Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nothing up my sleeve

1356

Comments

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:



    Such a good thread this morning. Started by Alastair's excellent piece and with some great discussion.

    It hasn't been spoiled by the two resident Alt-Rights who, for me at any rate, just post repeated and repetitive rants (not Richard Tyndall who is usually considered and thought-provoking).

    It must be ghastly for you to have your Sunday morning ruined by having to listen to opposing viewpoints.

    Perhaps turn on the BBC for some respite ?

    I like 'opposing' viewpoints. I just don't like the repetitive ranting of the two who bang a gong and add little thought to the normally high standard of discussion on here.

    That point below about the People's Vote: my point was that Parliament could pass a law to 'have' a People's Vote and then take time, say until Christmas, to decide the mechanics and timescale in conjunction with the Electoral Commission.
    This Parly can’t agree on anything - apart from the Malthouse compromise.

    Which May ignored.

    Second referendum has not seen a majority either.

    It’s an election or Boris - any other breed of GONU of Corbyn-on-a-backstop+referendum ain’t happening pre an election.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469
    "For once, I want to end with a question to which I do not know the answer. Imagine there is a vote of no confidence and the government loses. There are then 14 days during which attempts to form an alternative government can be made. During those 14 days, Parliament continues to sit. Who controls the Parliamentary agenda during those 14 days? In normal circumstances, the government sets that agenda, but it has just been defeated. Would MPs take back control of that agenda? And if so, what would they do with it? That seems to me to be a very important question indeed right now."

    Alastair, I clearly recall, the VoNC defeated Labour government still proposed a budget to get some bills passed. Of course, these have to be non-controversial.
    The situation in the HoC under the circumstances you propose will be highly charged. I think the answer to your question is we are in uncharted territory in these circumstances
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,767

    Can someone remind me what the minimum timescale would be for a GE? I don't agree about the Commons being unlikely to vote 2/3rds for one. So, suppose the VONC succeeds, during the 14 day cooling off period, or immediately thereafter, it's presumably also possible to enforce a 2/3rds vote for an election?

    My question, free of the Cummings guff, is how quickly might it happen under those circs? 3 weeks?

    So an election early October is still possible or even end September?

    No - 6 - 7 weeks to organise is needed
    Who says?
    If was discussed on the media a while ago

    If you can find a definitive voice giving a minimum time please do so

    Can someone remind me what the minimum timescale would be for a GE? I don't agree about the Commons being unlikely to vote 2/3rds for one. So, suppose the VONC succeeds, during the 14 day cooling off period, or immediately thereafter, it's presumably also possible to enforce a 2/3rds vote for an election?

    My question, free of the Cummings guff, is how quickly might it happen under those circs? 3 weeks?

    So an election early October is still possible or even end September?

    No - 6 - 7 weeks to organise is needed
    Who says?
    If was discussed on the media a while ago

    If you can find a definitive voice giving a minimum time please do so
    IIRC it’s 25 working days - so bank holidays can bugger things up - though not so much a problem in late Autumn.
  • What should be baffling is the fact that despite the very very tight timeline to Halloween MPs are on a long summer holiday, and having come back from that then take a further 3 weeks off for conferences.

    I say should be because for a growing mass of "take back control"ers the idea that parliament takes back control is one that invokes horror and fury - how dare our newly restored sovereign parliament be sovereign?

    Whatever happens, pillocks will be screaming about Treason.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    eek said:



    EU workers will hold the EU and their governments to blame no matter that you could not have any critism of the wonderful EU in your eyes

    I take it you don't work in Europe and therefore aren't seeing it from the European viewpoint (I do weekly and spend a lot of time chatting to people in airport and hotel lounges)..

    We are literally a laughing stock at the moment and most people cannot understand how Boris has become the new PM even when you explain it to them.

    When we leave without a deal everyone will know who to blame and trust me it won't be the EU nor local governments...
    Spot on.

    BigG is the Welsh equivalent of the Little Englander mindset whatever that's called.

    We are a complete irrelevance to the EU in the grand scheme of things compared to the EU project.
    Then it would be in their interest to bend on something to get a deal through, otherwise we may well remain and as a bitter and reluctant and embarrassed member cause all manner of grief.
    The EU have a lot of those already (Hungary, Bulgaria...) one more really won't make much difference..
    A question of scale of disruption.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469
    edited August 2019

    A great header Alastair which provides comfort for us politically homeless types.

    Its a bit like the realisation the WOPR computer reaches at the end of War Games - "The only way to win is not to play". There are very few routes through this for Johnson's government.

    I absolutely can see a scenario where an early election motion is passed early September leading to a pre-Brexit election which will deliver God know what as a result. However, with a strong likelihood of such a motion failing to pass or not appearing or whatever, what happens when that window closes at the end of the 1st full week of September will be fascinating to observe.

    I genuinely think we will see MPs panic. Past the point of no return, but with the need to do *something* that is when the previously impossible becomes possible. And the impossible is that the parliamentary majority against No Deal asserts itself and takes control.

    I can still see the scenario where the Jezbollah death cult sits alongside the ERG and the Shagites in opposition to an emergency national government voting with them. At which point the cult will scream abuse at the "Tories" in Labour ranks voting with the Tories in government whist the Jeremy votes with Baker and Mogg...

    Remember the name, JOHN BERCOW ! He will be the big player. The player of the match
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,767

    Just heard a paper reviewer on Sky refer to a BMG poll that states 46% of the public will support no deal exit if the EU fail to negotiate

    Does anyone have a link to this poll as it seems very high


    I think the Tekegraph has an ORB poll saying some such - probably pushed off the lead by the Cummings story.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited August 2019
    So here's my bit of fun.

    Sept 3rd VONC. Gov't falls. Speaker immediately permits Parliament to seize the agenda for the following day.
    Sept 4th Parliament votes for dissolution and General Election on a 2/3rds majority
    Oct 10th General Election (or Sunday 6th)
    Oct 11th new PM goes to Brussels and extends Article 50. Parliament then passes a new PV Act or Revokes under its new mandate

    The beauty of the first three parts is that it suits Boris. He can go to the country on an Us vs Them agenda and hope to win the people. If he wins, we Brexit.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,682
    kle4 said:

    Did you know that under the FTPA a General Election doesn't have to be held on a Thursday?

    Bet you all did, but it's news to me.

    I didn't know they had to be on a Thursday now, just that that is the convention and so assumed to always be the day.
    Yes, just a convention, and whenever the Q comes up as to why, there is a surprising variety of competing explanations. Now and again elections are set for other days; there was a Wednesday local by-election just recently
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503
    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Very good posts below by Sandpit and DavidL on the FTPA. That's two wretched legacies of David Cameron: Brexit & the FTPA.

    I think if the VONC succeeds then the HoC will, indeed, seize the agenda supported by the Speaker. To do what though? I guess what they could do, to end the stalemate, is 1. Vote to extend Article 50 and 2. Enact a People's Vote. Once achieved during the 14-days then someone could try and govern.

    I dunno. I'm making it up as much as Johnson.

    Isn't that the problem at the moment - no one knows how things will play out they only know what they want the end position to be.

    An extension and second referendum is a better bet than revoke though - revoke will annoy people a second referendum with a single defined leaving the EU end state is a far better plan..
    A second referendum is almost impossible to pass, it’s a very complex piece of legislation that requires extensive consultation, it would take months of Parliamentary time even if there were a majority for it and the Lords were obliging.
    No risk that Grieve and co would just reintroduce the last referendum act with the dates changed? Its a different circumstance and blockage would be attempted but as a justification to ram it through quickly with help of the speaker?
    It still requires, for example, a six week consultation by the Electoral Commission on the form of the question, following which there is an appeals process. The campaigns need to be set up and local authorities authorised to spend the money on the mechanics of the referendum. It’s definitely not something that can be rammed through in a week against the wishes of the government.

    I’d also expect Jacob R-M as Leader of the House to challenge any stitchup between Grieve and Bercow to ram through legislation he doesn’t want.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    malcolmg said:

    eek said:



    EU workers will hold the EU and their governments to blame no matter that you could not have any critism of the wonderful EU in your eyes

    I take it you don't work in Europe and therefore aren't seeing it from the European viewpoint (I do weekly and spend a lot of time chatting to people in airport and hotel lounges)..

    We are literally a laughing stock at the moment and most people cannot understand how Boris has become the new PM even when you explain it to them.

    When we leave without a deal everyone will know who to blame and trust me it won't be the EU nor local governments...
    Agree complete laughing stock , Europeans cannot believe what is happening and think UK has gone mad.
    God forbid any european nations ever have political crises, its amazing they've all collectively avoided such an event in all their histories, and certainly recent histories. No government collapses or multiple elections a year or over successive years or separatist regions or extremist parties getting huge votes or having head of state candidates, or economic chaos or...

    How lucky they all have been
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,767
    malcolmg said:

    It is down to the fact that they are crap.

    Do they support the SNPbecause they are crap, or is it supporting the SNP that makes them crap?
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Very good posts below by Sandpit and DavidL on the FTPA. That's two wretched legacies of David Cameron: Brexit & the FTPA.

    I think if the VONC succeeds then the HoC will, indeed, seize the agenda supported by the Speaker. To do what though? I guess what they could do, to end the stalemate, is 1. Vote to extend Article 50 and 2. Enact a People's Vote. Once achieved during the 14-days then someone could try and govern.

    I dunno. I'm making it up as much as Johnson.

    Isn't that the problem at the moment - no one knows how things will play out they only know what they want the end position to be.

    An extension and second referendum is a better bet than revoke though - revoke will annoy people a second referendum with a single defined leaving the EU end state is a far better plan..
    A second referendum is almost impossible to pass, it’s a very complex piece of legislation that requires extensive consultation, it would take months of Parliamentary time even if there were a majority for it and the Lords were obliging.
    Is there a legislation which says it needs lots of consultation ? What if we went to war ? Consult first whether we should or should not ? If both Houses of Parliament wants to do something [ with the help of the Speaker ], they can do anything.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,078

    So here's my bit of fun.

    Sept 3rd VONC. Gov't falls. Speaker immediately permits Parliament to seize the agenda for the following day.
    Sept 4th Parliament votes for dissolution and General Election on a 2/3rds majority
    Oct 10th General Election (or Sunday 6th)
    Oct 11th new PM goes to Brussels and extends Article 50. Parliament then passes a new PV Act or Revokes under its new mandate

    Can't be on the 3rd - it needs to be requested when Parliament is sitting and occurs the following day - so it would be the 4th..

