If Johnson is prepared to stick it out in the face of a VONC he's likely prepared to defy any other convention.
I doubt he's prepared for the fact that his opponents (with the aid of the Speaker) will prove as 'flexible' in their interpretation of the constitution as he is.
" I don't necessarily want No Deal but the referendum was Leave or Remain. Nothing else.
Please point me to the box I ticked that said 'Leave but only with a Deal'.
People were well aware that there was the possibility of leaving without a deal. It is only those who want to reverse the whole process who are rewriting history."
Why a box? The Vote Leave campaign made it clear over and over again that a deal would be simple.
A deal was reached don't forget. Parliament rejected it three times.
Grieve is the father of No Deal. If it wasn't for the votes of Grieve etc we would have left with a Deal.
That is true. It's also true that those who opposed the deal were mostly pro-EU MPs. The absence of a deal being agreed is down to those who are for, not against, the EU.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
You have to remember this is a parliament which has been supreme at saying what it doesn't want but can't agree what it does want. I can easily see the following scenario
VONC in Johnson - Johnson loses VOC in Corbyn - Corbyn loses VOC in Clarke/Starmer/Benn etc - also loses
So Johnson ends up staying by default and we have an election.
There won’t be a VONC which passes the house unless it is clear they can have a VOC which passes allowing a new PM to request an extension and then have either a referendum or election. Voting Johnson out without knowing what happens next is playing into his hands.
Jezza looks to be playing a blinder: get the VONC bogged down with procedural wranglings and personnel issues, watch Boris's No Deal loom into view and enjoy. I suppose Jezza would prefer full-on No Deal horror to Boris's panicking at the last minute and seeking a postponement, but it's either/or really.
Cummings is merely the latest in a long line of geniuses to run things for the Conservatives in 10 Downing Street. First there was Andy Coulson, whose genius took him to prison. Then there was Steve Hilton, whose genius took him to a life of Donald Trump fanboyism on Fox News. Then there was Craig Oliver, whose genius took him to losing the referendum campaign. Then there was Nick Timothy, whose genius took him to tirelessly writing self-exculpating columns for the crime of accidentally detonating the full holy trinity: his career, his prime minister and his country.
And they owe it all to Alastair Campbell whose genius took him to being satirised and reviled in equal measure to the extent that his being thrown out of the Labour party was greeted with great joy by many of his own former colleagues.
Just a bunch of sourpuss Remainers not accepting Parliamentary democracy.
Parliament passed the Fixed Term Parliament Act - the next election is 2022. Parliament passed the EU Withdrawal Act - we are leaving with or without a deal. Parliament endorsed the 31 October date - that is the date we leave. Parliament rejected the deal. Parliament rejected the deal again. Parliament rejected the deal again. Parliament chose not to call an early election in time to change the law.
Remainers: Boris is rejecting Parliament!
No deal does not have a mandate. The referendum was on the basis that there would be a deal.
Rubbish. I don't necessarily want No Deal but the referendum was Leave or Remain. Nothing else.
Please point me to the box I ticked that said 'Leave but only with a Deal'.
People were well aware that there was the possibility of leaving without a deal. It is only those who want to reverse the whole process who are rewriting history.
99% of people at the time of the referendum weren't thinking about Deal or No Deal, they were just thinking about Remain or Leave.
The idea that in 2016 people were "well aware" of the possibility of No Deal is absolutely absurd.
One has only to look at the confusion about the situation that prevails even now, even among intelligent people who take an interest in politics.
Why, only a month or two ago Boris Johnson himself didn't understand what No Deal meant, thinking there would still be a transition period!
Jezza looks to be playing a blinder: get the VONC bogged down with procedural wranglings and personnel issues, watch Boris's No Deal loom into view and enjoy. I suppose Jezza would prefer full-on No Deal horror to Boris's panicking at the last minute and seeking a postponement, but it's either or really.
Of course. Corbs wants no deal, and for it to be a distaster. Thats good for him and the labour party.
Article 50 no longer applies after 31st October. The EU27 can absolutely decide to readmit the UK on its current terms following a general election in which No Deal has been rejected by the electorate - and the EU27 can make that clear in advance of the election, having agreed, in principle, a new treaty prior to 31st October.
The idea that the EU will be able to 'fast track' a new treaty to replace TFEU is just fanciful. For a start there is absolutely no guarantee that all 27 members would want the UK back into the same holding pattern mess the are in now. Then of course you have the issue with each member wanting to use the treaty to open up old claims and new proposals - do you really think Hungary and Poland are going to simply ignore the opportunity to make changes to the way the EU is run? And finally, even if each Government agrees, many of them will have to get a new treaty passed by their own rules - including in some case a referendum.
And in all that time the UK is already legally outside of the EU.
I do understand the desire to find practical solutions to avoid No Deal but the EU ignoring or scrapping its most important treaty is simply not realistic.
That is true. It's also true that those who opposed the deal were mostly pro-EU MPs. The absence of a deal being agreed is down to those who are for, not against, the EU.
If only those remainers on here could understand this!
Just a bunch of sourpuss Remainers not accepting Parliamentary democracy.
Parliament passed the Fixed Term Parliament Act - the next election is 2022. Parliament passed the EU Withdrawal Act - we are leaving with or without a deal. Parliament endorsed the 31 October date - that is the date we leave. Parliament rejected the deal. Parliament rejected the deal again. Parliament rejected the deal again. Parliament chose not to call an early election in time to change the law.
Remainers: Boris is rejecting Parliament!
No deal does not have a mandate. The referendum was on the basis that there would be a deal.
Rubbish. I don't necessarily want No Deal but the referendum was Leave or Remain. Nothing else.
Please point me to the box I ticked that said 'Leave but only with a Deal'.
People were well aware that there was the possibility of leaving without a deal. It is only those who want to reverse the whole process who are rewriting history.
99% of people at the time of the referendum weren't thinking about Deal or No Deal, they were just thinking about Remain or Leave.
The idea that in 2016 people were "well aware" of the possibility of No Deal is absolutely absurd.
One has only to look at the confusion about the situation that prevails even now, even among intelligent people who take an interest in politics.
Why, only a month or two ago Boris Johnson himself didn't understand what No Deal meant, thinking there would still be a transition period!
And a month or two before that he voted for May's deal, backstop included.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
You have to remember this is a parliament which has been supreme at saying what it doesn't want but can't agree what it does want. I can easily see the following scenario
VONC in Johnson - Johnson loses VOC in Corbyn - Corbyn loses VOC in Clarke/Starmer/Benn etc - also loses
So Johnson ends up staying by default and we have an election.
There won’t be a VONC which passes the house unless it is clear they can have a VOC which passes allowing a new PM to request an extension and then have either a referendum or election. Voting Johnson out without knowing what happens next is playing into his hands.
We could well get into a position there there is no VOC in any party. Which would of course lead to a GE, but then Boris would still be PM, and given the time, would still win the no-deal game.
Just a bunch of sourpuss Remainers not accepting Parliamentary democracy.
Parliament passed the Fixed Term Parliament Act - the next election is 2022. Parliament passed the EU Withdrawal Act - we are leaving with or without a deal. Parliament endorsed the 31 October date - that is the date we leave. Parliament rejected the deal. Parliament rejected the deal again. Parliament rejected the deal again. Parliament chose not to call an early election in time to change the law.
Remainers: Boris is rejecting Parliament!
No deal does not have a mandate. The referendum was on the basis that there would be a deal.
Rubbish. I don't necessarily want No Deal but the referendum was Leave or Remain. Nothing else.
Please point me to the box I ticked that said 'Leave but only with a Deal'.
People were well aware that there was the possibility of leaving without a deal. It is only those who want to reverse the whole process who are rewriting history.
Because people vote on a manifesto, and their belief that the manifesto can be delivered. If we characterise the leave campaign promises as their manifesto (reasonable enough to my mind), then no deal was definitely not an option. Million to one, you might say.
Putting a cross by 'Leave' was indicating a desire for that manifesto to be delivered. Or would nuking Brussels be an acceptable way to leave because it didn't rule it out on the ballot paper?
Just a bunch of sourpuss Remainers not accepting Parliamentary democracy.
Parliament passed the Fixed Term Parliament Act - the next election is 2022. Parliament passed the EU Withdrawal Act - we are leaving with or without a deal. Parliament endorsed the 31 October date - that is the date we leave. Parliament rejected the deal. Parliament rejected the deal again. Parliament rejected the deal again. Parliament chose not to call an early election in time to change the law.
Remainers: Boris is rejecting Parliament!
No deal does not have a mandate. The referendum was on the basis that there would be a deal.
But No Deal is the default once A50 was triggered if no acceptable agreement was achieved..
But it may be the technical current legal default but there was no mandate from the referendum.
Also Boris is not going to be stupid enough to be PM if a no deal happens
I doubt he's thought it through. I expect Cummings has and is happy to "game" No Deal by filibustering until 31st October, after which the world will change.
One thing I'm not sure has been touched on is the possibility another law is passed by Parliament compelling him to seek an extension, immediately before they then pass a VoNC to force an election. That could be one way out, and he could just shrug and blame Parliament. But it requires a lot of coordination.
By the way, I owe you an unreserved apology for how I spoke to you on here the other day. I let my frustrations get the better of me and took them out on you. It was totally uncalled for and I apologise unreservedly: I'm sorry.
It won't happen again.
Thank you. That is very generous of you. Think nothing of it. We all get annoyed from time to time. Matter’s closed.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
You have to remember this is a parliament which has been supreme at saying what it doesn't want but can't agree what it does want. I can easily see the following scenario
VONC in Johnson - Johnson loses VOC in Corbyn - Corbyn loses VOC in Clarke/Starmer/Benn etc - also loses
So Johnson ends up staying by default and we have an election.
Surely Boris needs to resign and Corbyn (and Clarke/Starmer/Benn) need to be prime minister and have formed a government before the Commons can express its confidence or lack of same in that government. So we might well have an election but heaven knows who will be at the lectern with the crest.
" I don't necessarily want No Deal but the referendum was Leave or Remain. Nothing else.
Please point me to the box I ticked that said 'Leave but only with a Deal'.
People were well aware that there was the possibility of leaving without a deal. It is only those who want to reverse the whole process who are rewriting history."
Why a box? The Vote Leave campaign made it clear over and over again that a deal would be simple.
And the Remain campaign made it clear over and over again that No Deal was a possibility. You cannot claim people were not given the information and many, like me, will have balanced the risks before making our decision.
Just a bunch of sourpuss Remainers not accepting Parliamentary democracy.
Parliament passed the Fixed Term Parliament Act - the next election is 2022. Parliament passed the EU Withdrawal Act - we are leaving with or without a deal. Parliament endorsed the 31 October date - that is the date we leave. Parliament rejected the deal. Parliament rejected the deal again. Parliament rejected the deal again. Parliament chose not to call an early election in time to change the law.
Remainers: Boris is rejecting Parliament!
No deal does not have a mandate. The referendum was on the basis that there would be a deal.
Rubbish. I don't necessarily want No Deal but the referendum was Leave or Remain. Nothing else.
Please point me to the box I ticked that said 'Leave but only with a Deal'.
People were well aware that there was the possibility of leaving without a deal. It is only those who want to reverse the whole process who are rewriting history.
99% of people at the time of the referendum weren't thinking about Deal or No Deal, they were just thinking about Remain or Leave.
