Across all media the response to the Charles the First move has been simply furious.
BoJo has rolled the dice but it is NOT looking good. He will have to back off.
Bercow has made the biggest mistake. Exploding with anger at the “constitutional outrage”??? He’s finished after all this. His theoretical impartiality is gone forever.
He should have expressed measured concern with a hint of concealed menace.
He has no impartiality - he is Speaker of the House of Commons. Constitutionally he represents the Commons in its relations with the Crown, so he absolutely is partial, biased towards representing the will, opinions and rights of parliament.
Again, what happens when the executive requests Her Majesty prorogues parliament and parliament refuses and continues to sit? Because if I read this correctly that is the stand-off to come
But Bercow is defending the rights and opinions of Parliament against THE PEOPLE, and their vote in 2016. That is why his position is so wrong, and so unsustainable
A random thought - the Royals ought to be shit scared of the NHS top trump card: let's take all the money we give to randy Andy and Di-hater Charles and give it to the NHS.
So that's the destruction of Union and the monarchy baked in by lack of foresight on the part of David Cameron. Well done him.
Rubbish, as a President and his entourage would take most of the money now spent on the royal family while losing the tax revenue from the tourists.
With only 46% of Scots backing independence in the latest Ashcroft poll that is not clear either
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
No Government control of most of the economy is socialism, not a hereditary constitutional monarch as Head of State
So if we assume that this is 4D Chess (is there any other kind, the whole point of chess being to calculate what the board will look like at some point in the future)
Where are you getting the 4th dimension from ? Chess is a well defined problem on a 2D plane
My pieces sat in 3 dimensions but I take the point that they moved in 2.
They move in three[1]: the horsey has to jump over the prawns. Obvs.
[1] OK, as it involves motion thru time, also four. We happy now?
Play chess in an accelerating train and the physicists will model it using nine dimensions.
Where the government is very vulnerable on any legal challenge is the why question. Why is this prorogation unusually long? The only answer is one that reflects its own lack of control of Parliament. Should the courts assist the executive in avoiding Parliamentary scrutiny? It’s very hard to see why that should be a permissible reason for proroguing.
It's quite an arcane subject and I don't pretend to have studied it in detail but the traditional view used to be that the procedures of the Commons were matters for the Commons and no one else. I will no doubt learn tomorrow but I am struggling to see what the "wrong" that is being sought to be prevented is, at least in law.
My guess is that the Court will say, well if Parliament wants to prevent this they can do so next week. But I may be wrong. The courts have been more ready to intervene in recent times as in the Miller case (although that was about changes to our domestic law, not Parliamentary procedure).
How long would a prorogation have to be before the Courts would hold it to be unreasonable? Six months?
Imagine you're the barrister in front of an eminent judge with limited patience. Your opposite number is alleging that you're doing this to frustrate democracy. The judge peers over his varifocals and says:
And says...
'Get on with implementing the referendum result.'
The lack of self-awareness of remainers is frankly astounding.
Where the government is very vulnerable on any legal challenge is the why question. Why is this prorogation unusually long? The only answer is one that reflects its own lack of control of Parliament. Should the courts assist the executive in avoiding Parliamentary scrutiny? It’s very hard to see why that should be a permissible reason for proroguing.
Are they obliged under law to provide a reason? Genuine question.
Imagine you're the barrister in front of an eminent judge with limited patience. Your opposite number is alleging that you're doing this to frustrate democracy. The judge peers over his varifocals and says:
"So, Mr 4, why is your client taking such an unusually long period of time for prorogation at such a hectic period in British politics against a tight deadline?"
The response "I'm not at liberty to say" is not really going to cut it.
That would indeed be unwise. But an answer such as, "well after such a very long session and a substantial change of cabinet we want a full Queens Speech with a a panoply of bills covering a wide range of subjects and this takes time to organise" is quite difficult to disprove.
Edit, and Lord Doherty doesn't wear varifocals. You'd be right about the limited patience though.
I doubt it. They knew no deal was a risk if they said no but held out. As of now both no deal and remain are possible just as they wanted, so it has gone as expected. If they were willing to deal to avoid no deal we'd not be hear now.
It is disappointing (to say the least) that remainer mp's were willing to recklessly go to the brink to avoid implementing the democratic will of 17m+ people.
Remainers have played games for the last 3 years and now it's coming home to roost.
