Swinson certainly gives the LDs the best chance of the Unionist parties of making progress against the SNP in the next general election for Westminster (though her seat remains marginal) but on that poll Ruth Davidson is even more popular than Swinson in Scotland so remains the best hope for a Unionist First Minister
By best hope you mean absolutely NO hope, for either of the donkeys. Davidson will need to be sure she is also top of List so she gets a booby prize , even if somewhat embarrassing.
The LDs would back Davidson for First Minister of Scotland even if they would not back Boris for UK PM
They will never get more than 50% of the seats in a million years
The SNP is polling below its 2016 share in the latest Holyrood polls, just 42% on the constituency vote and 39% on the regional vote compared to 47% and 42% in 2016
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Quite.
Parliament has been Stakhanovite in telling us what it doesn't want, but spectacularly coy about what it does.
So I can easily imagine it squeaking a VONC, but very much doubt it will get within 50 votes of an alternative replacement.
Surely that’s because when it votes against something governments usually then don’t go ahead with what Parliament has said no to.
It’s the fact that this government is determined to ignore Parliament which is causing the problems.
Easy to criticise Parliament for not acting like the executive, which is not in any case its function. But what is far more worthy of criticism is a party in government which is determined to ignore Parliament. That’s not democracy but a government acting like a dictator.
If Johnson wants to have a No Deal Brexit then he should get an express mandate to do it from the voters not use Parliamentary or other constitutional shenanigans to get his own way.
Johnson doesn't want a No Deal Brexit. He wants to make a No Deal Brexit look credible, as an outcome, so he can get a better deal at the last minute.
It's high risk and frightening. It might just work, but probably won't. Right now I think he will be VONCed, and we will have a temporary, minority Corbyn govt promising an extension, probably a new vote, and certainly an early GE.
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Exactly.
Despite the fact that No Deal has no mandate, either from the referendum or from the last election, a determined minority of MPs and their advisors, elected by 92,000 people, can push it through and are apparently willing to do whatever it takes to do so, regardless of conventions, constitutional proprieties or anything else.
How on earth they think they can win an election in such circumstances or make their decision last, God only knows. And as for unifying the country ..... all this sort of behaviour will do is deepen the divisions.
There is a No Deal mandate - the MPs have voted for it as the default option.
Since when does MPs voting for something define a mandate?
A mandate is when the people tell the MPs to do something.
The people voted for the MPs - there's your mandate.
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Exactly.
Despite the fact that No Deal has no mandate, either from the referendum or from the last election, a determined minority of MPs and their advisors, elected by 92,000 people, can push it through and are apparently willing to do whatever it takes to do so, regardless of conventions, constitutional proprieties or anything else.
How on earth they think they can win an election in such circumstances or make their decision last, God only knows. And as for unifying the country ..... all this sort of behaviour will do is deepen the divisions.
There is a No Deal mandate - the MPs have voted for it as the default option.
Since when does MPs voting for something define a mandate?
A mandate is when the people tell the MPs to do something.
The people voted for the MPs - there's your mandate.
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Quite.
Parliament has been Stakhanovite in telling us what it doesn't want, but spectacularly coy about what it does.
So I can easily imagine it squeaking a VONC, but very much doubt it will get within 50 votes of an alternative replacement.
If diehard Remainers want to avoid a No Deal Brexit or indeed have an opportunity to have a second referendum, they would accept a Corbyn led government temporarily. Remember: 1. Corbyn government itself will be a minority 2. It can be VoNCed easily. I think any "agreement" would include a second referendum with a Remain option which , I think, Corbyn will accept.
That would require Labour, the SNP, PC, the LDs, CUK and at least 1 more Tory MP e.g. Grieve or Lee to back Corbyn, it would be a very unstable government while Boris could go into opposition with Leavers united behind him crying 'betrayal'
I'm sure it would be very unstable. But it would only have to last long enough to ask the EU for an extension.
Not difficult, provided the will is there among MPs. Which admittedly seems very questionable.
It would be a gift to Boris and Farage in Labour Leave seats especially
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Exactly.
Despite the fact that No Deal has no mandate, either from the referendum or from the last election, a determined minority of MPs and their advisors, elected by 92,000 people, can push it through and are apparently willing to do whatever it takes to do so, regardless of conventions, constitutional proprieties or anything else.
How on earth they think they can win an election in such circumstances or make their decision last, God only knows. And as for unifying the country ..... all this sort of behaviour will do is deepen the divisions.
There is a No Deal mandate - the MPs have voted for it as the default option.
(PS - I know could have said this to Mike a few threads ago, but don't we have so much fun together Cyclefree??)
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Exactly.
Despite the fact that No Deal has no mandate, either from the referendum or from the last election, a determined minority of MPs and their advisors, elected by 92,000 people, can push it through and are apparently willing to do whatever it takes to do so, regardless of conventions, constitutional proprieties or anything else.
How on earth they think they can win an election in such circumstances or make their decision last, God only knows. And as for unifying the country ..... all this sort of behaviour will do is deepen the divisions.
I think Boris's strategy is falling into place before our eyes:
Win the Tory leadership on a macho 'Brexit do or die' ticket.
Pack your government with No Deal nutters to make it look as if you're one of them.
Force parliament to do something drastic like VONCing you and delaying the Brexit date.
With the chaos of No Deal not yet unleashed, fight the subsequent election as the man who stood up to the weaselly establishment politicians who thwarted the People's Will.
Win the election.
Sack the No Deal nutters.
Take it from there.
But this plan is flawed because the Commons gets the chance to suggest a new leader, after Boris is VONCed. The new leader asks for an extension. And a 2nd vote.
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Exactly.
Despite the fact that No Deal has no mandate, either from the referendum or from the last election, a determined minority of MPs and their advisors, elected by 92,000 people, can push it through and are apparently willing to do whatever it takes to do so, regardless of conventions, constitutional proprieties or anything else.
How on earth they think they can win an election in such circumstances or make their decision last, God only knows. And as for unifying the country ..... all this sort of behaviour will do is deepen the divisions.
There is a No Deal mandate - the MPs have voted for it as the default option.
Since when does MPs voting for something define a mandate?
A mandate is when the people tell the MPs to do something.
The people voted for the MPs - there's your mandate.
Obviously that's not what the word means.
From my Collins-
1 an official or authoritative command to carry out a particular task.
2 the political authority given to a government or an elected representative through an electoral victory.
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Quite.
Parliament has been Stakhanovite in telling us what it doesn't want, but spectacularly coy about what it does.
So I can easily imagine it squeaking a VONC, but very much doubt it will get within 50 votes of an alternative replacement.
Surely that’s because when it votes against something governments usually then don’t go ahead with what Parliament has said no to.
It’s the fact that this government is determined to ignore Parliament which is causing the problems.
Easy to criticise Parliament for not acting like the executive, which is not in any case its function. But what is far more worthy of criticism is a party in government which is determined to ignore Parliament. That’s not democracy but a government acting like a dictator.
If Johnson wants to have a No Deal Brexit then he should get an express mandate to do it from the voters not use Parliamentary or other constitutional shenanigans to get his own way.
Johnson doesn't want a No Deal Brexit. He wants to make a No Deal Brexit look credible, as an outcome, so he can get a better deal at the last minute.
It's high risk and frightening. It might just work, but probably won't. Right now I think he will be VONCed, and we will have a temporary, minority Corbyn govt promising an extension, probably a new vote, and certainly an early GE.
If I were Johnson, I think that's what I'd be praying for. It's the only way out of the corner he's painted himself into.
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Exactly.
Despite the fact that No Deal has no mandate, either from the referendum or from the last election, a determined minority of MPs and their advisors, elected by 92,000 people, can push it through and are apparently willing to do whatever it takes to do so, regardless of conventions, constitutional proprieties or anything else.
How on earth they think they can win an election in such circumstances or make their decision last, God only knows. And as for unifying the country ..... all this sort of behaviour will do is deepen the divisions.
There is a No Deal mandate - the MPs have voted for it as the default option.
Since when does MPs voting for something define a mandate?
A mandate is when the people tell the MPs to do something.
Wrong.
But even were you correct, the people told MPs to make sure we left the EU. Nothing more or less. No provisos or conditions. A simple case of we must leave. If that is your definition of a mandate (the people telling MPs to do something) then under your definition we must leave.
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Exactly.
Despite the fact that No Deal has no mandate, either from the referendum or from the last election, a determined minority of MPs and their advisors, elected by 92,000 people, can push it through and are apparently willing to do whatever it takes to do so, regardless of conventions, constitutional proprieties or anything else.
How on earth they think they can win an election in such circumstances or make their decision last, God only knows. And as for unifying the country ..... all this sort of behaviour will do is deepen the divisions.
I think Boris's strategy is falling into place before our eyes:
Win the Tory leadership on a macho 'Brexit do or die' ticket.
Pack your government with No Deal nutters to make it look as if you're one of them.
Force parliament to do something drastic like VONCing you and delaying the Brexit date.
With the chaos of No Deal not yet unleashed, fight the subsequent election as the man who stood up to the weaselly establishment politicians who thwarted the People's Will.
Win the election.
Sack the No Deal nutters.
Take it from there.
But this plan is flawed because the Commons gets the chance to suggest a new leader, after Boris is VONCed. The new leader asks for an extension. And a 2nd vote.
Boris is buggered.
He isn't as the Leaver backlash at the establishment Remainer coup would make Boris the new Alex Salmond
Swinson certainly gives the LDs the best chance of the Unionist parties of making progress against the SNP in the next general election for Westminster (though her seat remains marginal) but on that poll Ruth Davidson is even more popular than Swinson in Scotland so remains the best hope for a Unionist First Minister
By best hope you mean absolutely NO hope, for either of the donkeys. Davidson will need to be sure she is also top of List so she gets a booby prize , even if somewhat embarrassing.
The LDs would back Davidson for First Minister of Scotland even if they would not back Boris for UK PM
They will never get more than 50% of the seats in a million years
The SNP is polling below its 2016 share in the latest Holyrood polls
Would you like a bet , I say the Tories and Lib Dem's will get less MSP's than the SNP at next election, do you want to put your money where your mouth is.
I see Matt Hancock has repeated the Dominic Cummings line, but given it a fresh twist.
Cummings, we will recall, stated that in the event of a successful VONC, Johnson will simply call a General Election for after Oct 31st.
It was soon pointed out to him that this wasn't quite how the FTPA works
So, Hancock, about whom I have little good to say, has said that if Johnson loses a VONC he will simply stay on.
What they don't seem to get, or perhaps they do but they're increasingly desperate, is that if the House of Commons successfully votes no confidence in the Government they CAN then vote confidence in another Government:
"If this motion is carried, there is a 14 calendar-day period in which a Government may be confirmed in office by a resolution in the form:
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
Under Standing Orders, a debate on a motion arising from an Act is limited to 90 minutes. However, it is likely that a longer debate would be provided on a motion of no confidence.
