Bizarre thread in which Philip Thompson is the only one talking sense.
@tlg86, with many many qualifications, I agree with your proposals. It is not “fair play” to grant these allowances to EU migrants and if EU law forbids discrimination we should find another way to support the poorest.
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.
Precisely what I have been saying all along.
"Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it".
1: Grieve wanted Parliament to have a say on the deal, he got his wish. 2: Grieve wanted the deal rejected, he got his wish. 3: Grieve wanted Brexit cancelled, he's not getting his wish.
Meatloaf said that 2 out of 3 ain't bad, wonder whether Grieve sees it that way.
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).
Since the hypothetical gang of Tories who are going to bring all this about will have to leave the party, or be thrown out, they may as well start the ball rolling with a collective resignation at the beginning of September. Depending on how many of them there are, this could make what HMQ has to do a lot clearer.
Doesn’t the ‘leave’ bit of the ‘leave the EU’ law have to be separately ‘activated’?
Might have misremembered that.
However the leave date has been amended twice, and the act requires parliamentary approval of the terms of departure, so to declare that ‘no deal’ was implied is just complete nonsense.
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....
Presumably you include the electorate in those "various groupings" given that they took away May's majority in response to her accusations of other parties frustrating Brexit?
If I want a fat alcoholic unemployable couch surfer like Liddle to tell me where to go and what to do I'll ask, thank you. One solid reason for traveling abroad is that it eases the rash I develop by proximity to his sweaty, drooling unkempt lardy arse. The planet's burden of sadness and woe would be immesurably improved by developing a space program capable of dropping his pus riddled shit-stained hulk into the heart of the sun.
Rod Liddle.Christ alive! What the hell did I do to you to deserve him?
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....
Presumably you include the electorate in those "various groupings" given that they took away May's majority in response to her accusations of other parties frustrating Brexit?
Given that both the the tories and labour said they would 'respect the result of the referendum' at that election, I can't see how you can make that claim directly...
Genuine question, what are the odds of the gov falling in a VONC? Presumably DUP will back Boris. Are there any Tories at all that would seriously try and topple their own government? Party lines are very powerful, brexit or no.
I also think the opposition is weak. Sure LDs, Nats and Lab will back VONC but what about the independent group ex-tories?
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.
Where does the 4th September come from? I'm sure someone on here said actually 6th is the earliest.....
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.
I was addressing a different point - that Corbyn could not be appointed PM without certainty that he commanded a majority. I am suggesting there was no certainty that Johnson commanded a majority on 24th July - indeed we still don't know! The Cabinet Manual is often referred to , but it is far from clear that it has any significance beyond being a Civil Service document drawn up prior to the 2010 election. It can surely be nothing more than 'guidance' or 'recommendations'.
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.
The electorate can't reject a No Deal Brexit, it will have already gone ahead. That's like saying the electorate could reject Lisbon in 2010.
If I want a fat alcoholic unemployable couch surfer like Liddle to tell me where to go and what to do I'll ask, thank you. One solid reason for traveling abroad is that it eases the rash I develop by proximity to his sweaty, drooling unkempt lardy arse. The planet's burden of sadness and woe would be immesurably improved by developing a space program capable of dropping his pus riddled shit-stained hulk into the heart of the sun.
Rod Liddle.Christ alive! What the hell did I do to you to deserve him?
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.
I was addressing a different point - that Corbyn could not be appointed PM without certainty that he commanded a majority. I am suggesting there was no certainty that Johnson commanded a majority on 24th July - indeed we still don't know! The Cabinet Manual is often referred to , but it is far from clear that it has any significance beyond being a Civil Service document drawn up prior to the 2010 election. It can surely be nothing more than 'guidance' or 'recommendations'.
The point is it only matters who gets called if there is a vanancy. A VONC does not create a vacancy contrary to popular belief. The only time there is a vacancy is if Boris resigns, or if Her Majesty sacks him.
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.
If MPs want an early election they can vote for one, and save 14 days. There aren't enough Tory no dealers to stop it.
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 would suggest the courts always have standing. Just as the Government remains in place throughout an election so do the courts.
I would think you are tight that they would find that the Government is behaving legally but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion on the matter.
Genuine question, what are the odds of the gov falling in a VONC? Presumably DUP will back Boris. Are there any Tories at all that would seriously try and topple their own government? Party lines are very powerful, brexit or no.
I also think the opposition is weak. Sure LDs, Nats and Lab will back VONC but what about the independent group ex-tories?
WIth a majority of 1 and several Tory remainers/soft leavers retiring regardless, I'd say it would fall if no deal looked inevitable otherwise.
It’s weird how @Philip_Thompson seems to take great delight on how a policy with significant consequences for the future of the country might be forced through without the support of Parliament or the electorate.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change that fact.
If I want a fat alcoholic unemployable couch surfer like Liddle to tell me where to go and what to do I'll ask, thank you. One solid reason for traveling abroad is that it eases the rash I develop by proximity to his sweaty, drooling unkempt lardy arse. The planet's burden of sadness and woe would be immesurably improved by developing a space program capable of dropping his pus riddled shit-stained hulk into the heart of the sun.
Rod Liddle.Christ alive! What the hell did I do to you to deserve him?
He had been a Labour Party member all his life, until just recently.
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
.
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.
I was addressing a different point - that Corbyn could not be appointed PM without certainty that he commanded a majority. I am suggesting there was no certainty that Johnson commanded a majority on 24th July - indeed we still don't know! The Cabinet Manual is often referred to , but it is far from clear that it has any significance beyond being a Civil Service document drawn up prior to the 2010 election. It can surely be nothing more than 'guidance' or 'recommendations'.
Yes, but May would have 'recommended' Boris, which is her duty. Presumably Boris would be under no requirement to recommend Corbyn without evidence.
I agree these are murky consitutional waters, but Boris, without evidence to the contary, had a majority on the basis of the number of tory MPS and DUP.
Now, if a group of say 10+ tory members split on the day of his leadership win, if should have been a differnt matter, but that didn't happen, and hasn't happened yet.
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.
Where does the 4th September come from? I'm sure someone on here said actually 6th is the earliest.....
Parliament returns on 3rd September. Corbyn could table a VNOC which would be debated the following day.
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.
There is no right for the EU to impose an extension. An extension beyond 11pm 31st October has to be agreed by all 28 EU members - including ours. Are you suggestng the courts could intercede to impose their will on the UK Govt. - and tell it to accept an EU proposal to extend?
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 would suggest the courts always have standing. Just as the Government remains in place throughout an election so do the courts.
I would think you are tight that they would find that the Government is behaving legally but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion on the matter.
Of course they do, but yes the conclusion must be based on law and the law is that Parliament voted to leave, as amended on 31 October. It is done.
Of course between now and our exit Parliament retains the right to change its mind between now and then but if Parliament votes to dissolve itself, a new Parliament elected after 31 October has no right to change that.
I think there'd be a greater issue for a legal challenge if the government unilaterally prorogued Parliament. But Parliament voting to dissolve itself is another matter.