Across all media the response to the Charles the First move has been simply furious.
BoJo has rolled the dice but it is NOT looking good. He will have to back off.
Bercow has made the biggest mistake. Exploding with anger at the “constitutional outrage”??? He’s finished after all this. His theoretical impartiality is gone forever.
He should have expressed measured concern with a hint of concealed menace.
He has no impartiality - he is Speaker of the House of Commons. Constitutionally he represents the Commons in its relations with the Crown, so he absolutely is partial, biased towards representing the will, opinions and rights of parliament.
Again, what happens when the executive requests Her Majesty prorogues parliament and parliament refuses and continues to sit? Because if I read this correctly that is the stand-off to come
But Bercow is defending the rights and opinions of Parliament against THE PEOPLE, and their vote in 2016. That is why his position is so wrong, and so unsustainable
The House of Commons WAS ELECED BY THE PEOPLE. Now please stop shouting.
So if we assume that this is 4D Chess (is there any other kind, the whole point of chess being to calculate what the board will look like at some point in the future)
Where are you getting the 4th dimension from ? Chess is a well defined problem on a 2D plane
My pieces sat in 3 dimensions but I take the point that they moved in 2.
They move in three[1]: the horsey has to jump over the prawns. Obvs.
[1] OK, as it involves motion thru time, also four. We happy now?
Which is precisely why Parliament would be stupid to oblige him. Let Johnson suspend Parliament and dig himself a giant No Deal Brexit shaped hole and then let him fall right into it. It is the only way to resolve this now.
There has to be the possibility that Johnson's action will make some Tory MPs and Change UK more receptive to having Corbyn as caretaker PM following a successful VNOC.
Among many other things, my sense is that this is a pretty decent shove to Anti No Dealers to shit or get off the pot. Their options seem to be narrowing: I'd be surprised if the courts intervene in how parliament runs itself, and this must strike a line through quite a few of the procedural options. If they've not made significant progress on "taking back control" or VONCing before prorogation, I'd say it's probably almost game over.
Where the government is very vulnerable on any legal challenge is the why question. Why is this prorogation unusually long? The only answer is one that reflects its own lack of control of Parliament. Should the courts assist the executive in avoiding Parliamentary scrutiny? It’s very hard to see why that should be a permissible reason for proroguing.
Are they obliged under law to provide a reason? Genuine question.
Imagine you're the barrister in front of an eminent judge with limited patience. Your opposite number is alleging that you're doing this to frustrate democracy. The judge peers over his varifocals and says:
"So, Mr 4, why is your client taking such an unusually long period of time for prorogation at such a hectic period in British politics against a tight deadline?"
The response "I'm not at liberty to say" is not really going to cut it.
That would indeed be unwise. But an answer such as, "well after such a very long session and a substantial change of cabinet we want a full Queens Speech with a a panoply of bills covering a wide range of subjects and this takes time to organise" is quite difficult to disprove.
Edit, and Lord Doherty doesn't wear varifocals. You'd be right about the limited patience though.
Wouldn't the judge then say 'Answer the fucking question!', or words to that effect?
So if we assume that this is 4D Chess (is there any other kind, the whole point of chess being to calculate what the board will look like at some point in the future)
Where are you getting the 4th dimension from ? Chess is a well defined problem on a 2D plane
My pieces sat in 3 dimensions but I take the point that they moved in 2.
They move in three[1]: the horsey has to jump over the prawns. Obvs.
[1] OK, as it involves motion thru time, also four. We happy now?
Play chess in an accelerating train and the physicists will model it using nine dimensions.
Imagine you're the barrister in front of an eminent judge with limited patience. Your opposite number is alleging that you're doing this to frustrate democracy. The judge peers over his varifocals and says:
And says...
'Get on with implementing the referendum result.'
The lack of self-awareness of remainers is frankly astounding.
The lack of constitutional awareness is frankly astounding.
1. Parliament is sovereign. Now that is, whilst still in the EU. 2. No parliament can bind the hands of a successor parliament 3. 2015 parliament enacts a referendum. In our constitution power resides in the Crown in Parliament. Referenda are legally non-binding, may be considered to be politically by choice but in any case see point 2 4. 2017 parliament choses to try and enact the 2016 referendum. Because the election delivered a hung parliament it chooses not to authorise acceptance of the deal, and votes to not allow leaving without a deal 5. "Will of the people" is what was delivered in 2017 at the election. That supercedes all previous votes which is why a defeated government can't refuse to go, pointing to their win at a prior election
Its very very simple. If you want MPs to make a different political choice over Brexit, then elect new ones. The current parliament is legally and constitutionally sovereign to refuse to implement the actions of a previous parliament. That is very explicitly the parliamentary sovereignty that Brexiteers claim they voted for.
