Powerful thread header. Absolutely agree that we are well into dangerous precedent territory.
It is. A great header and I agree with every word. There was a time when I might have thought such concerns hyperbolic but not any more.
One of the most concerning aspects is the way the No Dealers seem so insouciant about the use Corbyn and co might make of the powers they propose using to push through a No Deal Brexit. On the one hand, they think he is very dangerous and must be kept at all costs out of No 10 and, on the other, will happily set a constitutional precedent which, if he did become PM, would truly make him dangerous.
As I put it in my own thread header the other day:
“one policy (Brexit, enacted in one particular way) is seen as so important that virtually anything is acceptable to achieve it, including proroguing Parliament. That this might undermine the very institutions and conventions which any democratic and stable society requires to function, especially if in the hands of political opponents, seems irrelevant. No-one seems to ask themselves the question: “Would I want my opponent to have this power? If no, I should not have it either.”
Prorogation of Parliament should simply be out of the question for any democratic politician. That it isn’t, that Boris won’t rule it out, is - as @NickPalmer has also observed - an indication of the unfitness for office of both Boris and his Parliamentary supporters.
I think the last time Parliament was prorogued in such a way for such a reason was when Charles II dissolved it in 1681 to frustrate its attempts to cut the Duke of York out of the royal succession.
It ended with two civil wars, a revolution in 1688, plus several invasions of and from Scotland and Ireland until 1746.
Uh no, the English civil wars started in 1642 and had ended by the mid 1650s well before 1681 and the Glorious Revolution was largely peaceful
17 million people voted to Leave the EU in 2016, more than have voted for any party or any referendum question in UK history and yet over 3 years after the vote and 4 months after the original exit date was due we are still in the EU. The convincing win of the Brexit Party in the European Parliament elections only served to show few people have changed their mind since.
Of course proroguing Parliament is not ideal but if Parliament refuses to pass the Withdrawal Agreement, which it has rejected 3 times and continues to prefer further extension or even revoking Article 50 altogether to leaving with No Deal then there is no alternative. In any case as I understand the intention would be merely to prorogue Parliament at the end of October to force Brexit and No Deal through as a last resort to ensure we do actually leave the EU on October 31st with the expectation of a general election then in November
In both the Euro elections and the general election parties opposing No Deal got a majority of the votes. Closing Parliament down to enforce a policy that the people have never indicated they want is anti-democratic. The only reason you back it is because the team you support is suggesting it.
She refers to MPs not the government. Of course the courts can rule against governments but she says it's the responsibility of MPs re Brexit. in that quote.
The very simple problem here is that the current parliament is incapable of forward direction. There is no majority for anything on Brexit. There is no party block of votes in either Labour or Tory parties who are falling apart by the day. For all of the talk about this or that being a threat to democracy, lets all take a breath, step back from the row and accept that the former political settlement has completely collapsed.
Parliament cannot move forward. Is being held to a decision made by a previous parliament. So we need a fresh election. But cannot have a fresh election as the main opposition is in civil war and the government about to join them. With a hard deadline just weeks away that in reality will trash the economy and the country if its passed chaotically.
We need a national government. And I am increasingly convinced that we will get one either as an alternative to a chaotic election or as a result of one
I'm not convinced that the EU would accept the UK back in, unless membership carried broad cross party support like it used to; somewhere around 70 / 30 type numbers.
Why would the EU want to accept the UK with an explicitly anti EU conservative party likely to come to power at some point and start the whole process again.
The UK would find it very hard to rejoin. England, Scotland and Wales would be warmly welcomed.
Scotland for sure where membership would enjoy broad popular support.
E&W not so much; The EU would be signing up to play Russian roulette for ever, one wrong election result and they're back in the same drama.
Frankly, the benefits of E&W membership don't outweigh the risks and hassles for the EU.
English independence will radically change the country. For the better. The new, improved England will be welcomed by all as a breath of fresh air.
Wales ditto.
I can't think of anything worse. A nation of little Englanders. Literally.
Fresh air? Where?
No, it will be a nation of the same people as before, but it will be shorn of its "Global Britain" pretensions. A modern European nation fit for the 21st century.
English independence and the dissolution of the UK is the solution to the identity crisis that has given us Brexit.
17 million people voted to Leave the EU in 2016, more than have voted for any party or any referendum question in UK history and yet over 3 years after the vote and 4 months after the original exit date was due we are still in the EU. The convincing win of the Brexit Party in the European Parliament elections only served to show few people have changed their mind since.
Of course proroguing Parliament is not ideal but if Parliament refuses to pass the Withdrawal Agreement, which it has rejected 3 times and continues to prefer further extension or even revoking Article 50 altogether to leaving with No Deal then there is no alternative. In any case as I understand the intention would be merely to prorogue Parliament at the end of October to force Brexit and No Deal through as a last resort to ensure we do actually leave the EU on October 31st with the expectation of a general election then in November
The government in the Westminster system only has democratic legitimacy because it has majority support in the Commons. If the government prorogues Parliament because it does not have majority support in the Commons then that is a coup.
The alternative is to elect a majority of MPs who will vote for no deal. That's how our democracy works.
I would rather have PM Farage, elected on a manifesto of no deal, than PM Johnson prorogue Parliament to achieve the same. Can you not see the difference?
The Tories and DUP won a majority of seats in the UK in 2017 on a manifesto of leaving the EU Deal or No Deal, the fact some diehard Remainer Tory MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Wollaston have betrayed the manifesto they stood on by defecting to CUK or voting with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
I'm not convinced that the EU would accept the UK back in, unless membership carried broad cross party support like it used to; somewhere around 70 / 30 type numbers.
Why would the EU want to accept the UK with an explicitly anti EU conservative party likely to come to power at some point and start the whole process again.
The UK would find it very hard to rejoin. England, Scotland and Wales would be warmly welcomed.
Wales voted Leave just like England
The pro-EU movement is flourishing in Wales, just like England.
The Brexit Party won the European Parliament elections in Wales in May, just like in England
The Brexit Party got 32% of the vote in Wales (or about 12% of the electorate) so it tells us nothing about whether Wales is still in favour of Brexit.
We know that there are people still strongly in favour of Brexit what we don't know is whether they are still a majority and the evidence we have suggests that they aren't.
I'm not convinced that the EU would accept the UK back in, unless membership carried broad cross party support like it used to; somewhere around 70 / 30 type numbers.
Why would the EU want to accept the UK with an explicitly anti EU conservative party likely to come to power at some point and start the whole process again.
The UK would find it very hard to rejoin. England, Scotland and Wales would be warmly welcomed.
Wales voted Leave just like England
The pro-EU movement is flourishing in Wales, just like England.
You're deluding yourself (statement of the obvious I know) if you think more than a handful of people who weren't already pro-EU have become pro-EU post referendum. People are pessimistic about the outcome. That's a completely different thing. A moderately successful cowing is not a flourishing of goodwill. It is in fact the opposite.
As Farage said, people used to laugh when he said he wanted the UK to leave the EU. The counter-movement inspired by Brexit is already stronger than ever UKIP was, and it is not going to go away until it succeeds. Don't delude yourself about the political trajectory.
I'm not convinced that the EU would accept the UK back in, unless membership carried broad cross party support like it used to; somewhere around 70 / 30 type numbers.
Why would the EU want to accept the UK with an explicitly anti EU conservative party likely to come to power at some point and start the whole process again.
The UK would find it very hard to rejoin. England, Scotland and Wales would be warmly welcomed.
Scotland for sure where membership would enjoy broad popular support.
E&W not so much; The EU would be signing up to play Russian roulette for ever, one wrong election result and they're back in the same drama.
Frankly, the benefits of E&W membership don't outweigh the risks and hassles for the EU.
English independence will radically change the country. For the better. The new, improved England will be welcomed by all as a breath of fresh air.
Wales ditto.
I can't think of anything worse. A nation of little Englanders. Literally.
Fresh air? Where?
No, it will be a nation of the same people as before, but it will be shorn of its "Global Britain" pretensions. A modern European nation fit for the 21st century.
English independence and the dissolution of the UK is the solution to the identity crisis that has given us Brexit.
English independence guarantees permanent Brexit for England given England voted 54% Leave rather than 52% Leave for the UK and the Tories won a majority of 60 in England at the last general election but no majority at all in the UK
Powerful thread header. Absolutely agree that we are well into dangerous precedent territory.
It is. A great header and I agree with every word. There was a time when I might have thought such concerns hyperbolic but not any more.
One of the most concerning aspects is the way the No Dealers seem so insouciant about the use Corbyn and co might make of the powers they propose using to push through a No Deal Brexit. On the one hand, they think he is very dangerous and must be kept at all costs out of No 10 and, on the other, will happily set a constitutional precedent which, if he did become PM, would truly make him dangerous.
As I put it in my own thread header the other day:
“one policy (Brexit, enacted in one particular way) is seen as so important that virtually anything is acceptable to achieve it, including proroguing Parliament. That this might undermine the very institutions and conventions which any democratic and stable society requires to function, especially if in the hands of political opponents, seems irrelevant. No-one seems to ask themselves the question: “Would I want my opponent to have this power? If no, I should not have it either.”
Prorogation of Parliament should simply be out of the question for any democratic politician. That it isn’t, that Boris won’t rule it out, is - as @NickPalmer has also observed - an indication of the unfitness for office of both Boris and his Parliamentary supporters.
I think the last time Parliament was prorogued in such a way for such a reason was when Charles II dissolved it in 1681 to frustrate its attempts to cut the Duke of York out of the royal succession.
It ended with two civil wars, a revolution in 1688, plus several invasions of and from Scotland and Ireland until 1746.
Uh no, the English civil wars started in 1642 and had ended by the mid 1650s well before 1681 and the Glorious Revolution was largely peaceful
I wasn't referring to that, as you would know if you actually had any dim understanding of - well, anything really. I was referring to the invasion of England by Monmouth, the fighting in Ireland (heard of the Boyne?) and the Jacobite risings of 1715 and 1745.
Perhaps expecting a man who thinks Boris Johnson is sane and that there is a ferry from Ullapool to Inverness to check his facts is asking too much. But you are proving rude and patronising now as well as stupid and I am certainly not taking that from you.
