If Dominic Grieve doesn't act now, what's the point of his anti-No Deal position?
The purpose of Cumming's article, I think, is to make Grieve and other Tory rebels think there is no point to an anti-no Deal position. Who wants to be a kamikaze pilot if your plane has no chance of sinking the ship?
In which case, Cumming doesn't want parliament to thwart No Deal Brexit.
The Tories really don’t want to fight an election in the middle of a no deal Brexit. They would be far better off scheduling it beforehand. Remember Johnson doesn’t want to be PM to deliver Brexit. He wants to deliver Brexit to become/remain PM. There is no benefit to him in ensuring a chaotic no deal Brexit if the consequence is that he gets hammered in an election as it is happening...
Actually based on Comres yesterday No Deal in the middle of a general election campaign is the only way to ensure a Tory majority for Boris
Absolutely meaningless unless you believe that no deal will be largely benign, and/or the real world effects of it happening will have no impact on voting intention.
Not meaningless at all, especially as No Deal would likely happen in the middle of an autumn general election before any negative effects had time to really filter through and with Leave voters in full 'deliver Brexit and respect the will of the people' mode
Why do you assume negative effects wouldn’t have become apparent? If an election is scheduled post Oct 31st, effectively ensuring no deal happens, then the consequences will start to become apparent long before Oct 31st.
No they won't, not siemainers
You are extremely blasé if you think that might not have an effect on your polling figures.
Diehard Remainers are extremely blasé if they think Leavers are not spitting blood at the contempt they have shown for their democratic vote to Leave the EU which they have still refused to respect. Diehard Remainers having refused to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement asked for No Deal and that is what Leavers will ensure they get.
"Too clever by half, Mr. Grieve" does come to mind....
Oh it's rising food prices today is it? When is it 'farmers put out of business by floods of cheap imported foods' day again? Are they on a rota system?
The Tories really don’t want to fight an election in the middle of a no deal Brexit. They would be far better off scheduling it beforehand. Remember Johnson doesn’t want to be PM to deliver Brexit. He wants to deliver Brexit to become/remain PM. There is no benefit to him in ensuring a chaotic no deal Brexit if the consequence is that he gets hammered in an election as it is happening...
Actually based on Comres yesterday No Deal in the middle of a general election campaign is the only way to ensure a Tory majority for Boris
Absolutely meaningless unless you believe that no deal will be largely benign, and/or the real world effects of it happening will have no impact on voting intention.
Not meaningless at all, especially as No Deal would likely happen in the middle of an autumn general election before any negative effects had time to really filter through and with Leave voters in full 'deliver Brexit and respect the will of the people' mode
Why do you assume negative effects wouldn’t have become apparent? If an election is scheduled post Oct 31st, effectively ensuring no deal happens, then the consequences will start to become apparent long before Oct 31st.
No they won't, not siemainers
You are extremely blasé if you think that might not have an effect on your polling figures.
Diehard Remainers are extremely blasé if they think Leavers are not spitting blood at the contempt they have shown for their democratic vote to Leave the EU which they have still refused to respect. Diehard Remainers having refused to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement asked for No Deal and that is what Leavers will ensure they get.
"Too clever by half, Mr. Grieve" does come to mind....
The Tories really don’t want to fight an election in the middle of a no deal Brexit. They would be far better off scheduling it beforehand. Remember Johnson doesn’t want to be PM to deliver Brexit. He wants to deliver Brexit to become/remain PM. There is no benefit to him in ensuring a chaotic no deal Brexit if the consequence is that he gets hammered in an election as it is happening...
Actually based on Comres yesterday No Deal in the middle of a general election campaign is the only way to ensure a Tory majority for Boris
Absolutely meaningless unless you believe that no deal will be largely benign, and/or the real world effects of it happening will have no impact on voting intention.
Not meaningless at all, especially as No Deal would likely happen in the middle of an autumn general election before any negative effects had time to really filter through and with Leave voters in full 'deliver Brexit and respect the will of the people' mode
Why do you assume negative effects wouldn’t have become apparent? If an election is scheduled post Oct 31st, effectively ensuring no deal happens, then the consequences will start to become apparent long before Oct 31st.