The confusion only arises if the House of Commons is not ready to place confidence in a successor. If, on the other hand, they are on the ball, prepared, and have all their cards lined up the Queen will call for whomever clearly would have the confidence of the House.
With 4 weeks until Parliament returns the one clear lesson from this is that the opponents of No Deal must be ready and decisively in play with a caretaker successor in mind. No ifs. No buts. No dithering. If they snooze, they'll lose.
Absolutely no room for wasting time on this. Hammond and co must be meeting this August with sound Labour people with a view to get the right parliamentary stuff ready for 4th September.
Presumably what Hancock meant was that even if a majority of the Commons indicated support for an alternative PM, and even if the Queen were advised to ask that person to form a government, Johnson would refuse to cooperate and instead would dare the Queen to dismiss him.
In which case she should dismiss him. She would simply be following the constitutional arrangements and Johnson would be vilified for ever more for having dragged the Queen into petty party politics. He would be rightfully finished as a politician.
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Quite.
Parliament has been Stakhanovite in telling us what it doesn't want, but spectacularly coy about what it does.
So I can easily imagine it squeaking a VONC, but very much doubt it will get within 50 votes of an alternative replacement.
Easy to criticise Parliament for not acting like the executive, which is not in any case its function.
Isn't that what people are expecting/hoping for - that Parliament will start acting like the executive, proposing legislation?
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Exactly.
Despite the fact that No Deal has no mandate, either from the referendum or from the last election, a determined minority of MPs and their advisors, elected by 92,000 people, can push it through and are apparently willing to do whatever it takes to do so, regardless of conventions, constitutional proprieties or anything else.
How on earth they think they can win an election in such circumstances or make their decision last, God only knows. And as for unifying the country ..... all this sort of behaviour will do is deepen the divisions.
There is a No Deal mandate - the MPs have voted for it as the default option.
Since when does MPs voting for something define a mandate?
A mandate is when the people tell the MPs to do something.
Wrong.
But even were you correct, the people told MPs to make sure we left the EU. Nothing more or less. No provisos or conditions. A simple case of we must leave. If that is your definition of a mandate (the people telling MPs to do something) then under your definition we must leave.
Everyone already knows all the arguments about what people did and didn't vote for. Some people have too much time on their hands.
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Quite.
Parliament has been Stakhanovite in telling us what it doesn't want, but spectacularly coy about what it does.
So I can easily imagine it squeaking a VONC, but very much doubt it will get within 50 votes of an alternative replacement.
Surely that’s because when it votes against something governments usually then don’t go ahead with what Parliament has said no to.
It’s the fact that this government is determined to ignore Parliament which is causing the problems.
Easy to criticise Parliament for not acting like the executive, which is not in any case its function. But what is far more worthy of criticism is a party in government which is determined to ignore Parliament. That’s not democracy but a government acting like a dictator.
If Johnson wants to have a No Deal Brexit then he should get an express mandate to do it from the voters not use Parliamentary or other constitutional shenanigans to get his own way.
Johnson doesn't want a No Deal Brexit. He wants to make a No Deal Brexit look credible, as an outcome, so he can get a better deal at the last minute.
It's high risk and frightening. It might just work, but probably won't. Right now I think he will be VONCed, and we will have a temporary, minority Corbyn govt promising an extension, probably a new vote, and certainly an early GE.
It would be disgusting and shameful if parliament chose to put Jeremy Corbyn as the head of the British government. It would make clear to me and my fellow Jews we have no place in this country. We are not to be ignored as collateral damage in parliamentary shenanigans.
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Exactly.
Despite the fact that No Deal has no mandate, either from the referendum or from the last election, a determined minority of MPs and their advisors, elected by 92,000 people, can push it through and are apparently willing to do whatever it takes to do so, regardless of conventions, constitutional proprieties or anything else.
How on earth they think they can win an election in such circumstances or make their decision last, God only knows. And as for unifying the country ..... all this sort of behaviour will do is deepen the divisions.
I think Boris's strategy is falling into place before our eyes:
Win the Tory leadership on a macho 'Brexit do or die' ticket.
Pack your government with No Deal nutters to make it look as if you're one of them.
Force parliament to do something drastic like VONCing you and delaying the Brexit date.
With the chaos of No Deal not yet unleashed, fight the subsequent election as the man who stood up to the weaselly establishment politicians who thwarted the People's Will.
Win the election.
Sack the No Deal nutters.
Take it from there.
But this plan is flawed because the Commons gets the chance to suggest a new leader, after Boris is VONCed. The new leader asks for an extension. And a 2nd vote.
Boris is buggered.
No, I think Boris would be okay in that situation. Even with an extension and second referendum, which Remain may even win, Boris can still fight the next GE, which surely wouldn't be long, on the Great Betrayal narrative. The enraged Leave supporters would concede that Boris did his best and this would totally sideline Nigel. From Boris's view what's not to like?
There is no mandate for No Deal. The referendum was won on the basis that there would be a deal. That was the expectation of the government when Article 50 was put into law and of pretty much the vast majority of the MPs voting for it.
The government’s manifesto very clearly said that it was aiming for a deal and an orderly withdrawal.
Now, all of a sudden, because of an internal party vote, the government’s key and most important policy - one with enormous and long-lasting consequences for the country - is being changed on a whim without the consent of the voters or Parliament to something that was not in the manifesto and was not on offer at the time of the referendum, however often Raab tries to lie about this.
It is doing this because it is scared of a party which has won no seats in the British Parliament.
I see Matt Hancock has repeated the Dominic Cummings line, but given it a fresh twist.
Cummings, we will recall, stated that in the event of a successful VONC, Johnson will simply call a General Election for after Oct 31st.
It was soon pointed out to him that this wasn't quite how the FTPA works
So, Hancock, about whom I have little good to say, has said that if Johnson loses a VONC he will simply stay on.
What they don't seem to get, or perhaps they do but they're increasingly desperate, is that if the House of Commons successfully votes no confidence in the Government they CAN then vote confidence in another Government:
"If this motion is carried, there is a 14 calendar-day period in which a Government may be confirmed in office by a resolution in the form:
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
Under Standing Orders, a debate on a motion arising from an Act is limited to 90 minutes. However, it is likely that a longer debate would be provided on a motion of no confidence.
The confusion only arises if the House of Commons is not ready to place confidence in a successor. If, on the other hand, they are on the ball, prepared, and have all their cards lined up the Queen will call for whomever clearly would have the confidence of the House.
With 4 weeks until Parliament returns the one clear lesson from this is that the opponents of No Deal must be ready and decisively in play with a caretaker successor in mind. No ifs. No buts. No dithering. If they snooze, they'll lose.
Absolutely no room for wasting time on this. Hammond and co must be meeting this August with sound Labour people with a view to get the right parliamentary stuff ready for 4th September.
Presumably what Hancock meant was that even if a majority of the Commons indicated support for an alternative PM, and even if the Queen were advised to ask that person to form a government, Johnson would refuse to cooperate and instead would dare the Queen to dismiss him.
In which case she should dismiss him. She would simply be following the constitutional arrangements and Johnson would be vilified for ever more for having dragged the Queen into petty party politics. He would be rightfully finished as a politician.
And, as I said, I think he would welcome the escape route.
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Exactly.
Despite the fact that No Deal has no mandate, either from the referendum or from the last election, a determined minority of MPs and their advisors, elected by 92,000 people, can push it through and are apparently willing to do whatever it takes to do so, regardless of conventions, constitutional proprieties or anything else.
How on earth they think they can win an election in such circumstances or make their decision last, God only knows. And as for unifying the country ..... all this sort of behaviour will do is deepen the divisions.
I think Boris's strategy is falling into place before our eyes:
Win the Tory leadership on a macho 'Brexit do or die' ticket.
Pack your government with No Deal nutters to make it look as if you're one of them.
Force parliament to do something drastic like VONCing you and delaying the Brexit date.
With the chaos of No Deal not yet unleashed, fight the subsequent election as the man who stood up to the weaselly establishment politicians who thwarted the People's Will.
Win the election.
Sack the No Deal nutters.
Take it from there.
But this plan is flawed because the Commons gets the chance to suggest a new leader, after Boris is VONCed. The new leader asks for an extension. And a 2nd vote.
Boris is buggered.
He isn't as the Leaver backlash at the establishment Remainer coup would make Boris the new Alex Salmond
Boris would be a disgraced has been who lost his seat? works for me!
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Quite.
Parliament has been Stakhanovite in telling us what it doesn't want, but spectacularly coy about what it does.
So I can easily imagine it squeaking a VONC, but very much doubt it will get within 50 votes of an alternative replacement.
Surely that’s because when it votes against something governments usually then don’t go ahead with what Parliament has said no to.
It’s the fact that this government is determined to ignore Parliament which is causing the problems.
Easy to criticise Parliament for not acting like the executive, which is not in any case its function. But what is far more worthy of criticism is a party in government which is determined to ignore Parliament. That’s not democracy but a government acting like a dictator.
If Johnson wants to have a No Deal Brexit then he should get an express mandate to do it from the voters not use Parliamentary or other constitutional shenanigans to get his own way.
Johnson doesn't want a No Deal Brexit. He wants to make a No Deal Brexit look credible, as an outcome, so he can get a better deal at the last minute.
It's high risk and frightening. It might just work, but probably won't. Right now I think he will be VONCed, and we will have a temporary, minority Corbyn govt promising an extension, probably a new vote, and certainly an early GE.
It would be disgusting and shameful if parliament chose to put Jeremy Corbyn as the head of the British government. It would make clear to me and my fellow Jews we have no place in this country. We are not to be ignored as collateral damage in parliamentary shenanigans.
I fear him being PM is a quite probable scenario however.
There is no mandate for No Deal. The referendum was won on the basis that there would be a deal. That was the expectation of the government when Article 50 was put into law and of pretty much the vast majority of the MPs voting for it.
The government’s manifesto very clearly said that it was aiming for a deal and an orderly withdrawal.
Now, all of a sudden, because of an internal party vote, the government’s key and most important policy - one with enormous and long-lasting consequences for the country - is being changed on a whim without the consent of the voters or Parliament to something that was not in the manifesto and was not on offer at the time of the referendum, however often Raab tries to lie about this.
It is doing this because it is scared of a party which has won no seats in the British Parliament.
Mandate, my arse!
RESPECT THE MANDATE OF THE 2016 REFERENDUM
I think there are people (prime example May) who respect it.
A lot of people don't and we call them either diehard remainers, remoaners or remainiacs
Then you've got labour who'll respect the mandate as long as they're in government.
Three simple groups of people - The Brisky Theory of EU REF
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Quite.
Parliament has been Stakhanovite in telling us what it doesn't want, but spectacularly coy about what it does.
So I can easily imagine it squeaking a VONC, but very much doubt it will get within 50 votes of an alternative replacement.