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.
If MPs want an early election they can vote for one, and save 14 days. There aren't enough Tory no dealers to stop it.
As I understand it, it would take a 2 3rds majority to do so and Boris would still retain the right to pick the date.
Genuine question, what are the odds of the gov falling in a VONC? Presumably DUP will back Boris. Are there any Tories at all that would seriously try and topple their own government? Party lines are very powerful, brexit or no.
I also think the opposition is weak. Sure LDs, Nats and Lab will back VONC but what about the independent group ex-tories?
WIth a majority of 1 and several Tory remainers/soft leavers retiring regardless, I'd say it would fall if no deal looked inevitable otherwise.
Why would the DUP actually support Boris - it's taken as fact when I'm not 100% sure it's still the case.
If I want a fat alcoholic unemployable couch surfer like Liddle to tell me where to go and what to do I'll ask, thank you. One solid reason for traveling abroad is that it eases the rash I develop by proximity to his sweaty, drooling unkempt lardy arse. The planet's burden of sadness and woe would be immesurably improved by developing a space program capable of dropping his pus riddled shit-stained hulk into the heart of the sun.
Rod Liddle.Christ alive! What the hell did I do to you to deserve him?
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....
No, because all the House of Lords really wants is a reason to have a nice lunch on expenses... but most peers have so far always taken their parliamentary reponsibilities seriously.
Back to the original topic, if there is a GONU and their raison d'etre is extend and GE, where are the 220 MPs who would vote against a GE?
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.
Genuine question, what are the odds of the gov falling in a VONC? Presumably DUP will back Boris. Are there any Tories at all that would seriously try and topple their own government? Party lines are very powerful, brexit or no.
I also think the opposition is weak. Sure LDs, Nats and Lab will back VONC but what about the independent group ex-tories?
I think a VONC will be very close.
I think that Bebb and Lee are 2 who sound like they will definitely vote against the government. My guess is there could be as many as 10.
It then depends on how many of the ex-Labour MPs like Field, Woodcock and Austin are willing to back the government or abstain.
O'Mara's decision on whether to quit could also be important as if Hallam is vacant that would help Boris.
In my mind's eye I have a cartoon showing an oversized blond tousled Kamikaze Boris piloting a small airplane with the labels "UK" and £250 million ( the latter crossed out) dive bombing a ship in the Channel with famous current polititions on board. And missing.
Genuine question, what are the odds of the gov falling in a VONC? Presumably DUP will back Boris. Are there any Tories at all that would seriously try and topple their own government? Party lines are very powerful, brexit or no.
I also think the opposition is weak. Sure LDs, Nats and Lab will back VONC but what about the independent group ex-tories?
I think a VONC will be very close.
I think that Bebb and Lee are 2 who sound like they will definitely vote against the government. My guess is there could be as many as 10.
It then depends on how many of the ex-Labour MPs like Field, Woodcock and Austin are willing to back the government or abstain.
O'Mara's decision on whether to quit could also be important as if Hallam is vacant that would help Boris.
Field voted with Labour in the January VNOC. Much less likely too that Lady Hermon will support Boris.
It’s weird how @Philip_Thompson seems to take great delight on how a policy with significant consequences for the future of the country might be forced through without the support of Parliament or the electorate.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change that fact.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change the fact that Parliament had three opportunities to express its support for sometinng that wasn't No Deal Brexit. It chose not to take them. Instead, it wanked about, being Ever So Clever. Or so they thought.
And the voters in 2017 could have thrown out a Government committed to implementing Brexit. Instead, 86% of the votes were cast for parties pledging to implement it.
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.
What's the point of lying?
It isn't a lie.
In the absence of a deal, no deal is Parliament's choice.
It’s weird how @Philip_Thompson seems to take great delight on how a policy with significant consequences for the future of the country might be forced through without the support of Parliament or the electorate.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change that fact.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change the fact that Parliament had three opportunities to express its support for sometinng that wasn't No Deal Brexit. It chose not to take them. Instead, it wanked about, being Ever So Clever. Or so they thought.
And the voters in 2017 could have thrown out a Government committed to implementing Brexit. Instead, 86% of the votes were cast for parties pledging to implement it.
Yes, that's what I said here, to some scepticism. There are quite a few members who are not happy, either because they want a firmer Remain commitment or simply because we're doing badly in the opinion polls (fewer than you might think really care that much about EU membership, though everyone hates No Deal). But the number who actually quit is limited, partly because of the usual cycle that membership goes up at election time and slides in between elections.
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.
What's the point of lying?
It isn't a lie.
In the absence of a deal, no deal is Parliament's choice.
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 would suggest the courts always have standing. Just as the Government remains in place throughout an election so do the courts.
I would think you are tight that they would find that the Government is behaving legally but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion on the matter.
Of course they do, but yes the conclusion must be based on law and the law is that Parliament voted to leave, as amended on 31 October. It is done.
Of course between now and our exit Parliament retains the right to change its mind between now and then but if Parliament votes to dissolve itself, a new Parliament elected after 31 October has no right to change that.
I think there'd be a greater issue for a legal challenge if the government unilaterally prorogued Parliament. But Parliament voting to dissolve itself is another matter.
It is a common law convention that the courts will not seek to overturn legislation, only interpret it. As you say, the House has voted to leave on 31st October, in the absence of some other arrangment. The courts have no standing to create that other arrangment.
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.
Good post.
But I don't think us focusing on Brexit (nearly 50% of our exports, etc, etc) precludes us from being concerned about global issues.
But your essential point is correct. We need to get on and leave, subject to all democratic, legal processes that may arise and be instituted before that time. Some of which, of course, may delay that departure, but that's the country we're in so none of us are complaining, right?
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.
The electorate can't reject a No Deal Brexit, it will have already gone ahead. That's like saying the electorate could reject Lisbon in 2010.
The courts will decide if the government is obliged to seek an extension to cover the time frame of a GE.
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.
In the "Grand Scheme" your house is an even smaller little corner of Europe and the plan to replace your garden with a sewage treatment centre is even more insignificant change in current arrangements.
And I would think it "a touch quaint" how "animated" you would be, when you voice your opinions.
Genuine question, what are the odds of the gov falling in a VONC? Presumably DUP will back Boris. Are there any Tories at all that would seriously try and topple their own government? Party lines are very powerful, brexit or no.
I also think the opposition is weak. Sure LDs, Nats and Lab will back VONC but what about the independent group ex-tories?
I think a VONC will be very close.
I think that Bebb and Lee are 2 who sound like they will definitely vote against the government. My guess is there could be as many as 10.
It then depends on how many of the ex-Labour MPs like Field, Woodcock and Austin are willing to back the government or abstain.
O'Mara's decision on whether to quit could also be important as if Hallam is vacant that would help Boris.
I think a VoNC will be easy if the opposition are clear on who they want instead.
If they have not decided that beforehand then a VoNC makes a No Deal Brexit an almost certainty because there would have to be GE. Under those circumstances I would not expect a VoNC to succeed as the rebels would be looking to keep Parliament sitting and find some other way to thwart Boris.