No they won't, not siemainers
You are extremely blasé if you think that might not have an effect on your polling figures.
Diehard Remainers are extremely blasé if they think Leavers are not spitting blood at the contempt they have shown for their democratic vote to Leave the EU which they have still refused to respect. Diehard Remainers having refused to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement asked for No Deal and that is what Leavers will ensure they get.
"Too clever by half, Mr. Grieve" does come to mind....
I've now read the Telegraph piece (paywalled so needed to look up the password). Cummings is wrong (or deliberately misleading, or misunderstood by the Telegraph) on a fundamental point: The key passage is:
"If the motion passed, most likely as a result of support from anti-no-deal Conservative MPs, Mr Johnson would have 14 days to win a new vote of MPs.
If the Prime Minister failed to win a new vote, he would have to call a general election.
But, as Commons officials stated in a briefing last month, the legislation gives the Prime Minister “broad legal discretion” about when the poll should take place – meaning he could use his powers to delay the process rather than trigger it immediately."
THAT SKIPS A STEP. After the VONC but before Boris can call an election, 14 days must pass while the Commons decides if it can agree on X to replace him. If they do, the election does not happen. The fact that he would decide when it was held if it happened is irrelevant.
As Byronic says, there's reasonable doubt about whether Parliament can find X with a majority. But that's not the same thing as saying that Parliament has left it too late. Parliament can stop it...if they want to. But it almost certainly does mean accepting Corbyn on a temporary basis, as I can't see an instant majority forming for someone else.
Carlotta asks (in effect) what if Corbyn (or whoever) reneges and tries to stay on? That's easy - he in turn gets VONC'd and there's an election, with the temporary PM having clearly broken his promise and most unlikely to be trusted.
Oh it's rising food prices today is it? When is it 'farmers put out of business by floods of cheap imported foods' day again? Are they on a rota system?
It's a choice. Either rising food prices or farmers out of business. We have been through this nonsense for three years now. No Leaver has ever come up with any real benefits for Brexit. They are all either abstractions or one half of a trade off that's never made.
Diehard Remainers are extremely blasé if they think Leavers are not spitting blood they get.
This isn’t a manichean duality. It’s not a Western. If you are suggesting that most Leavers want to piss on the country economically just to piss off Europhiles the you are admitting they don’t deserve to run the country. You just sit there with your pyjamas on all day posting one of the buzz phrases you have been taught at whatever Leaver re-education camp you went to - “Diehard Remainer” - this mythical beast whose spectre you raise that you so sorely want everyone to join you in a two minute hate against. The MPs that voted for against the Withdrawal Agreement were from every corner of the House. Not just remainers.
If the Conservative Party really is setting up democraticallyelected MPs in a legislature that has a fresher mandate than the referendum as a scapegoat upon which to vent fury for defying the mythical “will of the people” then it is, and I’ve thought hard about posting this and do not do so lightly, proto-fascist. Economic damage is not the will of the people. The people have or spoken on the timing or form of Brexit save through their MPs. The insanity of Cameron’s choice was not calling a referendum per se but not making explicit what happened next. Someone on my Facebook feed, who now has EU stars in her profile pic, posted before the referendum that we should vote leave because we would still be in the Single Market. She was, perhaps, slightly delusional and completely uninformed, but she was, unlike you, an actual Leaver. The people she is spitting blood at are not “Diehard Remainers”.
If my description of the Tory Party may seem intemperate to you, please reflect yourself on your constant framing of this important debate in militaristic, violent, terms. “Diehard” suggests hard to kill and you say Leavers are “spitting blood”. Violent imagery like this are not just idioms in the context of real effects on people’s lives, particularly those of us who have personal experience of the effects of the violence in NI you are playing with.
Diehard Remainers made their bed by doing everything in their will to thwart the biggest vote in post war British history, they reap what they sowed.
The vast majority of Leave MPs voted for the Withdrawal Agreement bar the DUP and a few ERG No Deal hardliners at least once including MV3, had the Withdrawal Agreement been passed the political declaration was not binding and even single market membership could have been added later.
