The stories that usually need investigating are right under your nose.
For instance, the story that the government has a list of companies likely to go into administration if there is a No Deal Brexit. If true and if some of those companies are public, then such information is potentially price sensitive. Anyone using such information for their benefit or that of others could potentially be committing a serious criminal offence.
So what steps are being taken to ensure that all those with this knowledge - Ministers, advisors, SPADS, civil servants etc - are being made aware of their legal obligations? Have the companies concerned been informed? What about the regulators etc?
If we didn’t have such a useless opposition someone would be asking such questions.
This is not hypothetical stuff. I did a case involving a well-known company being bailed out by the government where there was some timely trading and the amount of leaking by government people was eye-watering.
As well as useless opposition MPs we have journalists incapable of doing anything more than regurgitate press releases. Grrr.....
Would it be too cynical to think that a few people getting heavy hints that certain companies will be "looked after" (ie fill yer boots) is the price for some backing off the Govt. ahead of Brexit?
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
On conspiracy theories: I like the Area 51 conspiracy whereby the military make people think that UFOs are buzzing about so that they can test their stealth aircraft with impunity.
The stories that usually need investigating are right under your nose.
For instance, the story that the government has a list of companies likely to go into administration if there is a No Deal Brexit. If true and if some of those companies are public, then such information is potentially price sensitive. Anyone using such information for their benefit or that of others could potentially be committing a serious criminal offence.
So what steps are being taken to ensure that all those with this knowledge - Ministers, advisors, SPADS, civil servants etc - are being made aware of their legal obligations? Have the companies concerned been informed? What about the regulators etc?
If we didn’t have such a useless opposition someone would be asking such questions.
This is not hypothetical stuff. I did a case involving a well-known company being bailed out by the government where there was some timely trading and the amount of leaking by government people was eye-watering.
As well as useless opposition MPs we have journalists incapable of doing anything more than regurgitate press releases. Grrr.....
I think that the prospects of publicly traded companies falling into administration on Brexit are slight to non existent. If there is such a fund it is more likely to help farmers and self employed truck drivers who just might suffer serious dislocation for a short period. If so the investment opportunities are limited.
I would also respectfully point out that having RBS and other banks rescued by HMG didn't exactly do a lot for the shareholders. The way to make money on this, should these companies exist, would be to short their shares, not buy them. This would be risky. UK shares are internationally cheap right now. In the admittedly unlikely event that Boris pulls off a vaguely sensible deal that short could prove very expensive.
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
Don’t most people only have two kids anyway?
I've got none. Does that count?
You are clearly a paragon of virtue. Though do you hand crank your organ ?
A new paper by the Institute for Government says MPs looking to make their voices heard will have far fewer opportunities to do so this time around than they had in the run-up to the end of March this year, when the former prime minister was trying to pass her withdrawal agreement.
Given the limited time available, this paper reaches the following conclusions about what is likely to happen over the next few months:
- It is very unlikely the UK will be able to leave the EU with a deal on 31 October
- MPs can express opposition to no deal but that alone will not prevent it
- Backbenchers have very few opportunities to legislate to stop no deal
- A vote of no confidence would not necessarily stop no deal
- There is little time to hold a general election before 31 October
- A second referendum can only happen with government support.
The stories that usually need investigating are right under your nose.
For instance, the story that the government has a list of companies likely to go into administration if there is a No Deal Brexit. If true and if some of those companies are public, then such information is potentially price sensitive. Anyone using such information for their benefit or that of others could potentially be committing a serious criminal offence.
So what steps are being taken to ensure that all those with this knowledge - Ministers, advisors, SPADS, civil servants etc - are being made aware of their legal obligations? Have the companies concerned been informed? What about the regulators etc?
If we didn’t have such a useless opposition someone would be asking such questions.
This is not hypothetical stuff. I did a case involving a well-known company being bailed out by the government where there was some timely trading and the amount of leaking by government people was eye-watering.
As well as useless opposition MPs we have journalists incapable of doing anything more than regurgitate press releases. Grrr.....
I think that the prospects of publicly traded companies falling into administration on Brexit are slight to non existent. If there is such a fund it is more likely to help farmers and self employed truck drivers who just might suffer serious dislocation for a short period. If so the investment opportunities are limited.
I would also respectfully point out that having RBS and other banks rescued by HMG didn't exactly do a lot for the shareholders. The way to make money on this, should these companies exist, would be to short their shares, not buy them. This would be risky. UK shares are internationally cheap right now. In the admittedly unlikely event that Boris pulls off a vaguely sensible deal that short could prove very expensive.
The stories that usually need investigating are right under your nose.
For instance, the story that the government has a list of companies likely to go into administration if there is a No Deal Brexit. If true and if some of those companies are public, then such information is potentially price sensitive. Anyone using such information for their benefit or that of others could potentially be committing a serious criminal offence.
So what steps are being taken to ensure that all those with this knowledge - Ministers, advisors, SPADS, civil servants etc - are being made aware of their legal obligations? Have the companies concerned been informed? What about the regulators etc?
If we didn’t have such a useless opposition someone would be asking such questions.
This is not hypothetical stuff. I did a case involving a well-known company being bailed out by the government where there was some timely trading and the amount of leaking by government people was eye-watering.
As well as useless opposition MPs we have journalists incapable of doing anything more than regurgitate press releases. Grrr.....
I think that the prospects of publicly traded companies falling into administration on Brexit are slight to non existent. If there is such a fund it is more likely to help farmers and self employed truck drivers who just might suffer serious dislocation for a short period. If so the investment opportunities are limited.
I would also respectfully point out that having RBS and other banks rescued by HMG didn't exactly do a lot for the shareholders. The way to make money on this, should these companies exist, would be to short their shares, not buy them. This would be risky. UK shares are internationally cheap right now. In the admittedly unlikely event that Boris pulls off a vaguely sensible deal that short could prove very expensive.
Labour Party plc could go bust if Boris succeeds
True but only available in derivative markets, not directly traded.
I'm wondering if the FTPA isn't about to become the bane of Johnson's life. I've held the view that we're heading for an autumn General Election. But suppose we are not?
Suppose that Parliament succeeds in its latest remainer quest, namely a Standing Order mandating the PM to reach a deal, which must pass, or Article 50 must be extended. The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss, but it's happened once already that the HoC took over the agenda and I think the Speaker would be supportive. It seems to me a pretty plausible option.
So let's accept the premise for a moment that this route is successful. No Deal is prevented, Article 50 is extended and negotiations have to recommence.
The FTPA may become the bane of Johnson's life. It's easy to forget that beyond the realm of Brexit there is other Gov't business. Johnson has a virtually non-existent majority. If you think Theresa May's countless losses were bad, wait until you see what happens to a hard right PM in Parliament. I predict defeat after defeat, endlessly. I'm not even convinced he will get the Budget through.
He cannot just call a General Election. Labour could dangle him for their amusement, like a cat toying with a mouse. They could watch the Johnson regime fail time and time again in Parliament, the in-fighting and recriminations begin, the wheels falling off the BJ premiership. The Opposition could dangle him for months, perhaps even the remaining two years, until the Conservatives are annihilated in the eventual Election. Obliterated. Wiped from the electoral map.
And under the FTPA there may be nothing Johnson can do about it. Until recently it was at the Prime Minister's behest when to call a General Election. He or she has now been stripped of that power. In the current circumstances of a hung parliament it's possible that the result will lead to Conservative wipeout.
When the extension was agreed wasn’t it also agreed that the UK could leave the EU at any time before that date if it wished? If so why is Johnson waiting for 31st October given he’s not interested in talking to anybody ?
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
Don’t most people only have two kids anyway?
I've got none. Does that count?
You are clearly a paragon of virtue. Though do you hand crank your organ ?
Well, when it comes to the eight foot horn, I find a gentle touch is the best, Overuse just makes things painful.
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
It's not daft at all. I've been around people with kids a great deal for the last five years, and the reasons why people choose to have a baby (in these days of choice) are weird. In one case, a family of JAMS had a much-loved second child - and a large part of her reasoning was that she hadn't managed to breast feed her first child.
In a similar manner, we almost certainly won't have a second child. I always said that I didn't want more than a three-year gap between kids, and the little 'un is now five. It's utterly illogical on one level, but it's how I feel.
And their brother has no consequence on their thinking. And at least they're thinking about such things.
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
It's not daft at all. I've been around people with kids a great deal for the last five years, and the reasons why people choose to have a baby (in these days of choice) are weird. In one case, a family of JAMS had a much-loved second child - and a large part of her reasoning was that she hadn't managed to breast feed her first child.
In a similar manner, we almost certainly won't have a second child. I always said that I didn't want more than a three-year gap between kids, and the little 'un is now five. It's utterly illogical on one level, but it's how I feel.
And their brother has no consequence on their thinking. And at least they're thinking about such things.
There are seven years between Fox jr 1 and Fox jr 2, and they get on very well. It wasn't intentional to have such a gap, but worked well. Number 1 was at school so not jealous of 2 and both got 1 to 1 parenting a lot of the time. Sometimes these things just work out fine.
The environment didn't impact on our choice for a second, but I wouldn't criticise anyone for doing so. It is a free country for that sort of choice and has no detectable impact on anyone else.
It is interesting to see how close the press coverage can come to being racist about Meghan without actually mentioning race. It is a very English approach.
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
It's not daft at all. I've been around people with kids a great deal for the last five years, and the reasons why people choose to have a baby (in these days of choice) are weird. In one case, a family of JAMS had a much-loved second child - and a large part of her reasoning was that she hadn't managed to breast feed her first child.
In a similar manner, we almost certainly won't have a second child. I always said that I didn't want more than a three-year gap between kids, and the little 'un is now five. It's utterly illogical on one level, but it's how I feel.
And their brother has no consequence on their thinking. And at least they're thinking about such things.
It's just irritating virtue signalling. Their lifestyle means that their (max) two kids will have more of an impact on the planet than if you or I had four hundred.
I love the way you can look into their hearts and discern truth.
It's surely just stating a fact that there are far easier ways for them to reduce their impact on the planet than the number of kids they have?
From there, I'm just making the leap that they're smart enough to figure that out. But, if you like, I can change "irritating virtue signalling" to "self unaware rank hypocrisy".
I don't actually mind as much as it probably appears I do from the above posts. Showing leadership on big issues like this is exactly what the Royals should be spending their time doing; the Cambridges' efforts on mental health are potentially huge impact. I just think the Sussex's have picked a cause it's difficult for them to lead on without looking ridiculous.
When the extension was agreed wasn’t it also agreed that the UK could leave the EU at any time before that date if it wished? If so why is Johnson waiting for 31st October given he’s not interested in talking to anybody ?
Shh - don't give away the surprise ending to Brexit!
The EU will not want to assist Johnson. They will be delighted if the UK comes back, tail between our legs. Why? Not from any particular love of Brits but because they will be very happy to have set an example for any other country stupid enough to think leaving the bloc is a clever idea.
I think on a personal level they mostly rather liked Theresa May. Johnson on the other hand ...