The idea that in 2016 people were "well aware" of the possibility of No Deal is absolutely absurd.
One has only to look at the confusion about the situation that prevails even now, even among intelligent people who take an interest in politics.
Why, only a month or two ago Boris Johnson himself didn't understand what No Deal meant, thinking there would still be a transition period!
Parliament chose for there to be no deal. Blame Parliament.
Every single one of the 400 MPs who rejected the deal needs to look in the mirror and say "I did this". I'm sure the ERG will do that with a smile.
Grieve, Cooper and everyone else in that 400 should stop casting aspersions at others and be self aware enough to realise what they have done when they walked into the lobby with the ERG.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
You have to remember this is a parliament which has been supreme at saying what it doesn't want but can't agree what it does want. I can easily see the following scenario
VONC in Johnson - Johnson loses VOC in Corbyn - Corbyn loses VOC in Clarke/Starmer/Benn etc - also loses
So Johnson ends up staying by default and we have an election.
There won’t be a VONC which passes the house unless it is clear they can have a VOC which passes allowing a new PM to request an extension and then have either a referendum or election. Voting Johnson out without knowing what happens next is playing into his hands.
We could well get into a position there there is no VOC in any party. Which would of course lead to a GE, but then Boris would still be PM, and given the time, would still win the no-deal game.
If a new PM is installed would they require a 2/3 majority to call an election?
Article 50 no longer applies after 31st October. The EU27 can absolutely decide to readmit the UK on its current terms following a general election in which No Deal has been rejected by the electorate - and the EU27 can make that clear in advance of the election, having agreed, in principle, a new treaty prior to 31st October.
The idea that the EU will be able to 'fast track' a new treaty to replace TFEU is just fanciful. For a start there is absolutely no guarantee that all 27 members would want the UK back into the same holding pattern mess the are in now. Then of course you have the issue with each member wanting to use the treaty to open up old claims and new proposals - do you really think Hungary and Poland are going to simply ignore the opportunity to make changes to the way the EU is run? And finally, even if each Government agrees, many of them will have to get a new treaty passed by their own rules - including in some case a referendum.
And in all that time the UK is already legally outside of the EU.
I do understand the desire to find practical solutions to avoid No Deal but the EU ignoring or scrapping its most important treaty is simply not realistic.
These are not normal times. The EU wants to avoid a No Deal if it can and the individual member state governments will want their electorates to see that they did everything possible to avoid one. They will be as creative as they can be if Johnson wants to play silly buggers - especially if it looks like he does not enjoy majority support in the UK.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
You have to remember this is a parliament which has been supreme at saying what it doesn't want but can't agree what it does want. I can easily see the following scenario
VONC in Johnson - Johnson loses VOC in Corbyn - Corbyn loses VOC in Clarke/Starmer/Benn etc - also loses
So Johnson ends up staying by default and we have an election.
Surely Boris needs to resign and Corbyn (and Clarke/Starmer/Benn) need to be prime minister and have formed a government before the Commons can express its confidence or lack of same in that government. So we might well have an election but heaven knows who will be at the lectern with the crest.
I don;t think so, Getting to get a government with a iron clad proof of VOC numbers would be hugely dangerous legal waters.
Jezza looks to be playing a blinder: get the VONC bogged down with procedural wranglings and personnel issues, watch Boris's No Deal loom into view and enjoy. I suppose Jezza would prefer full-on No Deal horror to Boris's panicking at the last minute and seeking a postponement, but it's either or really.
Of course. Corbs wants no deal, and for it to be a distaster. Thats good for him and the labour party.
This is, I believe, the Seamus Strategy. It has been clear for ages.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
You have to remember this is a parliament which has been supreme at saying what it doesn't want but can't agree what it does want. I can easily see the following scenario
VONC in Johnson - Johnson loses VOC in Corbyn - Corbyn loses VOC in Clarke/Starmer/Benn etc - also loses
So Johnson ends up staying by default and we have an election.
There won’t be a VONC which passes the house unless it is clear they can have a VOC which passes allowing a new PM to request an extension and then have either a referendum or election. Voting Johnson out without knowing what happens next is playing into his hands.
We could well get into a position there there is no VOC in any party. Which would of course lead to a GE, but then Boris would still be PM, and given the time, would still win the no-deal game.
If a new PM is installed would they require a 2/3 majority to call an election?
Yes - unless they ensured there was another VoNC which they contrived to lose.
Article 50 no longer applies after 31st October. The EU27 can absolutely decide to readmit the UK on its current terms following a general election in which No Deal has been rejected by the electorate - and the EU27 can make that clear in advance of the election, having agreed, in principle, a new treaty prior to 31st October.
The idea that the EU will be able to 'fast track' a new treaty to replace TFEU is just fanciful. For a start there is absolutely no guarantee that all 27 members would want the UK back into the same holding pattern mess the are in now. Then of course you have the issue with each member wanting to use the treaty to open up old claims and new proposals - do you really think Hungary and Poland are going to simply ignore the opportunity to make changes to the way the EU is run? And finally, even if each Government agrees, many of them will have to get a new treaty passed by their own rules - including in some case a referendum.
And in all that time the UK is already legally outside of the EU.
I do understand the desire to find practical solutions to avoid No Deal but the EU ignoring or scrapping its most important treaty is simply not realistic.
These are not normal times. The EU wants to avoid a No Deal if it can and the individual member state governments will want their electorates to see that they did everything possible to avoid one. They will be as creative as they can be if Johnson wants to play silly buggers - especially if it looks like he does not enjoy majority support in the UK.
Treaties are not written just for normal times, they are written for the abnormal ones as well. That is why Article 50 was put in the treaty in the first place.
The idea the EU will ignore its own treaties either from a political or practical point of view is just pie in the sky.
If Johnson is prepared to stick it out in the face of a VONC he's likely prepared to defy any other convention.
I don't get the opprobrium about this. The FTPA is designed to give a 14 day grace period before defaulting to an election, so it seems logical that in the absence of an alternative government with the confidence of the HoC, Johnson should remain PM.
Ah yes the insights of someone for who assaulting his pregnant girlfriend is a good holiday.
I don’t work hard just so I can holiday in Cleethorpes.
Britain is a great and beautiful country, but it is after all, very crowded, has variable weather, and many of its seaside resorts seem to want to cater to the lowest common demoninator for some reason. Good food is also an effort to find outside London.
Last summer I holidayed first in Normandy and then in the Kentish Weald, with in-laws from NZ.
Kent was (comparatively) shabby, chavvy, and the food terrible.
"Good food is also an effort to find outside London" I just don't know what to say to that.
Ah yes the insights of someone for who assaulting his pregnant girlfriend is a good holiday.
I don’t work hard just so I can holiday in Cleethorpes.
Britain is a great and beautiful country, but it is after all, very crowded, has variable weather, and many of its seaside resorts seem to want to cater to the lowest common demoninator for some reason. Good food is also an effort to find outside London.
Last summer I holidayed first in Normandy and then in the Kentish Weald, with in-laws from NZ.
Kent was (comparatively) shabby, chavvy, and the food terrible.
For good food outside London, I'd recommend North Yorkshire and South Devon. I'd say the quality of food in country pubs has improved dramatically in my lifetime.
And the Lake District which has lots of very good places to eat.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
You have to remember this is a parliament which has been supreme at saying what it doesn't want but can't agree what it does want. I can easily see the following scenario
VONC in Johnson - Johnson loses VOC in Corbyn - Corbyn loses VOC in Clarke/Starmer/Benn etc - also loses
So Johnson ends up staying by default and we have an election.
There won’t be a VONC which passes the house unless it is clear they can have a VOC which passes allowing a new PM to request an extension and then have either a referendum or election. Voting Johnson out without knowing what happens next is playing into his hands.
We could well get into a position there there is no VOC in any party. Which would of course lead to a GE, but then Boris would still be PM, and given the time, would still win the no-deal game.
If a new PM is installed would they require a 2/3 majority to call an election?
Morning Nichomar. I have always wondered about a variation of this question.
It takes a 2/3rds majority to call an election. But it only takes a simple majority to change the law. So surely Parliament could simply repeal the FTPA on a simple majority and then call an election.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Corbyn gets first dibs. If he is voted down, as looks likely, it becomes moment of truth time and time for some blinking.
Nobody gets any dibs.
Boris remains in Downing Street for the 14 days and gets 14 days to regain Confidence. That is what the law says.
If in the meantime anyone else demonstrates they can command Confidence then Boris would be obliged to resign and the Queen would send for them. But that must be demonstrated first. It doesn't matter if that is Corbyn, Starmer, Clarke or some random unknown backbencher only an anorak would know the name of. They have to have a majority first or else Boris simply would not resign.
If Johnson is prepared to stick it out in the face of a VONC he's likely prepared to defy any other convention.
I don't get the opprobrium about this. The FTPA is designed to give a 14 day grace period before defaulting to an election, so it seems logical that in the absence of an alternative government with the confidence of the HoC, Johnson should remain PM.
Indeed. And if at the end of the 14 days no majority for someone else, and then we go to GE.
Corbyn can't become PM without an election i dont think.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
You have to remember this is a parliament which has been supreme at saying what it doesn't want but can't agree what it does want. I can easily see the following scenario
VONC in Johnson - Johnson loses VOC in Corbyn - Corbyn loses VOC in Clarke/Starmer/Benn etc - also loses
So Johnson ends up staying by default and we have an election.
Surely Boris needs to resign and Corbyn (and Clarke/Starmer/Benn) need to be prime minister and have formed a government before the Commons can express its confidence or lack of same in that government. So we might well have an election but heaven knows who will be at the lectern with the crest.
The current PM recommends the Queen who to call as successor. Boris can (I believe say legitimately) that he doesn't believe anyone else has the confidence of the house. Surely in some such circumstances, Labour would table some sort of motion in favour of Corbyn (which I believe would fail)
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
You have to remember this is a parliament which has been supreme at saying what it doesn't want but can't agree what it does want. I can easily see the following scenario
VONC in Johnson - Johnson loses VOC in Corbyn - Corbyn loses VOC in Clarke/Starmer/Benn etc - also loses
So Johnson ends up staying by default and we have an election.
Surely Boris needs to resign and Corbyn (and Clarke/Starmer/Benn) need to be prime minister and have formed a government before the Commons can express its confidence or lack of same in that government. So we might well have an election but heaven knows who will be at the lectern with the crest.
No it doesn't work that way. Corbyn needs to be PM before the Commons can express its Confidence formally but that doesn't prevent the Commons expressing its confidence or lack of same before he gets sent for. If Corbyn lacks the numbers we won't find that out at the Confidence in him vote, we would find that out beforehand and Boris needn't resign beforehand.
Just a bunch of sourpuss Remainers not accepting Parliamentary democracy.
Parliament passed the Fixed Term Parliament Act - the next election is 2022. Parliament passed the EU Withdrawal Act - we are leaving with or without a deal. Parliament endorsed the 31 October date - that is the date we leave. Parliament rejected the deal. Parliament rejected the deal again. Parliament rejected the deal again. Parliament chose not to call an early election in time to change the law.
Remainers: Boris is rejecting Parliament!
No deal does not have a mandate. The referendum was on the basis that there would be a deal.
Rubbish. I don't necessarily want No Deal but the referendum was Leave or Remain. Nothing else.
Please point me to the box I ticked that said 'Leave but only with a Deal'.
