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!!
It's about time we nailed this nonsense about 80 % of us voting for leave supporting parties in 2017. Many of us voted Labour in the hope they would either stop Brexit or at least bring us the softest Brexit possible. A vote for an explicitly remain party in most constituencies would merely have split the centre and left vote and let the Tories through the middle thereby all but guaranteeing a clusterf**k Brexit.
You can not use the Hobson's choice of an FPTP election to draw meaningful conclusions on a binary question.
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.
In political terms I can assure you the government will get the blame
Why, precisely, did MPs who protest their opposition to a no-deal departure vote for a no-deal departure?
The only way to get Brexit is via Article 50. The vote was to sign Article 50. The governments intention was to get a deal. Parliament voted for this.
The defaulting to a no-deal-brexit was not at the time a realistic threat. It was in no sense "voted for". You could criticise MPs that they had not fully realised the implication of this default, but not claim that they voted for it.
MPs have every right to reject something which they they could have reasonably expected in 2017 would never occur.
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 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.
1. Parliament did not vote for No Deal. This is nonsense and you know it. Parliament is straining every sinew to prevent No Deal.
2. You don't understand the meaning of status quo. The status quo is that the UK is a member of the EU.
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!!
It's about time we nailed this nonsense about 80 % of us voting for leave supporting parties in 2017. Many of us voted Labour in the hope they would either stop Brexit or at least bring us the softest Brexit possible. A vote for an explicitly remain party in most constituencies would merely have split the centre and left vote and let the Tories through the middle thereby all but guaranteeing a clusterf**k Brexit.
You can not use the Hobson's choice of an FPTP election to draw meaningful conclusions on a binary question.
Stop Brexit??? The Country voted for Brexit, what don't people get that??
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 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.
1. Parliament did not vote for No Deal. This is nonsense and you know it. Parliament is straining every sinew to prevent 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.
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.
Do you have a link for the Libdems saying they won't let Corbyn be PM? Context matters.
In the event of a VONC in Johnson's government I think the Queen's advisors (Privy Council if necessary) would advise the Queen to invite the LOTO to form a government. That is normal practice. I think it is the least controversial move by the Queen (though it will still be controversial).
In that event, Corbyn will apply to the EU for an extension (to avoid no Deal) and call for a GE which the Tories will support. It will be Labour who have delayed Brexit so Cummings will be fairly confident in mopping up the Brexit vote.
I think parliament will allow Corbyn to do this without an immediate VONC.
If the Tories do call for an immediate VONC, then sufficient Tories will abstain and all opposition parties will support Corbyn for the VONC to fail. Labour extension followed by November election. Johnson would be happy with that, which is why I don't think the Tories would call for an immediate 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!!
It's about time we nailed this nonsense about 80 % of us voting for leave supporting parties in 2017. Many of us voted Labour in the hope they would either stop Brexit or at least bring us the softest Brexit possible. A vote for an explicitly remain party in most constituencies would merely have split the centre and left vote and let the Tories through the middle thereby all but guaranteeing a clusterf**k Brexit.
You can not use the Hobson's choice of an FPTP election to draw meaningful conclusions on a binary question.
Why, precisely, did MPs who protest their opposition to a no-deal departure vote for a no-deal departure?
The only way to get Brexit is via Article 50. The vote was to sign Article 50. The governments intention was to get a deal. Parliament voted for this.
The defaulting to a no-deal-brexit was not at the time a realistic threat. It was in no sense "voted for". You could criticise MPs that they had not fully realised the implication of this default, but not claim that they voted for it.
MPs have every right to reject something which they they could have reasonably expected in 2017 would never occur.
It's not in invoking Article 50 that no deal was legislated for, it was by putting exit day into the European Union (Withdrawal) Act that the Commons voted for a no deal departure, unless they made a change in the intervening period (ie passed a deal, repealed the Act, or amended exit day after agreeing an extension).
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.
"...The logical endpoint of Brexit is me stuck at the top of Helvellyn in the rain eating warm piss sandwiches whilst a wealthy Leaver harangues me on patriotism from their Alpine/Aspen home..."
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 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.
1. Parliament did not vote for No Deal. This is nonsense and you know it. Parliament is straining every sinew to prevent No Deal.
2. You don't understand the meaning of status quo. The status quo is that the UK is a member of the EU.
You are aware that parliament voted for Article 50?
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 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.
1. Parliament did not vote for No Deal. This is nonsense and you know it. Parliament is straining every sinew to prevent No Deal.
2. You don't understand the meaning of status quo. The status quo is that the UK is a member of the EU.
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 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.
1. Parliament did not vote for No Deal. This is nonsense and you know it. Parliament is straining every sinew to prevent No Deal.
2. You don't understand the meaning of status quo. The status quo is that the UK is a member of the EU.
They voted for a negotiating period of 2 years, after which the options are:
Leave with no deal Get an extension.
Revoke and Agree a Deal were options that were applicable at any time in the process, (revoke unilaterally after clarification by courts).
All positions except revoke were understood at the time of the Withdrawal act.
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.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
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.
Do you have a link for the Libdems saying they won't let Corbyn be PM? Context matters.
In the event of a VONC in Johnson's government I think the Queen's advisors (Privy Council if necessary) would advise the Queen to invite the LOTO to form a government. That is normal practice. I think it is the least controversial move by the Queen (though it will still be controversial).
In that event, Corbyn will apply to the EU for an extension (to avoid no Deal) and call for a GE which the Tories will support. It will be Labour who have delayed Brexit so Cummings will be fairly confident in mopping up the Brexit vote.
I think parliament will allow Corbyn to do this without an immediate VONC.
If the Tories do call for an immediate VONC, then sufficient Tories will abstain and all opposition parties will support Corbymn for the VONC to fail. Labour extension followed by November election. Johnson would be happy with that, which is why I don't think the Tories would call for an immediate VONC.
They will not put the Queen in position where she appoints a PM which has the merest risk of failing a VONC. Certainly not one which has such a minority.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
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.
Do you have a link for the Libdems saying they won't let Corbyn be PM? Context matters.
In the event of a VONC in Johnson's government I think the Queen's advisors (Privy Council if necessary) would advise the Queen to invite the LOTO to form a government. That is normal practice. I think it is the least controversial move by the Queen (though it will still be controversial).
In that event, Corbyn will apply to the EU for an extension (to avoid no Deal) and call for a GE which the Tories will support. It will be Labour who have delayed Brexit so Cummings will be fairly confident in mopping up the Brexit vote.
I think parliament will allow Corbyn to do this without an immediate VONC.
If the Tories do call for an immediate VONC, then sufficient Tories will abstain and all opposition parties will support Corbyn for the VONC to fail. Labour extension followed by November election. Johnson would be happy with that, which is why I don't think the Tories would call for an immediate VONC.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
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.
Do you have a link for the Libdems saying they won't let Corbyn be PM? Context matters.
In the event of a VONC in Johnson's government I think the Queen's advisors (Privy Council if necessary) would advise the Queen to invite the LOTO to form a government. That is normal practice. I think it is the least controversial move by the Queen (though it will still be controversial).
In that event, Corbyn will apply to the EU for an extension (to avoid no Deal) and call for a GE which the Tories will support. It will be Labour who have delayed Brexit so Cummings will be fairly confident in mopping up the Brexit vote.