I'm wondering if the FTPA isn't about to become the bane of Johnson's life. I've held the view that we're heading for an autumn General Election. But suppose we are not?
Suppose that Parliament succeeds in its latest remainer quest, namely a Standing Order mandating the PM to reach a deal, which must pass, or Article 50 must be extended. The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss, but it's happened once already that the HoC took over the agenda and I think the Speaker would be supportive. It seems to me a pretty plausible option.
So let's accept the premise for a moment that this route is successful. No Deal is prevented, Article 50 is extended and negotiations have to recommence.
The FTPA may become the bane of Johnson's life. It's easy to forget that beyond the realm of Brexit there is other Gov't business. Johnson has a virtually non-existent majority. If you think Theresa May's countless losses were bad, wait until you see what happens to a hard right PM in Parliament. I predict defeat after defeat, endlessly. I'm not even convinced he will get the Budget through.
He cannot just call a General Election. Labour could dangle him for their amusement, like a cat toying with a mouse. They could watch the Johnson regime fail time and time again in Parliament, the in-fighting and recriminations begin, the wheels falling off the BJ premiership. The Opposition could dangle him for months, perhaps even the remaining two years, until the Conservatives are annihilated in the eventual Election. Obliterated. Wiped from the electoral map.
And under the FTPA there may be nothing Johnson can do about it. Until recently it was at the Prime Minister's behest when to call a General Election. He or she has now been stripped of that power. In the current circumstances of a hung parliament it's possible that the result will lead to Conservative wipeout.
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
It's not daft at all. I've been around people with kids a great deal for the last five years, and the reasons why people choose to have a baby (in these days of choice) are weird. In one case, a family of JAMS had a much-loved second child - and a large part of her reasoning was that she hadn't managed to breast feed her first child.
In a similar manner, we almost certainly won't have a second child. I always said that I didn't want more than a three-year gap between kids, and the little 'un is now five. It's utterly illogical on one level, but it's how I feel.
And their brother has no consequence on their thinking. And at least they're thinking about such things.
It's just irritating virtue signalling. Their lifestyle means that their (max) two kids will have more of an impact on the planet than if you or I had four hundred.
But less than if there were more than two of them.
I don’t care how many children the Sussexes have. But if Harry wanted to make a point about being green why couldn’t he give his talk by video link? It would have made his point very powerfully.
I’ve just spent two weeks interviewing people from China to Mexico and a whole load of places in between, all by video link. This is not difficult stuff.
These people think other people should listen to them , not that they should do what they preach. They are so up themselves they think they can do as they wish but order the plebs to not do it. Harry is just another freeloader saying "do as I say" not "do as I do".
Perhaps the Govt’s plan is to create a crisis through no deal Brexit, have an election, and then argue when they don’t get a majority that they should continue because “this is no time to change the Government”. Perhaps whilst inviting a few Labour backbencher into the Cabinet.
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
Don’t most people only have two kids anyway?
The average for British women turning 45 is already below two (estimates of average number of children range from 1.7-1.9 depending on how you do the sums), hence population is already declining were it not for immigration. Its the same across most of the West - indeed significantly lower in Spain and Germany and lower in many other countries. Last stats I saw, France was maintaining at just about 2.0.
I'm wondering if the FTPA isn't about to become the bane of Johnson's life. I've held the view that we're heading for an autumn General Election. But suppose we are not?
Suppose that Parliament succeeds in its latest remainer quest, namely a Standing Order mandating the PM to reach a deal, which must pass, or Article 50 must be extended. The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss, but it's happened once already that the HoC took over the agenda and I think the Speaker would be supportive. It seems to me a pretty plausible option.
So let's accept the premise for a moment that this route is successful. No Deal is prevented, Article 50 is extended and negotiations have to recommence.
The FTPA may become the bane of Johnson's life. It's easy to forget that beyond the realm of Brexit there is other Gov't business. Johnson has a virtually non-existent majority. If you think Theresa May's countless losses were bad, wait until you see what happens to a hard right PM in Parliament. I predict defeat after defeat, endlessly. I'm not even convinced he will get the Budget through.
He cannot just call a General Election. Labour could dangle him for their amusement, like a cat toying with a mouse. They could watch the Johnson regime fail time and time again in Parliament, the in-fighting and recriminations begin, the wheels falling off the BJ premiership. The Opposition could dangle him for months, perhaps even the remaining two years, until the Conservatives are annihilated in the eventual Election. Obliterated. Wiped from the electoral map.
And under the FTPA there may be nothing Johnson can do about it. Until recently it was at the Prime Minister's behest when to call a General Election. He or she has now been stripped of that power. In the current circumstances of a hung parliament it's possible that the result will lead to Conservative wipeout.
Bravo, Mr Cameron.
Rubbish.
Provided Boris refuses a further extension from the EU unless he loses a VONC we leave on October 31st. If Boris loses that VONC and no alternative government is formed in 14 days we go to a general election anyway which likely sees the Brexit Party largely collapse in the Tories favour.
Labour meanwhile continues to lose Remainers to the LDs on a Stop Brexit platform and it could end up with Labour wipeout, losing Remainers to the LDs, Greens and SNP and Leavers to the Brexit Party and Tories not a Tory wipeout.
Just deserts for Corbyn's refusal to back the Withdrawal Agreement
I'm wondering if the FTPA isn't about to become the bane of Johnson's life. I've held the view that we're heading for an autumn General Election. But suppose we are not?
Suppose that Parliament succeeds in its latest remainer quest, namely a Standing Order mandating the PM to reach a deal, which must pass, or Article 50 must be extended. The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss, but it's happened once already that the HoC took over the agenda and I think the Speaker would be supportive. It seems to me a pretty plausible option.
So let's accept the premise for a moment that this route is successful. No Deal is prevented, Article 50 is extended and negotiations have to recommence.
The FTPA may become the bane of Johnson's life. It's easy to forget that beyond the realm of Brexit there is other Gov't business. Johnson has a virtually non-existent majority. If you think Theresa May's countless losses were bad, wait until you see what happens to a hard right PM in Parliament. I predict defeat after defeat, endlessly. I'm not even convinced he will get the Budget through.
He cannot just call a General Election. Labour could dangle him for their amusement, like a cat toying with a mouse. They could watch the Johnson regime fail time and time again in Parliament, the in-fighting and recriminations begin, the wheels falling off the BJ premiership. The Opposition could dangle him for months, perhaps even the remaining two years, until the Conservatives are annihilated in the eventual Election. Obliterated. Wiped from the electoral map.
And under the FTPA there may be nothing Johnson can do about it. Until recently it was at the Prime Minister's behest when to call a General Election. He or she has now been stripped of that power. In the current circumstances of a hung parliament it's possible that the result will lead to Conservative wipeout.
Bravo, Mr Cameron.
Rubbish.
Provided Boris refuses a further extension from the EU unless he loses a VONC we leave on October 31st. If Boris loses that VONC and no alternative government is formed in 14 days we go to a general election anyway which likely sees the Brexit Party largely collapse in the Tories favour.
Labour meanwhile continues to lose Remainers to the LDs on a Stop Brexit platform and it could end up with Labour wipeout, losing Remainers to the LDs, Greens and SNP and Leavers to the Brexit Party and Tories not a Tory wipeout.
Just deserts for Corbyn's refusal to back the Withdrawal Agreement
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
It's not daft at all. I've been around people with kids a great deal for the last five years, and the reasons why people choose to have a baby (in these days of choice) are weird. In one case, a family of JAMS had a much-loved second child - and a large part of her reasoning was that she hadn't managed to breast feed her first child.
In a similar manner, we almost certainly won't have a second child. I always said that I didn't want more than a three-year gap between kids, and the little 'un is now five. It's utterly illogical on one level, but it's how I feel.
And their brother has no consequence on their thinking. And at least they're thinking about such things.
It's just irritating virtue signalling. Their lifestyle means that their (max) two kids will have more of an impact on the planet than if you or I had four hundred.
But less than if there were more than two of them.
I don’t care how many children the Sussexes have. But if Harry wanted to make a point about being green why couldn’t he give his talk by video link? It would have made his point very powerfully.
I’ve just spent two weeks interviewing people from China to Mexico and a whole load of places in between, all by video link. This is not difficult stuff.
These people think other people should listen to them , not that they should do what they preach. They are so up themselves they think they can do as they wish but order the plebs to not do it. Harry is just another freeloader saying "do as I say" not "do as I do".
Harry served queen and country in the armed forces, going twice into an active warzone. He's a little more complex than your lazy caricature.
I'm wondering if the FTPA isn't about to become the bane of Johnson's life. I've held the view that we're heading for an autumn General Election. But suppose we are not?
Suppose that Parliament succeeds in its latest remainer quest, namely a Standing Order mandating the PM to reach a deal, which must pass, or Article 50 must be extended. The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss, but it's happened once already that the HoC took over the agenda and I think the Speaker would be supportive. It seems to me a pretty plausible option.
So let's accept the premise for a moment that this route is successful. No Deal is prevented, Article 50 is extended and negotiations have to recommence.
The FTPA may become the bane of Johnson's life. It's easy to forget that beyond the realm of Brexit there is other Gov't business. Johnson has a virtually non-existent majority. If you think Theresa May's countless losses were bad, wait until you see what happens to a hard right PM in Parliament. I predict defeat after defeat, endlessly. I'm not even convinced he will get the Budget through.
He cannot just call a General Election. Labour could dangle him for their amusement, like a cat toying with a mouse. They could watch the Johnson regime fail time and time again in Parliament, the in-fighting and recriminations begin, the wheels falling off the BJ premiership. The Opposition could dangle him for months, perhaps even the remaining two years, until the Conservatives are annihilated in the eventual Election. Obliterated. Wiped from the electoral map.
And under the FTPA there may be nothing Johnson can do about it. Until recently it was at the Prime Minister's behest when to call a General Election. He or she has now been stripped of that power. In the current circumstances of a hung parliament it's possible that the result will lead to Conservative wipeout.
Bravo, Mr Cameron.
Rubbish.
"The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss"
And sure enough, as eggs are eggs, in he jumped ...
I remember vividly before March you jumping up and down with the same 'rubbish.' You were proved totally wrong then.
The HoC can mandate. I think that's why Johnson-Cummings are trying to goad remainer MPs. They know they're in real trouble, especially if Labour DON'T go for an immediate Vote of No Confidence. An election would be Johnson's only way out, but outside of a VONC it's not in his power any longer to call.
There is, of course, one other option. It's unconscionable for Johnson but it might get him out of the hole.
The EU will not want to assist Johnson. They will be delighted if the UK comes back, tail between our legs. Why? Not from any particular love of Brits but because they will be very happy to have set an example for any other country stupid enough to think leaving the bloc is a clever idea.
I think on a personal level they mostly rather liked Theresa May. Johnson on the other hand ...
Of course they liked May - she was a complete supplicant.
Farage actually said the Queen Mother lived to 101 and he hoped the Queen did too so Charles may never become King given his pro climate change views and also that he hoped William kept Harry off the throne given his and Meghan's views, calling Harry 'the Prince of Wokeness'.
