wouldn’t be happening.
The Labour offer to support a deal including permanent customs union has been on the table for a YEAR, to the annoyance of the substantial No Brexit body of opinion in the party. Mrs May has declined to accept it because she believes it would split the Tory Party. Fine, but she (and you) can't then reasonably complain that Labour is dogmtically opposing any deal. To say "I am only prepared to accept one kind of deal and unless you accept that you're a wrecker" is simply silly.
Bollocks.
Corbyn would reject the WA regardless of what was on the table. He'd find a reason.
And Labour rejected the pure WA on Friday without any PD attached whatsoever.
So don't try the softly spoken spin on me. It doesn't wash and I'm not impressed.
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
Is there a majority to revoke article 50 at 5 to midnight on April 11th ?
Jezza would rather the bomb went off..
Jeremy Corbyn cannot revoke Article 50. Theresa May can.
Is it 5 to midnight BST or 5 to 11pm BST. I HATE time differences.
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
No it can't. To revoke withdrawal from an international treaty the reserved power of HMQ is used via the executive not the legislature. HoC can vote to instruct TM but if she refuses it is not revoked until someone with authority to fo do revokes it (another PM or HMQ herself) - time would run out in the constitutional chaos. So if TM would rather no deal than no Brexit its likely to be no deal
Nope. The House of Commons can become the Executive, as recently demonstrated, and enact law. It does not require the PM who is only in post by virtue of retaining the confidence of the House. Law is enacted by Parliament and Royal prerogative.
And the PM only inhabits the role by virtue of the Queen's appointment.
No the House cannot become the Executive in the way you imagine. Whilst they may be able to take control of the business of the House, they are not able to increase the powers of the House over the Executive where that strays into the area of Royal Prerogative. The only way they could do that would be Primary legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament stripping away the last areas of Royal Prerogative.
Now in the long term it would be a good thing if they did this. But right now they have simply run out of time to do it. If May is so minded to take us out without a Deal then that is what will happen.
In the exertion therefore of those prerogatives, which the law has given him, the King is irresistible and absolute, according to the forms of the constitution. And yet if the consequence of that exertion be manifestly to the grievance or dishonour of the kingdom, the Parliament will call his advisers to a just and severe account. - Blackstone
Absolutely. The problem Parliament have is that, short of the Cromwell solution, they have left it far too late.
The FTPA has ballsed everything up. Before 2011 any government that was defeated by a record majority on its signature policy aim would have had to resign.
That's not a problem with the Act, it's a problem with MPs' behaviour in not taking appropriate action if they do not support the signature, nay, only policy of government. Procedure is often used as an excuse, as is the case here.
Parliament cannot take on the reserved powers of the monarchy
Ollie Cromwell thought and did otherwise ....
Yeah but we aint gonna fit a civil war in before April 12
The shortest war on record is 39-45 minutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War. A Week is ages. even the 6-day war could be fought - twice. The Indo Pakistani war in 1971 lasted 13 days so we would have to start our own pretty quickly to fit it in that timescale.
Ok, we'd be pushing it, but yes, if a detailed plan exists and the protagonists are in position ready to go we might just manage it. In terms of likelihood it's about level with Biden not being a pervy creep
I am just utterly baffled by the extent to which politicians seem oblivious to what the European Council said about 12 April.
Westminster is often described as a bubble, but now it seems to have detached itself altogether from external reality and floated off into Cloud Cuckoo Land.
There is a remarkable lack of urgency. All these people who claim - to my mind falsely claim - to think no deal is a terrible scenario, are still just ambling along, refusing any and all options so far presented to them. It's astonishing even noting the hyper partisan nature of the debate still (it is still a Tory Brexit or Labour Brexit or No Brexit fight, stupidly).
Someone's just told me that local councillors motivation is err... the salary ?
I've always thought it was unpaid (Or at a minimal rate) and only out of pocket expenses were reimbursed ?
Parish councillors are unpaid. Local authority councillors receive a basic allowance, which I've seen be anywhere between 6-13k per annum for what surveys generally say is around 20-25 hours a week, though of course some do more and some less. Those with special responsibilities like Leader generally receive an additional allowance which is quite a bit more, but you are essentially full time at that point, plus any other commitments you have.
In my area taking basic and special responsibilities and expenses into account the Leader gets around 55-60k, and definitely puts the hours in to earn it and then some for the nature of the role, but most get around 15k.