17 million people voted to Leave the EU in 2016, more than have voted for any party or any referendum question in UK history and yet over 3 years after the vote and 4 months after the original exit date was due we are still in the EU. The convincing win of the Brexit Party in the European Parliament elections only served to show few people have changed their mind since.
Of course proroguing Parliament is not ideal but if Parliament refuses to pass the Withdrawal Agreement, which it has rejected 3 times and continues to prefer further extension or even revoking Article 50 altogether to leaving with No Deal then there is no alternative. In any case as I understand the intention would be merely to prorogue Parliament at the end of October to force Brexit and No Deal through as a last resort to ensure we do actually leave the EU on October 31st with the expectation of a general election then in November
The government in the Westminster system only has democratic legitimacy because it has majority support in the Commons. If the government prorogues Parliament because it does not have majority support in the Commons then that is a coup.
The alternative is to elect a majority of MPs who will vote for no deal. That's how our democracy works.
I would rather have PM Farage, elected on a manifesto of no deal, than PM Johnson prorogue Parliament to achieve the same. Can you not see the difference?
The Tories and DUP won a majority of seats in the UK in 2017 on a manifesto of leaving the EU Deal or No Deal, the fact some diehard Remainer Tory MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Wollaston have betrayed the manifesto they stood on by defecting to CUK or voting with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
Perhaps you should go back and read the Conservative party manifesto before you make up what it said.
I'm not convinced that the EU would accept the UK back in, unless membership carried broad cross party support like it used to; somewhere around 70 / 30 type numbers.
Why would the EU want to accept the UK with an explicitly anti EU conservative party likely to come to power at some point and start the whole process again.
The UK would find it very hard to rejoin. England, Scotland and Wales would be warmly welcomed.
Wales voted Leave just like England
The pro-EU movement is flourishing in Wales, just like England.
The Brexit Party won the European Parliament elections in Wales in May, just like in England
The Brexit Party got 32% of the vote in Wales (or about 12% of the electorate) so it tells us nothing about whether Wales is still in favour of Brexit.
We know that there are people still strongly in favour of Brexit what we don't know is whether they are still a majority and the evidence we have suggests that they aren't.
The explicitly stop Brexit and Remain in the EU in all circumstances parties ie the LDs, Plaid, the Greens and CUK did not get over 50% combined in Wales in the European Parliament elections
I disagree with mr Meeks on plenty, not least his tone on many occasions, but I cannot deny that i find the mooted plans to prorogue quite concerning. The reasons dont stack up and it comes from people who openly admit that no cost or price is too high to leave (except the price of voting for the WA for some of them, that price was too high).
Nothing is so great that any cost is worth it. It is incredibly frustrating we have not left yet, but better we dont and even the BXP win an election to no deal at the democratic outrage, than people essentially decide to ignore the will of the present parliament (if it can manage to determine what its will is).
I believe in parliamentary democracy. This parliament was elected after the referendum and has behaved terribly - not reaching compromise to deliver what most said they would do and a large group always intending to stymie it. The solution is the parliament faces the consequences at the next election, whenever that is.
That would delay Brexit, might even halt it for a bit. But if we are outraged by our representatives we will choose other ones.
Better that than some Dominic Grieve style too clever by half constitutional wrangling.
Yes the legal position is no deal and if they did not want that they should not have triggered A50. But while I dislike what the parliament has done and has not done, while it is there it is entitled to indicate its will as best it sees fit.
Proroguing for no purpose other than partisan politics is a dangerous game to play. If its happened before thats no excuse to do it again, it can escalate badly and this time we see the political culture devolve.
Do the Tories want Corbyn to see proroguing as nothing but a convenient tool in the arsenal.
Powerful thread header. Absolutely agree that we are well into dangerous precedent territory.
It is. A great header and I agree with every word. There was a time when I might have thought such concerns hyperbolic but not any more.
One of the most concerning aspects is the way the No Dealers seem so insouciant about the use Corbyn and co might make of the powers they propose using to push through a No Deal Brexit. On the one hand, they think he is very dangerous and must be kept at all costs out of No 10 and, on the other, will happily set a constitutional precedent which, if he did become PM, would truly make him dangerous.
As I put it in my own thread header the other day:
“one policy (Brexit, enacted in one particular way) is seen as so important that virtually anything is acceptable to achieve it, including proroguing Parliament. That this might undermine the very institutions and conventions which any democratic and stable society requires to function, especially if in the hands of political opponents, seems irrelevant. No-one seems to ask themselves the question: “Would I want my opponent to have this power? If no, I should not have it either.”
Prorogation of Parliament should simply be out of the question for any democratic politician. That it isn’t, that Boris won’t rule it out, is - as @NickPalmer has also observed - an indication of the unfitness for office of both Boris and his Parliamentary supporters.
I think the last time Parliament was prorogued in such a way for such a reason was when Charles II dissolved it in 1681 to frustrate its attempts to cut the Duke of York out of the royal succession.
It ended with two civil wars, a revolution in 1688, plus several invasions of and from Scotland and Ireland until 1746.
Uh no, the English civil wars started in 1642 and had ended by the mid 1650s well before 1681 and the Glorious Revolution was largely peaceful
You’ve forgotten Ireland. The Glorious Revolution was anything but peaceful there. We are living with its consequences to this day.
This is an interesting thread header. I would be more inclined to be as upset about prorogation as Alastair Meeks purports to be if I felt his passionate support for parliamentary democracy was not largely dependent on his own bias. Indeed, in the header itself, he offers an example of a 'good' prorogation, that lead to greater democracy. It could be argued that's exactly what the current situation is.
Teresa May's Government recently abandoned it's attempt to control web porn (which I felt was bad law, but my opinions of it are not relevant), due to not informing the European Commission about the change. Parliament was thwarted. By what authority does the Commission overrule even a relatively minor regulatory change? If there was a fiery denunciation by Alastair Meeks, either above or below the line, I must have missed it.
It's like the supporters of Sir Kim Darroch wrapping themselves in the flag and claiming to stand up for Britain against the US. Their newfound patriotism was deeply suspect.
17 million people voted to Leave the EU in 2016, more than have voted for any party or any referendum question in UK history and yet over 3 years after the vote and 4 months after the original exit date was due we are still in the EU. The convincing win of the Brexit Party in the European Parliament elections only served to show few people have changed their mind since.
Of course proroguing Parliament is not ideal but if Parliament refuses to pass the Withdrawal Agreement, which it has rejected 3 times and continues to prefer further extension or even revoking Article 50 altogether to leaving with No Deal then there is no alternative. In any case as I understand the intention would be merely to prorogue Parliament at the end of October to force Brexit and No Deal through as a last resort to ensure we do actually leave the EU on October 31st with the expectation of a general election then in November
In both the Euro elections and the general election parties opposing No Deal got a majority of the votes. Closing Parliament down to enforce a policy that the people have never indicated they want is anti-democratic. The only reason you back it is because the team you support is suggesting it.
17 million people voted for Brexit and as a Yougov poll has shown on a forced choice more voters back Brexit with No Deal to Revoke and Remain, 44% to 42%
Roger Federer is the greatest grass court tennis player of all time, without question, and is playing at the peak of his powers. He is better at 37 than he was at 27. Quite remarkable.
But Novak doesn't miss.
Roger's game is a thing of beauty. No-one has ever played in the way that he does and no-one ever will. His tennis in full flow is extra-terrestrial. It is truly something to behold
But Novak doesn't miss.
The stars are aligned for the Swiss maestro. You can sense it. Tiger wins the Masters, then Roger wins Wimbledon. It feels right. It feels inevitable. Almost every single person on Centre Court and watching on TV will be willing it.
Well, quite. The idea of shutting down parliament to engineer a chaotic, unnegotiated exit from the EU is unconscionable.
As it happens, I am confident that even a politician as free from principle and integrity as Boris Johnson will not go anywhere near such an outrage.
What he will do (IMO) is agree an extension and try to pass the Withdrawal Agreement. Sooner or later, the essential truth - that we must ratify the WA in order to deliver Brexit - will surely dawn and prevail.
It did not happen on TM's watch, sadly for her, but perhaps it will on BoJo's.
Yes. Despite HY's assurances, it is worth noting that Bozo has slightly shifted his explanation and now the reason why can't consider any extension in advance is that it would display weakness to the other side, making it more difficult to get a good deal.
What the Bozo appears to be lining up is an extension once he has got (or is on the way toward) what he expects to be able to sell as a good deal. Once we have this there is no need to bluff about the exit date, he'll say.
I doubt this will wash with the Tory unwashed but, by then, what choice will they have other than to swallow it?
They would go BXP. The deadline has become fetishised, thanks in large part to him. Nothing he could sell to them will prevent the cries if betrayal. There are people so desperate to be out they see the demise of the tories, the demise of the UK, as acceptable. Do you think such people will not react to us not leaving by the date he promised, even if he gets a sign if a great new deal?
I hope he does better than I think and gets something. But he was very very clear to pander to BXP. Hes sown the wind .
This is an interesting thread header. I would be more inclined to be as upset about prorogation as Alastair Meeks purports to be if I felt his passionate support for parliamentary democracy was not largely dependent on his own bias. Indeed, in the header itself, he offers an example of a 'good' prorogation, that lead to greater democracy. It could be argued that's exactly what the current situation is.
No it couldn’t be argued. As I point out in the thread header, Vote Leave did not seek a mandate for no deal Brexit. There is no democratic mandate for it of any kind. Prorogation would be an assault on democracy to gratify the desire of a minority,
Powerful thread header. Absolutely agree that we are well into dangerous precedent territory.
It is. A great header and I agree with every word. There was a time when I might have thought such concerns hyperbolic but not any more.
One of the most concerning aspects is the way the No Dealers seem so insouciant about the use Corbyn and co might make of the powers they propose using to push through a No Deal Brexit. On the one hand, they think he is very dangerous and must be kept at all costs out of No 10 and, on the other, will happily set a constitutional precedent which, if he did become PM, would truly make him dangerous.
As I put it in my own thread header the other day:
“one policy (Brexit, enacted in one particular way) is seen as so important that virtually anything is acceptable to achieve it, including proroguing Parliament. That this might undermine the very institutions and conventions which any democratic and stable society requires to function, especially if in the hands of political opponents, seems irrelevant. No-one seems to ask themselves the question: “Would I want my opponent to have this power? If no, I should not have it either.”