He also compared the last Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull to David Cameron saying they were both liberals pretending to be conservatives, calling Turnbull 'a snake' and saying Cameron was part of the 'trendy, metro liberal elite.' Though he had more time for the current PM Scott Morrison who won the last Australian election despite Melbourne and Sydney disliking him
I'm wondering if the FTPA isn't about to become the bane of Johnson's life. I've held the view that we're heading for an autumn General Election. But suppose we are not?
Suppose that Parliament succeeds in its latest remainer quest, namely a Standing Order mandating the PM to reach a deal, which must pass, or Article 50 must be extended. The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss, but it's happened once already that the HoC took over the agenda and I think the Speaker would be supportive. It seems to me a pretty plausible option.
So let's accept the premise for a moment that this route is successful. No Deal is prevented, Article 50 is extended and negotiations have to recommence.
The FTPA may become the bane of Johnson's life. It's easy to forget that beyond the realm of Brexit there is other Gov't business. Johnson has a virtually non-existent majority. If you think Theresa May's countless losses were bad, wait until you see what happens to a hard right PM in Parliament. I predict defeat after defeat, endlessly. I'm not even convinced he will get the Budget through.
He cannot just call a General Election. Labour could dangle him for their amusement, like a cat toying with a mouse. They could watch the Johnson regime fail time and time again in Parliament, the in-fighting and recriminations begin, the wheels falling off the BJ premiership. The Opposition could dangle him for months, perhaps even the remaining two years, until the Conservatives are annihilated in the eventual Election. Obliterated. Wiped from the electoral map.
And under the FTPA there may be nothing Johnson can do about it. Until recently it was at the Prime Minister's behest when to call a General Election. He or she has now been stripped of that power. In the current circumstances of a hung parliament it's possible that the result will lead to Conservative wipeout.
Bravo, Mr Cameron.
Rubbish.
Provided Boris refuses a further extension from the EU unless he loses a VONC we leave on October 31st. If Boris loses that VONC and no alternative government is formed in 14 days we go to a general election anyway which likely sees the Brexit Party largely collapse in the Tories favour.
Labour meanwhile continues to lose Remainers to the LDs on a Stop Brexit platform and it could end up with Labour wipeout, losing Remainers to the LDs, Greens and SNP and Leavers to the Brexit Party and Tories not a Tory wipeout.
Just deserts for Corbyn's refusal to back the Withdrawal Agreement
Farage actually said the Queen Mother lived to 101 and he hoped the Queen did too so Charles may never become King given his pro climate change views and also that he hoped William kept Harry off the throne given their pro climate change views.
He also compared the last Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull to David Cameron saying they were both liberals pretending to be conservatives
I'm wondering if the FTPA isn't about to become the bane of Johnson's life. I've held the view that we're heading for an autumn General Election. But suppose we are not?
Suppose that Parliament succeeds in its latest remainer quest, namely a Standing Order mandating the PM to reach a deal, which must pass, or Article 50 must be extended. The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss, but it's happened once already that the HoC took over the agenda and I think the Speaker would be supportive. It seems to me a pretty plausible option.
The FTPA may become the bane of Johnson's life. It's easy to forget that beyond the realm of Brexit there is other Gov't business. Johnson has a virtually non-existent majority. If you think Theresa May's countless losses were bad, wait until you see what happens to a hard right PM in Parliament. I predict defeat after defeat, endlessly. I'm not even convinced he will get the Budget through.
He cannot just call a General Election. Labour could dangle him for their amusement, like a cat toying with a mouse. They could watch the Johnson regime fail time and time again in Parliament, the in-fighting and recriminations begin, the wheels falling off the BJ premiership. The Opposition could dangle him for months, perhaps even the remaining two years, until the Conservatives are annihilated in the eventual Election. Obliterated. Wiped from the electoral map.
And under the FTPA there may be nothing Johnson can do about it. Until recently it was at the Prime Minister's behest when to call a General Election. He or she has now been stripped of that power. In the current circumstances of a hung parliament it's possible that the result will lead to Conservative wipeout.
Bravo, Mr Cameron.
Rubbish.
"The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss"
And sure enough, as eggs are eggs, in he jumped ...
I remember vividly before March you jumping up and down with the same 'rubbish.' You were proved totally wrong then.
The HoC can mandate. I think that's why Johnson-Cummings are trying to goad remainer MPs. They know they're in real trouble, especially if Labour DON'T go for an immediate Vote of No Confidence. An election would be Johnson's only way out, but outside of a VONC it's not in his power any longer to call.
There is, of course, one other option. It's unconscionable for Johnson but it might get him out of the hole.
A 2nd referendum, with No Deal on the menu.
Technically, I think in March HYUFD was saying the exact opposite (or was that what you meant?). Ie. He argued that Parliament would take control and WOULD be able to prevent Brexit if the deal wasn’t agreed.
I'm wondering if the FTPA isn't about to become the bane of Johnson's life. I've held the view that we're heading for an autumn General Election. But suppose we are not?
Suppose that Parliament succeeds in its latest remainer quest, namely a Standing Order mandating the PM to reach a deal, which must pass, or Article 50 must be extended. The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss, but it's happened once already that the HoC took over the agenda and I think the Speaker would be supportive. It seems to me a pretty plausible option.
So let's accept the premise for a moment that this route is successful. No Deal is prevented, Article 50 is extended and negotiations have to recommence.
The FTPA may become the bane of Johnson's life. It's easy to forget that beyond the realm of Brexit there is other Gov't business. Johnson has a virtually non-existent majority. If you think Theresa May's countless losses were bad, wait until you see what happens to a hard right PM in Parliament. I predict defeat after defeat, endlessly. I'm not even convinced he will get the Budget through.
He cannot just call a General Election. Labour could dangle him for their amusement, like a cat toying with a mouse. They could watch the Johnson regime fail time and time again in Parliament, the in-fighting and recriminations begin, the wheels falling off the BJ premiership. The Opposition could dangle him for months, perhaps even the remaining two years, until the Conservatives are annihilated in the eventual Election. Obliterated. Wiped from the electoral map.
And under the FTPA there may be nothing Johnson can do about it. Until recently it was at the Prime Minister's behest when to call a General Election. He or she has now been stripped of that power. In the current circumstances of a hung parliament it's possible that the result will lead to Conservative wipeout.
Bravo, Mr Cameron.
Just deserts for Corbyn's refusal to back the Withdrawal Agreement
I'm wondering if the FTPA isn't about to become the bane of Johnson's life. I've held the view that we're heading for an autumn General Election. But suppose we are not?
Suppose that Parliament succeeds in its latest remainer quest, namely a Standing Order mandating the PM to reach a deal, which must pass, or Article 50 must be extended. The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss, but it's happened once already that the HoC took over the agenda and I think the Speaker would be supportive. It seems to me a pretty plausible option.
So let's accept the premise for a moment that this route is successful. No Deal is prevented, Article 50 is extended and negotiations have to recommence.
The FTPA may become the bane of Johnson's life. It's easy to forget that beyond the realm of Brexit there is other Gov't business. Johnson has a virtually non-existent majority. If you think Theresa May's countless losses were bad, wait until you see what happens to a hard right PM in Parliament. I predict defeat after defeat, endlessly. I'm not even convinced he will get the Budget through.
He cannot just call a General Election. Labour could dangle him for their amusement, like a cat toying with a mouse. They could watch the Johnson regime fail time and time again in Parliament, the in-fighting and recriminations begin, the wheels falling off the BJ premiership. The Opposition could dangle him for months, perhaps even the remaining two years, until the Conservatives are annihilated in the eventual Election. Obliterated. Wiped from the electoral map.
And under the FTPA there may be nothing Johnson can do about it. Until recently it was at the Prime Minister's behest when to call a General Election. He or she has now been stripped of that power. In the current circumstances of a hung parliament it's possible that the result will lead to Conservative wipeout.
Bravo, Mr Cameron.
Rubbish.
"The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss"
And sure enough, as eggs are eggs, in he jumped ...
I remember vividly before March you jumping up and down with the same 'rubbish.' You were proved totally wrong then.
The HoC can mandate. I think that's why Johnson-Cummings are trying to goad remainer MPs. They know they're in real trouble, especially if Labour DON'T go for an immediate Vote of No Confidence. An election would be Johnson's only way out, but outside of a VONC it's not in his power any longer to call.
There is, of course, one other option. It's unconscionable for Johnson but it might get him out of the hole.
A 2nd referendum, with No Deal on the menu.
And if he gave you a second referendum - with No Deal and May's Deal as the only two options?
I'm wondering if the FTPA isn't about to become the bane of Johnson's life. I've held the view that we're heading for an autumn General Election. But suppose we are not?
Suppose that Parliament succeeds in its latest remainer quest, namely a Standing Order mandating the PM to reach a deal, which must pass, or Article 50 must be extended. The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss, but it's happened once already that the HoC took over the agenda and I think the Speaker would be supportive. It seems to me a pretty plausible option.
So let's accept the premise for a moment that this route is successful. No Deal is prevented, Article 50 is extended and negotiations have to recommence.
The FTPA may become the bane of Johnson's life. It's easy to forget that beyond the realm of Brexit there is other Gov't business. Johnson has a virtually non-existent majority. If you think Theresa May's countless losses were bad, wait until you see what happens to a hard right PM in Parliament. I predict defeat after defeat, endlessly. I'm not even convinced he will get the Budget through.
He cannot just call a General Election. Labour could dangle him for their amusement, like a cat toying with a mouse. They could watch the Johnson regime fail time and time again in Parliament, the in-fighting and recriminations begin, the wheels falling off the BJ premiership. The Opposition could dangle him for months, perhaps even the remaining two years, until the Conservatives are annihilated in the eventual Election. Obliterated. Wiped from the electoral map.
And under the FTPA there may be nothing Johnson can do about it. Until recently it was at the Prime Minister's behest when to call a General Election. He or she has now been stripped of that power. In the current circumstances of a hung parliament it's possible that the result will lead to Conservative wipeout.
Bravo, Mr Cameron.
Rubbish.
"The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss"
And sure enough, as eggs are eggs, in he jumped ...
I remember vividly before March you jumping up and down with the same 'rubbish.' You were proved totally wrong then.
The HoC can mandate. I think that's why Johnson-Cummings are trying to goad remainer MPs. They know they're in real trouble, especially if Labour DON'T go for an immediate Vote of No Confidence. An election would be Johnson's only way out, but outside of a VONC it's not in his power any longer to call.
There is, of course, one other option. It's unconscionable for Johnson but it might get him out of the hole.
A 2nd referendum, with No Deal on the menu.
They cannot mandate, it was May who asked for an extension in March, if Boris refuses the only way the Commons can try and extend is with a VONC
I'm wondering if the FTPA isn't about to become the bane of Johnson's life. I've held the view that we're heading for an autumn General Election. But suppose we are not?