Diehard Remainers made their bed, they must lie in it, including the angry response from Leavers they have generated by the fact we are still in the EU almost 5 months after we were due to Leave and the fact No Deal is now likely inevitable. I have no sympathy whatsoever
Which is why the rebel alliance must VONC on 3rd or 4th September.
The time for cutting ones figure nails while Rome burns is over.
Couldn't it wait a bit longer? IIUC what needs to happen is: 1) Day 1: Table a VONC 2) Day 2: Hold it, potentially also hold an indicative vote to recommend the next guy as that seems clearer than the twitter method 3) Day 3: New guy moves in, Boris moves out, new guy sends letter requesting an extension 4) Day ?: Council of Ministers meets and approves it 5) Day ?+1: Parliament passes whatever it needs to let British law know there was an extension
Seems like in theory you could start this on Monday 28th October and still get it done, although you'd want to leave some leeway for wrecking tactics, other commitments, Queen has strict instructions not to disturb her when she's playing Assassin' Creed etc.
If Dominic Grieve doesn't act now, what's the point of his anti-No Deal position?
The purpose of Cumming's article, I think, is to make Grieve and other Tory rebels think there is no point to an anti-no Deal position. Who wants to be a kamikaze pilot if your plane has no chance of sinking the ship?
In which case, Cumming doesn't want parliament to thwart No Deal Brexit.
Of course he doesn't. Whatever gave you the slightest smidgeon of the idea he did?
I've now read the Telegraph piece (paywalled so needed to look up the password). Cummings is wrong (or deliberately misleading, or misunderstood by the Telegraph) on a fundamental point: The key passage is:
"If the motion passed, most likely as a result of support from anti-no-deal Conservative MPs, Mr Johnson would have 14 days to win a new vote of MPs.
If the Prime Minister failed to win a new vote, he would have to call a general election.
But, as Commons officials stated in a briefing last month, the legislation gives the Prime Minister “broad legal discretion” about when the poll should take place – meaning he could use his powers to delay the process rather than trigger it immediately."
THAT SKIPS A STEP. After the VONC but before Boris can call an election, 14 days must pass while the Commons decides if it can agree on X to replace him. If they do, the election does not happen. The fact that he would decide when it was held if it happened is irrelevant.
As Byronic says, there's reasonable doubt about whether Parliament can find X with a majority. But that's not the same thing as saying that Parliament has left it too late. Parliament can stop it...if they want to. But it almost certainly does mean accepting Corbyn on a temporary basis, as I can't see an instant majority forming for someone else.
Carlotta asks (in effect) what if Corbyn (or whoever) reneges and tries to stay on? That's easy - he in turn gets VONC'd and there's an election, with the temporary PM having clearly broken his promise and most unlikely to be trusted.
I don't think Cummings aims to be accurate. He aims to keep Tory MPs on message. That's his job. Which in principle means keeping the path clear to No Deal before an election.
If Dominic Grieve doesn't act now, what's the point of his anti-No Deal position?
The purpose of Cumming's article, I think, is to make Grieve and other Tory rebels think there is no point to an anti-no Deal position. Who wants to be a kamikaze pilot if your plane has no chance of sinking the ship?
In which case, Cumming doesn't want parliament to thwart No Deal Brexit.
Of course he doesn't. Whatever gave you the slightest smidgeon of the idea he did?
Theories on here that he wants Parliament to thwart No Deal so Johnson can call an election on the public will not being done.
The purpose of Cumming's article, I think, is to make Grieve and other Tory rebels think there is no point to an anti-no Deal position. Who wants to be a kamikaze pilot if your plane has no chance of sinking the ship?
In which case, Cumming doesn't want parliament to thwart No Deal Brexit.
I doubt he'd assume these people hadn't read the FTPA. More likely he's talking to Telegraph readers, and the goal is to present the move to replace the PM as an obscure, sneaky parliamentary trick that nobody knew was even possible, rather than the constitution working the way it's supposed to if the PM tries to do something mental.
I don't know if that means he doesn't want it to happen or he wants it to happen and he wants to run against it in the election after it does.
If Dominic Grieve doesn't act now, what's the point of his anti-No Deal position?