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.
What's the point of lying?
It isn't a lie.
In the absence of a deal, no deal is Parliament's choice.
I would describe it as a fact.
One that has been agreed by both sides of the negotiations and I suspect written into the laws by both sides of the negotiations,
It is one of the few firm facts about Brexit, one of the few things agreed and ratified by both parties.
It is the one that is causing all the current rumpus about VONC, General Elections, GONU and legal challenges because it is the fact that is causing the deadline to appear in a few short days time, the deadline that means something has to happen, be it Revoke, Extend, No Deal or agree a deal of some sort.
31st October has to be replaced by another Brexit status, we cannot do nothing and be in the same place on 01/11/2019
It’s weird how @Philip_Thompson seems to take great delight on how a policy with significant consequences for the future of the country might be forced through without the support of Parliament or the electorate.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change that fact.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change the fact that Parliament had three opportunities to express its support for sometinng that wasn't No Deal Brexit. It chose not to take them. Instead, it wanked about, being Ever So Clever. Or so they thought.
And the voters in 2017 could have thrown out a Government committed to implementing Brexit. Instead, 86% of the votes were cast for parties pledging to implement it.
"The brains behind the operation are John McDonnell, Milne and Murray. And “they absolutely believe that if Brexit brings chaos the voters will turn to the radical left”. "
Genuine question, what are the odds of the gov falling in a VONC? Presumably DUP will back Boris. Are there any Tories at all that would seriously try and topple their own government? Party lines are very powerful, brexit or no.
I also think the opposition is weak. Sure LDs, Nats and Lab will back VONC but what about the independent group ex-tories?
I think a VONC will be very close.
I think that Bebb and Lee are 2 who sound like they will definitely vote against the government. My guess is there could be as many as 10.
It then depends on how many of the ex-Labour MPs like Field, Woodcock and Austin are willing to back the government or abstain.
O'Mara's decision on whether to quit could also be important as if Hallam is vacant that would help Boris.
I think a VoNC will be easy if the opposition are clear on who they want instead.
If they have not decided that beforehand then a VoNC makes a No Deal Brexit an almost certainty because there would have to be GE. Under those circumstances I would not expect a VoNC to succeed as the rebels would be looking to keep Parliament sitting and find some other way to thwart Boris.
Yes I said that earlier you don’t VONC unless you have an agreed course of action.
Yes, that's what I said here, to some scepticism. There are quite a few members who are not happy, either because they want a firmer Remain commitment or simply because we're doing badly in the opinion polls (fewer than you might think really care that much about EU membership, though everyone hates No Deal). But the number who actually quit is limited, partly because of the usual cycle that membership goes up at election time and slides in between elections.
There is also a possible question around the measurement methodology ?
It might be a quibble, but a few posters on here who have resigned their membership say that it takes something like six months to lapse, rather than being effective immediately.
It’s weird how @Philip_Thompson seems to take great delight on how a policy with significant consequences for the future of the country might be forced through without the support of Parliament or the electorate.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change that fact.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change the fact that Parliament had three opportunities to express its support for sometinng that wasn't No Deal Brexit. It chose not to take them. Instead, it wanked about, being Ever So Clever. Or so they thought.
And the voters in 2017 could have thrown out a Government committed to implementing Brexit. Instead, 86% of the votes were cast for parties pledging to implement it.
Another great post, why do people not get this!!
Show me the part of the Labour 2017 manifesto committing Labour to a No Deal Brexit.
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.
Good post.
But I don't think us focusing on Brexit (nearly 50% of our exports, etc, etc) precludes us from being concerned about global issues.
But your essential point is correct. We need to get on and leave, subject to all democratic, legal processes that may arise and be instituted before that time. Some of which, of course, may delay that departure, but that's the country we're in so none of us are complaining, right?
I would not be opposed to an extension so long as it did not change our leaving in the end. I have always been in Robert's court on this. It is a marathon not a sprint.
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).
You both have a point. The Queen probably did raise an eyebrow when BJ told her he had the support of parliament, but we did have a VoNC not long ago which suggested that BJ would have survived such a vote last month. BJ was lucky with the timing of his election, allowing him an extended honeymoon and a chance to build a narrative.
Although Corbyn is desperate to be PM, I honestly don't see how he could go the Queen and tell her he can command a majority. His premiership would last a few hours and create great embarrassment for all concerned.
I also agree with the comments that, for all the talk of a GoNU, it's unlikely that anyone will be found who a majority of MPs will vote for. So if BJ loses a VoNC, an election is unavoidable. Of course the worry is No Deal Brexit, but I'm confident that parliament will find a way, with Bercow's help, to prevent Brexit happening in this democratic limbo period. It would be highly irresponsible and damaging for Brexit to take place while we don't have a properly functioning government.
It’s weird how @Philip_Thompson seems to take great delight on how a policy with significant consequences for the future of the country might be forced through without the support of Parliament or the electorate.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change that fact.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change the fact that Parliament had three opportunities to express its support for sometinng that wasn't No Deal Brexit. It chose not to take them. Instead, it wanked about, being Ever So Clever. Or so they thought.
And the voters in 2017 could have thrown out a Government committed to implementing Brexit. Instead, 86% of the votes were cast for parties pledging to implement it.
Another great post, why do people not get this!!
Show me the part of the Labour 2017 manifesto committing Labour to a No Deal Brexit.
It’s weird how @Philip_Thompson seems to take great delight on how a policy with significant consequences for the future of the country might be forced through without the support of Parliament or the electorate.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change that fact.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change the fact that Parliament had three opportunities to express its support for sometinng that wasn't No Deal Brexit. It chose not to take them. Instead, it wanked about, being Ever So Clever. Or so they thought.
And the voters in 2017 could have thrown out a Government committed to implementing Brexit. Instead, 86% of the votes were cast for parties pledging to implement it.
Another great post, why do people not get this!!
There is a "Like" button that you can use to express your appreciation for a post more succinctly.
Genuine question, what are the odds of the gov falling in a VONC? Presumably DUP will back Boris. Are there any Tories at all that would seriously try and topple their own government? Party lines are very powerful, brexit or no.
I also think the opposition is weak. Sure LDs, Nats and Lab will back VONC but what about the independent group ex-tories?
I think a VONC will be very close.
I think that Bebb and Lee are 2 who sound like they will definitely vote against the government. My guess is there could be as many as 10.
It then depends on how many of the ex-Labour MPs like Field, Woodcock and Austin are willing to back the government or abstain.
O'Mara's decision on whether to quit could also be important as if Hallam is vacant that would help Boris.
Field voted with Labour in the January VNOC. Much less likely too that Lady Hermon will support Boris.
If you are preparing to fight an election against Labour as the "Birkenhead Social Justice Party", I would have thought the last thing you want is to be painted as an ally of Boris Johnson. So Field will vote with Labour again.
Doesn’t the ‘leave’ bit of the ‘leave the EU’ law have to be separately ‘activated’?