If, say, you're Deputy Leader of a Council, a member of the GLA, and sitting on a couple of quangos, you can be earning more than the PM.
The GLA must pay very well, and those quangos must pay well too. I'm in a shire county and the allowances are comparable to other similar authorities, with a limit on the number of special responsibilites one can claim an allowance for.
But frankly I would not be surprised if the PM job is underpaid, for all we criticise it.
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
Is there a majority to revoke article 50 at 5 to midnight on April 11th ?
Jezza would rather the bomb went off..
Jeremy Corbyn cannot revoke Article 50. Theresa May can.
Is it 5 to midnight BST or 5 to 11pm BST. I HATE time differences.
EU time so 5 to 11. It would be somehow fitting if we crashed out because the government messed up the time zones.
Thank you @david_herdson for the header. I agree with you that a No Deal exit is inevitable now. I have said so for a while. It is extremely sad. The ERG - a group as loathsome, destructive and stupid as Militant Tendency and the Corbynistas - will win and are acting as the Corbynistas’ useful idiots.
What do you have to say about Corbyn whipping all of his MPs to also oppose the deal in all circumstances too then?
If we had just 30-40 Labour MPs breaking ranks on this, this wouldn’t be happening.
The Labour offer to support a deal including permanent customs union has been on the table for a YEAR, to the annoyance of the substantial No Brexit body of opinion in the party. Mrs May has declined to accept it because she believes it would split the Tory Party. Fine, but she (and you) can't then reasonably complain that Labour is dogmtically opposing any deal. To say "I am only prepared to accept one kind of deal and unless you accept that you're a wrecker" is simply silly.
Bollocks.
Corbyn would reject the WA regardless of what was on the table. He'd find a reason.
And Labour rejected the pure WA on Friday without any PD attached whatsoever.
So don't try the softly spoken spin on me. It doesn't wash and I'm not impressed.
Lol yes the terrible deal that they agree 100% with. Morons.
I don't see any difference in how the Tories, Labour and all the parties are acting to be honest. Each is dogmatically insisting the other must come over to their side, and pretend that is compromise. They're all just demanding the other do as they say, and getting on a high horse about it.
It's quite pathetic, if impressive, how much the party discipline has held up. It's creaked at times, on specific aspects, but largely been maintained, to all our detriment. And we know very stupid and partisan reasons have been at the forefront of peoples's minds, because there are some who would refuse to vote for any Corbyn Brexit, and those who will refuse to vote for a May Brexit, for example claiming May resigning is a reason to vote for or against the WA, for Tories and Labour respetively. Blatantly irrelevant to the WA, and even the aftermath given the parliamentary maths doesn't change, and yet people claim to be serious and say such a reason changes their mind. More excuses for what they always planned to do, either vote for reluctantly or refuse to.
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
Is there a majority to revoke article 50 at 5 to midnight on April 11th ?
Jezza would rather the bomb went off..
Jeremy Corbyn cannot revoke Article 50. Theresa May can.
Is it 5 to midnight BST or 5 to 11pm BST. I HATE time differences.
The "midnight" in question is midnight Central European Time (or Central European Summer Time, whichever pertains in Brussels at the time). UK moves over from GMT to BST tonight, and Brussels moves over from CET to CEST tonight.
I am just utterly baffled by the extent to which politicians seem oblivious to what the European Council said about 12 April.
Westminster is often described as a bubble, but now it seems to have detached itself altogether from external reality and floated off into Cloud Cuckoo Land.
There is a remarkable lack of urgency. All these people who claim - to my mind falsely claim - to think no deal is a terrible scenario, are still just ambling along, refusing any and all options so far presented to them. It's astonishing even noting the hyper partisan nature of the debate still (it is still a Tory Brexit or Labour Brexit or No Brexit fight, stupidly).
Someone's just told me that local councillors motivation is err... the salary ?
I've always thought it was unpaid (Or at a minimal rate) and only out of pocket expenses were reimbursed ?
Parish councillors are unpaid. Local authority councillors receive a basic allowance, which I've seen be anywhere between 6-13k per annum for what surveys generally say is around 20-25 hours a week, though of course some do more and some less. Those with special responsibilities like Leader generally receive an additional allowance which is quite a bit more, but you are essentially full time at that point, plus any other commitments you have.
In my area taking basic and special responsibilities and expenses into account the Leader gets around 55-60k, and definitely puts the hours in to earn it and then some for the nature of the role, but most get around 15k.
