HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
Do the Iranians have any choice but military action when we insist on capturing Iranian vessels?
An Iranian vessel transporting oil to the Assad regime in breach even of EU sanctions.
Are diehard Remainers now only selective in backing for EU law when it suits an anti UK agenda?
Iran isn't subject to EU law.
It's a shame you weren't elected last year; you could have swung Epping Parish behind the drive to war.
That was the point the Iranian spokesman made very articulately this morning. If he is correct that the seizing of the ship was at Trumps request then we are clearly hitching our wagon to a very unstable and incontinent horse. The Iranians are nothing like the Iraquis. They are made of much sterner stuff which is why the Israelis fear them so much.
I thought Iraq knocked the crap out of them last time they had a war.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
They certainly have, I drove past it last week. Could be about to be a very valuable resource indeed for keeping the black gold flowing.
I don't buy the premise of this article; nothing has changed with Boris. None of the fundamentals are about who the PM is. The Brecon by-election is more important in Brexit outcome terms than the Tory leadership contest.
Same dilemma as in March, same contradictions in policy that we want to magic away, same refusal to face up to our choices (honourable mention for Rory Stewart) Same lack of majority in parliament or country for any final option. I reckon it's heading to a further extension. The October date was always a strange compromise - not long enough for anything important to really happen and no EU institutions around to negotiate with anyway.
It is only heading for a further extension if Boris wants one (assuming he becomes PM). As with all the other unicorn options, Parliament cannot force the Executive to extend if they choose not to.
Sort of true - I reckon Boris will see a further extension as a least worst option soon enough. A no-deal that is at all managed requires roughly 6 acts of legislation (hello trade bill) and it's clear parliament would be in no mood to do anything to support a no-deal. So if Boris really is determined to do or die, it would be chaotic unmanaged no-deal, and I reckon that would be like the US government shutdown, in a couple of weeks we'd be banging on the door begging to be let back in as it's just too painful day by day.
I reckon Boris is smart enough to see that coming. So extension beckons.
I don't buy the premise of this article; nothing has changed with Boris. None of the fundamentals are about who the PM is. The Brecon by-election is more important in Brexit outcome terms than the Tory leadership contest.
Same dilemma as in March, same contradictions in policy that we want to magic away, same refusal to face up to our choices (honourable mention for Rory Stewart) Same lack of majority in parliament or country for any final option. I reckon it's heading to a further extension. The October date was always a strange compromise - not long enough for anything important to really happen and no EU institutions around to negotiate with anyway.
Considering they have done nothing for months if not years , why would you expect them to actually do anything now, if they can kick it down the road again then they will. Give themselves another 6 months at the trough.
David's point surely is though that a VNOC in itself would not stop No Deal. That requires a PM willing to ask for an Extension - which is why it would become necessary to install Corbyn having passed the VNOC.
Certainly a possibility. But if a VONC succeeds and Corbyn is NOT installed, this means general election. If we are at that juncture coming up to Brexit date, I am sure a way will be found to extend for at least the time required to hold the election and form a working government. What happens then will, of course, depend on what the outcome of the election was. Thus I do not think, in reality, that Corbyn has to be installed as PM in order to extend Brexit beyond 31 Oct.
If there is a successful VONC under the terms of the FTPA then Corbyn DOES NOT become PM. We wait for a fortnight and if the VONC is not rescinded there is a general election at which Boris would go into as PM.
Corbyn only becomes PM if LAB is in a position after the election to form a government
No, I don't think that's right.
The FTPA clearly implies that if a government is no-confidenced, then others have the right to try to form a government. A sitting PM who had been rejected by the Commons couldn't just bed-block all alternatives.
In our specific example, Corbyn would undoubtedly claim the right to try to form a government, and would have precedent on his side, as well as the mechanics of the FTPA. In 1924, 1974 and indeed 2010, minority governments were appointed without having to prove the Commons' confidence first.
I suspect that the Palace might want an assurance that Corbyn could form a government, and paving or indicative votes could be used prior to an actual appointment and FTPA-compliant motion of confidence but if the House did indicate a majority prepared to accept Corbyn then Boris's position would be untenable and if he didn't resign then he would be dismissed, just as a PM who refused to resign after losing an election would be.
The question here is why would not just all (or very nearly all) Labour MPs but SNP, Lib Dems, independents and a few rebel Tories back a useless Marxist? To which the answer is that there's no-one else available to achieve the end of blocking No Deal. It's inconceivable that Corbyn would allow Labour to back either an MP from another party or a different MP from his own: that's the privilege of being by far the largest party in the coalition.
Such a Corbyn government might well have only a limited life-span: long enough to gain a further A50 extension in order to open up new Brexit opportunities and then to go back to the country in an inevitable general election but it would serve its purpose.
Yes, I see how that works, David. However, as indicated below, does that not mean Corbyn is left holding the extremely unpleasant tar-baby that is Brexit? He may not wish to do that.
Much has been spoken of a potential Tory/Brexit Party 'hard Brexit' alliance but it doesn't need to be so formal. If it comes down to a No Deal vs No Confidence vote then to get what he wants Farage just needs to be clear that the Brexit Party will stand against any MP that frustrates Brexit occuring on 31 October.
Excellent article David and I do think it is likely we will coast to a no deal and it does look like the EU are planning to mitigate any issues as per reports from the EU last night.
Reading last nights thread I have to express real concern that HYUFD has lost all his previous sense and has become a blinkered Boris acolyte which is unfortunate as he did provide a sensible conservative viewpoint until the last few weeks
And his comments on the Straits of Hormuz were so ignorant of the geography and maritime shipping movements that I just buried my head in my hands in utter despair
If and when you read this HYUFD, can we have the old HYUFD back
Your memory is better than mine.
His comments on the SOH and Iran were so ridiculous it was plain embarrassing
He did vote remain and for a long time we took a similar view that TM deal was reasonable and that the WDA should have been passed. That remains my view but he has sadly morphed into an extreme brexiteer blinded by IDS and Boris
The aim is the Withdrawal Agreement minus backstop which as the Brady amendment showed has a majority in the Commons. Merkel seemed to be moving towards that yesterday and resolving the Irish border with a technical solution in the PD and future Declaration.
Then move towards a Canada style FTA with the EU otherwise No Deal until then
Once again - No technical solution exists - let alone one that could be implemented by October 31st... As I stated yesterday you can replace the word technology with magic or fairy dust...
It is somewhat amusing. The backstop exists in case no technological or political solution is found and implemented by the time the transition period is up. Merkel notes that if a technological solution is found and implemented, the backstop won’t be used. Because it is, you know, a backstop.
And we then see the more excitable Brexiteers proclaiming “See! It’s negotiable!”
I hope Boris cancels HS2 ,with the current costs escalating. Also he keeps to his promise of not going ahead with runway 3 at Heathrow, on environmental grounds. His premiership will have then got of to a good start, with many voters.
The environmental impact of having hundreds of planes a day spend up to an hour flying around at low level waiting to land at Heathrow is massive. The airport is completely at capacity, so building the third runway will make a significant difference to the total amount of jet fuel used by planes bound for Heathrow, even if there’s a few more planes.
It’s legitimate to say that more allowing many more flights in future will increase pollution, but building the runway in itself will be positive environmentally.
(Also worth mentioning the cost to the economy of foggy or snowy days, which currently lead to dozens of diversions and cancellations due to capacity issues at LHR).
Thanks None. I was beginning to think I was the only one to be getting a little confused here.
Thank you too David for a truly excellent piece, even if (perhaps because) not everyone agrees or follows your logic. Thanks too for the many excellent responses. They illustrate why reading PB is as good as if not better than reading even the quality press on the subject.
In short, I get the picture up to and including the VONC. In fact this is what I expect to happen. And I expect it to pass, because ND is the only alternative at that point and there aren't enough nutters in the house to take us into that except by accident (although such an accident remains an ever-present possibility.)
So what next? Here I am really not sure, and perhaps the reason is relly that the anwer depends on timing and other factors (which might include public opinion, Macron, Boris himself and so on.)
So maybe we take it one step at a time.....and very carefully?
Which quality press is that?
FT's pretty good, and the Economist. The Observer is good in parts and the Guardian has improved out of all recogintion. The Times has its moments and even the Borisograph too.
I've been buying hard copy a bit more lately. \it has pickd up.
I've not read the Economist in 20 odd years since they wrote an article on an industry I knew about referencing every idiot in the industry and not anyone who knew anything actually about the topic being discussed.
As with everything trust is very easily destroyed when the basis of that trust (articles are valid and not completely wrong) is lost..
That’s astonishingly common for technical subjects, where either marketing is repeated word-for-word as journalism, or the ‘experts’ interviewed are regarded by most of the industry as idiots or shysters.
If we can’t trust the media on subjects we know a little about, then how are we supposed to trust them on the other 90% of stuff where we rely on them to be informed?
People do though. My father believes word for word what he reads in the Mail. Many years ago he read an article on an event which he knew intimately (in the Mail) and was furious that it was a load of nonsense. However he still believe everything he reads in the Mail. I get it quoted to me regularly.
Much has been spoken of a potential Tory/Brexit Party 'hard Brexit' alliance but it doesn't need to be so formal. If it comes down to a No Deal vs No Confidence vote then to get what he wants Farage just needs to be clear that the Brexit Party will stand against any MP that frustrates Brexit occuring on 31 October.
Then you have a split right vote. The Tories are not going to stand aside.