People were well aware that there was the possibility of leaving without a deal. It is only those who want to reverse the whole process who are rewriting history.
Because people vote on a manifesto, and their belief that the manifesto can be delivered. If we characterise the leave campaign promises as their manifesto (reasonable enough to my mind), then no deal was definitely not an option. Million to one, you might say.
Putting a cross by 'Leave' was indicating a desire for that manifesto to be delivered. Or would nuking Brussels be an acceptable way to leave because it didn't rule it out on the ballot paper?
If you start going down the road of manifestos then you are really on dangerous ground because we all know Governments ignore manifestos all the time. If they were legally binding in any way then practically every Government in the last 50 years has broken the law.
Jezza looks to be playing a blinder: get the VONC bogged down with procedural wranglings and personnel issues, watch Boris's No Deal loom into view and enjoy. I suppose Jezza would prefer full-on No Deal horror to Boris's panicking at the last minute and seeking a postponement, but it's either or really.
Of course. Corbs wants no deal, and for it to be a distaster. Thats good for him and the labour party.
Yes, a really good look if things do go wrong to have enabled it by not getting behind that nice Ken Clarke or Margaret Beckett and anyway when would an election be under those circumstances.
I just watched 'Brexit: The Uncivil War' again (with my son - 15 years old and highly politicised) and I think it's well worth a rewatch. Aside from its pure enjoyment factor (Cumberpatch's tour-de-force as Dominic Cummings, and Banks and Farage as a sort of fascist Laurel and Hardy worth the entrance fee alone) the ending is problematic.
It show Cummings as a frustrated man thwarted in terms of making any real change, and Johnson pulling his hair out in a sort of 'oh-god-what-have-I-done' sort of way. I'd like to see a sequel, because arguably both have emerged much, much stronger than the end of the drama implied.
Germane to this discussion, however, is this: whatever you may think of Cummings - ideologue, propagandist, tyrant, anarchist - he is a first-rate strategic thinker *and* doer. And if Johnson is spouting 'do or die' comments ahead of October 31st, you'd better believe Cummings has worked out a way of doing this.
Or turning it to his (and Johnson's) advantage.
All this jaw-jaw may strike us as a bit Samuel Beckett, but, given Cummings' penchant for classic literature, think 'Endgame' rather than 'Waiting for Godot'...
Just a bunch of sourpuss Remainers not accepting Parliamentary democracy.
Parliament passed the Fixed Term Parliament Act - the next election is 2022. Parliament passed the EU Withdrawal Act - we are leaving with or without a deal. Parliament endorsed the 31 October date - that is the date we leave. Parliament rejected the deal. Parliament rejected the deal again. Parliament rejected the deal again. Parliament chose not to call an early election in time to change the law.
Remainers: Boris is rejecting Parliament!
You are arguing from the law. I am pointing out the politics of it. If, in an election called to get a mandate for No Deal, the electorate vote against it, it would be politically unconscionable for the outgoing government to enact it anyway. It is a gigantic FU to the voters. It is contemptuous of them, their right to take the decision and of the whole point of a GE.
Ironic for a party claiming that it wants to implement the will of the people.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
You have to remember this is a parliament which has been supreme at saying what it doesn't want but can't agree what it does want. I can easily see the following scenario
VONC in Johnson - Johnson loses VOC in Corbyn - Corbyn loses VOC in Clarke/Starmer/Benn etc - also loses
So Johnson ends up staying by default and we have an election.
Surely Boris needs to resign and Corbyn (and Clarke/Starmer/Benn) need to be prime minister and have formed a government before the Commons can express its confidence or lack of same in that government. So we might well have an election but heaven knows who will be at the lectern with the crest.
The current PM recommends the Queen who to call as successor. Boris can (I believe say legitimately) that he doesn't believe anyone else has the confidence of the house. Surely in some such circumstances, Labour would table some sort of motion in favour of Corbyn (which I believe would fail)
Technically the Queen takes soundings and doesn't ask the current PM alone but she only does that if there is a vacancy. A VONC does not in itself create a vacancy.
Like Brown in 2010 or Callaghan in 1979 Boris is entitled to remain in place until it is clear a replacement does have a majority.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
You have to remember this is a parliament which has been supreme at saying what it doesn't want but can't agree what it does want. I can easily see the following scenario
VONC in Johnson - Johnson loses VOC in Corbyn - Corbyn loses VOC in Clarke/Starmer/Benn etc - also loses
So Johnson ends up staying by default and we have an election.
Surely Boris needs to resign and Corbyn (and Clarke/Starmer/Benn) need to be prime minister and have formed a government before the Commons can express its confidence or lack of same in that government. So we might well have an election but heaven knows who will be at the lectern with the crest.
I don;t think so, Getting to get a government with a iron clad proof of VOC numbers would be hugely dangerous legal waters.
It is almost as if the FTPA is deeply flawed (as is a lot of legislation: that is the problem with the Commons; not that they sit opposite rather than in a circle but that for whatever reason, it does not properly consider and where necessary revise bills before they hit the vellum.)
But if a VOC/VONC is in a government, not the leader of the opposition or a Thatcher-era ex-minister, then there must be a new government to vote on. Similarly, the old pm must have resigned, which by convention he'd do anyway (and call an election).
So what we might have is, with no GoNU or new government of any stripe: VONC which Boris loses 14 days in which Boris fails to win a VOC Election.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Corbyn gets first dibs. If he is voted down, as looks likely, it becomes moment of truth time and time for some blinking.
I really don't see the incentive for Corbyn in calling an early VONC.
His general electoral chances would appear to be greater after a no deal exit than before. Probably 18 months after when the government has had an extended period of bad news, increased infighting and general chaos.
His chances of winning a VOC look slim, with Tory, DUP and LibDems looking likely to be against and his own party lacking unrequited love for him. Why should he do anything to risk a GONU in his place?
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
You have to remember this is a parliament which has been supreme at saying what it doesn't want but can't agree what it does want. I can easily see the following scenario
VONC in Johnson - Johnson loses VOC in Corbyn - Corbyn loses VOC in Clarke/Starmer/Benn etc - also loses
So Johnson ends up staying by default and we have an election.
Surely Boris needs to resign and Corbyn (and Clarke/Starmer/Benn) need to be prime minister and have formed a government before the Commons can express its confidence or lack of same in that government. So we might well have an election but heaven knows who will be at the lectern with the crest.
The current PM recommends the Queen who to call as successor. Boris can (I believe say legitimately) that he doesn't believe anyone else has the confidence of the house. Surely in some such circumstances, Labour would table some sort of motion in favour of Corbyn (which I believe would fail)
I think it would be simple for the House to express whether it has confidence or not in any prospective PM. It doesn't have to be a formal VoC as such. Simply an indicative vote which the Speaker can then use to advise HM on the status of confidence. That bypasses any specific rules about VoC but I think the overwhelming majority of reasonable people would agree the House has shown whether or not it has confidence.
It is not as if we don't have a recent precedent for indicative votes.
An interesting piece though I'm not sure I wholly agree. As we saw last time, Governments can and do use elections to fly kites for controversial legislation as manifesto proposals to be enacted if they are re-elected.
I've now seen November 1st mooted as a GE date so the day after we leave the EU presumably without a WA so a sense of national euphoria (for some) but too early to see the economic impacts hitting home. Indeed, with many postal votes going in before 31/10, those anticipating No Deal can safely vote knowing Boris can't or won't renege.
IF the economic consequences are as deleterious as many believe, the re-elected Johnson Government will have a very early mid-term slump but presumably the CCHQ calculations are there will be plenty of time for the economic storm to pass and for the good times to roll before a 2024 GE though were Johnson then to be facing a new centrist Labour leader that would be a very different contest.
We are a long way from that but September will be crunch time for those opposed to No Deal. I expect the EU to offer a new extension which Johnson will reject but that may be challenged on the floor of the Commons. Presumably, if compelled by the Commons to agree to a new extension, Johnson would resign and call a GE on a "only I can end the Brexit nightmare" ticket.
As ComRes pointed out, calling the GE before 31/10 is much riskier for Johnson than calling it in the immediate aftermath of departure so I can see why 1/11 is entering GE date calculations but there's an awful lot of water to go under those bridges yet.
“as manifesto proposals to be enacted if they are re-elected.”
My point. Not as proposals to be implemented during the election campaign regardless of whether the electorate reject them.
" I don't necessarily want No Deal but the referendum was Leave or Remain. Nothing else.
Please point me to the box I ticked that said 'Leave but only with a Deal'.
People were well aware that there was the possibility of leaving without a deal. It is only those who want to reverse the whole process who are rewriting history."
Why a box? The Vote Leave campaign made it clear over and over again that a deal would be simple.
And the Remain campaign made it clear over and over again that No Deal was a possibility. You cannot claim people were not given the information and many, like me, will have balanced the risks before making our decision.
Yes, as with everything else, the Remain campaign were scrupulously honest about the very real prospect of a disastrous No Deal. It's the gullible saps who believed Leave's claim that this was just 'Project Fear' that I feel sorry for. How could anyone be that stupid and naive?
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Corbyn gets first dibs. If he is voted down, as looks likely, it becomes moment of truth time and time for some blinking.
But surely he 'only' gets to be PM if he can command a majority, which he can't. Liz would have to call an election rather than call him.
Well according this article Labour is going to offer a second referendum. If this really is the case - and there is a direct quote from McDonnell in the article - then I can't see how the Lib Dems could refuse to support Corbyn on a temporary basis whilst the referendum legislation is passed.
Just a bunch of sourpuss Remainers not accepting Parliamentary democracy.
Parliament passed the Fixed Term Parliament Act - the next election is 2022. Parliament passed the EU Withdrawal Act - we are leaving with or without a deal. Parliament endorsed the 31 October date - that is the date we leave. Parliament rejected the deal. Parliament rejected the deal again. Parliament rejected the deal again. Parliament chose not to call an early election in time to change the law.
Remainers: Boris is rejecting Parliament!
You are arguing from the law. I am pointing out the politics of it. If, in an election called to get a mandate for No Deal, the electorate vote against it, it would be politically unconscionable for the outgoing government to enact it anyway. It is a gigantic FU to the voters. It is contemptuous of them, their right to take the decision and of the whole point of a GE.
Ironic for a party claiming that it wants to implement the will of the people.
It isn't contemptuous since that is precisely what Parliament had voted for.
The government wouldn't have been behind holding the election, the opposition MPs would have, so they would have been contemptuous in choosing to bring about an election too late for the voters to vote. Why did they do that?
Just because the opposition have left it too late does not mean that the government is obliged either morally or otherwise to unilaterally reverse its own policy that was passed by Parliament prior to purdah.
When it looked like an election was going to be held before the ratification of Lisbon, Cameron sought to have a referendum on that in his manifesto. Because the election took place after ratification he didn't.
Given that thanks to the Fixed Term Parliament Act and thanks to the votes of the MPs in this Parliament the election will be voting after we left, parties should be campaigning on whether to rejoin or not. They should not be campaigning on whether we leave or not as that will already be [extremely recent] history.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
You have to remember this is a parliament which has been supreme at saying what it doesn't want but can't agree what it does want. I can easily see the following scenario
VONC in Johnson - Johnson loses VOC in Corbyn - Corbyn loses VOC in Clarke/Starmer/Benn etc - also loses
So Johnson ends up staying by default and we have an election.