If, say, you're Deputy Leader of a Council, a member of the GLA, and sitting on a couple of quangos, you can be earning more than the PM.
The GLA must pay very well, and those quangos must pay well too. I'm in a shire county and the allowances are comparable to other similar authorities, with a limit on the number of special responsibilites one can claim an allowance for.
But frankly I would not be surprised if the PM job is underpaid, for all we criticise it.
One hundred years ago, the Prime Minister was on £10,000 a year, and Cabinet ministers half that. An inflation multiple of 40x is suggested in: Lough, David. No More Champagne: Churchill and his Money.
Thank you @david_herdson for the header. I agree with you that a No Deal exit is inevitable now. I have said so for a while. It is extremely sad. The ERG - a group as loathsome, destructive and stupid as Militant Tendency and the Corbynistas - will win and are acting as the Corbynistas’ useful idiots.
What do you have to say about Corbyn whipping all of his MPs to also oppose the deal in all circumstances too then?
If we had just 30-40 Labour MPs breaking ranks on this, this wouldn’t be happening.
The Labour offer to support a deal including permanent customs union has been on the table for a YEAR, to the annoyance of the substantial No Brexit body of opinion in the party. Mrs May has declined to accept it because she believes it would split the Tory Party. Fine, but she (and you) can't then reasonably complain that Labour is dogmtically opposing any deal. To say "I am only prepared to accept one kind of deal and unless you accept that you're a wrecker" is simply silly.
Bollocks.
Corbyn would reject the WA regardless of what was on the table. He'd find a reason.
And Labour rejected the pure WA on Friday without any PD attached whatsoever.
So don't try the softly spoken spin on me. It doesn't wash and I'm not impressed.
Lol yes the terrible deal that they agree 100% with. Morons.
Where have any of them said they agree with it 100%?
Thank you @david_herdson for the header. I agree with you that a No Deal exit is inevitable now. I have said so for a while. It is extremely sad. The ERG - a group as loathsome, destructive and stupid as Militant Tendency and the Corbynistas - will win and are acting as the Corbynistas’ useful idiots.
What do you have to say about Corbyn whipping all of his MPs to also oppose the deal in all circumstances too then?
If we had just 30-40 Labour MPs breaking ranks on this, this wouldn’t be happening.
The Labour offer to support a deal including permanent customs union has been on the table for a YEAR, to the annoyance of the substantial No Brexit body of opinion in the party. Mrs May has declined to accept it because she believes it would split the Tory Party. Fine, but she (and you) can't then reasonably complain that Labour is dogmtically opposing any deal. To say "I am only prepared to accept one kind of deal and unless you accept that you're a wrecker" is simply silly.
Bollocks.
Corbyn would reject the WA regardless of what was on the table. He'd find a reason.
And Labour rejected the pure WA on Friday without any PD attached whatsoever.
So don't try the softly spoken spin on me. It doesn't wash and I'm not impressed.
Lol yes the terrible deal that they agree 100% with. Morons.
Where have any of them said they agree with it 100%?
I was using poetic license. They dont appear to disagree with it.
Thank you @david_herdson for the header. I agree with you that a No Deal exit is inevitable now. I have said so for a while. It is extremely sad. The ERG - a group as loathsome, destructive and stupid as Militant Tendency and the Corbynistas - will win and are acting as the Corbynistas’ useful idiots.
What do you have to say about Corbyn whipping all of his MPs to also oppose the deal in all circumstances too then?
If we had just 30-40 Labour MPs breaking ranks on this, this wouldn’t be happening.
The Labour offer to support a deal including permanent customs union has been on the table for a YEAR, to the annoyance of the substantial No Brexit body of opinion in the party. Mrs May has declined to accept it because she believes it would split the Tory Party. Fine, but she (and you) can't then reasonably complain that Labour is dogmtically opposing any deal. To say "I am only prepared to accept one kind of deal and unless you accept that you're a wrecker" is simply silly.
Bollocks.
Corbyn would reject the WA regardless of what was on the table. He'd find a reason.
And Labour rejected the pure WA on Friday without any PD attached whatsoever.
So don't try the softly spoken spin on me. It doesn't wash and I'm not impressed.
The vote yesterday wasn't just on the WA. It was to commit the country to a timetable of leaving on May 22nd.
Just a tiny, tiny flavour of what would be coming at us under a Corbyn government. And it's sod all to do with saving the planet. It's to ban the banks.