I think parliament will allow Corbyn to do this without an immediate VONC.
If the Tories do call for an immediate VONC, then sufficient Tories will abstain and all opposition parties will support Corbyn for the VONC to fail. Labour extension followed by November election. Johnson would be happy with that, which is why I don't think the Tories would call for an immediate VONC.
I would heavily discount most of what politicians are saying they will or won't do during the 14 days. It's mostly positioning right now, and when it comes things will move fast
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 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.
1. Parliament did not vote for No Deal. This is nonsense and you know it. Parliament is straining every sinew to prevent No Deal.
2. You don't understand the meaning of status quo. The status quo is that the UK is a member of the EU.
My understanding of the law is that you can create a status quo situation that involves a change on a specified date.
For example, consider signing a contract that agrees the purchase of a house. Once the contract has been signed the status quo becomes that the purchase will be effected on a specified date and yet, before that date, you do not own the house.
Consequently, the status quo in law can include a change in other parameters.
If Parliament didn't intend to vote for no deal then they should have paid more attention when the Bill was making its way through Parliament.
Fortunately, if the Commons wishes to rectify their mistake then they possess the power to do so, if they are willing to use it.
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.
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!!
It's about time we nailed this nonsense about 80 % of us voting for leave supporting parties in 2017. Many of us voted Labour in the hope they would either stop Brexit or at least bring us the softest Brexit possible. A vote for an explicitly remain party in most constituencies would merely have split the centre and left vote and let the Tories through the middle thereby all but guaranteeing a clusterf**k Brexit.
You can not use the Hobson's choice of an FPTP election to draw meaningful conclusions on a binary question.
Did you actually read the manifesto?
Irrelevant. It was either 1. Vote Tory and get certain Brexit 2 Vote Lib Dem which would have increased the risk of a Tory winning and certain Brexit 3. Vote Labour who say they want to leave but we know their heart isn't really in it.
If you wanted to avoid leaving which would you choose?
"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?
They have also not noticed that economic chaos usually means the Far Right get put in charge, rather than the Far Left.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
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.
Do you have a link for the Libdems saying they won't let Corbyn be PM? Context matters.
In the event of a VONC in Johnson's government I think the Queen's advisors (Privy Council if necessary) would advise the Queen to invite the LOTO to form a government. That is normal practice. I think it is the least controversial move by the Queen (though it will still be controversial).
In that event, Corbyn will apply to the EU for an extension (to avoid no Deal) and call for a GE which the Tories will support. It will be Labour who have delayed Brexit so Cummings will be fairly confident in mopping up the Brexit vote.
I think parliament will allow Corbyn to do this without an immediate VONC.
If the Tories do call for an immediate VONC, then sufficient Tories will abstain and all opposition parties will support Corbyn for the VONC to fail. Labour extension followed by November election. Johnson would be happy with that, which is why I don't think the Tories would call for an immediate VONC.
So you are saying that the Queen would sack Johnson if he didn’t resign after losing the VONC? As others have said, Callaghan remained PM after being defeated in 1979 (or indeed MacDonald in 1923).
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!!
It's about time we nailed this nonsense about 80 % of us voting for leave supporting parties in 2017. Many of us voted Labour in the hope they would either stop Brexit or at least bring us the softest Brexit possible. A vote for an explicitly remain party in most constituencies would merely have split the centre and left vote and let the Tories through the middle thereby all but guaranteeing a clusterf**k Brexit.
You can not use the Hobson's choice of an FPTP election to draw meaningful conclusions on a binary question.
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.
In political terms I can assure you the government will get the blame
Perhaps, but morally all who voted down an orderly transition, once leaving was set in law, are to blame. The majority of our political class are shameless and deserve all the criticism heaped upon them.
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.
In political terms I can assure you the government will get the blame
Perhaps, but morally all who voted down an orderly transition, once leaving was set in law, are to blame. The majority of our political class are shameless and deserve all the criticism heaped upon them.
After second debate, Biden edges down, Sanders and Warren edge up, Harris drops significantly.
At this point it's really a 3-horse race, unless Harris finds something spectacular to do to grab the spotlight again. Hopefully the media will soon catch up and start talking about it that way. At that point the conversation will naturally turn to how Sanders and Warren deal with both occupying such a similar place on the political spectrum, and what their delegates should do if there's no majority by the convention.
I also think that if Harris' voters start drifting to the other three, it'll likely benefit Sanders least. It'll be interesting to see how they distribute among the other two.
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!!
It's about time we nailed this nonsense about 80 % of us voting for leave supporting parties in 2017. Many of us voted Labour in the hope they would either stop Brexit or at least bring us the softest Brexit possible. A vote for an explicitly remain party in most constituencies would merely have split the centre and left vote and let the Tories through the middle thereby all but guaranteeing a clusterf**k Brexit.
You can not use the Hobson's choice of an FPTP election to draw meaningful conclusions on a binary question.
Did you actually read the manifesto?
Irrelevant. It was either 1. Vote Tory and get certain Brexit 2 Vote Lib Dem which would have increased the risk of a Tory winning and certain Brexit 3. Vote Labour who say they want to leave but we know their heart isn't really in it.
If you wanted to avoid leaving which would you choose?
How many voters read even one tenth of any manifesto ? Perhaps 0.5% of the electorate ?
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 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.
1. Parliament did not vote for No Deal. This is nonsense and you know it. Parliament is straining every sinew to prevent No Deal.
2. You don't understand the meaning of status quo. The status quo is that the UK is a member of the EU.
My understanding of the law is that you can create a status quo situation that involves a change on a specified date.
For example, consider signing a contract that agrees the purchase of a house. Once the contract has been signed the status quo becomes that the purchase will be effected on a specified date and yet, before that date, you do not own the house.
Consequently, the status quo in law can include a change in other parameters.
If Parliament didn't intend to vote for no deal then they should have paid more attention when the Bill was making its way through Parliament.
Fortunately, if the Commons wishes to rectify their mistake then they possess the power to do so, if they are willing to use it.
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!!
It's about time we nailed this nonsense about 80 % of us voting for leave supporting parties in 2017. Many of us voted Labour in the hope they would either stop Brexit or at least bring us the softest Brexit possible. A vote for an explicitly remain party in most constituencies would merely have split the centre and left vote and let the Tories through the middle thereby all but guaranteeing a clusterf**k Brexit.
You can not use the Hobson's choice of an FPTP election to draw meaningful conclusions on a binary question.
Did you actually read the manifesto?
Irrelevant. It was either 1. Vote Tory and get certain Brexit 2 Vote Lib Dem which would have increased the risk of a Tory winning and certain Brexit 3. Vote Labour who say they want to leave but we know their heart isn't really in it.
If you wanted to avoid leaving which would you choose?
You main be a remain support, but every bit of evidence out there is that a vote for labour has made both brexit and no-deal more and more certainly.
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.
In political terms I can assure you the government will get the blame
Perhaps, but morally all who voted down an orderly transition, once leaving was set in law, are to blame. The majority of our political class are shameless and deserve all the criticism heaped upon them.
Indeed even Boris voted for the Withdrawal Agreement in the end and it will be poetic justice when Corbyn's petty party politics game playing sees Boris win a Tory majority on a No Deal platform with Corbyn Labour getting fewer MPs than Foot in 1983 squeezed by the Tories, LDs and SNP
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.