Surely Boris needs to resign and Corbyn (and Clarke/Starmer/Benn) need to be prime minister and have formed a government before the Commons can express its confidence or lack of same in that government. So we might well have an election but heaven knows who will be at the lectern with the crest.
I don;t think so, Getting to get a government with a iron clad proof of VOC numbers would be hugely dangerous legal waters.
It is almost as if the FTPA is deeply flawed (as is a lot of legislation: that is the problem with the Commons; not that they sit opposite rather than in a circle but that for whatever reason, it does not properly consider and where necessary revise bills before they hit the vellum.)
But if a VOC/VONC is in a government, not the leader of the opposition or a Thatcher-era ex-minister, then there must be a new government to vote on. Similarly, the old pm must have resigned, which by convention he'd do anyway (and call an election).
So what we might have is, with no GoNU or new government of any stripe: VONC which Boris loses 14 days in which Boris fails to win a VOC Election.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
You have to remember this is a parliament which has been supreme at saying what it doesn't want but can't agree what it does want. I can easily see the following scenario
VONC in Johnson - Johnson loses VOC in Corbyn - Corbyn loses VOC in Clarke/Starmer/Benn etc - also loses
So Johnson ends up staying by default and we have an election.
There won’t be a VONC which passes the house unless it is clear they can have a VOC which passes allowing a new PM to request an extension and then have either a referendum or election. Voting Johnson out without knowing what happens next is playing into his hands.
We could well get into a position there there is no VOC in any party. Which would of course lead to a GE, but then Boris would still be PM, and given the time, would still win the no-deal game.
If a new PM is installed would they require a 2/3 majority to call an election?
Morning Nichomar. I have always wondered about a variation of this question.
It takes a 2/3rds majority to call an election. But it only takes a simple majority to change the law. So surely Parliament could simply repeal the FTPA on a simple majority and then call an election.
Yes, but they couldn't do it quickly without the cooperation of the House of Lords.
As an analogy it is like we are driving down the motorway with full traffic on the outside lane of the motorway and then as we are parallel to the exit passengers [opponents of No Deal] suddenly shout they want to take the exit.
The driver [Boris] wanted to continue straight ahead but it is too late anyway, to swerve across three lanes of traffic now would be disruptive, dangerous and he's reasonably able to say no I'm not going to do that.
The passengers have gone along with the ride until it was past the point of changing direction. Not reasonable to expect Boris to change direction then when he doesn't want to or need to. The law stands, we exit 31 October.
Your analogy is rubbish. It’s more like pulling into a layby to check whether you have read the map correctly and have the right address before continuing with your journey.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
You have to remember this is a parliament which has been supreme at saying what it doesn't want but can't agree what it does want. I can easily see the following scenario
VONC in Johnson - Johnson loses VOC in Corbyn - Corbyn loses VOC in Clarke/Starmer/Benn etc - also loses
So Johnson ends up staying by default and we have an election.
There won’t be a VONC which passes the house unless it is clear they can have a VOC which passes allowing a new PM to request an extension and then have either a referendum or election. Voting Johnson out without knowing what happens next is playing into his hands.
We could well get into a position there there is no VOC in any party. Which would of course lead to a GE, but then Boris would still be PM, and given the time, would still win the no-deal game.
If a new PM is installed would they require a 2/3 majority to call an election?
Morning Nichomar. I have always wondered about a variation of this question.
It takes a 2/3rds majority to call an election. But it only takes a simple majority to change the law. So surely Parliament could simply repeal the FTPA on a simple majority and then call an election.
Yes, but they couldn't do it quickly without the cooperation of the House of Lords.
Fair point. The question I suppose is whether the Lords would block something that was seen to have the support of the majority of the Commons.
Just a bunch of sourpuss Remainers not accepting Parliamentary democracy.
Parliament passed the Fixed Term Parliament Act - the next election is 2022. Parliament passed the EU Withdrawal Act - we are leaving with or without a deal. Parliament endorsed the 31 October date - that is the date we leave. Parliament rejected the deal. Parliament rejected the deal again. Parliament rejected the deal again. Parliament chose not to call an early election in time to change the law.
Remainers: Boris is rejecting Parliament!
No deal does not have a mandate. The referendum was on the basis that there would be a deal.
Rubbish. I don't necessarily want No Deal but the referendum was Leave or Remain. Nothing else.
Please point me to the box I ticked that said 'Leave but only with a Deal'.
People were well aware that there was the possibility of leaving without a deal. It is only those who want to reverse the whole process who are rewriting history.
Because people vote on a manifesto, and their belief that the manifesto can be delivered. If we characterise the leave campaign promises as their manifesto (reasonable enough to my mind), then no deal was definitely not an option. Million to one, you might say.
Putting a cross by 'Leave' was indicating a desire for that manifesto to be delivered. Or would nuking Brussels be an acceptable way to leave because it didn't rule it out on the ballot paper?
If you start going down the road of manifestos then you are really on dangerous ground because we all know Governments ignore manifestos all the time. If they were legally binding in any way then practically every Government in the last 50 years has broken the law.
This is about the mandate to do something, not the law. You and your fellow travellers are claiming as it only said Leave on the paper, then any form of leave is acceptable, and to deny this is undemocratic.
There are many options for reducing the number of migrants living in this country. Some of them are extremely unacceptable. A government elected on a manifesto to reduce migrant numbers is not granted carte blanche by the electorate to achieve it.
" I don't necessarily want No Deal but the referendum was Leave or Remain. Nothing else.
Please point me to the box I ticked that said 'Leave but only with a Deal'.
People were well aware that there was the possibility of leaving without a deal. It is only those who want to reverse the whole process who are rewriting history."
Why a box? The Vote Leave campaign made it clear over and over again that a deal would be simple.
And the Remain campaign made it clear over and over again that No Deal was a possibility. You cannot claim people were not given the information and many, like me, will have balanced the risks before making our decision.
Yes, as with everything else, the Remain campaign were scrupulously honest about the very real prospect of a disastrous No Deal. It's the gullible saps who believed Leave's claim that this was just 'Project Fear' that I feel sorry for. How could anyone be that stupid and naive?
Both sides lied. Its what politicians do. The dumb ones are those who believe one side or another wholesale or claim they are 'scrupulously honest'.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Corbyn gets first dibs. If he is voted down, as looks likely, it becomes moment of truth time and time for some blinking.
I really don't see the incentive for Corbyn in calling an early VONC.
His general electoral chances would appear to be greater after a no deal exit than before. Probably 18 months after when the government has had an extended period of bad news, increased infighting and general chaos.
His chances of winning a VOC look slim, with Tory, DUP and LibDems looking likely to be against and his own party lacking unrequited love for him. Why should he do anything to risk a GONU in his place?
Just why is he in a hurry to VONC the PM?
OK maybe it turns out that Corbyn is simply a man of principle after all and not a player of political games, but he's just a bit dim. That probably explains all his behaviour better than anything else.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
You have to remember this is a parliament which has been supreme at saying what it doesn't want but can't agree what it does want. I can easily see the following scenario
VONC in Johnson - Johnson loses VOC in Corbyn - Corbyn loses VOC in Clarke/Starmer/Benn etc - also loses
So Johnson ends up staying by default and we have an election.
There won’t be a VONC which passes the house unless it is clear they can have a VOC which passes allowing a new PM to request an extension and then have either a referendum or election. Voting Johnson out without knowing what happens next is playing into his hands.
We could well get into a position there there is no VOC in any party. Which would of course lead to a GE, but then Boris would still be PM, and given the time, would still win the no-deal game.
If a new PM is installed would they require a 2/3 majority to call an election?
Morning Nichomar. I have always wondered about a variation of this question.
It takes a 2/3rds majority to call an election. But it only takes a simple majority to change the law. So surely Parliament could simply repeal the FTPA on a simple majority and then call an election.
Yes, but they couldn't do it quickly without the cooperation of the House of Lords.
Does the House of Lords REALLY want to get in the way of deciding the means our Parliamentarians are elected? Thin ice....
I can't be the only one that's sick to death of all the sincere soul searching and constitutional arguments and just wants the UK government to get on with enacting what's been its only policy goal for years now ("Brexit means Brexit, "No Deal better than a Bad Deal" etc...).
It's remarkable and a touch quaint how animated everyone has become, about what is in the grand scheme a fairly minor change to the trade and customs arrangements in a little corner of Europe. Boiling down all the arguments around the backstop vs "alternative arrangements", the circular debate that is apparently stopping a smooth exit and trade sovereignty for the UK, is whether it's a good idea to deploy troops to stop the IRA and their ilk profiting from tariff arbitrage rather than just VAT and duty, or whether we can all live with some extra low grade criminality across the Irish border for the sake of a quiet life.
Meanwhile out in the real world, there are very real and serious threats going on to the established economic and political order, with Beijing now openly flaunting its imperial intentions with a plan for accelerated global technological dominance, Hong Kong's one-country-two-systems status on a knife edge (could Hong Kong financial equivalence and the dollar peg survive a curfew enforced by Chinese troops?), 10 year German bond yields approaching negative 0.6% (!), rising challenges to the capitalist system in the UK, US and many other places, and just for good measure Kashmir back in the news for all the wrong reasons.
After I read this forum yesterday, I couldn't wait to get home to watch the Cummings horror video for myself. This must be REALLY GOOD I was thinking, it was the tipping point for all these esteemed and committed activists to walk away from the party they've devoted huge chunks of their lives to. But like most people with no particular political affiliation, all I saw was a slightly scruffy man running late for work. Hard not to conclude that what we're seeing is the final gasp from those that despite their best intentions, never truly reconciled themselves to the Brexit result but are now finally realizing that the game is up.
I just watched 'Brexit: The Uncivil War' again (with my son - 15 years old and highly politicised) and I think it's well worth a rewatch. Aside from its pure enjoyment factor (Cumberpatch's tour-de-force as Dominic Cummings, and Banks and Farage as a sort of fascist Laurel and Hardy worth the entrance fee alone) the ending is problematic.
It show Cummings as a frustrated man thwarted in terms of making any real change, and Johnson pulling his hair out in a sort of 'oh-god-what-have-I-done' sort of way. I'd like to see a sequel, because arguably both have emerged much, much stronger than the end of the drama implied.
Germane to this discussion, however, is this: whatever you may think of Cummings - ideologue, propagandist, tyrant, anarchist - he is a first-rate strategic thinker *and* doer. And if Johnson is spouting 'do or die' comments ahead of October 31st, you'd better believe Cummings has worked out a way of doing this.
Or turning it to his (and Johnson's) advantage.
All this jaw-jaw may strike us as a bit Samuel Beckett, but, given Cummings' penchant for classic literature, think 'Endgame' rather than 'Waiting for Godot'...
A bit unfair on Brexit: The Uncivil War, BJ and Cummings' emerging 'much, much stronger' are very recent developments and we have yet to see if they have any staying power; probably another year before any coherent drama could be cobbled together. Of course at that point we may still be stuck in shitty stasis, ranting uncompromisingly and unconvincingly at each other.
Until something happens for example Nothing then everything carry’s on Or VONC is tabled then really there is nothing more we can say about anything. We would be better advising people how to enjoy their holidays wherever they take them or let people get on with some work if they are gainfully employed.
This is about the mandate to do something, not the law. You and your fellow travellers are claiming as it only said Leave on the paper, then any form of leave is acceptable, and to deny this is undemocratic.