Suppose that Parliament succeeds in its latest remainer quest, namely a Standing Order mandating the PM to reach a deal, which must pass, or Article 50 must be extended. The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss, but it's happened once already that the HoC took over the agenda and I think the Speaker would be supportive. It seems to me a pretty plausible option.
So let's accept the premise for a moment that this route is successful. No Deal is prevented, Article 50 is extended and negotiations have to recommence.
The FTPA may become the bane of Johnson's life. It's easy to forget that beyond the realm of Brexit there is other Gov't business. Johnson has a virtually non-existent majority. If you think Theresa May's countless losses were bad, wait until you see what happens to a hard right PM in Parliament. I predict defeat after defeat, endlessly. I'm not even convinced he will get the Budget through.
He cannot just call a General Election. Labour could dangle him for their amusement, like a cat toying with a mouse. They could watch the Johnson regime fail time and time again in Parliament, the in-fighting and recriminations begin, the wheels falling off the BJ premiership. The Opposition could dangle him for months, perhaps even the remaining two years, until the Conservatives are annihilated in the eventual Election. Obliterated. Wiped from the electoral map.
And under the FTPA there may be nothing Johnson can do about it. Until recently it was at the Prime Minister's behest when to call a General Election. He or she has now been stripped of that power. In the current circumstances of a hung parliament it's possible that the result will lead to Conservative wipeout.
Bravo, Mr Cameron.
Just deserts for Corbyn's refusal to back the Withdrawal Agreement
So, nothing to do with the ERG then?
Most Tory MPs voted for the Withdrawal Agreement unlike Corbyn Labour
Farage actually said the Queen Mother lived to 101 and he hoped the Queen did too so Charles may never become King given his pro climate change views and also that he hoped William kept Harry off the throne given their pro climate change views.
He also compared the last Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull to David Cameron saying they were both liberals pretending to be conservatives
Is that support for the views of farage then?
That is what Farage said, I did vote for and campaign for the Tories under Cameron not UKIP
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
Don’t most people only have two kids anyway?
I've got none. Does that count?
You are clearly a paragon of virtue. Though do you hand crank your organ ?
I'm wondering if the FTPA isn't about to become the bane of Johnson's life. I've held the view that we're heading for an autumn General Election. But suppose we are not?
Suppose that Parliament succeeds in its latest remainer quest, namely a Standing Order mandating the PM to reach a deal, which must pass, or Article 50 must be extended. The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss, but it's happened once already that the HoC took over the agenda and I think the Speaker would be supportive. It seems to me a pretty plausible option.
So let's accept the premise for a moment that this route is successful. No Deal is prevented, Article 50 is extended and negotiations have to recommence.
He cannot just call a General Election. Labour could dangle him for their amusement, like a cat toying with a mouse. They could watch the Johnson regime fail time and time again in Parliament, the in-fighting and recriminations begin, the wheels falling off the BJ premiership. The Opposition could dangle him for months, perhaps even the remaining two years, until the Conservatives are annihilated in the eventual Election. Obliterated. Wiped from the electoral map.
And under the FTPA there may be nothing Johnson can do about it. Until recently it was at the Prime Minister's behest when to call a General Election. He or she has now been stripped of that power. In the current circumstances of a hung parliament it's possible that the result will lead to Conservative wipeout.
Bravo, Mr Cameron.
Rubbish.
"The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss"
And sure enough, as eggs are eggs, in he jumped ...
I remember vividly before March you jumping up and down with the same 'rubbish.' You were proved totally wrong then.
The HoC can mandate. I think that's why Johnson-Cummings are trying to goad remainer MPs. They know they're in real trouble, especially if Labour DON'T go for an immediate Vote of No Confidence. An election would be Johnson's only way out, but outside of a VONC it's not in his power any longer to call.
There is, of course, one other option. It's unconscionable for Johnson but it might get him out of the hole.
A 2nd referendum, with No Deal on the menu.
They cannot mandate, it was May who asked for an extension in March, if Boris refuses the only way the Commons can try and extend is with a VONC
Just out of interest did you read the bit of Mysticrose’s post that said
Do the Democrats actually have to convert Trump voters to win in 2020 or is winning back Obama supporters who didn't turn out for Hillary enough to make the difference?
Assuming a static GOP vote they just need to turn out the people who stayed at home for Hilary.
When the extension was agreed wasn’t it also agreed that the UK could leave the EU at any time before that date if it wished? If so why is Johnson waiting for 31st October given he’s not interested in talking to anybody ?
Surely it was agreed we could leave with a Deal at any time if we wished!
Says the Daily Telegraph Which probably means, says Cummings.
The more they keep saying it the more it convinces me they know they're wrong.
As I said in March, if Parliament wishes to prevent No Deal it will find a way of doing so. I was derided from quite a few on here who were categoric that it was impossible. Yet, they did.
I'm wondering if the FTPA isn't about to become the bane of Johnson's life. I've held the view that we're heading for an autumn General Election. But suppose we are not?
Suppose that Parliament succeeds in its latest remainer quest, namely a Standing Order mandating the PM to reach a deal, which must pass, or Article 50 must be extended. The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss, but it's happened once already that the HoC took over the agenda and I think the Speaker would be supportive. It seems to me a pretty plausible option.
The FTPA may become the bane of Johnson's life. It's easy to forget that beyond the realm of Brexit there is other Gov't business. Johnson has a virtually non-existent majority. If you think Theresa May's countless losses were bad, wait until you see what happens to a hard right PM in Parliament. I predict defeat after defeat, endlessly. I'm not even convinced he will get the Budget through.
He cannot just call a General Election. Labour could dangle him for their amusement, like a cat toying with a mouse. They could watch the Johnson regime fail time and time again in Parliament, the in-fighting and recriminations begin, the wheels falling off the BJ premiership. The Opposition could dangle him for months, perhaps even the remaining two years, until the Conservatives are annihilated in the eventual Election. Obliterated. Wiped from the electoral map.
And under the FTPA there may be nothing Johnson can do about it. Until recently it was at the Prime Minister's behest when to call a General Election. He or she has now been stripped of that power. In the current circumstances of a hung parliament it's possible that the result will lead to Conservative wipeout.
Bravo, Mr Cameron.
Rubbish.
"The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss"
And sure enough, as eggs are eggs, in he jumped ...
I remember vividly before March you jumping up and down with the same 'rubbish.' You were proved totally wrong then.
The HoC can mandate. I think that's why Johnson-Cummings are trying to goad remainer MPs. They know they're in real trouble, especially if Labour DON'T go for an immediate Vote of No Confidence. An election would be Johnson's only way out, but outside of a VONC it's not in his power any longer to call.
There is, of course, one other option. It's unconscionable for Johnson but it might get him out of the hole.
A 2nd referendum, with No Deal on the menu.
Technically, I think in March HYUFD was saying the exact opposite (or was that what you meant?). Ie. He argued that Parliament would take control and WOULD be able to prevent Brexit if the deal wasn’t agreed.
Weren't we also assured that Macron would "veto" any extension?
The stories that usually need investigating are right under your nose.
For instance, the story that the government has a list of companies likely to go into administration if there is a No Deal Brexit. If true and if some of those companies are public, then such information is potentially price sensitive. Anyone using such information for their benefit or that of others could potentially be committing a serious criminal offence.
So what steps are being taken to ensure that all those with this knowledge - Ministers, advisors, SPADS, civil servants etc - are being made aware of their legal obligations? Have the companies concerned been informed? What about the regulators etc?
If we didn’t have such a useless opposition someone would be asking such questions.
This is not hypothetical stuff. I did a case involving a well-known company being bailed out by the government where there was some timely trading and the amount of leaking by government people was eye-watering.
As well as useless opposition MPs we have journalists incapable of doing anything more than regurgitate press releases. Grrr.....
Would it be too cynical to think that a few people getting heavy hints that certain companies will be "looked after" (ie fill yer boots) is the price for some backing off the Govt. ahead of Brexit?
Is it possible to be too cynical?
That would itself likely be a criminal offence.
But no, not possible to be too cynical.
Still, someone should be looking into this stuff. Are there no journalists reading PB?
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
Don’t most people only have two kids anyway?
I've got none. Does that count?
You are clearly a paragon of virtue. Though do you hand crank your organ ?
Have you not heard of contraception?
Are you unaware of the long running @ydoethur organ saga ?
I'm wondering if the FTPA isn't about to become the bane of Johnson's life. I've held the view that we're heading for an autumn General Election. But suppose we are not?
Suppose that Parliament succeeds in its latest remainer quest, namely a Standing Order mandating the PM to reach a deal, which must pass, or Article 50 must be extended. The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss, but it's happened once already that the HoC took over the agenda and I think the Speaker would be supportive. It seems to me a pretty plausible option.
The FTPA may become the bane of Johnson's life. It's easy to forget that beyond the realm of Brexit there is other Gov't business. Johnson has a virtually non-existent majority. If you think Theresa May's countless losses were bad, wait until you see what happens to a hard right PM in Parliament. I predict defeat after defeat, endlessly. I'm not even convinced he will get the Budget through.
He cannot just call a General Election. Labour could dangle him for their amusement, like a cat
And under the FTPA there may be nothing Johnson can do about it. Until recently it was at the Prime Minister's behest when to call a General Election. He or she has now been stripped of that power. In the current circumstances of a hung parliament it's possible that the result will lead to Conservative wipeout.
Bravo, Mr Cameron.
Rubbish.
"The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss"
And sure enough, as eggs are eggs, in he jumped ...
I remember vividly before March you jumping up and down with the same 'rubbish.' You were proved totally wrong then.
The HoC can mandate. I think that's why Johnson-Cummings are trying to goad remainer MPs. They know they're in real trouble, especially if Labour DON'T go for an immediate Vote of No Confidence. An election would be Johnson's only way out, but outside of a VONC it's not in his power any longer to call.
There is, of course, one other option. It's unconscionable for Johnson but it might get him out of the hole.
A 2nd referendum, with No Deal on the menu.
Technically, I think in March HYUFD was saying the exact opposite (or was that what you meant?). Ie. He argued that Parliament would take control and WOULD be able to prevent Brexit if the deal wasn’t agreed.
Weren't we also assured that Macron would "veto" any extension?
The EU wanted to extend until next year, Macron stopped any extension beyond October in March
Worth remembering though that the guy with the most momentum from Iowa in the 2016 GOP race was Rubio, and he came third. Sure, he disappointed in NH, but I have no intention of making my mistake four years ago and assuming that the winner is the person who comes first in Iowa. Or even second.
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
Don’t most people only have two kids anyway?
I've got none. Does that count?
You are clearly a paragon of virtue. Though do you hand crank your organ ?
Have you not heard of contraception?
I don't think that contraceptives would do much for ydoethur's massive organ. A large amount might stifle its awesome sound, however.
The stories that usually need investigating are right under your nose.
For instance, the story that the government has a list of companies likely to go into administration if there is a No Deal Brexit. If true and if some of those companies are public, then such information is potentially price sensitive. Anyone using such information for their benefit or that of others could potentially be committing a serious criminal offence.