Thank you @david_herdson for the header. I agree with you that a No Deal exit is inevitable now. I have said so for a while. It is extremely sad. The ERG - a group as loathsome, destructive and stupid as Militant Tendency and the Corbynistas - will win and are acting as the Corbynistas’ useful idiots.
What do you have to say about Corbyn whipping all of his MPs to also oppose the deal in all circumstances too then?
If we had just 30-40 Labour MPs breaking ranks on this, this wouldn’t be happening.
The Labour offer to support a deal including permanent customs union has been on the table for a YEAR, to the annoyance of the substantial No Brexit body of opinion in the party. Mrs May has declined to accept it because she believes it would split the Tory Party. Fine, but she (and you) can't then reasonably complain that Labour is dogmtically opposing any deal. To say "I am only prepared to accept one kind of deal and unless you accept that you're a wrecker" is simply silly.
Bollocks.
Corbyn would reject the WA regardless of what was on the table. He'd find a reason.
And Labour rejected the pure WA on Friday without any PD attached whatsoever.
So don't try the softly spoken spin on me. It doesn't wash and I'm not impressed.
The vote yesterday wasn't just on the WA. It was to commit the country to a timetable of leaving on May 22nd.
Thank you @david_herdson for the header. I agree with you that a No Deal exit is inevitable now. I have said so for a while. It is extremely sad. The ERG - a group as loathsome, destructive and stupid as Militant Tendency and the Corbynistas - will win and are acting as the Corbynistas’ useful idiots.
What do you have to say about Corbyn whipping all of his MPs to also oppose the deal in all circumstances too then?
If we had just 30-40 Labour MPs breaking ranks on this, this wouldn’t be happening.
The Labour offer to support a deal including permanent customs union has been on the table for a YEAR, to the annoyance of the substantial No Brexit body of opinion in the party. Mrs May has declined to accept it because she believes it would split the Tory Party. Fine, but she (and you) can't then reasonably complain that Labour is dogmtically opposing any deal. To say "I am only prepared to accept one kind of deal and unless you accept that you're a wrecker" is simply silly.
Bollocks.
Corbyn would reject the WA regardless of what was on the table. He'd find a reason.
And Labour rejected the pure WA on Friday without any PD attached whatsoever.
So don't try the softly spoken spin on me. It doesn't wash and I'm not impressed.
Lol yes the terrible deal that they agree 100% with. Morons.
Thank you @david_herdson for the header. I agree with you that a No Deal exit is inevitable now. I have said so for a while. It is extremely sad. The ERG - a group as loathsome, destructive and stupid as Militant Tendency and the Corbynistas - will win and are acting as the Corbynistas’ useful idiots.
What do you have to say about Corbyn whipping all of his MPs to also oppose the deal in all circumstances too then?
If we had just 30-40 Labour MPs breaking ranks on this, this wouldn’t be happening.
The Labour offer to support a deal including permanent customs union has been on the table for a YEAR, to the annoyance of the substantial No Brexit body of opinion in the party. Mrs May has declined to accept it because she believes it would split the Tory Party. Fine, but she (and you) can't then reasonably complain that Labour is dogmtically opposing any deal. To say "I am only prepared to accept one kind of deal and unless you accept that you're a wrecker" is simply silly.
Bollocks.
Corbyn would reject the WA regardless of what was on the table. He'd find a reason.
And Labour rejected the pure WA on Friday without any PD attached whatsoever.
So don't try the softly spoken spin on me. It doesn't wash and I'm not impressed.
Lol yes the terrible deal that they agree 100% with. Morons.
The politics of the opposition are very obvious.
Its those of the ERG that make no sense.
Yeah, it's almost like a contagion has got to them. One wonders for some if it's not a more deepset unhappiness at the direction of the Tories
Thank you @david_herdson for the header. I agree with you that a No Deal exit is inevitable now. I have said so for a while. It is extremely sad. The ERG - a group as loathsome, destructive and stupid as Militant Tendency and the Corbynistas - will win and are acting as the Corbynistas’ useful idiots.
What do you have to say about Corbyn whipping all of his MPs to also oppose the deal in all circumstances too then?
If we had just 30-40 Labour MPs breaking ranks on this, this wouldn’t be happening.
The Labour offer to support a deal including permanent customs union has been on the table for a YEAR, to the annoyance of the substantial No Brexit body of opinion in the party. Mrs May has declined to accept it because she believes it would split the Tory Party. Fine, but she (and you) can't then reasonably complain that Labour is dogmtically opposing any deal. To say "I am only prepared to accept one kind of deal and unless you accept that you're a wrecker" is simply silly.