Prorogation of Parliament should simply be out of the question for any democratic politician. That it isn’t, that Boris won’t rule it out, is - as @NickPalmer has also observed - an indication of the unfitness for office of both Boris and his Parliamentary supporters.
I think the last time Parliament was prorogued in such a way for such a reason was when Charles II dissolved it in 1681 to frustrate its attempts to cut the Duke of York out of the royal succession.
It ended with two civil wars, a revolution in 1688, plus several invasions of and from Scotland and Ireland until 1746.
Uh no, the English civil wars started in 1642 and had ended by the mid 1650s well before 1681 and the Glorious Revolution was largely peaceful
You’ve forgotten Ireland. The Glorious Revolution was anything but peaceful there. We are living with its consequences to this day.
That was more a consequence of James 1sts Protestant settlements in Ulster, the Battle of the Boyne is merely a Unionist symbol and of course most Catholics backed James 11nd in whose favour Charles IInd prorogues Parliament
I'm not convinced that the EU would accept the UK back in, unless membership carried broad cross party support like it used to; somewhere around 70 / 30 type numbers.
Why would the EU want to accept the UK with an explicitly anti EU conservative party likely to come to power at some point and start the whole process again.
The UK would find it very hard to rejoin. England, Scotland and Wales would be warmly welcomed.
Wales voted Leave just like England
The pro-EU movement is flourishing in Wales, just like England.
You're deluding yourself (statement of the obvious I know) if you think more than a handful of people who weren't already pro-EU have become pro-EU post referendum. People are pessimistic about the outcome. That's a completely different thing. A moderately successful cowing is not a flourishing of goodwill. It is in fact the opposite.
As Farage said, people used to laugh when he said he wanted the UK to leave the EU. The counter-movement inspired by Brexit is already stronger than ever UKIP was, and it is not going to go away until it succeeds. Don't delude yourself about the political trajectory.
Well, quite. The idea of shutting down parliament to engineer a chaotic, unnegotiated exit from the EU is unconscionable.
As it happens, I am confident that even a politician as free from principle and integrity as Boris Johnson will not go anywhere near such an outrage.
What he will do (IMO) is agree an extension and try to pass the Withdrawal Agreement. Sooner or later, the essential truth - that we must ratify the WA in order to deliver Brexit - will surely dawn and prevail.
It did not happen on TM's watch, sadly for her, but perhaps it will on BoJo's.
Nope. It dawned on most Tory mps in the end, even Boris and JRM, proving themselves pretty dim in the process as they had not figured that out . But the hardcore will never believe it, the DUP dont want brexit enough to accept it and dont make me laugh about Nandy and co in Labour finally realising it - the are dimmer than BoJo if the actually did not realise if they wanted us to leave they needed to vote for MV3.
Tory MPs have been promised a new deal. Some would accept a coat if paint. But others who previously backed it now wouldn't.
I disagree with mr Meeks on plenty, not least his tone on many occasions, but I cannot deny that i find the mooted plans to prorogue quite concerning. The reasons dont stack up and it comes from people who openly admit that no cost or price is too high to leave (except the price of voting for the WA for some of them, that price was too high).
Nothing is so great that any cost is worth it. It is incredibly frustrating we have not left yet, but better we dont and even the BXP win an election to no deal at the democratic outrage, than people essentially decide to ignore the will of the present parliament (if it can manage to determine what its will is).
I believe in parliamentary democracy. This parliament was elected after the referendum and has behaved terribly - not reaching compromise to deliver what most said they would do and a large group always intending to stymie it. The solution is the parliament faces the consequences at the next election, whenever that is.
That would delay Brexit, might even halt it for a bit. But if we are outraged by our representatives we will choose other ones.
Better that than some Dominic Grieve style too clever by half constitutional wrangling.
Yes the legal position is no deal and if they did not want that they should not have triggered A50. But while I dislike what the parliament has done and has not done, while it is there it is entitled to indicate its will as best it sees fit.
Proroguing for no purpose other than partisan politics is a dangerous game to play. If its happened before thats no excuse to do it again, it can escalate badly and this time we see the political culture devolve.
Do the Tories want Corbyn to see proroguing as nothing but a convenient tool in the arsenal.
If Parliament blocked the key manifesto commitment of an elected PM Corbyn due to Labour Blairite rebels like the Tory diehard Remainer rebels now I would have no problem with Corbyn proroguing Parliament no
Peter Jay gone completely Sid and Doris....Suggests Stanley Johnson for Ambassador "though I confess he's a very good friend of mine" He then suggested Jacob Rees-Mogg 'because the Americans like peope with a good English accent'.
I suppose when you got your biggest job through nepotism your values become skewed.
I'm not convinced that the EU would accept the UK back in, unless membership carried broad cross party support like it used to; somewhere around 70 / 30 type numbers.
Why would the EU want to accept the UK with an explicitly anti EU conservative party likely to come to power at some point and start the whole process again.
The UK would find it very hard to rejoin. England, Scotland and Wales would be warmly welcomed.
Wales voted Leave just like England
The pro-EU movement is flourishing in Wales, just like England.
You're deluding yourself (statement of the obvious I know) if you think more than a handful of people who weren't already pro-EU have become pro-EU post referendum. People are pessimistic about the outcome. That's a completely different thing. A moderately successful cowing is not a flourishing of goodwill. It is in fact the opposite.
As Farage said, people used to laugh when he said he wanted the UK to leave the EU. The counter-movement inspired by Brexit is already stronger than ever UKIP was, and it is not going to go away until it succeeds. Don't delude yourself about the political trajectory.
The Brexit Party is already stronger than UKIP ever was
17 million people voted to Leave the EU in 2016, more than have voted for any party or any referendum question in UK history and yet over 3 years after the vote and 4 months after the original exit date was due we are still in the EU. The convincing win of the Brexit Party in the European Parliament elections only served to show few people have changed their mind since.
Of course proroguing Parliament is not ideal but if Parliament refuses to pass the Withdrawal Agreement, which it has rejected 3 times and continues to prefer further extension or even revoking Article 50 altogether to leaving with No Deal then there is no alternative. In any case as I understand the intention would be merely to prorogue Parliament at the end of October to force Brexit and No Deal through as a last resort to ensure we do actually leave the EU on October 31st with the expectation of a general election then in November
The government in the Westminster system only has democratic legitimacy because it has majority support in the Commons. If the government prorogues Parliament because it does not have majority support in the Commons then that is a coup.
The alternative is to elect a majority of MPs who will vote for no deal. That's how our democracy works.
I would rather have PM Farage, elected on a manifesto of no deal, than PM Johnson prorogue Parliament to achieve the same. Can you not see the difference?
The Tories and DUP won a majority of seats in the UK in 2017 on a manifesto of leaving the EU Deal or No Deal, the fact some diehard Remainer Tory MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Wollaston have betrayed the manifesto they stood on by defecting to CUK or voting with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
Perhaps you should go back and read the Conservative party manifesto before you make up what it said.
Labour MPs voted in large numbers (whipped by Corbyn) for a number of Brexit options, just not May's. Also more Labour MPs voted for the Tories Brexit than Tories voted for Labour's Brexit.
Possibly more Tories who were happy with it voted Labour's down because it was Labours than Labour MPs voted down May's brexit deal because it was the Tories deal.
There should have been enough adults in the room in both major parties to swallow some dead rats and get a deal over the line instead of playing politics with it
Instead we come down to no deal vs revoke, with both sides blaming the other for intransigence. It's all very unsatisfactory.
If Corbyn had whipped to back May's deal it likely still wouldn't have passed, as he'd have faced a huge rebellion. Probably would have ended his leadership also.
But, the soft Brexit option Ken Clarke put forwards could have passed easily if May had backed it (probably also true of several of the other options). But that probably also would have meant sacrificing her career.
Corbyn could have whipped abstention. Made Brexit a Tory decision. And be riding at 40% + in the polls.
And May could have whipped in favour of either the Ken Clarke CU vote or the SM 2.0 vote. Brexit delivered.
More MPs voted for May's Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 than either Clarke's CU or SM 2.0 and I doubt whipping would have changed it much.
Plus neither Clarke's CU or SM 2.0 enable the Canada style FTA with the EU most voters want
Do you really think that the Withdrawal Agreement, on a free vote and without any of the payroll vote, would have come anywhere near the vote score of the CU indicative vote?
Seriously?
MV3 was after the most aggressive and sustained whipping campaign possible, and it fell short by a lot.
MV1 was a bit closer to the "natural" and pre-whipped state of the House's feeling, but still heavily whipped. That sort of whipping operation on CU would certainly have got it over the line.
I'll defend hyufd on this actually. I believe you that whipping for another option would have seen them higher, but on this issue dozens upon dozens have defied the whip on both sides at various points. That the whipping gradually got more votes for the WA irrelevant, any MP could always defie it if they felt appropriate and many did.
I'm not convinced that the EU would accept the UK back in, unless membership carried broad cross party support like it used to; somewhere around 70 / 30 type numbers.
Why would the EU want to accept the UK with an explicitly anti EU conservative party likely to come to power at some point and start the whole process again.
The UK would find it very hard to rejoin. England, Scotland and Wales would be warmly welcomed.
Wales voted Leave just like England
The pro-EU movement is flourishing in Wales, just like England.
You're deluding yourself (statement of the obvious I know) if you think more than a handful of people who weren't already pro-EU have become pro-EU post referendum. People are pessimistic about the outcome. That's a completely different thing. A moderately successful cowing is not a flourishing of goodwill. It is in fact the opposite.
I think the point is that there are lots of people like myself, who voted remain but did nothing else to achieve a remain result who were shaken into action by the outcome and have become active since the referendum in People's Vote and organisations like Chester for EU which have sprung up in my area since the referendum.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Brexiteers have become EU enthusiasts overnight. I find zero optimism or enthusiasm amongst the leavers I know and while it is comforting to believe that that has nothing to do with Brexit itself that is not the whole story in my experience.
17 million people voted to Leave the EU in 2016, more than have voted for any party or any referendum question in UK history and yet over 3 years after the vote and 4 months after the original exit date was due we are still in the EU. The convincing win of the Brexit Party in the European Parliament elections only served to show few people have changed their mind since.
