It’s not a marginal gain. Parliament could and likely would have chosen to sit during the conference season. Proroguing takes that out of their hands.
True, but David's point about the FTPA is an interesting one. As it happens I don't think there will be a VoNC next week, but if there was, I wonder if the government being no confidenced could overturn the prorogation (I guess this wasn't considered in the FTPA).
No it wasn't. I think it can be inferred that the presumption was that Parliament would be sitting (the reference to a vote of confidence makes little sense otherwise) but it is not express.
Could MPs have cancelled the summer recess? It seems to me that if that was an option, they were foolish to not do it.
They could have done but remember all those numbingly tedious days where May stood and answered questions for many hours about Brexit. What else was there to say? They have left taking control of the agenda too late and it is questionable whether they ever had the numbers to sustain it.
* A VONC that succeeds without an alternative PM lined up leads directly to the Shambolic Rebels vs Heroic PM election that Johnson wants
If a VONC passes next week without parliament indicating a successor, does the prorogation evaporate while the clock ticks down to the election or can parliament keep sitting for a couple of weeks while it gets its shit together?
Interesting point. If a VONC passes, Parliament is still prorogued, but there is nothing to stop a majority forming around new PM X, or the Queen becoming convinced that X has a majority and should be appointed. However, a prorogued Parliament cannot pass a vote of confidence. Nor is there any obvious way of un-proroguing. I would think that in that situation, X would announce that (s)he was going to defy the FTPA and not call an election, and invite Parliament to endorse that on their return. Alternatively, Parliament could hastily amend the FTPA next week to say "within 10 sitting days" or the like.
It’s not a marginal gain. Parliament could and likely would have chosen to sit during the conference season. Proroguing takes that out of their hands.
True, but David's point about the FTPA is an interesting one. As it happens I don't think there will be a VoNC next week, but if there was, I wonder if the government being no confidenced could overturn the prorogation (I guess this wasn't considered in the FTPA).
No it wasn't. I think it can be inferred that the presumption was that Parliament would be sitting (the reference to a vote of confidence makes little sense otherwise) but it is not express.
Could MPs have cancelled the summer recess? It seems to me that if that was an option, they were foolish to not do it.
They could have done but remember all those numbingly tedious days where May stood and answered questions for many hours about Brexit. What else was there to say? They have left taking control of the agenda too late and it is questionable whether they ever had the numbers to sustain it.
They could have no confidenced the government then and potentially had an election in September.
If the VoNC is intimated on 14th October then Parliament is not dissolved until the 28th or 29th, far too late to do anything about a leave date of the 31st.
The result is that to stop Boris the opposition need to not only pass a VoNC but also have an alternative government in which confidence can be expressed as required by the Act by 9th or 12th September. I wonder if that is going to be possible. It would require some Tory MPs (or the DUP) to vote for Corbyn as PM. I think that is pretty inconceivable but we live in extraordinary times.
Why can't they pass the VONC on October 14th, vote through a humble address or whatever expressing their support for $CARETAKER on October 15th, and have their new guy in place on October 16th?
Except there is a Queen's Speech on the 14th and I believe that overrides even a VONC organised for the next day in Parliament.
Queen's speech as filibuster. The idea that they are setting out a program for government, without a Parliamentary majority, is simply absurd.
I've not been online today due to real life but for those like Cyclefree suggesting if the government breaks conventions then what's to stop their opposition doing so in the future ... doesn't that cut both ways?
The opposition, including sadly the supposedly independent Speaker, have set aside rules and conventions in order to get what they wanted. Why would the government stand still while the opposition tears up the rule book?
In one way I think the origins for today trace back to when serious accusations were getting made against Bercow but Remainers chose to keep him because he would side with them down the track.
Yes - that is a fair point. It is something I have criticised in another thread header: the determination to tear the threads holding our democracy together for short-term gains with no regard for the long-term health of that democracy.
Nonetheless I think the government is more to blame here because ever since simmer 2016 it has done everything it could to avoid scrutiny in Parliament. It has tried to treat Parliament as a mere rubber stamp. Johnson is continuing in the dishonourable tradition established by Mrs May. A government that seeks to avoid scrutiny is a bad thing, no matter whether you agree with their policies or not. And politicians who do not put themselves under scrutiny are usually very bad at scrutinising others.
Two other points: the Speaker is not meant to be neutral. He is meant to defend the rights of Parliament against the executive. That critical point is too often forgotten.
Finally, the reason why MPs did nothing re the accusations against Bercow is because rather too many of them faced similar accusations too. It was mutual back-scratching at its absolute worst.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
If the VoNC is intimated on 14th October then Parliament is not dissolved until the 28th or 29th, far too late to do anything about a leave date of the 31st.
The result is that to stop Boris the opposition need to not only pass a VoNC but also have an alternative government in which confidence can be expressed as required by the Act by 9th or 12th September. I wonder if that is going to be possible. It would require some Tory MPs (or the DUP) to vote for Corbyn as PM. I think that is pretty inconceivable but we live in extraordinary times.