Bollocks.
Corbyn would reject the WA regardless of what was on the table. He'd find a reason.
And Labour rejected the pure WA on Friday without any PD attached whatsoever.
So don't try the softly spoken spin on me. It doesn't wash and I'm not impressed.
Lol yes the terrible deal that they agree 100% with. Morons.
It is just like the nonsense spouted about workers' rights being part of the PD. Those rights, post leaving, would be entirely under the control of the UK government and parliament - so they have nothing to do with any PD with the EU. It is about taking a fake position to try to get something. Moronic indeed.
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
Is there a majority to revoke article 50 at 5 to midnight on April 11th ?
Jezza would rather the bomb went off..
Jeremy Corbyn cannot revoke Article 50. Theresa May can.
I mean TM brings a vote to prevent no deal by revoking - before 12th April.
I don't see any difference in how the Tories, Labour and all the parties are acting to be honest. Each is dogmatically insisting the other must come over to their side, and pretend that is compromise. They're all just demanding the other do as they say, and getting on a high horse about it.
It's quite pathetic, if impressive, how much the party discipline has held up. It's creaked at times, on specific aspects, but largely been maintained, to all our detriment. And we know very stupid and partisan reasons have been at the forefront of peoples's minds, because there are some who would refuse to vote for any Corbyn Brexit, and those who will refuse to vote for a May Brexit, for example claiming May resigning is a reason to vote for or against the WA, for Tories and Labour respetively. Blatantly irrelevant to the WA, and even the aftermath given the parliamentary maths doesn't change, and yet people claim to be serious and say such a reason changes their mind. More excuses for what they always planned to do, either vote for reluctantly or refuse to.
The referendum was the one time that petty party politics was put to one side, and yet here we are with tribal silliness getting in the way, they cant help themselves
Just a tiny, tiny flavour of what would be coming at us under a Corbyn government. And it's sod all to do with saving the planet. It's to ban the banks.
I wonder what fuel he used to get to Newport.
Hot air and fermented excrement. Although hypocrisy seems to be quite an effective fuel at present.
Having thought a bit more about it, I am hopeful that good may come out of this.
Perhaps we are going to leave with no deal because of a catastrophic failure of the accepted model of representative democracy. Who knows what the consequences of that would be? But if they are very bad, perhaps it means we'll seek an alternative means of governing ourselves. Perhaps by reason of professional politicians making a terribly bad decision, we'll become pioneers of a more sensible democratic system - sortition.
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
Is there a majority to revoke article 50 at 5 to midnight on April 11th ?
Jezza would rather the bomb went off..
Jeremy Corbyn cannot revoke Article 50. Theresa May can.
I mean TM brings a vote to prevent no deal by revoking - before 12th April.
Would Labour support it or not ?
They are the party of Brexit, I understand. So no. Or maybe yes. Perhaps.
p.s. Of course the HoC has the power to revoke Article 50. At the end of the day Parliament can make up whatever legislature it wants, regardless of the PM.
Is there a majority to revoke article 50 at 5 to midnight on April 11th ?
Jezza would rather the bomb went off..
Jeremy Corbyn cannot revoke Article 50. Theresa May can.
I mean TM brings a vote to prevent no deal by revoking - before 12th April.
Would Labour support it or not ?
They are the party of Brexit, I understand. So no. Or maybe yes. Perhaps.
Of course they would. Whether May would bring it or not is a different matter.
I am just utterly baffled by the extent to which politicians seem oblivious to what the European Council said about 12 April.
Westminster is often described as a bubble, but now it seems to have detached itself altogether from external reality and floated off into Cloud Cuckoo Land.
There is a remarkable lack of urgency. All these people who claim - to my mind falsely claim - to think no deal is a terrible scenario, are still just ambling along, refusing any and all options so far presented to them. It's astonishing even noting the hyper partisan nature of the debate still (it is still a Tory Brexit or Labour Brexit or No Brexit fight, stupidly).
Someone's just told me that local councillors motivation is err... the salary ?
I've always thought it was unpaid (Or at a minimal rate) and only out of pocket expenses were reimbursed ?
Parish councillors are unpaid. Local authority councillors receive a basic allowance, which I've seen be anywhere between 6-13k per annum for what surveys generally say is around 20-25 hours a week, though of course some do more and some less. Those with special responsibilities like Leader generally receive an additional allowance which is quite a bit more, but you are essentially full time at that point, plus any other commitments you have.