Surely that’s because when it votes against something governments usually then don’t go ahead with what Parliament has said no to.
It’s the fact that this government is determined to ignore Parliament which is causing the problems.
Easy to criticise Parliament for not acting like the executive, which is not in any case its function. But what is far more worthy of criticism is a party in government which is determined to ignore Parliament. That’s not democracy but a government acting like a dictator.
If Johnson wants to have a No Deal Brexit then he should get an express mandate to do it from the voters not use Parliamentary or other constitutional shenanigans to get his own way.
Johnson doesn't want a No Deal Brexit. He wants to make a No Deal Brexit look credible, as an outcome, so he can get a better deal at the last minute.
It's high risk and frightening. It might just work, but probably won't. Right now I think he will be VONCed, and we will have a temporary, minority Corbyn govt promising an extension, probably a new vote, and certainly an early GE.
It’s complete and bollocks stupid they haven’t got a clue what they are doing and are only interested in the survival of the Tory party
There is no mandate for No Deal. The referendum was won on the basis that there would be a deal. That was the expectation of the government when Article 50 was put into law and of pretty much the vast majority of the MPs voting for it.
The government’s manifesto very clearly said that it was aiming for a deal and an orderly withdrawal.
Now, all of a sudden, because of an internal party vote, the government’s key and most important policy - one with enormous and long-lasting consequences for the country - is being changed on a whim without the consent of the voters or Parliament to something that was not in the manifesto and was not on offer at the time of the referendum, however often Raab tries to lie about this.
It is doing this because it is scared of a party which has won no seats in the British Parliament.
Mandate, my arse!
The mandate was for Leave. The form of Leave was not specified. But the mandate is clear that any form of Leave is acceptable. Nothing else can be read into the result at all, either for or against any specific details. The only option that was specifically excluded by the result was Remaining.
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Quite.
Parliament has been Stakhanovite in telling us what it doesn't want, but spectacularly coy about what it does.
So I can easily imagine it squeaking a VONC, but very much doubt it will get within 50 votes of an alternative replacement.
Surely thatnot use Parliamentary or other constitutional shenanigans to get his own way.
Johnsoa new vote, and certainly an early GE.
It would be disgusting and shameful if parliament chose to put Jeremy Corbyn as the head of the British government. It would make clear to me and my fellow Jews we have no place in this country. We are not to be ignored as collateral damage in parliamentary shenanigans.
I hear you. And I largely agree.
I'm not suggesting I want this outcome, I'm just assessing the possibilities. And this now seems quite possible: a temporary and minority Corbyn government, elevated solely to deliver an extension, a 2nd vote, and then a GE.
How will MPs with a soul deal with the guilt of voting for Corbyn? Dunno. Some might abstain. And he gets in by default?
As I said earlier, SOMETHING politically impossible has to happen between now and 31st October, to break the impasse. This could be it.
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Exactly.
Despite the fact that No Deal has no mandate, either from the referendum or from the last election, a determined minority of MPs and their advisors, elected by 92,000 people, can push it through and are apparently willing to do whatever it takes to do so, regardless of conventions, constitutional proprieties or anything else.
How on earth they think they can win an election in such circumstances or make their decision last, God only knows. And as for unifying the country ..... all this sort of behaviour will do is deepen the divisions.
There is a No Deal mandate - the MPs have voted for it as the default option.
Since when does MPs voting for something define a mandate?
A mandate is when the people tell the MPs to do something.
Wrong.
But even were you correct, the people told MPs to make sure we left the EU. Nothing more or less. No provisos or conditions. A simple case of we must leave. If that is your definition of a mandate (the people telling MPs to do something) then under your definition we must leave.
Everyone already knows all the arguments about what people did and didn't vote for. Some people have too much time on their hands.
And yet some people (looking at you Cyclefree) still persist in claiming there is no mandate for any particular form of Leave. If everyone knows all the arguments then perhaps someone should tell that to those claiming psychic powers to be able to know what Leave voters wanted. Or Remain voters for that matter.
There is no mandate for No Deal. The referendum was won on the basis that there would be a deal. That was the expectation of the government when Article 50 was put into law and of pretty much the vast majority of the MPs voting for it.
The government’s manifesto very clearly said that it was aiming for a deal and an orderly withdrawal.
Now, all of a sudden, because of an internal party vote, the government’s key and most important policy - one with enormous and long-lasting consequences for the country - is being changed on a whim without the consent of the voters or Parliament to something that was not in the manifesto and was not on offer at the time of the referendum, however often Raab tries to lie about this.
It is doing this because it is scared of a party which has won no seats in the British Parliament.
Mandate, my arse!
The mandate was for Leave. The form of Leave was not specified. But the mandate is clear that any form of Leave is acceptable.
What an absolutely stupid thing to say.
As people voted to leave while being assured that we would leave with a deal, there's no evidence whatsoever that leaving with no deal would be acceptable to them.
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Exactly.
Despite the fact that No Deal has no mandate, either from the referendum or from the last election, a determined minority of MPs and their advisors, elected by 92,000 people, can push it through and are apparently willing to do whatever it takes to do so, regardless of conventions, constitutional proprieties or anything else.
How on earth they think they can win an election in such circumstances or make their decision last, God only knows. And as for unifying the country ..... all this sort of behaviour will do is deepen the divisions.
I think Boris's strategy is falling into place before our eyes:
Win the Tory leadership on a macho 'Brexit do or die' ticket.
Pack your government with No Deal nutters to make it look as if you're one of them.
Force parliament to do something drastic like VONCing you and delaying the Brexit date.
With the chaos of No Deal not yet unleashed, fight the subsequent election as the man who stood up to the weaselly establishment politicians who thwarted the People's Will.
Win the election.
Sack the No Deal nutters.
Take it from there.
But this plan is flawed because the Commons gets the chance to suggest a new leader, after Boris is VONCed. The new leader asks for an extension. And a 2nd vote.
Boris is buggered.
He isn't as the Leaver backlash at the establishment Remainer coup would make Boris the new Alex Salmond
Boris would be a disgraced has been who lost his seat? works for me!
Cracks me up how Bozo apologists try and make out he is "anti-establishment". The anti-establishment, old-Etonian, Bullingdon Club, millionaire, Daily Telegraph Leader writer, Oxford educated Tory MP and Primeminister, Boris Johnson looks and sounds VERY anti-establishment to me!!! Not!
There is no mandate for No Deal. The referendum was won on the basis that there would be a deal. That was the expectation of the government when Article 50 was put into law and of pretty much the vast majority of the MPs voting for it.
The government’s manifesto very clearly said that it was aiming for a deal and an orderly withdrawal.
Now, all of a sudden, because of an internal party vote, the government’s key and most important policy - one with enormous and long-lasting consequences for the country - is being changed on a whim without the consent of the voters or Parliament to something that was not in the manifesto and was not on offer at the time of the referendum, however often Raab tries to lie about this.
It is doing this because it is scared of a party which has won no seats in the British Parliament.
Mandate, my arse!
RESPECT THE MANDATE OF THE 2016 REFERENDUM
I think there are people (prime example May) who respect it.
A lot of people don't and we call them either diehard remainers, remoaners or remainiacs
Then you've got labour who'll respect the mandate as long as they're in government.
Three simple groups of people - The Brisky Theory of EU REF
Swinson certainly gives the LDs the best chance of the Unionist parties of making progress against the SNP in the next general election for Westminster (though her seat remains marginal) but on that poll Ruth Davidson is even more popular than Swinson in Scotland so remains the best hope for a Unionist First Minister
By best hope you mean absolutely NO hope, for either of the donkeys. Davidson will need to be sure she is also top of List so she gets a booby prize , even if somewhat embarrassing.
The LDs would back Davidson for First Minister of Scotland even if they would not back Boris for UK PM
Oh yes? Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support that assertion?
Asked how they would vote in an independence referendum, 46% of the 1,019 surveyed Scottish voters said they would vote for independence and 43% said they would vote against, according to a poll by Michael Ashcroft.
Excluding those who said they did not know or would not vote, this amounted to 52% to 48% for an independent Scotland.
There is no mandate for No Deal. The referendum was won on the basis that there would be a deal. That was the expectation of the government when Article 50 was put into law and of pretty much the vast majority of the MPs voting for it.
The government’s manifesto very clearly said that it was aiming for a deal and an orderly withdrawal.
Now, all of a sudden, because of an internal party vote, the government’s key and most important policy - one with enormous and long-lasting consequences for the country - is being changed on a whim without the consent of the voters or Parliament to something that was not in the manifesto and was not on offer at the time of the referendum, however often Raab tries to lie about this.
It is doing this because it is scared of a party which has won no seats in the British Parliament.
Mandate, my arse!
The mandate was for Leave. The form of Leave was not specified. But the mandate is clear that any form of Leave is acceptable. Nothing else can be read into the result at all, either for or against any specific details. The only option that was specifically excluded by the result was Remaining.
That may be the de jure position. It is not the de facto position. The basis on which the referendum was won is critical to the mandate. That is why, for instance, Mrs May said that freedom of movement had to end. It would be possible, after all, to be a member of the Single Market while leaving the EU and that too would be in compliance with the mandate technically speaking. But it would not be in keeping with the basis on which the mandate was won.
If the 2016 mandate matters why shouldn’t it be qualified by the 2017 Tory manifesto which talks about an orderly withdrawal?
The Tory MPs currently in Cabinet all won their seats on the basis of that manifesto. What gives them the right to say that they are going to impose a policy which is the opposite of what that manifesto says and also contrary to what Parliament has voted?
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Exactly.
Despite the fact that No Deal has no mandate, either from the referendum or from the last election, a determined minority of MPs and their advisors, elected by 92,000 people, can push it through and are apparently willing to do whatever it takes to do so, regardless of conventions, constitutional proprieties or anything else.
How on earth they think they can win an election in such circumstances or make their decision last, God only knows. And as for unifying the country ..... all this sort of behaviour will do is deepen the divisions.
There is a No Deal mandate - the MPs have voted for it as the default option.
Since when does MPs voting for something define a mandate?
A mandate is when the people tell the MPs to do something.
Wrong.
But even were you correct, the people told MPs to make sure we left the EU. Nothing more or less. No provisos or conditions. A simple case of we must leave. If that is your definition of a mandate (the people telling MPs to do something) then under your definition we must leave.
Everyone already knows all the arguments about what people did and didn't vote for. Some people have too much time on their hands.
And yet some people (looking at you Cyclefree) still persist in claiming there is no mandate for any particular form of Leave. If everyone knows all the arguments then perhaps someone should tell that to those claiming psychic powers to be able to know what Leave voters wanted. Or Remain voters for that matter.
I think you have an argument Richard, but it is not a very strong one. People voted leave, and it is fair to say that most will have taken it on trust that a deal was going to be straightforward. It is very strongly arguable that there is no mandate for leaving without a deal as that was not presented as a likely outcome. Farage, Bozo et al knew very well that had they said it was likely there would be a no-deal exit they would have lost. It is why there current position is dishonest, but they don't care.