Why can't they pass the VONC on October 14th, vote through a humble address or whatever expressing their support for $CARETAKER on October 15th, and have their new guy in place on October 16th?
Except there is a Queen's Speech on the 14th and I believe that overrides even a VONC organised for the next day in Parliament.
Queen's speech as filibuster. The idea that they are setting out a program for government, without a Parliamentary majority, is simply absurd.
I assume it will be a manifesto for government for the next GE
This has been a really curious move. Parliament is to be prorogued some time between the 9th and 12th of September and to reconvene for the Queens Speech on 14th October. The prorogation is therefore for between 32 and 35 days. Had Parliament merely been adjourned for the Conference season, as usual, it would have been adjourned for a minimum of 21 days, probably 28.
The amount of additional time lost to Parliament is therefore quite small. Why has No. 10 taken all this flak for such a marginal gain? The only answer that makes any sense to me is that it is only a part of a larger strategy which is designed to prevent the Opposition from taking control of Parliament or at least gives that impression.
What I think it is designed to do is to force Corbyn to submit his VoNC on the first day that Parliament is back. If he intimates such a motion on Monday it will be debated on Tuesday, superseding the spending review. If it is passed the 14 days will run to the 17th by which time Parliament is not sitting. The result, in terms of the FTPA is that there would be an election but if that election was fixed for 7th November there would be nothing Parliament could do about it because it would be dissolved.
If the VoNC is intimated on 14th October then Parliament is not dissolved until the 28th or 29th, far too late to do anything about a leave date of the 31st.
The result is that to stop Boris the opposition need to not only pass a VoNC but also have an alternative government in which confidence can be expressed as required by the Act by 9th or 12th September. I wonder if that is going to be possible. It would require some Tory MPs (or the DUP) to vote for Corbyn as PM. I think that is pretty inconceivable but we live in extraordinary times.
It’s not a marginal gain. Parliament could and likely would have chosen to sit during the conference season. Proroguing takes that out of their hands.
Quite. The '...but conference season...' argument is utterly disingenuous.
* A VONC that succeeds without an alternative PM lined up leads directly to the Shambolic Rebels vs Heroic PM election that Johnson wants
If a VONC passes next week without parliament indicating a successor, does the prorogation evaporate while the clock ticks down to the election or can parliament keep sitting for a couple of weeks while it gets its shit together?
Interesting point. If a VONC passes, Parliament is still prorogued, but there is nothing to stop a majority forming around new PM X, or the Queen becoming convinced that X has a majority and should be appointed. However, a prorogued Parliament cannot pass a vote of confidence. Nor is there any obvious way of un-proroguing. I would think that in that situation, X would announce that (s)he was going to defy the FTPA and not call an election, and invite Parliament to endorse that on their return. Alternatively, Parliament could hastily amend the FTPA next week to say "within 10 sitting days" or the like.
I think they need to act before Parliament is prorogued and pass the resolution of confidence then. The new PM on the back of such a motion could then ask the Queen to unprorogue Parliament. If Parliament is not sitting then the terms on which an election is avoided cannot be met.
Listening to Humphrys interviewing Rees Mogg on radio 4 is like listening to a couple of aging pantomime dames on Desert Island Discs. How long will the BBC continue to waste the licence fee on this ridiculous old charlatan?
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you are actually against the monarchy, simply in favour of the current UK Head of State. A monarchy is entierly based the hereditary principle with no consideration of suitability of the role.
I have been a republican all my life but I have grown to admire the queen and only support its demise after she has passed
So if you're Boris and parliament VONC, I guess you advise Her Majesty that no matter what the MPs might say there's no prospect of someone else getting the confidence of the Commons, because it isn't allowed to meet until the election has been triggered...
What can HMG achieve with two years of Henry 8th powers to formulate law by executive dictate to replace the elements of EU law that stop their friends and backers making even more money.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
Listening to Humphrys interviewing Rees Mogg on radio 4 is like listening to a couple of aging pantomime dames on Desert Island Discs. How long will the BBC continue to waste the licence fee on this ridiculous old charlatan?
If the VoNC is intimated on 14th October then Parliament is not dissolved until the 28th or 29th, far too late to do anything about a leave date of the 31st.
The result is that to stop Boris the opposition need to not only pass a VoNC but also have an alternative government in which confidence can be expressed as required by the Act by 9th or 12th September. I wonder if that is going to be possible. It would require some Tory MPs (or the DUP) to vote for Corbyn as PM. I think that is pretty inconceivable but we live in extraordinary times.
Why can't they pass the VONC on October 14th, vote through a humble address or whatever expressing their support for $CARETAKER on October 15th, and have their new guy in place on October 16th?
Except there is a Queen's Speech on the 14th and I believe that overrides even a VONC organised for the next day in Parliament.
Queen's speech as filibuster. The idea that they are setting out a program for government, without a Parliamentary majority, is simply absurd.
I assume it will be a manifesto for government for the next GE
So the monarch is going to be used both to filibuster and present the next Tory manifesto.