No. We leave on 31 October, that is the date set in law. It all kicks in automatically at 11pm.
What about the requirement for parliamentary approval of the terms of our exit?
There will be court challenges I’m sure.
Those conditions have been met already. They were met in January.
Do explain.
Sorry, Vanilla seems to be playing up and it's not showing @Philip_Thompson's answer to this question on my browser... can someone re-post it, I'd be most interested.
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).
You both have a point. The Queen probably did raise an eyebrow when BJ told her he had the support of parliament, but we did have a VoNC not long ago which suggested that BJ would have survived such a vote last month. BJ was lucky with the timing of his election, allowing him an extended honeymoon and a chance to build a narrative.
Although Corbyn is desperate to be PM, I honestly don't see how he could go the Queen and tell her he can command a majority. His premiership would last a few hours and create great embarrassment for all concerned.
I also agree with the comments that, for all the talk of a GoNU, it's unlikely that anyone will be found who a majority of MPs will vote for. So if BJ loses a VoNC, an election is unavoidable. Of course the worry is No Deal Brexit, but I'm confident that parliament will find a way, with Bercow's help, to prevent Brexit happening in this democratic limbo period. It would be highly irresponsible and damaging for Brexit to take place while we don't have a properly functioning government.
The problem there is that once an election is called Bercow is no longer The Speaker. So whatever he does has to be done in the 14 days after the VoNC.
It’s weird how @Philip_Thompson seems to take great delight on how a policy with significant consequences for the future of the country might be forced through without the support of Parliament or the electorate.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change that fact.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change the fact that Parliament had three opportunities to express its support for sometinng that wasn't No Deal Brexit. It chose not to take them. Instead, it wanked about, being Ever So Clever. Or so they thought.
And the voters in 2017 could have thrown out a Government committed to implementing Brexit. Instead, 86% of the votes were cast for parties pledging to implement it.
Another great post, why do people not get this!!
Show me the part of the Labour 2017 manifesto committing Labour to a No Deal Brexit.
They explicitly ruled it out.
So did Labour vote for the "deal" ?
The deal did not meet their manifesto commitments.
I thought you would have understood that given your earlier comments.
This is just the Brexiteers panicking and trying to blame the consequences of no deal on Parliament and Remainers rather than themselves.
Its pathetic.
Whats pathetic is your refusal to accept the fact that a perfectly fair deal was on offer. Parliament voted against it three times. You and all those who voted against it are now trying to take no responsibility for the position we are in.
"The brains behind the operation are John McDonnell, Milne and Murray. And “they absolutely believe that if Brexit brings chaos the voters will turn to the radical left”. "
To be fair to Cohen that was written back in 2018 before a lot of the parliamentary votes in which Labour consistently sided against a No Deal Brexit. Not sure why you're still posting it though.
This is just the Brexiteers panicking and trying to blame the consequences of no deal on Parliament and Remainers rather than themselves.
Its pathetic.
Whats pathetic is your refusal to accept the fact that a perfectly fair deal was on offer. Parliament voted against it three times. You and all those who voted against it are now trying to take no responsibility for the position we are in.
Voting against a hard Brexit is in no way support of no deal Brexit. Stop twisting everything.
Brexiteers own the consequences of their doomed project. No one else.
It’s weird how @Philip_Thompson seems to take great delight on how a policy with significant consequences for the future of the country might be forced through without the support of Parliament or the electorate.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change that fact.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change the fact that Parliament had three opportunities to express its support for sometinng that wasn't No Deal Brexit. It chose not to take them. Instead, it wanked about, being Ever So Clever. Or so they thought.
And the voters in 2017 could have thrown out a Government committed to implementing Brexit. Instead, 86% of the votes were cast for parties pledging to implement it.
What proportion of votes were cast for parties pledging to implement No Deal?
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
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.
I was addressing a different point - that Corbyn could not be appointed PM without certainty that he commanded a majority. I am suggesting there was no certainty that Johnson commanded a majority on 24th July - indeed we still don't know! The Cabinet Manual is often referred to , but it is far from clear that it has any significance beyond being a Civil Service document drawn up prior to the 2010 election. It can surely be nothing more than 'guidance' or 'recommendations'.
Yes but the big difference is presumably the resigning PM, May, advised the Queen to ask Johnson to form a government. I assume IF Johnson resigned and advised the Queen to ask Corbyn to form a government he would also become PM without any certainty that Corbyn commanded a majority, but Johnson isn't going to do that, which is actually fair enough given the LibDems have already said they won't let Corbyn become PM.
This is just the Brexiteers panicking and trying to blame the consequences of no deal on Parliament and Remainers rather than themselves.
Its pathetic.
Whats pathetic is your refusal to accept the fact that a perfectly fair deal was on offer. Parliament voted against it three times. You and all those who voted against it are now trying to take no responsibility for the position we are in.
Voting against a hard Brexit is in no way support of no deal Brexit. Stop twisting everything.
Brexiteers own the consequences of their doomed project. No one else.
You think Mays deal was a hard Brexit???? It was a really good deal for the UK. I dont get the Backstop nonsense MPs should have not been tribal
It’s weird how @Philip_Thompson seems to take great delight on how a policy with significant consequences for the future of the country might be forced through without the support of Parliament or the electorate.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change that fact.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change the fact that Parliament had three opportunities to express its support for sometinng that wasn't No Deal Brexit. It chose not to take them. Instead, it wanked about, being Ever So Clever. Or so they thought.
And the voters in 2017 could have thrown out a Government committed to implementing Brexit. Instead, 86% of the votes were cast for parties pledging to implement it.
Another great post, why do people not get this!!
Show me the part of the Labour 2017 manifesto committing Labour to a No Deal Brexit.
They explicitly ruled it out.
So did Labour vote for the "deal" ?
Not relevant to the point, which is that a vote for Labour in 2017 was absolutely not a mandate for No Deal.
I tend to agree with those who argue that the status quo is to leave the EU without a deal. That is, after all, what has been legislated for, and it would require a change to the law to prevent it, which would seem to me to be the very definition of what the status quo is. It's exactly the same as when previous governments have passed budgets - in advance - that lead to cuts in taxes that come into effect during the election campaign period.
I don't want there to be a no deal exit from the EU. It looks likely that, if it could be achieved painlessly, there would be a majority in the Commons opposed to exiting the EU without a deal. That being the case, the trap that has been created was the one that the Commons agreed to when it passed a Withdrawal Act with a fixed departure date in statute that was not conditional on passing a withdrawal agreement.
Why, precisely, did MPs who protest their opposition to a no-deal departure vote for a no-deal departure?
This is just the Brexiteers panicking and trying to blame the consequences of no deal on Parliament and Remainers rather than themselves.
Its pathetic.
Whats pathetic is your refusal to accept the fact that a perfectly fair deal was on offer. Parliament voted against it three times. You and all those who voted against it are now trying to take no responsibility for the position we are in.
If it happens, responsibility for the consequences will clearly sit with its supporters which in a political context means the Tories. That's all we need to know.