The purpose of Cumming's article, I think, is to make Grieve and other Tory rebels think there is no point to an anti-no Deal position. Who wants to be a kamikaze pilot if your plane has no chance of sinking the ship?
In which case, Cumming doesn't want parliament to thwart No Deal Brexit.
Of course he doesn't. Whatever gave you the slightest smidgeon of the idea he did?
Theories on here that he wants Parliament to thwart No Deal so Johnson can call an election on the public will not being done.
Don't buy it. Rather than esoteric theorising, I prefer to rely on what people say, and what they do. Cummings wants No Deal. Boris wants what is best for Boris. At the moment that is providing a jovial public face for Cummings. Will be interesting if the suspicion arises that might not be best for him.
I suggest you read Mr Smithson’s and Mr Palmers posts. Repeating something incorrect does not make it correct.
You think that Boris Johnson would remain PM after the Queen asked someone else to form a government? Wow.
No, Boris remains PM until there is an alternative for the Queen to ask who can command the Commons.
The Queen doesn't ask anyone until she knows they can command the Commons. Without that, Boris remains until the clock runs out on day 14.
Why you keep thinking The Queen is going to against 67 years of her reign and suddenly get involved in politics is beyond me. The Queen does nothing until the politicians have agreed it, at which point she does it then the politicians ratify that they agree it.
OK, again:
IF the Queen asks someone else to form a government, Boris Johnson will no longer be prime minister.
Would it help if I wrote it ten times in succession?
What precedence do you cite for this happening?
When was the last time we had two prime ministers at once? Ye Gods!
Never, just as the Queen has never done what you're suggesting. And never will.
The Queen will call a replacement for Boris if and only if the Commons has already indicated they endorse him. The Queen won't randomly start calling replacements prior to a Commons majority being found.
The Queen has never asked someone to form a government?
I'm sorry, I don't wish to be rude, but I can't fathom the depths of your stupidity.
Good night.
Are you seriously that stupid!?
The Queen has never replaced a sitting PM with a replacement PM who can't command a majority of the Commons. Every PM she has ever called has already demonstrated they command a majority of the Commons.
Not true of Harold Wilson appointed at beginning of March 1974. He had received no assurances from the Opposition parties - but simply dared them to vote him down!
I suggest you read Mr Smithson’s and Mr Palmers posts. Repeating something incorrect does not make it correct.
You think that Boris Johnson would remain PM after the Queen asked someone else to form a government? Wow.
No, Boris remains PM until there is an alternative for the Queen to ask who can command the Commons.
The Queen doesn't ask anyone until she knows they can command the Commons. Without that, Boris remains until the clock runs out on day 14.
Why you keep thinking The Queen is going to against 67 years of her reign and suddenly get involved in politics is beyond me. The Queen does nothing until the politicians have agreed it, at which point she does it then the politicians ratify that they agree it.
OK, again:
IF the Queen asks someone else to form a government, Boris Johnson will no longer be prime minister.
Would it help if I wrote it ten times in succession?
What precedence do you cite for this happening?
When was the last time we had two prime ministers at once? Ye Gods!
Never, just as the Queen has never done what you're suggesting. And never will.
The Queen will call a replacement for Boris if and only if the Commons has already indicated they endorse him. The Queen won't randomly start calling replacements prior to a Commons majority being found.
The Queen has never asked someone to form a government?
I'm sorry, I don't wish to be rude, but I can't fathom the depths of your stupidity.
Good night.
Are you seriously that stupid!?
The Queen has never replaced a sitting PM with a replacement PM who can't command a majority of the Commons. Every PM she has ever called has already demonstrated they command a majority of the Commons.
Not true of Harold Wilson appointed at beginning of March 1974. He had received no assurances from the Opposition parties - but simply dared them to vote him down!
Wilson had more MPs than anyone else and the Queen was advised by Heath to send for him after his own talks with the Liberals went nowhere.
I suggest you read Mr Smithson’s and Mr Palmers posts. Repeating something incorrect does not make it correct.
You think that Boris Johnson would remain PM after the Queen asked someone else to form a government? Wow.
No, Boris remains PM until there is an alternative for the Queen to ask who can command the Commons.