I’m in a minority of one among all the insiders and colleagues whom I’ve consulted on this, but I think that, before early October, there’s a chance Johnson might of his own volition call a general election. There are strong arguments against: best to leave the EU first and kill the Brexit Party; there is a huge risk of a civil war within the Conservative Party over the manifesto promise on Brexit; a rash of deselections . . . all real, all a nightmare, I concede. But behind all these objections lies the assumption that Johnson has a choice. If, though, he fears a lost confidence vote is coming anyway then better, surely, to go on to the front foot. “I want your mandate” would be the call. However short, the post-coronation honeymoon might be long enough for one bold act, and would be the best time to risk it.
We had this response y'day and I've no idea why you think it's valid. If Boris Johnson goes to Parliament there isn't the faintest chance he won't get the 2/3rds majority. He would get nearly 100% support for a GE. Which would mean no 5yr fixed term: we go to a GE.
So what's your point?
Will Boris actually do it? He probably should but I doubt it. He's too wrapped in his own Churchillian cloak of destiny to see that it might be his best, and possibly only, route to Brexit. And having seen Theresa May stuff up in 2017, who can blame him really?
In April 2017 only 522 MPs voted for the early Dissolution requested by Theresa May. Whilst this comfortably exceeded the two thirds required, almost 20% of MPs failed to support it. Moreover, under the terms of the FTPA an election held this Autumn would only result in a Parliament of four and a half years - the following election would become due in the first week of May 2024.
Wouldn't the better starting point be a two-line Bill to repeal the FTPA?
Why do people think that Corbyn would go for an extension if he were able to do so?
The biggest set of votes up for grabs at the next election is floating remain voters. It is probably about 20% of the electorate looking at the drop in Labour from GE17 to current polling plus Tory remainers looking for a new home. Their vote is very fluid at the moment. If Corbyn brings us no deal, Labour miss out on most of those votes. If they make it a condition of a GE then they may get most of those votes as they did in GE17.
I think those voters are now lost to Labour, Mr Above. And the Labour Party itself is now a lost cause, as everybody can see.
Yes, I agree that those votes are now lost to Labour. Corbyn dithered too long for a late conversion to be credible. I don't however see that as an existential problem for them. A change of leadership and return to a more traditional Labour approach should see it recover pretty quickly.
To me, the Tories have much bigger problems. A return to sanity and electability will not take place until Brexit is sorted. How it is sorted will determine how long their recovery takes. The optimist in me thinks it will be generations; the pessimist thinks never.
Yes, I see how that works, David. However, as indicated below, does that not mean Corbyn is left holding the extremely unpleasant tar-baby that is Brexit? He may not wish to do that.
A stop-gap GONU may then be the only answer.
Edit: Outstanding article, by the way.
Labour holding the tar-baby and extending the deal is probably a problem for some Labour MP in leave seats but I suspect that is the case regardless?
Even if Labour went for Caroline Lucas as leader just to ask for an extension it still gives labour leave MPs the same issue with No Deal constituents.
Mind you those constituents would probably be voting for Nigel come what may so extending A50 might actually do those MPs a favour as it could shift a few remain votes in their direction.
Corbyn as PM at some point in October and then after the next election looks rather likely....
David's point surely is though that a VNOC in itself would not stop No Deal. That requires a PM willing to ask for an Extension - which is why it would become necessary to install Corbyn having passed the VNOC.
Certainly a possibility. But if a VONC succeeds and Corbyn is NOT installed, this means general election. If we are at that juncture coming up to Brexit date, I am sure a way will be found to extend for at least the time required to hold the election and form a working government. What happens then will, of course, depend on what the outcome of the election was. Thus I do not think, in reality, that Corbyn has to be installed as PM in order to extend Brexit beyond 31 Oct.
How would a way be found? The point is that this is occuring with the executive not wanting an extension so how will it be found?
Yes, I see how that works, David. However, as indicated below, does that not mean Corbyn is left holding the extremely unpleasant tar-baby that is Brexit? He may not wish to do that.
A stop-gap GONU may then be the only answer.
Edit: Outstanding article, by the way.
Labour holding the tar-baby and extending the deal is probably a problem for some Labour MP in leave seats but I suspect that is the case regardless?
Even if Labour went for Caroline Lucas as leader just to ask for an extension it still gives labour leave MPs the same issue with No Deal constituents.
Mind you those constituents would probably be voting for Nigel come what may so extending A50 might actually do those MPs a favour as it could shift a few remain votes in their direction.
Corbyn as PM at some point in October and then after the next election looks rather likely....
I'm not convinced there are many Labour Leave voters who are so preoccupied with Brexit they would vote for a Tory Party that has so royally f*cked things up for us all.
Not sure how the GE you evidently envisgae would pan out. That really does fog up my crystal ball. LDs would do well, and Greens, and TBP if they can organise themselves adequately. Beyond that, not sure what the numbers would look like.
There’s a lot that I disagree with Rory Stewart about, but this in the New Statesman is stonkingly good. The Tories’ long-term prospects would be much better if he was not a voice in the wilderness: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/07/what-wrong-us
It is sister paper to the SNP propaganda leaflet, so I'm not sure how 'Britnat' to expect it to be?
It has always been one of the most rabid unionist rags and every story printed was anti independence. Massive change especially given the state of the other unionist propaganda unit, The Scotsman, which is circling the drain.
I'm beginning to wonder if Mr Luckyguy actually lives in Scotland if he hasn't noticed that the Herald is and has been pro Union.
Maybe sticks to The Scotsman and so never noticed.
I don't read a paper. The Herald group got in by touch recently with a request that my company should advertise in their titles.
Questions that the Herald is a Unionist newspaper... and then admits that he doesn’t really know because he never reads a paper.
Great to have such high quality debaters and commenters here at PB. The depth of expertise is mind-blowing.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case SNIP would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
Do the Iranians have any choice but military action when we insist on capturing Iranian vessels?
An Iranian vessel transporting oil to the Assad regime in breach even of EU sanctions.
Are diehard Remainers now only selective in backing for EU law when it suits an anti UK agenda?
Iran isn't subject to EU law.
It's a shame you weren't elected last year; you could have swung Epping Parish behind the drive to war.
That was the point the Iranian spokesman made very articulately this morning. If he is correct that the seizing of the ship was at Trumps request then we are clearly hitching our wagon to a very unstable and incontinent horse. The Iranians are nothing like the Iraquis. They are made of much sterner stuff which is why the Israelis fear them so much.
Strange, I thought the Israelis were worried about the threats to wipe Israel off the map.
Israel has been very active in acting against the Iranian nuclear program and also in disrupting their activities in Syria.
The chances of a No Deal exit are very low and it will only happen through accident and incompetence.
Quite likely, then.
About six months I heard a French Diplomat talking about this. His matter of fact view was that whilst nobody wanted a No Deal Brexit, it could easily happen by accident.
It sounded right at the time, and sounds increasingly so now.
Why do people think that Corbyn would go for an extension if he were able to do so?
The biggest set of votes up for grabs at the next election is floating remain voters. It is probably about 20% of the electorate looking at the drop in Labour from GE17 to current polling plus Tory remainers looking for a new home. Their vote is very fluid at the moment. If Corbyn brings us no deal, Labour miss out on most of those votes. If they make it a condition of a GE then they may get most of those votes as they did in GE17.
I think those voters are now lost to Labour, Mr Above. And the Labour Party itself is now a lost cause, as everybody can see.
Yes, I agree that those votes are now lost to Labour. Corbyn dithered too long for a late conversion to be credible. I don't however see that as an existential problem for them. A change of leadership and return to a more traditional Labour approach should see it recover pretty quickly.
To me, the Tories have much bigger problems. A return to sanity and electability will not take place until Brexit is sorted. How it is sorted will determine how long their recovery takes. The optimist in me thinks it will be generations; the pessimist thinks never.
Labour have the bigger problem, former enthusiasts let alone floating voters have gone for the long term due to the Momentum hijacking.
As for the Tories, once Brexit is over I am convinced that Farage supporters will drop back into line and yes The Tories will lose a few Remainers over a problematic post Brexit economy but in the absence of a united opposition they will be fine.
Trumps obsession with the London mayor continues.. Retweeting Katie Hopkins of all things
He quotes her quite a bit. I flip between thinking he is an idiot or maybe he is cleverly manipulating by his statements. It did appear to be manipulation by forcing the Democrats to embrace the four by his attacks on them. However I am coming down on the side of him reading this Alt-Rt stuff and really taking it as a report of current events.
Much has been spoken of a potential Tory/Brexit Party 'hard Brexit' alliance but it doesn't need to be so formal. If it comes down to a No Deal vs No Confidence vote then to get what he wants Farage just needs to be clear that the Brexit Party will stand against any MP that frustrates Brexit occuring on 31 October.
Then you have a split right vote. The Tories are not going to stand aside.
Not necessarily the case. There is a possibility that constituency associations may come out for BXP against what they see as “traitors”.
Yes, I see how that works, David. However, as indicated below, does that not mean Corbyn is left holding the extremely unpleasant tar-baby that is Brexit? He may not wish to do that.
A stop-gap GONU may then be the only answer.
Edit: Outstanding article, by the way.
Labour holding the tar-baby and extending the deal is probably a problem for some Labour MP in leave seats but I suspect that is the case regardless?
Even if Labour went for Caroline Lucas as leader just to ask for an extension it still gives labour leave MPs the same issue with No Deal constituents.
Mind you those constituents would probably be voting for Nigel come what may so extending A50 might actually do those MPs a favour as it could shift a few remain votes in their direction.
Corbyn as PM at some point in October and then after the next election looks rather likely....
I'm not convinced there are many Labour Leave voters who are so preoccupied with Brexit they would vote for a Tory Party that has so royally f*cked things up for us all.
Not sure how the GE you evidently envisgae would pan out. That really does fog up my crystal ball. LDs would do well, and Greens, and TBP if they can organise themselves adequately. Beyond that, not sure what the numbers would look like.