HYUFD, you posted in reply to me last night after I had gone to bed. You pointed out accurately that if Hitler has attacked Russia in April rather than July he may have succeeded. I don't dispute that (I don't have the knowledge one way or another to do so anyway). You could have also argued that the indecision over whether to prioritise resources like oil fields or Moscow, or the delay at Kiev were key as well.
But none of that is the point is it? I pointed out that Blitzkrieg failed in Russia. German planned to take Moscow in 2 months. If Blitzkrieg had worked the Russian winter would have been irrelevant. So it failed simple.
The reasons for the failure are irrelevant although there is plenty of stuff out there to explain why.
The point is that because of Russian tactics Blitzkrieg failed and it is that that caused the Germans to be bogged down in the mud of Autumn and snow of winter.
It failed. That is what I said and all I said and it did. As do historians, which is where I get my 'facts' from.
It is bizarre that you argue this. Just type it into to Google and you get article after article.
Similarly the issue over Germany declaring war on USA. You said they had to because of the pact with Japan. Lots of us on here pointed out that was not true. You then gave reasons why Hitler did it. Obviously he had reasons (rational or irrational). The only point we were making is your statement was factually wrong, which is so easy to check. He was not bound by the pact to do so.
Go on admit you made a mistake. Once you have done it once it is easy.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
Mr. kjh, I've read the suggestion that the reason Hitler failed to take Russia/Moscow was because (unlike when invading France) he didn't listen to Guderian's advice on tank tactics.
Hitler made some militarily ropey decisions, for which we must be thankful. Halting the pursuit of Allied forces heading for Dunkirk was pretty damned helpful.
This has been a really curious move. Parliament is to be prorogued some time between the 9th and 12th of September and to reconvene for the Queens Speech on 14th October. The prorogation is therefore for between 32 and 35 days. Had Parliament merely been adjourned for the Conference season, as usual, it would have been adjourned for a minimum of 21 days, probably 28.
The amount of additional time lost to Parliament is therefore quite small. Why has No. 10 taken all this flak for such a marginal gain? The only answer that makes any sense to me is that it is only a part of a larger strategy which is designed to prevent the Opposition from taking control of Parliament or at least gives that impression.
What I think it is designed to do is to force Corbyn to submit his VoNC on the first day that Parliament is back. If he intimates such a motion on Monday it will be debated on Tuesday, superseding the spending review. If it is passed the 14 days will run to the 17th by which time Parliament is not sitting. The result, in terms of the FTPA is that there would be an election but if that election was fixed for 7th November there would be nothing Parliament could do about it because it would be dissolved.
If the VoNC is intimated on 14th October then Parliament is not dissolved until the 28th or 29th, far too late to do anything about a leave date of the 31st.
The result is that to stop Boris the opposition need to not only pass a VoNC but also have an alternative government in which confidence can be expressed as required by the Act by 9th or 12th September. I wonder if that is going to be possible. It would require some Tory MPs (or the DUP) to vote for Corbyn as PM. I think that is pretty inconceivable but we live in extraordinary times.
It’s not a marginal gain. Parliament could and likely would have chosen to sit during the conference season. Proroguing takes that out of their hands.
To do what? If they can't pass their bill requiring the Government to seek a further extension next week you have to wonder if they can pass it at all.
The question is not what would they do, but why is the government stopping them thinking about what they might do. And the answer is very ugly indeed.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
THE UK has finally concluded that the monarchy is as useful in a crisis as an upside-down urinal, it has emerged.
Conditioned by decades of fond sycophancy, many of the British public believed that when the sh*t really went down she would make a benevolent intervention for the common good.
Tom Logan of Carlisle said: “I’m Labour, but I’ve always maintained that a constitutional monarch is a valuable safeguard on the democratic process. Except it isn’t and it’s b*llocks.
“She always seemed so nice in her Christmas speeches, concerned for the benefit of her people, home and abroad, but it seems I was simply watching them through a warm drunken haze.
“So it’s a kick in the teeth to realise she’ll wave through any 1933 Nazi chicanery as long as it doesn’t disturb the grouse shoot. Posh cow.”
Nikki Hollis, aged 32, agreed, “I suppose it’s a bit like when you read human qualities into animals. You look at the Royals and imagine they’re human beings with human feelings like the rest of us.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
That's it then. Remainers have conceded that it's all over?
The knowledge that we have a population of 52% morons means there is nothing worth saving anyway. Not that everyone will see it like that. If anyone thinks leaving the EU like this is a victory then they deserve the spoils and I'm sure they'll get them.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
You cannot say that, but with an elected president and a proper constitution* it would be much clearer what the role and powers of the President are.
The main difference between a president and the current UK monarchy system is that yesterday the Queen automatically caried out the wish of the Prime Minister. To do anything else would really would have been a constituional crisis. A president, however, would be obliged to make the "best decision" with in the scope of the current convention/constitution (delete as appropriate).
*A good joke to tell when travelling is "the UK has a constitution, an unwritten one." Guaranteeed to get a good laugh.