So if they didn't vote for sovereignty. And they didn't vote to be better off (because "I'd rather eat grass") then that only leaves racism. They voted to leave to chuck anyone out they don't like. CF Priti "Hang 'Em" Patel's pronouncements on free movement the minute we leave
Where the government is very vulnerable on any legal challenge is the why question. Why is this prorogation unusually long? The only answer is one that reflects its own lack of control of Parliament. Should the courts assist the executive in avoiding Parliamentary scrutiny? It’s very hard to see why that should be a permissible reason for proroguing.
Are they obliged under law to provide a reason? Genuine question.
Imagine you're the barrister in front of an eminent judge with limited patience. Your opposite number is alleging that you're doing this to frustrate democracy. The judge peers over his varifocals and says:
"So, Mr 4, why is your client taking such an unusually long period of time for prorogation at such a hectic period in British politics against a tight deadline?"
The response "I'm not at liberty to say" is not really going to cut it.
That would indeed be unwise. But an answer such as, "well after such a very long session and a substantial change of cabinet we want a full Queens Speech with a a panoply of bills covering a wide range of subjects and this takes time to organise" is quite difficult to disprove.
Edit, and Lord Doherty doesn't wear varifocals. You'd be right about the limited patience though.
Presumably the assessment of reasons would be on a balance of probabilities? On the one hand, a lot of weight would be given to the government's assertions, simply by being the government. On the other hand, it does all look inexplicable in terms of immediate timing. Your explanation does not explain why in September/October rather than November/December.
Big news, and it feels like we are moving into the end game at long last.
If Johnson succeeds in proroguing and thus forcing us out on the basis of No Deal, I really can't see that being a lasting settlement. It will surely mean an election very soon after?
Imagine you're the barrister in front of an eminent judge with limited patience. Your opposite number is alleging that you're doing this to frustrate democracy. The judge peers over his varifocals and says:
And says...
'Get on with implementing the referendum result.'
The lack of self-awareness of remainers is frankly astounding.
The lack of constitutional awareness is frankly astounding.
1. Parliament is sovereign. Now that is, whilst still in the EU. 2. No parliament can bind the hands of a successor parliament 3. 2015 parliament enacts a referendum. In our constitution power resides in the Crown in Parliament. Referenda are legally non-binding, may be considered to be politically by choice but in any case see point 2 4. 2017 parliament choses to try and enact the 2016 referendum. Because the election delivered a hung parliament it chooses not to authorise acceptance of the deal, and votes to not allow leaving without a deal 5. "Will of the people" is what was delivered in 2017 at the election. That supercedes all previous votes which is why a defeated government can't refuse to go, pointing to their win at a prior election
Its very very simple. If you want MPs to make a different political choice over Brexit, then elect new ones. The current parliament is legally and constitutionally sovereign to refuse to implement the actions of a previous parliament. That is very explicitly the parliamentary sovereignty that Brexiteers claim they voted for.
So if they didn't vote for sovereignty. And they didn't vote to be better off (because "I'd rather eat grass") then that only leaves racism. They voted to leave to chuck anyone out they don't like. CF Priti "Hang 'Em" Patel's pronouncements on free movement the minute we leave
It was also the 2015 Parliament which passed Article 50 not the 2017 Parliament.
Wild prediction: the VONC will succeed, Boris will fall, there will be an A50 extension under a caretaker government, probably Corbyn. At the ensuing GE Boris will win, but he will be promising... what?
Big news, and it feels like we are moving into the end game at long last.
If Johnson succeeds in proroguing and thus forcing us out on the basis of No Deal, I really can't see that being a lasting settlement. It will surely mean an election very soon after?
Of course it won't be a lasting settlement. We will have to quickly sign up for a deal shortly afterwards, which will be the Withdrawal Agreement or something close to it. So we are goimg to get to the same place via a much more destructive route.