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Exactly.
Despite the fact that No Deal has no mandate, either from the referendum or from the last election, a determined minority of MPs and their advisors, elected by 92,000 people, can push it through and are apparently willing to do whatever it takes to do so, regardless of conventions, constitutional proprieties or anything else.
How on earth they think they can win an election in such circumstances or make their decision last, God only knows. And as for unifying the country ..... all this sort of behaviour will do is deepen the divisions.
I think Boris's strategy is falling into place before our eyes:
Win the Tory leadership on a macho 'Brexit do or die' ticket.
Pack your government with No Deal nutters to make it look as if you're one of them.
Force parliament to do something drastic like VONCing you and delaying the Brexit date.
With the chaos of No Deal not yet unleashed, fight the subsequent election as the man who stood up to the weaselly establishment politicians who thwarted the People's Will.
Win the election.
Sack the No Deal nutters.
Take it from there.
But this plan is flawed because the Commons gets the chance to suggest a new leader, after Boris is VONCed. The new leader asks for an extension. And a 2nd vote.
Boris is buggered.
He isn't as the Leaver backlash at the establishment Remainer coup would make Boris the new Alex Salmond
Boris would be a disgraced has been who lost his seat? works for me!
Cracks me up how Bozo apologists try and make out he is "anti-establishment". The anti-establishment, old-Etonian, Bullingdon Club, millionaire, Daily Telegraph Leader writer, Oxford educated Tory MP and Primeminister, Boris Johnson looks and sounds VERY anti-establishment to me!!! Not!
Come on you are challenging the new myth that all remainers are the elite and are failing the working class whilst the real elite are pissing themselves laughing as their promised land of a Singapore economy gets closer and closer where only they gain.
There is no mandate for No Deal. The referendum was won on the basis that there would be a deal. That was the expectation of the government when Article 50 was put into law and of pretty much the vast majority of the MPs voting for it.
The government’s manifesto very clearly said that it was aiming for a deal and an orderly withdrawal.
Now, all of a sudden, because of an internal party vote, the government’s key and most important policy - one with enormous and long-lasting consequences for the country - is being changed on a whim without the consent of the voters or Parliament to something that was not in the manifesto and was not on offer at the time of the referendum, however often Raab tries to lie about this.
It is doing this because it is scared of a party which has won no seats in the British Parliament.
Mandate, my arse!
The mandate was for Leave. The form of Leave was not specified. But the mandate is clear that any form of Leave is acceptable.
What an absolutely stupid thing to say.
As people voted to leave while being assured that we would leave with a deal, there's no evidence whatsoever that leaving with no deal would be acceptable to them.
It is acceptable to me and it certainly wasn't my first choice. Unless you are psychic you are simply making stuff up to suit your own view.
The only thing you can say for sure is that people voted for Leave and against Remain. Everything else is projection by Remainers or Leavers to get the result they want.
Swinson certainly gives the LDs the best chance of the Unionist parties of making progress against the SNP in the next general election for Westminster (though her seat remains marginal) but on that poll Ruth Davidson is even more popular than Swinson in Scotland so remains the best hope for a Unionist First Minister
By best hope you mean absolutely NO hope, for either of the donkeys. Davidson will need to be sure she is also top of List so she gets a booby prize , even if somewhat embarrassing.
The LDs would back Davidson for First Minister of Scotland even if they would not back Boris for UK PM
Oh yes? Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support that assertion?
I can’t see this happening unless the S Cons break from the UK party and disown a no deal exit.
Asked how they would vote in an independence referendum, 46% of the 1,019 surveyed Scottish voters said they would vote for independence and 43% said they would vote against, according to a poll by Michael Ashcroft.
Excluding those who said they did not know or would not vote, this amounted to 52% to 48% for an independent Scotland.
This is interesting. Seem that Boris has deliberately killed off the chances of any further negotiations with the EU.
David Frost, who replaced Olly Robbins as the government’s chief Europe adviser, was said to have instead sought to discuss how negotiations could be reset after the UK crashes out on 31 October, during his recent talks with senior EU figures.
Frost was said to have told the officials that a technological solution to the Irish border was the UK’s preferred option before admitting that “it would not be ready now for Brexit”.
“It was clear UK does not have another plan,” a senior EU diplomat said of the meetings with Frost. “No intention to negotiate, which would require a plan. A no deal now appears to be the UK government’s central scenario.”
[...]
“Even if EU gave up the backstop there is no alternative,” a diplomat concluded of the discussion.
“That message has now gone loud and clear to capitals, it was useful to hear it form horse’s mouth,” the EU source said. “Reality is sinking in.”.
There is no mandate for No Deal. The referendum was won on the basis that there would be a deal. That was the expectation of the government when Article 50 was put into law and of pretty much the vast majority of the MPs voting for it.
The government’s manifesto very clearly said that it was aiming for a deal and an orderly withdrawal.
Now, all of a sudden, because of an internal party vote, the government’s key and most important policy - one with enormous and long-lasting consequences for the country - is being changed on a whim without the consent of the voters or Parliament to something that was not in the manifesto and was not on offer at the time of the referendum, however often Raab tries to lie about this.
It is doing this because it is scared of a party which has won no seats in the British Parliament.
Mandate, my arse!
The mandate was for Leave. The form of Leave was not specified. But the mandate is clear that any form of Leave is acceptable. Nothing else can be read into the result at all, either for or against any specific details. The only option that was specifically excluded by the result was Remaining.
That may be the de jure position. It is not the de facto position. The basis on which the referendum was won is critical to the mandate. That is why, for instance, Mrs May said that freedom of movement had to end. It would be possible, after all, to be a member of the Single Market while leaving the EU and that too would be in compliance with the mandate technically speaking. But it would not be in keeping with the basis on which the mandate was won.
If the 2016 mandate matters why shouldn’t it be qualified by the 2017 Tory manifesto which talks about an orderly withdrawal?
The Tory MPs currently in Cabinet all won their seats on the basis of that manifesto. What gives them the right to say that they are going to impose a policy which is the opposite of what that manifesto says and also contrary to what Parliament has voted?
Practically every Labour and Tory MP in 2017 won their seats on a pledge to respect the referendum result. The vast majority of them including all those Tories who have now left or who are pledging to stop Brexit put it in their personal manifestoes as well.
What gives them the right to now say they will ignore both the referendum result and their own promises?
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Quite.
Parliament has been Stakhanovite in telling us what it doesn't want, but spectacularly coy about what it does.
So I can easily imagine it squeaking a VONC, but very much doubt it will get within 50 votes of an alternative replacement.
Surely that’s because when it votes against something governments usually then don’t go ahead with what Parliament has said no to.
It’s the fact that this government is determined to ignore Parliament which is causing the problems.
Easy to criticise Parliament for not acting like the executive, which is not in any case its function. But what is far more worthy of criticism is a party in government which is determined to ignore Parliament. That’s not democracy but a government acting like a dictator.
If Johnson wants to have a No Deal Brexit then he should get an express mandate to do it from the voters not use Parliamentary or other constitutional shenanigans to get his own way.
Johnson doesn't want a No Deal Brexit. He wants to make a No Deal Brexit look credible, as an outcome, so he can get a better deal at the last minute.
It's high risk and frightening. It might just work, but probably won't. Right now I think he will be VONCed, and we will have a temporary, minority Corbyn govt promising an extension, probably a new vote, and certainly an early GE.
That latter being what he really wants, the former just being the tactical bluff to get there.
An extension would suit him fine, a long one even better, since he wants to leave with a deal. So long as someone else asks for it, or forces him to.
A second referendum wouldn’t be so bad, although I don’t believe it is what he wants. Leave would be forced back to campaigning for a deal, which he wants and may well win. If Remain wins, the whole problem goes away, at least for his premiership.
As ever the whole thing hangs on the outcome of the early GE that HY has been telling us for ages that he desperately wants.
Asked how they would vote in an independence referendum, 46% of the 1,019 surveyed Scottish voters said they would vote for independence and 43% said they would vote against, according to a poll by Michael Ashcroft.
Excluding those who said they did not know or would not vote, this amounted to 52% to 48% for an independent Scotland.
Despite the fact that No Deal has no mandate, either from the referendum or from the last election, a determined minority of MPs and their advisors, elected by 92,000 people, can push it through and are apparently willing to do whatever it takes to do so, regardless of conventions, constitutional proprieties or anything else.
How on earth they think they can win an election in such circumstances or make their decision last, God only knows. And as for unifying the country ..... all this sort of behaviour will do is deepen the divisions.
There is a No Deal mandate - the MPs have voted for it as the default option.
Since when does MPs voting for something define a mandate?
A mandate is when the people tell the MPs to do something.
Wrong.
But even were you correct, the people told MPs to make sure we left the EU. Nothing more or less. No provisos or conditions. A simple case of we must leave. If that is your definition of a mandate (the people telling MPs to do something) then under your definition we must leave.
Everyone already knows all the arguments about what people did and didn't vote for. Some people have too much time on their hands.
And yet some people (looking at you Cyclefree) still persist in claiming there is no mandate for any particular form of Leave. If everyone knows all the arguments then perhaps someone should tell that to those claiming psychic powers to be able to know what Leave voters wanted. Or Remain voters for that matter.
The mandate which this government has is the manifesto on which it was elected in 2017. This talks in very specific terms about an orderly withdrawal from the EU. I quoted the relevant bits in a recent thread header. An orderly withdrawal and a No Deal Brexit are not the same things.
The basis for what this Johnson government is proposing seems to be what is in Cummings’ head or what Johnson has said as part of his promises to the 92,000 who voted for him as Tory leader. If he had the balls he would go to the country to see if the voters agree that this is what they want. And in plenty of time before the deadline not after it.
Anyway have to go off out now. Till later.
BTW completely off topic: are TVs in the bathroom a sybaritic indulgence? Or a tastelessly naff and chavvy thing to do?
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Exactly.
Despite the fact that No Deal has no mandate, either from the referendum or from the last election, a determined minority of MPs and their advisors, elected by 92,000 people, can push it through and are apparently willing to do whatever it takes to do so, regardless of conventions, constitutional proprieties or anything else.
How on earth they think they can win an election in such circumstances or make their decision last, God only knows. And as for unifying the country ..... all this sort of behaviour will do is deepen the divisions.
I think Boris's strategy is falling into place before our eyes:
Win the Tory leadership on a macho 'Brexit do or die' ticket.
Pack your governmng you and Win the election.
Sack the No Deal nutters.
Take it from there.
But this plan is flawed because the Commons gets the chance to suggest a new leader, after Boris is VONCed. The new leader asks for an extension. And a 2nd vote.
Boris is buggered.
He isn't as the Leaver backlash at the establishment Remainer coup would make Boris the new Alex Salmond
Boris would be a disgraced has been who lost his seat? works for me!