In my area taking basic and special responsibilities and expenses into account the Leader gets around 55-60k, and definitely puts the hours in to earn it and then some for the nature of the role, but most get around 15k.
If, say, you're Deputy Leader of a Council, a member of the GLA, and sitting on a couple of quangos, you can be earning more than the PM.
The GLA must pay very well, and those quangos must pay well too. I'm in a shire county and the allowances are comparable to other similar authorities, with a limit on the number of special responsibilites one can claim an allowance for.
But frankly I would not be surprised if the PM job is underpaid, for all we criticise it.
You get £56,000 as a GLA member; then £12,000 as a councillor; £28,000 special responsibility allowance as Deputy Leader; then £60,000 for sitting on a couple of quangos. Then, suppose your spouse is also the council, and gets another £14,000 for chairing a scrutiny committee. That's £182,000 between you.
Just a tiny, tiny flavour of what would be coming at us under a Corbyn government. And it's sod all to do with saving the planet. It's to ban the banks.
I wonder what fuel he used to get to Newport.
He was swept there by energy derived from the fervour of popular will.
I am just utterly baffled by the extent to which politicians seem oblivious to what the European Council said about 12 April.
Westminster is often described as a bubble, but now it seems to have detached itself altogether from external reality and floated off into Cloud Cuckoo Land.
There is a remarkable lack of urgency. All these people who claim - to my mind falsely claim - to think no deal is a terrible scenario, are still just ambling along, refusing any and all options so far presented to them. It's astonishing even noting the hyper partisan nature of the debate still (it is still a Tory Brexit or Labour Brexit or No Brexit fight, stupidly).
The timetable is only pressing if you take the EU at their word. In fact they have already blinked on the timetable.
First, Tusk tried to put the pressure on, saying that there would be no extension after 29th March unless May's lousy capitulation was agreed to.
Then when that didn't have the desired effect, we had a minimum extension to 12th April.
Then when the EU's terms were again rejected, the likes of Varadkar suddenly became open to a long extension to avoid the UK leaving without strings attached.
What it shows is that however much the EU may be trying to railroad the UK into accepting their terms, or otherwise to eventually revoke, they are willing to shift the goalposts as much as necessary to avoid any prospect of the UK leaving initially on WTO terms. That says a lot about the weakness in their negotiating position.
Having thought a bit more about it, I am hopeful that good may come out of this.
Perhaps we are going to leave with no deal because of a catastrophic failure of the accepted model of representative democracy. Who knows what the consequences of that would be? But if they are very bad, perhaps it means we'll seek an alternative means of governing ourselves. Perhaps by reason of professional politicians making a terribly bad decision, we'll become pioneers of a more sensible democratic system - sortition.
How about allocating the percentage of seats that represent absentee voters via sortition? A party win on a high turnout would be (rightly) worth more than a party win on a much lower turnout.
Thank you @david_herdson for the header. I agree with you that a No Deal exit is inevitable now. I have said so for a while. It is extremely sad. The ERG - a group as loathsome, destructive and stupid as Militant Tendency and the Corbynistas - will win and are acting as the Corbynistas’ useful idiots.
What do you have to say about Corbyn whipping all of his MPs to also oppose the deal in all circumstances too then?
If we had just 30-40 Labour MPs breaking ranks on this, this wouldn’t be happening.
The Labour offer to support a deal including permanent customs union has been on the table for a YEAR, to the annoyance of the substantial No Brexit body of opinion in the party. Mrs May has declined to accept it because she believes it would split the Tory Party. Fine, but she (and you) can't then reasonably complain that Labour is dogmtically opposing any deal. To say "I am only prepared to accept one kind of deal and unless you accept that you're a wrecker" is simply silly.
Bollocks.
Corbyn would reject the WA regardless of what was on the table. He'd find a reason.
And Labour rejected the pure WA on Friday without any PD attached whatsoever.
So don't try the softly spoken spin on me. It doesn't wash and I'm not impressed.
The vote yesterday wasn't just on the WA. It was to commit the country to a timetable of leaving on May 22nd.
The date is obviously a problem in Labour’s schrodingers brexit. That’s when they can’t be both for Brexit and a referendum. If he had voted for it, then the DUP would withdraw support. He could run down the click until exit. And then vnoc. May gone - general election and yes in charge for the political bit. But obviously it’s Mays fault.