Well done to Boris. The behaviour of the MPs trying to suffocate the public into Remain because they lost the referendum meant something drastic was needed to explode the impasse. The refusal to listen to those left behind by those who do well out of the status quo was the entire reason Leave won. They never learn.
They cannot. It requires the agreement of all countries including the UK.That is according to the Treaty.
Boris wants to parliamemt to return in mid-October. Can't parliamemt force an extension then?
The progration purposely ends after the next scheduled EU summit, so there is no opportunity to an extension to be considered (though given the situation perhaps an emergency summit could be convened?)
Wild prediction: the VONC will succeed, Boris will fall, there will be an A50 extension under a caretaker government, probably Corbyn. At the ensuing GE Boris will win, but he will be promising... what?
There my clairvoyant skills expire.
With a VONC, Boris will call a new election and remain as Prime Minister. So no extension and No Deal.
Big news, and it feels like we are moving into the end game at long last.
If Johnson succeeds in proroguing and thus forcing us out on the basis of No Deal, I really can't see that being a lasting settlement. It will surely mean an election very soon after?
There's definitely going to be an election by May next year, at the vey latest.
Well done to Boris. The behaviour of the MPs trying to suffocate the public into Remain because they lost the referendum meant something drastic was needed to explode the impasse. The refusal to listen to those left behind by those who do well out of the status quo was the entire reason Leave won. They never learn.
Those MPs were elected by the people in 2017. If Boris doesn't like it he should call an election.
Wild prediction: the VONC will succeed, Boris will fall, there will be an A50 extension under a caretaker government, probably Corbyn. At the ensuing GE Boris will win, but he will be promising... what?
There my clairvoyant skills expire.
With a VONC, Boris will call a new election and remain as Prime Minister. So no extension and No Deal.
Boris doesn't call a new election - he can't do that under the FTPA.
Well done to Boris. The behaviour of the MPs trying to suffocate the public into Remain because they lost the referendum meant something drastic was needed to explode the impasse. The refusal to listen to those left behind by those who do well out of the status quo was the entire reason Leave won. They never learn.
Those MPs were elected by the people in 2017. If Boris doesn't like it he should call an election.
They were elected on the promise of respecting the referendum result
Big news, and it feels like we are moving into the end game at long last.
If Johnson succeeds in proroguing and thus forcing us out on the basis of No Deal, I really can't see that being a lasting settlement. It will surely mean an election very soon after?
Of course it won't be a lasting settlement. We will have to quickly sign up for a deal shortly afterwards, which will be the Withdrawal Agreement or something close to it. So we are goimg to get to the same place via a much more destructive route.
Dunno about that, I suspect sorting a deal after this mess will be tricky as well as urgent. If I were the EU i would at least wait for a GE to see if they have to deal with Johnson or Corbyn.
Wild prediction: the VONC will succeed, Boris will fall, there will be an A50 extension under a caretaker government, probably Corbyn. At the ensuing GE Boris will win, but he will be promising... what?
There my clairvoyant skills expire.
Have you checked with @HYUFD to see if you are right?
Let's assume for the moment that the proposed application for interim interdict doesn't succeed. Let's assume that Parliament convenes next week and a VONC is moved and passed. Do Labour support a motion for instant dissolution of Parliament or do we wait 14 days? Surely it has to be instant if we are to have an election before 31st October. Furthermore how does dissolution and the FTPA interact? How can you have a vote of confidence if Parliament isn't sitting? I think that it is at least implied that Parliament is sitting for those 14 days.
If parliament has taken control of the agenda, is it possible for them to first pass a change to the FTPA then a VONC?
I did wonder about this last month. It only takes a simple majority to revoke the FTPA so itbis easier to do that than actually get an election passed. .
Wild prediction: the VONC will succeed, Boris will fall, there will be an A50 extension under a caretaker government, probably Corbyn. At the ensuing GE Boris will win, but he will be promising... what?
There my clairvoyant skills expire.
With a VONC, Boris will call a new election and remain as Prime Minister. So no extension and No Deal.
Boris doesn't call a new election - he can't do that under the FTPA.
A new election is called by the VONC, with a 14 day waiting period, unless a VOC happens. Boris not resigning and not recommending a successor means there is no alternative government to get a VOC.
Well done to Boris. The behaviour of the MPs trying to suffocate the public into Remain because they lost the referendum meant something drastic was needed to explode the impasse. The refusal to listen to those left behind by those who do well out of the status quo was the entire reason Leave won. They never learn.