So what steps are being taken to ensure that all those with this knowledge - Ministers, advisors, SPADS, civil servants etc - are being made aware of their legal obligations? Have the companies concerned been informed? What about the regulators etc?
If we didn’t have such a useless opposition someone would be asking such questions.
This is not hypothetical stuff. I did a case involving a well-known company being bailed out by the government where there was some timely trading and the amount of leaking by government people was eye-watering.
As well as useless opposition MPs we have journalists incapable of doing anything more than regurgitate press releases. Grrr.....
Would it be too cynical to think that a few people getting heavy hints that certain companies will be "looked after" (ie fill yer boots) is the price for some backing off the Govt. ahead of Brexit?
Is it possible to be too cynical?
That would itself likely be a criminal offence.
But no, not possible to be too cynical.
Still, someone should be looking into this stuff. Are there no journalists reading PB?
Says the Daily Telegraph Which probably means, says Cummings.
The more they keep saying it the more it convinces me they know they're wrong.
As I said in March, if Parliament wishes to prevent No Deal it will find a way of doing so. I was derided from quite a few on here who were categoric that it was impossible. Yet, they did.
I believe they will do so again.
no, it is an Institute of Government research paper.
Not having children is the single greatest positive impact one can have on the future wellbeing of the planet. Zero carbon impact from a thousand generations of nonexistent people.
When someone with four sprogs tells me I need to adopt a vegan diet I tend not to listen.
They can pass a Law. That would mean the EU could extend, regardless of the PM's personal preferences.
It's worth reading this and noting that if the HoC seizes control of the timetable it can legislate, following the Cooper-Letwin example.
By the way, you're also ignoring the other way in which Parliament can, and I suspect would as a last resort, stop No Deal without a Vote of No Confidence. They can simply Revoke Article 50. End of Brexit:
"First, Parliament could legislate to revoke Article 50. Of course, politically many MPs would balk at such a prospect, but such legislation would be the best means by which Parliament could absolutely guarantee against a no-deal Brexit. Such legislation could be rendered politically less unpalatable from a Leave perspective by, for instance, recording within the preamble an intention that the legislation is intended to be a precursor to a confirmatory referendum. (I recognise that the CJEU’s Wightman judgment requires revocation to be unconditional, but it not clear to me that an aspirational statement regarding a possible future referendum in the preamble to a statute would breach that requirement of unconditionality.) Legislation along these lines, if enacted, would provide a cast-iron guarantee against a no-deal Brexit because it would, presumably, impose an unqualified and immediate duty upon the Prime Minister to revoke the UK’s notification under Article 50.
Second, Parliament could legislate along the lines of the Cooper-Letwin Bill by requiring the Prime Minister to seek an extension of the Article 50 period. However, this would not provide any guarantees, since it would be for the European Council to decide whether to accede to such a request. Legislation that went no further than requiring the Government to seek an extension would thus reduce the likelihood of, but would not rule out, a no-deal Brexit.
That leads on to a third possibility: namely, a hybrid of the first two. Such legislation might require, in the first instance, the Prime Minister to seek an extension. However, it might go on to provide that if no extension had been granted by a given date (e.g. 30 October), the Prime Minister would be legally obliged immediately to revoke the UK’s notification under Article 50. This sort of approach, with extension as the preferred option and revocation as a last-resort failsafe, would presumably be politically less unpalatable to some MPs than legislation that required revocation without more."
This is the weird thing about the caretaker PM thing: They don't actually need to have the confidence of the House of Commons. They just need the House of Commons to *look like* it would have confidence in them. Once they're appointed, arguably the House would likely immediately cease to have confidence in them, since there would be no more upside for them.
In theory I think you could spin this logic into an argument that no matter how the Commons votes, the would-be caretaker shouldn't be made PM...
That argument would mean Bozo shouldn't be PM. There is no evidence he has the confidence of the HoC
The stories that usually need investigating are right under your nose.
For instance, the story that the government has a list of companies likely to go into administration if there is a No Deal Brexit. If true and if some of those companies are public, then such information is potentially price sensitive. Anyone using such information for their benefit or that of others could potentially be committing a serious criminal offence.
So what steps are being taken to ensure that all those with this knowledge - Ministers, advisors, SPADS, civil servants etc - are being made aware of their legal obligations? Have the companies concerned been informed? What about the regulators etc?
If we didn’t have such a useless opposition someone would be asking such questions.
This is not hypothetical stuff. I did a case involving a well-known company being bailed out by the government where there was some timely trading and the amount of leaking by government people was eye-watering.
As well as useless opposition MPs we have journalists incapable of doing anything more than regurgitate press releases. Grrr.....
I think that the prospects of publicly traded companies falling into administration on Brexit are slight to non existent. If there is such a fund it is more likely to help farmers and self employed truck drivers who just might suffer serious dislocation for a short period. If so the investment opportunities are limited.
I would also respectfully point out that having RBS and other banks rescued by HMG didn't exactly do a lot for the shareholders. The way to make money on this, should these companies exist, would be to short their shares, not buy them. This would be risky. UK shares are internationally cheap right now. In the admittedly unlikely event that Boris pulls off a vaguely sensible deal that short could prove very expensive.
Shorting ie avoiding a loss can also be insider trading.
The story mentioned companies not simply hauliers and farmers. As I say, if true....
There is a lot of information around which raises issues re conflicts of interest as well as possible market abuse. Let's hope Ministers and others have unimpeachable integrity, eh!
As for RBS the full story has yet to be told. If we ever meet .....
First of all apologies for getting frustrated with you yesterday HYFUD. I shouldn't have. I do apologise.
I am going to have one more go at this, but this time I will remove all the politics from it and stick to pure logic as it matters not one jot if we are Remainers or Leavers.
I am going to reference what I believe was the last exchange you had with Ian because it was a simple exchange, but I'm not going to use any of the contents from it. I'm going to use a mix of English and logic notation format to keep it simple.
I hope I have the exchange correct.
Ian's post contained the following:
Ian asserted that you had stated 'A'
Ian also asserted that you had stated 'B'
Ian also asserted that 'B' ⇒ ¬'A'
There are only 4 possible logical responses you can make to Ian's post. They are:
I didn't state 'A'
I didn't state 'B'
I disagree that 'B' ⇒ ¬'A' and explain why Ian is wrong
Or agree that Ian is correct
Your reply stated 'C'
Ian responded something along the lines of what about the point I raised initially.
You responded by repeating 'A'
Ian gave up
Here lies the problem. Ian's original question is not answered.
This is what gets us frustrated in these exchanges.
This is the weird thing about the caretaker PM thing: They don't actually need to have the confidence of the House of Commons. They just need the House of Commons to *look like* it would have confidence in them. Once they're appointed, arguably the House would likely immediately cease to have confidence in them, since there would be no more upside for them.
In theory I think you could spin this logic into an argument that no matter how the Commons votes, the would-be caretaker shouldn't be made PM...
That argument would mean Bozo shouldn't be PM. There is no evidence he has the confidence of the HoC
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
Don’t most people only have two kids anyway?
I've got none. Does that count?
You are clearly a paragon of virtue. Though do you hand crank your organ ?
Have you not heard of contraception?
I don't think that contraceptives would do much for ydoethur's massive organ. A large amount might stifle its awesome sound, however.
Coating my mighty eight foot horn in rubber would be counterproductive rather than contraceptive. It would stifle its climax far too well.
Besides, even an electric blower would find it hard to keep going if the outlet was blocked with rubber.
Worth remembering though that the guy with the most momentum from Iowa in the 2016 GOP race was Rubio, and he came third. Sure, he disappointed in NH, but I have no intention of making my mistake four years ago and assuming that the winner is the person who comes first in Iowa. Or even second.
I think this year Iowa will tell us pretty much nothing, except a candidate who does not make the top four will need to do something astonishing in next couple or so of races to become the nominee.
Biden, Warren seem likely to come out in top four (Warren is spending a hell of a lot of time there apparently).
Leaves Sanders, Buttigieg and Harris fighting for the last two top four places.
Unless there is some kind of surprise with someone like Beto.
Not having children is the single greatest positive impact one can have on the future wellbeing of the planet. Zero carbon impact from a thousand generations of nonexistent people.
When someone with four sprogs tells me I need to adopt a vegan diet I tend not to listen.
Not having a glass of wine every so often may prolong my life by a few days (or not, depending on who you believe). But life would - for me - be slightly less worth living.
It's the same with having children. I have zero problem with those who have none (through either choice or misfortune), but I'm surprised by how much joy the little 'un has brought into my life.
I do worry about where your sort of thinking ends up.
I'm wondering if the FTPA isn't about to become the bane of Johnson's life. I've held the view that we're heading for an autumn General Election. But suppose we are not?
Suppose that Parliament succeeds in its latest remainer quest, namely a Standing Order mandating the PM to reach a deal, which must pass, or Article 50 must be extended. The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss, but it's happened once already that the HoC took over the agenda and I think the Speaker would be supportive. It seems to me a pretty plausible option.
Let's stop here.
If such a law is passed, Mr Johnson would nevertheless not extend the withdrawal date. He has staked too much on it. We can debate what happens after this.
I'm not sure of the procedure of holding a Prime Minister in contempt of parliament, but I'm guessing it will be much slower than holding a VoNC. If the HoC has already voted for a compulsory extension, then a VoNC will be as good as inevitable if the PM refuses. Then we are back to the conversation what happens after a VoNC.
The FTPA may become the bane of Johnson's life. It's easy to forget that beyond the realm of Brexit there is other Gov't business. Johnson has a virtually non-existent majority. If you think Theresa May's countless losses were bad, wait until you see what happens to a hard right PM in Parliament. I predict defeat after defeat, endlessly. I'm not even convinced he will get the Budget through.
He cannot just call a General Election. Labour could dangle him for their amusement, like a cat toying with a mouse. They could watch the Johnson regime fail time and time again in Parliament, the in-fighting and recriminations begin, the wheels falling off the BJ premiership. The Opposition could dangle him for months, perhaps even the remaining two years, until the Conservatives are annihilated in the eventual Election. Obliterated. Wiped from the electoral map.
And under the FTPA there may be nothing Johnson can do about it. Until recently it was at the Prime Minister's behest when to call a General Election. He or she has now been stripped of that power. In the current circumstances of a hung parliament it's possible that the result will lead to Conservative wipeout.
Bravo, Mr Cameron.
You should be ironically praising Mr Clegg rather than Mr Cameron. The main point of the FTPA is to prevent a prime minister form just calling an election because he/she expects to increase his majority. It has already failed on this count as that is exactly what Mrs May did in 2017.
I find your scenario unlikely though because the one thing that Mr Corbyn has consistently campainged for is a general election. It is unlikely that vindictively prolonging a lame duck government will win many extra votes.
Says the Daily Telegraph Which probably means, says Cummings.
The more they keep saying it the more it convinces me they know they're wrong.
As I said in March, if Parliament wishes to prevent No Deal it will find a way of doing so. I was derided from quite a few on here who were categoric that it was impossible. Yet, they did.
I believe they will do so again.
no, it is an Institute of Government research paper.