In political terms I can assure you the government will get the blame
Yep. Certainly that is the case for the wider public. Though I think within the Labour party Corbyn will also get a lot of blame for failing to take action to prevent a No Deal.
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.
Are you claiming the Gallowgate is an MP?
He, like many on this site are trying to legitimise the idea that those who voted against the deal and then voted against everything in the indicative votes should bear no responsibility for the no deal situation we are in.
It is like voting against a peace agreement in the same lobby as war-mongers and then taking no responsibility for when war is declared.
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!!
It's about time we nailed this nonsense about 80 % of us voting for leave supporting parties in 2017. Many of us voted Labour in the hope they would either stop Brexit or at least bring us the softest Brexit possible. A vote for an explicitly remain party in most constituencies would merely have split the centre and left vote and let the Tories through the middle thereby all but guaranteeing a clusterf**k Brexit.
You can not use the Hobson's choice of an FPTP election to draw meaningful conclusions on a binary question.
Stop Brexit??? The Country voted for Brexit, what don't people get that??
We do get that. 52% voted to leave. Many of us think that was a bad decision and will continue to argue that we shouldn't leave. We may or may not be successful but in a democracy where we have freedom of speech we are allowed to express an opinion.
Unless you are saying that a vote taken on partial information 3 years ago means that i am no longer allowed to express a dissenting opinion? Is that what you're saying?
After second debate, Biden edges down, Sanders and Warren edge up, Harris drops significantly.
At this point it's really a 3-horse race, unless Harris finds something spectacular to do to grab the spotlight again. Hopefully the media will soon catch up and start talking about it that way. At that point the conversation will naturally turn to how Sanders and Warren deal with both occupying such a similar place on the political spectrum, and what their delegates should do if there's no majority by the convention.
I also think that if Harris' voters start drifting to the other three, it'll likely benefit Sanders least. It'll be interesting to see how they distribute among the other two.
I think it's a little too early to call it a three horse race, but it is going to take something unpredictable to ignite the campaigns of anyone outside those three.
There's no bet at current odds that tempts me.
Though there is a possible arb between Warren as nominee (just under 4 on Betfair), and Warren/Trump as the two candidates at 4.4. Bit thin, though.
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.
IIRC the CON-DUP C&S Agreement lapsed earlier this year. I'f we had a competent opposition they might have done something. But...
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!!
It's about time we nailed this nonsense about 80 % of us voting for leave supporting parties in 2017. Many of us voted Labour in the hope they would either stop Brexit or at least bring us the softest Brexit possible. A vote for an explicitly remain party in most constituencies would merely have split the centre and left vote and let the Tories through the middle thereby all but guaranteeing a clusterf**k Brexit.
You can not use the Hobson's choice of an FPTP election to draw meaningful conclusions on a binary question.
Did you actually read the manifesto?
Irrelevant. It was either 1. Vote Tory and get certain Brexit 2 Vote Lib Dem which would have increased the risk of a Tory winning and certain Brexit 3. Vote Labour who say they want to leave but we know their heart isn't really in it.
If you wanted to avoid leaving which would you choose?
You main be a remain support, but every bit of evidence out there is that a vote for labour has made both brexit and no-deal more and more certainly.
Don't blame others for your lack of logic.
So using logic, for whom should I have voted to achieve the best chance of halting Brexit?
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
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.
Do you have a link for the Libdems saying they won't let Corbyn be PM? Context matters.
In the event of a VONC in Johnson's government I think the Queen's advisors I think parliament will allow Corbyn to do this without an immediate VONC.
If the Tories do call for an immediate VONC, then sufficient Tories will abstain and all opposition parties will support Corbyn for the VONC to fail. Labour extension followed by November election. Johnson would be happy with that, which is why I don't think the Tories would call for an immediate VONC.
So you are saying that the Queen would sack Johnson if he didn’t resign after losing the VONC? As others have said, Callaghan remained PM after being defeated in 1979 (or indeed MacDonald in 1923).
The Queen would only appoint the LOTO if there was a reasonable prospect of him commanding a majority. That was not a serious possibility in March 1979 or Autumn 1924. The exception would be if the Government simply resigned as Balfour did in December 1905. Campbell - Bannerman took office and immediately called an election for January 1906.
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.
These numbers are not all that useful Nick. You might have had 100,000 leave and 50,000 entryists join up, in which case the party is less relevant to mainstream voters than it was.
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 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.
1. Parliament did not vote for No Deal. This is nonsense and you know it. Parliament is straining every sinew to prevent No Deal.
After second debate, Biden edges down, Sanders and Warren edge up, Harris drops significantly.
At this point it's really a 3-horse race, unless Harris finds something spectacular to do to grab the spotlight again. Hopefully the media will soon catch up and start talking about it that way. At that point the conversation will naturally turn to how Sanders and Warren deal with both occupying such a similar place on the political spectrum, and what their delegates should do if there's no majority by the convention.
I also think that if Harris' voters start drifting to the other three, it'll likely benefit Sanders least. It'll be interesting to see how they distribute among the other two.
I think it's a little too early to call it a three horse race, but it is going to take something unpredictable to ignite the campaigns of anyone outside those three.
There's no bet at current odds that tempts me.
Though there is a possible arb between Warren as nominee (just under 4 on Betfair), and Warren/Trump as the two candidates at 4.4. Bit thin, though.
Does anyone else out there think that if it's Biden/Sanders or Warren then Trump has a pretty good chance of getting a second term
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.
IIRC the CON-DUP C&S Agreement lapsed earlier this year. I'f we had a competent opposition they might have done something. But...
Has NI actually received any of the promised goodies or is that dependent on Stormon coming back?
After second debate, Biden edges down, Sanders and Warren edge up, Harris drops significantly.
At this point it's really a 3-horse race, unless Harris finds something spectacular to do to grab the spotlight again. Hopefully the media will soon catch up and start talking about it that way. At that point the conversation will naturally turn to how Sanders and Warren deal with both occupying such a similar place on the political spectrum, and what their delegates should do if there's no majority by the convention.
I also think that if Harris' voters start drifting to the other three, it'll likely benefit Sanders least. It'll be interesting to see how they distribute among the other two.
Bernie Sanders' odds have shortened recently but they still look oddly long compared with his rivals, given his polling. He's in this for the long haul.
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!!
It's about time we nailed this nonsense about 80 % of us voting for leave supporting parties in 2017. Many of us voted Labour in the hope they would either stop Brexit or at least bring us the softest Brexit possible. A vote for an explicitly remain party in most constituencies would merely have split the centre and left vote and let the Tories through the middle thereby all but guaranteeing a clusterf**k Brexit.
You can not use the Hobson's choice of an FPTP election to draw meaningful conclusions on a binary question.
Did you actually read the manifesto?
Irrelevant. It was either 1. Vote Tory and get certain Brexit 2 Vote Lib Dem which would have increased the risk of a Tory winning and certain Brexit 3. Vote Labour who say they want to leave but we know their heart isn't really in it.
If you wanted to avoid leaving which would you choose?
You main be a remain support, but every bit of evidence out there is that a vote for labour has made both brexit and no-deal more and more certainly.
Don't blame others for your lack of logic.
So using logic, for whom should I have voted to achieve the best chance of halting Brexit?