Those Labour leave voters have largely moved to Farage - as you can tell from Hartlepool and other places - up north the Tories are still utterly toxic so it's elsewhere.
As for an election - no-one sane will want one but the figures don't allow anything else and Labour policy is still that they want an election - with the current figures any none-Tory government will only be seeking the extension Boris is avoiding having backed himself into a corner...
David's point surely is though that a VNOC in itself would not stop No Deal. That requires a PM willing to ask for an Extension - which is why it would become necessary to install Corbyn having passed the VNOC.
Certainly a possibility. But if a VONC succeeds and Corbyn is NOT installed, this means general election. If we are at that juncture coming up to Brexit date, I am sure a way will be found to extend for at least the time required to hold the election and form a working government. What happens then will, of course, depend on what the outcome of the election was. Thus I do not think, in reality, that Corbyn has to be installed as PM in order to extend Brexit beyond 31 Oct.
Yes, I think that's right. Somebody has to call an election but it need not be Corbyn. Might even be Boris, as acting PM.
Much has been spoken of a potential Tory/Brexit Party 'hard Brexit' alliance but it doesn't need to be so formal. If it comes down to a No Deal vs No Confidence vote then to get what he wants Farage just needs to be clear that the Brexit Party will stand against any MP that frustrates Brexit occuring on 31 October.
Then you have a split right vote. The Tories are not going to stand aside.
Tories don't need to. They need to at a minimum hold their existing seats replacing any defectors.
A few gains gives a majority. They won't prioritise seats they can't possibly win.
Yes, I see how that works, David. However, as indicated below, does that not mean Corbyn is left holding the extremely unpleasant tar-baby that is Brexit? He may not wish to do that.
A stop-gap GONU may then be the only answer.
Edit: Outstanding article, by the way.
Labour holding the tar-baby and extending the deal is probably a problem for some Labour MP in leave seats but I suspect that is the case regardless?
Even if Labour went for Caroline Lucas as leader just to ask for an extension it still gives labour leave MPs the same issue with No Deal constituents.
Mind you those constituents would probably be voting for Nigel come what may so extending A50 might actually do those MPs a favour as it could shift a few remain votes in their direction.
Corbyn as PM at some point in October and then after the next election looks rather likely....
I'm not convinced there are many Labour Leave voters who are so preoccupied with Brexit they would vote for a Tory Party that has so royally f*cked things up for us all.
Not sure how the GE you evidently envisgae would pan out. That really does fog up my crystal ball. LDs would do well, and Greens, and TBP if they can organise themselves adequately. Beyond that, not sure what the numbers would look like.
Those Labour leave voters have largely moved to Farage - as you can tell from Hartlepool and other places - up north the Tories are still utterly toxic so it's elsewhere.
As for an election - no-one sane will want one but the figures don't allow anything else and Labour policy is still that they want an election - with the current figures any none-Tory government will only be seeking the extension Boris is avoiding having backed himself into a corner...
Which of course is why HY’s merrily adding the Tory and BXP vote shares together and feeding the result into Baxter is so much wishful thinking. BXP has neither the Tories’ historical legacy and image nor direct responsibility for the shambles of government since 2015.
The FTPA clearly implies that if a government is no-confidenced, then others have the right to try to form a government. A sitting PM who had been rejected by the Commons couldn't just bed-block all alternatives.
In our specific example, Corbyn would undoubtedly claim the right to try to form a government, and would have precedent on his side, as well as the mechanics of the FTPA. In 1924, 1974 and indeed 2010, minority governments were appointed without having to prove the Commons' confidence first.
I suspect that the Palace might want an assurance that Corbyn could form a government, and paving or indicative votes could be used prior to an actual appointment and FTPA-compliant motion of confidence but if the House did indicate a majority prepared to accept Corbyn then Boris's position would be untenable and if he didn't resign then he would be dismissed, just as a PM who refused to resign after losing an election would be.
The question here is why would not just all (or very nearly all) Labour MPs but SNP, Lib Dems, independents and a few rebel Tories back a useless Marxist? To which the answer is that there's no-one else available to achieve the end of blocking No Deal. It's inconceivable that Corbyn would allow Labour to back either an MP from another party or a different MP from his own: that's the privilege of being by far the largest party in the coalition.
Such a Corbyn government might well have only a limited life-span: long enough to gain a further A50 extension in order to open up new Brexit opportunities and then to go back to the country in an inevitable general election but it would serve its purpose.
Yes, I see how that works, David. However, as indicated below, does that not mean Corbyn is left holding the extremely unpleasant tar-baby that is Brexit? He may not wish to do that.
A stop-gap GONU may then be the only answer.
Edit: Outstanding article, by the way.
He'd be left holding the tarbaby one way or another anyway. If he was complicit in bringing down the government (which he'd have to be), and then didn't take the reins himself, he'd be an active roadblock to avoiding No Deal, especially if it ended with a general election on or after Oct 31 (which is all but certain if the VoNC is after the summer recess).
I agree that there'd have to be a pseudo rainbow coalition but I think it'd have to take the form of a Lab minority headed by Corbyn but with confidence from enough others to see the A50 deadline extended far enough to allow for a GE (I don't think there'd be the political support or time for a referendum before a GE).
David's point surely is though that a VNOC in itself would not stop No Deal. That requires a PM willing to ask for an Extension - which is why it would become necessary to install Corbyn having passed the VNOC.
Certainly a possibility. But if a VONC succeeds and Corbyn is NOT installed, this means general election. If we are at that juncture coming up to Brexit date, I am sure a way will be found to extend for at least the time required to hold the election and form a working government. What happens then will, of course, depend on what the outcome of the election was. Thus I do not think, in reality, that Corbyn has to be installed as PM in order to extend Brexit beyond 31 Oct.
Yes, I think that's right. Somebody has to call an election but it need not be Corbyn. Might even be Boris, as acting PM.
So suppose we need a 1 month extension is Boris going to ask for it and suffer 5 weeks of the video saying we will leave on October 31st with the word Liar captioned over it...
It's why after the VoNC someone else will have to be appointed PM to get that extension across as Boris just can't do and continue to campaign...
Yes, I see how that works, David. However, as indicated below, does that not mean Corbyn is left holding the extremely unpleasant tar-baby that is Brexit? He may not wish to do that.
A stop-gap GONU may then be the only answer.
Edit: Outstanding article, by the way.
Labour holding the tar-baby and extending the deal is probably a problem for some Labour MP in leave seats but I suspect that is the case regardless?
Even if Labour went for Caroline Lucas as leader just to ask for an extension it still gives labour leave MPs the same issue with No Deal constituents.
Mind you those constituents would probably be voting for Nigel come what may so extending A50 might actually do those MPs a favour as it could shift a few remain votes in their direction.
Corbyn as PM at some point in October and then after the next election looks rather likely....
I'm not convinced there are many Labour Leave voters who are so preoccupied with Brexit they would vote for a Tory Party that has so royally f*cked things up for us all.
Not sure how the GE you evidently envisgae would pan out. That really does fog up my crystal ball. LDs would do well, and Greens, and TBP if they can organise themselves adequately. Beyond that, not sure what the numbers would look like.
Those Labour leave voters have largely moved to Farage - as you can tell from Hartlepool and other places - up north the Tories are still utterly toxic so it's elsewhere.
As for an election - no-one sane will want one but the figures don't allow anything else and Labour policy is still that they want an election - with the current figures any none-Tory government will only be seeking the extension Boris is avoiding having backed himself into a corner...
Trumps obsession with the London mayor continues.. Retweeting Katie Hopkins of all things
He quotes her quite a bit. I flip between thinking he is an idiot or maybe he is cleverly manipulating by his statements. It did appear to be manipulation by forcing the Democrats to embrace the four by his attacks on them. However I am coming down on the side of him reading this Alt-Rt stuff and really taking it as a report of current events.
Why do people think that Corbyn would go for an extension if he were able to do so?
The biggest set of votes up for grabs at the next election is floating remain voters. It is probably about 20% of the electorate looking at the drop in Labour from GE17 to current polling plus Tory remainers looking for a new home. Their vote is very fluid at the moment. If Corbyn brings us no deal, Labour miss out on most of those votes. If they make it a condition of a GE then they may get most of those votes as they did in GE17.
I think those voters are now lost to Labour, Mr Above. And the Labour Party itself is now a lost cause, as everybody can see.
Yes, I agree that those votes are now lost to Labour. Corbyn dithered too long for a late conversion to be credible. I don't however see that as an existential problem for them. A change of leadership and return to a more traditional Labour approach should see it recover pretty quickly.
To me, the Tories have much bigger problems. A return to sanity and electability will not take place until Brexit is sorted. How it is sorted will determine how long their recovery takes. The optimist in me thinks it will be generations; the pessimist thinks never.
Quite the opposite: The pessimist in me thinks generations; the optimist thinks never!
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
Do the Iranians have any choice but military action when we insist on capturing Iranian vessels?
An Iranian vessel transporting oil to the Assad regime in breach even of EU sanctions.
Are diehard Remainers now only selective in backing for EU law when it suits an anti UK agenda?
Iran isn't subject to EU law.
It's a shame you weren't elected last year; you could have swung Epping Parish behind the drive to war.
That was the point the Iranian spokesman made very articulately this morning. If he is correct that the seizing of the ship was at Trumps request then we are clearly hitching our wagon to a very unstable and incontinent horse. The Iranians are nothing like the Iraquis. They are made of much sterner stuff which is why the Israelis fear them so much.
I thought Iraq knocked the crap out of them last time they had a war.
An eight year stalemate during which both sides knocked the crap out of each other. Iraq stayed in the contest only thanks to massive support in money and materiel from outside.