* A VONC that succeeds without an alternative PM lined up leads directly to the Shambolic Rebels vs Heroic PM election that Johnson wants
If a VONC passes next week without parliament indicating a successor, does the prorogation evaporate while the clock ticks down to the election or can parliament keep sitting for a couple of weeks while it gets its shit together?
Interesting point. If a VONC passes, Parliament is still prorogued, but there is nothing to stop a majority forming around new PM X, or the Queen becoming convinced that X has a majority and should be appointed. However, a prorogued Parliament cannot pass a vote of confidence. Nor is there any obvious way of un-proroguing. I would think that in that situation, X would announce that (s)he was going to defy the FTPA and not call an election, and invite Parliament to endorse that on their return. Alternatively, Parliament could hastily amend the FTPA next week to say "within 10 sitting days" or the like.
I think they need to act before Parliament is prorogued and pass the resolution of confidence then. The new PM on the back of such a motion could then ask the Queen to unprorogue Parliament. If Parliament is not sitting then the terms on which an election is avoided cannot be met.
The FTPA is a badly drafted act. A court could easily decide that it is necessary to read '14 days' as '14 days during which the house is sitting' as it would be the only way of permitting the act's powers to be exercised. Note how a court (European) decided that Art 50 could be revoked even though there are no words at all to indicate this possibility, and indeed the Miller case proceeded on the basis that it could not, up to and including our Supreme Court.
Johnson has spent his entire political career avoiding scrutiny. Closing down Parliament is just the latest example of the lengths he’ll go to to avoid it. And he’ll keep on doing it. He does not believe that he should be held to account. This is the one principle he has.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
This has been a really curious move. Parliament is to be prorogued some time between the 9th and 12th of September and to reconvene for the Queens Speech on 14th October. The prorogation is therefore for between 32 and 35 days. Had Parliament merely been adjourned for the Conference season, as usual, it would have been adjourned for a minimum of 21 days, probably 28.
The amount of additional time lost to Parliament is therefore quite small. Why has No. 10 taken all this flak for such a marginal gain? The only answer that makes any sense to me is that it is only a part of a larger strategy which is designed to prevent the Opposition from taking control of Parliament or at least gives that impression.
What I think it is designed to do is to force Corbyn to submit his VoNC on the first day that Parliament is back. If he intimates such a motion on Monday it will be debated on Tuesday, superseding the spending review. If it is passed the 14 days will run to the 17th by which time Parliament is not sitting. The result, in terms of the FTPA is that there would be an election but if that election was fixed for 7th November there would be nothing Parliament could do about it because it would be dissolved.
If the VoNC is intimated on 14th October then Parliament is not dissolved until the 28th or 29th, far too late to do anything about a leave date of the 31st.
The result is that to stop Boris the opposition need to not only pass a VoNC but also have an alternative government in which confidence can be expressed as required by the Act by 9th or 12th September. I wonder if that is going to be possible. It would require some Tory MPs (or the DUP) to vote for Corbyn as PM. I think that is pretty inconceivable but we live in extraordinary times.
It’s not a marginal gain. Parliament could and likely would have chosen to sit during the conference season. Proroguing takes that out of their hands.
To do what? If they can't pass their bill requiring the Government to seek a further extension next week you have to wonder if they can pass it at all.
The question is not what would they do, but why is the government stopping them thinking about what they might do. And the answer is very ugly indeed.
Those opposed to the government's means of getting a deal have next week to unite behind a coherent and non-negative policy, as Ken Clarke was mentioning this morning. Their failure to do so up to now is significant.
Listening to Humphrys interviewing Rees Mogg on radio 4 is like listening to a couple of aging pantomime dames on Desert Island Discs. How long will the BBC continue to waste the licence fee on this ridiculous old charlatan?
End the license fee. End the license fee.
Absolutely not. The BBC is the UK's greatest institution (now that Parliament is a busted flush). Just give it a little more money.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
THE UK has finally concluded that the monarchy is as useful in a crisis as an upside-down urinal, it has emerged.
Conditioned by decades of fond sycophancy, many of the British public believed that when the sh*t really went down she would make a benevolent intervention for the common good.
Tom Logan of Carlisle said: “I’m Labour, but I’ve always maintained that a constitutional monarch is a valuable safeguard on the democratic process. Except it isn’t and it’s b*llocks.
“She always seemed so nice in her Christmas speeches, concerned for the benefit of her people, home and abroad, but it seems I was simply watching them through a warm drunken haze.
“So it’s a kick in the teeth to realise she’ll wave through any 1933 Nazi chicanery as long as it doesn’t disturb the grouse shoot. Posh cow.”
Nikki Hollis, aged 32, agreed, “I suppose it’s a bit like when you read human qualities into animals. You look at the Royals and imagine they’re human beings with human feelings like the rest of us.
I don’t get why people criticise the monarchy for being paid x amount to do what they do, as if it’s a cushty little number. They don’t have any choice. I wouldn’t swap places with any of them no matter what the pay/workload, they’ve been born into a hellish existence as far as I can see, personally I feel sorry for them.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
No one cares what you think, Big G. It's the way the monarchy works.