Clearly Lib Dem, if millions of others were similarly motivated, it would have made a difference, but you kept it safe, and we are where we are.
The worst branding this millenium and they are keeping it. Same strange name, same strange brand, no temptation there at all.
The funny thing is, with Boris and Jeremy at the helm, I could be tempted to a British en marche. I'm hardly it central case, but I would be the sort of switcher it would need to take seats. But not this bunch of jokers.
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!!
It's about time we nailed this nonsense about 80 % of us voting for leave supporting parties in 2017. Many of us voted Labour in the hope they would either stop Brexit or at least bring us the softest Brexit possible. A vote for an explicitly remain party in most constituencies would merely have split the centre and left vote and let the Tories through the middle thereby all but guaranteeing a clusterf**k Brexit.
You can not use the Hobson's choice of an FPTP election to draw meaningful conclusions on a binary question.
Stop Brexit??? The Country voted for Brexit, what don't people get that??
We do get that. 52% voted to leave. Many of us think that was a bad decision and will continue to argue that we shouldn't leave. We may or may not be successful but in a democracy where we have freedom of speech we are allowed to express an opinion.
Unless you are saying that a vote taken on partial information 3 years ago means that i am no longer allowed to express a dissenting opinion? Is that what you're saying?
There is freedom of speech in this Country so having a dissenting opinion is of course fine. What is not fine is trying to subvert a democratic vote. If Remain had won I would think exactly the same. Imagine if Remain had won and parliament continued down the leaving route. There would be complete uproar. This is the situation we are in now with leaving. Parliament is doing all it can to stop Brexit. Its not about a suitable deal, its pruely and simply trying to stop Brexit. That in a democratic country is not acceptable.
So you are saying that the Queen would sack Johnson if he didn’t resign after losing the VONC? As others have said, Callaghan remained PM after being defeated in 1979 (or indeed MacDonald in 1923).
Different rules then. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act envisages fixed terms (the clue is in the title). It has a procedure for replacing Prime Ministers that lose a vote of no confidence. If there is a clear replacement, the Prime Minister will either resign or be resigned to let the clear replacement take over.
To hold the opposite would be to argue that Boris Johnson need not resign were Jeremy Corbyn to get an overall majority in a general election.
The more important question is whether a clear replacement is going to emerge.
After second debate, Biden edges down, Sanders and Warren edge up, Harris drops significantly.
At this point it's really a 3-horse race, unless Harris finds something spectacular to do to grab the spotlight again. Hopefully the media will soon catch up and start talking about it that way. At that point the conversation will naturally turn to how Sanders and Warren deal with both occupying such a similar place on the political spectrum, and what their delegates should do if there's no majority by the convention.
I also think that if Harris' voters start drifting to the other three, it'll likely benefit Sanders least. It'll be interesting to see how they distribute among the other two.
Bernie Sanders' odds have shortened recently but they still look oddly long compared with his rivals, given his polling. He's in this for the long haul.
I'm on Bernie, but I think I understand the odds. It's hard to see much that helps him which doesn't also help Warren more, short of something very specific to her, like a gaffe
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.
These numbers are not all that useful Nick. You might have had 100,000 leave and 50,000 entryists join up, in which case the party is less relevant to mainstream voters than it was.
No that's not happening - there are few new joiners and a slow downward drift of members which I think consists partly of departing moderates but also some Corbynistas who joined in the initial rush but their enthusiasm has now cooled. This is certainly the case in my branch in London, and I have seen the figures for the branch on the system so I am speaking from knowledge rather than speculation. The balance of the membership between Corbyn supporters and opponents is not changing significantly.
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!!
It's about time we nailed this nonsense about 80 % of us voting for leave supporting parties in 2017. Many of us voted Labour in the hope they would either stop Brexit or at least bring us the softest Brexit possible. A vote for an explicitly remain party in most constituencies would merely have split the centre and left vote and let the Tories through the middle thereby all but guaranteeing a clusterf**k Brexit.
You can not use the Hobson's choice of an FPTP election to draw meaningful conclusions on a binary question.
Did you actually read the manifesto?
Irrelevant. It was either 1. Vote Tory and get certain Brexit 2 Vote Lib Dem which would have increased the risk of a Tory winning and certain Brexit 3. Vote Labour who say they want to leave but we know their heart isn't really in it.
If you wanted to avoid leaving which would you choose?
You main be a remain support, but every bit of evidence out there is that a vote for labour has made both brexit and no-deal more and more certainly.
Don't blame others for your lack of logic.
So using logic, for whom should I have voted to achieve the best chance of halting Brexit?
Clearly Lib Dem, if millions of others were similarly motivated, it would have made a difference, but you kept it safe, and we are where we are.
I thought we were talking about logic? Using logic and a reasonably detailed knowlwdge of electoral history i deduced that the chance of millions of others voting Lib Dem was very low. And I was right. Because I used logic.
So you are saying that the Queen would sack Johnson if he didn’t resign after losing the VONC? As others have said, Callaghan remained PM after being defeated in 1979 (or indeed MacDonald in 1923).
Different rules then. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act envisages fixed terms (the clue is in the title). It has a procedure for replacing Prime Ministers that lose a vote of no confidence. If there is a clear replacement, the Prime Minister will either resign or be resigned to let the clear replacement take over.
To hold the opposite would be to argue that Boris Johnson need not resign were Jeremy Corbyn to get an overall majority in a general election.
The more important question is whether a clear replacement is going to emerge.
Indeed. Worth mentions that currently Labour has 247 seats, and the tories 311. Nowhere near close to a majority at all.
After second debate, Biden edges down, Sanders and Warren edge up, Harris drops significantly.
At this point it's really a 3-horse race, unless Harris finds something spectacular to do to grab the spotlight again. Hopefully the media will soon catch up and start talking about it that way. At that point the conversation will naturally turn to how Sanders and Warren deal with both occupying such a similar place on the political spectrum, and what their delegates should do if there's no majority by the convention.
I also think that if Harris' voters start drifting to the other three, it'll likely benefit Sanders least. It'll be interesting to see how they distribute among the other two.
I think it's a little too early to call it a three horse race, but it is going to take something unpredictable to ignite the campaigns of anyone outside those three.
There's no bet at current odds that tempts me.
Though there is a possible arb between Warren as nominee (just under 4 on Betfair), and Warren/Trump as the two candidates at 4.4. Bit thin, though.
Does anyone else out there think that if it's Biden/Sanders or Warren then Trump has a pretty good chance of getting a second term
cos I do...
If its Warren as is likely yes, if Biden a bit less so.
Democrats may have to wait for Congressman Joseph P Kennedy IIIrd, Bobby Kennedy's grandson, to win back the White House in 2024 if Trump is re elected (Trump of course cannot stand for a third term even if he wins next year)
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!!
It's about time we nailed this nonsense about 80 % of us voting for leave supporting parties in 2017. Many of us voted Labour in the hope they would either stop Brexit or at least bring us the softest Brexit possible. A vote for an explicitly remain party in most constituencies would merely have split the centre and left vote and let the Tories through the middle thereby all but guaranteeing a clusterf**k Brexit.
You can not use the Hobson's choice of an FPTP election to draw meaningful conclusions on a binary question.
Did you actually read the manifesto?