This is just the Brexiteers panicking and trying to blame the consequences of no deal on Parliament and Remainers rather than themselves.
Its pathetic.
Whats pathetic is your refusal to accept the fact that a perfectly fair deal was on offer. Parliament voted against it three times. You and all those who voted against it are now trying to take no responsibility for the position we are in.
Voting against a hard Brexit is in no way support of no deal Brexit. Stop twisting everything.
Brexiteers own the consequences of their doomed project. No one else.
It’s weird how @Philip_Thompson seems to take great delight on how a policy with significant consequences for the future of the country might be forced through without the support of Parliament or the electorate.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change that fact.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change the fact that Parliament had three opportunities to express its support for sometinng that wasn't No Deal Brexit. It chose not to take them. Instead, it wanked about, being Ever So Clever. Or so they thought.
And the voters in 2017 could have thrown out a Government committed to implementing Brexit. Instead, 86% of the votes were cast for parties pledging to implement it.
Another great post, why do people not get this!!
Show me the part of the Labour 2017 manifesto committing Labour to a No Deal Brexit.
This is just the Brexiteers panicking and trying to blame the consequences of no deal on Parliament and Remainers rather than themselves.
Its pathetic.
Whats pathetic is your refusal to accept the fact that a perfectly fair deal was on offer. Parliament voted against it three times. You and all those who voted against it are now trying to take no responsibility for the position we are in.
Voting against a hard Brexit is in no way support of no deal Brexit. Stop twisting everything.
Brexiteers own the consequences of their doomed project. No one else.
You think Mays deal was a hard Brexit???? It was a really good deal for the UK. I dont get the Backstop nonsense MPs should have not been tribal
It’s weird how @Philip_Thompson seems to take great delight on how a policy with significant consequences for the future of the country might be forced through without the support of Parliament or the electorate.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change that fact.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change the fact that Parliament had three opportunities to express its support for sometinng that wasn't No Deal Brexit. It chose not to take them. Instead, it wanked about, being Ever So Clever. Or so they thought.
And the voters in 2017 could have thrown out a Government committed to implementing Brexit. Instead, 86% of the votes were cast for parties pledging to implement it.
Another great post, why do people not get this!!
Show me the part of the Labour 2017 manifesto committing Labour to a No Deal Brexit.
They explicitly ruled it out.
So did Labour vote for the "deal" ?
Not relevant to the point, which is that a vote for Labour in 2017 was absolutely not a mandate for No Deal.
It’s weird how @Philip_Thompson seems to take great delight on how a policy with significant consequences for the future of the country might be forced through without the support of Parliament or the electorate.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change that fact.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change the fact that Parliament had three opportunities to express its support for sometinng that wasn't No Deal Brexit. It chose not to take them. Instead, it wanked about, being Ever So Clever. Or so they thought.
And the voters in 2017 could have thrown out a Government committed to implementing Brexit. Instead, 86% of the votes were cast for parties pledging to implement it.
Another great post, why do people not get this!!
Show me the part of the Labour 2017 manifesto committing Labour to a No Deal Brexit.
They explicitly ruled it out.
So did Labour vote for the "deal" ?
Not relevant to the point, which is that a vote for Labour in 2017 was absolutely not a mandate for No Deal.
But it was a mandate for leaving the EU and 'respecting da referendum'.
I am somewhat surprised that the DUP has not yet said, that their supply and confidence agreement was with Mrs May and that HMG has changed so significantly that they are withdrawing from the agreement. They would however be prepared to go in to discussions with the new PM to discuss under which circumstances they would support the new government.
This is just the Brexiteers panicking and trying to blame the consequences of no deal on Parliament and Remainers rather than themselves.
Its pathetic.
Whats pathetic is your refusal to accept the fact that a perfectly fair deal was on offer. Parliament voted against it three times. You and all those who voted against it are now trying to take no responsibility for the position we are in.
Voting against a hard Brexit is in no way support of no deal Brexit. Stop twisting everything.
Brexiteers own the consequences of their doomed project. No one else.
You think Mays deal was a hard Brexit???? It was a really good deal for the UK. I dont get the Backstop nonsense MPs should have not been tribal
May's deal removed us from the single market and the customs Union, so by the standards of the time (when "Canada" was seen as hard Brexit and "Norway" as soft), May's deal was closer to the hard end of the spectrum. Of course now anything short of crashing out with no deal, painting a union jack on the White cliffs of Dover and banning French toast is seen as abject surrender.
Genuine question, what are the odds of the gov falling in a VONC? Presumably DUP will back Boris. Are there any Tories at all that would seriously try and topple their own government? Party lines are very powerful, brexit or no.
I also think the opposition is weak. Sure LDs, Nats and Lab will back VONC but what about the independent group ex-tories?
I think a VONC will be very close.
I think that Bebb and Lee are 2 who sound like they will definitely vote against the government. My guess is there could be as many as 10.
It then depends on how many of the ex-Labour MPs like Field, Woodcock and Austin are willing to back the government or abstain.
O'Mara's decision on whether to quit could also be important as if Hallam is vacant that would help Boris.
Field voted with Labour in the January VNOC. Much less likely too that Lady Hermon will support Boris.
If you are preparing to fight an election against Labour as the "Birkenhead Social Justice Party", I would have thought the last thing you want is to be painted as an ally of Boris Johnson. So Field will vote with Labour again.
Indeed - and Woodcock has now joined the very pro-Independent group of MPs. He abstained in January but more likely to vote against Boris now.
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.
What's the point of lying?
It isn't a lie.
In the absence of a deal, no deal is Parliament's choice.
I would describe it as a fact.
One that has been agreed by both sides of the negotiations and I suspect written into the laws by both sides of the negotiations,
It is one of the few firm facts about Brexit, one of the few things agreed and ratified by both parties.
It is the one that is causing all the current rumpus about VONC, General Elections, GONU and legal challenges because it is the fact that is causing the deadline to appear in a few short days time, the deadline that means something has to happen, be it Revoke, Extend, No Deal or agree a deal of some sort.
31st October has to be replaced by another Brexit status, we cannot do nothing and be in the same place on 01/11/2019
It's a lie. Parliament has voted against No Deal, and will do so again.
Parliament voted to invoke Article 50. It did so because, contrary to the claims of whining Brexiters, parliament respects the referendum result.
Parliament voted for Brexit on the basis that it would be orderly and on acceptable terms. The date of Brexit will continue to be postponed until such time as Parliament agrees to the terms. (nb. both Brexiters and Remainers voted against the Withdrawal Agreement.)
It’s weird how @Philip_Thompson seems to take great delight on how a policy with significant consequences for the future of the country might be forced through without the support of Parliament or the electorate.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change that fact.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change the fact that Parliament had three opportunities to express its support for sometinng that wasn't No Deal Brexit. It chose not to take them. Instead, it wanked about, being Ever So Clever. Or so they thought.
And the voters in 2017 could have thrown out a Government committed to implementing Brexit. Instead, 86% of the votes were cast for parties pledging to implement it.
Another great post, why do people not get this!!