Any serious attack on Iran would be non trivial even for a fully committed US. And have fairly disastrous geopolitical consequences.
Why do people think that Corbyn would go for an extension if he were able to do so?
The biggest set of votes up for grabs at the next election is floating remain voters. It is probably about 20% of the electorate looking at the drop in Labour from GE17 to current polling plus Tory remainers looking for a new home. Their vote is very fluid at the moment. If Corbyn brings us no deal, Labour miss out on most of those votes. If they make it a condition of a GE then they may get most of those votes as they did in GE17.
I think those voters are now lost to Labour, Mr Above. And the Labour Party itself is now a lost cause, as everybody can see.
Yes, I agree that those votes are now lost to Labour. Corbyn dithered too long for a late conversion to be credible. I don't however see that as an existential problem for them. A change of leadership and return to a more traditional Labour approach should see it recover pretty quickly.
To me, the Tories have much bigger problems. A return to sanity and electability will not take place until Brexit is sorted. How it is sorted will determine how long their recovery takes. The optimist in me thinks it will be generations; the pessimist thinks never.
Labour have the bigger problem, former enthusiasts let alone floating voters have gone for the long term due to the Momentum hijacking.
As for the Tories, once Brexit is over I am convinced that Farage supporters will drop back into line and yes The Tories will lose a few Remainers over a problematic post Brexit economy but in the absence of a united opposition they will be fine.
Your second paragraph sounds like the HYUFD line! I'm afraid it's delusional.
How would a way be found? The point is that this is occuring with the executive not wanting an extension so how will it be found?
By agreement between the UK government and the EU. If Johnson is the PM (as he will be) he will simply have to sanction it. There will be no choice. A general election just CANNOT be fought with the UK crashing out of the EU in the middle of the campaign. It is (literally) inconceivable - even in these strange times.
Much has been spoken of a potential Tory/Brexit Party 'hard Brexit' alliance but it doesn't need to be so formal. If it comes down to a No Deal vs No Confidence vote then to get what he wants Farage just needs to be clear that the Brexit Party will stand against any MP that frustrates Brexit occuring on 31 October.
Then you have a split right vote. The Tories are not going to stand aside.
Not necessarily the case. There is a possibility that constituency associations may come out for BXP against what they see as “traitors”.
In which case every member that did that would be immediately suspended and, if the evidence was sufficient, expelled. CCHQ would impose a new candidate - probably in liaison with those members who didn't defect (note that an Association cannot 'come out for BXP' as such - only individuals can do that), and you'd still have a Tory candidate. Sure, that might seriously compromise campaign effectiveness but that can be overrated: most votes are determined on national considerations.
How would a way be found? The point is that this is occuring with the executive not wanting an extension so how will it be found?
By agreement between the UK government and the EU. If Johnson is the PM (as he will be) he will simply have to sanction it. There will be no choice. A general election just CANNOT be fought with the UK crashing out of the EU in the middle of the campaign. It is (literally) inconceivable - even in these strange times.
Why would Boris do that.
Remember earlier in this thread people stated that if offered an election on October 1st Corbyn would accept it without preconditions. Now you are saying that Boris is going to ask for an extension without being forced into asking for ir...
If there is a successful VONC under the terms of the FTPA then Corbyn DOES NOT become PM. We wait for a fortnight and if the VONC is not rescinded there is a general election at which Boris would go into as PM.
Corbyn only becomes PM if LAB is in a position after the election to form a government
No, I don't think that's right.
The FTPA clearly implies that if a government is no-confidenced, then others have the right to try to form a government. A sitting PM who had been rejected by the Commons couldn't just bed-block all alternatives.
In our specific example, Corbyn would undoubtedly claim the right to try to form a government, and would have precedent on his side, as well as the mechanics of the FTPA. In 1924, 1974 and indeed 2010, minority governments were appointed without having to prove the Commons' confidence first.
I suspect that the Palace might want an assurance that Corbyn could form a government, and paving or indicative votes could be used prior to an actual appointment and FTPA-compliant motion of confidence but if the House did indicate a majority prepared to accept Corbyn then Boris's position would be untenable and if he didn't resign then he would be dismissed, just as a PM who refused to resign after losing an election would be.
The question here is why would not just all (or very nearly all) Labour MPs but SNP, Lib Dems, independents and a few rebel Tories back a useless Marxist? To which the answer is that there's no-one else available to achieve the end of blocking No Deal. It's inconceivable that Corbyn would allow Labour to back either an MP from another party or a different MP from his own: that's the privilege of being by far the largest party in the coalition.
Such a Corbyn government might well have only a limited life-span: long enough to gain a further A50 extension in order to open up new Brexit opportunities and then to go back to the country in an inevitable general election but it would serve its purpose.
Yes, I see how that works, David. However, as indicated below, does that not mean Corbyn is left holding the extremely unpleasant tar-baby that is Brexit? He may not wish to do that.
A stop-gap GONU may then be the only answer.
Edit: Outstanding article, by the way.
A further scenario is that Corbyn, by convention, is allowed to try at a VOC but fails, and then the anti-no deal majority in the Commons has another go with a compromise candidate, conditional upon going for a GE once extension (or revocation) is done.
Why do people think that Corbyn would go for an extension if he were able to do so?
The biggest set of votes up for grabs at the next election is floating remain voters. It is probably about 20% of the electorate looking at the drop in Labour from GE17 to current polling plus Tory remainers looking for a new home. Their vote is very fluid at the moment. If Corbyn brings us no deal, Labour miss out on most of those votes. If they make it a condition of a GE then they may get most of those votes as they did in GE17.
I think those voters are now lost to Labour, Mr Above. And the Labour Party itself is now a lost cause, as everybody can see.
Yes, I agree that those votes are now lost to Labour. Corbyn dithered too long for a late conversion to be credible. I don't however see that as an existential problem for them. A change of leadership and return to a more traditional Labour approach should see it recover pretty quickly.
To me, the Tories have much bigger problems. A return to sanity and electability will not take place until Brexit is sorted. How it is sorted will determine how long their recovery takes. The optimist in me thinks it will be generations; the pessimist thinks never.
Quite the opposite: The pessimist in me thinks generations; the optimist thinks never!
Hi Icarus. Nice to hear from you again.
I was being serious. I don't want to see the permanent obliteration of the Conservative Party, but I do think it is possible.
David's point surely is though that a VNOC in itself would not stop No Deal. That requires a PM willing to ask for an Extension - which is why it would become necessary to install Corbyn having passed the VNOC.
Certainly a possibility. But if a VONC succeeds and Corbyn is NOT installed, this means general election. If we are at that juncture coming up to Brexit date, I am sure a way will be found to extend for at least the time required to hold the election and form a working government. What happens then will, of course, depend on what the outcome of the election was. Thus I do not think, in reality, that Corbyn has to be installed as PM in order to extend Brexit beyond 31 Oct.
How would a way be found? The point is that this is occuring with the executive not wanting an extension so how will it be found?
Exactly. It would be far from ideal for Boris but if the country does drop into a GE on or after Oct 31, political pressures surely require that he *doesn't* request an A50 extension so that on polling day he can neuter the Brexit Party by being able to say "we have left". To kick the can and give Labour, the LDs and SNP the chance to revoke would be Farage's Christmas come early.
The only way to extend A50 is for the govt to ask for it - and that only happens if the government wants to, which means you need a government that does want to.
Extract from yesterday's's Email from Labour addressed as usual:
Dear Liberal Democrat,
GIVE US THE FINAL SAY
Our movement has tried to unite the country and secure a Brexit deal that works for us all. But given a choice between the Tories' bad deal and a disastrous no deal, we have to go back to the people.
The next prime minister must promise a public vote. Agree? Sign your name today.
If there is a successful VONC under the terms of the FTPA then Corbyn DOES NOT become PM. We wait for a fortnight and if the VONC is not rescinded there is a general election at which Boris would go into as PM.
Corbyn only becomes PM if LAB is in a position after the election to form a government
No, I don't think that's right.
The FTPA clearly implies that if a government is no-confidenced, then others have the right to try to form a government. A sitting PM who had been rejected by the Commons couldn't just bed-block all alternatives.
In our specific example, Corbyn would undoubtedly claim the right to try to form a government, and would have precedent on his side, as well as the mechanics of the FTPA. In 1924, 1974 and indeed 2010, minority governments were appointed without having to prove the Commons' confidence first.
I suspect that the Palace might want an assurance that Corbyn could form a government, and paving or indicative votes could be used prior to an actual appointment and FTPA-compliant motion of confidence but if the House did indicate a majority prepared to accept Corbyn then Boris's position would be untenable and if he didn't resign then he would be dismissed, just as a PM who refused to resign after losing an election would be.
The question here is why would not just all (or very nearly all) Labour MPs but SNP, Lib Dems, independents and a few rebel Tories back a useless Marxist? To which the answer is that there's no-one else available to achieve the end of blocking No Deal. It's inconceivable that Corbyn would allow Labour to back either an MP from another party or a different MP from his own: that's the privilege of being by far the largest party in the coalition.
Such a Corbyn government might well have only a limited life-span: long enough to gain a further A50 extension in order to open up new Brexit opportunities and then to go back to the country in an inevitable general election but it would serve its purpose.
Yes, I see how that works, David. However, as indicated below, does that not mean Corbyn is left holding the extremely unpleasant tar-baby that is Brexit? He may not wish to do that.
A stop-gap GONU may then be the only answer.
Edit: Outstanding article, by the way.
A further scenario is that Corbyn, by convention, is allowed to try at a VOC but fails, and then the anti-no deal majority in the Commons has another go with a compromise candidate, conditional upon going for a GE once extension (or revocation) is done.