Irrelevant. It was either 1. Vote Tory and get certain Brexit 2 Vote Lib Dem which would have increased the risk of a Tory winning and certain Brexit 3. Vote Labour who say they want to leave but we know their heart isn't really in it.
If you wanted to avoid leaving which would you choose?
You main be a remain support, but every bit of evidence out there is that a vote for labour has made both brexit and no-deal more and more certainly.
Don't blame others for your lack of logic.
So using logic, for whom should I have voted to achieve the best chance of halting Brexit?
You couldn't. Unlike you the main parties at least paid lip service to respecting a democratic decision.
After second debate, Biden edges down, Sanders and Warren edge up, Harris drops significantly.
At this point it's really a 3-horse race, unless Harris finds something spectacular to do to grab the spotlight again. Hopefully the media will soon catch up and start talking about it that way. At that point the conversation will naturally turn to how Sanders and Warren deal with both occupying such a similar place on the political spectrum, and what their delegates should do if there's no majority by the convention.
I also think that if Harris' voters start drifting to the other three, it'll likely benefit Sanders least. It'll be interesting to see how they distribute among the other two.
I think it's a little too early to call it a three horse race, but it is going to take something unpredictable to ignite the campaigns of anyone outside those three.
There's no bet at current odds that tempts me.
Though there is a possible arb between Warren as nominee (just under 4 on Betfair), and Warren/Trump as the two candidates at 4.4. Bit thin, though.
Not sure that's an arb compared to just betting on Trump to be nominee.
And okay, 3-horse race is a little hyperbolic, but only a little. Even if you take away the polling numbers completely the other candidates just don't make a compelling prospect for the voters. Yang still has his Yang Gang NEETs, Buttigieg still has his billionaire donors, but that's about it.
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!!
It's about time we nailed this nonsense about 80 % of us voting for leave supporting parties in 2017. Many of us voted Labour in the hope they would either stop Brexit or at least bring us the softest Brexit possible. A vote for an explicitly remain party in most constituencies would merely have split the centre and left vote and let the Tories through the middle thereby all but guaranteeing a clusterf**k Brexit.
You can not use the Hobson's choice of an FPTP election to draw meaningful conclusions on a binary question.
If you voted for Jezza because you thought he’d water down or stop Brexit then you must be a pretty disappointed cat by now.
I’m far from convinced we’re going to get the pre-Brexit Remain vs No Deal election that so many seem to crave. But if we did and assuming formal/informal alliances on both sides, the geographic distribution of the Leave vote gives it a structural bias under FPTP. The Remain alliance would pile up votes in London but likely finish far short of their current parliamentary representation.
That’s assuming the electorate can concentrate for 6 whole weeks on a Brexit only election of course. Which I doubt. Boris has made clear already he’ll run with a broad policy platform, Jez will do exactly the same as last time. Only the Liberal “Democrats” might try and make it only about Brexit. I expect such a strategy would work only slightly better for them in 2019 as it did in 2017, with lower turnout working in their favour - sounds like good numbers of you lot from both tribes will be awfully busy having a good lunch with Brenda from Bristol that day.
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.
These numbers are not all that useful Nick. You might have had 100,000 leave and 50,000 entryists join up, in which case the party is less relevant to mainstream voters than it was.
No that's not happening - there are few new joiners and a slow downward drift of members which I think consists partly of departing moderates but also some Corbynistas who joined in the initial rush but their enthusiasm has now cooled. This is certainly the case in my branch in London, and I have seen the figures for the branch on the system so I am speaking from knowledge rather than speculation. The balance of the membership between Corbyn supporters and opponents is not changing significantly.
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.
IIRC the CON-DUP C&S Agreement lapsed earlier this year. I'f we had a competent opposition they might have done something. But...
Has NI actually received any of the promised goodies or is that dependent on Stormon coming back?
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!!
You can not use the Hobson's choice of an FPTP election to draw meaningful conclusions on a binary question.
Did you actually read the manifesto?
Irrelevant. It was either 1. Vote Tory and get certain Brexit 2 Vote Lib Dem which would have increased the risk of a Tory winning and certain Brexit 3. Vote Labour who say they want to leave but we know their heart isn't really in it.
If you wanted to avoid leaving which would you choose?
You main be a remain support, but every bit of evidence out there is that a vote for labour has made both brexit and no-deal more and more certainly.
Don't blame others for your lack of logic.
So using logic, for whom should I have voted to achieve the best chance of halting Brexit?
Clearly Lib Dem, if millions of others were similarly motivated, it would have made a difference, but you kept it safe, and we are where we are.
I thought we were talking about logic? Using logic and a reasonably detailed knowlwdge of electoral history i deduced that the chance of millions of others voting Lib Dem was very low. And I was right. Because I used logic.
didn't say it would be easy....but if voters acted collectively, then thats what would have happened.
Voting for a party which has stated the opposite of your desired outcome?? Not logical. Tribal, but not logical.
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!!
It's about time we nailed this nonsense about 80 % of us voting for leave supporting parties in 2017. Many of us voted Labour in the hope they would either stop Brexit or at least bring us the softest Brexit possible. A vote for an explicitly remain party in most constituencies would merely have split the centre and left vote and let the Tories through the middle thereby all but guaranteeing a clusterf**k Brexit.
You can not use the Hobson's choice of an FPTP election to draw meaningful conclusions on a binary question.
Stop Brexit??? The Country voted for Brexit, what don't people get that??
We do get that. 52% voted to leave. Many of us think that was a bad decision and will continue to argue that we shouldn't leave. We may or may not be successful but in a democracy where we have freedom of speech we are allowed to express an opinion.
Unless you are saying that a vote taken on partial information 3 years ago means that i am no longer allowed to express a dissenting opinion? Is that what you're saying?
There is freedom of speech in this Country so having a dissenting opinion is of course fine. What is not fine is trying to subvert a democratic vote. If Remain had won I would think exactly the same. Imagine if Remain had won and parliament continued down the leaving route. There would be complete uproar. This is the situation we are in now with leaving. Parliament is doing all it can to stop Brexit. Its not about a suitable deal, its pruely and simply trying to stop Brexit. That in a democratic country is not acceptable.
Where precisely would you draw the line between the acceptable "holding of a dissenting opinion" and the unacceptable "trying to subvert democracy"?
Expressing an opinion in a democracy means that you are trying to change people's minds.
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
... given the LibDems have already said they won't let Corbyn become PM.
Do you have a link for the Libdems saying they won't let Corbyn be PM? Context matters.
In the event of a VONC in Johnson's government I think the Queen's advisors (Privy Council if necessary) would advise the Queen to invite the LOTO to form a government. That is normal practice. I think it is the least controversial move by the Queen (though it will still be controversial).
In that event, Corbyn will apply to the EU for an extension (to avoid no Deal) and call for a GE which the Tories will support. It will be Labour who have delayed Brexit so Cummings will be fairly confident in mopping up the Brexit vote.
I think parliament will allow Corbyn to do this without an immediate VONC.
If the Tories do call for an immediate VONC, then sufficient Tories will abstain and all opposition parties will support Corbyn for the VONC to fail. Labour extension followed by November election. Johnson would be happy with that, which is why I don't think the Tories would call for an immediate VONC.
So you are saying that the Queen would sack Johnson if he didn’t resign after losing the VONC? As others have said, Callaghan remained PM after being defeated in 1979 (or indeed MacDonald in 1923).