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    Did you know that under the FTPA a General Election doesn't have to be held on a Thursday?

    Bet you all did, but it's news to me.

    I didn't know they had to be on a Thursday now, just that that is the convention and so assumed to always be the day.
    Yes, just a convention, and whenever the Q comes up as to why, there is a surprising variety of competing explanations. Now and again elections are set for other days; there was a Wednesday local by-election just recently
    Yes, they've even been on mondays!. So any reference to hot needing to be on a Thursday in an act is unnecessary and presumably just to avoid complaint if ever used.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,078

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Can someone remind me what the minimum timescale would be for a GE? I don't agree about the Commons being unlikely to vote 2/3rds for one. So, suppose the VONC succeeds, during the 14 day cooling off period, or immediately thereafter, it's presumably also possible to enforce a 2/3rds vote for an election?

    My question, free of the Cummings guff, is how quickly might it happen under those circs? 3 weeks?

    So an election early October is still possible or even end September?

    There are by law (FTPA again, Nick Clegg has a lot to answer for with this one!) a minimum of 25 working days between dissolution and election. Combined with the 14 day window and a day between a VoC being called and the debate happening, we’re already a day short of time for a 24th October election - so it requires Parliament to be recalled over the summer to get an election before Brexit day.
    Ah ok.

    But, forgive me for pressing this, if after a VONC there is then a 2/3rds vote for a GE the 14 day window ceases to apply? In other words, can't Parliament circumvent the 14 day FTPA by going straight to the country? If they had this all in place they could dissolve on 4th September and hold a General Election as early as:

    Sunday 6th October or if they really want a Thursday then the 10th.
    For that to work, the government would need to propose the election, or another government to appear immediately with a clear majority to propose it.
    Does it actually say that in the FTPA? If Parliament seizes the agenda and passes a resolution to call an election, which it gets with a 2/3rd majority, then surely it's a done deal?

    JRM might hate it. I doubt the Speaker would.
    It says

    An early parliamentary general election is to take place if—
    (a)the House of Commons passes a motion in the form set out in subsection (2), and
    (b)if the motion is passed on a division, the number of members who vote in favour of the motion is a number equal to or greater than two thirds of the number of seats in the House (including vacant seats).

    So it doesn't state that the Government needs to ask for it. I actually don't think any request will get 440 votes at the moment though - I know as an MP I would like Boris to suffer for a while first as electorally it won't do any opposition MP any harm...
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469
    eek said:

    So here's my bit of fun.

    Sept 3rd VONC. Gov't falls. Speaker immediately permits Parliament to seize the agenda for the following day.
    Sept 4th Parliament votes for dissolution and General Election on a 2/3rds majority
    Oct 10th General Election (or Sunday 6th)
    Oct 11th new PM goes to Brussels and extends Article 50. Parliament then passes a new PV Act or Revokes under its new mandate

    Can't be on the 3rd - it needs to be requested when Parliament is sitting and occurs the following day - so it would be the 4th..

    Most of the Tories [ about 250 ] will not vote to allow immediate dissolution. So 2/3rds could be dicey but, I agree, not impossible.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 38,072

    So here's my bit of fun.

    Sept 3rd VONC. Gov't falls. Speaker immediately permits Parliament to seize the agenda for the following day.
    Sept 4th Parliament votes for dissolution and General Election on a 2/3rds majority
    Oct 10th General Election (or Sunday 6th)
    Oct 11th new PM goes to Brussels and extends Article 50. Parliament then passes a new PV Act or Revokes under its new mandate

    The beauty of the first three parts is that it suits Boris. He can go to the country on an Us vs Them agenda and hope to win the people. If he wins, we Brexit.

    You must be a hoot at parties
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688

    eek said:

    So here's my bit of fun.

    Sept 3rd VONC. Gov't falls. Speaker immediately permits Parliament to seize the agenda for the following day.
    Sept 4th Parliament votes for dissolution and General Election on a 2/3rds majority
    Oct 10th General Election (or Sunday 6th)
    Oct 11th new PM goes to Brussels and extends Article 50. Parliament then passes a new PV Act or Revokes under its new mandate

    Can't be on the 3rd - it needs to be requested when Parliament is sitting and occurs the following day - so it would be the 4th..

    Most of the Tories [ about 250 ] will not vote to allow immediate dissolution. So 2/3rds could be dicey but, I agree, not impossible.
    You don't think Boris' tories might leap at the chance to take down this Parliament via a GE? If he loses a VONC they could really big it up as The People vs Parliament: undemocratic MPs etc. etc. It would be a powerful meme.

  • Sky breaking

    Iran seize foreign tanker alleging smuggling fuel to Arab states
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,682

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Very good posts below by Sandpit and DavidL on the FTPA. That's two wretched legacies of David Cameron: Brexit & the FTPA.

    I think if the VONC succeeds then the HoC will, indeed, seize the agenda supported by the Speaker. To do what though? I guess what they could do, to end the stalemate, is 1. Vote to extend Article 50 and 2. Enact a People's Vote. Once achieved during the 14-days then someone could try and govern.

    I dunno. I'm making it up as much as Johnson.

    Isn't that the problem at the moment - no one knows how things will play out they only know what they want the end position to be.

    An extension and second referendum is a better bet than revoke though - revoke will annoy people a second referendum with a single defined leaving the EU end state is a far better plan..
    A second referendum is almost impossible to pass, it’s a very complex piece of legislation that requires extensive consultation, it would take months of Parliamentary time even if there were a majority for it and the Lords were obliging.
    Is there a legislation which says it needs lots of consultation ? What if we went to war ? Consult first whether we should or should not ? If both Houses of Parliament wants to do something [ with the help of the Speaker ], they can do anything.
    So the extension will need to be a good long one
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
  • eekeek Posts: 22,078

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Very good posts below by Sandpit and DavidL on the FTPA. That's two wretched legacies of David Cameron: Brexit & the FTPA.

    I think if the VONC succeeds then the HoC will, indeed, seize the agenda supported by the Speaker. To do what though? I guess what they could do, to end the stalemate, is 1. Vote to extend Article 50 and 2. Enact a People's Vote. Once achieved during the 14-days then someone could try and govern.

    I dunno. I'm making it up as much as Johnson.

    Isn't that the problem at the moment - no one knows how things will play out they only know what they want the end position to be.

    An extension and second referendum is a better bet than revoke though - revoke will annoy people a second referendum with a single defined leaving the EU end state is a far better plan..
    A second referendum is almost impossible to pass, it’s a very complex piece of legislation that requires extensive consultation, it would take months of Parliamentary time even if there were a majority for it and the Lords were obliging.
    Is there a legislation which says it needs lots of consultation ? What if we went to war ? Consult first whether we should or should not ? If both Houses of Parliament wants to do something [ with the help of the Speaker ], they can do anything.
    There are only 3 options on the table - revoke, May's Deal or No Deal.

    Parliament could not seriously offer May's Deal in the referendum so the options are Revoke or to leave the EU without any deal.

    So you can use the same question as before - the only thing that has changed is that the Leave the EU end state is defined as crashing out and praying...
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 38,072

    malcolmg said:

    It is down to the fact that they are crap.

    Do they support the SNPbecause they are crap, or is it supporting the SNP that makes them crap?
    How droll, they are crap and they do not always support the SNP as you well know. At least they don't take orders from London like the faux Tories.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469

    eek said:

    Can someone remind me what the minimum timescale would be for a GE? I don't agree about the Commons being unlikely to vote 2/3rds for one. So, suppose the VONC succeeds, during the 14 day cooling off period, or immediately thereafter, it's presumably also possible to enforce a 2/3rds vote for an election?

    My question, free of the Cummings guff, is how quickly might it happen under those circs? 3 weeks?

    So an election early October is still possible or even end September?

    440 people need to vote for an election - abstaining is the equivalent of voting against and given the lack of agenda for the 1st week in September making yourself busy somewhere close to London is probably the most sensible plan for MPs in early September.

    It's actually better to work backwards so assuming October 31st is all important.

    Firstly elections occur on a Thursday so the dates are October 31st, 24th, 17th, 10th...

    A new parliament takes just under 2 weeks or so between the election and a Queens speech and ideally you want that to occur before October 31st so you need an election on October 17th latest and ideally the 10th.

    Now the FTPA insists on 25 working days between the vote and the election date so (thankfully there are no bank holidays in September)..

    October 17th -> Wednesday 18th September
    October 10th -> Wednesday 11th September
    October 3rd -> Wednesday 4th September

    And I'm not 100% sure that's correct it may need to be the Tuesday not the Wednesday if other legalise is required beyond just the vote.

    A VoNC adds 2 weeks to the timetable. So for a VoNC

    Wednesday 4th -> October 17th
    Wednesday 11th -> October 24th
    Wednesday 18th -> October 31st
    Wednesday 25th -> November 17th.
    Yes my point though is that if Parliament by-passes the FTPA after a VONC by voting for a General Election on a 2/3rds majority then the 14 days is defunct. I have no doubt that they would vote for a GE, especially under those circs with a hung parliament.

    The FTPA states that General Elections no longer need to occur on Thursdays.

    Thirdly, under the circs of getting an extension there's no need for a new PM to await a Queen's Speech. Soon as they're conferred PM by the Queen they can straight to Brussels and just do it.

    So I don't see the timescale impediments that Dominic Cummings and JRM are wishing
    I am not sure the NO Dealers have 440 votes. Maybe around 400 but no more.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    eek said:

    So here's my bit of fun.

    Sept 3rd VONC. Gov't falls. Speaker immediately permits Parliament to seize the agenda for the following day.
    Sept 4th Parliament votes for dissolution and General Election on a 2/3rds majority
    Oct 10th General Election (or Sunday 6th)
    Oct 11th new PM goes to Brussels and extends Article 50. Parliament then passes a new PV Act or Revokes under its new mandate

    Can't be on the 3rd - it needs to be requested when Parliament is sitting and occurs the following day - so it would be the 4th..