I thought Iraq knocked the crap out of them last time they had a war.
Not really. They basically fought each other to a standstill over 8 years. And that was in spite of massive western support for Iraq and their extensive use of chemical weapons.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
snip
Do the Iranians have any choice but military action when we insist on capturing Iranian vessels?
An Iranian vessel transporting oil to the Assad regime in breach even of EU sanctions.
Are diehard Remainers now only selective in backing for EU law when it suits an anti UK agenda?
Iran isn't subject to EU law.
It's a shame you weren't elected last year; you could have swung Epping Parish behind the drive to war.
That was the point the Iranian spokesman made very articulately this morning. If he is correct that the seizing of the ship was at Trumps request then we are clearly hitching our wagon to a very unstable and incontinent horse. The Iranians are nothing like the Iraquis. They are made of much sterner stuff which is why the Israelis fear them so much.
I thought Iraq knocked the crap out of them last time they had a war.
An eight year stalemate during which both sides knocked the crap out of each other. Iraq stayed in the contest only thanks to massive support in money and materiel from outside.
Any serious attack on Iran would be non trivial even for a fully committed US. And have fairly disastrous geopolitical consequences.
Assume Iran will have had lots of cash to buy shedloads of weapons and be lot stronger nowadays. Certainly no hope of UK taking them on for sure, I doubt they could take the Faroes Islands nowadays.
David's point surely is though that a VNOC in itself would not stop No Deal. That requires a PM willing to ask for an Extension - which is why it would become necessary to install Corbyn having passed the VNOC.
Certainly a possibility. But if a VONC succeeds and Corbyn is NOT installed, this means general election. If we are at that juncture coming up to Brexit date, I am sure a way will be found to extend for at least the time required to hold the election and form a working government. What happens then will, of course, depend on what the outcome of the election was. Thus I do not think, in reality, that Corbyn has to be installed as PM in order to extend Brexit beyond 31 Oct.
Yes, I think that's right. Somebody has to call an election but it need not be Corbyn. Might even be Boris, as acting PM.
So suppose we need a 1 month extension is Boris going to ask for it and suffer 5 weeks of the video saying we will leave on October 31st with the word Liar captioned over it...
It's why after the VoNC someone else will have to be appointed PM to get that extension across as Boris just can't do and continue to campaign...
Trumps obsession with the London mayor continues.. Retweeting Katie Hopkins of all things
He quotes her quite a bit. I flip between thinking he is an idiot or maybe he is cleverly manipulating by his statements. It did appear to be manipulation by forcing the Democrats to embrace the four by his attacks on them. However I am coming down on the side of him reading this Alt-Rt stuff and really taking it as a report of current events.
Is he brainwashed or doing the brain washing?
Instinct, not calculation
Ian, Can you elaborate? I'm intrigued because many years ago I came across a sociopath in a work environment. I, as did others, didn't know until I left the job and to his misfortune in my new role I was representing some of his customers and it all fell apart for him. However the complexity of the deceptions was mind boggling. a) I couldn't see how he maintained it and b) if he put that effort into being honest he could have been successful anyway.
How would a way be found? The point is that this is occuring with the executive not wanting an extension so how will it be found?
By agreement between the UK government and the EU. If Johnson is the PM (as he will be) he will simply have to sanction it. There will be no choice. A general election just CANNOT be fought with the UK crashing out of the EU in the middle of the campaign. It is (literally) inconceivable - even in these strange times.
You really need to start thinking the unthinkable.
Yes, I see how that works, David. However, as indicated below, does that not mean Corbyn is left holding the extremely unpleasant tar-baby that is Brexit? He may not wish to do that.
A stop-gap GONU may then be the only answer.
Edit: Outstanding article, by the way.
Labour holding the tar-baby and extending the deal is probably a problem for some Labour MP in leave seats but I suspect that is the case regardless?
Even if Labour went for Caroline Lucas as leader just to ask for an extension it still gives labour leave MPs the same issue with No Deal constituents.
Mind you those constituents would probably be voting for Nigel come what may so extending A50 might actually do those MPs a favour as it could shift a few remain votes in their direction.
Corbyn as PM at some point in October and then after the next election looks rather likely....
I'm not convinced there are many Labour Leave voters who are so preoccupied with Brexit they would vote for a Tory Party that has so royally f*cked things up for us all.
Not sure how the GE you evidently envisgae would pan out. That really does fog up my crystal ball. LDs would do well, and Greens, and TBP if they can organise themselves adequately. Beyond that, not sure what the numbers would look like.
Those Labour leave voters have largely moved to Farage - as you can tell from Hartlepool and other places - up north the Tories are still utterly toxic so it's elsewhere.
As for an election - no-one sane will want one but the figures don't allow anything else and Labour policy is still that they want an election - with the current figures any none-Tory government will only be seeking the extension Boris is avoiding having backed himself into a corner...
So utterly toxic that they took control of Grimsby and North-East Derbyshire councils this year.
The North is a big place and with lots of variations.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
HYUFD. Your comments on SOH and Iran last night were simply embarrassing and even now you are going all gung ho on war with Iran. The idea that we should even contemplate military strikes against Iran is madness and could trigger a middle east full on war with Saudi Israel US EU and ourselves on one side v a nuclear armed Iran and Russia on the other.
It does not bear thinking about and at least Hunt has the good sense to dial down the warmongering talk that you seem to be getting into.
And by the way I am not on the left as you well know. I hope I am part of the vast majority of sensible UK citizens
I don't want war, but then I don't want attacks on our vessels either. War may not be avoidable if this keeps escalating.
Fact that we could not even manage a strike never mind a war does not come into your thinking then.
We have missiles.
And if we fire them all at Iran we won't have them any more. And we won't have won the war either.
How many do you think we have and why would we fire them all at Iran?
I don't want war. It may come to it but I don't want it.
Perhaps we should stop meddling in the Middle East.
Enforcing international law on the free passage of trading vessels is not meddling in the.Middle East, though doubtless one aspect of the current crisis is the destabilising effect of our past meddling.
Do you think the seizure of the Iranian tanker might have influenced Iran's actions ?
If there is a successful VONC under the terms of the FTPA then Corbyn DOES NOT become PM. We wait for a fortnight and if the VONC is not rescinded there is a general election at which Boris would go into as PM.
Corbyn only becomes PM if LAB is in a position after the election to form a government
No, I don't think that's right.
The FTPA clearly implies that if a government is no-confidenced, then others have the right to try to form a government. A sitting PM who had been rejected by the Commons couldn't just bed-block all alternatives.
In our specific example, Corbyn would undoubtedly claim the right to try to form a government, and would have precedent on his side, as well as the mechanics of the FTPA. In 1924, 1974 and indeed 2010, minority governments were appointed without having to prove the Commons' confidence first.
I suspect that the Palace might want an assurance that Corbyn could form a government, and paving or indicative votes could be used prior to an actual appointment and FTPA-compliant motion of confidence but if the House did indicate a majority prepared to accept Corbyn then Boris's position would be untenable and if he didn't resign then he would be dismissed, just as a PM who refused to resign after losing an election would be.
The question here is why would not just all (or very nearly all) Labour MPs but SNP, Lib Dems, independents and a few rebel Tories back a useless Marxist? To which the answer is that there's no-one else available to achieve the end of blocking No Deal. It's inconceivable that Corbyn would allow Labour to back either an MP from another party or a different MP from his own: that's the privilege of being by far the largest party in the coalition.
Such a Corbyn government might well have only a limited life-span: long enough to gain a further A50 extension in order to open up new Brexit opportunities and then to go back to the country in an inevitable general election but it would serve its purpose.
Yes, I see how that works, David. However, as indicated below, does that not mean Corbyn is left holding the extremely unpleasant tar-baby that is Brexit? He may not wish to do that.
A stop-gap GONU may then be the only answer.
Edit: Outstanding article, by the way.
A further scenario is that Corbyn, by convention, is allowed to try at a VOC but fails, and then the anti-no deal majority in the Commons has another go with a compromise candidate, conditional upon going for a GE once extension (or revocation) is done.
I remember reading a lot of learned debate about whether Parliament could be prorogued, and the conclusion was that it was very doubtful whether prorogation could be prevented - but apparently a way has been found, and has supported by a clear majority of MPs.
When it comes down to it, Parliament is sovereign, not the Executive. Of course if Parliament had the will to do it, it could make whoever it wanted Prime Minister and send them to Brussels to do whatever it wanted. The only question is whether Parliament has the will. The majority in favour of blocking prorogation is another datum that helps us to judge whether Parliament will have the will.
David's point surely is though that a VNOC in itself would not stop No Deal. That requires a PM willing to ask for an Extension - which is why it would become necessary to install Corbyn having passed the VNOC.
Certainly a possibility. But if a VONC succeeds and Corbyn is NOT installed, this means general election. If we are at that juncture coming up to Brexit date, I am sure a way will be found to extend for at least the time required to hold the election and form a working government. What happens then will, of course, depend on what the outcome of the election was. Thus I do not think, in reality, that Corbyn has to be installed as PM in order to extend Brexit beyond 31 Oct.
Yes, I think that's right. Somebody has to call an election but it need not be Corbyn. Might even be Boris, as acting PM.
So suppose we need a 1 month extension is Boris going to ask for it and suffer 5 weeks of the video saying we will leave on October 31st with the word Liar captioned over it...
It's why after the VoNC someone else will have to be appointed PM to get that extension across as Boris just can't do and continue to campaign...
Would get us shot of the Tories , so not all bad
In the event of a temporary PM being required, any chance we could borrow that little Scottish lady? It's even conceivable she could be leader if the largest Party in the UK.