Before the FTPA following a vote of no confidence, the government could choose either to resign or request a dissolution of Parliament. Callaghan chose dissolution which he was entitled to do.
Now the FTPA explicitly provides for 14 days for the formation of another government before a GE can be triggered. If Johnson tries to ignore that he is ignoring legislation.
Whatever the Queen does it will be controversial. She will be advised to take the least controversial option which I believe will be to call the LOTO. To allow Johnson to ignore the legislation and squat in number 10 would be extremely controversial.
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.
IIRC the CON-DUP C&S Agreement lapsed earlier this year. I'f we had a competent opposition they might have done something. But...
Has NI actually received any of the promised goodies or is that dependent on Stormon coming back?
But they are. And that is the fundamental problem.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
... given the LibDems have already said they won't let Corbyn become PM.
Do you have a link for the Libdems saying they won't let Corbyn be PM? Context matters.
In the event of a VONC in Johnson's government I think the Queen's advisors (Privy Council if necessary) would advise the Queen to invite the LOTO to form a government. That is normal practice. I think it is the least controversial move by the Queen (though it will still be controversial).
In that event, Corbyn will apply to the EU for an extension (to avoid no Deal) and call for a GE which the Tories will support. It will be Labour who have delayed Brexit so Cummings will be fairly confident in mopping up the Brexit vote.
I think parliament will allow Corbyn to do this without an immediate VONC.
If the Tories do call for an immediate VONC, then sufficient Tories will abstain and all opposition parties will support Corbyn for the VONC to fail. Labour extension followed by November election. Johnson would be happy with that, which is why I don't think the Tories would call for an immediate VONC.
Before the FTPA following a vote of no confidence, the government could choose either to resign or request a dissolution of Parliament. Callaghan chose dissolution which he was entitled to do.
Now the FTPA explicitly provides for 14 days for the formation of another government before a GE can be triggered. If Johnson tries to ignore that he is ignoring legislation.
Whatever the Queen does it will be controversial. She will be advised to take the least controversial option which I believe will be to call the LOTO. To allow Johnson to ignore the legislation and squat in number 10 would be extremely controversial.
No, the rules would be for a GE if no other option is avilable, and meanwhile Boris gets to be PM until that GE.
She should instruct Boris to call a GE, and presumably if he didn't he would be acting illegally under the FTPA.
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!!
You can not use the Hobson's choice of an FPTP election to draw meaningful conclusions on a binary question.
Did you actually read the manifesto?
Irrelevant. It was either 1. Vote Tory and get certain Brexit 2 Vote Lib Dem which would have increased the risk of a Tory winning and certain Brexit 3. Vote Labour who say they want to leave but we know their heart isn't really in it.
If you wanted to avoid leaving which would you choose?
You main be a remain support, but every bit of evidence out there is that a vote for labour has made both brexit and no-deal more and more certainly.
Don't blame others for your lack of logic.
So using logic, for whom should I have voted to achieve the best chance of halting Brexit?
Clearly Lib Dem, if millions of others were similarly motivated, it would have made a difference, but you kept it safe, and we are where we are.
I thought we were talking about logic? Using logic and a reasonably detailed knowlwdge of electoral history i deduced that the chance of millions of others voting Lib Dem was very low. And I was right. Because I used logic.
didn't say it would be easy....but if voters acted collectively, then thats what would have happened.
Voting for a party which has stated the opposite of your desired outcome?? Not logical. Tribal, but not logical.
Voting for a party which now more or less supports a second referendum and may even campaign to remain. Logical.
So you are saying that the Queen would sack Johnson if he didn’t resign after losing the VONC? As others have said, Callaghan remained PM after being defeated in 1979 (or indeed MacDonald in 1923).
Different rules then. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act envisages fixed terms (the clue is in the title). It has a procedure for replacing Prime Ministers that lose a vote of no confidence. If there is a clear replacement, the Prime Minister will either resign or be resigned to let the clear replacement take over.
To hold the opposite would be to argue that Boris Johnson need not resign were Jeremy Corbyn to get an overall majority in a general election.
The more important question is whether a clear replacement is going to emerge.
Yes, if Corbyn or someone else was clearly in a position to win a confidence vote then they should be appointed. But that was not what Barnesian was asserting.
JUST AFTER THE 2015 ELECTION (Int: Nick Clegg's house)
"What's wrong, Nick" "I've fucked the party love, we have 8mps, we're dead" "Mi cara Mita, don't fret. I have had a vision. Within four years the Liberals I'll be resurgent in the polls and set to regain its seats" "Excellent! But what about me?" "You have a million pound a year job for Facebook, you have zero stress, and you live in California" "My god! What's the catch?" "Were leaving the EU and Boris is PM" "Oh, fuck off... "
Before the FTPA following a vote of no confidence, the government could choose either to resign or request a dissolution of Parliament. Callaghan chose dissolution which he was entitled to do.
Now the FTPA explicitly provides for 14 days for the formation of another government before a GE can be triggered. If Johnson tries to ignore that he is ignoring legislation.
Whatever the Queen does it will be controversial. She will be advised to take the least controversial option which I believe will be to call the LOTO. To allow Johnson to ignore the legislation and squat in number 10 would be extremely controversial.
No, the rules would be for a GE if no other option is avilable, and meanwhile Boris gets to be PM until that GE.
She should instruct Boris to call a GE, and presumably if he didn't he would be acting illegally under the FTPA.
There is another option available - the natural one, the LOTO. There is a reasonable chance that Corbyn would survive a VONC - at least temporarily as I have explained.
No that's not happening - there are few new joiners and a slow downward drift of members which I think consists partly of departing moderates but also some Corbynistas who joined in the initial rush but their enthusiasm has now cooled. This is certainly the case in my branch in London, and I have seen the figures for the branch on the system so I am speaking from knowledge rather than speculation. The balance of the membership between Corbyn supporters and opponents is not changing significantly.
+1, based on my CLP. It does include lapsed DDs, in reply to a question downthread.
Indeed. Life isn't run but what people 'should' do, but what they do do.
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.
Do you have a link for the Libdems saying they won't let Corbyn be PM? Context matters.
In the event of a VONC in Johnson's government I think the Queen's advisors (Privy Council if necessary) would advise the Queen to invite the LOTO to form a government. That is normal practice. I think it is the least controversial move by the Queen (though it will still be controversial).
In that event, Corbyn will apply to the EU for an extension (to avoid no Deal) and call for a GE which the Tories will support. It will be Labour who have delayed Brexit so Cummings will be fairly confident in mopping up the Brexit vote.
I think parliament will allow Corbyn to do this without an immediate VONC.
If the Tories do call for an immediate VONC, then sufficient Tories will abstain and all opposition parties will support Corbyn for the VONC to fail. Labour extension followed by November election. Johnson would be happy with that, which is why I don't think the Tories would call for an immediate VONC.
It's not "normal practice" for the queen to call on the LOTO, after the last VONC in 1979, parliament was dissolved and there was a general election, I assume on the advice of Callaghan. Since then we've had the FTPA which seems to not allow the PM to ask for an immediate dissolution but has to wait 14 days.
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 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.
1. Parliament did not vote for No Deal. This is nonsense and you know it. Parliament is straining every sinew to prevent No Deal.