    Most of the Tories [ about 250 ] will not vote to allow immediate dissolution. So 2/3rds could be dicey but, I agree, not impossible.
    You don't think Boris' tories might leap at the chance to take down this Parliament via a GE? If he loses a VONC they could really big it up as The People vs Parliament: undemocratic MPs etc. etc. It would be a powerful meme.

    I think they need to appear at least like they didn't want it to play it that way. Evil parliament forced it on them etc.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Can someone remind me what the minimum timescale would be for a GE? I don't agree about the Commons being unlikely to vote 2/3rds for one. So, suppose the VONC succeeds, during the 14 day cooling off period, or immediately thereafter, it's presumably also possible to enforce a 2/3rds vote for an election?

    My question, free of the Cummings guff, is how quickly might it happen under those circs? 3 weeks?

    So an election early October is still possible or even end September?

    There are by law (FTPA again, Nick Clegg has a lot to answer for with this one!) a minimum of 25 working days between dissolution and election. Combined with the 14 day window and a day between a VoC being called and the debate happening, we’re already a day short of time for a 24th October election - so it requires Parliament to be recalled over the summer to get an election before Brexit day.
    Ah ok.

    But, forgive me for pressing this, if after a VONC there is then a 2/3rds vote for a GE the 14 day window ceases to apply? In other words, can't Parliament circumvent the 14 day FTPA by going straight to the country? If they had this all in place they could dissolve on 4th September and hold a General Election as early as:

    Sunday 6th October or if they really want a Thursday then the 10th.
    For that to work, the government would need to propose the election, or another government to appear immediately with a clear majority to propose it.
    Does it actually say that in the FTPA? If Parliament seizes the agenda and passes a resolution to call an election, which it gets with a 2/3rd majority, then surely it's a done deal?

    JRM might hate it. I doubt the Speaker would.
    There’s no written mechanism by which Parliament can siege control of the business of the House.

    FPTA text:
    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/14/pdfs/ukpga_20110014_en.pdf
    The major issues with it are omissions, things not said that should have been.
    It simply doesn’t take account of the current situation of deadlock, it was written to cover the situation of a formal coalition breaking down. Clegg wanted to legally prevent Cameron calling an election by prerogative before 2015.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 38,072
    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    eek said:



    EU workers will hold the EU and their governments to blame no matter that you could not have any critism of the wonderful EU in your eyes

    I take it you don't work in Europe and therefore aren't seeing it from the European viewpoint (I do weekly and spend a lot of time chatting to people in airport and hotel lounges)..

    We are literally a laughing stock at the moment and most people cannot understand how Boris has become the new PM even when you explain it to them.

    When we leave without a deal everyone will know who to blame and trust me it won't be the EU nor local governments...
    Agree complete laughing stock , Europeans cannot believe what is happening and think UK has gone mad.
    God forbid any european nations ever have political crises, its amazing they've all collectively avoided such an event in all their histories, and certainly recent histories. No government collapses or multiple elections a year or over successive years or separatist regions or extremist parties getting huge votes or having head of state candidates, or economic chaos or...

    How lucky they all have been
    They are having a great laugh at UK and cannot understand the stupidity, hurtful but such is life.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Very good posts below by Sandpit and DavidL on the FTPA. That's two wretched legacies of David Cameron: Brexit & the FTPA.

    I think if the VONC succeeds then the HoC will, indeed, seize the agenda supported by the Speaker. To do what though? I guess what they could do, to end the stalemate, is 1. Vote to extend Article 50 and 2. Enact a People's Vote. Once achieved during the 14-days then someone could try and govern.

    I dunno. I'm making it up as much as Johnson.

    Isn't that the problem at the moment - no one knows how things will play out they only know what they want the end position to be.

    An extension and second referendum is a better bet than revoke though - revoke will annoy people a second referendum with a single defined leaving the EU end state is a far better plan..
    A second referendum is almost impossible to pass, it’s a very complex piece of legislation that requires extensive consultation, it would take months of Parliamentary time even if there were a majority for it and the Lords were obliging.
    Is there a legislation which says it needs lots of consultation ? What if we went to war ? Consult first whether we should or should not ? If both Houses of Parliament wants to do something [ with the help of the Speaker ], they can do anything.
    There are only 3 options on the table - revoke, May's Deal or No Deal.

    Parliament could not seriously offer May's Deal in the referendum so the options are Revoke or to leave the EU without any deal.

    So you can use the same question as before - the only thing that has changed is that the Leave the EU end state is defined as crashing out and praying...
    But thered surely be legal challenges over the wording - it might be absurd but you could see leavers using the arguments various people have had about the wording being too vague etc and thus not ok.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,356
    Foxy said:

    So what advice are they getting in EU capitals that the UK still won't No Deal? Other than relying on the pb.com Brains Trust, naturally...

    Perhaps we ought to turn our minds to what it would take to end this particular game of chicken. The back-stop time limited to five years? With a well-resourced working group on technological solutions to EU borders and trade? Meanwhile, the UK getting on with making trade deals they could sign from 1st November 2019? I suspect that package would get through Westminster. I also suspect our PM would take it as a "win". And let's face it, it's no more of a last-minute trade-off than we have become used to as EU standard operating procedure.

    The net effect would be to ensure that the trade deal needs to be negotiated and signed within five years. If Boris wants to pound his chest some more for the cameras, he can add that at the first sniff of bad faith from Brussels in those negotiations, he will walk away from the deal - in its entirety.

    But we have had three years of the establised orders of London and Brussels telling us none of this is possible. They will lose some face - and some power - if any such deal happened. May's premiership will be judged by history as three wasted years. But hey, what is a bit of egg on face compared to their trade surplus with the UK largely continuing as before, the risk of recession (from Brexit, at least) slain. Because if the EU are not prepared to revisit the Brexit departure arrangements in the light of new circumstances, some might question whether they really are an organistion whose over-riding obligation is looking after the economic interests of their members.

    Those German carmakers and Italian Prosecco farmers are leaving it a little late aren't they?
    Isn't the answer that post a no deal exit they see a weakened competitor with a poor political class fighting amongst itself and the opportunity to pick off the best of our industries and talent?

    Why then should they help us out of the hole we have dug ourselves into?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Bellingcat's early (and interesting) take on the El Paso shooting:

    https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2019/08/04/the-el-paso-shooting-and-the-gamification-of-terror/

    Of particular interest:
    "Until law enforcement, and the media, treat these shooters as part of a terrorist movement no less organized, or deadly, than ISIS or Al Qaeda, the violence will continue. There will be more killers, more gleeful celebration of body counts on 8chan, and more bloody attempts to beat the last killer’s “high score”."

    Speaking personally, I see Trump's sick and racist "Go back" comments (which Farage has allegedly said was "genius") helps feed the politics of such shooters.

    The shootings might or might not be viewed as terrorism but they are not centrally organised. Inspired, perhaps, but it is the same here. Grab the nearest weapon (here a van or even a kitchen knife, there a gun) and kill as many as possible.

    There were two mass shootings within hours of each other. The El Paso gunman published his denunciation of Hispanic immigrants and automation. It is easy to see that Trump's rhetoric may have inflamed this (and also, given the references to automation, some of Trump's opponents). Dayton: who knows?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49221936
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,506
    It seems like we're going to leave with No Deal. Contrary to media speculation and stories about missing ferries, my understanding is that we were quite well prepared last time. We shall clearly be far better prepared this time. That is really all there is to it.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469

    Sky breaking

    Iran seize foreign tanker alleging smuggling fuel to Arab states

    They are raising the ante. They believe the US have calculated having the Strait closed is too big a risk in case of all out attack. Iran has demonstrated that they can do it. So far they have not laid a single mine. That is their thinking I believe.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,659
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    So what advice are they getting in EU capitals that the UK still won't No Deal? Other than relying on the pb.com Brains Trust, naturally...

    Perhaps we ought to turn our minds to what it would take to end this particular game of chicken. The back-stop time limited to five years? With a well-resourced working group on technological solutions to EU borders and trade? Meanwhile, the UK getting on with making trade deals they could sign from 1st November 2019? I suspect that package would get through Westminster. I also suspect our PM would take it as a "win". And let's face it, it's no more of a last-minute trade-off than we have become used to as EU standard operating procedure.

    The net effect would be to ensure that the trade deal needs to be negotiated and signed within five years. If Boris wants to pound his chest some more for the cameras, he can add that at the first sniff of bad faith from Brussels in those negotiations, he will walk away from the deal - in its entirety.

    But we have had three years of the establised orders of London and Brussels telling us none of this is possible. They will lose some face - and some power - if any such deal happened. May's premiership will be judged by history as three wasted years. But hey, what is a bit of egg on face compared to their trade surplus with the UK largely continuing as before, the risk of recession (from Brexit, at least) slain. Because if the EU are not prepared to revisit the Brexit departure arrangements in the light of new circumstances, some might question whether they really are an organistion whose over-riding obligation is looking after the economic interests of their members.

    Those German carmakers and Italian Prosecco farmers are leaving it a little late aren't they?
    Isn't the answer that post a no deal exit they see a weakened competitor with a poor political class fighting amongst itself and the opportunity to pick off the best of our industries and talent?

    Why then should they help us out of the hole we have dug ourselves into?
    thats no different to the last 20 years
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201

    It seems like we're going to leave with No Deal. Contrary to media speculation and stories about missing ferries, my understanding is that we were quite well prepared last time. We shall clearly be far better prepared this time. That is really all there is to it.

    Plus the fact that the leavers in Govt now have access to all the implications or not of a no deal, whereas before the impacts were released and promoted by the pro-EU cabinet ministers.

    As an anecdotal proof point see the change in tone from the CBI and the SMMT.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    eek said:



    EU workers will hold the EU and their governments to blame no matter that you could not have any critism of the wonderful EU in your eyes

    I take it you don't work in Europe and therefore aren't seeing it from the European viewpoint (I do weekly and spend a lot of time chatting to people in airport and hotel lounges)..

    We are literally a laughing stock at the moment and most people cannot understand how Boris has become the new PM even when you explain it to them.

    When we leave without a deal everyone will know who to blame and trust me it won't be the EU nor local governments...
    Agree complete laughing stock , Europeans cannot believe what is happening and think UK has gone mad.
    God forbid any european nations ever have political crises, its amazing they've all collectively avoided such an event in all their histories, and certainly recent histories. No government collapses or multiple elections a year or over successive years or separatist regions or extremist parties getting huge votes or having head of state candidates, or economic chaos or...