I think 'research paper' is putting it rather too prosaically. It looks like a hastily written SPADS document and lacking in much academic rigour.
It merely points out that options are limited. Well, no duh.
It also has an entire section on Revoke. I suspect if it came to the crunch of crashing out with No Deal the House of Commons will either VONC and install an alternative PM or Revoke Article 50.
However, I think they might pass legislation by controlling the Parliamentary timetable in the Cooper-Letwin manner, passing a law that the EU Council will agree to.
We shall see. But I'm reasonably confident No Deal will not happen at the end of October.
I'm wondering if the FTPA isn't about to become the bane of Johnson's life. I've held the view that we're heading for an autumn General Election. But suppose we are not?
Suppose that Parliament succeeds in its latest remainer quest, namely a Standing Order mandating the PM to reach a deal, which must pass, or Article 50 must be extended. The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss, but it's happened once already that the HoC took over the agenda and I think the Speaker would be supportive. It seems to me a pretty plausible option.
The FTPA may become the bane of Johnson's life. It's easy to forget that beyond the realm of Brexit there is other Gov't business. Johnson has a virtually non-existent majority. If you think Theresa May's countless losses were bad, wait until you see what happens to a hard right PM in Parliament. I predict defeat after defeat, endlessly. I'm not even convinced he will get the Budget through.
He cannot just call a General Election. Labour could dangle him for their amusement, like a cat
And under the FTPA there may be nothing Johnson can do about it. Until recently it was at the Prime Minister's behest when to call a General Election. He or she has now been stripped of that power. In the current circumstances of a hung parliament it's possible that the result will lead to Conservative wipeout.
Bravo, Mr Cameron.
Rubbish.
"The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss"
And sure enough, as eggs are eggs, in he jumped ...
I remember vividly before March you jumping up and down with the same 'rubbish.' You were proved totally wrong then.
The HoC can mandate. I think that's why Johnson-Cummings are trying to goad remainer MPs. They know they're in real trouble, especially if Labour DON'T go for an immediate Vote of No Confidence. An election would be Johnson's only way out, but outside of a VONC it's not in his power any longer to call.
There is, of course, one other option. It's unconscionable for Johnson but it might get him out of the hole.
A 2nd referendum, with No Deal on the menu.
Technically, I think in March HYUFD was saying the exact opposite (or was that what you meant?). Ie. He argued that Parliament would take control and WOULD be able to prevent Brexit if the deal wasn’t agreed.
Weren't we also assured that Macron would "veto" any extension?
The EU wanted to extend until next year, Macron stopped any extension beyond October in March
Weren't we also assured that Macron would "veto" any extension?
The point throughout all this is the EU negotiates with the British Government not the House of Commons. As @HYUFD rightly points out, it is the PM who ultimately decides whether we take another extension or leave without a WA. The question is whether any PM could defy the will of Parliament and refuse an extension even if Parliament voted against a No Deal.
I suspect we won't test that hypothesis - Johnson is relying on Corbyn's desire for a GE as his (and that is relevant for both men) route to a majority. A shrewder LOTO might play the FTPA, block an election, win a VONC and form an alternative Government with the assistance of other opposition parties but fortunately for Boris he has Corbyn opposite and Corbyn presumably thinks he can win an election against Johnson and form a socialist government with a working majority.
Johnson will therefore rely on Corbyn's stupidity to deliver an election and a majority. There'll be no need for VoNC either - the sole problem for Johnson will be to ensure he wins big enough not to have to rely on the likes of Gauke, Grieve, Lee and others.
Boris wins, we leave without a Deal and descend into a longer or shorter period of chaos and a long slump for the Conservatives as the reality of exiting without a Deal is scarcely mitigated by the Conservative Magic Money Tree. None of that will matter as the odd local election bloodbath aside, the next test won't be until 2024 by which time Global Britain will be up and running.
Not having children is the single greatest positive impact one can have on the future wellbeing of the planet. Zero carbon impact from a thousand generations of nonexistent people.
When someone with four sprogs tells me I need to adopt a vegan diet I tend not to listen.
Not having a glass of wine every so often may prolong my life by a few days (or not, depending on who you believe). But life would - for me - be slightly less worth living.
It's the same with having children. I have zero problem with those who have none (through either choice or misfortune), but I'm surprised by how much joy the little 'un has brought into my life.
I do worry about where your sort of thinking ends up.
Fortunately people hold many different opinions, so probably nowhere.
In any event, a combination of prosperity and education seems to have the greatest impact on the average number of children in any given society.
China, of course, being something of a statistical outlier, thanks to their imposed one child policy.
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
It's not daft at all. I've been around people with kids a great deal for the last five years, and the reasons why people choose to have a baby (in these days of choice) are weird. In one case, a family of JAMS had a much-loved second child - and a large part of her reasoning was that she hadn't managed to breast feed her first child.
In a similar manner, we almost certainly won't have a second child. I always said that I didn't want more than a three-year gap between kids, and the little 'un is now five. It's utterly illogical on one level, but it's how I feel.
And their brother has no consequence on their thinking. And at least they're thinking about such things.
It's just irritating virtue signalling. Their lifestyle means that their (max) two kids will have more of an impact on the planet than if you or I had four hundred.
I love the way you can look into their hearts and discern truth.
It's surely just stating a fact that there are far easier ways for them to reduce their impact on the planet than the number of kids they have?
From there, I'm just making the leap that they're smart enough to figure that out. But, if you like, I can change "irritating virtue signalling" to "self unaware rank hypocrisy".
I don't actually mind as much as it probably appears I do from the above posts. Showing leadership on big issues like this is exactly what the Royals should be spending their time doing; the Cambridges' efforts on mental health are potentially huge impact. I just think the Sussex's have picked a cause it's difficult for them to lead on without looking ridiculous.
I wouldn't give them any credit for having "only" 2 children (uk average is 1.8 per woman), and I generally think the royal family are ridiculous. But it still looks better than having 4 or 5 I suppose
Not having children is the single greatest positive impact one can have on the future wellbeing of the planet. Zero carbon impact from a thousand generations of nonexistent people.
When someone with four sprogs tells me I need to adopt a vegan diet I tend not to listen.
Not having a glass of wine every so often may prolong my life by a few days (or not, depending on who you believe). But life would - for me - be slightly less worth living.
It's the same with having children. I have zero problem with those who have none (through either choice or misfortune), but I'm surprised by how much joy the little 'un has brought into my life.
I do worry about where your sort of thinking ends up.
I remember a friend in the 80's commenting that environmentalists campaign against air and water pollution but most of them smoke (which was at certainly true at the time).
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
Don’t most people only have two kids anyway?
The average for British women turning 45 is already below two (estimates of average number of children range from 1.7-1.9 depending on how you do the sums), hence population is already declining were it not for immigration. Its the same across most of the West - indeed significantly lower in Spain and Germany and lower in many other countries. Last stats I saw, France was maintaining at just about 2.0.
The natural replacement rate to sustain an even population is about 2.1 - which reflects the sad truth that not everyone is lucky enough to live a full lifespan.
The more bizarre thing is how some people are quite capable of both criticising people for having children for environmental reasons and arguing for higher immigration for economic reasons, given the demographic challenges we face.
Not having children is the single greatest positive impact one can have on the future wellbeing of the planet. Zero carbon impact from a thousand generations of nonexistent people.
When someone with four sprogs tells me I need to adopt a vegan diet I tend not to listen.
Not having a glass of wine every so often may prolong my life by a few days (or not, depending on who you believe). But life would - for me - be slightly less worth living.
It's the same with having children. I have zero problem with those who have none (through either choice or misfortune), but I'm surprised by how much joy the little 'un has brought into my life.
I do worry about where your sort of thinking ends up.
Fortunately people hold many different opinions, so probably nowhere.
In any event, a combination of prosperity and education seems to have the greatest impact on the average number of children in any given society.
China, of course, being something of a statistical outlier, thanks to their imposed one child policy.
I believe female education is key to solving many of the problems facing the developing world. Subjugation of girls and women - or at least the attitudes embodied within such subjugation - are the cause of many of the problems.
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
Don’t most people only have two kids anyway?
The average for British women turning 45 is already below two (estimates of average number of children range from 1.7-1.9 depending on how you do the sums), hence population is already declining were it not for immigration. Its the same across most of the West - indeed significantly lower in Spain and Germany and lower in many other countries. Last stats I saw, France was maintaining at just about 2.0.
The natural replacement rate to sustain an even population is about 2.1 - which reflects the sad truth that not everyone is lucky enough to live a full lifespan.
The more bizarre thing is how some people are quite capable of both criticising people for having children for environmental reasons and arguing for higher immigration for economic reasons, given the demographic challenges we face.
I'm not bothered about people having many kids for environmental reasons - but I do when people have kids that they have no hope of financially and emotionally supporting. And depending on the people, that number of kids might be one or ten.
Then again, I find looking after one child hard enough.
Legal case to try and stop Johnson suspending Parliament to get No Deal over the line gets enough crowd funding and will be presented through Scottish courts in next few days.
A new paper by the Institute for Government says MPs looking to make their voices heard will have far fewer opportunities to do so this time around than they had in the run-up to the end of March this year, when the former prime minister was trying to pass her withdrawal agreement.
Given the limited time available, this paper reaches the following conclusions about what is likely to happen over the next few months:
- It is very unlikely the UK will be able to leave the EU with a deal on 31 October
- MPs can express opposition to no deal but that alone will not prevent it
- Backbenchers have very few opportunities to legislate to stop no deal
- A vote of no confidence would not necessarily stop no deal
- There is little time to hold a general election before 31 October
- A second referendum can only happen with government support.
Not having children is the single greatest positive impact one can have on the future wellbeing of the planet. Zero carbon impact from a thousand generations of nonexistent people.
When someone with four sprogs tells me I need to adopt a vegan diet I tend not to listen.
Not having a glass of wine every so often may prolong my life by a few days (or not, depending on who you believe). But life would - for me - be slightly less worth living.
It's the same with having children. I have zero problem with those who have none (through either choice or misfortune), but I'm surprised by how much joy the little 'un has brought into my life.
I do worry about where your sort of thinking ends up.
I remember a friend in the 80's commenting that environmentalists campaign against air and water pollution but most of them smoke (which was at certainly true at the time).
In my experience the number of people who actively cheer the destruction of the environment is vanishing small. Who doesn’t want peace, clean air, no litter or no pollution?
The issue is all the other political stuff that many environmentalists try and load onto the back of it, their unrealistic demands and uncompromising zealotry.
Harry served queen and country in the armed forces, going twice into an active warzone. He's a little more complex than your lazy caricature.
I wonder how many more people might opt to make the same selfless sacrifice if they could be guaranteed any posting they liked in the forces.
Officer Commanding, Winter Training Troop, Defence Animal Training Regiment has often been deemed the best posting in the British Army. Not up your particular street, that said, I appreciate.
Mr. Jessop, having just two kids because the planet can't take more is a daft position to hold.
Especially so when your elder brother has three already.