Show me the part of the Labour 2017 manifesto committing Labour to a No Deal Brexit.
Yes, that's what I said here, to some scepticism. There are quite a few members who are not happy, either because they want a firmer Remain commitment or simply because we're doing badly in the opinion polls (fewer than you might think really care that much about EU membership, though everyone hates No Deal). But the number who actually quit is limited, partly because of the usual cycle that membership goes up at election time and slides in between elections.
There is also a possible question around the measurement methodology ?
It might be a quibble, but a few posters on here who have resigned their membership say that it takes something like six months to lapse, rather than being effective immediately.
If you write a letter it should be immediate. The six months is if you just don't pay
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 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.
Good post.
But I don't think us focusing on Brexit (nearly 50% of our exports, etc, etc) precludes us from being concerned about global issues.
But your essential point is correct. We need to get on and leave, subject to all democratic, legal processes that may arise and be instituted before that time. Some of which, of course, may delay that departure, but that's the country we're in so none of us are complaining, right?
I would not be opposed to an extension so long as it did not change our leaving in the end. I have always been in Robert's court on this. It is a marathon not a sprint.
I suspect Boris would not ask for an extension past 31st October himself even with an autumn general election but if the Commons forced it on him until the election date and the EU agreed he would just campaign for a No Deal majority against the current Commons
The likes of Boris Johnson and the ERG made it easier for Labour to vote against Mrs May's deal every time they said Mrs May's deal was worse than Remaining.
It would have been seen as a deal foisted on Leavers by Remainers.
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 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.
Good post.
But I don't think us focusing on Brexit (nearly 50% of our exports, etc, etc) precludes us from being concerned about global issues.
But your essential point is correct. We need to get on and leave, subject to all democratic, legal processes that may arise and be instituted before that time. Some of which, of course, may delay that departure, but that's the country we're in so none of us are complaining, right?
I would not be opposed to an extension so long as it did not change our leaving in the end. I have always been in Robert's court on this. It is a marathon not a sprint.
I suspect Boris would not ask for an extension past 31st October himself even with an autumn general election but if the Commons forced it on him until the election date and the EU agreed he would just campaign for a No Deal majority against the current Commons
Which he would lose.
The most likely outcome at this juncture seems to me a GE, in which a minority Corbyn government is returned.
The majority of the public do not want No Deal and will vote accordingly.
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 schemeher 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.
Good post.
But I don't think us focusing on Brexit (nearly 50% of our exports, etc, etc) precludes us from being concerned about global issues.
But your essential point is correct. We need to get on and leave, subject to all democratic, legal processes that may arise and be instituted before that time. Some of which, of course, may delay that departure, but that's the country we're in so none of us are complaining, right?
I would not be opposed to an extension so long as it did not change our leaving in the end. I have always been in Robert's court on this. It is a marathon not a sprint.
Indeed but the risk (for you) is that the longer it goes the greater the chance of us not leaving. If Lab goes in that direction or any other event.
I tend to agree with those who argue that the status quo is to leave the EU without a deal. That is, after all, what has been legislated for, and it would require a change to the law to prevent it, which would seem to me to be the very definition of what the status quo is. It's exactly the same as when previous governments have passed budgets - in advance - that lead to cuts in taxes that come into effect during the election campaign period.
I don't want there to be a no deal exit from the EU. It looks likely that, if it could be achieved painlessly, there would be a majority in the Commons opposed to exiting the EU without a deal. That being the case, the trap that has been created was the one that the Commons agreed to when it passed a Withdrawal Act with a fixed departure date in statute that was not conditional on passing a withdrawal agreement.
Why, precisely, did MPs who protest their opposition to a no-deal departure vote for a no-deal departure?
"The brains behind the operation are John McDonnell, Milne and Murray. And “they absolutely believe that if Brexit brings chaos the voters will turn to the radical left”. "
Jeez disaster capitalists on one side, disaster socialists on the other. hallo McDonnell, Milne and Murray, have you not noticed that disasters just make things worse?
I tend to agree with those who argue that the status quo is to leave the EU without a deal. That is, after all, what has been legislated for, and it would require a change to the law to prevent it, which would seem to me to be the very definition of what the status quo is. It's exactly the same as when previous governments have passed budgets - in advance - that lead to cuts in taxes that come into effect during the election campaign period.
I don't want there to be a no deal exit from the EU. It looks likely that, if it could be achieved painlessly, there would be a majority in the Commons opposed to exiting the EU without a deal. That being the case, the trap that has been created was the one that the Commons agreed to when it passed a Withdrawal Act with a fixed departure date in statute that was not conditional on passing a withdrawal agreement.
Why, precisely, did MPs who protest their opposition to a no-deal departure vote for a no-deal departure?
passed a Withdrawal Act with a fixed departure date in statute that was not conditional on passing a withdrawal agreement.
To answer this element, Article 50 had a 2 year time limit for negotiations, written into it. That is EU treaty thingy.
It also allows for extending the period (if unanimously agreed), but that again is time limited, in this instance we agreed 31/10/19 with EU
"You’d have thought that Johnson, of all people, would have realised the folly of making promises you know you cannot keep."
Good piece but I take the opposite view. Boris Johnson has become prime minister and achieved his life's ambition entirely through making promises he cannot keep, lying and other general dishonesty. Why on earth would we expect him to change now!?
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 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.
Good post.
But I don't think us focusing on Brexit (nearly 50% of our exports, etc, etc) precludes us from being concerned about global issues.
But your essential point is correct. We need to get on and leave, subject to all democratic, legal processes that may arise and be instituted before that time. Some of which, of course, may delay that departure, but that's the country we're in so none of us are complaining, right?
I would not be opposed to an extension so long as it did not change our leaving in the end. I have always been in Robert's court on this. It is a marathon not a sprint.
I suspect Boris would not ask for an extension past 31st October himself even with an autumn general election but if the Commons forced it on him until the election date and the EU agreed he would just campaign for a No Deal majority against the current Commons
Which he would lose.
The most likely outcome at this juncture seems to me a GE, in which a minority Corbyn government is returned.
The majority of the public do not want No Deal and will vote accordingly.
What an insult that would be to British Jews. It would show the bulk of the population as simply callous towards us.
It's a lie. Parliament has voted against No Deal, and will do so again.
Parliament voted to invoke Article 50. It did so because, contrary to the claims of whining Brexiters, parliament respects the referendum result.
Parliament voted for Brexit on the basis that it would be orderly and on acceptable terms. The date of Brexit will continue to be postponed until such time as Parliament agrees to the terms. (nb. both Brexiters and Remainers voted against the Withdrawal Agreement.)
Trouble is that as the law stands it doesn't matter why Parliament voted a particular way . All that matters is they voted for Article 50 to be invoked and that it was. Unless and until they can find a way to reverse that decision then, in the absence of a deal or an extension thecwill of Parliament legally is for No Deal.
Parliament needs to stop voting against stuff and start voting for stuff.
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.
What's the point of lying?
It isn't a lie.