    How lucky they all have been
    They are having a great laugh at UK and cannot understand the stupidity, hurtful but such is life.
    That rather misses the point that they can laugh, and this may be an egregious example of a crisis, but not understanding the stupidity is just, well, stupid when places go through their own crises, some quite recently.

    I simply do not believe Europeans are too stupid to understand the arguments for Brexit even if they think the arguments for it are themselves stupid. I think no deal is a really bad idea but I can understand why people would do it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503
    edited August 2019

    So here's my bit of fun.

    Sept 3rd VONC. Gov't falls. Speaker immediately permits Parliament to seize the agenda for the following day.
    Sept 4th Parliament votes for dissolution and General Election on a 2/3rds majority
    Oct 10th General Election (or Sunday 6th)
    Oct 11th new PM goes to Brussels and extends Article 50. Parliament then passes a new PV Act or Revokes under its new mandate

    The beauty of the first three parts is that it suits Boris. He can go to the country on an Us vs Them agenda and hope to win the people. If he wins, we Brexit.

    On Sept 4th (actually 5th), Boris whips against an election. c.100 Con MPs need to rebel that three line whip (and will be unable to stand as Conservatives at the election). He’s happy to see the clock keep running down.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,054
    edited August 2019
    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    eek said:



    EU workers will hold the EU and their governments to blame no matter that you could not have any critism of the wonderful EU in your eyes

    I take it you don't work in Europe and therefore aren't seeing it from the European viewpoint (I do weekly and spend a lot of time chatting to people in airport and hotel lounges)..

    We are literally a laughing stock at the moment and most people cannot understand how Boris has become the new PM even when you explain it to them.

    When we leave without a deal everyone will know who to blame and trust me it won't be the EU nor local governments...
    Agree complete laughing stock , Europeans cannot believe what is happening and think UK has gone mad.
    God forbid any european nations ever have political crises, its amazing they've all collectively avoided such an event in all their histories, and certainly recent histories. No government collapses or multiple elections a year or over successive years or separatist regions or extremist parties getting huge votes or having head of state candidates, or economic chaos or...

    How lucky they all have been
    The point, borne out by discussions on visits to many European countries over the past couple of months, is that the other European countries always had their crises. And we never did; we were the island of sanity in Europe. No longer.

    For them it's dog bites man; for us it's man bites dog.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    So, if some of you are right in your doubts that the HoC would summon 2/3rds majority for a General Election then surely for the predominantly Remain parliament the likeliest scenario really is a Government of National Unity?

    And the only way that will work with Corbyn is if it's on a limited timescale with the purpose of 1. extending Article 50 and then 2. Sorting out something (Spring GE or PV or both)

    And that brings me back to my point about who in such circumstances could possibly have enough presence and as little threat to command the confidence of the House?

    Ken Clarke

    I want odds please, Ladbrokes.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    So here's my bit of fun.

    Sept 3rd VONC. Gov't falls. Speaker immediately permits Parliament to seize the agenda for the following day.
    Sept 4th Parliament votes for dissolution and General Election on a 2/3rds majority
    Oct 10th General Election (or Sunday 6th)
    Oct 11th new PM goes to Brussels and extends Article 50. Parliament then passes a new PV Act or Revokes under its new mandate

    The beauty of the first three parts is that it suits Boris. He can go to the country on an Us vs Them agenda and hope to win the people. If he wins, we Brexit.

    The parliamentary arithmetic has barely changed. There was no majority for Theresa May's deal. That does not mean you can conjure up a majority for any other course of action, including revocation or a second referendum or a Ken Clark premiership.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,078
    edited August 2019
    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Very good posts below by Sandpit and DavidL on the FTPA. That's two wretched legacies of David Cameron: Brexit & the FTPA.

    I think if the VONC succeeds then the HoC will, indeed, seize the agenda supported by the Speaker. To do what though? I guess what they could do, to end the stalemate, is 1. Vote to extend Article 50 and 2. Enact a People's Vote. Once achieved during the 14-days then someone could try and govern.

    I dunno. I'm making it up as much as Johnson.

    Isn't that the problem at the moment - no one knows how things will play out they only know what they want the end position to be.

    An extension and second referendum is a better bet than revoke though - revoke will annoy people a second referendum with a single defined leaving the EU end state is a far better plan..
    A second referendum is almost impossible to pass, it’s a very complex piece of legislation that requires extensive consultation, it would take months of Parliamentary time even if there were a majority for it and the Lords were obliging.
    Is there a legislation which says it needs lots of consultation ? What if we went to war ? Consult first whether we should or should not ? If both Houses of Parliament wants to do something [ with the help of the Speaker ], they can do anything.
    There are only 3 options on the table - revoke, May's Deal or No Deal.

    Parliament could not seriously offer May's Deal in the referendum so the options are Revoke or to leave the EU without any deal.

    So you can use the same question as before - the only thing that has changed is that the Leave the EU end state is defined as crashing out and praying...
    But thered surely be legal challenges over the wording - it might be absurd but you could see leavers using the arguments various people have had about the wording being too vague etc and thus not ok.
    I suspect the question would be

    Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union on July 1st 2020 (or whatever date is appropriate post referendum)?

    Nothing else is required.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 14,025
    kle4 said:

    eek said:



    EU workers will hold the EU and their governments to blame no matter that you could not have any critism of the wonderful EU in your eyes

    I take it you don't work in Europe and therefore aren't seeing it from the European viewpoint (I do weekly and spend a lot of time chatting to people in airport and hotel lounges)..

    We are literally a laughing stock at the moment and most people cannot understand how Boris has become the new PM even when you explain it to them.

    When we leave without a deal everyone will know who to blame and trust me it won't be the EU nor local governments...
    Spot on.

    BigG is the Welsh equivalent of the Little Englander mindset whatever that's called.

    We are a complete irrelevance to the EU in the grand scheme of things compared to the EU project.
    Then it would be in their interest to bend on something to get a deal through, otherwise we may well remain and as a bitter and reluctant and embarrassed member cause all manner of grief.
    To be fair, the EU already did bend significantly with the all UK Customs Union that Theresa May asked for, only for her to scuttle it in extreme bad faith after it had previously been agreed. There's nothing now for the EU to agree to, given the existentialism of the border to Ireland and the lack of credible negotiating partners in the UK.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469
    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Very good posts below by Sandpit and DavidL on the FTPA. That's two wretched legacies of David Cameron: Brexit & the FTPA.

    I think if the VONC succeeds then the HoC will, indeed, seize the agenda supported by the Speaker. To do what though? I guess what they could do, to end the stalemate, is 1. Vote to extend Article 50 and 2. Enact a People's Vote. Once achieved during the 14-days then someone could try and govern.

    I dunno. I'm making it up as much as Johnson.

    Isn't that the problem at the moment - no one knows how things will play out they only know what they want the end position to be.

    An extension and second referendum is a better bet than revoke though - revoke will annoy people a second referendum with a single defined leaving the EU end state is a far better plan..
    A second referendum is almost impossible to pass, it’s a very complex piece of legislation that requires extensive consultation, it would take months of Parliamentary time even if there were a majority for it and the Lords were obliging.
    Is there a legislation which says it needs lots of consultation ? What if we went to war ? Consult first whether we should or should not ? If both Houses of Parliament wants to do something [ with the help of the Speaker ], they can do anything.
    There are only 3 options on the table - revoke, May's Deal or No Deal.

    Parliament could not seriously offer May's Deal in the referendum so the options are Revoke or to leave the EU without any deal.

    So you can use the same question as before - the only thing that has changed is that the Leave the EU end state is defined as crashing out and praying...
    But thered surely be legal challenges over the wording - it might be absurd but you could see leavers using the arguments various people have had about the wording being too vague etc and thus not ok.
    The Speaker will play his historical part.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    eek said:



    EU workers will hold the EU and their governments to blame no matter that you could not have any critism of the wonderful EU in your eyes

    I take it you don't work in Europe and therefore aren't seeing it from the European viewpoint (I do weekly and spend a lot of time chatting to people in airport and hotel lounges)..

    We are literally a laughing stock at the moment and most people cannot understand how Boris has become the new PM even when you explain it to them.

    When we leave without a deal everyone will know who to blame and trust me it won't be the EU nor local governments...
    Agree complete laughing stock , Europeans cannot believe what is happening and think UK has gone mad.
    God forbid any european nations ever have political crises, its amazing they've all collectively avoided such an event in all their histories, and certainly recent histories. No government collapses or multiple elections a year or over successive years or separatist regions or extremist parties getting huge votes or having head of state candidates, or economic chaos or...

    How lucky they all have been
    The point, borne out by discussions on visits to many European countries over the past couple of months, is that the other European countries always had their crises. And we never did; we were the island of sanity in Europe. No longer.

    For them it's dog bites man; for us it's man bites dog.
    If that's the case then the gleeful reports here of Europeans laughing makes even less sense, as it was already predicated on the idea they cannot understand us or that they totally ignore their own difficult times.
  • Sky breaking

    Iran seize foreign tanker alleging smuggling fuel to Arab states

    RAAB: What does that have to do with Brexit?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,054
    On topic, again, I really don't see any significant group of MPs foregoing their jobs in order to make a stand. Sounds great on paper but actually doing it? Two or three (although that is all it might take).

    It is increasingly looking like it has been Francois and Baker the master strategists.

    The only no no deal hope is that Boris sees sense and realises the enormity of his current trajectory.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503

    Sky breaking

    Iran seize foreign tanker alleging smuggling fuel to Arab states

    Yay, this is great fun to be 100 miles away from! :open_mouth:
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,767
    edited August 2019
    Yet another possibility is a vote of no confidence (VONC) in the government under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. This would trigger a 14-day countdown to a general election unless a contrary resolution that “this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s government” were passed.

    Of course, there is no guarantee that Johnson would resign as PM if he lost the first vote. He would be free to try to pass the second motion by various ploys.

    Could a Labour or a national government be formed in those 14 days? Possibly, but it would be tricky. Some mechanism would have to be found to get the Queen to sack Johnson and install a new PM before the subsequent vote of confidence. That would almost certainly require a vote in the Commons asking the Queen to do that—possibly in the form of a “Humble Address” (although this has only been used to demand papers from the government so the speaker might veto its use in this context). It seems impossible that Jeremy Corbyn could command a majority, so a national government looks more plausible, though still highly unlikely for both political and constitutional reasons. If an election were triggered, Johnson would probably enter as the incumbent PM.