2. You don't understand the meaning of status quo. The status quo is that the UK is a member of the EU.
You are aware that parliament voted for Article 50?
And?
The funny thing about Brexiters who say this is that they're often the same people who lie that parliament is trying to stop Brexit.
Before the FTPA following a vote of no confidence, the government could choose either to resign or request a dissolution of Parliament. Callaghan chose dissolution which he was entitled to do.
Now the FTPA explicitly provides for 14 days for the formation of another government before a GE can be triggered. If Johnson tries to ignore that he is ignoring legislation.
Whatever the Queen does it will be controversial. She will be advised to take the least controversial option which I believe will be to call the LOTO. To allow Johnson to ignore the legislation and squat in number 10 would be extremely controversial.
No, the rules would be for a GE if no other option is avilable, and meanwhile Boris gets to be PM until that GE.
She should instruct Boris to call a GE, and presumably if he didn't he would be acting illegally under the FTPA.
There is another option available - the natural one, the LOTO. There is a reasonable chance that Corbyn would survive a VONC - at least temporarily as I have explained.
It would be much simpler just to have an indicative vote in advance. That way we would know and you remove the risk of a VONC leading to a GE which Boris can date after 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 nons 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!!
You can not use the Hobson's choice of an FPTP election to draw meaningful conclusions on a binary question.
Did you actually read the manifesto?
Irrelevant. It was either 1. Vote Tory and get certain Brexit 2 Vote Lib Dem which would have increased the risk of a Tory winning and certain Brexit 3. Vote Labour who say they want to leave but we know their heart isn't really in it.
If you wanted to avoid leaving which would you choose?
You main be a remain support, but every bit of evidence out there is that a vote for labour has made both brexit and no-deal more and more certainly.
Don't blame others for your lack of logic.
So using logic, for whom should I have voted to achieve the best chance of halting Brexit?
Clearly Lib Dem, if millions of others were similarly motivated, it would have made a difference, but you kept it safe, and we are where we are.
I thought we were talking about logic? Using logic and a reasonably detailed knowlwdge of electoral history i deduced that the chance of millions of others voting Lib Dem was very low. And I was right. Because I used logic.
didn't say it would be easy....but if voters acted collectively, then thats what would have happened.
Voting for a party which has stated the opposite of your desired outcome?? Not logical. Tribal, but not logical.
Voting for a party which now more or less supports a second referendum and may even campaign to remain. Logical.
Interesting that, among Lib Dem supporters expressing a preference Corbyn only beats Johnson by 3:2. Perhaps there is less potential for anti-Tory tactical voting than assumed?
Before the FTPA following a vote of no confidence, the government could choose either to resign or request a dissolution of Parliament. Callaghan chose dissolution which he was entitled to do.
Now the FTPA explicitly provides for 14 days for the formation of another government before a GE can be triggered. If Johnson tries to ignore that he is ignoring legislation.
Whatever the Queen does it will be controversial. She will be advised to take the least controversial option which I believe will be to call the LOTO. To allow Johnson to ignore the legislation and squat in number 10 would be extremely controversial.
No, the rules would be for a GE if no other option is avilable, and meanwhile Boris gets to be PM until that GE.
She should instruct Boris to call a GE, and presumably if he didn't he would be acting illegally under the FTPA.
There is another option available - the natural one, the LOTO. There is a reasonable chance that Corbyn would survive a VONC - at least temporarily as I have explained.
If...IF there were documents/ pledges in place from the SNP (35 seats) and the Lib Dems (13 seats) for support for Corbyn for a VOC (with labour on on 247), that takes the votes to only 295.
You would no doubt get some voting against. I doubt chuka would, and certainly not some of the Tiggers/ex-tiggers.
I can't see it. It would be a terrible risk of the Queen, and that is one thing you cannot do, to drag her into this mess.
Interesting that, among Lib Dem supporters expressing a preference Corbyn only beats Johnson by 3:2. Perhaps there is less potential for anti-Tory tactical voting than assumed?
Yup and 78% of Brexit Party voters prefer Boris to Corbyn, only 20% prefer Corbyn.
Boris even leads Corbyn now with 25 to 49 year olds
Before the FTPA following a vote of no confidence, the government could choose either to resign or request a dissolution of Parliament. Callaghan chose dissolution which he was entitled to do.
Now the FTPA explicitly provides for 14 days for the formation of another government before a GE can be triggered. If Johnson tries to ignore that he is ignoring legislation.
Whatever the Queen does it will be controversial. She will be advised to take the least controversial option which I believe will be to call the LOTO. To allow Johnson to ignore the legislation and squat in number 10 would be extremely controversial.
No, the rules would be for a GE if no other option is avilable, and meanwhile Boris gets to be PM until that GE.
She should instruct Boris to call a GE, and presumably if he didn't he would be acting illegally under the FTPA.
There is another option available - the natural one, the LOTO. There is a reasonable chance that Corbyn would survive a VONC - at least temporarily as I have explained.
Cmon, there's no chance. There's 321 votes against him. How is he going to find a majority from the 320 other voting MPs?
59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
In practice I don’t think numbers like that would deliver a Tory majority. The losses to the Lib Dems would be greater.
It's hard to say. On the one hand, I would expect the Tories to be able to squeeze the Brexit party more heavily, on the other hand I would expect tactical voting to limit their gains somewhat
59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
Would be biggest Tory majority since Thatcher 1987, Labour doing even worse than Foot 1983
Labour minority with Flavible.
Flavible is untested, there is no way a 9% Tory lead does not give a Tory majority on UNS
Clearly UNS is a waste of time in this environment.
But why would a deviation from UNS conceivably help Labour? Are the Tories losing more votes (v 2017) in marginals or safe seats (or safe losers?) What about Labour -> LDs?
Interesting that, among Lib Dem supporters expressing a preference Corbyn only beats Johnson by 3:2. Perhaps there is less potential for anti-Tory tactical voting than assumed?
The problem is that "Don`t Know" in this case means neither. Both are poison.
59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
Would be biggest Tory majority since Thatcher 1987, Labour doing even worse than Foot 1983
Labour minority with Flavible.
Flavible is untested, there is no way a 9% Tory lead does not give a Tory majority on UNS
Oof something I agree with you about. Of course, at a GE there'll be all sorts of tactical voting and other shenanigans, but on these figures essentially you're correct.
59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
In practice I don’t think numbers like that would deliver a Tory majority. The losses to the Lib Dems would be greater.
No, too many safe Tory seats in the South, especially with Brexit Party voters returning, though the LDs would pick up St Albans maybe Guildford etc the Tories would win Lincoln, Vale of Clwyd, Bolsover etc from Labour
Before the FTPA following a vote of no confidence, the government could choose either to resign or request a dissolution of Parliament. Callaghan chose dissolution which he was entitled to do.
Now the FTPA explicitly provides for 14 days for the formation of another government before a GE can be triggered. If Johnson tries to ignore that he is ignoring legislation.
Whatever the Queen does it will be controversial. She will be advised to take the least controversial option which I believe will be to call the LOTO. To allow Johnson to ignore the legislation and squat in number 10 would be extremely controversial.
No, the rules would be for a GE if no other option is avilable, and meanwhile Boris gets to be PM until that GE.
She should instruct Boris to call a GE, and presumably if he didn't he would be acting illegally under the FTPA.