In the absence of a deal, no deal is Parliament's choice.
I would describe it as a fact.
One that has been agreed by both sides of the negotiations and I suspect written into the laws by both sides of the negotiations,
It is one of the few firm facts about Brexit, one of the few things agreed and ratified by both parties.
It is the one that is causing all the current rumpus about VONC, General Elections, GONU and legal challenges because it is the fact that is causing the deadline to appear in a few short days time, the deadline that means something has to happen, be it Revoke, Extend, No Deal or agree a deal of some sort.
31st October has to be replaced by another Brexit status, we cannot do nothing and be in the same place on 01/11/2019
It's a lie. Parliament has voted against No Deal, and will do so again.
Parliament voted to invoke Article 50. It did so because, contrary to the claims of whining Brexiters, parliament respects the referendum result.
Parliament voted for Brexit on the basis that it would be orderly and on acceptable terms. The date of Brexit will continue to be postponed until such time as Parliament agrees to the terms. (nb. both Brexiters and Remainers voted against the Withdrawal Agreement.)
Indicative vote against No Deal, I agree. Both houses enacted legislation to implement article 50 and the terms of Article 50.
An indicative vote is what it says on the tin, legislation is what it does.
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 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 mselves to the Brexit result but are now finally realizing that the game is up.
Good post.
But I don't think us focusing on Brexit (nearly 50% of our exports, etc, etc) precludes us from being concerned about global issues.
But your essential point is correct. We need to get on and leave, subject to all democratic, legal processes that may arise and be instituted before that time. Some of which, of course, may delay that departure, but that's the country we're in so none of us are complaining, right?
I would not be opposed to an extension so long as it did not change our leaving in the end. I have always been in Robert's court on this. It is a marathon not a sprint.
I suspect Boris would not ask for an extension past 31st October himself even with an autumn general election but if the Commons forced it on him until the election date and the EU agreed he would just campaign for a No Deal majority against the current Commons
Which he would lose.
The most likely outcome at this juncture seems to me a GE, in which a minority Corbyn government is returned.
The majority of the public do not want No Deal and will vote accordingly.
Oh no, he would win with a comfortable majority.
As the polls show the Tories get a majority on a No Deal platform and the election would be held before No Deal with the extension lasting until the day after polling day so no consequences of No Deal can be felt until after polling day while Boris can blame MPs for the extension he opposed.
This is just the Brexiteers panicking and trying to blame the consequences of no deal on Parliament and Remainers rather than themselves.
Its pathetic.
Whats pathetic is your refusal to accept the fact that a perfectly fair deal was on offer. Parliament voted against it three times. You and all those who voted against it are now trying to take no responsibility for the position we are in.
If it happens, responsibility for the consequences will clearly sit with its supporters which in a political context means the Tories. That's all we need to know.
Responsibility for leaving without an orderly transition lies with everyone who voted repeatedly against an orderly transition. That goes for Leavers and Remainers alike.
Though of course both sides abandon any sense of responsibility for it, because they are both pathetic.
This is just the Brexiteers panicking and trying to blame the consequences of no deal on Parliament and Remainers rather than themselves.
Its pathetic.
Whats pathetic is your refusal to accept the fact that a perfectly fair deal was on offer. Parliament voted against it three times. You and all those who voted against it are now trying to take no responsibility for the position we are in.
Voting against a hard Brexit is in no way support of no deal Brexit. Stop twisting everything.
Brexiteers own the consequences of their doomed project. No one else.
You think Mays deal was a hard Brexit???? It was a really good deal for the UK. I dont get the Backstop nonsense MPs should have not been tribal
Essentially correct. The great irony of the crisis is that there's a parliamentary majority for the backstop.
Corbyn is the reason that the Withdrawal Agreement hasn't been passed - his troops easily outnumber the ERG numpties. The "tribal" difficulty was created by May though, when she opted to make Brexit a Tory Party project, shutting Labour out of the negotiations.
As the polls show the Tories get a majority on a No Deal platform and the election would beheld before No Deal so no consequence can be felt while Boris can blame MPs for the extension he opposed.
I tend to agree with those who argue that the status quo is to leave the EU without a deal. That is, after all, what has been legislated for, and it would require a change to the law to prevent it, which would seem to me to be the very definition of what the status quo is. It's exactly the same as when previous governments have passed budgets - in advance - that lead to cuts in taxes that come into effect during the election campaign period.
I don't want there to be a no deal exit from the EU. It looks likely that, if it could be achieved painlessly, there would be a majority in the Commons opposed to exiting the EU without a deal. That being the case, the trap that has been created was the one that the Commons agreed to when it passed a Withdrawal Act with a fixed departure date in statute that was not conditional on passing a withdrawal agreement.
Why, precisely, did MPs who protest their opposition to a no-deal departure vote for a no-deal departure?
They didn't.
They did, in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act.
They could have added provisions to say that it would not come into force unless a Withdrawal Agreement had been agreed, and that in that case the government would be obliged to request an extension to the Article 50 process from the EU.
The Commons chose not to insert such a provision. They voted for no deal.
That is now the status quo. You can tell it is the status quo because some action would be required in order to prevent 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 schemeher 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.
Good post.
But I don't think us focusing on Brexit (nearly 50% of our exports, etc, etc) precludes us from being concerned about global issues.
But your essential point is correct. We need to get on and leave, subject to all democratic, legal processes that may arise and be instituted before that time. Some of which, of course, may delay that departure, but that's the country we're in so none of us are complaining, right?
I would not be opposed to an extension so long as it did not change our leaving in the end. I have always been in Robert's court on this. It is a marathon not a sprint.
Indeed but the risk (for you) is that the longer it goes the greater the chance of us not leaving. If Lab goes in that direction or any other event.
Which is why I am uneasy about an extension. But then very little is certain in life so one has to take chances.
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 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.
Good post.
But I don't think us focusing on Brexit (nearly 50% of our exports, etc, etc) precludes us from being concerned about global issues.
But your essential point is correct. We need to get on and leave, subject to all democratic, legal processes that may arise and be instituted before that time. Some of which, of course, may delay that departure, but that's the country we're in so none of us are complaining, right?
I would not be opposed to an extension so long as it did not change our leaving in the end. I have always been in Robert's court on this. It is a marathon not a sprint.
I suspect Boris would not ask for an extension past 31st October himself even with an autumn general election but if the Commons forced it on him until the election date and the EU agreed he would just campaign for a No Deal majority against the current Commons
Which he would lose.
The most likely outcome at this juncture seems to me a GE, in which a minority Corbyn government is returned.
The majority of the public do not want No Deal and will vote accordingly.
What an insult that would be to British Jews. It would show the bulk of the population as simply callous towards us.
And yet the alternative is the openly racist Johnson. I'm no fan of Corbyn but having a PM who is insufficiently anti-antisemitic (while quite shit) is still an improvement on an actual racist.
As the polls show the Tories get a majority on a No Deal platform and the election would beheld before No Deal so no consequence can be felt while Boris can blame MPs for the extension he opposed.