Cracks me up how Bozo apologists try and make out he is "anti-establishment". The anti-establishment, old-Etonian, Bullingdon Club, millionaire, Daily Telegraph Leader writer, Oxford educated Tory MP and Primeminister, Boris Johnson looks and sounds VERY anti-establishment to me!!! Not!
Come on you are challenging the new myth that all remainers are the elite and are failing the working class whilst the real elite are pissing themselves laughing as their promised land of a Singapore economy gets closer and closer where only they gain.
The people who use "establishment" this way are confusing cultural dominance with economic or political influence. To them a pink-haired gender non-binary university student is more powerful than a hedge fund manager because Netflix is putting transgender characters in their shows
There is no mandate for No Deal. The referendum was won on the basis that there would be a deal. That was the expectation of the government when Article 50 was put into law and of pretty much the vast majority of the MPs voting for it.
The government’s manifesto very clearly said that it was aiming for a deal and an orderly withdrawal.
Now, all of a sudden, because of an internal party vote, the government’s key and most important policy - one with enormous and long-lasting consequences for the country - is being changed on a whim without the consent of the voters or Parliament to something that was not in the manifesto and was not on offer at the time of the referendum, however often Raab tries to lie about this.
It is doing this because it is scared of a party which has won no seats in the British Parliament.
Mandate, my arse!
The mandate was for Leave. The form of Leave was not specified. But the mandate is clear that any form of Leave is acceptable. Nothing else can be read into the result at all, either for or against any specific details. The only option that was specifically excluded by the result was Remaining.
That may be the de jure position. It is not the de facto position. The basis on which the referendum was won is critical to the mandate. That is why, for instance, Mrs May said that freedom of movement had to end. It would be possible, after all, to be a member of the Single Market while leaving the EU and that too would be in compliance with the mandate technically speaking. But it would not be in keeping with the basis on which the mandate was won.
If the 2016 mandate matters why shouldn’t it be qualified by the 2017 Tory manifesto which talks about an orderly withdrawal?
The Tory MPs currently in Cabinet all won their seats on the basis of that manifesto. What gives them the right to say that they are going to impose a policy which is the opposite of what that manifesto says and also contrary to what Parliament has voted?
Practically every Labour and Tory MP in 2017 won their seats on a pledge to respect the referendum result. The vast majority of them including all those Tories who have now left or who are pledging to stop Brexit put it in their personal manifestoes as well.
What gives them the right to now say they will ignore both the referendum result and their own promises?
They also stood on the basis of leaving with a deal, which clearly requires more time. So you are arguing for an extension?
There is no mandate for No Deal. The referendum was won on the basis that there would be a deal. That was the expectation of the government when Article 50 was put into law and of pretty much the vast majority of the MPs voting for it.
The government’s manifesto very clearly said that it was aiming for a deal and an orderly withdrawal.
Now, all of a sudden, because of an internal party vote, the government’s key and most important policy - one with enormous and long-lasting consequences for the country - is being changed on a whim without the consent of the voters or Parliament to something that was not in the manifesto and was not on offer at the time of the referendum, however often Raab tries to lie about this.
It is doing this because it is scared of a party which has won no seats in the British Parliament.
Mandate, my arse!
The mandate was for Leave. The form of Leave was not specified. But the mandate is clear that any form of Leave is acceptable. Nothing else can be read into the result at all, either for or against any specific details. The only option that was specifically excluded by the result was Remaining.
That may be the de jure position. It is not the de facto position. The basis on which the referendum was won is critical to the mandate. That is why, for instance, Mrs May said that freedom of movement had to end. It would be possible, after all, to be a member of the Single Market while leaving the EU and that too would be in compliance with the mandate technically speaking. But it would not be in keeping with the basis on which the mandate was won.
If the 2016 mandate matters why shouldn’t it be qualified by the 2017 Tory manifesto which talks about an orderly withdrawal?
The Tory MPs currently in Cabinet all won their seats on the basis of that manifesto. What gives them the right to say that they are going to impose a policy which is the opposite of what that manifesto says and also contrary to what Parliament has voted?
Practically every Labour and Tory MP in 2017 won their seats on a pledge to respect the referendum result. The vast majority of them including all those Tories who have now left or who are pledging to stop Brexit put it in their personal manifestoes as well.
What gives them the right to now say they will ignore both the referendum result and their own promises?
Despite the fact that No Deal has no mandate, either from the referendum or from the last election, a determined minority of MPs and their advisors
How on earth they think they can win an election in such circumstances or make their decision last, God only knows. And as for unifying the country ..... all this sort of behaviour will do is deepen the divisions.
There is a No Deal mandate - the MPs have voted for it as the default option.
Since when does MPs voting for something define a mandate?
A mandate is when the people tell the MPs to do something.
Wrong.
But even were you correct, the people told MPs to make sure we left the EU. Nothing more or less. No provisos or conditions. A simple case of we must leave. If that is your definition of a mandate (the people telling MPs to do something) then under your definition we must leave.
Everyone already knows all the arguments about what people did and didn't vote for. Some people have too much time on their hands.
And yet some people (looking at you Cyclefree) still persist in claiming there is no mandate for any particular form of Leave. If everyone knows all the arguments then perhaps someone should tell that to those claiming psychic powers to be able to know what Leave voters wanted. Or Remain voters for that matter.
The mandate which this government has is the manifesto on which it was elected in 2017. This talks in very specific terms about an orderly withdrawal from the EU. I quoted the relevant bits in a recent thread header. An orderly withdrawal and a No Deal Brexit are not the same things.
The basis for what this Johnson government is proposing seems to be what is in Cummings’ head or what Johnson has said as part of his promises to the 92,000 who voted for him as Tory leader. If he had the balls he would go to the country to see if the voters agree that this is what they want. And in plenty of time before the deadline not after it.
Anyway have to go off out now. Till later.
BTW completely off topic: are TVs in the bathroom a sybaritic indulgence? Or a tastelessly naff and chavvy thing to do?
Seems like a lot of hassle to go to, when you can buy a bathtub iPad stand off Amazon and watch TV or post on PB whilst having a long hot soak?
Asked how they would vote in an independence referendum, 46% of the 1,019 surveyed Scottish voters said they would vote for independence and 43% said they would vote against, according to a poll by Michael Ashcroft.
Excluding those who said they did not know or would not vote, this amounted to 52% to 48% for an independent Scotland.
There is no mandate for No Deal. The referendum was won on the basis that there would be a deal. That was the expectation of the government when Article 50 was put into law and of pretty much the vast majority of the MPs voting for it.
The government’s manifesto very clearly said that it was aiming for a deal and an orderly withdrawal.
Now, all of a sudden, because of an internal party vote, the government’s key and most important policy - one with enormous and long-lasting consequences for the country - is being changed on a whim without the consent of the voters or Parliament to something that was not in the manifesto and was not on offer at the time of the referendum, however often Raab tries to lie about this.
It is doing this because it is scared of a party which has won no seats in the British Parliament.
Mandate, my arse!
The mandate was for Leave. The form of Leave was not specified. But the mandate is clear that any form of Leave is acceptable. Nothing else can be read into the result at all, either for or against any specific details. The only option that was specifically excluded by the result was Remaining.
That may be the de jure position. It is not the de facto position. The basis on which the referendum was won is critical to the mandate. That is why, for instance, Mrs May said that freedom of movement had to end. It would be possible, after all, to be a member of the Single Market while leaving the EU and that too would be in compliance with the mandate technically speaking. But it would not be in keeping with the basis on which the mandate was won.
If the 2016 mandate matters why shouldn’t it be qualified by the 2017 Tory manifesto which talks about an orderly withdrawal?
The Tory MPs currently in Cabinet all won their seats on the basis of that manifesto. What gives them the right to say that they are going to impose a policy which is the opposite of what that manifesto says and also contrary to what Parliament has voted?
Practically every Labour and Tory MP in 2017 won their seats on a pledge to respect the referendum result. The vast majority of them including all those Tories who have now left or who are pledging to stop Brexit put it in their personal manifestoes as well.
What gives them the right to now say they will ignore both the referendum result and their own promises?
Surely when the facts change (or more details become available) it’s valid to change your opinion?
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Exactly.
Despite the fact that No Deal has no mandate, either from the referendum or from the last election, a determined minority of MPs and their advisors, elected by 92,000 people, can push it through and are apparently willing to do whatever it takes to do so, regardless of conventions, constitutional proprieties or anything else.
How on earth they think they can win an election in such circumstances or make their decision last, God only knows. And as for unifying the country ..... all this sort of behaviour will do is deepen the divisions.
I think Boris's strategy is falling into place before our
Boris would be a disgraced has been who lost his seat? works for me!
Cracks me up how Bozo apologists try and make out he is "anti-establishment". The anti-establishment, old-Etonian, Bullingdon Club, millionaire, Daily Telegraph Leader writer, Oxford educated Tory MP and Primeminister, Boris Johnson looks and sounds VERY anti-establishment to me!!! Not!
Come on you are challenging the new myth that all remainers are the elite and are failing the working class whilst the real elite are pissing themselves laughing as their promised land of a Singapore economy gets closer and closer where only they gain.
The people who use "establishment" this way are confusing cultural dominance with economic or political influence. To them a pink-haired gender non-binary university student is more powerful than a hedge fund manager because Netflix is putting transgender characters in their shows
It works though man of the people farage is filmed getting pissed in a pub and JRM is regarded as a harmless upper class buffoon. Johnson is seen as a bit of fun but lance corporal Francois is allowed to spout rubbish on TV. the media is being conned by this approach and playing to the ‘get it over with’ message.
Asked how they would vote in an independence referendum, 46% of the 1,019 surveyed Scottish voters said they would vote for independence and 43% said they would vote against, according to a poll by Michael Ashcroft.
Excluding those who said they did not know or would not vote, this amounted to 52% to 48% for an independent Scotland.
You've got to laugh at Davidson's figure. Why must a 99pc white country feel so insecure that they feel the need to like a fat lesbo tory?
I guess there's maybe a clue in the question. If multi-culturalism does ever hit Scotland I think it would be a good thing.
Brainwashed by the Westminster propaganda unit , the BBC. They have spent the whole day debating the horror of a new build Hospital being pulled down due to a blocked drain, based solely on the opinion of a cretinous union leader who said he knew nothing about drains but as buildings are built on top of drains it will likely need to be demolished to fix the drain. BBC Scotland have led on this since early morning on screen and radio and promoted Davidson wanting an independent enquiry. You could not make it up.
There is no mandate for No Deal. The referendum was won on the basis that there would be a deal. That was the expectation of the government when Article 50 was put into law and of pretty much the vast majority of the MPs voting for it.
The government’s manifesto very clearly said that it was aiming for a deal and an orderly withdrawal.