THE UK has finally concluded that the monarchy is as useful in a crisis as an upside-down urinal, it has emerged.
Conditioned by decades of fond sycophancy, many of the British public believed that when the sh*t really went down she would make a benevolent intervention for the common good.
Tom Logan of Carlisle said: “I’m Labour, but I’ve always maintained that a constitutional monarch is a valuable safeguard on the democratic process. Except it isn’t and it’s b*llocks.
“She always seemed so nice in her Christmas speeches, concerned for the benefit of her people, home and abroad, but it seems I was simply watching them through a warm drunken haze.
“So it’s a kick in the teeth to realise she’ll wave through any 1933 Nazi chicanery as long as it doesn’t disturb the grouse shoot. Posh cow.”
Nikki Hollis, aged 32, agreed, “I suppose it’s a bit like when you read human qualities into animals. You look at the Royals and imagine they’re human beings with human feelings like the rest of us.
Mr. Eagles, people viewing HM in a partisan way, for or against, are wrong and don't understand how our constitutional arrangements operate.
We don't have a political, interventionist head of state. This is not news.
As for 'fellow Brexiteers': I'm not responsible for what individual MPs say or think, any more than you're responsible for the doings of your 'fellow Remainers' such as Gerry Adams.
THE UK has finally concluded that the monarchy is as useful in a crisis as an upside-down urinal, it has emerged.
Conditioned by decades of fond sycophancy, many of the British public believed that when the sh*t really went down she would make a benevolent intervention for the common good.
Tom Logan of Carlisle said: “I’m Labour, but I’ve always maintained that a constitutional monarch is a valuable safeguard on the democratic process. Except it isn’t and it’s b*llocks.
“She always seemed so nice in her Christmas speeches, concerned for the benefit of her people, home and abroad, but it seems I was simply watching them through a warm drunken haze.
“So it’s a kick in the teeth to realise she’ll wave through any 1933 Nazi chicanery as long as it doesn’t disturb the grouse shoot. Posh cow.”
Nikki Hollis, aged 32, agreed, “I suppose it’s a bit like when you read human qualities into animals. You look at the Royals and imagine they’re human beings with human feelings like the rest of us.
I don’t get why people criticise the monarchy for being paid x amount to do what they do, as if it’s a cushty little number. I wouldn’t swap places with any of them no matter what the pay/workload, they’ve been born into a hellish existence as far as I can see, personally I feel sorry for them.
I think the hanger -oners are in the best place. Get to go to functions, but don't have to do too much of the duty stuff. The one that married Big Suze from Peep Show has done very well.
Personally I struggle to accept the cries of “constitutional outrage” from MPs that they are being restricted in the time they are having to debate and shape/prevent Brexit before Oct 31st, given that they have expressed no equivalent outrage that they have recently failed to “debate” Brexit over a lengthy Summer holiday, were expected to fail to “debate” Brexit over the coming 3 week period for party conferences, and have so far spent 3 years failing to show any evidence that “debating” has got us any closer to satisfactory Brexit outcomes anyway.
And am also quite relieved that the prospect of Johnson failing to get any changes from Brussels and subsequently proroguing Parliament over the period of October 31st to ensure no deal Brexit has now been ruled out.
It’s not
An analogy: Remainers in Parliament are like a toddler who came up with a cunning plan to creep downstairs in the middle of the night to eat all the cookies
At midnight they get downstairs to find their big brother has got there before them and there’s barely a crumb left
Their resection isn’t to reflect on the rights and wrongs of what they were planning. It’s to scream that they didn’t get any cookies
And lo! It came to pass.
And when we are living through the reality of No Deal, all voters will remember is that the PM said it would be easily manageable and that he closed down the Parliament the people elected to ensure that it all happened.
It has just got to be a deal. Even Boris isn't that mad as to if nothing else give his political opponents a golden attack line for all time.
Johnson has spent his entire political career avoiding scrutiny. Closing down Parliament is just the latest example of the lengths he’ll go to to avoid it. And he’ll keep on doing it. He does not believe that he should be held to account. This is the one principle he has.
If parliament wishes to it can require him to vacate office by a week today. The only requirements are a VONC, and a VOC in a new majority government and leader (temporary if needed). If he resists that I'll be on the streets too. But the general idea that the PM can avoid scrutiny when he is answerable to and sackable by parliament is excitable nonsense.
Mr. kjh, I've read the suggestion that the reason Hitler failed to take Russia/Moscow was because (unlike when invading France) he didn't listen to Guderian's advice on tank tactics.
Hitler made some militarily ropey decisions, for which we must be thankful. Halting the pursuit of Allied forces heading for Dunkirk was pretty damned helpful.
To be honest MD I am on pretty ropey ground here myself re detail. I am no historian. Just frustrated at HYUFD's inability to just say whoops, yep I got that wrong and to keep justifying inaccuracies by going off on slight tangents to justify an error.
Eg if they invaded in April it would have been ok. Well maybe but it wouldn't have been Blitzkrieg then would it?