    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/assume-that-johnson-is-set-on-no-deal-how-do-mps-stop-him-parliament-westminster-brexit
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    eek said:



    EU workers will hold the EU and their governments to blame no matter that you could not have any critism of the wonderful EU in your eyes

    I take it you don't work in Europe and therefore aren't seeing it from the European viewpoint (I do weekly and spend a lot of time chatting to people in airport and hotel lounges)..

    We are literally a laughing stock at the moment and most people cannot understand how Boris has become the new PM even when you explain it to them.

    When we leave without a deal everyone will know who to blame and trust me it won't be the EU nor local governments...
    I am retired but I accept EU citizens are angry with us. However, reports from Ireland show increasing anger at Varadkar and it is too simplistic to think that EU countries will not come under pressure as tens of thousands lose their jobs and markets
    EU citizens are not angry with us. Mostly they don’t care.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,876
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    It is down to the fact that they are crap.

    Do they support the SNPbecause they are crap, or is it supporting the SNP that makes them crap?
    How droll, they are crap and they do not always support the SNP as you well know. At least they don't take orders from London like the faux Tories.
    Wee Patrick can only dream of being as popular and relevant as wee Ruth.

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1157586152314089473?s=20

    If the SCons were ever honest about their membership figures it would be interesting to see what the next 6 months bring.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,506
    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    eek said:



    EU workers will hold the EU and their governments to blame no matter that you could not have any critism of the wonderful EU in your eyes

    I take it you don't work in Europe and therefore aren't seeing it from the European viewpoint (I do weekly and spend a lot of time chatting to people in airport and hotel lounges)..

    We are literally a laughing stock at the moment and most people cannot understand how Boris has become the new PM even when you explain it to them.

    When we leave without a deal everyone will know who to blame and trust me it won't be the EU nor local governments...
    Agree complete laughing stock , Europeans cannot believe what is happening and think UK has gone mad.
    God forbid any european nations ever have political crises, its amazing they've all collectively avoided such an event in all their histories, and certainly recent histories. No government collapses or multiple elections a year or over successive years or separatist regions or extremist parties getting huge votes or having head of state candidates, or economic chaos or...

    How lucky they all have been
    The point, borne out by discussions on visits to many European countries over the past couple of months, is that the other European countries always had their crises. And we never did; we were the island of sanity in Europe. No longer.

    For them it's dog bites man; for us it's man bites dog.
    A crisis whereby nothing has happened.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,054
    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    eek said:



    EU workers will hold the EU and their governments to blame no matter that you could not have any critism of the wonderful EU in your eyes

    I take it you don't work in Europe and therefore aren't seeing it from the European viewpoint (I do weekly and spend a lot of time chatting to people in airport and hotel lounges)..

    We are literally a laughing stock at the moment and most people cannot understand how Boris has become the new PM even when you explain it to them.

    When we leave without a deal everyone will know who to blame and trust me it won't be the EU nor local governments...
    Agree complete laughing stock , Europeans cannot believe what is happening and think UK has gone mad.
    God forbid any european nations ever have political crises, its amazing they've all collectively avoided such an event in all their histories, and certainly recent histories. No government collapses or multiple elections a year or over successive years or separatist regions or extremist parties getting huge votes or having head of state candidates, or economic chaos or...

    How lucky they all have been
    The point, borne out by discussions on visits to many European countries over the past couple of months, is that the other European countries always had their crises. And we never did; we were the island of sanity in Europe. No longer.

    For them it's dog bites man; for us it's man bites dog.
    If that's the case then the gleeful reports here of Europeans laughing makes even less sense, as it was already predicated on the idea they cannot understand us or that they totally ignore their own difficult times.
    You can have fallen over yourself and still laugh at someone falling over.

    Indeed it's human nature for it to be disproportionately funny.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    Ah, found it. Just got on Ken Clarke at 130/1

    :wink:
  • eekeek Posts: 22,078
    Charles said:

    eek said:



    EU workers will hold the EU and their governments to blame no matter that you could not have any critism of the wonderful EU in your eyes

    I take it you don't work in Europe and therefore aren't seeing it from the European viewpoint (I do weekly and spend a lot of time chatting to people in airport and hotel lounges)..

    We are literally a laughing stock at the moment and most people cannot understand how Boris has become the new PM even when you explain it to them.

    When we leave without a deal everyone will know who to blame and trust me it won't be the EU nor local governments...
    I am retired but I accept EU citizens are angry with us. However, reports from Ireland show increasing anger at Varadkar and it is too simplistic to think that EU countries will not come under pressure as tens of thousands lose their jobs and markets
    EU citizens are not angry with us. Mostly they don’t care.
    AS I said earlier - we just look like idiots at the moment...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,268
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    So what advice are they getting in EU capitals that the UK still won't No Deal? Other than relying on the pb.com Brains Trust, naturally...

    Perhaps we ought to turn our minds to what it would take to end this particular game of chicken. The back-stop time limited to five years? With a well-resourced working group on technological solutions to EU borders and trade? Meanwhile, the UK getting on with making trade deals they could sign from 1st November 2019? I suspect that package would get through Westminster. I also suspect our PM would take it as a "win". And let's face it, it's no more of a last-minute trade-off than we have become used to as EU standard operating procedure.

    The net effect would be to ensure that the trade deal needs to be negotiated and signed within five years. If Boris wants to pound his chest some more for the cameras, he can add that at the first sniff of bad faith from Brussels in those negotiations, he will walk away from the deal - in its entirety.

    But we have had three years of the establised orders of London and Brussels telling us none of this is possible. They will lose some face - and some power - if any such deal happened. May's premiership will be judged by history as three wasted years. But hey, what is a bit of egg on face compared to their trade surplus with the UK largely continuing as before, the risk of recession (from Brexit, at least) slain. Because if the EU are not prepared to revisit the Brexit departure arrangements in the light of new circumstances, some might question whether they really are an organistion whose over-riding obligation is looking after the economic interests of their members.

    Those German carmakers and Italian Prosecco farmers are leaving it a little late aren't they?
    Isn't the answer that post a no deal exit they see a weakened competitor with a poor political class fighting amongst itself and the opportunity to pick off the best of our industries and talent?

    Why then should they help us out of the hole we have dug ourselves into?
    I think the risk of picking off our best might be oversold - after all, they couldn't persuade TSE to go to Frankfurt.....
  • eekeek Posts: 22,078

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    So what advice are they getting in EU capitals that the UK still won't No Deal? Other than relying on the pb.com Brains Trust, naturally...

    Perhaps we ought to turn our minds to what it would take to end this particular game of chicken. The back-stop time limited to five years? With a well-resourced working group on technological solutions to EU borders and trade? Meanwhile, the UK getting on with making trade deals they could sign from 1st November 2019? I suspect that package would get through Westminster. I also suspect our PM would take it as a "win". And let's face it, it's no more of a last-minute trade-off than we have become used to as EU standard operating procedure.

    The net effect would be to ensure that the trade deal needs to be negotiated and signed within five years. If Boris wants to pound his chest some more for the cameras, he can add that at the first sniff of bad faith from Brussels in those negotiations, he will walk away from the deal - in its entirety.

    But we have had three years of the establised orders of London and Brussels telling us none of this is possible. They will lose some face - and some power - if any such deal happened. May's premiership will be judged by history as three wasted years. But hey, what is a bit of egg on face compared to their trade surplus with the UK largely continuing as before, the risk of recession (from Brexit, at least) slain. Because if the EU are not prepared to revisit the Brexit departure arrangements in the light of new circumstances, some might question whether they really are an organistion whose over-riding obligation is looking after the economic interests of their members.

    Those German carmakers and Italian Prosecco farmers are leaving it a little late aren't they?
    Isn't the answer that post a no deal exit they see a weakened competitor with a poor political class fighting amongst itself and the opportunity to pick off the best of our industries and talent?

    Why then should they help us out of the hole we have dug ourselves into?
    I think the risk of picking off our best might be oversold - after all, they couldn't persuade TSE to go to Frankfurt.....
    Probably because it's Frankfurt...
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    It's inconceivable that the Queen wouldn't call the Father of the House, Ken Clarke, to be PM if it was clear he commanded the confidence of the house for a temporary Gov't of National Unity.

    I'm liking this idea. I'm liking my bet.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 38,072
    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    eek said:



    EU workers will hold the EU and their governments to blame no matter that you could not have any critism of the wonderful EU in your eyes

    I take it you don't work in Europe and therefore aren't seeing it from the European viewpoint (I do weekly and spend a lot of time chatting to people in airport and hotel lounges)..

    We are literally a laughing stock at the moment and most people cannot understand how Boris has become the new PM even when you explain it to them.

    When we leave without a deal everyone will know who to blame and trust me it won't be the EU nor local governments...
    Agree complete laughing stock , Europeans cannot believe what is happening and think UK has gone mad.
    God forbid any european nations ever have political crises, its amazing they've all collectively avoided such an event in all their histories, and certainly recent histories. No government collapses or multiple elections a year or over successive years or separatist regions or extremist parties getting huge votes or having head of state candidates, or economic chaos or...

    How lucky they all have been
    They are having a great laugh at UK and cannot understand the stupidity, hurtful but such is life.
    That rather misses the point that they can laugh, and this may be an egregious example of a crisis, but not understanding the stupidity is just, well, stupid when places go through their own crises, some quite recently.

    I simply do not believe Europeans are too stupid to understand the arguments for Brexit even if they think the arguments for it are themselves stupid. I think no deal is a really bad idea but I can understand why people would do it.
    Given the UK has spent 3 years and cannot decide what Brexit is , how could Europeans understand the arguments. Can you give any rational explanation why people would do it.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    eek said:



    EU workers will hold the EU and their governments to blame no matter that you could not have any critism of the wonderful EU in your eyes

    I take it you don't work in Europe and therefore aren't seeing it from the European viewpoint (I do weekly and spend a lot of time chatting to people in airport and hotel lounges)..

    We are literally a laughing stock at the moment and most people cannot understand how Boris has become the new PM even when you explain it to them.