Jetting off to an international conference to deliver a speech about the evils of carbon emissions and so forth, when you could speak by videolink, is not exactly consistent either.
Don’t most people only have two kids anyway?
The average for British women turning 45 is already below two (estimates of average number of children range from 1.7-1.9 depending on how you do the sums), hence population is already declining were it not for immigration. Its the same across most of the West - indeed significantly lower in Spain and Germany and lower in many other countries. Last stats I saw, France was maintaining at just about 2.0.
The natural replacement rate to sustain an even population is about 2.1 - which reflects the sad truth that not everyone is lucky enough to live a full lifespan.
The more bizarre thing is how some people are quite capable of both criticising people for having children for environmental reasons and arguing for higher immigration for economic reasons, given the demographic challenges we face.
I'm not bothered about people having many kids for environmental reasons - but I do when people have kids that they have no hope of financially and emotionally supporting. And depending on the people, that number of kids might be one or ten.
Then again, I find looking after one child hard enough.
Agreed. We couldn’t manage more than two for economic reasons.
They can pass a Law. That would mean the EU could extend, regardless of the PM's personal preferences.
It's worth reading this and noting that if the HoC seizes control of the timetable it can legislate, following the Cooper-Letwin example.
By the way, you're also ignoring the other way in which Parliament can, and I suspect would as a last resort, stop No Deal without a Vote of No Confidence. They can simply Revoke Article 50. End of Brexit:
"First, Parliament could legislate to revoke Article 50. Of course, politically many MPs would balk at such a prospect, but such legislation der Article 50.
Second, Parliament could legislate along the lines of the Cooper-Letwin Bill by requiring the Prime Minister to seek an extension of the Article 50 period. However, this would not provide any guarantees, since it would be for the European Council to decide whether to accede to such a request. Legislation that went no further than requiring the Government to seek an extension would thus reduce the likelihood of, but would not rule out, a no-deal Brexit.
That leads on to a third possibility: namely, a hybrid of the first two. Such legislation might require, in the first instance, the Prime Minister to seek an extension. However, it might go on to provide that if no extension had been granted by a given date (e.g. 30 October), the Prime Minister would be legally obliged immediately to revoke the UK’s notification under Article 50. This sort of approach, with extension as the preferred option and revocation as a last-resort failsafe, would presumably be politically less unpalatable to some MPs than legislation that required revocation without more."
Disengage for a moment what your heart desires and accept that it's not a straightforward 'we're leaving on Oct 31st', much as you might like it.
First, given Parliament does not return until September it may not have time to pass a law extending especially as the executive will try and deny it that time including proroguing if necessary.
Second as Stodge points out the EU negotiates with the PM not the Commons and if Boris refuses to ask for a further extension unlike May constitutionally there is little the Commons can do to try and stop Brexit again bar pass a VONC in the Government
Worth remembering though that the guy with the most momentum from Iowa in the 2016 GOP race was Rubio, and he came third. Sure, he disappointed in NH, but I have no intention of making my mistake four years ago and assuming that the winner is the person who comes first in Iowa. Or even second.
This reminds me of the XKCD comic "The problem with statemts like 'no candidate has ever won, without ...'" https://xkcd.com/1122/
"No Democrat candiate has won the nomination without winning Iowa or New Hampsire since Mr Clinton in 1992" is vaguely interesting but very weak in predictive power.
I expect that most years the FA premiership winner wins one of their first two matches of the season.
A new paper by the Institute for Government says MPs looking to make their voices heard will have far fewer opportunities to do so this time around than they had in the run-up to the end of March this year, when the former prime minister was trying to pass her withdrawal agreement.
Given the limited time available, this paper reaches the following conclusions about what is likely to happen over the next few months:
- It is very unlikely the UK will be able to leave the EU with a deal on 31 October
- MPs can express opposition to no deal but that alone will not prevent it
- Backbenchers have very few opportunities to legislate to stop no deal
- A vote of no confidence would not necessarily stop no deal
- There is little time to hold a general election before 31 October
- A second referendum can only happen with government support.
That’s pretty much my assessment.
The key issues it seems are: whether MPs can capture the order paper to bring forward a motion; then what that motion might say; and whether it would succeed.
As people have pointed out previously, that relies also on the Speaker. But to craft a motion that would gain a majority is also not trivial.
This is the weird thing about the caretaker PM thing: They don't actually need to have the confidence of the House of Commons. They just need the House of Commons to *look like* it would have confidence in them. Once they're appointed, arguably the House would likely immediately cease to have confidence in them, since there would be no more upside for them.
In theory I think you could spin this logic into an argument that no matter how the Commons votes, the would-be caretaker shouldn't be made PM...
That argument would mean Bozo shouldn't be PM. There is no evidence he has the confidence of the HoC
This is the weird thing about the caretaker PM thing: They don't actually need to have the confidence of the House of Commons. They just need the House of Commons to *look like* it would have confidence in them. Once they're appointed, arguably the House would likely immediately cease to have confidence in them, since there would be no more upside for them.
In theory I think you could spin this logic into an argument that no matter how the Commons votes, the would-be caretaker shouldn't be made PM...
That argument would mean Bozo shouldn't be PM. There is no evidence he has the confidence of the HoC
Not having children is the single greatest positive impact one can have on the future wellbeing of the planet. Zero carbon impact from a thousand generations of nonexistent people.
When someone with four sprogs tells me I need to adopt a vegan diet I tend not to listen.
I'm not sure about that: we don't have a thousand generations worth of time to deal with this, it's far more urgent than that. We either sort it this generation, or the population will be drastically reduced anyway.
Though I can't help thinking someone with 4 children is irresponsible, if they had any choice in the matter.
I'm all in favour of us all eating less meat + dairy, flying less, buying less stuff, having fewer children etc as much as we can, but it's only collective action (ie by govts) that's going to help. And much of it is not that difficult: insulate all homes, introduce a carbon tax, plant trees, stop burning coal, invest in decarbonising everything, (reject the current ruling ideology that making a fast buck is the only value...). Should be possible if we vote for it, and let politicians know that is what we will vote for.
So voting and campaigning is the single greatest positive impact one can have...
This is the weird thing about the caretaker PM thing: They don't actually need to have the confidence of the House of Commons. They just need the House of Commons to *look like* it would have confidence in them. Once they're appointed, arguably the House would likely immediately cease to have confidence in them, since there would be no more upside for them.
In theory I think you could spin this logic into an argument that no matter how the Commons votes, the would-be caretaker shouldn't be made PM...
That argument would mean Bozo shouldn't be PM. There is no evidence he has the confidence of the HoC
A new paper by the Institute for Government says MPs looking to make their voices heard will have far fewer opportunities to do so this time around than they had in the run-up to the end of March this year, when the former prime minister was trying to pass her withdrawal agreement.
Given the limited time available, this paper reaches the following conclusions about what is likely to happen over the next few months:
- It is very unlikely the UK will be able to leave the EU with a deal on 31 October
This has been clear for some time now.
- MPs can express opposition to no deal but that alone will not prevent it
Of course
- There is little time to hold a general election before 31 October
"Before" is the important word here. There is more scope to hold the election on/election campaign straddling 31st October, but this would be politically very difficult.
- A second referendum can only happen with government support.
Of course
- Backbenchers have very few opportunities to legislate to stop no deal
- A vote of no confidence would not necessarily stop no deal
A vote of no confidence would not necessarily stop No Deal, but what happens in the days after would be cruicial.
If the HoC votes no confidence in the government to try to prevent No Deal, there would certainly be a plan for what happens afterwards. The required Tory rebels would have too much to lose if they vote "No Confidence" and then do nothing.
Comments
Is it possible to be too cynical?
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3751/1
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3756/1
I would also respectfully point out that having RBS and other banks rescued by HMG didn't exactly do a lot for the shareholders. The way to make money on this, should these companies exist, would be to short their shares, not buy them. This would be risky. UK shares are internationally cheap right now. In the admittedly unlikely event that Boris pulls off a vaguely sensible deal that short could prove very expensive.
Though do you hand crank your organ ?
A new paper by the Institute for Government says MPs looking to make their voices heard will have far fewer opportunities to do so this time around than they had in the run-up to the end of March this year, when the former prime minister was trying to pass her withdrawal agreement.
Given the limited time available, this paper reaches the following conclusions about what is likely to happen over the next few months:
- It is very unlikely the UK will be able to leave the EU with a deal on 31 October
- MPs can express opposition to no deal but that alone will not prevent it
- Backbenchers have very few opportunities to legislate to stop no deal
- A vote of no confidence would not necessarily stop no deal
- There is little time to hold a general election before 31 October
- A second referendum can only happen with government support.
Suppose that Parliament succeeds in its latest remainer quest, namely a Standing Order mandating the PM to reach a deal, which must pass, or Article 50 must be extended. The alt-right on here may jump up and down and say it's not poss, but it's happened once already that the HoC took over the agenda and I think the Speaker would be supportive. It seems to me a pretty plausible option.
So let's accept the premise for a moment that this route is successful. No Deal is prevented, Article 50 is extended and negotiations have to recommence.
The FTPA may become the bane of Johnson's life. It's easy to forget that beyond the realm of Brexit there is other Gov't business. Johnson has a virtually non-existent majority. If you think Theresa May's countless losses were bad, wait until you see what happens to a hard right PM in Parliament. I predict defeat after defeat, endlessly. I'm not even convinced he will get the Budget through.
He cannot just call a General Election. Labour could dangle him for their amusement, like a cat toying with a mouse. They could watch the Johnson regime fail time and time again in Parliament, the in-fighting and recriminations begin, the wheels falling off the BJ premiership. The Opposition could dangle him for months, perhaps even the remaining two years, until the Conservatives are annihilated in the eventual Election. Obliterated. Wiped from the electoral map.
And under the FTPA there may be nothing Johnson can do about it. Until recently it was at the Prime Minister's behest when to call a General Election. He or she has now been stripped of that power. In the current circumstances of a hung parliament it's possible that the result will lead to Conservative wipeout.
Bravo, Mr Cameron.
The environment didn't impact on our choice for a second, but I wouldn't criticise anyone for doing so. It is a free country for that sort of choice and has no detectable impact on anyone else.
It is interesting to see how close the press coverage can come to being racist about Meghan without actually mentioning race. It is a very English approach.
From there, I'm just making the leap that they're smart enough to figure that out. But, if you like, I can change "irritating virtue signalling" to "self unaware rank hypocrisy".
I don't actually mind as much as it probably appears I do from the above posts. Showing leadership on big issues like this is exactly what the Royals should be spending their time doing; the Cambridges' efforts on mental health are potentially huge impact. I just think the Sussex's have picked a cause it's difficult for them to lead on without looking ridiculous.
The EU will not want to assist Johnson. They will be delighted if the UK comes back, tail between our legs. Why? Not from any particular love of Brits but because they will be very happy to have set an example for any other country stupid enough to think leaving the bloc is a clever idea.
I think on a personal level they mostly rather liked Theresa May. Johnson on the other hand ...