Now, all of a sudden, because of an internal party vote, the government’s key and most important policy - one with enormous and long-lasting consequences for the country - is being changed on a whim without the consent of the voters or Parliament to something that was not in the manifesto and was not on offer at the time of the referendum, however often Raab tries to lie about this.
It is doing this because it is scared of a party which has won no seats in the British Parliament.
Mandate, my arse!
The mandate was for Leave. The form of Leave was not specified. But the mandate is clear that any form of Leave is acceptable. Nothing else can be read into the result at all, either for or against any specific details. The only option that was specifically excluded by the result was Remaining.
That may be the de jure position. It is not the de facto position. The basis on which the referendum was won is critical to the mandate. That is why, for instance, Mrs May said that freedom of movement had to end. It would be possible, after all, to be a member of the Single Market while leaving the EU and that too would be in compliance with the mandate technically speaking. But it would not be in keeping with the basis on which the mandate was won.
If the 2016 mandate matters why shouldn’t it be qualified by the 2017 Tory manifesto which talks about an orderly withdrawal?
The Tory MPs currently in Cabinet all won their seats on the basis of that manifesto. What gives them the right to say that they are going to impose a policy which is the opposite of what that manifesto says and also contrary to what Parliament has voted?
Practically every Labour and Tory MP in 2017 won their seats on a pledge to respect the referendum result. The vast majority of them including all those Tories who have now left or who are pledging to stop Brexit put it in their personal manifestoes as well.
What gives them the right to now say they will ignore both the referendum result and their own promises?
Yawn. The overwhelming majority of MPs have been, and still are, committed to implementing the referendum result. You know that and are just being disingenuous.
There is no mandate for No Deal. The referendum was won on the basis that there would be a deal. That was the expectation of the government when Article 50 was put into law and of pretty much the vast majority of the MPs voting for it.
The government’s manifesto very clearly said that it was aiming for a deal and an orderly withdrawal.
Now, all of a sudden, because of an internal party vote, the government’s key and most important policy - one with enormous and long-lasting consequences for the country - is being changed on a whim without the consent of the voters or Parliament to something that was not in the manifesto and was not on offer at the time of the referendum, however often Raab tries to lie about this.
It is doing this because it is scared of a party which has won no seats in the British Parliament.
Mandate, my arse!
The mandate was for Leave. The form of Leave was not specified. But the mandate is clear that any form of Leave is acceptable. Nothing else can be read into the result at all, either for or against any specific details. The only option that was specifically excluded by the result was Remaining.
If that is the case, there can by definition be no such thing as “Project Fear”, as all Leave outcomes are both possible and indeed mandated.
Perhaps we should rerun the referendum, but this time with Leave replacing their frequent invocations of the phrase “Project Fear” with “yeah that’s not an option we’re specifically excluding”.
Surely when the facts change (or more details become available) it’s valid to change your opinion?
Nothing has changed. Everyone knew at the 2017 election that a No Deal Brexit was a possibility. And yet they still put a commitment to honouring the result in their personal manifestoes and went all over the media spreading that message.
Those claiming that a No Deal Brexit does not have a mandate are just as much fanatics as the ERG loons claiming that a BINO was not a proper Brexit and was not what people voted for. Both are projecting their own opinions onto the electorate with no basis in fact.
There’s fewer than 100 non-Con and non-Lab MPs, so anyone wanting to form a government against the wishes of Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn has to find over 200 defectors from those parties.
A couple of dozen might well be possible, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred MPs willing to commit what’s almost certainly going to be instant career suicide.
Quite.
Parliament has been Stakhanovite in telling us what it doesn't want, but spectacularly coy about what it does.
So I can easily imagine it squeaking a VONC, but very much doubt it will get within 50 votes of an alternative replacement.
Surely that’s because when it votes against something governments usually then don’t go ahead with what Parliament has said no to.
It’s the fact that this government is determined to ignore Parliament which is causing the problems.
Easy to criticise Parliament for not acting like the executive, which is not in any case its function. But what is far more worthy of criticism is a party in government which is determined to ignore Parliament. That’s not democracy but a government acting like a dictator.
If Johnson wants to have a No Deal Brexit then he should get an express mandate to do it from the voters not use Parliamentary or other constitutional shenanigans to get his own way.
Johnson doesn't want a No Deal Brexit. He wants to make a No Deal Brexit look credible, as an outcome, so he can get a better deal at the last minute.
It's high risk and frightening. It might just work, but probably won't. Right now I think he will be VONCed, and we will have a temporary, minority Corbyn govt promising an extension, probably a new vote, and certainly an early GE.
1. The No Deal brinkmanship theory has always been utter nonsense. One has to be soft in the head to still be peddling it.
2. Although I don't think the BJ premiership will last more than a few months, the chances of Corbyn forming a government, before or after an election, are nil. I suppose things will become clearer in Sept+Oct but atm it's hard to predict who the next PM will be.
Yawn. The overwhelming majority of MPs have been, and still are, committed to implementing the referendum result. You know that and are just being disingenuous.
Clearly they are not or we would have left by now. Given the overwhelming majority of them did not want to Leave in the first place they are simply finding ways in which to overturn the result of the referendum but without getting blamed for it. By the way, if you are tired I suggest you have a nap. It might improve your reasoning as well.
Surely when the facts change (or more details become available) it’s valid to change your opinion?
Nothing has changed. Everyone knew at the 2017 election that a No Deal Brexit was a possibility. And yet they still put a commitment to honouring the result in their personal manifestoes and went all over the media spreading that message.
Those claiming that a No Deal Brexit does not have a mandate are just as much fanatics as the ERG loons claiming that a BINO was not a proper Brexit and was not what people voted for. Both are projecting their own opinions onto the electorate with no basis in fact.
Well I for one never saw a single manifesto pushing no deal, my MP Fysh was claiming that we would never leave EFTA/EEA before the referendum and never mentioned no deal as a destination. We were told we hold all the cards, it was the easiest deal in history, blah blah blah. now I only watch news 18 hours a day but if you can show me where anyone claimed no deal was a likely destination, from a positive view I’d be interested.
They also stood on the basis of leaving with a deal, which clearly requires more time. So you are arguing for an extension?
I have no particular attachment to the date excepting the fact that it just gives the Remain camp more opportunity to overturn the referendum result - which is actually why they keep refusing to back any deal at all. But I am neither a Boris fan nor particularly exercised by his particular date.
It would be nice to actually get this over and done with though. But that is just my own impatience.
Yawn. The overwhelming majority of MPs have been, and still are, committed to implementing the referendum result. You know that and are just being disingenuous.
Clearly they are not or we would have left by now.
You're an idiot. Sorry, but after months of this nonsense my patience has run out.
Surely when the facts change (or more details become available) it’s valid to change your opinion?
Nothing has changed. Everyone knew at the 2017 election that a No Deal Brexit was a possibility. And yet they still put a commitment to honouring the result in their personal manifestoes and went all over the media spreading that message.
Those claiming that a No Deal Brexit does not have a mandate are just as much fanatics as the ERG loons claiming that a BINO was not a proper Brexit and was not what people voted for. Both are projecting their own opinions onto the electorate with no basis in fact.
Well I for one never saw a single manifesto pushing no deal, my MP Fysh was claiming that we would never leave EFTA/EEA before the referendum and never mentioned no deal as a destination. We were told we hold all the cards, it was the easiest deal in history, blah blah blah. now I only watch news 18 hours a day but if you can show me where anyone claimed no deal was a likely destination, from a positive view I’d be interested.
But you are a self proclaimed fanatical Remainer. So it is not your opinion we are discussing here but that of those who voted Leave.
There is no mandate for No Deal. The referendum was won on the basis that there would be a deal. That was the expectation of the government when Article 50 was put into law and of pretty much the vast majority of the MPs voting for it.
The government’s manifesto very clearly said that it was aiming for a deal and an orderly withdrawal.
Now, all of a sudden, because of an internal party vote, the government’s key and most important policy - one with enormous and long-lasting consequences for the country - is being changed on a whim without the consent of the voters or Parliament to something that was not in the manifesto and was not on offer at the time of the referendum, however often Raab tries to lie about this.
It is doing this because it is scared of a party which has won no seats in the British Parliament.
Mandate, my arse!
The mandate was for Leave. The form of Leave was not specified. But the mandate is clear that any form of Leave is acceptable. Nothing else can be read into the result at all, either for or against any specific details. The only option that was specifically excluded by the result was Remaining.
If that is the case, there can by definition be no such thing as “Project Fear”, as all Leave outcomes are both possible and indeed mandated.
Perhaps we should rerun the referendum, but this time with Leave replacing their frequent invocations of the phrase “Project Fear” with “yeah that’s not an option we’re specifically excluding”.
Given that project fear has already been proved to be utter rubbish and that we have no reason to believe that mark 2 will be any more accurate I am afraid your claims are incorrect.
Yawn. The overwhelming majority of MPs have been, and still are, committed to implementing the referendum result. You know that and are just being disingenuous.
Clearly they are not or we would have left by now.
You're an idiot. Sorry, but after months of this nonsense my patience has run out.
Who cares what you think? You spout utter bollocks on a regular basis and we have to put up with it so your 'patience' is neither here nor there.
Surely when the facts change (or more details become available) it’s valid to change your opinion?
Nothing has changed. Everyone knew at the 2017 election that a No Deal Brexit was a possibility. And yet they still put a commitment to honouring the result in their personal manifestoes and went all over the media spreading that message.
Those claiming that a No Deal Brexit does not have a mandate are just as much fanatics as the ERG loons claiming that a BINO was not a proper Brexit and was not what people voted for. Both are projecting their own opinions onto the electorate with no basis in fact.
Well I for one never saw a single manifesto pushing no deal, my MP Fysh was claiming that we would never leave EFTA/EEA before the referendum and never mentioned no deal as a destination. We were told we hold all the cards, it was the easiest deal in history, blah blah blah. now I only watch news 18 hours a day but if you can show me where anyone claimed no deal was a likely destination, from a positive view I’d be interested.
But you are a self proclaimed fanatical Remainer. So it is not your opinion we are discussing here but that of those who voted Leave.
Can you provide the evidence to back up your claim that it was clear in 2017 that no deal was a real possibility? Yes I’m a proud, fanatical, die hard remainer who’s view is as relevant as yours. We are in the middle of the biggest con job ever launched on the UK with no real mechanism to expose it.
Surely when the facts change (or more details become available) it’s valid to change your opinion?
Nothing has changed. Everyone knew at the 2017 election that a No Deal Brexit was a possibility. And yet they still put a commitment to honouring the result in their personal manifestoes and went all over the media spreading that message.
Those claiming that a No Deal Brexit does not have a mandate are just as much fanatics as the ERG loons claiming that a BINO was not a proper Brexit and was not what people voted for. Both are projecting their own opinions onto the electorate with no basis in fact.
Not true - in 2017 a No Deal Brexit may not have had the impact it had now. For instance in 2017 Trump wasn't in the position he is now with a trade war with China and trying to start one with the EU.