Mr. Eagles, people viewing HM in a partisan way, for or against, are wrong and don't understand how our constitutional arrangements operate.
We don't have a political, interventionist head of state. This is not news.
As for 'fellow Brexiteers': I'm not responsible for what individual MPs say or think, any more than you're responsible for the doings of your 'fellow Remainers' such as Gerry Adams.
You’ve told me you’re voting for Andrea Jenkyns next time, ergo she’s your fellow Brexiteer.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you are actually against the monarchy, simply in favour of the current UK Head of State. A monarchy is entierly based the hereditary principle with no consideration of suitability of the role.
I have been a republican all my life but I have grown to admire the queen and only support its demise after she has passed
OK. That's not too far away from my opinion, which is there are far more important constituional issues higher up the list than republic vs monarchy. The top of the list being getting a proper constitution.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
No one cares what you think, Big G. It's the way the monarchy works.
I really do not mind who cares, it is just the monarchy is an anachronism that needs to go
Personally I struggle to accept the cries of “constitutional outrage” from MPs that they are being restricted in the time they are having to debate and shape/prevent Brexit before Oct 31st, given that they have expressed no equivalent outrage that they have recently failed to “debate” Brexit over a lengthy Summer holiday, were expected to fail to “debate” Brexit over the coming 3 week period for party conferences, and have so far spent 3 years failing to show any evidence that “debating” has got us any closer to satisfactory Brexit outcomes anyway.
And am also quite relieved that the prospect of Johnson failing to get any changes from Brussels and subsequently proroguing Parliament over the period of October 31st to ensure no deal Brexit has now been ruled out.
It’s not
An analogy: Remainers in Parliament are like a toddler who came up with a cunning plan to creep downstairs in the middle of the night to eat all the cookies
At midnight they get downstairs to find their big brother has got there before them and there’s barely a crumb left
Their resection isn’t to reflect on the rights and wrongs of what they were planning. It’s to scream that they didn’t get any cookies
And lo! It came to pass.
And when we are living through the reality of No Deal, all voters will remember is that the PM said it would be easily manageable and that he closed down the Parliament the people elected to ensure that it all happened.
It has just got to be a deal. Even Boris isn't that mad as to if nothing else give his political opponents a golden attack line for all time.
Parliament will never vote for a deal unless the other option is no deal. They wanted to make it Mays Deal vs Remain, and nearly succeeded. Hopefully Boris’ action has shook them up.
Personally I struggle to accept the cries of “constitutional outrage” from MPs that they are being restricted in the time they are having to debate and shape/prevent Brexit before Oct 31st, given that they have expressed no equivalent outrage that they have recently failed to “debate” Brexit over a lengthy Summer holiday, were expected to fail to “debate” Brexit over the coming 3 week period for party conferences, and have so far spent 3 years failing to show any evidence that “debating” has got us any closer to satisfactory Brexit outcomes anyway.
And am also quite relieved that the prospect of Johnson failing to get any changes from Brussels and subsequently proroguing Parliament over the period of October 31st to ensure no deal Brexit has now been ruled out.
It’s not
An analogy: Remainers in Parliament are like a toddler who came up with a cunning plan to creep downstairs in the middle of the night to eat all the cookies
At midnight they get downstairs to find their big brother has got there before them and there’s barely a crumb left
Their resection isn’t to reflect on the rights and wrongs of what they were planning. It’s to scream that they didn’t get any cookies
And lo! It came to pass.
And when we are living through the reality of No Deal, all voters will remember is that the PM said it would be easily manageable and that he closed down the Parliament the people elected to ensure that it all happened.
It has just got to be a deal. Even Boris isn't that mad as to if nothing else give his political opponents a golden attack line for all time.
Government policy is to have a deal, with no deal as last resort bargaining chip. JRM stated the policy again on Today this morning.
Personally I struggle to accept the cries of “constitutional outrage” from MPs that they are being restricted in the time they are having to debate and shape/prevent Brexit before Oct 31st, given that they have expressed no equivalent outrage that they have recently failed to “debate” Brexit over a lengthy Summer holiday, were expected to fail to “debate” Brexit over the coming 3 week period for party conferences, and have so far spent 3 years failing to show any evidence that “debating” has got us any closer to satisfactory Brexit outcomes anyway.
And am also quite relieved that the prospect of Johnson failing to get any changes from Brussels and subsequently proroguing Parliament over the period of October 31st to ensure no deal Brexit has now been ruled out.
It’s not
An analogy: Remainers in Parliament are like a toddler who came up with a cunning plan to creep downstairs in the middle of the night to eat all the cookies
At midnight they get downstairs to find their big brother has got there before them and there’s barely a crumb left
Their resection isn’t to reflect on the rights and wrongs of what they were planning. It’s to scream that they didn’t get any cookies
And lo! It came to pass.
And when we are living through the reality of No Deal, all voters will remember is that the PM said it would be easily manageable and that he closed down the Parliament the people elected to ensure that it all happened.