    When we leave without a deal everyone will know who to blame and trust me it won't be the EU nor local governments...
    Agree complete laughing stock , Europeans cannot believe what is happening and think UK has gone mad.
    God forbid any european nations ever have political crises, its amazing they've all collectively avoided such an event in all their histories, and certainly recent histories. No government collapses or multiple elections a year or over successive years or separatist regions or extremist parties getting huge votes or having head of state candidates, or economic chaos or...

    How lucky they all have been
    The point, borne out by discussions on visits to many European countries over the past couple of months, is that the other European countries always had their crises. And we never did; we were the island of sanity in Europe. No longer.

    For them it's dog bites man; for us it's man bites dog.
    A crisis whereby nothing has happened.
    True.
    However , a few farmers lorries blocking referneries,brought the country to a near standstill.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,816

    Bellingcat's early (and interesting) take on the El Paso shooting:

    https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2019/08/04/the-el-paso-shooting-and-the-gamification-of-terror/

    Of particular interest:
    "Until law enforcement, and the media, treat these shooters as part of a terrorist movement no less organized, or deadly, than ISIS or Al Qaeda, the violence will continue. There will be more killers, more gleeful celebration of body counts on 8chan, and more bloody attempts to beat the last killer’s “high score”."

    Speaking personally, I see Trump's sick and racist "Go back" comments (which Farage has allegedly said was "genius") helps feed the politics of such shooters.

    The shootings might or might not be viewed as terrorism but they are not centrally organised. Inspired, perhaps, but it is the same here. Grab the nearest weapon (here a van or even a kitchen knife, there a gun) and kill as many as possible.

    There were two mass shootings within hours of each other. The El Paso gunman published his denunciation of Hispanic immigrants and automation. It is easy to see that Trump's rhetoric may have inflamed this (and also, given the references to automation, some of Trump's opponents). Dayton: who knows?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49221936
    The problem with that argument is that many of the ISIS attacks were not centrally organised. Like these sad events, one attack 'inspires' another - with the darker recesses of the Internet adding encouragement in both cases.

    True, the right-wing dingbats on 8Chan et al are not a loose central organisation in the way ISIS is, but that matters little when people (or undoubtedly in some cases, organisations masquerading as people) encourage and condone such actions in the same way ISIS did.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,876
    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    eek said:



    EU workers will hold the EU and their governments to blame no matter that you could not have any critism of the wonderful EU in your eyes

    I take it you don't work in Europe and therefore aren't seeing it from the European viewpoint (I do weekly and spend a lot of time chatting to people in airport and hotel lounges)..

    We are literally a laughing stock at the moment and most people cannot understand how Boris has become the new PM even when you explain it to them.

    When we leave without a deal everyone will know who to blame and trust me it won't be the EU nor local governments...
    Agree complete laughing stock , Europeans cannot believe what is happening and think UK has gone mad.
    God forbid any european nations ever have political crises, its amazing they've all collectively avoided such an event in all their histories, and certainly recent histories. No government collapses or multiple elections a year or over successive years or separatist regions or extremist parties getting huge votes or having head of state candidates, or economic chaos or...

    How lucky they all have been
    They are having a great laugh at UK and cannot understand the stupidity, hurtful but such is life.
    That rather misses the point that they can laugh, and this may be an egregious example of a crisis, but not understanding the stupidity is just, well, stupid when places go through their own crises, some quite recently.

    I simply do not believe Europeans are too stupid to understand the arguments for Brexit even if they think the arguments for it are themselves stupid. I think no deal is a really bad idea but I can understand why people would do it.
    Perhaps it's the people who are apparently in charge of our putative no deal that inspire the laughter (from Boris all the way down), albeit the laughter would be of the incredulous mordant sort. I've even indulged in a bit of it myself.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 38,072

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    It is down to the fact that they are crap.

    Do they support the SNPbecause they are crap, or is it supporting the SNP that makes them crap?
    How droll, they are crap and they do not always support the SNP as you well know. At least they don't take orders from London like the faux Tories.
    Wee Patrick can only dream of being as popular and relevant as wee Ruth.

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1157586152314089473?s=20

    If the SCons were ever honest about their membership figures it would be interesting to see what the next 6 months bring.
    Given they can hardly fill a shed at their annual meetings it is not hard to guess, if their dark money was stopped they would be extinct in no time.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    It's inconceivable that the Queen wouldn't call the Father of the House, Ken Clarke, to be PM if it was clear he commanded the confidence of the house for a temporary Gov't of National Unity.

    I'm liking this idea. I'm liking my bet.

    This is what the Cabinet should have done a year ago to land my Hammond next PM bet.

    However, I remain sceptical you can get to Ken Clarke without going through Jeremy Corbyn.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503

    Yet another possibility is a vote of no confidence (VONC) in the government under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. This would trigger a 14-day countdown to a general election unless a contrary resolution that “this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s government” were passed.

    Of course, there is no guarantee that Johnson would resign as PM if he lost the first vote. He would be free to try to pass the second motion by various ploys.

    Could a Labour or a national government be formed in those 14 days? Possibly, but it would be tricky. Some mechanism would have to be found to get the Queen to sack Johnson and install a new PM before the subsequent vote of confidence. That would almost certainly require a vote in the Commons asking the Queen to do that—possibly in the form of a “Humble Address” (although this has only been used to demand papers from the government so the speaker might veto its use in this context). It seems impossible that Jeremy Corbyn could command a majority, so a national government looks more plausible, though still highly unlikely for both political and constitutional reasons. If an election were triggered, Johnson would probably enter as the incumbent PM.


    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/assume-that-johnson-is-set-on-no-deal-how-do-mps-stop-him-parliament-westminster-brexit

    That’s a very good piece.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 14,025
    kle4 said:



    If that's the case then the gleeful reports here of Europeans laughing makes even less sense, as it was already predicated on the idea they cannot understand us or that they totally ignore their own difficult times.

    The key point is that it's not in the EU interest to protect UK people from the consequences of their decision. There are several reasons why that's the case, some empirical some not, but all are compelling

    It is in the interest of Leave-enabling politicians precisely to protect voters from those consequences, hence the attempts to palm responsibility onto the EU.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,522
    edited August 2019


    Could a Labour or a national government be formed in those 14 days? Possibly, but it would be tricky. Some mechanism would have to be found to get the Queen to sack Johnson and install a new PM before the subsequent vote of confidence. That would almost certainly require a vote in the Commons asking the Queen to do that—possibly in the form of a “Humble Address” (although this has only been used to demand papers from the government so the speaker might veto its use in this context). It seems impossible that Jeremy Corbyn could command a majority, so a national government looks more plausible, though still highly unlikely for both political and constitutional reasons. If an election were triggered, Johnson would probably enter as the incumbent PM.

    This is a weird take. The whole point of the 14 days is to give someone else a chance to get the support of a majority of MPs and take over as PM, so it would make no sense if nobody was able to take over because they couldn't test their majority without first becoming PM, and they couldn't become PM without first testing their majority.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 38,072

    Ah, found it. Just got on Ken Clarke at 130/1

    :wink:

    A fool and his money are easily parted
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503

    It's inconceivable that the Queen wouldn't call the Father of the House, Ken Clarke, to be PM if it was clear he commanded the confidence of the house for a temporary Gov't of National Unity.

    I'm liking this idea. I'm liking my bet.

    You’re talking yourself into it. Where do 326 non-Tory and non-Labour MPs come from?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,659
    Charles said:

    eek said:



    EU workers will hold the EU and their governments to blame no matter that you could not have any critism of the wonderful EU in your eyes

    I take it you don't work in Europe and therefore aren't seeing it from the European viewpoint (I do weekly and spend a lot of time chatting to people in airport and hotel lounges)..

    We are literally a laughing stock at the moment and most people cannot understand how Boris has become the new PM even when you explain it to them.

    When we leave without a deal everyone will know who to blame and trust me it won't be the EU nor local governments...
    I am retired but I accept EU citizens are angry with us. However, reports from Ireland show increasing anger at Varadkar and it is too simplistic to think that EU countries will not come under pressure as tens of thousands lose their jobs and markets
    EU citizens are not angry with us. Mostly they don’t care.
    precisely

    the opposite of love isnt hate its indifference.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 38,072
    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    So what advice are they getting in EU capitals that the UK still won't No Deal? Other than relying on the pb.com Brains Trust, naturally...

    Perhaps we ought to turn our minds to what it would take to end this particular game of chicken. The back-stop time limited to five years? With a well-resourced working group on technological solutions to EU borders and trade? Meanwhile, the UK getting on with making trade deals they could sign from 1st November 2019? I suspect that package would get through Westminster. I also suspect our PM would take it as a "win". And let's face it, it's no more of a last-minute trade-off than we have become used to as EU standard operating procedure.

    The net effect would be to ensure that the trade deal needs to be negotiated and signed within five years. If Boris wants to pound his chest some more for the cameras, he can add that at the first sniff of bad faith from Brussels in those negotiations, he will walk away from the deal - in its entirety.

    But we have had three years of the establised orders of London and Brussels telling us none of this is possible. They will lose some face - and some power - if any such deal happened. May's premiership will be judged by history as three wasted years. But hey, what is a bit of egg on face compared to their trade surplus with the UK largely continuing as before, the risk of recession (from Brexit, at least) slain. Because if the EU are not prepared to revisit the Brexit departure arrangements in the light of new circumstances, some might question whether they really are an organistion whose over-riding obligation is looking after the economic interests of their members.

    Those German carmakers and Italian Prosecco farmers are leaving it a little late aren't they?
    Isn't the answer that post a no deal exit they see a weakened competitor with a poor political class fighting amongst itself and the opportunity to pick off the best of our industries and talent?

    Why then should they help us out of the hole we have dug ourselves into?
    I think the risk of picking off our best might be oversold - after all, they couldn't persuade TSE to go to Frankfurt.....
    Probably because it's Frankfurt...
    If that is our best God help us
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,659
    malcolmg said:

    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    So what advice are they getting in EU capitals that the UK still won't No Deal? Other than relying on the pb.com Brains Trust, naturally...

    Perhaps we ought to turn our minds to what it would take to end this particular game of chicken. The back-stop time limited to five years? With a well-resourced working group on technological solutions to EU borders and trade? Meanwhile, the UK getting on with making trade deals they could sign from 1st November 2019? I suspect that package would get through Westminster. I also suspect our PM would take it as a "win". And let's face it, it's no more of a last-minute trade-off than we have become used to as EU standard operating procedure.