There is another option available - the natural one, the LOTO. There is a reasonable chance that Corbyn would survive a VONC - at least temporarily as I have explained.
It would be much simpler just to have an indicative vote in advance. That way we would know and you remove the risk of a VONC leading to a GE which Boris can date after Brexit.
I agree it would be much simpler to have an indicative vote in advance but I can't see a mechanism for that to happen.
I'd hoped that TMay would have enabled an indicative vote on Johnson before she went off to the palace.
Comments
You can not use the Hobson's choice of an FPTP election to draw meaningful conclusions on a binary question.
The defaulting to a no-deal-brexit was not at the time a realistic threat. It was in no sense "voted for". You could criticise MPs that they had not fully realised the implication of this default, but not claim that they voted for it.
MPs have every right to reject something which they they could have reasonably expected in 2017 would never occur.
2. You don't understand the meaning of status quo. The status quo is that the UK is a member of the EU.
apart from actually, you know...doing anything.
In the event of a VONC in Johnson's government I think the Queen's advisors (Privy Council if necessary) would advise the Queen to invite the LOTO to form a government. That is normal practice. I think it is the least controversial move by the Queen (though it will still be controversial).
In that event, Corbyn will apply to the EU for an extension (to avoid no Deal) and call for a GE which the Tories will support. It will be Labour who have delayed Brexit so Cummings will be fairly confident in mopping up the Brexit vote.
I think parliament will allow Corbyn to do this without an immediate VONC.
If the Tories do call for an immediate VONC, then sufficient Tories will abstain and all opposition parties will support Corbyn for the VONC to fail. Labour extension followed by November election. Johnson would be happy with that, which is why I don't think the Tories would call for an immediate VONC.
Leave with no deal
Get an extension.
Revoke and Agree a Deal were options that were applicable at any time in the process, (revoke unilaterally after clarification by courts).
All positions except revoke were understood at the time of the Withdrawal act.
That really would be the consistutional crisis.
Not when there's the option of a GE.
For example, consider signing a contract that agrees the purchase of a house. Once the contract has been signed the status quo becomes that the purchase will be effected on a specified date and yet, before that date, you do not own the house.
Consequently, the status quo in law can include a change in other parameters.
If Parliament didn't intend to vote for no deal then they should have paid more attention when the Bill was making its way through Parliament.
Fortunately, if the Commons wishes to rectify their mistake then they possess the power to do so, if they are willing to use it.
1. Vote Tory and get certain Brexit
2 Vote Lib Dem which would have increased the risk of a Tory winning and certain Brexit
3. Vote Labour who say they want to leave but we know their heart isn't really in it.
If you wanted to avoid leaving which would you choose?
After second debate, Biden edges down, Sanders and Warren edge up, Harris drops significantly.
At this point it's really a 3-horse race, unless Harris finds something spectacular to do to grab the spotlight again. Hopefully the media will soon catch up and start talking about it that way. At that point the conversation will naturally turn to how Sanders and Warren deal with both occupying such a similar place on the political spectrum, and what their delegates should do if there's no majority by the convention.
I also think that if Harris' voters start drifting to the other three, it'll likely benefit Sanders least. It'll be interesting to see how they distribute among the other two.
Perhaps 0.5% of the electorate ?
Don't blame others for your lack of logic.
It is like voting against a peace agreement in the same lobby as war-mongers and then taking no responsibility for when war is declared.
Unless you are saying that a vote taken on partial information 3 years ago means that i am no longer allowed to express a dissenting opinion? Is that what you're saying?
There's no bet at current odds that tempts me.
Though there is a possible arb between Warren as nominee (just under 4 on Betfair), and Warren/Trump as the two candidates at 4.4.
Bit thin, though.
cos I do...
The funny thing is, with Boris and Jeremy at the helm, I could be tempted to a British en marche. I'm hardly it central case, but I would be the sort of switcher it would need to take seats. But not this bunch of jokers.
To hold the opposite would be to argue that Boris Johnson need not resign were Jeremy Corbyn to get an overall majority in a general election.
The more important question is whether a clear replacement is going to emerge.
Democrats may have to wait for Congressman Joseph P Kennedy IIIrd, Bobby Kennedy's grandson, to win back the White House in 2024 if Trump is re elected (Trump of course cannot stand for a third term even if he wins next year)
And okay, 3-horse race is a little hyperbolic, but only a little. Even if you take away the polling numbers completely the other candidates just don't make a compelling prospect for the voters. Yang still has his Yang Gang NEETs, Buttigieg still has his billionaire donors, but that's about it.
I’m far from convinced we’re going to get the pre-Brexit Remain vs No Deal election that so many seem to crave. But if we did and assuming formal/informal alliances on both sides, the geographic distribution of the Leave vote gives it a structural bias under FPTP. The Remain alliance would pile up votes in London but likely finish far short of their current parliamentary representation.
That’s assuming the electorate can concentrate for 6 whole weeks on a Brexit only election of course. Which I doubt. Boris has made clear already he’ll run with a broad policy platform, Jez will do exactly the same as last time. Only the Liberal “Democrats” might try and make it only about Brexit. I expect such a strategy would work only slightly better for them in 2019 as it did in 2017, with lower turnout working in their favour - sounds like good numbers of you lot from both tribes will be awfully busy having a good lunch with Brenda from Bristol that day.
Voting for a party which has stated the opposite of your desired outcome?? Not logical. Tribal, but not logical.
Expressing an opinion in a democracy means that you are trying to change people's minds.
Now the FTPA explicitly provides for 14 days for the formation of another government before a GE can be triggered. If Johnson tries to ignore that he is ignoring legislation.
Whatever the Queen does it will be controversial. She will be advised to take the least controversial option which I believe will be to call the LOTO. To allow Johnson to ignore the legislation and squat in number 10 would be extremely controversial.
59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
She should instruct Boris to call a GE, and presumably if he didn't he would be acting illegally under the FTPA.
(Int: Nick Clegg's house)
"What's wrong, Nick"
"I've fucked the party love, we have 8mps, we're dead"
"Mi cara Mita, don't fret. I have had a vision. Within four years the Liberals I'll be resurgent in the polls and set to regain its seats"
"Excellent! But what about me?"
"You have a million pound a year job for Facebook, you have zero stress, and you live in California"
"My god! What's the catch?"
"Were leaving the EU and Boris is PM"
"Oh, fuck off...
It's not "normal practice" for the queen to call on the LOTO, after the last VONC in 1979, parliament was dissolved and there was a general election, I assume on the advice of Callaghan. Since then we've had the FTPA which seems to not allow the PM to ask for an immediate dissolution but has to wait 14 days.
https://twitter.com/RossMcCaff/status/1159177128602218496?s=20
https://twitter.com/RossMcCaff/status/1159177356873011200?s=20
The funny thing about Brexiters who say this is that they're often the same people who lie that parliament is trying to stop Brexit.
(Metaphor car crash.)
You would no doubt get some voting against. I doubt chuka would, and certainly not some of the Tiggers/ex-tiggers.
I can't see it. It would be a terrible risk of the Queen, and that is one thing you cannot do, to drag her into this mess.
Boris even leads Corbyn now with 25 to 49 year olds
I'd hoped that TMay would have enabled an indicative vote on Johnson before she went off to the palace.