Comments
Grieve comes across as thoughtful & intelligent, but he stood on a platform to implement Brexit in the 2017 election and he should honour that commitment.
An MP who says (s)he is ashamed to be a member of the party surely can't be too surprised at the consequences.
It is a pity for both Grieve and the Tory party, but I think the decision is correct.
Have a look at what allowances the councillors in your patch get.
https://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/media/132476/membersallowances.pdf
Has there been any polling?
No Deal will not happen. Why? Because it's the one certainty of the House of Commons. They will simply not permit it, quite aside from the EU. Do they have the power to stop it? Yes. Will they? Yes. If that means, at the wire, revoking Article 50, that is what they will do.
End of.
https://tinyurl.com/y5ksrwcl
Pippa was a former candidate for this constituency, Newport West, in 2010, 2015 and 2017.
So, that's 4 anti-semitic candidates in a row for the "Welsh" Greens in Newport West.
We might as well drop the "Welsh" as they voted against organising independently. They certainly have no discernible interest in Wales or the Welsh.
He then tweets asking why the BBC didn’t have helicopter coverage of the March.
When called out on it rather than apoligise he deletes his tweet and calls the BBC liars.
My take is that all possible outcomes are preceded by a General Election, the result of which will determine which one happens.
The key is Labour. Their goal is to get a winnable GE out of this impasse and they can be confident of achieving it if they maintain their discipline in opposing the Withdrawal Agreement.
The notion of a cross-party coalition being able to negotiate a Customs Union and pilot it through this Parliament is a unicorn. The politics of that simply does not work.
No Deal therefore beckons, but one final attempt will be made to avert it, and this will take the form of an extension to allow an accelerated Tory leadership change and a GE.
The election will present a clear Brexit choice between the Conservatives offering LEAVE ("and this time for real") and Labour offering a Referendum and therefore the chance to REMAIN.
Leave or Remain. Sound familiar?
Brexit, like EU membership always was and still is supra-divisive. It cuts across all parties, all political persuasions, backgrounds.
THE fundamental mistake of Theresa May, especially after losing her majority, was only appealing to the Conservative Party MPs. This is part of her own inherent weakness: someone with very little family of her own and few friends, whose life revolves around Philip and the party.
But membership of the Common Market came about because Ted Heath knew he couldn't do it through his Eurosceptics. He reached out across the floor.
Brexit ALWAYS should have been conducted on the same basis, especially so because the result of 52-48 exemplified a split nation.
Three years have been wasted. But the only solution now is one that is cross-party, reaching the centre ground. It will be consensual and therefore involve compromise, but it is quite simply the only way of Brexit.
Either that or we simply remain in the EU.
Don't forget too that the Government itself only operates on the basis of having the confidence of the House. Were the PM to even dream of disregarding the Commons about No Deal she would find herself losing a No Confidence motion instantly by a large margin.
As I say, No Deal will not happen.
Jezza would rather the bomb went off..
He's made himself look like the very bitter and very silly man that we always knew he was...
And the PM only inhabits the role by virtue of the Queen's appointment.
https://twitter.com/AdamRHale/status/1111954851926343680
Banning press from Labour Party meeting in Newport West.
Whether you, I or Parliament want No Deal is immaterial at this moment if nothing else is done instead. The Commons cannot revoke Article 50 against the wishes of May. They do not have the legal power to do so. If that is the route they wish to go down then the only way they can do it is to remove May from power through a VoNC. And even at that point they may not be able to stop it if she digs in.
If they pass a VoNC then in all likelihood there will be a GE. In that case May remains PM until such times as the new PM has been chosen. Alternatively they could try and get behind a new candidate for PM without a GE. But still that will take time and in the intervening period May remains PM.
Basically if (and I admit it is a big if) May is willing to countenance No Deal then Parliament does not have the power to force her to revoke. They can only remove her (and her Government) from office.
Richard Tyndall, another of the wild Brexiteers, continues to cling to the far right fantasy. It does make me chuckle because his ilk have been the greatest of all possible gifts to Remainers.
No Deal will not happen. End of. The dream is over. It's just taking rather a while for the more slow-minded to move along the Kubler-Ross Stages of Grief.
Neither will it permit a Referendum or Revoke.
The route to any of those 3 outcomes is via a General Election. Tories offering the Brady position or No Deal, Labour offering CU/SM plus REF2.