    The net effect would be to ensure that the trade deal needs to be negotiated and signed within five years. If Boris wants to pound his chest some more for the cameras, he can add that at the first sniff of bad faith from Brussels in those negotiations, he will walk away from the deal - in its entirety.

    But we have had three years of the establised orders of London and Brussels telling us none of this is possible. They will lose some face - and some power - if any such deal happened. May's premiership will be judged by history as three wasted years. But hey, what is a bit of egg on face compared to their trade surplus with the UK largely continuing as before, the risk of recession (from Brexit, at least) slain. Because if the EU are not prepared to revisit the Brexit departure arrangements in the light of new circumstances, some might question whether they really are an organistion whose over-riding obligation is looking after the economic interests of their members.

    Those German carmakers and Italian Prosecco farmers are leaving it a little late aren't they?
    Isn't the answer that post a no deal exit they see a weakened competitor with a poor political class fighting amongst itself and the opportunity to pick off the best of our industries and talent?

    Why then should they help us out of the hole we have dug ourselves into?
    I think the risk of picking off our best might be oversold - after all, they couldn't persuade TSE to go to Frankfurt.....
    Probably because it's Frankfurt...
    If that is our best God help us
    He often does.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,767

    It's inconceivable that the Queen wouldn't call the Father of the House, Ken Clarke, to be PM if it was clear he commanded the confidence of the house for a temporary Gov't of National Unity.

    I'm liking this idea. I'm liking my bet.

    Do you think it conceivable that Boris would recommend that?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,506
    In a way it's quite sweet the way remainers are struggling so hard to sack the Government to prevent a policy they hate being enacted. The irony of the fact that should power have continued to flow toward the EU, we could never sack the Government to prevent anything is of course lost on the little lambs.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 38,072
    eek said:

    Charles said:

    eek said:



    EU workers will hold the EU and their governments to blame no matter that you could not have any critism of the wonderful EU in your eyes

    I take it you don't work in Europe and therefore aren't seeing it from the European viewpoint (I do weekly and spend a lot of time chatting to people in airport and hotel lounges)..

    We are literally a laughing stock at the moment and most people cannot understand how Boris has become the new PM even when you explain it to them.

    When we leave without a deal everyone will know who to blame and trust me it won't be the EU nor local governments...
    I am retired but I accept EU citizens are angry with us. However, reports from Ireland show increasing anger at Varadkar and it is too simplistic to think that EU countries will not come under pressure as tens of thousands lose their jobs and markets
    EU citizens are not angry with us. Mostly they don’t care.
    AS I said earlier - we just look like idiots at the moment...
    Given a lot of the tripe you read on here from some nutters, it is justified.
  • So, if some of you are right in your doubts that the HoC would summon 2/3rds majority for a General Election then surely for the predominantly Remain parliament the likeliest scenario really is a Government of National Unity?

    And the only way that will work with Corbyn is if it's on a limited timescale with the purpose of 1. extending Article 50 and then 2. Sorting out something (Spring GE or PV or both)

    And that brings me back to my point about who in such circumstances could possibly have enough presence and as little threat to command the confidence of the House?

    Ken Clarke

    I want odds please, Ladbrokes.

    Boris is the wrong man who eventually got to No. 10, Ken is the right man who never did... but what a way to go out if he did get a short term GNU PM role.

    Not holding my breath.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,344

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    It is down to the fact that they are crap.

    Do they support the SNPbecause they are crap, or is it supporting the SNP that makes them crap?
    How droll, they are crap and they do not always support the SNP as you well know. At least they don't take orders from London like the faux Tories.
    Wee Patrick can only dream of being as popular and relevant as wee Ruth.

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1157586152314089473?s=20

    If the SCons were ever honest about their membership figures it would be interesting to see what the next 6 months bring.
    The SNP might as well pack up now. Free to air cricket is going to save the union.

    https://twitter.com/darranmarshall/status/1157756722695614466?s=21
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,767


    Could a Labour or a national government be formed in those 14 days? Possibly, but it would be tricky. Some mechanism would have to be found to get the Queen to sack Johnson and install a new PM before the subsequent vote of confidence. That would almost certainly require a vote in the Commons asking the Queen to do that—possibly in the form of a “Humble Address” (although this has only been used to demand papers from the government so the speaker might veto its use in this context). It seems impossible that Jeremy Corbyn could command a majority, so a national government looks more plausible, though still highly unlikely for both political and constitutional reasons. If an election were triggered, Johnson would probably enter as the incumbent PM.

    This is a weird take. The whole point of the 14 days is to give someone else a chance to get the support of a majority of MPs and take over as PM, so it would make no sense if nobody was able to take over because they couldn't test their majority without first becoming PM, and they couldn't become PM without first testing their majority.
    Take it up with Prof Talbot.

    The whole point of the 14 days is to give SOMEONE (not, necessarily someone ELSE) the opportunity to gain the confidence of the house. First in line, the incumbent.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    It is down to the fact that they are crap.

    Do they support the SNPbecause they are crap, or is it supporting the SNP that makes them crap?
    How droll, they are crap and they do not always support the SNP as you well know. At least they don't take orders from London like the faux Tories.
    Wee Patrick can only dream of being as popular and relevant as wee Ruth.

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1157586152314089473?s=20

    If the SCons were ever honest about their membership figures it would be interesting to see what the next 6 months bring.
    The SNP might as well pack up now. Free to air cricket is going to save the union.

    https://twitter.com/darranmarshall/status/1157756722695614466?s=21
    Cricket big in Northern Ireland is it, or is the Mail taking us for a ride?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,522

    It's inconceivable that the Queen wouldn't call the Father of the House, Ken Clarke, to be PM if it was clear he commanded the confidence of the house for a temporary Gov't of National Unity.

    I'm liking this idea. I'm liking my bet.

    Do you think it conceivable that Boris would recommend that?
    Yes, if Ken Clarke has a declared majority and Boris has lost his, it would be Boris's job to recommend that Ken Clarke take over, and I'm almost certain Boris would do his job. If he didn't, you have a small constitutional crisis but IIUC the monarch can still take advice from someone else, so the outcome is the same except for the effect on Boris's reputation of refusing to leave the office after he was fired, which is hard to predict at this point.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,344

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    It is down to the fact that they are crap.

    Do they support the SNPbecause they are crap, or is it supporting the SNP that makes them crap?
    How droll, they are crap and they do not always support the SNP as you well know. At least they don't take orders from London like the faux Tories.
    Wee Patrick can only dream of being as popular and relevant as wee Ruth.

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1157586152314089473?s=20

    If the SCons were ever honest about their membership figures it would be interesting to see what the next 6 months bring.
    The SNP might as well pack up now. Free to air cricket is going to save the union.

    https://twitter.com/darranmarshall/status/1157756722695614466?s=21
    Cricket big in Northern Ireland is it, or is the Mail taking us for a ride?
    The Irish cricket team is already united.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_cricket_team
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    alex. said:

    TOPPING said:

    Great thread, as ever. For some of the mooted scenarios there has to be an upheaval in British politics the like of which this simple, unprepossessing Isle has not seen for generations. I don't see it.

    I see more likely that BoJo rows back. Although quite how that happens goodness only knows. But it's his premiership also don't forget.

    Quite - it’s amazing how people like HYUFD seem oblivious to the fact that Johnson’s burning motivation is to be PM, not to deliver Brexit. It is the latter driving the former, not vice versa, and a Brexit that doesn’t secure his position is useless.

    If he has an election pre Oct 31st and secures a majority then all options become open to him (and with a five year Parliament ahead his position as Tory leader will be secure - the ERG will not have the votes to remove him). An election post Oct 31st with No deal Brexit chaos swirling around him and he has no options at all.
    Not wishing to be too pedantic , but any early election held this Autumn would only have a life of 4.5 years under the terms of the FTPA - ie the following election would be due in the first week of May 2024 unless FTPA is repealed!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,356
    TOPPING said:

    On topic, again, I really don't see any significant group of MPs foregoing their jobs in order to make a stand. Sounds great on paper but actually doing it? Two or three (although that is all it might take).

    It is increasingly looking like it has been Francois and Baker the master strategists.

    The only no no deal hope is that Boris sees sense and realises the enormity of his current trajectory.

    Can I just stroke my ego and point out that I suggested this back in March? http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/13/has-the-erg-won/
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138

    eek said:

    So here's my bit of fun.
    Sept 3rd VONC. Gov't falls. Speaker immediately permits Parliament to seize the agenda for the following day.
    Sept 4th Parliament votes for dissolution and General Election on a 2/3rds majority
    Oct 10th General Election (or Sunday 6th)
    Oct 11th new PM goes to Brussels and extends Article 50. Parliament then passes a new PV Act or Revokes under its new mandate

    Can't be on the 3rd - it needs to be requested when Parliament is sitting and occurs the following day - so it would be the 4th..
    Most of the Tories [ about 250 ] will not vote to allow immediate dissolution. So 2/3rds could be dicey but, I agree, not impossible.
    You don't think Boris' tories might leap at the chance to take down this Parliament via a GE? If he loses a VONC they could really big it up as The People vs Parliament: undemocratic MPs etc. etc. It would be a powerful meme.
    Except that it would be Tory Toffs + Tax Dodgers + Foreign Interests versus Parliament and the People. With allies like that, I don`t think the Tory Toffs would come out on top again.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,876
    edited August 2019
    edit: williamglenn beat me to it!
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,522

    The whole point of the 14 days is to give SOMEONE (not, necessarily someone ELSE) the opportunity to gain the confidence of the house. First in line, the incumbent.

    The whole premise of this situation is that incumbent just had their claim to the confidence of the house tested and failed the test.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469
    edited August 2019
    No one has discussed, as far as I know, another possibility:

    What if Johnson wants an election ? I doubt it personally though.
    An election has one advantage for him. He could frame it as a No Deal Brexit but if he couldn't get it, he would try an get as favourable an exit, as he sees it, as possible.
    So, what's the difference compared to now ? If he wins he can get a deal and make the ERG redundant.
    There is one solution to the "Backstop" that I think will pass both with the EU and in the HoC. What if it was time-limited to, wait for it, until an FTA was agreed between the UK and the EU.
    The whole idea of the backstop from the EU's point of view is to have an insurance policy in case, there is no FTA. This meets it. It also meets the DUP red line. Enough MPs will vote for it.