There are many options for reducing the number of migrants living in this country. Some of them are extremely unacceptable. A government elected on a manifesto to reduce migrant numbers is not granted carte blanche by the electorate to achieve it.
You should have told that to May when she was Home Secretary. She used a number of methods that were 'extremely unacceptable' to many people and she got away with it.
What is or is not acceptable is a matter of personal opinion. Trying to claim that one or the other route invalidates the original decision as in this case is just you projecting your own personal opinion onto a matter of law.
Article 50 no longer applies after 31st October. The EU27 can absolutely decide to readmit the UK on its current terms following a general election in which No Deal has been rejected by the electorate - and the EU27 can make that clear in advance of the election, having agreed, in principle, a new treaty prior to 31st October.
The idea that the EU will be able to 'fast track' a new treaty to replace TFEU is just fanciful. For a start there is absolutely no guarantee that all 27 members would want the UK back into the same holding pattern mess the are in now. Then of course you have the issue with each member wanting to use the treaty to open up old claims and new proposals - do you really think Hungary and Poland are going to simply ignore the opportunity to make changes to the way the EU is run? And finally, even if each Government agrees, many of them will have to get a new treaty passed by their own rules - including in some case a referendum.
And in all that time the UK is already legally outside of the EU.
I do understand the desire to find practical solutions to avoid No Deal but the EU ignoring or scrapping its most important treaty is simply not realistic.
These are not normal times. The EU wants to avoid a No Deal if it can and the individual member state governments will want their electorates to see that they did everything possible to avoid one. They will be as creative as they can be if Johnson wants to play silly buggers - especially if it looks like he does not enjoy majority support in the UK.
Treaties are not written just for normal times, they are written for the abnormal ones as well. That is why Article 50 was put in the treaty in the first place.
The idea the EU will ignore its own treaties either from a political or practical point of view is just pie in the sky.
It is unthinkable that a UK government would ignore constitutional and Parliamentary conventions to impose an outcome on voters that they may specifically reject in a general election happening just a few weeks later. But it could well happen. In such circumstances, the EU may also decide that what was previously unthinkable no longer is. Anything is possible in completely unprecedented times.
Oh I just spotted these words @Cyclefree wrote in her reply to me: If, in an election called to get a mandate for No Deal
An election won't be called to get a mandate for No Deal. That's not happening. A mandate for no deal was given by Parliament when it voted for Article 50 and when it voted to reject the deal three times and rejected any other alternatives.
Opposition MPs may call an election to get a mandate for preventing No Deal - but that's a different matter. And since No Deal will occur before Brexit day as mandated by Parliament anyway a mandate to prevent No Deal would make as much sense as seeking a mandate to prevent Lisbon.
Mr. Eek/Mr. Stardog, well, quite. The Lib Dems (and some Labour people) opposed the deal, and are now claiming no deal doesn't have a mandate, despite having voted for it to occur.
Not sure I quite follow that, Mr Dancer. Does opposing one thing mean that automatically you are in favour of something else, whatever that happens to be?
Just a bunch of sourpuss Remainers not accepting Parliamentary democracy.
Parliament passed the Fixed Term Parliament Act - the next election is 2022. Parliament passed the EU Withdrawal Act - we are leaving with or without a deal. Parliament endorsed the 31 October date - that is the date we leave. Parliament rejected the deal. Parliament rejected the deal again. Parliament rejected the deal again. Parliament chose not to call an early election in time to change the law.
Remainers: Boris is rejecting Parliament!
No deal does not have a mandate. The referendum was on the basis that there would be a deal.
Rubbish. I don't necessarily want No Deal but the referendum was Leave or Remain. Nothing else.
Please point me to the box I ticked that said 'Leave but only with a Deal'.
People were well aware that there was the possibility of leaving without a deal. It is only those who want to reverse the whole process who are rewriting history.
99% of people at the time of the referendum weren't thinking about Deal or No Deal, they were just thinking about Remain or Leave.
The idea that in 2016 people were "well aware" of the possibility of No Deal is absolutely absurd.
One has only to look at the confusion about the situation that prevails even now, even among intelligent people who take an interest in politics.
Why, only a month or two ago Boris Johnson himself didn't understand what No Deal meant, thinking there would still be a transition period!
I agree that people weren't aware of No Deal in 2016. People weren't aware of No Deal, or Deal. The whole concept of a Deal wasn't being discussed. You can interpret that either way as far as the current debate is concerned.
Article 50 no longer applies after 31st October. The EU27 can absolutely decide to readmit the UK on its current terms following a general election in which No Deal has been rejected by the electorate - and the EU27 can make that clear in advance of the election, having agreed, in principle, a new treaty prior to 31st October.
The idea that the EU will be able to 'fast track' a new treaty to replace TFEU is just fanciful. For a start there is absolutely no guarantee that all 27 members would want the UK back into the same holding pattern mess the are in now. Then of course you have the issue with each member wanting to use the treaty to open up old claims and new proposals - do you really think Hungary and Poland are going to simply ignore the opportunity to make changes to the way the EU is run? And finally, even if each Government agrees, many of them will have to get a new treaty passed by their own rules - including in some case a referendum.
And in all that time the UK is already legally outside of the EU.
I do understand the desire to find practical solutions to avoid No Deal but the EU ignoring or scrapping its most important treaty is simply not realistic.
These are not normal times. The EU wants to avoid a No Deal if it can and the individual member state governments will want their electorates to see that they did everything possible to avoid one. They will be as creative as they can be if Johnson wants to play silly buggers - especially if it looks like he does not enjoy majority support in the UK.
Treaties are not written just for normal times, they are written for the abnormal ones as well. That is why Article 50 was put in the treaty in the first place.
The idea the EU will ignore its own treaties either from a political or practical point of view is just pie in the sky.
It is unthinkable that a UK government would ignore constitutional and Parliamentary conventions to impose an outcome on voters that they may specifically reject in a general election happening just a few weeks later. But it could well happen. In such circumstances, the EU may also decide that what was previously unthinkable no longer is. Anything is possible in completely unprecedented times.
Wishful thinking I am afraid. The EU is not going to undo treaties simply to avoid a No Deal Brexit. They may well do many other things which keep them within the Treaties but they won't do that. They simply can't afford to.
As an analogy it is like we are driving down the motorway with full traffic on the outside lane of the motorway and then as we are parallel to the exit passengers [opponents of No Deal] suddenly shout they want to take the exit.
The driver [Boris] wanted to continue straight ahead but it is too late anyway, to swerve across three lanes of traffic now would be disruptive, dangerous and he's reasonably able to say no I'm not going to do that.
The passengers have gone along with the ride until it was past the point of changing direction. Not reasonable to expect Boris to change direction then when he doesn't want to or need to. The law stands, we exit 31 October.
Your analogy is rubbish. It’s more like pulling into a layby to check whether you have read the map correctly and have the right address before continuing with your journey.
Except we aren't in a layby, we are still moving at full speed, as Parliament has til now voted for and by its inactions endorsed.
Opposition MPs may want to grab the steering wheel and change course but they've left it too late. The first Thursday possible for an election now is 31 October 2019 which would mean polls close at 10pm and we would exit the EU 60 minutes later, prior to the votes being counted.
Don't blame Boris, it isn't his idea to change course or have an election. Don't blame Cummings, he didn't write the Fixed Term Parliament Act. MPs knew their obligations and they knew the law. They've chosen this.
" I don't necessarily want No Deal but the referendum was Leave or Remain. Nothing else.
Please point me to the box I ticked that said 'Leave but only with a Deal'.
People were well aware that there was the possibility of leaving without a deal. It is only those who want to reverse the whole process who are rewriting history."
Why a box? The Vote Leave campaign made it clear over and over again that a deal would be simple.
And the Remain campaign made it clear over and over again that No Deal was a possibility. You cannot claim people were not given the information and many, like me, will have balanced the risks before making our decision.
Yes, as with everything else, the Remain campaign were scrupulously honest about the very real prospect of a disastrous No Deal. It's the gullible saps who believed Leave's claim that this was just 'Project Fear' that I feel sorry for. How could anyone be that stupid and naive?
Look I'm a Remainer right. And even I am getting fed up of calling people who voted Leave as stupid. If we have any chance of rescuing this country from the disastrous path it is careering down (which I am sure both you and I wholeheartedly agree), you have to respect the cry of pain from the body politic that was 2016, and start making positive arguments for being in the EU. Either to stop Brexit, or start the long process of putting the pieces together after it.
Typing "stupid, stupid" on your keyboard repeatedly means you are part of the problem not any hope of a solution. By continuing to polarise, and play a zero sum game, you simply help charge up energy on both sides of the Brexit divide. Diffusing this energy through respect and dialogue - one voter at a time - actually reduces the rhetorical arms race.
As it stands, Schroedingers Brexit continues apace. One side is going to get eliminated when the box gets opened. And as 'Leave' have their hands firmly on the power leavers at the moment, it's going to be us.
Just a thought... but what would happen if the EU were to decide unilaterally to extend the period for the revocation of Article 50 for twelve months? Any incoming government could then put a end to all this nonsense. We would be left with an enormous bill that the Conservatives have built up for us, in their own inimitably irresponsible way.
On the other hand, w could perhaps recoup some of our losses by immediately signing up to the EU`s Financial Transparency Arrangement.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
You have to remember this is a parliament which has been supreme at saying what it doesn't want but can't agree what it does want. I can easily see the following scenario
VONC in Johnson - Johnson loses VOC in Corbyn - Corbyn loses VOC in Clarke/Starmer/Benn etc - also loses
So Johnson ends up staying by default and we have an election.
Surely Boris needs to resign and Corbyn (and Clarke/Starmer/Benn) need to be prime minister and have formed a government before the Commons can express its confidence or lack of same in that government. So we might well have an election but heaven knows who will be at the lectern with the crest.
I don;t think so, Getting to get a government with a iron clad proof of VOC numbers would be hugely dangerous legal waters.
On that basis, Johnson should not have been appointed PM on 24th July. There was no certainty that he commanded a majority in the Commons given that several Tory MPs might have refused to support him.
Article 50 no longer applies after 31st October. The EU27 can absolutely decide to readmit the UK on its current terms following a general election in which No Deal has been rejected by the electorate - and the EU27 can make that clear in advance of the election, having agreed, in principle, a new treaty prior to 31st October.
The idea that the EU will be able to 'fast track' a new treaty to replace TFEU is just fanciful. For a start there is absolutely no guarantee that all 27 members would want the UK back into the same holding pattern mess the are in now. Then of course you have the issue with each member wanting to use the treaty to open up old claims and new proposals - do you really think Hungary and Poland are going to simply ignore the opportunity to make changes to the way the EU is run? And finally, even if each Government agrees, many of them will have to get a new treaty passed by their own rules - including in some case a referendum.
And in all that time the UK is already legally outside of the EU.
I do understand the desire to find practical solutions to avoid No Deal but the EU ignoring or scrapping its most important treaty is simply not realistic.
These are not normal times. The EU wants to avoid a No Deal if it can and the individual member state governments will want their electorates to see that they did everything possible to avoid one. They will be as creative as they can be if Johnson wants to play silly buggers - especially if it looks like he does not enjoy majority support in the UK.
Treaties are not written just for normal times, they are written for the abnormal ones as well. That is why Article 50 was put in the treaty in the first place.
The idea the EU will ignore its own treaties either from a political or practical point of view is just pie in the sky.