Those MPs were elected by the people in 2017. If Boris doesn't like it he should call an election.
They were elected on the promise of respecting the referendum result
Who was? Not the Lib Dems. Not the SNP. Not the Green Party. Not Plaid Cymru.
If you mean the Labour Party, they were elected to implement their version of a soft Brexit. Not any old Brexit. Certainly not no deal.
Tell Corbyn to hold a VONC next week, if it succeeds she appoints a new PM or calls a general election, if it fails Boris remains PM and she prorogues Parliament as requested
BBC's Birmingham vox-pop overwhelmingly in support of Boris's move, feeling that the Brexit debate has gone on long enough, it needs to be sorted and there needs to be certainty.
Betting on Tory MPs to put country before party is not a winning strategy.
Total bollox, many of them have already, and have continued to do so in the face of extreme bullying and sometimes death threats.
I must have missed the mass defections promised when Boris became leader and went for No Deal. I'll admit that a few have followed through, but the vast majority have not.
Well done to Boris. The behaviour of the MPs trying to suffocate the public into Remain because they lost the referendum meant something drastic was needed to explode the impasse. The refusal to listen to those left behind by those who do well out of the status quo was the entire reason Leave won. They never learn.
Those MPs were elected by the people in 2017. If Boris doesn't like it he should call an election.
They were elected on the promise of respecting the referendum result
Who was? Not the Lib Dems. Not the SNP. Not the Green Party. Not Plaid Cymru.
If you mean the Labour Party, they were elected to implement their version of a soft Brexit. Not any old Brexit. Certainly not no deal.
Let's assume for the moment that the proposed application for interim interdict doesn't succeed. Let's assume that Parliament convenes next week and a VONC is moved and passed. Do Labour support a motion for instant dissolution of Parliament or do we wait 14 days? Surely it has to be instant if we are to have an election before 31st October. Furthermore how does dissolution and the FTPA interact? How can you have a vote of confidence if Parliament isn't sitting? I think that it is at least implied that Parliament is sitting for those 14 days.
If parliament has taken control of the agenda, is it possible for them to first pass a change to the FTPA then a VONC?
I did wonder about this last month. It only takes a simple majority to revoke the FTPA so itbis easier to do that than actually get an election passed. .
But it again comes back to rigging the established rules to favour their own side. This is becoming increasingly normal and is very dangerous.
Hard to see how they retain credibility or dignity if they dont, given those comments.
Both of them have gone up in my estimation. A bit, anyway....... I wonder if my Tory MP will stick his neck out too. After all, he was recently given the order of the boot by Johnson, so he might.
Wild prediction: the VONC will succeed, Boris will fall, there will be an A50 extension under a caretaker government, probably Corbyn. At the ensuing GE Boris will win, but he will be promising... what?
There my clairvoyant skills expire.
Have you checked with @HYUFD to see if you are right?
If there has been an extension then Boris will promise to leave on whatever the new date is (31st Jan?)
Well done to Boris. The behaviour of the MPs trying to suffocate the public into Remain because they lost the referendum meant something drastic was needed to explode the impasse. The refusal to listen to those left behind by those who do well out of the status quo was the entire reason Leave won. They never learn.
Good to see you posting again, Sam. And agree wholeheartedly. The fact that our society could be as heartless as to leave behind Jacob Rees-Mogg is one of our national disgraces.
Let's assume for the moment that the proposed application for interim interdict doesn't succeed. Let's assume that Parliament convenes next week and a VONC is moved and passed. Do Labour support a motion for instant dissolution of Parliament or do we wait 14 days? Surely it has to be instant if we are to have an election before 31st October. Furthermore how does dissolution and the FTPA interact? How can you have a vote of confidence if Parliament isn't sitting? I think that it is at least implied that Parliament is sitting for those 14 days.
If parliament has taken control of the agenda, is it possible for them to first pass a change to the FTPA then a VONC?
I did wonder about this last month. It only takes a simple majority to revoke the FTPA so itbis easier to do that than actually get an election passed. .
I'd supposed the issue was who could propose that change to the FTPA. Wouldn't it be for the Govt. to propose such changes? How does the Opposition bring it about?
The key comments so far seem to me to be the anti-Brexit but anti-Corbyn rebels (not least Grieve) who are starting to switch to backing a VONC instead of pursuing new legislation. If that gathers steam then Johnson could be out by the end of next week, irrespective of what happens then.