    He could ask for an election in September. No VoNC needed.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,078

    No one has discussed, as far as I know, another possibility:

    What if Johnson wants an election ? I doubt it personally though.
    An election has one advantage for him. He could frame it as a No Deal Brexit but if he couldn't get it, he would try an get as favourable an exit, as he sees it, as possible.
    So, what's the difference compared to now ? If he wins he can get a deal and make the ERG redundant.
    There is one solution to the "Backstop" that I think will pass both with the EU and in the HoC. What if it was time-limited to, wait for it, until an FTA was agreed between the UK and the EU.
    The whole idea of the backstop from the EU's point of view is to have an insurance policy in case, there is no FTA. This meets it. It also meets the DUP red line. Enough MPs will vote for it.

    He could ask for an election in September. No VoNC needed.

    But it requires 440 MPs to vote for it and pre-conditions may be required for some parties to vote for it.

    If he asked in July he could have probably got away with it, if he asks for an election in September I could imagine Labour asking for an extension as a pre-condition just for the entertainment value...
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,054
    Cyclefree said:

    TOPPING said:

    On topic, again, I really don't see any significant group of MPs foregoing their jobs in order to make a stand. Sounds great on paper but actually doing it? Two or three (although that is all it might take).

    It is increasingly looking like it has been Francois and Baker the master strategists.

    The only no no deal hope is that Boris sees sense and realises the enormity of his current trajectory.

    Can I just stroke my ego and point out that I suggested this back in March? http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/13/has-the-erg-won/
    Stroke away. Given the huge complexities of the alternative routes Occam's Razor says we are heading for for no deal. And to be fair to the rest of us it has been obvious for some time that the do nothing strategy had and still has a very good chance of success.

    Plus of all the people to entrust our future to we picked Boris.

    What times.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,356
    Anyway thanks to @AlistairM for a very interesting header.

    I have no more idea than anyone else what will happen but am assuming that we will crash out with No Deal and that it will be a mess, if probably not Armageddon. But it will be painful and longer-lasting than people are assuming and politics will continue to be consumed by the consequences of Brexit for seemingly forever.

    Tough for all those other issues which need resolving.
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201

    No one has discussed, as far as I know, another possibility:

    What if Johnson wants an election ? I doubt it personally though.
    An election has one advantage for him. He could frame it as a No Deal Brexit but if he couldn't get it, he would try an get as favourable an exit, as he sees it, as possible.
    So, what's the difference compared to now ? If he wins he can get a deal and make the ERG redundant.
    There is one solution to the "Backstop" that I think will pass both with the EU and in the HoC. What if it was time-limited to, wait for it, until an FTA was agreed between the UK and the EU.
    The whole idea of the backstop from the EU's point of view is to have an insurance policy in case, there is no FTA. This meets it. It also meets the DUP red line. Enough MPs will vote for it.

    He could ask for an election in September. No VoNC needed.

    I think Johnson wants an election. I just think he wants it after the 31st of Oct when he either has a temp FTA in place or a no deal.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,356
    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    TOPPING said:

    On topic, again, I really don't see any significant group of MPs foregoing their jobs in order to make a stand. Sounds great on paper but actually doing it? Two or three (although that is all it might take).

    It is increasingly looking like it has been Francois and Baker the master strategists.

    The only no no deal hope is that Boris sees sense and realises the enormity of his current trajectory.

    Can I just stroke my ego and point out that I suggested this back in March? http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/13/has-the-erg-won/
    Stroke away. Given the huge complexities of the alternative routes Occam's Razor says we are heading for for no deal. And to be fair to the rest of us it has been obvious for some time that the do nothing strategy had and still has a very good chance of success.

    Plus of all the people to entrust our future to we picked Boris.

    What times.
    Well, we did not pick Boris. 92,000 elderly Conservatives did.

    Rotten boroughs in the 18th century had nothing on us.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    It's inconceivable that the Queen wouldn't call the Father of the House, Ken Clarke, to be PM if it was clear he commanded the confidence of the house for a temporary Gov't of National Unity.

    I'm liking this idea. I'm liking my bet.

    Do you think it conceivable that Boris would recommend that?
    Yes, if Ken Clarke has a declared majority and Boris has lost his, it would be Boris's job to recommend that Ken Clarke take over, and I'm almost certain Boris would do his job. If he didn't, you have a small constitutional crisis but IIUC the monarch can still take advice from someone else, so the outcome is the same except for the effect on Boris's reputation of refusing to leave the office after he was fired, which is hard to predict at this point.
    How does Ken Clarke get a declared majority without Jeremy Corbyn being PM for a few days in between? (Not to mention that Boris would prefer to face Corbyn at an election, to having to resign the party leadership if Clarke takes over.)

    Jeremy Corbyn is leader of the second largest party, and of HM's loyal Opposition, so it is hard to see how the Palace can overlook his claims in favour of a superannuated Tory backbencher even if Clarke could somehow unite the ERG with Labour backbenchers in his favour.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    eek said:

    No one has discussed, as far as I know, another possibility:

    What if Johnson wants an election ? I doubt it personally though.
    An election has one advantage for him. He could frame it as a No Deal Brexit but if he couldn't get it, he would try an get as favourable an exit, as he sees it, as possible.
    So, what's the difference compared to now ? If he wins he can get a deal and make the ERG redundant.
    There is one solution to the "Backstop" that I think will pass both with the EU and in the HoC. What if it was time-limited to, wait for it, until an FTA was agreed between the UK and the EU.
    The whole idea of the backstop from the EU's point of view is to have an insurance policy in case, there is no FTA. This meets it. It also meets the DUP red line. Enough MPs will vote for it.

    He could ask for an election in September. No VoNC needed.

    But it requires 440 MPs to vote for it and pre-conditions may be required for some parties to vote for it.

    If he asked in July he could have probably got away with it, if he asks for an election in September I could imagine Labour asking for an extension as a pre-condition just for the entertainment value...
    Yes, extend for 5 years and ...
    the one after that is for 25.

    Brexit is sorted. Now

    1 Govern the country
    2 Argue about the EU in spare moments only, after 1.

    But as part of 1, counteract 25 years of rabid Murdoch/Barclay/Rothermere progaganda and inform the public better how the EU works, the fact that it has fewer staff than B'ham City Council - er, I'm guessing on that - and that it has an indirectly-elected 'executive' and 'senate', which is democracy. If we want more 'democracy', we'd have to become slightly more like a federal country.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Some Lab members have been radicalised by Corbyn into becoming anti-Semitic says report:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/04/jeremy-corbyns-leadership-has-radicalised-labour-members-attacking/
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,052
    Sandpit said:


    For that to work, the government would need to propose the election, or another government to appear immediately with a clear majority to propose it. Johnson won’t resign until it’s clear that someone else has a majority. I don’t see how there’s a majority to install Corbyn and, much as some people wish it to be true, there aren’t several hundred Lab and Con MPs willing to be expelled from their parties to form some other government against the wishes of Johnson and Corbyn.

    I think you're right that it only works with Corbyn, but I also think that a sufficient number of non-Labour MPs would live with that so long as the terms were suspension of withdrawal and an immediate GE (which the EU would IMO agree to). In general, Corbyn isn't personally hated by most MPs, they just don't want a far-left government. They would expect him to deliver what was promised (and would be able to VONC him if he didn't), and the non-Labour people would think there was a fair chance of defeating Corbyn-led Labour in the ensuing election, threreby avoiding both the Scylla of No Deal and (as they see it) the Charybdis of far-left government.

    It's fairly easy for tthe LibDems and SNP, who have nothing to fear from an election. It would need half a dozen Tories of the Clarke type, eyeing retirement or putting the national interest first. I think theree would be enough.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 38,072

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    It is down to the fact that they are crap.

    Do they support the SNPbecause they are crap, or is it supporting the SNP that makes them crap?
    How droll, they are crap and they do not always support the SNP as you well know. At least they don't take orders from London like the faux Tories.
    Wee Patrick can only dream of being as popular and relevant as wee Ruth.

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1157586152314089473?s=20

    If the SCons were ever honest about their membership figures it would be interesting to see what the next 6 months bring.
    The SNP might as well pack up now. Free to air cricket is going to save the union.

    https://twitter.com/darranmarshall/status/1157756722695614466?s=21
    Cricket big in Northern Ireland is it, or is the Mail taking us for a ride?
    Never mind that , I cannot wait to get my red , white and blue numberplate.
  • Sandpit said:

    It's inconceivable that the Queen wouldn't call the Father of the House, Ken Clarke, to be PM if it was clear he commanded the confidence of the house for a temporary Gov't of National Unity.

    I'm liking this idea. I'm liking my bet.

    You’re talking yourself into it. Where do 326 non-Tory and non-Labour MPs come from?
    Most Labour MPs want to stop No Deal. They also know that the Jeremy - or at least the stalinists - really want it to happen and they consider his feet dragging to be a significant part of how we got here.

    We saw the bulk of Labour MPs defy Corbyn to back Grieve. I can see more defiance. There's your majority.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Tice in Telegraph: "The Tories must form an electoral pact with the Brexit Party – or else they risk being annihilated"

    Has he cleared this with Farage?
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469

    No one has discussed, as far as I know, another possibility:

    What if Johnson wants an election ? I doubt it personally though.
    An election has one advantage for him. He could frame it as a No Deal Brexit but if he couldn't get it, he would try an get as favourable an exit, as he sees it, as possible.
    So, what's the difference compared to now ? If he wins he can get a deal and make the ERG redundant.
    There is one solution to the "Backstop" that I think will pass both with the EU and in the HoC. What if it was time-limited to, wait for it, until an FTA was agreed between the UK and the EU.
    The whole idea of the backstop from the EU's point of view is to have an insurance policy in case, there is no FTA. This meets it. It also meets the DUP red line. Enough MPs will vote for it.

    He could ask for an election in September. No VoNC needed.

    I think Johnson wants an election. I just think he wants it after the 31st of Oct when he either has a temp FTA in place or a no deal.
    He cannot have a temporary FTA. An FTA will take 5 years. It needs just one objection, e.g. Wallonia. A temporary extension is an extension of Article 50.
This discussion has been closed.