The Queen doesn't ask anyone until she knows they can command the Commons. Without that, Boris remains until the clock runs out on day 14.
Why you keep thinking The Queen is going to against 67 years of her reign and suddenly get involved in politics is beyond me. The Queen does nothing until the politicians have agreed it, at which point she does it then the politicians ratify that they agree it.
OK, again:
IF the Queen asks someone else to form a government, Boris Johnson will no longer be prime minister.
Would it help if I wrote it ten times in succession?
What precedence do you cite for this happening?
When was the last time we had two prime ministers at once? Ye Gods!
Never, just as the Queen has never done what you're suggesting. And never will.
The Queen will call a replacement for Boris if and only if the Commons has already indicated they endorse him. The Queen won't randomly start calling replacements prior to a Commons majority being found.
The Queen has never asked someone to form a government?
I'm sorry, I don't wish to be rude, but I can't fathom the depths of your stupidity.
Good night.
Are you seriously that stupid!?
The Queen has never replaced a sitting PM with a replacement PM who can't command a majority of the Commons. Every PM she has ever called has already demonstrated they command a majority of the Commons.
Not true of Harold Wilson appointed at beginning of March 1974. He had received no assurances from the Opposition parties - but simply dared them to vote him down!
No, Heath advised HMQ to appoint him. He wasn't appointed until Heath did that.
I suggest you read Mr Smithson’s and Mr Palmers posts. Repeating something incorrect does not make it correct.
You think that Boris Johnson would remain PM after the Queen asked someone else to form a government? Wow.
No, Boris remains PM until there is an alternative for the Queen to ask who can command the Commons.
The Queen doesn't ask anyone until she knows they can command the Commons. Without that, Boris remains until the clock runs out on day 14.
Why you keep thinking The Queen is going to against 67 years of her reign and suddenly get involved in politics is beyond me. The Queen does nothing until the politicians have agreed it, at which point she does it then the politicians ratify that they agree it.
OK, again:
IF the Queen asks someone else to form a government, Boris Johnson will no longer be prime minister.
Would it help if I wrote it ten times in succession?
What precedence do you cite for this happening?
When was the last time we had two prime ministers at once? Ye Gods!
Never, just as the Queen has never done what you're suggesting. And never will.
The Queen will call a replacement for Boris if and only if the Commons has already indicated they endorse him. The Queen won't randomly start calling replacements prior to a Commons majority being found.
The Queen has never asked someone to form a government?
I'm sorry, I don't wish to be rude, but I can't fathom the depths of your stupidity.
Good night.
Are you seriously that stupid!?
The Queen has never replaced a sitting PM with a replacement PM who can't command a majority of the Commons. Every PM she has ever called has already demonstrated they command a majority of the Commons.
Not true of Harold Wilson appointed at beginning of March 1974. He had received no assurances from the Opposition parties - but simply dared them to vote him down!
No, Heath advised HMQ to appoint him. He wasn't appointed until Heath did that.
Indeed - but he had not 'already demonsrated that he could command a majority of the Commons'. He had no majority and Parliament was yet to meet. He entered into no deals with the other parties.
“In the United Kingdom, decisions as to whether the House of Commons or House of Lords should be recalled are the responsibility of the Speakers of those individual bodies, and are usually taken following a request from the government. This follows a 2001 recommendation from the Hansard Society Commission on Parliamentary Scrutiny that "the Speaker of the Commons should have the ability to recall Parliament at times of emergency".”
From Wikipedia - recall of HoC is In the hands of The Speaker. MPs should be asking for a recall. If a majority requested one then he would surely give one. Has Cummings considered this possibility?
That Telegraph story is fascinating. Has Cummings already outsmarted the Remainers? It looks like it.
le escape.
That is how i have read things so far. Set up it up as the "establishment" stopping brexit, then going for a GE as the only one who can deliver it.
But he can't call a general election on his own. He needs to be VONC'd or get 2/3rd of parliament to agree to one. The opposition might not oblige, but just tell him to get to Brussels to revoke or ask for an extension.
In which case he says no, then what?
The 14 day clock runs down and out - most likely without anyone being able to command a majority in the house. Parliament is dissolved and Boris calls a GE for Nov 1.....