It is unthinkable that a UK government would ignore constitutional and Parliamentary conventions to impose an outcome on voters that they may specifically reject in a general election happening just a few weeks later. But it could well happen. In such circumstances, the EU may also decide that what was previously unthinkable no longer is. Anything is possible in completely unprecedented times.
It isn't unthinkable, the government has the right to pass any law it wants prior to purdah - and a future government has the right to campaign to reverse it. All relevant laws were passed prior to purdah.
If a future government wishes to reverse Brexit they should seek to do so. Campaigning to stop it however would require a Tardis.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
You have to remember this is a parliament which has been supreme at saying what it doesn't want but can't agree what it does want. I can easily see the following scenario
VONC in Johnson - Johnson loses VOC in Corbyn - Corbyn loses VOC in Clarke/Starmer/Benn etc - also loses
So Johnson ends up staying by default and we have an election.
Surely Boris needs to resign and Corbyn (and Clarke/Starmer/Benn) need to be prime minister and have formed a government before the Commons can express its confidence or lack of same in that government. So we might well have an election but heaven knows who will be at the lectern with the crest.
I don;t think so, Getting to get a government with a iron clad proof of VOC numbers would be hugely dangerous legal waters.
On that basis, Johnson should not have been appointed PM on 24th July. There was no certainty that he commanded a majority in the Commons given that several Tory MPs might have refused to support him.
Yes, but Boris can say he is the leader of XXX MPs. Without evidence the other way, Liz would have had to take that at face value
(now, if Corbyn had put it to the test, that might have been different but he didn't).
Thats very different from a leader with sub 300 MPs for which there is NO confidence of a majority, as he would need support from ALL partys (other than Tory/DUP).
Because people vote on a manifesto, and their belief that the manifesto can be delivered. If we characterise the leave campaign promises as their manifesto (reasonable enough to my mind), then no deal was definitely not an option. Million to one, you might say.
Putting a cross by 'Leave' was indicating a desire for that manifesto to be delivered. Or would nuking Brussels be an acceptable way to leave because it didn't rule it out on the ballot paper?
If you start going down the road of manifestos then you are really on dangerous ground because we all know Governments ignore manifestos all the time. If they were legally binding in any way then practically every Government in the last 50 years has broken the law.
This is about the mandate to do something, not the law. You and your fellow travellers are claiming as it only said Leave on the paper, then any form of leave is acceptable, and to deny this is undemocratic.
There are many options for reducing the number of migrants living in this country. Some of them are extremely unacceptable. A government elected on a manifesto to reduce migrant numbers is not granted carte blanche by the electorate to achieve it.
Parliament has chosen no deal. The prior government negotiated a deal [as Vote Leave said would happen, just not a very good one IMO] and 400 MPs in Parliament led mainly by Remainers chose to reject it. C'est la vie doesn't stop us leaving.
The government tried to implement its manifesto. It negotiated a deal, it tried to get it implemented. It tried two more times. Parliament chose this road, Boris has said he's fine with it and now MPs in Parliament seem horrified at what they've done. Oh well.
Just a thought... but what would happen if the EU were to decide unilaterally to extend the period for the revocation of Article 50 for twelve months? Any incoming government could then put a end to all this nonsense. We would be left with an enormous bill that the Conservatives have built up for us, in their own inimitably irresponsible way.
On the other hand, w could perhaps recoup some of our losses by immediately signing up to the EU`s Financial Transparency Arrangement.
Oh the joy if we did, just think of how much energy has been expended on behalf of the few to ensure that they don’t have to tell HMRC where their dosh is, let’s start a parliamentary petition and get behind a campaign to get more than 6 million votes.
" I don't necessarily want No Deal but the referendum was Leave or Remain. Nothing else.
Please point me to the box I ticked that said 'Leave but only with a Deal'.
People were well aware that there was the possibility of leaving without a deal. It is only those who want to reverse the whole process who are rewriting history."
Why a box? The Vote Leave campaign made it clear over and over again that a deal would be simple.
And the Remain campaign made it clear over and over again that No Deal was a possibility. You cannot claim people were not given the information and many, like me, will have balanced the risks before making our decision.
Yes, as with everything else, the Remain campaign were scrupulously honest about the very real prospect of a disastrous No Deal. It's the gullible saps who believed Leave's claim that this was just 'Project Fear' that I feel sorry for. How could anyone be that stupid and naive?
Look I'm a Remainer right. And even I am getting fed up of calling people who voted Leave as stupid. If we have any chance of rescuing this country from the disastrous path it is careering down (which I am sure both you and I wholeheartedly agree), you have to respect the cry of pain from the body politic that was 2016, and start making positive arguments for being in the EU. Either to stop Brexit, or start the long process of putting the pieces together after it.
Typing "stupid, stupid" on your keyboard repeatedly means you are part of the problem not any hope of a solution. By continuing to polarise, and play a zero sum game, you simply help charge up energy on both sides of the Brexit divide. Diffusing this energy through respect and dialogue - one voter at a time - actually reduces the rhetorical arms race.
As it stands, Schroedingers Brexit continues apace. One side is going to get eliminated when the box gets opened. And as 'Leave' have their hands firmly on the power leavers at the moment, it's going to be us.
I'd add that it would help if Remainers put forward some policies to alleviate the perceived impact of EU membership. I for one would swap Brexit for the abolition of housing benefit, tax credits and an increase in interest rates to 3%.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Corbyn gets first dibs. If he is voted down, as looks likely, it becomes moment of truth time and time for some blinking.
I really don't see the incentive for Corbyn in calling an early VONC.
His general electoral chances would appear to be greater after a no deal exit than before. Probably 18 months after when the government has had an extended period of bad news, increased infighting and general chaos.
His chances of winning a VOC look slim, with Tory, DUP and LibDems looking likely to be against and his own party lacking unrequited love for him. Why should he do anything to risk a GONU in his place?
Just why is he in a hurry to VONC the PM?
OK maybe it turns out that Corbyn is simply a man of principle after all and not a player of political games, but he's just a bit dim. That probably explains all his behaviour better than anything else.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
You have to remember this is a parliament which has been supreme at saying what it doesn't want but can't agree what it does want. I can easily see the following scenario
VONC in Johnson - Johnson loses VOC in Corbyn - Corbyn loses VOC in Clarke/Starmer/Benn etc - also loses
So Johnson ends up staying by default and we have an election.
Surely Boris needs to resign and Corbyn (and Clarke/Starmer/Benn) need to be prime minister and have formed a government before the Commons can express its confidence or lack of same in that government. So we might well have an election but heaven knows who will be at the lectern with the crest.
I don;t think so, Getting to get a government with a iron clad proof of VOC numbers would be hugely dangerous legal waters.
On that basis, Johnson should not have been appointed PM on 24th July. There was no certainty that he commanded a majority in the Commons given that several Tory MPs might have refused to support him.
Boris wasn't appointed when he was made leader of the largest party. May continued in post until she chose to resign, he was only appointed after she resigned.
Even after a VONC Boris is under no obligation to resign - as Callaghan didn't resign. He continues, the Cabinet Manual is clear on this point. If someone else demonstrates they can command a majority and Boris still can't then Boris would be expected to resign.
No resignation, no vacancy, no calling for a new PM to fill that vacancy.
Article 50 no longer applies after 31st October. The EU27 can absolutely decide to readmit the UK on its current terms following a general election in which No Deal has been rejected by the electorate - and the EU27 can make that clear in advance of the election, having agreed, in principle, a new treaty prior to 31st October.
The referendum.
And in all that time the UK is already legally outside of the EU.
I do understand the desire to find practical solutions to avoid No Deal but the EU ignoring or scrapping its most important treaty is simply not realistic.
These are not normal times. The EU wants to avoid a No Deal if it can and the individual member state governments will want their electorates to see that they did everything possible to avoid one. They will be as creative as they can be if Johnson wants to play silly buggers - especially if it looks like he does not enjoy majority support in the UK.
Treaties are not written just for normal times, they are written for the abnormal ones as well. That is why Article 50 was put in the treaty in the first place.
The idea the EU will ignore its own treaties either from a political or practical point of view is just pie in the sky.
It is unthinkable that a UK government would ignore constitutional and Parliamentary conventions to impose an outcome on voters that they may specifically reject in a general election happening just a few weeks later. But it could well happen. In such circumstances, the EU may also decide that what was previously unthinkable no longer is. Anything is possible in completely unprecedented times.
It isn't unthinkable, the government has the right to pass any law it wants prior to purdah - and a future government has the right to campaign to reverse it. All relevant laws were passed prior to purdah.
If a future government wishes to reverse Brexit they should seek to do so. Campaigning to stop it however would require a Tardis.
Yes, the government absolutely has the right to ask for an extension to A50 to allow the British people to endorse its No Deal strategy in a general election. If it chooses not to and is able to do so (the courts will no doubt decide that), then the EU has the equal right to take its own actions to ensure that in all practical senses the UK electorate remains able to reject a No Deal Brexit.
Article 50 no longer applies after 31st October. The EU27 can absolutely decide to readmit the UK on its current terms following a general election in which No Deal has been rejected by the electorate - and the EU27 can make that clear in advance of the election, having agreed, in principle, a new treaty prior to 31st October.
The referendum.
And in all that time the UK is already legally outside of the EU.
I do understand the desire to find practical solutions to avoid No Deal but the EU ignoring or scrapping its most important treaty is simply not realistic.
These are not normal times. The EU wants to avoid a No Deal if it can and the individual member state governments will want their electorates to see that they did everything possible to avoid one. They will be as creative as they can be if Johnson wants to play silly buggers - especially if it looks like he does not enjoy majority support in the UK.
Treaties are not written just for normal times, they are written for the abnormal ones as well. That is why Article 50 was put in the treaty in the first place.
The idea the EU will ignore its own treaties either from a political or practical point of view is just pie in the sky.
It is unthinkable that a UK government would ignore constitutional and Parliamentary conventions to impose an outcome on voters that they may specifically reject in a general election happening just a few weeks later. But it could well happen. In such circumstances, the EU may also decide that what was previously unthinkable no longer is. Anything is possible in completely unprecedented times.
It isn't unthinkable, the government has the right to pass any law it wants prior to purdah - and a future government has the right to campaign to reverse it. All relevant laws were passed prior to purdah.
If a future government wishes to reverse Brexit they should seek to do so. Campaigning to stop it however would require a Tardis.
Yes, the government absolutely has the right to ask for an extension to A50 to allow the British people to endorse its No Deal strategy in a general election. If it chooses not to and is able to do so (the courts will no doubt decide that), then the EU has the equal right to take its own actions to ensure that in all practical senses the UK electorate remains able to reject a No Deal Brexit.
They won't and they can't. Look for other ways to stop No Deal because this was really does not have any legs.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
You have to remember this is a parliament which has been supreme at saying what it doesn't want but can't agree what it does want. I can easily see the following scenario
VONC in Johnson - Johnson loses VOC in Corbyn - Corbyn loses VOC in Clarke/Starmer/Benn etc - also loses
So Johnson ends up staying by default and we have an election.
Surely Boris needs to resign and Corbyn (and Clarke/Starmer/Benn) need to be prime minister and have formed a government before the Commons can express its confidence or lack of same in that government. So we might well have an election but heaven knows who will be at the lectern with the crest.
I don;t think so, Getting to get a government with a iron clad proof of VOC numbers would be hugely dangerous legal waters.