Personally when the facts change I expect people to listen and change their mind if you don't that's fine but following your logic the Boeing 737 max should still be flying...
Yes. That's the rule I never quite grasp. And I have had it explained to me, several times, by total leather-on-willowheads. Trouble is, they have all explained it slightly differently.
Ok, I'll have a go. These are all for deliveries that would hit the stumps.
1. Pitching outside leg: not out 2. Pitching on stumps or outside off, batsman playing shot, impact in line with stumps: out 3. Pitching on stumps or outside off, batsman playing shot, impact not in line with stumps: not out 4. Pitching on stumps or outside off, batsman not playing shot: out
Surely when the facts change (or more details become available) it’s valid to change your opinion?
Nothing has changed. Everyone knew at the 2017 election that a No Deal Brexit was a possibility. And yet they still put a commitment to honouring the result in their personal manifestoes and went all over the media spreading that message.
Those claiming that a No Deal Brexit does not have a mandate are just as much fanatics as the ERG loons claiming that a BINO was not a proper Brexit and was not what people voted for. Both are projecting their own opinions onto the electorate with no basis in fact.
Not true - in 2017 a No Deal Brexit may not have had the impact it had now. For instance in 2017 Trump wasn't in the position he is now with a trade war with China and trying to start one with the EU.
Personally when the facts change I expect people to listen and change their mind if you don't that's fine but following your logic the Boeing 737 max should still be flying...
As the famous economist Galbraith stated -
When the facts change, my opinion changes. What do you do esquire?
Surely when the facts change (or more details become available) it’s valid to change your opinion?
Nothing has changed. Everyone knew at the 2017 election that a No Deal Brexit was a possibility. And yet they still put a commitment to honouring the result in their personal manifestoes and went all over the media spreading that message.
Those claiming that a No Deal Brexit does not have a mandate are just as much fanatics as the ERG loons claiming that a BINO was not a proper Brexit and was not what people voted for. Both are projecting their own opinions onto the electorate with no basis in fact.
Not true - in 2017 a No Deal Brexit may not have had the impact it had now. For instance in 2017 Trump wasn't in the position he is now with a trade war with China and trying to start one with the EU.
Personally when the facts change I expect people to listen and change their mind if you don't that's fine but following your logic the Boeing 737 max should still be flying...
If you really think anyone outside of the tiny number of political anoraks are even aware of Trump's trade plans let alone being influenced enough to change their views on Brexit then you are deluded.
Surely when the facts change (or more details become available) it’s valid to change your opinion?
Nothing has changed. Everyone knew at the 2017 election that a No Deal Brexit was a possibility. And yet they still put a commitment to honouring the result in their personal manifestoes and went all over the media spreading that message.
Those claiming that a No Deal Brexit does not have a mandate are just as much fanatics as the ERG loons claiming that a BINO was not a proper Brexit and was not what people voted for. Both are projecting their own opinions onto the electorate with no basis in fact.
Well I for one never saw a single manifesto pushing no deal, my MP Fysh was claiming that we would never leave EFTA/EEA before the referendum and never mentioned no deal as a destination. We were told we hold all the cards, it was the easiest deal in history, blah blah blah. now I only watch news 18 hours a day but if you can show me where anyone claimed no deal was a likely destination, from a positive view I’d be interested.
But you are a self proclaimed fanatical Remainer. So it is not your opinion we are discussing here but that of those who voted Leave.
Can you provide the evidence to back up your claim that it was clear in 2017 that no deal was a real possibility? Yes I’m a proud, fanatical, die hard remainer who’s view is as relevant as yours. We are in the middle of the biggest con job ever launched on the UK with no real mechanism to expose it.
Well no in this argument my view is far more relevantvthan yours because the vlaim being argued is that people like me who favoured a soft Brexit have now changed their minds because a No Desl is in prospect. You fanatics on either side of the argument don't figure in those calculations.
On topic, it does seem that Scottish voters feel positively about people from their own country compared to those from another, the absolutely massive racists.
Off topic,why does HMG need a no-deal mandate? The default position at law, surely, is that once A50 notice is served the Treaties stop applying when the time runs out. You'd need a mandate to extend or revoke, true, but not for treaty obligations to run their course.
Asked how they would vote in an independence referendum, 46% of the 1,019 surveyed Scottish voters said they would vote for independence and 43% said they would vote against, according to a poll by Michael Ashcroft.
Excluding those who said they did not know or would not vote, this amounted to 52% to 48% for an independent Scotland.
Surely when the facts change (or more details become available) it’s valid to change your opinion?
Nothing has changed. Everyone knew at the 2017 election that a No Deal Brexit was a possibility. And yet they still put a commitment to honouring the result in their personal manifestoes and went all over the media spreading that message.
Those claiming that a No Deal Brexit does not have a mandate are just as much fanatics as the ERG loons claiming that a BINO was not a proper Brexit and was not what people voted for. Both are projecting their own opinions onto the electorate with no basis in fact.
Not true - in 2017 a No Deal Brexit may not have had the impact it had now. For instance in 2017 Trump wasn't in the position he is now with a trade war with China and trying to start one with the EU.
Personally when the facts change I expect people to listen and change their mind if you don't that's fine but following your logic the Boeing 737 max should still be flying...
If you really think anyone outside of the tiny number of political anoraks are even aware of Trump's trade plans let alone being influenced enough to change their views on Brexit then you are deluded.
But you were talking about MPs who should be aware of what’s going on round the world. And it’s perfectly valid for them to change their opinion of what is best for their constituents as other factors occur
Asked how they would vote in an independence referendum, 46% of the 1,019 surveyed Scottish voters said they would vote for independence and 43% said they would vote against, according to a poll by Michael Ashcroft.
Excluding those who said they did not know or would not vote, this amounted to 52% to 48% for an independent Scotland.
Swinson certainly gives the LDs the best chance of the Unionist parties of making progress against the SNP in the next general election for Westminster (though her seat remains marginal) but on that poll Ruth Davidson is even more popular than Swinson in Scotland so remains the best hope for a Unionist First Minister
By best hope you mean absolutely NO hope, for either of the donkeys. Davidson will need to be sure she is also top of List so she gets a booby prize , even if somewhat embarrassing.
The LDs would back Davidson for First Minister of Scotland even if they would not back Boris for UK PM
Oh yes? Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support that assertion?
Swinson is as fanatically anti Scottish independence as she is anti Brexit, Davidson backed No to Scottish independence and was a Remainer and opposes No Deal
This is interesting. Seem that Boris has deliberately killed off the chances of any further negotiations with the EU.
David Frost, who replaced Olly Robbins as the government’s chief Europe adviser, was said to have instead sought to discuss how negotiations could be reset after the UK crashes out on 31 October, during his recent talks with senior EU figures.
Frost was said to have told the officials that a technological solution to the Irish border was the UK’s preferred option before admitting that “it would not be ready now for Brexit”.
“It was clear UK does not have another plan,” a senior EU diplomat said of the meetings with Frost. “No intention to negotiate, which would require a plan. A no deal now appears to be the UK government’s central scenario.”
[...]
“Even if EU gave up the backstop there is no alternative,” a diplomat concluded of the discussion.
“That message has now gone loud and clear to capitals, it was useful to hear it form horse’s mouth,” the EU source said. “Reality is sinking in.”.
For some time I've been commenting that though Boris and ministers talk about a better deal, there is never any detail or any notion of what a better deal might look like. It looks like we are back to square one, turning up in Brussels like David Davis to ask for the EU's menu.
Some believe Boris and/or Dominic Cummings has a plan to crash out or not crash out or extend and blame Corbyn and win an election or something but is there really any evidence?
Surely when the facts change (or more details become available) it’s valid to change your opinion?
Nothing has changed. Everyone knew at the 2017 election that a No Deal Brexit was a possibility. And yet they still put a commitment to honouring the result in their personal manifestoes and went all over the media spreading that message.
Those claiming that a No Deal Brexit does not have a mandate are just as much fanatics as the ERG loons claiming that a BINO was not a proper Brexit and was not what people voted for. Both are projecting their own opinions onto the electorate with no basis in fact.
Well I for one never saw a single manifesto pushing no deal, my MP Fysh was claiming that we would never leave EFTA/EEA before the referendum and never mentioned no deal as a destination. We were told we hold all the cards, it was the easiest deal in history, blah blah blah. now I only watch news 18 hours a day but if you can show me where anyone claimed no deal was a likely destination, from a positive view I’d be interested.
But you are a self proclaimed fanatical Remainer. So it is not your opinion we are discussing here but that of those who voted Leave.
Can you provide the evidence to back up your claim that it was clear in 2017 that no deal was a real possibility? Yes I’m a proud, fanatical, die hard remainer who’s view is as relevant as yours. We are in the middle of the biggest con job ever launched on the UK with no real mechanism to expose it.
Well no in this argument my view is far more relevantvthan yours because the vlaim being argued is that people like me who favoured a soft Brexit have now changed their minds because a No Desl is in prospect. You fanatics on either side of the argument don't figure in those calculations.
So no evidence, can we have a list of economic benefits for the NE of England when we leave with no Deal?
Swinson certainly gives the LDs the best chance of the Unionist parties of making progress against the SNP in the next general election for Westminster (though her seat remains marginal) but on that poll Ruth Davidson is even more popular than Swinson in Scotland so remains the best hope for a Unionist First Minister
By best hope you mean absolutely NO hope, for either of the donkeys. Davidson will need to be sure she is also top of List so she gets a booby prize , even if somewhat embarrassing.
The LDs would back Davidson for First Minister of Scotland even if they would not back Boris for UK PM
They will never get more than 50% of the seats in a million years
The SNP is polling below its 2016 share in the latest Holyrood polls
Would you like a bet , I say the Tories and Lib Dem's will get less MSP's than the SNP at next election, do you want to put your money where your mouth is.
Tories plus LDs plus Labour will likely get more MSPs than the SNP in 2021, plus the Brexit Party will likely get some regional list MSPs too on the latest poll
On topic, it does seem that Scottish voters feel positively about people from their own country compared to those from another, the absolutely massive racists.
"The percentage of people in Scotland from minority ethnic groups had doubled to 4%, up from 2% in 2001."
Asked how they would vote in an independence referendum, 46% of the 1,019 surveyed Scottish voters said they would vote for independence and 43% said they would vote against, according to a poll by Michael Ashcroft.
Excluding those who said they did not know or would not vote, this amounted to 52% to 48% for an independent Scotland.
Swinson certainly gives the LDs the best chance of the Unionist parties of making progress against the SNP in the next general election for Westminster (though her seat remains marginal) but on that poll Ruth Davidson is even more popular than Swinson in Scotland so remains the best hope for a Unionist First Minister
By best hope you mean absolutely NO hope, for either of the donkeys. Davidson will need to be sure she is also top of List so she gets a booby prize , even if somewhat embarrassing.