BBC's Birmingham vox-pop overwhelmingly in support of Boris's move, feeling that the Brexit debate has gone on long enough, it needs to be sorted and there needs to be certainty.
Somewhat contradicts BBC bedwetting.
BBC Birmingham vox pops having an historic and valued role in our unwritten constitution.
Well done to Boris. The behaviour of the MPs trying to suffocate the public into Remain because they lost the referendum meant something drastic was needed to explode the impasse. The refusal to listen to those left behind by those who do well out of the status quo was the entire reason Leave won. They never learn.
Those MPs were elected by the people in 2017. If Boris doesn't like it he should call an election.
They were elected on the promise of respecting the referendum result
Who was? Not the Lib Dems. Not the SNP. Not the Green Party. Not Plaid Cymru.
If you mean the Labour Party, they were elected to implement their version of a soft Brexit. Not any old Brexit. Certainly not no deal.
Well done to Boris. The behaviour of the MPs trying to suffocate the public into Remain because they lost the referendum meant something drastic was needed to explode the impasse. The refusal to listen to those left behind by those who do well out of the status quo was the entire reason Leave won. They never learn.
Good to see you posting again, Sam. And agree wholeheartedly. The fact that our society could be as heartless as to leave behind Jacob Rees-Mogg is one of our national disgraces.
You earlier said that Boris was right to prorogue parliament as it had thwarted the will of the people over Brexit. Boris said in his interview that it was nothing to do with Brexit, it was to push forward his domestic agenda.
Johnson risks paying a high political price for this without receiving any political benefit because even this kind of gesture doesn't change the substance.
Comments
'Get on with implementing the referendum result.'
The lack of self-awareness of remainers is frankly astounding.
Edit, and Lord Doherty doesn't wear varifocals. You'd be right about the limited patience though.
Remainers have played games for the last 3 years and now it's coming home to roost.
They will own the aftermath.
Lay her at 3.1 if you choose
They are, apparently, fighting tooth and nail against No Deal Brexit.
Which is fair enough. But how does that square with their independence campaign, if they ever get a 2nd referendum?
“Vote YES for an instant No Deal Scottish exit: from the United Kingdom AND the EU!”
That seems quite a hard sell, in the circs
1. Parliament is sovereign. Now that is, whilst still in the EU.
2. No parliament can bind the hands of a successor parliament
3. 2015 parliament enacts a referendum. In our constitution power resides in the Crown in Parliament. Referenda are legally non-binding, may be considered to be politically by choice but in any case see point 2
4. 2017 parliament choses to try and enact the 2016 referendum. Because the election delivered a hung parliament it chooses not to authorise acceptance of the deal, and votes to not allow leaving without a deal
5. "Will of the people" is what was delivered in 2017 at the election. That supercedes all previous votes which is why a defeated government can't refuse to go, pointing to their win at a prior election
Its very very simple. If you want MPs to make a different political choice over Brexit, then elect new ones. The current parliament is legally and constitutionally sovereign to refuse to implement the actions of a previous parliament. That is very explicitly the parliamentary sovereignty that Brexiteers claim they voted for.
So if they didn't vote for sovereignty. And they didn't vote to be better off (because "I'd rather eat grass") then that only leaves racism. They voted to leave to chuck anyone out they don't like. CF Priti "Hang 'Em" Patel's pronouncements on free movement the minute we leave
If Johnson succeeds in proroguing and thus forcing us out on the basis of No Deal, I really can't see that being a lasting settlement. It will surely mean an election very soon after?
"The UK Parliament was prorogued for just under three weeks before being formally dissolved ahead of the 1997 General Election."
according to the HoC Briefing Paper Number 8589
There my clairvoyant skills expire.
I think you'll be lucky there... it's currently going up at about 100k per hour.
Still, once word gets out it might speed up a bit :-)
Regardless of what side of the Brexit argument your on, that surely is a mistake. Possibly a career ending mistake.
https://twitter.com/spajw/status/1166685640781705216?s=21
https://wingsoverscotland.com/coup-versus-coup/
That seems like quite a clever move from Corbyn tbf.
If you mean the Labour Party, they were elected to implement their version of a soft Brexit. Not any old Brexit. Certainly not no deal.
Somewhat contradicts BBC bedwetting.
Which of you is right?