On that basis, Johnson should not have been appointed PM on 24th July. There was no certainty that he commanded a majority in the Commons given that several Tory MPs might have refused to support him.
Boris wasn't appointed when he was made leader of the largest party. May continued in post until she chose to resign, he was only appointed after she resigned.
Even after a VONC Boris is under no obligation to resign - as Callaghan didn't resign. He continues, the Cabinet Manual is clear on this point. If someone else demonstrates they can command a majority and Boris still can't then Boris would be expected to resign.
No resignation, no vacancy, no calling for a new PM to fill that vacancy.
No-one else could currently commnd a majority. The LibDems won't vote for it to be Corbyn. Labour wouldn't vote for another Tory. Only the LibDems will vote for a LibDem.
Boris is in place until the 1922 gets the requisite number of letters and he loses the contest (in open defiance of 2/3rd of the membeship) or until Boris calls an election - and somebody else comes out of that election able to command a majority. MPs can huff and puff, but they have left it too late to blow the House down.
I can't be the only one that's sick to death of all the sincere soul searching and constitutional arguments and just wants the UK government to get on with enacting what's been its only policy goal for years now ("Brexit means Brexit, "No Deal better than a Bad Deal" etc...).
It's remarkable and a touch quaint how animated everyone has become, about what is in the grand scheme a fairly minor change to the trade and customs arrangements in a little corner of Europe. Boiling down all the arguments around the backstop vs "alternative arrangements", the circular debate that is apparently stopping a smooth exit and trade sovereignty for the UK, is whether it's a good idea to deploy troops to stop the IRA and their ilk profiting from tariff arbitrage rather than just VAT and duty, or whether we can all live with some extra low grade criminality across the Irish border for the sake of a quiet life.
Meanwhile out in the real world, there are very real and serious threats going on to the established economic and political order, with Beijing now openly flaunting its imperial intentions with a plan for accelerated global technological dominance, Hong Kong's one-country-two-systems status on a knife edge (could Hong Kong financial equivalence and the dollar peg survive a curfew enforced by Chinese troops?), 10 year German bond yields approaching negative 0.6% (!), rising challenges to the capitalist system in the UK, US and many other places, and just for good measure Kashmir back in the news for all the wrong reasons.
After I read this forum yesterday, I couldn't wait to get home to watch the Cummings horror video for myself. This must be REALLY GOOD I was thinking, it was the tipping point for all these esteemed and committed activists to walk away from the party they've devoted huge chunks of their lives to. But like most people with no particular political affiliation, all I saw was a slightly scruffy man running late for work. Hard not to conclude that what we're seeing is the final gasp from those that despite their best intentions, never truly reconciled themselves to the Brexit result but are now finally realizing that the game is up.
Great post. The simple fact is that lots of MPs who voted against the deal thought that by doing so it would prevent Brexit. That was their tactic. They were happy to go against a democratic decision of this Country. How the Liberal Democrats can call themselves that now when their stated aim is to go against democracy is beyond me. By voting against the deal they have enabled what they wanted the least. They just don't seem to get that fact.
Yes, the government absolutely has the right to ask for an extension to A50 to allow the British people to endorse its No Deal strategy in a general election. If it chooses not to and is able to do so (the courts will no doubt decide that), then the EU has the equal right to take its own actions to ensure that in all practical senses the UK electorate remains able to reject a No Deal Brexit.
The government has the right to, yes. It has no duty or obligation to and it won't do so.
The courts have no standing here. The law to leave has already been passed, it is already on the statute. Parliament voted for it already three times in the Commons, three times in the Lords and it has been given royal assent. It is done.
"No Deal" is not a thing, like atheism it doesn't exist as something solid. It is the absence of a deal and that is simply where we are, by Parliament's choice.
Article 50 no longer applies after 31st October. The EU27 can absolutely decide to readmit the UK on its current terms following a general election in which No Deal has been rejected by the electorate - and the EU27 can make that clear in advance of the election, having agreed, in principle, a new treaty prior to 31st October.
The referendum.
And in all that time the UK is already legally outside of the EU.
I do understand the desire to find practical solutions to avoid No Deal but the EU ignoring or scrapping its most important treaty is simply not realistic.
These are not normal times. The EU wants to avoid a No Deal if it can and the individual member state governments will want their electorates to see that they did everything possible to avoid one. They will be as creative as they can be if Johnson wants to play silly buggers - especially if it looks like he does not enjoy majority support in the UK.
Treaties are not written just for normal times, they are written for the abnormal ones as well. That is why Article 50 was put in the treaty in the first place.
The idea the EU will ignore its own treaties either from a political or practical point of view is just pie in the sky.
It is completely unprecedented times.
It isn't unthinkable, the government has the right to pass any law it wants prior to purdah - and a future government has the right to campaign to reverse it. All relevant laws were passed prior to purdah.
If a future government wishes to reverse Brexit they should seek to do so. Campaigning to stop it however would require a Tardis.
Yes, the government absolutely has the right to ask for an extension to A50 to allow the British people to endorse its No Deal strategy in a general election. If it chooses not to and is able to do so (the courts will no doubt decide that), then the EU has the equal right to take its own actions to ensure that in all practical senses the UK electorate remains able to reject a No Deal Brexit.
They won't and they can't. Look for other ways to stop No Deal because this was really does not have any legs.
They can - but maybe they won't. We'll see. No Deal is not an outcome the EU wants, so to my mind anything is possible.
As an analogy it is like we are driving down the motorway with full traffic on the outside lane of the motorway and then as we are parallel to the exit passengers [opponents of No Deal] suddenly shout they want to take the exit.
The driver [Boris] wanted to continue straight ahead but it is too late anyway, to swerve across three lanes of traffic now would be disruptive, dangerous and he's reasonably able to say no I'm not going to do that.
The passengers have gone along with the ride until it was past the point of changing direction. Not reasonable to expect Boris to change direction then when he doesn't want to or need to. The law stands, we exit 31 October.
Your analogy is rubbish. It’s more like pulling into a layby to check whether you have read the map correctly and have the right address before continuing with your journey.
Except we aren't in a layby, we are still moving at full speed, as Parliament has til now voted for and by its inactions endorsed.
Opposition MPs may want to grab the steering wheel and change course but they've left it too late. The first Thursday possible for an election now is 31 October 2019 which would mean polls close at 10pm and we would exit the EU 60 minutes later, prior to the votes being counted.
Don't blame Boris, it isn't his idea to change course or have an election. Don't blame Cummings, he didn't write the Fixed Term Parliament Act. MPs knew their obligations and they knew the law. They've chosen this.
If a VNOC passes on 4th September , the 14 day ticking clock would expire on 18th September. Beyond that , 25 working days takes us to 23rd October - a Wednesday. Therefore, Thursday 24th October is still available.
Ah yes the insights of someone for who assaulting his pregnant girlfriend is a good holiday.
I don’t work hard just so I can holiday in Cleethorpes.
Britain is a great and beautiful country, but it is after all, very crowded, has variable weather, and many of its seaside resorts seem to want to cater to the lowest common demoninator for some reason. Good food is also an effort to find outside London.
Last summer I holidayed first in Normandy and then in the Kentish Weald, with in-laws from NZ.
Kent was (comparatively) shabby, chavvy, and the food terrible.
For good food outside London, I'd recommend North Yorkshire and South Devon. I'd say the quality of food in country pubs has improved dramatically in my lifetime.
Thanks. I’m sure you’re right. Actually I said, “terrible” and I should have said “disappointing”. Kent is supposed to be the garden of England after all.
South Devon is wonderful and the food is better, yes, although Sidmouth (for example) is the sort of place that annoys me - tatty and full of people on mobility scooters.
Never been to North Yorkshire. It’s on the bucket list.
The Kent coastline is pretty disappointing, IMHO, except around Sittingbourne, where there are some interesting salt-marshes, The best of Kent is inland, IMHO, on the North Downs, or places like Chilham, and Sissinghurst.
The North Yorkshire Dales are simply extraordinary as are Weardale and Teesdale in Durham. They're all very popular with walkers, but they probably don't attract much mass tourism, in the way that the Cotswolds do.
As an analogy it is like we are driving down the motorway with full traffic on the outside lane of the motorway and then as we are parallel to the exit passengers [opponents of No Deal] suddenly shout they want to take the exit.
The driver [Boris] wanted to continue straight ahead but it is too late anyway, to swerve across three lanes of traffic now would be disruptive, dangerous and he's reasonably able to say no I'm not going to do that.
The passengers have gone along with the ride until it was past the point of changing direction. Not reasonable to expect Boris to change direction then when he doesn't want to or need to. The law stands, we exit 31 October.
Your analogy is rubbish. It’s more like pulling into a layby to check whether you have read the map correctly and have the right address before continuing with your journey.
Except we aren't in a layby, we are still moving at full speed, as Parliament has til now voted for and by its inactions endorsed.
Opposition MPs may want to grab the steering wheel and change course but they've left it too late. The first Thursday possible for an election now is 31 October 2019 which would mean polls close at 10pm and we would exit the EU 60 minutes later, prior to the votes being counted.
Don't blame Boris, it isn't his idea to change course or have an election. Don't blame Cummings, he didn't write the Fixed Term Parliament Act. MPs knew their obligations and they knew the law. They've chosen this.
If a VNOC passes on 4th September , the 14 day ticking clock would expire on 18th September. Beyond that , 25 working days takes us to 23rd October - a Wednesday. Therefore, Thursday 24th October is still available.
Couldn't Boris just call an election post 31st still.... He has that power and remains PM
Yes, the government absolutely has the right to ask for an extension to A50 to allow the British people to endorse its No Deal strategy in a general election. If it chooses not to and is able to do so (the courts will no doubt decide that), then the EU has the equal right to take its own actions to ensure that in all practical senses the UK electorate remains able to reject a No Deal Brexit.
The government has the right to, yes. It has no duty or obligation to and it won't do so.
The courts have no standing here. The law to leave has already been passed, it is already on the statute. Parliament voted for it already three times in the Commons, three times in the Lords and it has been given royal assent. It is done.
"No Deal" is not a thing, like atheism it doesn't exist as something solid. It is the absence of a deal and that is simply where we are, by Parliament's choice.
I am intrigued by the idea that the courts will decline to hear any challenges to a government decision to go ahead with a No Deal Brexit during an election campaign which may see the electorate reject a No Deal Brexit.
As an analogy it is like we are driving down the motorway with full traffic on the outside lane of the motorway and then as we are parallel to the exit passengers [opponents of No Deal] suddenly shout they want to take the exit.
The driver [Boris] wanted to continue straight ahead but it is too late anyway, to swerve across three lanes of traffic now would be disruptive, dangerous and he's reasonably able to say no I'm not going to do that.
The passengers have gone along with the ride until it was past the point of changing direction. Not reasonable to expect Boris to change direction then when he doesn't want to or need to. The law stands, we exit 31 October.
Your analogy is rubbish. It’s more like pulling into a layby to check whether you have read the map correctly and have the right address before continuing with your journey.
Except we aren't in a layby, we are still moving at full speed, as Parliament has til now voted for and by its inactions endorsed.
Opposition MPs may want to grab the steering wheel and change course but they've left it too late. The first Thursday possible for an election now is 31 October 2019 which would mean polls close at 10pm and we would exit the EU 60 minutes later, prior to the votes being counted.
Don't blame Boris, it isn't his idea to change course or have an election. Don't blame Cummings, he didn't write the Fixed Term Parliament Act. MPs knew their obligations and they knew the law. They've chosen this.