The only way that such a GE does not happen is if the May deal (or WA only) passes.
In which case I still see a GE but later in the year, Tories offering divergence, Labour offering close alignment.
Now in the long term it would be a good thing if they did this. But right now they have simply run out of time to do it. If May is so minded to take us out without a Deal then that is what will happen.
There are MP's who want No Deal, MP's who will tolerate No Deal, and MP's who don't want No Deal, but who believe they will gain electoral advantage from it.
Leavers seem to say an awful lot of things "out of context".
Perhaps the Press might have asked if Corbyn accidentally liked the same cartoon as Womack?
The Queen will not take sides against government.
Just sitting at your typewriter making stuff up doesn't make it fact. I am afraid it just makes you delusional.
When was the last time we had an election in the midst of a genuine crisis? Probably 1931? (1979 maybe?)
That's not to say it'll give a clear result though... We may just see everyone turn out to say they don't know what the **** to do either!
It's over for No Deal, if not by the EU side, then certainly by the HoC and HMQ.
As for the EU ... this is more complex. On balance, exasperated though they are, they are unlikely to let it happen IF there is a chance of something else. To that end, Monday is vital. If the House of Commons do find a majority for a form of Brexit with, or without, a confirmatory public vote, then the EU will I think 90%+ grant a longer extension.
In this light I think we need, tentatively and not arrogantly, place some of Macron's sabre-rattling in the context of his domestic strife, and indeed his falling out with Italy.
Why would you vote for one and not the other?
Her deal is only still feebly beating if the HoC fail to find a majority. A question there revolves around whipping. There's going to be bad feeling if they don't allow free votes.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/the-incredible-political-pictures-of-celebrated-photographer-stefan-rousseau-over-his-30year-career-a4104431.html
But we are where we are and Mysticrose does not seem to recognise that Parliament is as limited in its options right now as the rest of us. If they really had the courage of their convictions they would No Confidence May and get a new PM in place ASAP. But for what ever reason they seem to be unwilling to do that. Simply saying they can force her to do something against her will whilst keeping her and her Government in office is denial of reality.
In my area taking basic and special responsibilities and expenses into account the Leader gets around 55-60k, and definitely puts the hours in to earn it and then some for the nature of the role, but most get around 15k.
Tommy Robinson and the BNP way predate Brexit, and were winning seats in the 2009 European Parliament elections and before.
We have nothing to do with them. Rightly so.
Corbyn would reject the WA regardless of what was on the table. He'd find a reason.
And Labour rejected the pure WA on Friday without any PD attached whatsoever.
So don't try the softly spoken spin on me. It doesn't wash and I'm not impressed.
But frankly I would not be surprised if the PM job is underpaid, for all we criticise it.
It's quite pathetic, if impressive, how much the party discipline has held up. It's creaked at times, on specific aspects, but largely been maintained, to all our detriment. And we know very stupid and partisan reasons have been at the forefront of peoples's minds, because there are some who would refuse to vote for any Corbyn Brexit, and those who will refuse to vote for a May Brexit, for example claiming May resigning is a reason to vote for or against the WA, for Tories and Labour respetively. Blatantly irrelevant to the WA, and even the aftermath given the parliamentary maths doesn't change, and yet people claim to be serious and say such a reason changes their mind. More excuses for what they always planned to do, either vote for reluctantly or refuse to.
Lough, David. No More Champagne: Churchill and his Money.
Maybe Corbyn has a dentists appointment that day.
Its those of the ERG that make no sense.
Would Labour support it or not ?
Perhaps we are going to leave with no deal because of a catastrophic failure of the accepted model of representative democracy. Who knows what the consequences of that would be? But if they are very bad, perhaps it means we'll seek an alternative means of governing ourselves. Perhaps by reason of professional politicians making a terribly bad decision, we'll become pioneers of a more sensible democratic system - sortition.
First, Tusk tried to put the pressure on, saying that there would be no extension after 29th March unless May's lousy capitulation was agreed to.
Then when that didn't have the desired effect, we had a minimum extension to 12th April.
Then when the EU's terms were again rejected, the likes of Varadkar suddenly became open to a long extension to avoid the UK leaving without strings attached.
What it shows is that however much the EU may be trying to railroad the UK into accepting their terms, or otherwise to eventually revoke, they are willing to shift the goalposts as much as necessary to avoid any prospect of the UK leaving initially on WTO terms. That says a lot about the weakness in their negotiating position.