It has just got to be a deal. Even Boris isn't that mad as to if nothing else give his political opponents a golden attack line for all time.
What is this deal of which you speak. With backstop or with unicorn?
I have writtent to my MP Simon Hoare for the first time to express my outrage about the proroguement, appreciating it will make no difference but still...
Turns out he's already acting on my request and doing all he can to argue against proroguation and No Deal. This is a middle-of-the-road, always-tow-the-party-line MP until now.
For those saying “no legislation in immediate pipeline “ they are wrong: the NI Budget, NI Governance arrangements and justice for the survivors of historic abuse all need primary legislation. Prorogation slams the brakes on all of this https://t.co/lztl6hnZmT
Personally I struggle to accept the cries of “constitutional outrage” from MPs that they are being restricted in the time they are having to debate and shape/prevent Brexit before Oct 31st, given that they have expressed no equivalent outrage that they have recently failed to “debate” Brexit over a lengthy Summer holiday, were expected to fail to “debate” Brexit over the coming 3 week period for party conferences, and have so far spent 3 years failing to show any evidence that “debating” has got us any closer to satisfactory Brexit outcomes anyway.
And am also quite relieved that the prospect of Johnson failing to get any changes from Brussels and subsequently proroguing Parliament over the period of October 31st to ensure no deal Brexit has now been ruled out.
It’s not
An analogy: Remainers in Parliament are like a toddler who came up with a cunning plan to creep downstairs in the middle of the night to eat all the cookies
At midnight they get downstairs to find their big brother has got there before them and there’s barely a crumb left
Their resection isn’t to reflect on the rights and wrongs of what they were planning. It’s to scream that they didn’t get any cookies
And lo! It came to pass.
And when we are living through the reality of No Deal, all voters will remember is that the PM said it would be easily manageable and that he closed down the Parliament the people elected to ensure that it all happened.
It has just got to be a deal. Even Boris isn't that mad as to if nothing else give his political opponents a golden attack line for all time.
Parliament will never vote for a deal unless the other option is no deal. They wanted to make it Mays Deal vs Remain, and nearly succeeded. Hopefully Boris’ action has shook them up.
True. And BTW if the government were tactically running down the clock, they are only playing the same delay game as remainers.
Personally I struggle to accept the cries of “constitutional outrage” from MPs that they are being restricted in the time they are having to debate and shape/prevent Brexit before Oct 31st, given that they have expressed no equivalent outrage that they have recently failed to “debate” Brexit over a lengthy Summer holiday, were expected to fail to “debate” Brexit over the coming 3 week period for party conferences, and have so far spent 3 years failing to show any evidence that “debating” has got us any closer to satisfactory Brexit outcomes anyway.
And am also quite relieved that the prospect of Johnson failing to get any changes from Brussels and subsequently proroguing Parliament over the period of October 31st to ensure no deal Brexit has now been ruled out.
It’s not
An analogy: Remainers in Parliament are like a toddler who came up with a cunning plan to creep downstairs in the middle of the night to eat all the cookies
At midnight they get downstairs to find their big brother has got there before them and there’s barely a crumb left
Their resection isn’t to reflect on the rights and wrongs of what they were planning. It’s to scream that they didn’t get any cookies
And lo! It came to pass.
And when we are living through the reality of No Deal, all voters will remember is that the PM said it would be easily manageable and that he closed down the Parliament the people elected to ensure that it all happened.
It has just got to be a deal. Even Boris isn't that mad as to if nothing else give his political opponents a golden attack line for all time.
This has been a really curious move. Parliament is to be prorogued some time between the 9th and 12th of September and to reconvene for the Queens Speech on 14th October. The prorogation is therefore for between 32 and 35 days. Had Parliament merely been adjourned for the Conference season, as usual, it would have been adjourned for a minimum of 21 days, probably 28.
The amount of additional time lost to Parliament is therefore quite small. Why has No. 10 taken all this flak for such a marginal gain? The only answer that makes any sense to me is that it is only a part of a larger strategy which is designed to prevent the Opposition from taking control of Parliament or at least gives that impression.
What I think it is designed to do is to force Corbyn to submit his VoNC on the first day that Parliament is back. If he intimates such a motion on Monday it will be debated on Tuesday, superseding the spending review. If it is passed the 14 days will run to the 17th by which time Parliament is not sitting. The result, in terms of the FTPA is that there would be an election but if that election was fixed for 7th November there would be nothing Parliament could do about it because it would be dissolved.
If the VoNC is intimated on 14th October then Parliament is not dissolved until the 28th or 29th, far too late to do anything about a leave date of the 31st.
The result is that to stop Boris the opposition need to not only pass a VoNC but also have an alternative government in which confidence can be expressed as required by the Act by 9th or 12th September. I wonder if that is going to be possible. It would require some Tory MPs (or the DUP) to vote for Corbyn as PM. I think that is pretty inconceivable but we live in extraordinary times.
Yes. It also forces the opposition to react sooner than they hoped and just as they were showing tentative signs of getting organised
Mr. Eagles, assuming it's still Corbyn leading the Labour Party, then I'll be voting to try and prevent the far left taking power. I'd vote Lib Dem if this were a yellow-red marginal.