The pound collapses, fuel prices go through the roof, the Nhs runs out of medicine, Mars bars disappear from the shelves, Johnson asks the EU for an extension mid campaign...
And then they realise that there is no Parliament in place to ratify the extension...
Parliament doesn't need to "ratify the extension," thankfully.
Are you sure? There was legislation passed pre March 31st.
Primary legislation? I think we established previously that the leaving date could be changed by regulations.
Regulations that must be laid in the Commons.
They can't be laid if the Commons has been dissolved, which means that under domestic law the provisions of the EU Withdrawal Act would kick in at 11pm on 31 October and the European Communities Act 1972 would be repealed.
This isn’t right.
Firstly, while regulations were needed to amend our law to reflect the extension, the extension happens whether the regulations are agreed or not. If the regulations aren’t carried we just end up with a mess and some laws potentially open to challenge, but are still in the EU.
Second, as I recall the government slipped through an amendment in the Lords that made enacting such regulations automatic rather than requiring a separate vote. I think (not 100% sure) this had ongoing rather than one off effect.
Comments
In which case, Cumming doesn't want parliament to thwart No Deal Brexit.
"If the motion passed, most likely as a result of support from anti-no-deal Conservative MPs, Mr Johnson would have 14 days to win a new vote of MPs.
If the Prime Minister failed to win a new vote, he would have to call a general election.
But, as Commons officials stated in a briefing last month, the legislation gives the Prime Minister “broad legal discretion” about when the poll should take place – meaning he could use his powers to delay the process rather than trigger it immediately."
THAT SKIPS A STEP. After the VONC but before Boris can call an election, 14 days must pass while the Commons decides if it can agree on X to replace him. If they do, the election does not happen. The fact that he would decide when it was held if it happened is irrelevant.
As Byronic says, there's reasonable doubt about whether Parliament can find X with a majority. But that's not the same thing as saying that Parliament has left it too late. Parliament can stop it...if they want to. But it almost certainly does mean accepting Corbyn on a temporary basis, as I can't see an instant majority forming for someone else.
Carlotta asks (in effect) what if Corbyn (or whoever) reneges and tries to stay on? That's easy - he in turn gets VONC'd and there's an election, with the temporary PM having clearly broken his promise and most unlikely to be trusted.
The vast majority of Leave MPs voted for the Withdrawal Agreement bar the DUP and a few ERG No Deal hardliners at least once including MV3, had the Withdrawal Agreement been passed the political declaration was not binding and even single market membership could have been added later.
Diehard Remainers made their bed, they must lie in it, including the angry response from Leavers they have generated by the fact we are still in the EU almost 5 months after we were due to Leave and the fact No Deal is now likely inevitable. I have no sympathy whatsoever
1) Day 1: Table a VONC
2) Day 2: Hold it, potentially also hold an indicative vote to recommend the next guy as that seems clearer than the twitter method
3) Day 3: New guy moves in, Boris moves out, new guy sends letter requesting an extension
4) Day ?: Council of Ministers meets and approves it
5) Day ?+1: Parliament passes whatever it needs to let British law know there was an extension
Seems like in theory you could start this on Monday 28th October and still get it done, although you'd want to leave some leeway for wrecking tactics, other commitments, Queen has strict instructions not to disturb her when she's playing Assassin' Creed etc.
I don't know if that means he doesn't want it to happen or he wants it to happen and he wants to run against it in the election after it does.
Boris wants what is best for Boris. At the moment that is providing a jovial public face for Cummings. Will be interesting if the suspicion arises that might not be best for him.
From Wikipedia - recall of HoC is In the hands of The Speaker. MPs should be asking for a recall. If a majority requested one then he would surely give one. Has Cummings considered this possibility?
Firstly, while regulations were needed to amend our law to reflect the extension, the extension happens whether the regulations are agreed or not. If the regulations aren’t carried we just end up with a mess and some laws potentially open to challenge, but are still in the EU.
Second, as I recall the government slipped through an amendment in the Lords that made enacting such regulations automatic rather than requiring a separate vote. I think (not 100% sure) this had ongoing rather than one off effect.