Of course proroguing Parliament is not ideal but if Parliament refuses to pass the Withdrawal Agreement, which it has rejected 3 times and continues to prefer further extension or even revoking Article 50 altogether to leaving with No Deal then there is no alternative. In any case as I understand the intention would be merely to prorogue Parliament at the end of October to force Brexit and No Deal through as a last resort to ensure we do actually leave the EU on October 31st with the expectation of a general election then in November
The government in the Westminster system only has democratic legitimacy because it has majority support in the Commons. If the government prorogues Parliament because it does not have majority support in the Commons then that is a coup.
The alternative is to elect a majority of MPs who will vote for no deal. That's how our democracy works.
I would rather have PM Farage, elected on a manifesto of no deal, than PM Johnson prorogue Parliament to achieve the same. Can you not see the difference?
The Tories and DUP won a majority of seats in the UK in 2017 on a manifesto of leaving the EU Deal or No Deal, the fact some diehard Remainer Tory MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Wollaston have betrayed the manifesto they stood on by defecting to CUK or voting with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
Perhaps you should go back and read the Conservative party manifesto before you make up what it said.
It committed to Leave the EU
"We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union and forge a deep and special partnership with our friends and allies across Europe."
Nope. It dawned on most Tory mps in the end, even Boris and JRM, proving themselves pretty dim in the process as they had not figured that out . But the hardcore will never believe it, the DUP dont want brexit enough to accept it and dont make me laugh about Nandy and co in Labour finally realising it - the are dimmer than BoJo if the actually did not realise if they wanted us to leave they needed to vote for MV3.
Tory MPs have been promised a new deal. Some would accept a coat if paint. But others who previously backed it now wouldn't.
I am confident that Johnson will extend and TRY to get the WA through but I am not so confident that he will succeed.
Because, as you say, the politics of it looks extremely difficult.
Powerful thread header. Absolutely agree that we are well into dangerous precedent territory.
It is. A great header and I agree with every word. There was a time when I might have thought such concerns hyperbolic but not any more.
One of the most concerning aspects is the way the No Dealers seem so insouciant about the use Corbyn and co might make of the powers they propose using to push through a No Deal Brexit. On the one hand, they think he is very dangerous and must be kept at all costs out of No 10 and, on the other, will happily set a constitutional precedent which, if he did become PM, would truly make him dangerous.
As I put it in my own thread header the other day:
“one policy (Brexit, enacted in one particular way) is seen as
Prorogation of Parliament should simply be out of the question for any democratic politician. That it isn’t, that Boris won’t rule it out, is - as @NickPalmer has also observed - an indication of the unfitness for office of both Boris and his Parliamentary supporters.
I think the last time Parliament was prorogued in such a way for such a reason was when Charles II dissolved it in 1681 to frustrate its attempts to cut the Duke of York out of the royal succession.
It ended with two civil wars, a revolution in 1688, plus several invasions of and from Scotland and Ireland until 1746.
Uh no, the English civil wars started in 1642 and had ended by the mid 1650s well before 1681 and the Glorious Revolution was largely peaceful
I wasn't referring to that, as you would know if you actually had any dim understanding of - well, anything really. I was referring to the invasion of England by Monmouth, the fighting in Ireland (heard of the Boyne?) and the Jacobite risings of 1715 and 1745.
Perhaps expecting a man who thinks Boris Johnson is sane and that there is a ferry from Ullapool to Inverness to check his facts is asking too much. But you are proving rude and patronising now as well as stupid and I am certainly not taking that from you.
Nope, you said and I quote the proroguation of Parliament in 1681 'ended with two civil wars', the Monmouth rebellion was quickly crushed and was not a civil war the civil wars ended well before 1681 so the argument you made the proroguation of Parliament led to the civil wars was wrong, that is not being patronising, it is a statement of fact
Lammy is an interesting chap in that he just doesnt seem very good at what he clearly thinks are cutting, meme worthy jibes as he thinks he is. I can picture him being so pleased with himself as he wrote it.
Well, quite. The idea of shutting down parliament to engineer a chaotic, unnegotiated exit from the EU is unconscionable.
As it happens, I am confident that even a politician as free from principle and integrity as Boris Johnson will not go anywhere near such an outrage.
What he will do (IMO) is agree an extension and try to pass the Withdrawal Agreement. Sooner or later, the essential truth - that we must ratify the WA in order to deliver Brexit - will surely dawn and prevail.
It did not happen on TM's watch, sadly for her, but perhaps it will on BoJo's.
Yes. Despite HY's assurances, it is worth noting that Bozo has slightly shifted his explanation and now the reason why can't consider any extension in advance is that it would display weakness to the other side, making it more difficult to get a good deal.
What the Bozo appears to be lining up is an extension once he has got (or is on the way toward) what he expects to be able to sell as a good deal. Once we have this there is no need to bluff about the exit date, he'll say.
I doubt this will wash with the Tory unwashed but, by then, what choice will they have other than to swallow it?
They would go BXP. The deadline has become fetishised, thanks in large part to him. Nothing he could sell to them will prevent the cries if betrayal. There are people so desperate to be out they see the demise of the tories, the demise of the UK, as acceptable. Do you think such people will not react to us not leaving by the date he promised, even if he gets a sign if a great new deal?
I hope he does better than I think and gets something. But he was very very clear to pander to BXP. Hes sown the wind .
There wont be any elections for them to go BXP in, and Boris will hope that - say - if he delivers Brexit by January, after the event people wont worry about a few months' delay, even if he has a torrid time between November and January
I disagree with mr Meeks on plenty, not least his tone on many occasions, but I cannot deny that i find the mooted plans to prorogue quite concerning. The reasons dont stack up and it comes from people who openly admit that no cost or price is too high to leave (except the price of voting for the WA for some of them, that price was too high).
Nothing is so great that any cost is worth it. It is incredibly frustrating we have not left yet, but better we dont and even the BXP win an election to no deal at the democratic outrage, than people essentially decide to ignore the will of the present parliament (if it can manage to determine what its will is).
I believe in parliamentary democracy. This parliament was elected after the referendum and has behaved terribly - not reaching compromise to deliver what most said they would do and a large group always intending to stymie it. The solution is the parliament faces the consequences at the next election, whenever that is.
That would delay Brexit, might even halt it for a bit. But if we are outraged by our representatives we will choose other ones.
Better that than some Dominic Grieve style too clever by half constitutional wrangling.
Yes the legal position is no deal and if they did not want that they should not have triggered A50. But while I dislike what the parliament has done and has not done, while it is there it is entitled to indicate its will as best it sees fit.
Proroguing for no purpose other than partisan politics is a dangerous game to play. If its happened before thats no excuse to do it again, it can escalate badly and this time we see the political culture devolve.
Do the Tories want Corbyn to see proroguing as nothing but a convenient tool in the arsenal.
If Parliament blocked the key manifesto commitment of an elected PM Corbyn due to Labour Blairite rebels like the Tory diehard Remainer rebels now I would have no problem with Corbyn proroguing Parliament no
Bully for you. I'd prefer the public punish mps if they dont deliver.
Teresa May's Government recently abandoned it's attempt to control web porn (which I felt was bad law, but my opinions of it are not relevant), due to not informing the European Commission about the change. Parliament was thwarted. By what authority does the Commission overrule even a relatively minor regulatory change?
By authority of UK law since the requirement to notify was one to which the British Government had agreed and incorporated into its law.
Parliament was not thwarted. The government simply had not complied with the law.
Even governments should be subject to the law, though there are some who seem to think otherwise.
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Nope. It dawned on most Tory mps in the end, even Boris and JRM, proving themselves pretty dim in the process as they had not figured that out . But the hardcore will never believe it, the DUP dont want brexit enough to accept it and dont make me laugh about Nandy and co in Labour finally realising it - the are dimmer than BoJo if the actually did not realise if they wanted us to leave they needed to vote for MV3.
Tory MPs have been promised a new deal. Some would accept a coat if paint. But others who previously backed it now wouldn't.
I am confident that Johnson will extend and TRY to get the WA through but I am not so confident that he will succeed.
Because, as you say, the politics of it looks extremely difficult.
No, Boris will prorugue in October I understand to ensure Brexit on October 31st with a snap general election in November having delivered Brexit.
He will only be able to get the Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament with a Tory majority so extending again would be pointless without that
Do you really think that the Withdrawal Agreement, on a free vote and without any of the payroll vote, would have come anywhere near the vote score of the CU indicative vote?
Seriously?
MV3 was after the most aggressive and sustained whipping campaign possible, and it fell short by a lot.
MV1 was a bit closer to the "natural" and pre-whipped state of the House's feeling, but still heavily whipped. That sort of whipping operation on CU would certainly have got it over the line.
MV3 got more votes than Clarke's permanent Customs Union, those are the facts.
in any case Deal plus Customs Union does not enable us to do our own trade deals and is not therefore Brexit and May would have been toppled as Tory leader within 5 minutes had she even tried to whip it as whipped or not a comfortable majority of Tory MPs would still have voted against it and indeed had she whipped for it most Labour and LDs and SNP MPs would also have voted against it as another 'Tory Brexit' without EUref2 anyway
Pathetic.
I'm sorry, HYUFD, I've tried to be polite, but that's a pathetic response. Comparing the most heavily whipped vote in recent Tory history with a free vote where the payroll deliberately abstain and saying, "Yes, but my choice got 13 more votes, so it's more likely to pass" is beyond facile.
"Is not Brexit" - I'm having difficulty keeping up.
When a No Deal Brexit is on the cards, it's fine, despite being explicitly against the Leave campaign's promises, because the ballot paper simply said to Leave the EU, no specifics on it, so that's legitimate.
When a variant of Leaving the EU that the Tory Leave core and the hardcore Leavers don't like is on the cards, it's utterly unacceptable, because it's not the specific Brexit that was promised/hoped for/fantasised about, so it's illegitimate.
And the fault is that of non-Leavers because they won't compromise. You can't compromise with stupid.
I'm not convinced that the EU would accept the UK back in, unless membership carried broad cross party support like it used to; somewhere around 70 / 30 type numbers.
Why would the EU want to accept the UK with an explicitly anti EU conservative party likely to come to power at some point and start the whole process again.
The UK would find it very hard to rejoin. England, Scotland and Wales would be warmly welcomed.
Scotland for sure where membership would enjoy broad popular support.
E&W not so much; The EU would be signing up to play Russian roulette for ever, one wrong election result and they're back in the same drama.