The LDs would back Davidson for First Minister of Scotland even if they would not back Boris for UK PM
They will never get more than 50% of the seats in a million years
The SNP is polling below its 2016 share in the latest Holyrood polls
Would you like a bet , I say the Tories and Lib Dem's will get less MSP's than the SNP at next election, do you want to put your money where your mouth is.
Tories plus LDs plus Labour will likely get more MSPs than the SNP in 2021, plus the Brexit Party will likely get some regional list MSPs too on the latest poll
There'll be no Union by that point. I'm going to take my Independence Insurance at evens
Swinson certainly gives the LDs the best chance of the Unionist parties of making progress against the SNP in the next general election for Westminster (though her seat remains marginal) but on that poll Ruth Davidson is even more popular than Swinson in Scotland so remains the best hope for a Unionist First Minister
By best hope you mean absolutely NO hope, for either of the donkeys. Davidson will need to be sure she is also top of List so she gets a booby prize , even if somewhat embarrassing.
The LDs would back Davidson for First Minister of Scotland even if they would not back Boris for UK PM
Oh yes? Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support that assertion?
Swinson is as fanatically anti Scottish independence as she is anti Brexit, Davidson backed No to Scottish independence and was a Remainer and opposes No Deal
And what is the rest of the Tory programme for Scotland that you think the Lib Dems are going to back? And Labour too, of course? And how does Davidson`s plan fit in with that of ABDPJohnson for the country as a whole?
Ch4 news health minister asked how many hospitals in E&W, May be 200, well I actually don’t know, can you guarantee nobody will die if no deal .... stutter can you guarantee UK citizens in EU continued health care .... stutter. This is beyond ridiculous. They really don’t have a fucking clue.
I don't know what other thing @Tyndall was right about today but he is right about leaving. The question was leave or remain - just that - and we haven't left. The flavour of leaving is irrelevant. That no one voted for no deal is irrelevant. They voted to leave and, unless they were morons, which, being Leave voters one can't of course rule out, they knew that no deal was always possible.
I don't know what other thing @Tyndall was right about today but he is right about leaving. The question was leave or remain - just that - and we haven't left. The flavour of leaving is irrelevant. That no one voted for no deal is irrelevant. They voted to leave and, unless they were morons, which, being Leave voters one can't of course rule out, they knew that no deal was always possible.
Did they? Which of the Leave campaigners talking about the ease of making a deal would have given voters that impression? And remember that leaving without a deal is not the end of the process -- we will still have to make deals, lots of them.
Swinson certainly gives the LDs the best chance of the Unionist parties of making progress against the SNP in the next general election for Westminster (though her seat remains marginal) but on that poll Ruth Davidson is even more popular than Swinson in Scotland so remains the best hope for a Unionist First Minister
By best hope you mean absolutely NO hope, for either of the donkeys. Davidson will need to be sure she is also top of List so she gets a booby prize , even if somewhat embarrassing.
The LDs would back Davidson for First Minister of Scotland even if they would not back Boris for UK PM
Oh yes? Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support that assertion?
Swinson is as fanatically anti Scottish independence as she is anti Brexit, Davidson backed No to Scottish independence and was a Remainer and opposes No Deal
And what is the rest of the Tory programme for Scotland that you think the Lib Dems are going to back? And Labour too, of course? And how does Davidson`s plan fit in with that of ABDPJohnson for the country as a whole?
Davidson is a centrist Scot who opposes independence that is enough for the Scottish LDs and probably Scottish Labour too who hate the SNP even more than they hate the Tories.
What the LDs and Labour do at Westminster where their main opponent is the Tories led by Boris is totally different to what they will do at Holyrood where their main opponent is Sturgeon's SNP
Ch4 news health minister asked how many hospitals in E&W, May be 200, well I actually don’t know, can you guarantee nobody will die if no deal .... stutter can you guarantee UK citizens in EU continued health care .... stutter. This is beyond ridiculous. They really don’t have a fucking clue.
Guarantee that no-one will die? I didn't realise No Deal is now being judged on whether it fails to provide eternal life.
In other news, isn't it wonderful that we're leaving the EU? It is delicious and glorious, and I am so happy and grateful.
Comments
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election#Constituency_vote
It's high risk and frightening. It might just work, but probably won't. Right now I think he will be VONCed, and we will have a temporary, minority Corbyn govt promising an extension, probably a new vote, and certainly an early GE.
All in favour of fun.
Boris is buggered.
1 an official or authoritative command to carry out a particular task.
2 the political authority given to a government or an elected representative through an electoral victory.
3 blah blah etc.
But even were you correct, the people told MPs to make sure we left the EU. Nothing more or less. No provisos or conditions. A simple case of we must leave. If that is your definition of a mandate (the people telling MPs to do something) then under your definition we must leave.
The government’s manifesto very clearly said that it was aiming for a deal and an orderly withdrawal.
Now, all of a sudden, because of an internal party vote, the government’s key and most important policy - one with enormous and long-lasting consequences for the country - is being changed on a whim without the consent of the voters or Parliament to something that was not in the manifesto and was not on offer at the time of the referendum, however often Raab tries to lie about this.
It is doing this because it is scared of a party which has won no seats in the British Parliament.
Mandate, my arse!
I think there are people (prime example May) who respect it.
A lot of people don't and we call them either diehard remainers, remoaners or remainiacs
Then you've got labour who'll respect the mandate as long as they're in government.
Three simple groups of people - The Brisky Theory of EU REF
I'm not suggesting I want this outcome, I'm just assessing the possibilities. And this now seems quite possible: a temporary and minority Corbyn government, elevated solely to deliver an extension, a 2nd vote, and then a GE.
How will MPs with a soul deal with the guilt of voting for Corbyn? Dunno. Some might abstain. And he gets in by default?
As I said earlier, SOMETHING politically impossible has to happen between now and 31st October, to break the impasse. This could be it.
As people voted to leave while being assured that we would leave with a deal, there's no evidence whatsoever that leaving with no deal would be acceptable to them.
Excluding those who said they did not know or would not vote, this amounted to 52% to 48% for an independent Scotland.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-scotland/scots-favour-independence-from-united-kingdom-ashcroft-poll-shows-idUKKCN1UV0IF
There goes my Independence Insurance.
If the 2016 mandate matters why shouldn’t it be qualified by the 2017 Tory manifesto which talks about an orderly withdrawal?
The Tory MPs currently in Cabinet all won their seats on the basis of that manifesto. What gives them the right to say that they are going to impose a policy which is the opposite of what that manifesto says and also contrary to what Parliament has voted?
The only thing you can say for sure is that people voted for Leave and against Remain. Everything else is projection by Remainers or Leavers to get the result they want.
David Frost, who replaced Olly Robbins as the government’s chief Europe adviser, was said to have instead sought to discuss how negotiations could be reset after the UK crashes out on 31 October, during his recent talks with senior EU figures.
Frost was said to have told the officials that a technological solution to the Irish border was the UK’s preferred option before admitting that “it would not be ready now for Brexit”.
“It was clear UK does not have another plan,” a senior EU diplomat said of the meetings with Frost. “No intention to negotiate, which would require a plan. A no deal now appears to be the UK government’s central scenario.”
[...]
“Even if EU gave up the backstop there is no alternative,” a diplomat concluded of the discussion.
“That message has now gone loud and clear to capitals, it was useful to hear it form horse’s mouth,” the EU source said. “Reality is sinking in.”.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/05/no-deal-brexit-is-boris-johnsons-central-scenario-eu-told
What gives them the right to now say they will ignore both the referendum result and their own promises?
An extension would suit him fine, a long one even better, since he wants to leave with a deal. So long as someone else asks for it, or forces him to.
A second referendum wouldn’t be so bad, although I don’t believe it is what he wants. Leave would be forced back to campaigning for a deal, which he wants and may well win. If Remain wins, the whole problem goes away, at least for his premiership.
As ever the whole thing hangs on the outcome of the early GE that HY has been telling us for ages that he desperately wants.
The basis for what this Johnson government is proposing seems to be what is in Cummings’ head or what Johnson has said as part of his promises to the 92,000 who voted for him as Tory leader. If he had the balls he would go to the country to see if the voters agree that this is what they want. And in plenty of time before the deadline not after it.
Anyway have to go off out now. Till later.
BTW completely off topic: are TVs in the bathroom a sybaritic indulgence? Or a tastelessly naff and chavvy thing to do?
You've got to laugh at Davidson's figure. Why must a 99pc white country feel so insecure that they feel the need to like a fat lesbo tory?
I guess there's maybe a clue in the question. If multi-culturalism does ever hit Scotland I think it would be a good thing.
Where do I sign up?
Perhaps we should rerun the referendum, but this time with Leave replacing their frequent invocations of the phrase “Project Fear” with “yeah that’s not an option we’re specifically excluding”.
Those claiming that a No Deal Brexit does not have a mandate are just as much fanatics as the ERG loons claiming that a BINO was not a proper Brexit and was not what people voted for. Both are projecting their own opinions onto the electorate with no basis in fact.
2. Although I don't think the BJ premiership will last more than a few months, the chances of Corbyn forming a government, before or after an election, are nil. I suppose things will become clearer in Sept+Oct but atm it's hard to predict who the next PM will be.
It would be nice to actually get this over and done with though. But that is just my own impatience.
Personally when the facts change I expect people to listen and change their mind if you don't that's fine but following your logic the Boeing 737 max should still be flying...
1. Pitching outside leg: not out
2. Pitching on stumps or outside off, batsman playing shot, impact in line with stumps: out
3. Pitching on stumps or outside off, batsman playing shot, impact not in line with stumps: not out
4. Pitching on stumps or outside off, batsman not playing shot: out
When the facts change, my opinion changes. What do you do esquire?
God Tier - Sky News
Middle Tier - RT
Shit Tier - BBC24
1. No Deal Brexit
2. Revoke Art.50 [ after a VoNC ]
Off topic,why does HMG need a no-deal mandate? The default position at law, surely, is that once A50 notice is served the Treaties stop applying when the time runs out. You'd need a mandate to extend or revoke, true, but not for treaty obligations to run their course.
I've got a sad anyway.
I want my Independence Insurance!
Some believe Boris and/or Dominic Cummings has a plan to crash out or not crash out or extend and blame Corbyn and win an election or something but is there really any evidence?
https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/ethnicity-identity-language-and-religion
It's shockingly white - but hey that's alright - it's only Civic Nationalism
#HYUFDlogic
At that election, a majority of the electorate voted to leave with a deal.
What’s more, everytime the public have had a chance to vote on No Deal, they have declined the opp. As has Parliament.
What the LDs and Labour do at Westminster where their main opponent is the Tories led by Boris is totally different to what they will do at Holyrood where their main opponent is Sturgeon's SNP
In other news, isn't it wonderful that we're leaving the EU? It is delicious and glorious, and I am so happy and grateful.