If a VNOC passes on 4th September , the 14 day ticking clock would expire on 18th September. Beyond that , 25 working days takes us to 23rd October - a Wednesday. Therefore, Thursday 24th October is still available.
The remainers also gambled by voting down May's deal, they could get a second referendum or better and via that stay in the EU. They failed, and created the worse outcome now.
The one person and grouping I have remaining respect for is May. She was there to get a deal, she did, but the other various groupings tore it apart by refusing to have any sense of compromise.
Comments
https://www.telegraph.co.uk
I doubt he's prepared for the fact that his opponents (with the aid of the Speaker) will prove as 'flexible' in their interpretation of the constitution as he is.
Grieve is the father of No Deal. If it wasn't for the votes of Grieve etc we would have left with a Deal.
That is true. It's also true that those who opposed the deal were mostly pro-EU MPs. The absence of a deal being agreed is down to those who are for, not against, the EU.
One has only to look at the confusion about the situation that prevails even now, even among intelligent people who take an interest in politics.
Why, only a month or two ago Boris Johnson himself didn't understand what No Deal meant, thinking there would still be a transition period!
And in all that time the UK is already legally outside of the EU.
I do understand the desire to find practical solutions to avoid No Deal but the EU ignoring or scrapping its most important treaty is simply not realistic.
Putting a cross by 'Leave' was indicating a desire for that manifesto to be delivered. Or would nuking Brussels be an acceptable way to leave because it didn't rule it out on the ballot paper?
Also Boris is not going to be stupid enough to be PM if a no deal happens
Every single one of the 400 MPs who rejected the deal needs to look in the mirror and say "I did this". I'm sure the ERG will do that with a smile.
Grieve, Cooper and everyone else in that 400 should stop casting aspersions at others and be self aware enough to realise what they have done when they walked into the lobby with the ERG.
The idea the EU will ignore its own treaties either from a political or practical point of view is just pie in the sky.
I just don't know what to say to that.
At that point, all bets were off.
It takes a 2/3rds majority to call an election. But it only takes a simple majority to change the law. So surely Parliament could simply repeal the FTPA on a simple majority and then call an election.
Boris remains in Downing Street for the 14 days and gets 14 days to regain Confidence. That is what the law says.
If in the meantime anyone else demonstrates they can command Confidence then Boris would be obliged to resign and the Queen would send for them. But that must be demonstrated first. It doesn't matter if that is Corbyn, Starmer, Clarke or some random unknown backbencher only an anorak would know the name of. They have to have a majority first or else Boris simply would not resign.
Corbyn can't become PM without an election i dont think.
Yes, a really good look if things do go wrong to have enabled it by not getting behind that nice Ken Clarke or Margaret Beckett and anyway when would an election be under those circumstances.
It show Cummings as a frustrated man thwarted in terms of making any real change, and Johnson pulling his hair out in a sort of 'oh-god-what-have-I-done' sort of way. I'd like to see a sequel, because arguably both have emerged much, much stronger than the end of the drama implied.
Germane to this discussion, however, is this: whatever you may think of Cummings - ideologue, propagandist, tyrant, anarchist - he is a first-rate strategic thinker *and* doer. And if Johnson is spouting 'do or die' comments ahead of October 31st, you'd better believe Cummings has worked out a way of doing this.
Or turning it to his (and Johnson's) advantage.
All this jaw-jaw may strike us as a bit Samuel Beckett, but, given Cummings' penchant for classic literature, think 'Endgame' rather than 'Waiting for Godot'...
You are arguing from the law. I am pointing out the politics of it. If, in an election called to get a mandate for No Deal, the electorate vote against it, it would be politically unconscionable for the outgoing government to enact it anyway. It is a gigantic FU to the voters. It is contemptuous of them, their right to take the decision and of the whole point of a GE.
Ironic for a party claiming that it wants to implement the will of the people.
Like Brown in 2010 or Callaghan in 1979 Boris is entitled to remain in place until it is clear a replacement does have a majority.
But if a VOC/VONC is in a government, not the leader of the opposition or a Thatcher-era ex-minister, then there must be a new government to vote on. Similarly, the old pm must have resigned, which by convention he'd do anyway (and call an election).
So what we might have is, with no GoNU or new government of any stripe:
VONC which Boris loses
14 days in which Boris fails to win a VOC
Election.
If he says "I will immediately extend Article 50" he probably gets in.
If he doesn't immediately extend, he then gets VoNCed.
General Election (or A. N. Other who will extend) followed by GE
His general electoral chances would appear to be greater after a no deal exit than before. Probably 18 months after when the government has had an extended period of bad news, increased infighting and general chaos.
His chances of winning a VOC look slim, with Tory, DUP and LibDems looking likely to be against and his own party lacking unrequited love for him. Why should he do anything to risk a GONU in his place?
Just why is he in a hurry to VONC the PM?
It is not as if we don't have a recent precedent for indicative votes.
My point. Not as proposals to be implemented during the election campaign regardless of whether the electorate reject them.
I don't think he has a plan for what might arise from the rubble, or any hope of achieving it.
Again...
https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/1159390202235904000
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/07/labour-prefers-election-to-unity-government-to-stop-hard-brexit
The government wouldn't have been behind holding the election, the opposition MPs would have, so they would have been contemptuous in choosing to bring about an election too late for the voters to vote. Why did they do that?
Just because the opposition have left it too late does not mean that the government is obliged either morally or otherwise to unilaterally reverse its own policy that was passed by Parliament prior to purdah.
When it looked like an election was going to be held before the ratification of Lisbon, Cameron sought to have a referendum on that in his manifesto. Because the election took place after ratification he didn't.
Given that thanks to the Fixed Term Parliament Act and thanks to the votes of the MPs in this Parliament the election will be voting after we left, parties should be campaigning on whether to rejoin or not. They should not be campaigning on whether we leave or not as that will already be [extremely recent] history.
There are many options for reducing the number of migrants living in this country. Some of them are extremely unacceptable. A government elected on a manifesto to reduce migrant numbers is not granted carte blanche by the electorate to achieve it.
I can't be the only one that's sick to death of all the sincere soul searching and constitutional arguments and just wants the UK government to get on with enacting what's been its only policy goal for years now ("Brexit means Brexit, "No Deal better than a Bad Deal" etc...).
It's remarkable and a touch quaint how animated everyone has become, about what is in the grand scheme a fairly minor change to the trade and customs arrangements in a little corner of Europe. Boiling down all the arguments around the backstop vs "alternative arrangements", the circular debate that is apparently stopping a smooth exit and trade sovereignty for the UK, is whether it's a good idea to deploy troops to stop the IRA and their ilk profiting from tariff arbitrage rather than just VAT and duty, or whether we can all live with some extra low grade criminality across the Irish border for the sake of a quiet life.
Meanwhile out in the real world, there are very real and serious threats going on to the established economic and political order, with Beijing now openly flaunting its imperial intentions with a plan for accelerated global technological dominance, Hong Kong's one-country-two-systems status on a knife edge (could Hong Kong financial equivalence and the dollar peg survive a curfew enforced by Chinese troops?), 10 year German bond yields approaching negative 0.6% (!), rising challenges to the capitalist system in the UK, US and many other places, and just for good measure Kashmir back in the news for all the wrong reasons.
After I read this forum yesterday, I couldn't wait to get home to watch the Cummings horror video for myself. This must be REALLY GOOD I was thinking, it was the tipping point for all these esteemed and committed activists to walk away from the party they've devoted huge chunks of their lives to. But like most people with no particular political affiliation, all I saw was a slightly scruffy man running late for work. Hard not to conclude that what we're seeing is the final gasp from those that despite their best intentions, never truly reconciled themselves to the Brexit result but are now finally realizing that the game is up.
Nothing then everything carry’s on
Or
VONC is tabled then really there is nothing more we can say about anything.
We would be better advising people how to enjoy their holidays wherever they take them or let people get on with some work if they are gainfully employed.
What is or is not acceptable is a matter of personal opinion. Trying to claim that one or the other route invalidates the original decision as in this case is just you projecting your own personal opinion onto a matter of law.
An election won't be called to get a mandate for No Deal. That's not happening. A mandate for no deal was given by Parliament when it voted for Article 50 and when it voted to reject the deal three times and rejected any other alternatives.
Opposition MPs may call an election to get a mandate for preventing No Deal - but that's a different matter. And since No Deal will occur before Brexit day as mandated by Parliament anyway a mandate to prevent No Deal would make as much sense as seeking a mandate to prevent Lisbon.
Opposition MPs may want to grab the steering wheel and change course but they've left it too late. The first Thursday possible for an election now is 31 October 2019 which would mean polls close at 10pm and we would exit the EU 60 minutes later, prior to the votes being counted.
Don't blame Boris, it isn't his idea to change course or have an election. Don't blame Cummings, he didn't write the Fixed Term Parliament Act. MPs knew their obligations and they knew the law. They've chosen this.
Typing "stupid, stupid" on your keyboard repeatedly means you are part of the problem not any hope of a solution. By continuing to polarise, and play a zero sum game, you simply help charge up energy on both sides of the Brexit divide. Diffusing this energy through respect and dialogue - one voter at a time - actually reduces the rhetorical arms race.
As it stands, Schroedingers Brexit continues apace. One side is going to get eliminated when the box gets opened. And as 'Leave' have their hands firmly on the power leavers at the moment, it's going to be us.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1159392913484369920
On the other hand, w could perhaps recoup some of our losses by immediately signing up to the EU`s Financial Transparency Arrangement.
If a future government wishes to reverse Brexit they should seek to do so. Campaigning to stop it however would require a Tardis.
(now, if Corbyn had put it to the test, that might have been different but he didn't).
Thats very different from a leader with sub 300 MPs for which there is NO confidence of a majority, as he would need support from ALL partys (other than Tory/DUP).
The government tried to implement its manifesto. It negotiated a deal, it tried to get it implemented. It tried two more times. Parliament chose this road, Boris has said he's fine with it and now MPs in Parliament seem horrified at what they've done. Oh well.
Even after a VONC Boris is under no obligation to resign - as Callaghan didn't resign. He continues, the Cabinet Manual is clear on this point. If someone else demonstrates they can command a majority and Boris still can't then Boris would be expected to resign.
No resignation, no vacancy, no calling for a new PM to fill that vacancy.
Boris is in place until the 1922 gets the requisite number of letters and he loses the contest (in open defiance of 2/3rd of the membeship) or until Boris calls an election - and somebody else comes out of that election able to command a majority. MPs can huff and puff, but they have left it too late to blow the House down.
The courts have no standing here. The law to leave has already been passed, it is already on the statute. Parliament voted for it already three times in the Commons, three times in the Lords and it has been given royal assent. It is done.
"No Deal" is not a thing, like atheism it doesn't exist as something solid. It is the absence of a deal and that is simply where we are, by Parliament's choice.
The North Yorkshire Dales are simply extraordinary as are Weardale and Teesdale in Durham. They're all very popular with walkers, but they probably don't attract much mass tourism, in the way that the Cotswolds do.
The remainers also gambled by voting down May's deal, they could get a second referendum or better and via that stay in the EU. They failed, and created the worse outcome now.
The one person and grouping I have remaining respect for is May. She was there to get a deal, she did, but the other various groupings tore it apart by refusing to have any sense of compromise.
and we are now where we are....