Frankly, the benefits of E&W membership don't outweigh the risks and hassles for the EU.
I think you are right, full membership is now very tricky and risky and long term it may end up with some kind of associate membership rather than standard membership for this reason. Which is probably a good thing and where we should be given the split of the country.
Powerful thread header. Absolutely agree that we are well into dangerous precedent territory.
It is. A great header and I agree with every word. There was a time when I might have thought such concerns hyperbolic but not any more.
One of the most concerning aspects is the way the No Dealers seem so insouciant about the use Corbyn and co might make of the powers they propose using to push through a No Deal Brexit. On the one hand, they think he is very dangerous and must be kept at all costs out of No 10 and, on the other, will happily set a constitutional precedent which, if he did become PM, would truly make him dangerous.
As I put it in my own thread header the other day:
“one policy (Brexit, enacted in one particular way) is seen as so important that virtually anything is acceptable to achieve it, including proroguing Parliament. That this might undermine the very institutions and conventions which any democratic and stable society requires to function, especially if in the hands of political opponents, seems irrelevant. No-one seems to ask themselves the question: “Would I want my opponent to have this power? If no, I should not have it either.”
Prorogation of Parliament should simply be out of the question for any democratic politician. That it isn’t, that Boris won’t rule it out, is - as @NickPalmer has also observed - an indication of the unfitness for office of both Boris and his Parliamentary supporters.
I think the last time Parliament was prorogued in such a way for such a reason was when Charles II dissolved it in 1681 to frustrate its attempts to cut the Duke of York out of the royal succession.
It ended with two civil wars, a revolution in 1688, plus several invasions of and from Scotland and Ireland until 1746.
Uh no, the English civil wars started in 1642 and had ended by the mid 1650s well before 1681 and the Glorious Revolution was largely peaceful
You’ve forgotten Ireland. The Glorious Revolution was anything but peaceful there. We are living with its consequences to this day.
That was more a consequence of James 1sts Protestant settlements in Ulster, the Battle of the Boyne is merely a Unionist symbol and of course most Catholics backed James 11nd in whose favour Charles IInd prorogues Parliament
Please stop. Listening to Tories talking ignorant rubbish about Ireland, whether in the 17th century or now, is too much for a peaceful Sunday ...... or any other day of the week, for that matter.
17 million people voted to Leave the EU in 2016, more than have voted for any party or any referendum question in UK history and yet over 3 years after the vote and 4 months after the original exit date was due we are still in the EU. The convincing win of the Brexit Party in the European Parliament elections only served to show few people have changed their mind since.
Of course proroguing Parliament is not ideal but if Parliament refuses to pass the Withdrawal Agreement, which it has rejected 3 times and continues to prefer further extension or even revoking Article 50 altogether to leaving with No Deal then there is no alternative. In any case as I understand the intention would be merely to prorogue Parliament at the end of October to force Brexit and No Deal through as a last resort to ensure we do actually leave the EU on October 31st with the expectation of a general election then in November
The government in the Westminster system only has democratic legitimacy because it has majority support in the Commons. If the government prorogues Parliament because it does not have majority support in the Commons then that is a coup.
The alternative is to elect a majority of MPs who will vote for no deal. That's how our democracy works.
I would rather have PM Farage, elected on a manifesto of no deal, than PM Johnson prorogue Parliament to achieve the same. Can you not see the difference?
The Tories and DUP won a majority of seats in the UK in 2017 on a manifesto of leaving the EU Deal or No Deal, the fact some diehard Remainer Tory MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Wollaston have betrayed the manifesto they stood on by defecting to CUK or voting with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
Perhaps you should go back and read the Conservative party manifesto before you make up what it said.
It committed to Leave the EU
"We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union and forge a deep and special partnership with our friends and allies across Europe."
How is no deal compatible with that?
As on the following page the Tory manifesto said 'We will get on with the job and take Britain out of the European Union.'
I'm reminded of an argument from a few years back that the decisions of the Rump Parliament were basically the same as the full house of commons even though it emerged from a chamber first divided between parliament and king and then further purged of its more reluctant members in essentially a military coup. Itd be like if Trump had soldiers remove anyone from Congress who wanted to impeach him then talked about how the Congress backed him totally. Itd be true, but missing some important context.
Of course we may in hindsight think the purge and subsequent actions as necessary ones to establish the system we have today even as we rolled back from all the things they did.
Irish problems were a key moment in the early 1640s too of course, which saw a previously relatively united parliament split over what to do. Its always Ireland .Such parallels.
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
Do you really think that the Withdrawal Agreement, on a free vote and without any of the payroll vote, would have come anywhere near the vote score of the CU indicative vote?
Seriously?
MV3 was after the most aggressive and sustained whipping campaign possible, and it fell short by a lot.
MV1 was a bit closer to the "natural" and pre-whipped state of the House's feeling, but still heavily whipped. That sort of whipping operation on CU would certainly have got it over the line.
MV3 got more votes than Clarke's permanent Customs Union, those are the facts.
in any case Deal plus Customs Union does not enable us to do our own trade deals and is not therefore Brexit and May would have been toppled as Tory leader within 5 minutes had she even tried to whip it as whipped or not a comfortable majority of Tory MPs would still have voted against it and indeed had she whipped for it most Labour and LDs and SNP MPs would also have voted against it as another 'Tory Brexit' without EUref2 anyway
Pathetic.
I'm sorry, HYUFD, I've tried to be polite, but that's a pathetic response. Comparing the most heavily whipped vote in recent Tory history with a free vote where the payroll deliberately abstain and saying, "Yes, but my choice got 13 more votes, so it's more likely to pass" is beyond facile.
"Is not Brexit" - I'm having difficulty keeping up.
When a No Deal Brexit is on the cards, it's fine, despite being explicitly against the Leave campaign's promises, because the ballot paper simply said to Leave the EU, no specifics on it, so that's legitimate.
When a variant of Leaving the EU that the Tory Leave core and the hardcore Leavers don't like is on the cards, it's utterly unacceptable, because it's not the specific Brexit that was promised/hoped for/fantasised about, so it's illegitimate.
And the fault is that of non-Leavers because they won't compromise. You can't compromise with stupid.
Nor will diehard Remainers, most Labour MPs said they would vote down a Customs Union if May backed it as it lacked EUref2
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
Why not GE first?
You say he will simply do x, but the problem is this is not simple.
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
Prorogation is suspending democracy.
What are your thoughts on a GE happening a week or so after 31 October? Would that be a suspension of democracy?
Powerful thread header. Absolutely agree that we are well into dangerous precedent territory.
It is. A great header and I agree with every word. There was a time when I might have thought such concerns hyperbolic but not any more.
One of the most concerning aspects is the way the No Dealers seem so insouciant about the use Corbyn and co might make of the powers they propose using to push through a No Deal Brexit. On the one hand, they think he is very dangerous and must be kept at all costs out of No 10 and, on the other, will happily set a constitutional precedent which, if he did become PM, would truly make him dangerous.
As I put it in my own thread header the other day:
“one policy (Brexit, enacted in one particular way) is seen as so important that virtually anything is acceptable to achieve it, including proroguing Parliament. That this might undermine the very institutions and conventions which any democratic and stable society requires to function, especially if in the hands of political opponents, seems irrelevant. No-one seems to ask themselves the question: “Would I want my opponent to have this power? If no, I should not have it either.”
Prorogation of Parliament should simply be out of the question for any democratic politician. That it isn’t, that Boris won’t rule it out, is - as @NickPalmer has also observed - an indication of the unfitness for office of both Boris and his Parliamentary supporters.
I think the last time Parliament was prorogued in such a way for such a reason was when Charles II dissolved it in 1681 to frustrate its attempts to cut the Duke of York out of the royal succession.
It ended with two civil wars, a revolution in 1688, plus several invasions of and from Scotland and Ireland until 1746.
Uh no, the English civil wars started in 1642 and had ended by the mid 1650s well before 1681 and the Glorious Revolution was largely peaceful
You’ve forgotten Ireland. The Glorious Revolution was anything but peaceful there. We are living with its consequences to this day.
That was more a consequence of James 1sts Protestant settlements in Ulster, the Battle of the Boyne is merely a Unionist symbol and of course most Catholics backed James 11nd in whose favour Charles IInd prorogues Parliament
Please stop. Listening to Tories talking ignorant rubbish about Ireland, whether in the 17th century or now, is too much for a peaceful Sunday ...... or any other day of the week, for that matter.
Amusing given the provenance of the word Tory though.
Nope. It dawned on most Tory mps in the end, even Boris and JRM, proving themselves pretty dim in the process as they had not figured that out . But the hardcore will never believe it, the DUP dont want brexit enough to accept it and dont make me laugh about Nandy and co in Labour finally realising it - the are dimmer than BoJo if the actually did not realise if they wanted us to leave they needed to vote for MV3.
Tory MPs have been promised a new deal. Some would accept a coat if paint. But others who previously backed it now wouldn't.
I am confident that Johnson will extend and TRY to get the WA through but I am not so confident that he will succeed.
Because, as you say, the politics of it looks extremely difficult.
No, Boris will prorugue in October I understand to ensure Brexit on October 31st with a snap general election in November having delivered Brexit.
He will only be able to get the Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament with a Tory majority so extending again would be pointless without that
You keep changing what you say he will do and yet never get less certain about it or less self righteous in defence of it
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
Why not GE first?
You say he will simply do x, but the problem is this is not simple.
As the Tories got a majority of seats in the UK with the DUP to take Britain out of the EU and that manifesto commitment has to be delivered first
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
That is dictatorship. Not having a parliamentary majority. Suspending parliament to rule by decree and enact the thing he doe not have the majority in parliament to do.
The alternative is simple. Go to the country first. Call an election vote as soon as parliament meets on 5th September. Win the stunning majority you are clear he will win. Then have the votes for no deal.
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
Prorogation is suspending democracy.
What are your thoughts on a GE happening a week or so after 31 October? Would that be a suspension of democracy?
Fortunately the opposition can ensure that any such election takes place on terms that preserves options for the next Parliament (ie requiring an extension of Article 50). If it does do, as it should, that’s fine.
Whilst proroging Parliament is an undoubtedly bonkers and dangerous idea, what is even crazier is forcing through No Deal on this basis, then calling an instant election during the aftermath. That is bordering on a deranged plan.
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
Prorogation is suspending democracy.