Comments
@tlg86, with many many qualifications, I agree with your proposals. It is not “fair play” to grant these allowances to EU migrants and if EU law forbids discrimination we should find another way to support the poorest.
"Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it".
1: Grieve wanted Parliament to have a say on the deal, he got his wish.
2: Grieve wanted the deal rejected, he got his wish.
3: Grieve wanted Brexit cancelled, he's not getting his wish.
Meatloaf said that 2 out of 3 ain't bad, wonder whether Grieve sees it that way.
However the leave date has been amended twice, and the act requires parliamentary approval of the terms of departure, so to declare that ‘no deal’ was implied is just complete nonsense.
Rod Liddle.Christ alive! What the hell did I do to you to deserve him?
I also think the opposition is weak. Sure LDs, Nats and Lab will back VONC but what about the independent group ex-tories?
The Cabinet Manual is often referred to , but it is far from clear that it has any significance beyond being a Civil Service document drawn up prior to the 2010 election. It can surely be nothing more than 'guidance' or 'recommendations'.
There will be court challenges I’m sure.
I would think you are tight that they would find that the Government is behaving legally but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion on the matter.
No amount of lies, mental gymnastics or nonsense can change that fact.
That would be a thing....
Of course between now and our exit Parliament retains the right to change its mind between now and then but if Parliament votes to dissolve itself, a new Parliament elected after 31 October has no right to change that.
I think there'd be a greater issue for a legal challenge if the government unilaterally prorogued Parliament. But Parliament voting to dissolve itself is another matter.
Back to the original topic, if there is a GONU and their raison d'etre is extend and GE, where are the 220 MPs who would vote against a GE?
I think that Bebb and Lee are 2 who sound like they will definitely vote against the government. My guess is there could be as many as 10.
It then depends on how many of the ex-Labour MPs like Field, Woodcock and Austin are willing to back the government or abstain.
O'Mara's decision on whether to quit could also be important as if Hallam is vacant that would help Boris.
And the voters in 2017 could have thrown out a Government committed to implementing Brexit. Instead, 86% of the votes were cast for parties pledging to implement it.
In the absence of a deal, no deal is Parliament's choice.
But I don't think us focusing on Brexit (nearly 50% of our exports, etc, etc) precludes us from being concerned about global issues.
But your essential point is correct. We need to get on and leave, subject to all democratic, legal processes that may arise and be instituted before that time. Some of which, of course, may delay that departure, but that's the country we're in so none of us are complaining, right?
And I would think it "a touch quaint" how "animated" you would be, when you voice your opinions.
If they have not decided that beforehand then a VoNC makes a No Deal Brexit an almost certainty because there would have to be GE. Under those circumstances I would not expect a VoNC to succeed as the rebels would be looking to keep Parliament sitting and find some other way to thwart Boris.
One that has been agreed by both sides of the negotiations and I suspect written into the laws by both sides of the negotiations,
It is one of the few firm facts about Brexit, one of the few things agreed and ratified by both parties.
It is the one that is causing all the current rumpus about VONC, General Elections, GONU and legal challenges because it is the fact that is causing the deadline to appear in a few short days time, the deadline that means something has to happen, be it Revoke, Extend, No Deal or agree a deal of some sort.
31st October has to be replaced by another Brexit status, we cannot do nothing and be in the same place on 01/11/2019
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/why-are-labour-party-leaders-so-quiet-on-europe---maybe-it-is-the-lure-of-disaster?CMP=share_btn_tw
It might be a quibble, but a few posters on here who have resigned their membership say that it takes something like six months to lapse, rather than being effective immediately.
They explicitly ruled it out.
Although Corbyn is desperate to be PM, I honestly don't see how he could go the Queen and tell her he can command a majority. His premiership would last a few hours and create great embarrassment for all concerned.
I also agree with the comments that, for all the talk of a GoNU, it's unlikely that anyone will be found who a majority of MPs will vote for. So if BJ loses a VoNC, an election is unavoidable. Of course the worry is No Deal Brexit, but I'm confident that parliament will find a way, with Bercow's help, to prevent Brexit happening in this democratic limbo period. It would be highly irresponsible and damaging for Brexit to take place while we don't have a properly functioning government.
Its pathetic.
I thought you would have understood that given your earlier comments.
Brexiteers own the consequences of their doomed project. No one else.
It was a really good deal for the UK.
I dont get the Backstop nonsense
MPs should have not been tribal
I don't want there to be a no deal exit from the EU. It looks likely that, if it could be achieved painlessly, there would be a majority in the Commons opposed to exiting the EU without a deal. That being the case, the trap that has been created was the one that the Commons agreed to when it passed a Withdrawal Act with a fixed departure date in statute that was not conditional on passing a withdrawal agreement.
Why, precisely, did MPs who protest their opposition to a no-deal departure vote for a no-deal departure?
Parliament voted to invoke Article 50. It did so because, contrary to the claims of whining Brexiters, parliament respects the referendum result.
Parliament voted for Brexit on the basis that it would be orderly and on acceptable terms. The date of Brexit will continue to be postponed until such time as Parliament agrees to the terms. (nb. both Brexiters and Remainers voted against the Withdrawal Agreement.)
Everyone knows what they do not want.
It would have been seen as a deal foisted on Leavers by Remainers.
The most likely outcome at this juncture seems to me a GE, in which a minority Corbyn government is returned.
The majority of the public do not want No Deal and will vote accordingly.
hallo McDonnell, Milne and Murray, have you not noticed that disasters just make things worse?
To answer this element, Article 50 had a 2 year time limit for negotiations, written into it. That is EU treaty thingy.
It also allows for extending the period (if unanimously agreed), but that again is time limited, in this instance we agreed 31/10/19 with EU
Good piece but I take the opposite view. Boris Johnson has become prime minister and achieved his life's ambition entirely through making promises he cannot keep, lying and other general dishonesty. Why on earth would we expect him to change now!?
Parliament needs to stop voting against stuff and start voting for stuff.
Both houses enacted legislation to implement article 50 and the terms of Article 50.
An indicative vote is what it says on the tin, legislation is what it does.
As the polls show the Tories get a majority on a No Deal platform and the election would be held before No Deal with the extension lasting until the day after polling day so no consequences of No Deal can be felt until after polling day while Boris can blame MPs for the extension he opposed.
Could be the ideal route to a Tory majority
https://twitter.com/tianran/status/1157199736232927232?s=20
Though of course both sides abandon any sense of responsibility for it, because they are both pathetic.
Corbyn is the reason that the Withdrawal Agreement hasn't been passed - his troops easily outnumber the ERG numpties. The "tribal" difficulty was created by May though, when she opted to make Brexit a Tory Party project, shutting Labour out of the negotiations.
They could have added provisions to say that it would not come into force unless a Withdrawal Agreement had been agreed, and that in that case the government would be obliged to request an extension to the Article 50 process from the EU.
The Commons chose not to insert such a provision. They voted for no deal.
That is now the status quo. You can tell it is the status quo because some action would be required in order to prevent it.