It is sister paper to the SNP propaganda leaflet, so I'm not sure how 'Britnat' to expect it to be?
It has always been one of the most rabid unionist rags and every story printed was anti independence. Massive change especially given the state of the other unionist propaganda unit, The Scotsman, which is circling the drain.
I'm beginning to wonder if Mr Luckyguy actually lives in Scotland if he hasn't noticed that the Herald is and has been pro Union.
During IndyRef2 having peeps on here breathlessly posting Tom Gordon pieces with the commentary "even the Herald has turned against the SNP" was the weirdest fucking thing.
Actually the suprise on hete that greeted the Scotsman not backing Yes was the real head scratcher.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
HYUFD. Your comments on SOH and Iran last night were simply embarrassing and even now you are going all gung ho on war with Iran. The idea that we should even contemplate military strikes against Iran is madness and could trigger a middle east full on war with Saudi Israel US EU and ourselves on one side v a nuclear armed Iran and Russia on the other.
It does not bear thinking about and at least Hunt has the good sense to dial down the warmongering talk that you seem to be getting into.
And by the way I am not on the left as you well know. I hope I am part of the vast majority of sensible UK citizens
I don't want war, but then I don't want attacks on our vessels either. War may not be avoidable if this keeps escalating.
Fact that we could not even manage a strike never mind a war does not come into your thinking then.
We have missiles.
And if we fire them all at Iran we won't have them any more. And we won't have won the war either.
How many do you think we have and why would we fire them all at Iran?
I don't want war. It may come to it but I don't want it.
Perhaps we should stop meddling in the Middle East.
Enforcing international law on the free passage of trading vessels is not meddling in the.Middle East, though doubtless one aspect of the current crisis is the destabilising effect of our past meddling.
Do you think the seizure of the Iranian tanker might have influenced Iran's actions ?
You mean enforcing a legal UN embargo?
So what are the UN going to do in return ?
Out of interest how many other countries are actively enforcing the embargo ?
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
HYUFD. Your comments on SOH and Iran last night were simply embarrassing and even now you are going all gung ho on war with Iran. The idea that we should even contemplate military strikes against Iran is madness and could trigger a middle east full on war with Saudi Israel US EU and ourselves on one side v a nuclear armed Iran and Russia on the other.
It does not bear thinking about and at least Hunt has the good sense to dial down the warmongering talk that you seem to be getting into.
And by the way I am not on the left as you well know. I hope I am part of the vast majority of sensible UK citizens
I don't want war, but then I don't want attacks on our vessels either. War may not be avoidable if this keeps escalating.
Fact that we could not even manage a strike never mind a war does not come into your thinking then.
We have missiles.
And if we fire them all at Iran we won't have them any more. And we won't have won the war either.
How many do you think we have and why would we fire them all at Iran?
I don't want war. It may come to it but I don't want it.
Perhaps we should stop meddling in the Middle East.
Enforcing international law on the free passage of trading vessels is not meddling in the.Middle East, though doubtless one aspect of the current crisis is the destabilising effect of our past meddling.
Do you think the seizure of the Iranian tanker might have influenced Iran's actions ?
I remember reading a lot of learned debate about whether Parliament could be prorogued, and the conclusion was that it was very doubtful whether prorogation could be prevented - but apparently a way has been found, and has supported by a clear majority of MPs.
When it comes down to it, Parliament is sovereign, not the Executive. Of course if Parliament had the will to do it, it could make whoever it wanted Prime Minister and send them to Brussels to do whatever it wanted. The only question is whether Parliament has the will. The majority in favour of blocking prorogation is another datum that helps us to judge whether Parliament will have the will.
Technically (but importantly), it's the crown-in-parliament which is sovereign, not parliament itself.
And the Commons couldn't necessarily force any government to do something it fundamentally didn't want to. The government could always resign.
Also, it's not clear that there has been a way found to avoid prorogation. Much more knowledgeable minds than mine have suggested that the newly-required reports could be given in written form.
But as I say, prorogation is a red herring. The government doesn't need to do it if parliament can't find a way to prevent Brexit - and short of a VoNC, I don't think it can.
Trump can get away with repeatedly saying and doing stupid things in Foreign affairs because ultimately nobody wants to mess with America. Johnson will not have the same safety net.
It depends if he's on the same side as the USA or not
You think we can be the tail that wags the dog?
Mikheil Saakashvili thought the USA had his back, but he ended up chewing his tie as Russian tanks poured across the border.
No I think we can be the tail to the USAs dog. If war occurs and I repeat I don't want it then it won't be unilateral.
The US will not go to war with Iran at the behest of the UK.
Remember earlier in this thread people stated that if offered an election on October 1st Corbyn would accept it without preconditions. Now you are saying that Boris is going to ask for an extension without being forced into asking for ir...
I think he would have to - because a GE cannot happen with a No Deal exit during the campaign.
All hypothetical IMO, in any case, since I am close to certain that he is not serious about No Deal.
I predict he will agree an extension off his own bat and thus that the 'crisis choice' of No Deal or autumn GE will not arise.
I remember reading a lot of learned debate about whether Parliament could be prorogued, and the conclusion was that it was very doubtful whether prorogation could be prevented - but apparently a way has been found, and has supported by a clear majority of MPs.
When it comes down to it, Parliament is sovereign, not the Executive. Of course if Parliament had the will to do it, it could make whoever it wanted Prime Minister and send them to Brussels to do whatever it wanted. The only question is whether Parliament has the will. The majority in favour of blocking prorogation is another datum that helps us to judge whether Parliament will have the will.
Technically (but importantly), it's the crown-in-parliament which is sovereign, not parliament itself.
And the Commons couldn't necessarily force any government to do something it fundamentally didn't want to. The government could always resign.
Also, it's not clear that there has been a way found to avoid prorogation. Much more knowledgeable minds than mine have suggested that the newly-required reports could be given in written form.
But as I say, prorogation is a red herring. The government doesn't need to do it if parliament can't find a way to prevent Brexit - and short of a VoNC, I don't think it can.
A VoNC is the way to prevent a ‘no deal’ Brexit. Everything else is noise.
Remember earlier in this thread people stated that if offered an election on October 1st Corbyn would accept it without preconditions. Now you are saying that Boris is going to ask for an extension without being forced into asking for ir...
I think he would have to - because a GE cannot happen with a No Deal exit during the campaign.
All hypothetical IMO, in any case, since I am close to certain that he is not serious about No Deal.
I predict he will agree an extension off his own bat and thus that the 'crisis choice' of No Deal or autumn GE will not arise.
Why can't it? He fought his leadership election on leaving on Oct 31 and the Brexit Party is polling 15-20%. What better way to win them back - at a time it *really* matters - than to actually deliver Brexit? The politics almost compel him *not* to seek an extension.
Extract from yesterday's's Email from Labour addressed as usual:
Dear Liberal Democrat,
GIVE US THE FINAL SAY
Our movement has tried to unite the country and secure a Brexit deal that works for us all. But given a choice between the Tories' bad deal and a disastrous no deal, we have to go back to the people.
The next prime minister must promise a public vote. Agree? Sign your name today.
Thank you so much for your support.
Team Labour
Dear Team Labour,
Well, thanks for your equivocal and massively delayed support. Although it is obviously still too little and far too late, it is good to know that one or two people left in the bunker have a guilty conscience.
However, things have moved on quite a bit. No one can say that things have been going well in the UK recently, and it is not only to do with the unrelenting balls-up of Brexit.
Large numbers of Team Labour are now Team Liberal Democrat because they recognize that just as the Liberal Democrats are the only party united against Brexit, they are also the only party that predicted that our constitution would begin to fail without reform.
The collapse of local government, the evisceration of services by "austerity" would not have happened if people had more control over their own affairs, but time and again Team Labour voted with Team Tory to centralize administration and cut budgets. The result is an absurd House of Lords franchise, a massively unfair voting system, and the tyranny of 100,000 Gammons over the rest of us.
So while the Bullshit merchants of Brexit expect that they can recover support by pushing us out of the EU against our interests as soon as possible, with or without a deal, we have found that more and more people, ex-Tory as much as ex-Labour, prefer to support a clear and honest position: "Bollock to Brexit and Bollocks to Boris", and not relying on a cadre of Communists around a tired has-been radical who tolerates Jew-hatred..
If ever you get tired of being the wall flower, feel free to leave the UK's fourth party and join the Liberal Democrats who are now in with a real chance of leading the next government.
Extract from yesterday's's Email from Labour addressed as usual:
Dear Liberal Democrat,
GIVE US THE FINAL SAY
Our movement has tried to unite the country and secure a Brexit deal that works for us all. But given a choice between the Tories' bad deal and a disastrous no deal, we have to go back to the people.
The next prime minister must promise a public vote. Agree? Sign your name today.
Thank you so much for your support.
Team Labour
Dear Team Labour,
Well, thanks for your equivocal and massively delayed support. Although it is obviously still too little and far too late, it is good to know that one or two people left in the bunker have a guilty conscience.
However, things have moved on quite a bit. No one can say that things have been going well in the UK recently, and it is not only to do with the unrelenting balls-up of Brexit.
Large numbers of Team Labour are now Team Liberal Democrat because they recognize that just as the Liberal Democrats are the only party united against Brexit, they are also the only party that predicted that our constitution would begin to fail without reform.
The collapse of local government, the evisceration of services by "austerity" would not have happened if people had more control over their own affairs, but time and again Team Labour voted with Team Tory to centralize administration and cut budgets. The result is an absurd House of Lords franchise, a massively unfair voting system, and the tyranny of 100,000 Gammons over the rest of us.