Parliament blocking the democratic vote to Leave the EU in 2016 is suspending democracy
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
May didn’t “refuse to deliver”, she didn’t have a majority to deliver. The “default in law no deal” was enacted by a previous Parliament and no parliament can bind its successor. And by the way, there are still 3 years of this Parliament to run, how many other Tory party manifesto commitments are you upset haven’t been delivered yet? The dementia proposals perhaps?
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
Prorogation is suspending democracy.
What are your thoughts on a GE happening a week or so after 31 October? Would that be a suspension of democracy?
Fortunately the opposition can ensure that any such election takes place on terms that preserves options for the next Parliament (ie requiring an extension of Article 50). If it does do, as it should, that’s fine.
And what if an election comes about without such caveats...
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
Prorogation is suspending democracy.
Parliament blocking the democratic vote to Leave the EU in 2016 is suspending democracy
We are a Parliamentary democracy or else we are a dictatorship...
Teresa May's Government recently abandoned it's attempt to control web porn (which I felt was bad law, but my opinions of it are not relevant), due to not informing the European Commission about the change. Parliament was thwarted. By what authority does the Commission overrule even a relatively minor regulatory change?
By authority of UK law since the requirement to notify was one to which the British Government had agreed and incorporated into its law.
Parliament was not thwarted. The government simply had not complied with the law.
Even governments should be subject to the law, though there are some who seem to think otherwise.
Quite so. It's the same as HYUFD claiming the judiciary are seeking to stop brexit and only provided as proof the a50 case decision. Without explanation as to how that proved that point, except that not all justices agreed with the decision. But all the courts did and would do is say what the law as it stands is and if government has not complied with the law or been given authority by parliament nothing stops them from doing so, they just need to take a few more steps as those are the consequences of the rules parliament has set .
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
So having taken the U.K. out of the EU with no deal he calls a general election. That is just plain bloody stupid if you think about even the minimum impact of no deal.
17 million people voted to Leave the EU in 2016, more than have voted for any party or any referendum question in UK history and yet over 3 years after the vote and 4 months after the original exit date was due we are still in the EU. The convincing win of the Brexit Party in the European Parliament elections only served to show few people have changed their mind since.
Of course proroguing Parliament is not ideal but if Parliament refuses to pass the Withdrawal Agreement, which it has rejected 3 times and continues to prefer further extension or even revoking Article 50 altogether to leaving with No Deal then there is no alternative. In any case as I understand the intention would be merely to prorogue Parliament at the end of October to force Brexit and No Deal through as a last resort to ensure we do actually leave the EU on October 31st with the expectation of a general election then in November
The government in the Westminster system only has democratic legitimacy because it has majority support in the Commons. If the government prorogues Parliament because it does not have majority support in the Commons then that is a coup.
The alternative is to elect a majority of MPs who will vote for no deal. That's how our democracy works.
I would rather have PM Farage, elected on a manifesto of no deal, than PM Johnson prorogue Parliament to achieve the same. Can you not see the difference?
The Tories and DUP won a majority of seats in the UK in 2017 on a manifesto of leaving the EU Deal or No Deal, the fact some diehard Remainer Tory MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Wollaston have betrayed the manifesto they stood on by defecting to CUK or voting with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
That's literally untrue. Just reread the manifesto - the pledge, repeated again and again was to deliver "a smooth and orderly Brexit" minimising dirsuption and agreeing the future terms of our relationship alongside the withdrawal. Did you not read it before citing it?
Apart from that, the key pledges were to scrap the pensions triple lock, raise the cost of care threshold to £100,000, means test the Winter Fuel payment, scrap free school lunches but offer primary school free breakfasts, increase the amount levied on firms employing non-EU migrant workers, and cut net migration below 100,000. Don't hear much about betraying everything else in the manifesto; it's almost as though manifesto pledges are unimportant if they aren't the ones some diehard Tory tribalists want to focus on.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
That is dictatorship. Not having a parliamentary majority. Suspending parliament to rule by decree and enact the thing he doe not have the majority in parliament to do.
The alternative is simple. Go to the country first. Call an election vote as soon as parliament meets on 5th September. Win the stunning majority you are clear he will win. Then have the votes for no deal.
No, it is respecting democracy.
The Tories won a clear majority of GB seats in 2017 on a manifesto commitment to take Britain out of the EU and a majority of seats in the UK on that basis with the Leave backing DUP.
The fact diehard Remainer MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Allen and Wollaston have refused to respect the manifesto commitment they stood on to Leave the EU does not deny the Tories have a mandate to do so
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
Prorogation is suspending democracy.
Parliament blocking the democratic vote to Leave the EU in 2016 is suspending democracy
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
Why not GE first?
You say he will simply do x, but the problem is this is not simple.
As the Tories got a majority of seats in the UK with the DUP to take Britain out of the EU and that manifesto commitment has to be delivered first
Why must it be? I, unlike Boris and the DUP, supported leaving the EU under the terms offered. He encouraged resistance to that until the last minute and now he gets to insist it is undemocratic to extend further from an arbitrary date because?
17 million people voted to Leave the EU in 2016, more than have voted for any party or any referendum question in UK history and yet over 3 years after the vote and 4 months after the original exit date was due we are still in the EU. The convincing win of the Brexit Party in the European Parliament elections only served to show few people have changed their mind since.
Of course proroguing Parliament is not ideal but if Parliament refuses to pass the Withdrawal Agreement, which it has rejected 3 times and continues to prefer further extension or even revoking Article 50 altogether to leaving with No Deal then there is no alternative. In any case as I understand the intention would be merely to prorogue Parliament at the end of October to force Brexit and No Deal through as a last resort to ensure we do actually leave the EU on October 31st with the expectation of a general election then in November
The government in the Westminster system only has democratic legitimacy because it has majority support in the Commons. If the government prorogues Parliament because it does not have majority support in the Commons then that is a coup.
The alternative is to elect a majority of MPs who will vote for no deal. That's how our democracy works.
I would rather have PM Farage, elected on a manifesto of no deal, than PM Johnson prorogue Parliament to achieve the same. Can you not see the difference?
The Tories and DUP won a majority of seats in the UK in 2017 on a manifesto of leaving the EU Deal or No Deal, the fact some diehard Remainer Tory MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Wollaston have betrayed the manifesto they stood on by defecting to CUK or voting with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
That's literally untrue. Just reread the manifesto - the pledge, repeated again and again was to deliver "a smooth and orderly Brexit" minimising dirsuption and agreeing the future terms of our relationship alongside the withdrawal. Did you not read it before citing it?
Apart from that, the key pledges were to scrap the pensions triple lock, raise the cost of care threshold to £100,000, means test the Winter Fuel payment, scrap free school lunches but offer primary school free breakfasts, increase the amount levied on firms employing non-EU migrant workers, and cut net migration below 100,000. Don't hear much about betraying everything else in the manifesto; it's almost as though manifesto pledges are unimportant if they aren't the ones some diehard Tory tribalists want to focus on.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
That is dictatorship. Not having a parliamentary majority. Suspending parliament to rule by decree and enact the thing he doe not have the majority in parliament to do.
The alternative is simple. Go to the country first. Call an election vote as soon as parliament meets on 5th September. Win the stunning majority you are clear he will win. Then have the votes for no deal.
No, it is respecting democracy.
The Tories won a clear majority of GB seats in 2017 on a manifesto commitment to take Britain out of the EU and a majority of seats in the UK on that basis with the Leave backing DUP.
The fact diehard Remainer MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Allen and Wollaston have refused to respect the manifesto commitment they stood on to Leave the EU does not deny the Tories have a mandate to do so
Baker and co outnumber the remainiacs. Why do you keep ignoring them? They are at the very least just as guilty and yet you and Boris worship at their feet by implication at accepting their no deal plan.
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
May didn’t “refuse to deliver”, she didn’t have a majority to deliver. The “default in law no deal” was enacted by a previous Parliament and no parliament can bind its successor. And by the way, there are still 3 years of this Parliament to run, how many other Tory party manifesto commitments are you upset haven’t been delivered yet? The dementia proposals perhaps?
The DUP oppose the dementia proposals, so it did not have a UK majority but the DUP back Brexit.
17 million voters also voted for Brexit unlike the dementia tax
It’s also not what HYUFD was saying literally no more than a week ago, where he was adamant that there WOULD be an election in advance to get a majority to leave and call a referendum in Northern Ireland.
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
May didn’t “refuse to deliver”, she didn’t have a majority to deliver. The “default in law no deal” was enacted by a previous Parliament and no parliament can bind its successor. And by the way, there are still 3 years of this Parliament to run, how many other Tory party manifesto commitments are you upset haven’t been delivered yet? The dementia proposals perhaps?
The DUP oppose the dementia proposals, so it did not have a UK majority but the DUP back Brexit.
17 million voters also voted for Brexit unlike the dementia tax
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
May didn’t “refuse to deliver”, she didn’t have a majority to deliver. The “default in law no deal” was enacted by a previous Parliament and no parliament can bind its successor. And by the way, there are still 3 years of this Parliament to run, how many other Tory party manifesto commitments are you upset haven’t been delivered yet? The dementia proposals perhaps?
The DUP oppose the dementia proposals, so it did not have a UK majority but the DUP back Brexit.
17 million voters also voted for Brexit unlike the dementia tax
The Dementia Tax got almost 14 million votes
It did not get a majority of seats in the UK though as the DUP opposed it.
Brexit did get a majority of seats in the UK though as the DUP backed it
It’s also not what HYUFD was saying literally no more than a week ago, where he was adamant that there WOULD be an election in advance to get a majority to leave and call a referendum in Northern Ireland.
Yep. HY is always adamant about things, just different things from week to week. Even his advocacy for Boris has manifested itself over some years with a variety of scenarios that were definitely going to propel him into office, all but one of which have failed to transpire.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
That is dictatorship. Not having a parliamentary majority. Suspending parliament to rule by decree and enact the thing he doe not have the majority in parliament to do.
The alternative is simple. Go to the country first. Call an election vote as soon as parliament meets on 5th September. Win the stunning majority you are clear he will win. Then have the votes for no deal.
No, it is respecting democracy.
The Tories won a clear majority of GB seats in 2017 on a manifesto commitment to take Britain out of the EU and a majority of seats in the UK on that basis with the Leave backing DUP.
