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 likedRN 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.
RNAS Culdrose had its own pig farm for many years. That was always considered the worst posting in the RN. Now it's QNLZ.
I wanted to be and lobbied for Naval Attaché in Rome but got a message back from the Admiralty saying that Lt Cdr Dura Ace lacked the "sense of circumspection and clean disciplinary record that such a post demanded".
I do wonder how most Conservative MPs, who do not want a no deal departure, feel about having backed Boris.
Morning, Mr Dancer. Thank you for the kind word.
This is the big question - we keep hearing there are 30-40 Conservative MPs who are completely opposed to leaving without a Deal and they face some tough choices if that is what they are trying to achieve.
Could Johnson somehow, even at this late hour, re-badge or re-brand May's WA and get it through? It would seem curious for the ERG, having opposed it all the way and even for Johnson himself who opposed it twice, to suddenly think it "the answer"?
So we're back to the antithesis of the ERG - those Conservative MPs completely opposed to leaving without a WA. The Johnson loyalists would have them hunted down and deselected which illustrates what a potential threat they are. However, they will have to stand up and be counted and that will mean either abstaining in a VoNC or even voting against their own Government and daring the Party to move against them.
IF they win a VoNC, that means nothing if an alternative majority committed to a further extension can't be formed. Once again, Boris's ally, Jeremy Corbyn, rides to the rescue and the two blocs of loyalist MPs comfortably outvote the rest of the House.
The problem then becomes the election - if we leave without a Deal before the election, what do the 30-40 MPs do? As an aside, what would happen if we left without a Deal and Boris lost the subsequent election?
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.
They are quoting the Institute for Government, which also observes:
Parliament’s ability to influence the course of Brexit earlier this year depended on specific processes set out in Section 13 of the EU Withdrawal Act. Under this provision, the prime minister’s deal needed the endorsement of Parliament before the government was legally able to ratify the agreement and, if the government decided it wanted to leave without a deal, then further votes were required.
However, Section 13’s no-deal provisions were tied to a specific date – 21 January 2019 – which has long passed. It is now of no use to MPs who want to express their view on no deal; if Johnson is set on no deal he will not need to schedule any further meaningful votes.
Unlike May’s government, therefore, Johnson’s will be under no legally binding requirement to consult, inform or gain the agreement of the Commons. The government’s control of the Commons order paper, coupled with its ability to bring motions and deploy delaying tactics, now mean that it has a great deal of control over what happens in the lower House. Its control over the Lords is weaker, but any initiative from the upper House could not bind the government without being endorsed in the Commons.
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.
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
The attorney general said that May legally had to ask for an extension. If (and it is a big if) parliament passes similar legislation, what will have changed that would allow Boris to legally not ask for an extension?
May chose to follow the law as guided by her attorney general, perhaps Boris could break the law and leave it up to the courts to decide our biggest change in several generations. How conservative!
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 likedRN 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.
RNAS Culdrose had its own pig farm for many years. That was always considered the worst posting in the RN. Now it's QNLZ.
I wanted to be and lobbied for Naval Attaché in Rome but got a message back from the Admiralty saying that Lt Cdr Dura Ace lacked the "sense of circumspection and clean disciplinary record that such a post demanded".
Having driven in Rome, I can't see why they might have thought that.
Comments
I wanted to be and lobbied for Naval Attaché in Rome but got a message back from the Admiralty saying that Lt Cdr Dura Ace lacked the "sense of circumspection and clean disciplinary record that such a post demanded".
This is the big question - we keep hearing there are 30-40 Conservative MPs who are completely opposed to leaving without a Deal and they face some tough choices if that is what they are trying to achieve.
Could Johnson somehow, even at this late hour, re-badge or re-brand May's WA and get it through? It would seem curious for the ERG, having opposed it all the way and even for Johnson himself who opposed it twice, to suddenly think it "the answer"?
So we're back to the antithesis of the ERG - those Conservative MPs completely opposed to leaving without a WA. The Johnson loyalists would have them hunted down and deselected which illustrates what a potential threat they are. However, they will have to stand up and be counted and that will mean either abstaining in a VoNC or even voting against their own Government and daring the Party to move against them.
IF they win a VoNC, that means nothing if an alternative majority committed to a further extension can't be formed. Once again, Boris's ally, Jeremy Corbyn, rides to the rescue and the two blocs of loyalist MPs comfortably outvote the rest of the House.
The problem then becomes the election - if we leave without a Deal before the election, what do the 30-40 MPs do? As an aside, what would happen if we left without a Deal and Boris lost the subsequent election?
Parliament’s ability to influence the course of Brexit earlier this year depended
on specific processes set out in Section 13 of the EU Withdrawal Act. Under this provision, the prime minister’s deal needed the endorsement of Parliament before the government was legally able to ratify the agreement and, if the government decided it wanted to leave without a deal, then further votes were required.
However, Section 13’s no-deal provisions were tied to a specific date – 21 January 2019 – which has long passed. It is now of no use to MPs who want to express their view on no deal; if Johnson is set on no deal he will not need to schedule any further meaningful votes.
Unlike May’s government, therefore, Johnson’s will be under no legally binding requirement to consult, inform or gain the agreement of the Commons. The government’s control of the Commons order paper, coupled with its ability to bring motions and deploy delaying tactics, now mean that it has a great deal of control over what happens in the lower House. Its control over the Lords is weaker, but any initiative from the upper House could not bind the government without being endorsed in the Commons.
emphasis added
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/parliament-role-before-31-october-brexit-FINAL.pdf
May chose to follow the law as guided by her attorney general, perhaps Boris could break the law and leave it up to the courts to decide our biggest change in several generations. How conservative!