So while the Bullshit merchants of Brexit expect that they can recover support by pushing us out of the EU against our interests as soon as possible, with or without a deal, we have found that more and more people, ex-Tory as much as ex-Labour, prefer to support a clear and honest position: "Bollock to Brexit and Bollocks to Boris", and not relying on a cadre of Communists around a tired has-been radical who tolerates Jew-hatred..
If ever you get tired of being the wall flower, feel free to leave the UK's fourth party and join the Liberal Democrats who are now in with a real chance of leading the next government.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
HYUFD. Your comments on SOH and Iran last night were simply embarrassing and even now you are going all gung ho on war with Iran. The idea that we should even contemplate military strikes against Iran is madness and could trigger a middle east full on war with Saudi Israel US EU and ourselves on one side v a nuclear armed Iran and Russia on the other.
It does not bear thinking about and at least Hunt has the good sense to dial down the warmongering talk that you seem to be getting into.
And by the way I am not on the left as you well know. I hope I am part of the vast majority of sensible UK citizens
I don't want war, but then I don't want attacks on our vessels either. War may not be avoidable if this keeps escalating.
Fact that we could not even manage a strike never mind a war does not come into your thinking then.
We have missiles.
And if we fire them all at Iran we won't have them any more. And we won't have won the war either.
How many do you think we have and why would we fire them all at Iran?
I don't want war. It may come to it but I don't want it.
Perhaps we should stop meddling in the Middle East.
Enforcing international law on the free passage of trading vessels is not meddling in the.Middle East, though doubtless one aspect of the current crisis is the destabilising effect of our past meddling.
Do you think the seizure of the Iranian tanker might have influenced Iran's actions ?
You mean enforcing a legal UN embargo?
So what are the UN going to do in return ?
Out of interest how many other countries are actively enforcing the embargo ?
Apparently there is no UN embargo. They are EU sanctions.
Remember earlier in this thread people stated that if offered an election on October 1st Corbyn would accept it without preconditions. Now you are saying that Boris is going to ask for an extension without being forced into asking for ir...
I think he would have to - because a GE cannot happen with a No Deal exit during the campaign.
All hypothetical IMO, in any case, since I am close to certain that he is not serious about No Deal.
I predict he will agree an extension off his own bat and thus that the 'crisis choice' of No Deal or autumn GE will not arise.
Boris isn't serious about anything! (Well, getting into No10 and staying as long as poss, maybe, but....)
He won't ask for an extension because that would pee off the crowd that got him into office, and without any compensation whatever. He would be everyone's enemy.
He can just about survive being VONC'd, for a bit.
He might also survive No Deal, for a bit, although I suspect the reality would be so gruesome he may well wish he hadn't.
The higher level of abuse that FEMALE politicians get on social media.
And all the rest of it.
People are just that bit more comfortable spewing out hatred when the target is distaff, aren't they.
Hi, Kamala, if you're lurking on this thread. I think (I know!) that you can do it but I hope you are a tough cookie.
Let's be realistic. None of the political stuff is really as bad as "grab them by the vagina."
Under the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, Section 3, headed "Sexual Assault": (1)A person (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally touches another person (B), (b)the touching is sexual, (c)B does not consent to the touching, and (d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
I don't think any court would accept as justification under (d) that "When you’re a star they let you do it."
Out of his own mouth, Trump is clearly guilty of sexual assault. It's a disgrace that under the guise of political expediency he was wined and dined by our political leaders and the Queen was forced to entertain this person.
Remember earlier in this thread people stated that if offered an election on October 1st Corbyn would accept it without preconditions. Now you are saying that Boris is going to ask for an extension without being forced into asking for ir...
I think he would have to - because a GE cannot happen with a No Deal exit during the campaign.
All hypothetical IMO, in any case, since I am close to certain that he is not serious about No Deal.
I predict he will agree an extension off his own bat and thus that the 'crisis choice' of No Deal or autumn GE will not arise.
Boris isn't serious about anything! (Well, getting into No10 and staying as long as poss, maybe, but....)
He won't ask for an extension because that would pee off the crowd that got him into office, and without any compensation whatever. He would be everyone's enemy.
He can just about survive being VONC'd, for a bit.
He might also survive No Deal, for a bit, although I suspect the reality would be so gruesome he may well wish he hadn't.
It is beyond satire that Johnson has gone from texting Dave Cameron to say he would support Remain to becoming the PM who delivers No Deal food and meds riots.
What will be the reaction to a landslide win for the LIb Dems at Brecon with over 50% of the vote.
Well the first thing that will happen is that HYUFD will be on here telling us that it is proof of a Boris bounce, leading to a renogotiated Deal, and a landslide win for the Conversatives at the subsequent GE.
Looks like Ed Davey’s had it. Shadsy now prices him at 5/1 (from 7/2). Swinson at 1/8.
Unforced error by the Lib Dem’s at a time when they really ought to be footsure.
Was this his suggestion of support for a Corbyn government or something else?
Almost every fellow Lib Dem member that I know cast their vote on the first day that the online voting opened. I imagine that's been very much the pattern across the whole party. Nothing that's happened in the last 2 or 3 weeks will have had any impact on the result whatsoever IMHO.
Remember earlier in this thread people stated that if offered an election on October 1st Corbyn would accept it without preconditions. Now you are saying that Boris is going to ask for an extension without being forced into asking for ir...
I think he would have to - because a GE cannot happen with a No Deal exit during the campaign.
All hypothetical IMO, in any case, since I am close to certain that he is not serious about No Deal.
I predict he will agree an extension off his own bat and thus that the 'crisis choice' of No Deal or autumn GE will not arise.
Why can't it? He fought his leadership election on leaving on Oct 31 and the Brexit Party is polling 15-20%. What better way to win them back - at a time it *really* matters - than to actually deliver Brexit? The politics almost compel him *not* to seek an extension.
How many of those telling pollsters they want no deal will disappear like snow in midsummer, once they experience it ?
I remember reading a lot of learned debate about whether Parliament could be prorogued, and the conclusion was that it was very doubtful whether prorogation could be prevented - but apparently a way has been found, and has supported by a clear majority of MPs.
When it comes down to it, Parliament is sovereign, not the Executive. Of course if Parliament had the will to do it, it could make whoever it wanted Prime Minister and send them to Brussels to do whatever it wanted. The only question is whether Parliament has the will. The majority in favour of blocking prorogation is another datum that helps us to judge whether Parliament will have the will.
Technically (but importantly), it's the crown-in-parliament which is sovereign, not parliament itself.
And the Commons couldn't necessarily force any government to do something it fundamentally didn't want to. The government could always resign.
Also, it's not clear that there has been a way found to avoid prorogation. Much more knowledgeable minds than mine have suggested that the newly-required reports could be given in written form.
But as I say, prorogation is a red herring. The government doesn't need to do it if parliament can't find a way to prevent Brexit - and short of a VoNC, I don't think it can.
My point is simple enough. Parliament is sovereign - which you seem to agree with, apart from the pedantic bit of semantics about the Crown.
The question is whether Parliament has the will to exert its sovereignty. I'm saying the majority against prorogation is a piece of evidence we can use in judging that.
If Parliament did make up its mind, then the idea of a Prime Minister frustrating its will by legalistic manoeuvres lies in the realm of fantasy.
Remember earlier in this thread people stated that if offered an election on October 1st Corbyn would accept it without preconditions. Now you are saying that Boris is going to ask for an extension without being forced into asking for ir...
I think he would have to - because a GE cannot happen with a No Deal exit during the campaign.
All hypothetical IMO, in any case, since I am close to certain that he is not serious about No Deal.
I predict he will agree an extension off his own bat and thus that the 'crisis choice' of No Deal or autumn GE will not arise.
Why can't it? He fought his leadership election on leaving on Oct 31 and the Brexit Party is polling 15-20%. What better way to win them back - at a time it *really* matters - than to actually deliver Brexit? The politics almost compel him *not* to seek an extension.
How many of those telling pollsters they want no deal will disappear like snow in midsummer, once they experience it ?
1) Be careful what you wish for - it may come true 2) People aren't grateful - they will blame you for issues and take the credit for things going well even if it had nowt to do with them....
Trumps obsession with the London mayor continues.. Retweeting Katie Hopkins of all things
He quotes her quite a bit. I flip between thinking he is an idiot or maybe he is cleverly manipulating by his statements. It did appear to be manipulation by forcing the Democrats to embrace the four by his attacks on them. However I am coming down on the side of him reading this Alt-Rt stuff and really taking it as a report of current events.
Is he brainwashed or doing the brain washing?
Instinct, not calculation
Ian, Can you elaborate? I'm intrigued because many years ago I came across a sociopath in a work environment. I, as did others, didn't know until I left the job and to his misfortune in my new role I was representing some of his customers and it all fell apart for him. However the complexity of the deceptions was mind boggling. a) I couldn't see how he maintained it and b) if he put that effort into being honest he could have been successful anyway.
I don’t think he sits down and reasons out, “if I pick a fight with these four left wing Democrats, the rest of the Democratic party will surely rally around them, which will make them all look more left wing, and increase the chance that I will face a left winger in 2020, so maximising my chance of re-election”.
It’s simply an instinct that if he needles these four, his core supporters coming to his next rally will like it”. Period. If his supporters like what he is doing, and his opponents hate it, it must be right. Similarly with Hopkins. He sees her nonsense and thinks an RT will play well with the right people and upset the right people.
Looks like Ed Davey’s had it. Shadsy now prices him at 5/1 (from 7/2). Swinson at 1/8.
Unforced error by the Lib Dem’s at a time when they really ought to be footsure.
Was this his suggestion of support for a Corbyn government or something else?
Almost every fellow Lib Dem member that I know cast their vote on the first day that the online voting opened. I imagine that's been very much the pattern across the whole party. Nothing that's happened in the last 2 or 3 weeks will have had any impact on the result whatsoever IMHO.