The fact diehard Remainer MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Allen and Wollaston have refused to respect the manifesto commitment they stood on to Leave the EU does not deny the Tories have a mandate to do so
Its epic almost Jezziah-esque dancing on a pinhead to justify something that is impossible to justify.
Whats more we all can see why. You place the preservation of the Conservative and Unionist Party above all other considerations.
It’s also not what HYUFD was saying literally no more than a week ago, where he was adamant that there WOULD be an election in advance to get a majority to leave and call a referendum in Northern Ireland.
There may well still be.
However if there is not Boris will ensure we leave on October 31st by proroguing Parliament as a last resort
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
May didn’t “refuse to deliver”, she didn’t have a majority to deliver. The “default in law no deal” was enacted by a previous Parliament and no parliament can bind its successor. And by the way, there are still 3 years of this Parliament to run, how many other Tory party manifesto commitments are you upset haven’t been delivered yet? The dementia proposals perhaps?
The DUP oppose the dementia proposals, so it did not have a UK majority but the DUP back Brexit.
17 million voters also voted for Brexit unlike the dementia tax
The Dementia Tax got almost 14 million votes
It did not get a majority of seats in the UK though as the DUP opposed it.
Brexit did get a majority of seats in the UK though as the DUP backed it
Not without a deal
The 2017 DUP manifesto: "...to make sure Northern Ireland gets the best Brexit deal."
"For our part we will work to get the best deal for Northern Ireland, recognizing that we share a land frontier with the Republic and the particular circumstances of our unique history and geography"
"Comprehensive free trade and customs agreement with the European Union"
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
May didn’t “refuse to deliver”, she didn’t have a majority to deliver. The “default in law no deal” was enacted by a previous Parliament and no parliament can bind its successor. And by the way, there are still 3 years of this Parliament to run, how many other Tory party manifesto commitments are you upset haven’t been delivered yet? The dementia proposals perhaps?
The DUP oppose the dementia proposals, so it did not have a UK majority but the DUP back Brexit.
17 million voters also voted for Brexit unlike the dementia tax
The Dementia Tax got almost 14 million votes
It did not get a majority of seats in the UK though as the DUP opposed it.
Brexit did get a majority of seats in the UK though as the DUP backed it
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
That is dictatorship. Not having a parliamentary majority. Suspending parliament to rule by decree and enact the thing he doe not have the majority in parliament to do.
The alternative is simple. Go to the country first. Call an election vote as soon as parliament meets on 5th September. Win the stunning majority you are clear he will win. Then have the votes for no deal.
No, it is respecting democracy.
The Tories won a clear majority of GB seats in 2017 on a manifesto commitment to take Britain out of the EU and a majority of seats in the UK on that basis with the Leave backing DUP.
The fact diehard Remainer MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Allen and Wollaston have refused to respect the manifesto commitment they stood on to Leave the EU does not deny the Tories have a mandate to do so
Baker and co outnumber the remainiacs. Why do you keep ignoring them? They are at the very least just as guilty and yet you and Boris worship at their feet by implication at accepting their no deal plan.
Baker and co at least back Brexit even if only with No Deal rather than the Deal.
As to be fair Gauke and co have also backed Brexit even if on the basis of the Deal.
The Remainiacs though have betrayed the manifesto they stood on by to take Britain out of the EU by voting both against the Withdrawal Agreement Deal and also by voting against No Deal too
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
So having taken the U.K. out of the EU with no deal he calls a general election. That is just plain bloody stupid if you think about even the minimum impact of no deal.
It kills the Brexit Party having delivered Brexit and avoids any negative effects of No Deal having real time to get through
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
May didn’t “refuse to deliver”, she didn’t have a majority to deliver. The “default in law no deal” was enacted by a previous Parliament and no parliament can bind its successor. And by the way, there are still 3 years of this Parliament to run, how many other Tory party manifesto commitments are you upset haven’t been delivered yet? The dementia proposals perhaps?
The DUP oppose the dementia proposals, so it did not have a UK majority but the DUP back Brexit.
17 million voters also voted for Brexit unlike the dementia tax
The Dementia Tax got almost 14 million votes
It did not get a majority of seats in the UK though as the DUP opposed it.
Brexit did get a majority of seats in the UK though as the DUP backed it
Please cite the relevant passages in the DUP manifesto that’s are remotely compatible with a No deal exit?
Lammy is an interesting chap in that he just doesnt seem very good at what he clearly thinks are cutting, meme worthy jibes as he thinks he is. I can picture him being so pleased with himself as he wrote it.
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
Prorogation is suspending democracy.
What are your thoughts on a GE happening a week or so after 31 October? Would that be a suspension of democracy?
Fortunately the opposition can ensure that any such election takes place on terms that preserves options for the next Parliament (ie requiring an extension of Article 50). If it does do, as it should, that’s fine.
And what if an election comes about without such caveats...
Parliament has its opportunity to have its say. If it lets the government impose its will on it, it will have passively made a choice.
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
So having taken the U.K. out of the EU with no deal he calls a general election. That is just plain bloody stupid if you think about even the minimum impact of no deal.
It kills the Brexit Party having delivered Brexit and avoids any negative effects of No Deal having real time to get through
Shameless. Just read the last part of that again. This is today's Tory Party.
17 million people voted to Leave the EU in 2016, more than have voted for any party or any referendum question in UK history and yet over 3 years after the vote and 4 months after the original exit date was due we are still in the EU. The convincing win of the Brexit Party in the e we do actually leave the EU on October 31st with the expectation of a general election then in November
The government in the Westminster system only has democratic legitimacy because it has majority support in the Commons. If the government prorogues Parliament because n that is a coup.
The alternative is to elect a majority of MPs who will vote for no deal. That's how our democracy works.
I would rather have PM Farage, elected on a manifesto of no deal, than PM Johnson prorogue Parliament to achieve the same. Can you not see the difference?
The Tories and DUP won a majority of seats in the UK in 2017 on a manifesto of leaving the EU Deal or No Deal, the fact some diehard Remainer Tory MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Wollaston have betrayed the manifesto they stood on by defecting to CUK or voting with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
That's literally untrue. Just reread the manifesto - the pledge, repeated again and again was to deliver "a smooth and orderly Brexit" minimising dirsuption and agreeing the future terms of our relationship alongside the withdrawal. Did you not read it before citing it?
Apart from that, the key pledges were to scrap the pensions triple lock, raise the cost of care threshold to £100,000, means test the Winter Fuel payment, scrap free school lunches but offer primary school free breakfasts, increase the amount levied on firms employing non-EU migrant workers, and cut net migration below 100,000. Don't hear much about betraying everything else in the manifesto; it's almost as though manifesto pledges are unimportant if they aren't the ones some diehard Tory tribalists want to focus on.
Nope, it is literally true.
Read page 7 of the Tory manifesto, in black and white it says 'We will take Britain out of the European Union', no qualification that is the commitment. End of conversation.
The DUP also backed leaving the EU in their manifesto, they did not back any of the other Tory manifesto commitments the Tories have dropped.
The Tories did not win a majority of seats in the UK but the Tories and DUP combined did
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
So having taken the U.K. out of the EU with no deal he calls a general election. That is just plain bloody stupid if you think about even the minimum impact of no deal.
It kills the Brexit Party having delivered Brexit and avoids any negative effects of No Deal having real time to get through
It is not possible to avoid any negative effects of No Deal. What makes you think Hammond is lying?
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
That is dictatorship. Not having a parliamentary majority. Suspending parliament to rule by decree and enact the thing he doe not have the majority in parliament to do.
The alternative is simple. Go to the country first. Call an election vote as soon as parliament meets on 5th September. Win the stunning majority you are clear he will win. Then have the votes for no deal.
No, it is respecting democracy.
The Tories won a clear majority of GB seats in 2017 on a manifesto commitment to take Britain out of the EU and a majority of seats in the UK on that basis with the Leave backing DUP.
The fact diehard Remainer MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Allen and Wollaston have refused to respect the manifesto commitment they stood on to Leave the EU does not deny the Tories have a mandate to do so
Baker and co outnumber the remainiacs. Why do you keep ignoring them? They are at the very least just as guilty and yet you and Boris worship at their feet by implication at accepting their no deal plan.
The Remainiacs though have betrayed the manifesto they stood on by to take Britain out of the EU by voting both against the Withdrawal Agreement Deal and also by voting against No Deal too
Since we’ve established that the manifesto Brexit promise was predicated on a deal, and since both Remaniacs and Brexitoons have voted against the current deal - the only “betrayers” are the Brexitoons who have voted for “no deal”, which was NOT in the manifesto.
It’s also not what HYUFD was saying literally no more than a week ago, where he was adamant that there WOULD be an election in advance to get a majority to leave and call a referendum in Northern Ireland.
There may well still be.
However if there is not Boris will ensure we leave on October 31st by proroguing Parliament as a last resort
A week ago you were a committed supporter of the Withdrawal Agreement and were adamant that if the House of Commons wouldn’t pass it then there would be an election to deliver the majority to do so. You now seem to have given up on a deal, and are in favour of no deal.
Digital TV really is rubbish isn't it, compared to analogue. Why? Because there's a 2 second delay which becomes apparent if you switch on an old-fashioned radio at the same time as watching the TV. With analogue TV, everything was in sync.
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
So having taken the U.K. out of the EU with no deal he calls a general election. That is just plain bloody stupid if you think about even the minimum impact of no deal.
It kills the Brexit Party having delivered Brexit and avoids any negative effects of No Deal having real time to get through
It is not possible to avoid any negative effects of No Deal. What makes you think Hammond is lying?
Any full negative effects will take months to be felt
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
How do you know what your Mr Johnson wants, Mr HY? Nobody else does. Not even, according to most accounts, Mr Johnson himself.
The government in the Westminster system only has democratic legitimacy because it has majority support in the Commons. If the government prorogues Parliament because n that is a coup.
The alternative is to elect a majority of MPs who will vote for no deal. That's how our democracy works.
I would rather have PM Farage, elected on a manifesto of no deal, than PM Johnson prorogue Parliament to achieve the same. Can you not see the difference?