Provided Boris refuses a further extension from the EU unless he loses a VONC we leave on October 31st. If Boris loses that VONC and no alternative government is formed in 14 days we go to a general election anyway which likely sees the Brexit Party largely collapse in the Tories favour.
Labour meanwhile continues to lose Remainers to the LDs on a Stop Brexit platform and it could end up with Labour wipeout, losing Remainers to the LDs, Greens and SNP and Leavers to the Brexit Party and Tories not a Tory wipeout.
Just deserts for Corbyn's refusal to back the Withdrawal Agreement
And sure enough, as eggs are eggs, in he jumped ...
I remember vividly before March you jumping up and down with the same 'rubbish.' You were proved totally wrong then.
The HoC can mandate. I think that's why Johnson-Cummings are trying to goad remainer MPs. They know they're in real trouble, especially if Labour DON'T go for an immediate Vote of No Confidence. An election would be Johnson's only way out, but outside of a VONC it's not in his power any longer to call.
There is, of course, one other option. It's unconscionable for Johnson but it might get him out of the hole.
A 2nd referendum, with No Deal on the menu.
He also compared the last Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull to David Cameron saying they were both liberals pretending to be conservatives, calling Turnbull 'a snake' and saying Cameron was part of the 'trendy, metro liberal elite.' Though he had more time for the current PM Scott Morrison who won the last Australian election despite Melbourne and Sydney disliking him
“assuming this comes to pass...”?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/11/remainer-mps-fast-running-time-options-block-no-deal-brexit/
The more they keep saying it the more it convinces me they know they're wrong.
As I said in March, if Parliament wishes to prevent No Deal it will find a way of doing so. I was derided from quite a few on here who were categoric that it was impossible. Yet, they did.
I believe they will do so again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49315258
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49314259
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49314840
But no, not possible to be too cynical.
Still, someone should be looking into this stuff. Are there no journalists reading PB?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/11/labour-mps-told-cancel-september-travel-plans-jeremy-corbyn/
Oh, and to tackle fishing as well.
When someone with four sprogs tells me I need to adopt a vegan diet I tend not to listen.
It's worth reading this and noting that if the HoC seizes control of the timetable it can legislate, following the Cooper-Letwin example.
By the way, you're also ignoring the other way in which Parliament can, and I suspect would as a last resort, stop No Deal without a Vote of No Confidence. They can simply Revoke Article 50. End of Brexit:
"First, Parliament could legislate to revoke Article 50. Of course, politically many MPs would balk at such a prospect, but such legislation would be the best means by which Parliament could absolutely guarantee against a no-deal Brexit. Such legislation could be rendered politically less unpalatable from a Leave perspective by, for instance, recording within the preamble an intention that the legislation is intended to be a precursor to a confirmatory referendum. (I recognise that the CJEU’s Wightman judgment requires revocation to be unconditional, but it not clear to me that an aspirational statement regarding a possible future referendum in the preamble to a statute would breach that requirement of unconditionality.) Legislation along these lines, if enacted, would provide a cast-iron guarantee against a no-deal Brexit because it would, presumably, impose an unqualified and immediate duty upon the Prime Minister to revoke the UK’s notification under Article 50.
Second, Parliament could legislate along the lines of the Cooper-Letwin Bill by requiring the Prime Minister to seek an extension of the Article 50 period. However, this would not provide any guarantees, since it would be for the European Council to decide whether to accede to such a request. Legislation that went no further than requiring the Government to seek an extension would thus reduce the likelihood of, but would not rule out, a no-deal Brexit.
That leads on to a third possibility: namely, a hybrid of the first two. Such legislation might require, in the first instance, the Prime Minister to seek an extension. However, it might go on to provide that if no extension had been granted by a given date (e.g. 30 October), the Prime Minister would be legally obliged immediately to revoke the UK’s notification under Article 50. This sort of approach, with extension as the preferred option and revocation as a last-resort failsafe, would presumably be politically less unpalatable to some MPs than legislation that required revocation without more."
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2019/08/08/can-parliament-prevent-a-no-deal-brexit/
Disengage for a moment what your heart desires and accept that it's not a straightforward 'we're leaving on Oct 31st', much as you might like it.
https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/
The Conservatives and DUP hold 321 seats, minus 1 deputy speaker = 320
Others: 321, minus 2 deputy speakers = 319
Boris leads a majority of 1.
The story mentioned companies not simply hauliers and farmers. As I say, if true....
There is a lot of information around which raises issues re conflicts of interest as well as possible market abuse. Let's hope Ministers and others have unimpeachable integrity, eh!
As for RBS the full story has yet to be told. If we ever meet .....
Hi HYFUD,
First of all apologies for getting frustrated with you yesterday HYFUD. I shouldn't have. I do apologise.
I am going to have one more go at this, but this time I will remove all the politics from it and stick to pure logic as it matters not one jot if we are Remainers or Leavers.
I am going to reference what I believe was the last exchange you had with Ian because it was a simple exchange, but I'm not going to use any of the contents from it. I'm going to use a mix of English and logic notation format to keep it simple.
I hope I have the exchange correct.
Ian's post contained the following:
Ian asserted that you had stated 'A'
Ian also asserted that you had stated 'B'
Ian also asserted that 'B' ⇒ ¬'A'
There are only 4 possible logical responses you can make to Ian's post. They are:
I didn't state 'A'
I didn't state 'B'
I disagree that 'B' ⇒ ¬'A' and explain why Ian is wrong
Or agree that Ian is correct
Your reply stated 'C'
Ian responded something along the lines of what about the point I raised initially.
You responded by repeating 'A'
Ian gave up
Here lies the problem. Ian's original question is not answered.
This is what gets us frustrated in these exchanges.
I haven't heard much from them since Johnson took over though. So perhaps they have agreed to continue?
Besides, even an electric blower would find it hard to keep going if the outlet was blocked with rubber.
Biden, Warren seem likely to come out in top four (Warren is spending a hell of a lot of time there apparently).
Leaves Sanders, Buttigieg and Harris fighting for the last two top four places.
Unless there is some kind of surprise with someone like Beto.
It's the same with having children. I have zero problem with those who have none (through either choice or misfortune), but I'm surprised by how much joy the little 'un has brought into my life.
I do worry about where your sort of thinking ends up.
If such a law is passed, Mr Johnson would nevertheless not extend the withdrawal date. He has staked too much on it. We can debate what happens after this.
I'm not sure of the procedure of holding a Prime Minister in contempt of parliament, but I'm guessing it will be much slower than holding a VoNC. If the HoC has already voted for a compulsory extension, then a VoNC will be as good as inevitable if the PM refuses. Then we are back to the conversation what happens after a VoNC.
You should be ironically praising Mr Clegg rather than Mr Cameron. The main point of the FTPA is to prevent a prime minister form just calling an election because he/she expects to increase his majority. It has already failed on this count as that is exactly what Mrs May did in 2017.
I find your scenario unlikely though because the one thing that Mr Corbyn has consistently campainged for is a general election. It is unlikely that vindictively prolonging a lame duck government will win many extra votes.
However, that notwithstanding the actual report says very little we don't already know: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/parliament-role-before-31-october-brexit-FINAL.pdf
It merely points out that options are limited. Well, no duh.
It also has an entire section on Revoke. I suspect if it came to the crunch of crashing out with No Deal the House of Commons will either VONC and install an alternative PM or Revoke Article 50.
However, I think they might pass legislation by controlling the Parliamentary timetable in the Cooper-Letwin manner, passing a law that the EU Council will agree to.
We shall see. But I'm reasonably confident No Deal will not happen at the end of October.
The point throughout all this is the EU negotiates with the British Government not the House of Commons. As @HYUFD rightly points out, it is the PM who ultimately decides whether we take another extension or leave without a WA. The question is whether any PM could defy the will of Parliament and refuse an extension even if Parliament voted against a No Deal.
I suspect we won't test that hypothesis - Johnson is relying on Corbyn's desire for a GE as his (and that is relevant for both men) route to a majority. A shrewder LOTO might play the FTPA, block an election, win a VONC and form an alternative Government with the assistance of other opposition parties but fortunately for Boris he has Corbyn opposite and Corbyn presumably thinks he can win an election against Johnson and form a socialist government with a working majority.
Johnson will therefore rely on Corbyn's stupidity to deliver an election and a majority. There'll be no need for VoNC either - the sole problem for Johnson will be to ensure he wins big enough not to have to rely on the likes of Gauke, Grieve, Lee and others.
Boris wins, we leave without a Deal and descend into a longer or shorter period of chaos and a long slump for the Conservatives as the reality of exiting without a Deal is scarcely mitigated by the Conservative Magic Money Tree. None of that will matter as the odd local election bloodbath aside, the next test won't be until 2024 by which time Global Britain will be up and running.
In any event, a combination of prosperity and education seems to have the greatest impact on the average number of children in any given society.
China, of course, being something of a statistical outlier, thanks to their imposed one child policy.
Your outline seems eminently plausible.
I do wonder how most Conservative MPs, who do not want a no deal departure, feel about having backed Boris.
And he didn't actually choose a REMF posting, did he? He could easily have avoided any chance of danger.
The more bizarre thing is how some people are quite capable of both criticising people for having children for environmental reasons and arguing for higher immigration for economic reasons, given the demographic challenges we face.
Then again, I find looking after one child hard enough.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/dont-suspend-parliament/?utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Update21902078onSuspendingParliamentistheactofadictatorWecantallowitAugust122019&utm_medium=email
The issue is all the other political stuff that many environmentalists try and load onto the back of it, their unrealistic demands and uncompromising zealotry.
Second as Stodge points out the EU negotiates with the PM not the Commons and if Boris refuses to ask for a further extension unlike May constitutionally there is little the Commons can do to try and stop Brexit again bar pass a VONC in the Government
https://xkcd.com/1122/
"No Democrat candiate has won the nomination without winning Iowa or New Hampsire since Mr Clinton in 1992" is vaguely interesting but very weak in predictive power.
I expect that most years the FA premiership winner wins one of their first two matches of the season.
As people have pointed out previously, that relies also on the Speaker. But to craft a motion that would gain a majority is also not trivial.
https://binged.it/31rTYfE
Though I can't help thinking someone with 4 children is irresponsible, if they had any choice in the matter.
I'm all in favour of us all eating less meat + dairy, flying less, buying less stuff, having fewer children etc as much as we can, but it's only collective action (ie by govts) that's going to help. And much of it is not that difficult: insulate all homes, introduce a carbon tax, plant trees, stop burning coal, invest in decarbonising everything, (reject the current ruling ideology that making a fast buck is the only value...). Should be possible if we vote for it, and let politicians know that is what we will vote for.
So voting and campaigning is the single greatest positive impact one can have...
awaits
Johnson has the presumption of confidence until explicitly proven otherwise. No one else enjoys that privilege.
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1160799831457193984?s=20
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1160800804741292032?s=20
If the HoC votes no confidence in the government to try to prevent No Deal, there would certainly be a plan for what happens afterwards. The required Tory rebels would have too much to lose if they vote "No Confidence" and then do nothing.