Ditto the Tories receiving their votes for your next PM.....
Why can't it? He fought his leadership election on leaving on Oct 31 and the Brexit Party is polling 15-20%. What better way to win them back - at a time it *really* matters - than to actually deliver Brexit? The politics almost compel him *not* to seek an extension.
I think if he wants to fight an election to engineer leave 31 Oct with No Deal he will call one himself via the 2/3 route and put it in the manifesto. That seems to me more likely than the chaotic option of holding an election across the Brexit date.
That said, I don't really think either. I see him bottling both No Deal and an election.
Remember earlier in this thread people stated that if offered an election on October 1st Corbyn would accept it without preconditions. Now you are saying that Boris is going to ask for an extension without being forced into asking for ir...
I think he would have to - because a GE cannot happen with a No Deal exit during the campaign.
All hypothetical IMO, in any case, since I am close to certain that he is not serious about No Deal.
I predict he will agree an extension off his own bat and thus that the 'crisis choice' of No Deal or autumn GE will not arise.
Why can't it? He fought his leadership election on leaving on Oct 31 and the Brexit Party is polling 15-20%. What better way to win them back - at a time it *really* matters - than to actually deliver Brexit? The politics almost compel him *not* to seek an extension.
How many of those telling pollsters they want no deal will disappear like snow in midsummer, once they experience it ?
1) Be careful what you wish for - it may come true 2) People aren't grateful - they will blame you for issues and take the credit for things going well even if it had nowt to do with them....
Oh, well it will be 'the wrong type of No Deal', not what they had in mind at all, and it was foisted on us by the EU, and extremists in the X/Y/Z Party, and if Remainers hadn't opposed it so stubbornly it would have all been OK.
Comments
I reckon Boris is smart enough to see that coming. So extension beckons.
A stop-gap GONU may then be the only answer.
Edit: Outstanding article, by the way.
Johnson just deserves to fail - full stop.
The backstop exists in case no technological or political solution is found and implemented by the time the transition period is up.
Merkel notes that if a technological solution is found and implemented, the backstop won’t be used. Because it is, you know, a backstop.
And we then see the more excitable Brexiteers proclaiming “See! It’s negotiable!”
HEADDESK
It’s legitimate to say that more allowing many more flights in future will increase pollution, but building the runway in itself will be positive environmentally.
(Also worth mentioning the cost to the economy of foggy or snowy days, which currently lead to dozens of diversions and cancellations due to capacity issues at LHR).
To me, the Tories have much bigger problems. A return to sanity and electability will not take place until Brexit is sorted. How it is sorted will determine how long their recovery takes. The optimist in me thinks it will be generations; the pessimist thinks never.
Even if Labour went for Caroline Lucas as leader just to ask for an extension it still gives labour leave MPs the same issue with No Deal constituents.
Mind you those constituents would probably be voting for Nigel come what may so extending A50 might actually do those MPs a favour as it could shift a few remain votes in their direction.
Corbyn as PM at some point in October and then after the next election looks rather likely....
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1096757963870691328
Not sure how the GE you evidently envisgae would pan out. That really does fog up my crystal ball. LDs would do well, and Greens, and TBP if they can organise themselves adequately. Beyond that, not sure what the numbers would look like.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/07/what-wrong-us
Great to have such high quality debaters and commenters here at PB. The depth of expertise is mind-blowing.
Israel has been very active in acting against the Iranian nuclear program and also in disrupting their activities in Syria.
It sounded right at the time, and sounds increasingly so now.
As for the Tories, once Brexit is over I am convinced that Farage supporters will drop back into line and yes The Tories will lose a few Remainers over a problematic post Brexit economy but in the absence of a united opposition they will be fine.
Is he brainwashed or doing the brain washing?
As for an election - no-one sane will want one but the figures don't allow anything else and Labour policy is still that they want an election - with the current figures any none-Tory government will only be seeking the extension Boris is avoiding having backed himself into a corner...
A few gains gives a majority. They won't prioritise seats they can't possibly win.
I agree that there'd have to be a pseudo rainbow coalition but I think it'd have to take the form of a Lab minority headed by Corbyn but with confidence from enough others to see the A50 deadline extended far enough to allow for a GE (I don't think there'd be the political support or time for a referendum before a GE).
It's why after the VoNC someone else will have to be appointed PM to get that extension across as Boris just can't do and continue to campaign...
Instinct, not calculation
Any serious attack on Iran would be non trivial even for a fully committed US. And have fairly disastrous geopolitical consequences.
Remember earlier in this thread people stated that if offered an election on October 1st Corbyn would accept it without preconditions. Now you are saying that Boris is going to ask for an extension without being forced into asking for ir...
I was being serious. I don't want to see the permanent obliteration of the Conservative Party, but I do think it is possible.
The only way to extend A50 is for the govt to ask for it - and that only happens if the government wants to, which means you need a government that does want to.
Dear Liberal Democrat,
GIVE US THE FINAL SAY
Our movement has tried to unite the country and secure a Brexit deal that works for us all. But given a choice between the Tories' bad deal and a disastrous no deal, we have to go back to the people.
The next prime minister must promise a public vote. Agree? Sign your name today.
Thank you so much for your support.
Team Labour
"Send HER back!"
The higher level of abuse that FEMALE politicians get on social media.
And all the rest of it.
People are just that bit more comfortable spewing out hatred when the target is distaff, aren't they.
Hi, Kamala, if you're lurking on this thread. I think (I know!) that you can do it but I hope you are a tough cookie.
The North is a big place and with lots of variations.
I pride myself on it, but there are limits!
When it comes down to it, Parliament is sovereign, not the Executive. Of course if Parliament had the will to do it, it could make whoever it wanted Prime Minister and send them to Brussels to do whatever it wanted. The only question is whether Parliament has the will. The majority in favour of blocking prorogation is another datum that helps us to judge whether Parliament will have the will.
Actually the suprise on hete that greeted the Scotsman not backing Yes was the real head scratcher.
A Yazidi woman from Iraq told Trump that ISIS killed her family. ‘Where are they now?’ he asked.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-yazidi-woman-from-iraq-told-trump-that-isis-killed-her-family-where-are-they-now-he-asked/2019/07/19/cc0c83e0-aa2d-11e9-a3a6-ab670962db05_story.html
Out of interest how many other countries are actively enforcing the embargo ?
And the Commons couldn't necessarily force any government to do something it fundamentally didn't want to. The government could always resign.
Also, it's not clear that there has been a way found to avoid prorogation. Much more knowledgeable minds than mine have suggested that the newly-required reports could be given in written form.
But as I say, prorogation is a red herring. The government doesn't need to do it if parliament can't find a way to prevent Brexit - and short of a VoNC, I don't think it can.
Good afternoon, everybody.
All hypothetical IMO, in any case, since I am close to certain that he is not serious about No Deal.
I predict he will agree an extension off his own bat and thus that the 'crisis choice' of No Deal or autumn GE will not arise.
Well, thanks for your equivocal and massively delayed support. Although it is obviously still too little and far too late, it is good to know that one or two people left in the bunker have a guilty conscience.
However, things have moved on quite a bit. No one can say that things have been going well in the UK recently, and it is not only to do with the unrelenting balls-up of Brexit.
Large numbers of Team Labour are now Team Liberal Democrat because they recognize that just as the Liberal Democrats are the only party united against Brexit, they are also the only party that predicted that our constitution would begin to fail without reform.
The collapse of local government, the evisceration of services by "austerity" would not have happened if people had more control over their own affairs, but time and again Team Labour voted with Team Tory to centralize administration and cut budgets. The result is an absurd House of Lords franchise, a massively unfair voting system, and the tyranny of 100,000 Gammons over the rest of us.
So while the Bullshit merchants of Brexit expect that they can recover support by pushing us out of the EU against our interests as soon as possible, with or without a deal, we have found that more and more people, ex-Tory as much as ex-Labour, prefer to support a clear and honest position: "Bollock to Brexit and Bollocks to Boris", and not relying on a cadre of Communists around a tired has-been radical who tolerates Jew-hatred..
If ever you get tired of being the wall flower, feel free to leave the UK's fourth party and join the Liberal Democrats who are now in with a real chance of leading the next government.
Luv n Hugs,
Team Liberal Democrat
He won't ask for an extension because that would pee off the crowd that got him into office, and without any compensation whatever. He would be everyone's enemy.
He can just about survive being VONC'd, for a bit.
He might also survive No Deal, for a bit, although I suspect the reality would be so gruesome he may well wish he hadn't.
Under the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, Section 3, headed "Sexual Assault":
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
I don't think any court would accept as justification under (d) that "When you’re a star they let you do it."
Out of his own mouth, Trump is clearly guilty of sexual assault. It's a disgrace that under the guise of political expediency he was wined and dined by our political leaders and the Queen was forced to entertain this person.
Daytime with rain forecast it's reasonably normal.
The question is whether Parliament has the will to exert its sovereignty. I'm saying the majority against prorogation is a piece of evidence we can use in judging that.
If Parliament did make up its mind, then the idea of a Prime Minister frustrating its will by legalistic manoeuvres lies in the realm of fantasy.
Today's rain is grey with occasional very heavy showers..
2) People aren't grateful - they will blame you for issues and take the credit for things going well even if it had nowt to do with them....
It’s simply an instinct that if he needles these four, his core supporters coming to his next rally will like it”. Period. If his supporters like what he is doing, and his opponents hate it, it must be right. Similarly with Hopkins. He sees her nonsense and thinks an RT will play well with the right people and upset the right people.
That said, I don't really think either. I see him bottling both No Deal and an election.
Everybody else's fault.