The Tories and DUP won a majority of seats in the UK in 2017 on a manifesto of leaving the EU Deal or No Deal, the fact some diehard Remainer Tory MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Wollaston have betrayed the manifesto they stood on by defecting to CUK or voting with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
That's literally untrue. Just reread the manifesto - the pledge, repeated again and again was to deliver "a smooth and orderly Brexit" minimising dirsuption and agreeing the future terms of our relationship alongside the withdrawal. Did you not read it before citing it?
Apart from that, the key pledges were to scrap the pensions triple lock, raise the cost of care threshold to £100,000, means test the Winter Fuel payment, scrap free school lunches but offer primary school free breakfasts, increase the amount levied on firms employing non-EU migrant workers, and cut net migration below 100,000. Don't hear much about betraying everything else in the manifesto; it's almost as though manifesto pledges are unimportant if they aren't the ones some diehard Tory tribalists want to focus on.
Nope, it is literally true.
Read page 7 of the Tory manifesto, in black and white it says 'We will take Britain out of the European Union', no qualification that is the commitment. End of conversation.
The DUP also backed leaving the EU in their manifesto, they did not back any of the other Tory manifesto commitments the Tories have dropped.
The Tories did not win a majority of seats in the UK but the Tories and DUP combined did
Right, you're getting to the point where your selective quoting and ignoring of what was said is tantamount to simply lying. There is no point in engaging with you.
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
May didn’t “refuse to deliver”, she didn’t have a majority to deliver. The “default in law no deal” was enacted by a previous Parliament and no parliament can bind its successor. And by the way, there are still 3 years of this Parliament to run, how many other Tory party manifesto commitments are you upset haven’t been delivered yet? The dementia proposals perhaps?
The DUP oppose the dementia proposals, so it did not have a UK majority but the DUP back Brexit.
17 million voters also voted for Brexit unlike the dementia tax
The Dementia Tax got almost 14 million votes
It did not get a majority of seats in the UK though as the DUP opposed it.
Brexit did get a majority of seats in the UK though as the DUP backed it
Not without a deal
The 2017 DUP manifesto: "...to make sure Northern Ireland gets the best Brexit deal."
"For our part we will work to get the best deal for Northern Ireland, recognizing that we share a land frontier with the Republic and the particular circumstances of our unique history and geography"
"Comprehensive free trade and customs agreement with the European Union"
"Maintenance of the Common Travel Area"
Where does any of that rule out Brexit with No Deal? It aims to deliver Brexit with the best Deal but it still aims to deliver Brexit
Comments
Parliament cannot move forward. Is being held to a decision made by a previous parliament. So we need a fresh election. But cannot have a fresh election as the main opposition is in civil war and the government about to join them. With a hard deadline just weeks away that in reality will trash the economy and the country if its passed chaotically.
We need a national government. And I am increasingly convinced that we will get one either as an alternative to a chaotic election or as a result of one
English independence and the dissolution of the UK is the solution to the identity crisis that has given us Brexit.
We know that there are people still strongly in favour of Brexit what we don't know is whether they are still a majority and the evidence we have suggests that they aren't.
Perhaps expecting a man who thinks Boris Johnson is sane and that there is a ferry from Ullapool to Inverness to check his facts is asking too much. But you are proving rude and patronising now as well as stupid and I am certainly not taking that from you.
Nothing is so great that any cost is worth it. It is incredibly frustrating we have not left yet, but better we dont and even the BXP win an election to no deal at the democratic outrage, than people essentially decide to ignore the will of the present parliament (if it can manage to determine what its will is).
I believe in parliamentary democracy. This parliament was elected after the referendum and has behaved terribly - not reaching compromise to deliver what most said they would do and a large group always intending to stymie it. The solution is the parliament faces the consequences at the next election, whenever that is.
That would delay Brexit, might even halt it for a bit. But if we are outraged by our representatives we will choose other ones.
Better that than some Dominic Grieve style too clever by half constitutional wrangling.
Yes the legal position is no deal and if they did not want that they should not have triggered A50. But while I dislike what the parliament has done and has not done, while it is there it is entitled to indicate its will as best it sees fit.
Proroguing for no purpose other than partisan politics is a dangerous game to play. If its happened before thats no excuse to do it again, it can escalate badly and this time we see the political culture devolve.
Do the Tories want Corbyn to see proroguing as nothing but a convenient tool in the arsenal.
Teresa May's Government recently abandoned it's attempt to control web porn (which I felt was bad law, but my opinions of it are not relevant), due to not informing the European Commission about the change. Parliament was thwarted. By what authority does the Commission overrule even a relatively minor regulatory change? If there was a fiery denunciation by Alastair Meeks, either above or below the line, I must have missed it.
It's like the supporters of Sir Kim Darroch wrapping themselves in the flag and claiming to stand up for Britain against the US. Their newfound patriotism was deeply suspect.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/04/04/what-do-public-think-about-no-deal-brexit
Roger Federer is the greatest grass court tennis player of all time, without question, and is playing at the peak of his powers. He is better at 37 than he was at 27. Quite remarkable.
But Novak doesn't miss.
Roger's game is a thing of beauty. No-one has ever played in the way that he does and no-one ever will. His tennis in full flow is extra-terrestrial. It is truly something to behold
But Novak doesn't miss.
The stars are aligned for the Swiss maestro. You can sense it. Tiger wins the Masters, then Roger wins Wimbledon. It feels right. It feels inevitable. Almost every single person on Centre Court and watching on TV will be willing it.
But Novak doesn't miss.
I hope he does better than I think and gets something. But he was very very clear to pander to BXP. Hes sown the wind .
https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1150125879579807744?s=20
Tory MPs have been promised a new deal. Some would accept a coat if paint. But others who previously backed it now wouldn't.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Brexiteers have become EU enthusiasts overnight. I find zero optimism or enthusiasm amongst the leavers I know and while it is comforting to believe that that has nothing to do with Brexit itself that is not the whole story in my experience.
How is no deal compatible with that?
Because, as you say, the politics of it looks extremely difficult.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government-looking-at-port-checks-on-whole-island-in-no-deal-brexit-taoiseach-1.3955017
Parliament was not thwarted. The government simply had not complied with the law.
Even governments should be subject to the law, though there are some who seem to think otherwise.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
He will only be able to get the Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament with a Tory majority so extending again would be pointless without that
I'm sorry, HYUFD, I've tried to be polite, but that's a pathetic response. Comparing the most heavily whipped vote in recent Tory history with a free vote where the payroll deliberately abstain and saying, "Yes, but my choice got 13 more votes, so it's more likely to pass" is beyond facile.
"Is not Brexit" - I'm having difficulty keeping up.
When a No Deal Brexit is on the cards, it's fine, despite being explicitly against the Leave campaign's promises, because the ballot paper simply said to Leave the EU, no specifics on it, so that's legitimate.
When a variant of Leaving the EU that the Tory Leave core and the hardcore Leavers don't like is on the cards, it's utterly unacceptable, because it's not the specific Brexit that was promised/hoped for/fantasised about, so it's illegitimate.
And the fault is that of non-Leavers because they won't compromise. You can't compromise with stupid.
Of course we may in hindsight think the purge and subsequent actions as necessary ones to establish the system we have today even as we rolled back from all the things they did.
Irish problems were a key moment in the early 1640s too of course, which saw a previously relatively united parliament split over what to do. Its always Ireland .Such parallels.
You say he will simply do x, but the problem is this is not simple.
You're wrong on this. Not only that, you're on the wrong side of history. Which is even more reprehensible.
Being on the wrong side of history is much worse than just being wrong.
The alternative is simple. Go to the country first. Call an election vote as soon as parliament meets on 5th September. Win the stunning majority you are clear he will win. Then have the votes for no deal.
That is bordering on a deranged plan.
Just reread the manifesto - the pledge, repeated again and again was to deliver "a smooth and orderly Brexit" minimising dirsuption and agreeing the future terms of our relationship alongside the withdrawal.
Did you not read it before citing it?
Apart from that, the key pledges were to scrap the pensions triple lock, raise the cost of care threshold to £100,000, means test the Winter Fuel payment, scrap free school lunches but offer primary school free breakfasts, increase the amount levied on firms employing non-EU migrant workers, and cut net migration below 100,000.
Don't hear much about betraying everything else in the manifesto; it's almost as though manifesto pledges are unimportant if they aren't the ones some diehard Tory tribalists want to focus on.
The Tories won a clear majority of GB seats in 2017 on a manifesto commitment to take Britain out of the EU and a majority of seats in the UK on that basis with the Leave backing DUP.
The fact diehard Remainer MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Allen and Wollaston have refused to respect the manifesto commitment they stood on to Leave the EU does not deny the Tories have a mandate to do so
https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1149890681160081410
17 million voters also voted for Brexit unlike the dementia tax
Brexit did get a majority of seats in the UK though as the DUP backed it
Whats more we all can see why. You place the preservation of the Conservative and Unionist Party above all other considerations.
However if there is not Boris will ensure we leave on October 31st by proroguing Parliament as a last resort
The 2017 DUP manifesto: "...to make sure Northern Ireland gets the best Brexit deal."
"For our part we will work to get the best deal for Northern Ireland, recognizing that we share a land frontier with the Republic and the particular circumstances of our unique history and geography"
"Comprehensive free trade and customs agreement with the European Union"
"Maintenance of the Common Travel Area"
As to be fair Gauke and co have also backed Brexit even if on the basis of the Deal.
The Remainiacs though have betrayed the manifesto they stood on by to take Britain out of the EU by voting both against the Withdrawal Agreement Deal and also by voting against No Deal too
She joins Hancock in the most pitiful desperate spin to explain her desperate career move .
Read page 7 of the Tory manifesto, in black and white it says 'We will take Britain out of the European Union', no qualification that is the commitment. End of conversation.
The DUP also backed leaving the EU in their manifesto, they did not back any of the other Tory manifesto commitments the Tories have dropped.
The Tories did not win a majority of seats in the UK but the Tories and DUP combined did
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrJS9TO.ypdVjgAxxtB4iA5;_ylu=X3oDMTEzOGxxczhvBGNvbG8DaXIyBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDTU9VSzAxXzEEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1563126863/RO=10/RU=https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto/RK=2/RS=eO2zo7i_M53LHni6w8q6B6TNDpo-
Digital TV really is rubbish isn't it, compared to analogue. Why? Because there's a 2 second delay which becomes apparent if you switch on an old-fashioned radio at the same time as watching the TV. With analogue TV, everything was in sync.
There is no point in engaging with you.