That does not mean I'm responsible for every utterance of Andrea Jenkyns, whether I agree with it or not.
If Corbyn isn't still leading Labour, and they're led by someone vaguely sane, I'll be weighing up whether to vote Labour (or another party). Depends how things have developed, of course.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
No one cares what you think, Big G. It's the way the monarchy works.
I really do not mind who cares, it is just the monarchy is an anachronism that needs to go
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you are actually against the monarchy, simply in favour of the current UK Head of State. A monarchy is entierly based the hereditary principle with no consideration of suitability of the role.
I have been a republican all my life but I have grown to admire the queen and only support its demise after she has passed
OK. That's not too far away from my opinion, which is there are far more important constituional issues higher up the list than republic vs monarchy. The top of the list being getting a proper constitution.
Not even Corbyn planned to get rid of the monarchy. It is safe for this and the next three generations, (deo volente).
Anyone know why I can no longer simply copy a tweet from twitter? All I get is an option to embed tweet, which is a blockquote embed and not really the same thing.
He’s just doing his job, pointing out crap administration by the Home Office
Not everything needs to be an opportunity to try and score political points
Um. I think the fact EU citizens are denied residence in the country they have made their home - now rather than before - has a lot to do with a Leave EU referendum substantially predicated on less immigration from Europe
Then you are wrong
It was greater control over *future* immigration from the EU
There was a clear promise to protect rights of settled citizens, as is right. (By the way very few European countries - I saw Portugal and I think Belgium - have reciprocated the U.K.’s unilateral offer in the event of No Deal).
So if they are being denied this there are only four possibilities: (1) they don’t have the right they claim; (2) they don’t have the evidence to support their claim; (3) the Home Office is incompetent; and (4) the Home Office is wilfully ignoring the rules in pursuit of its own agenda
The most likely reasons are a combination of 2 and 3.
38% of Scots voted to Leave the EU, more even the 28% who voted Tory in 2017. Not one poll has the SNP polling over 50%, the biggest gainers since 2017 in Scotland have been the LDs and the Brexit Party NOT the SNP
An hour ago you told me that it was untrue that the front pages in Scotland a dream for the SNP. I await your apology expectantly. Or have you now given up on any kind of pretence that the truth matters?
They aren't, as I said the Daily Record is a pro Labour, anti Tory paper and prefers the SNP to the Tories and all the Scottish only papers are pro Remain despite 38% of Scots voting Leave
In what way are these headlines not a dream for the SNP? They are a direct assault on the idea of the union, illustrated by the poster child of unionism.
They are a direct assault on the union by diehard Remainers who dream of breaking up the Union as punishment for the Leave vote, what is new?
Yet still the SNP is polling below the 50% it got in 2015 BEFORE the Brexit vote
Funny how when it comes to Brexit HY always adds Brexit Party and UKIP to the Con vote, but when it comes to Scottish sovereignty, HY pretends that the SNP stand alone. We don’t. We have the Greens, various small left-wing groups, 40% of SLab voters and a small, but significant, number of SCon and SLD voters behind us.
Remember, support for independence was at 28% before the last referendum, and ended up at 45%. So, we are quite happy to be going into the next referendum starting at 50%.
The idea that Scotland is going to vote for independence after the shitshow of the last three years (which the breakup of the UK would make look like a cakewalk) is for the birds.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
No one cares what you think, Big G. It's the way the monarchy works.
I really do not mind who cares, it is just the monarchy is an anachronism that needs to go
I am interested in what you think Big_G - and surprised in this instance - good on you!
He’s just doing his job, pointing out crap administration by the Home Office
Not everything needs to be an opportunity to try and score political points
She could call a meeting of the privy council consisting of three arch tories who can advise her that she shouldn’t sign it. You have to laugh that people actually believed they were going to have a real meeting of the privy council which would take a day or two to organize whilst The Privy council flew up and told her maj what to do. And we complain about undemocratic countries.
Funny how an arch-Leaver who is otherwise fully subscribed to the death cult turns soft when his own family might be personally affected.
The serious point is that people projected all sorts of wishes onto Brexit that was deliberately kept a blank canvas so the Leave vote would win. In fact, the opposite of these projections will happen due to the grinding crappiness of a failed project.
Human nature kicks at this point. Almost none of these people have the awareness to think, I got that wrong. Instead they blame others for not doing what was only implied and never planned for.
I have no sympathy for Fraser Nelson. None. He’s supposed to be an opinion-former. Instead he runs a supermarket tabloid for golf club bores and is shocked to find out that the audience he panders to will throw him aside the moment it suits them.
The Spectator isn't that bad actually.
But, it has been trumpeting Boris's praises since Day One. I assume that's because he used to edit the magazine and is still held in affection there.
Listening to Humphrys interviewing Rees Mogg on radio 4 is like listening to a couple of aging pantomime dames on Desert Island Discs. How long will the BBC continue to waste the licence fee on this ridiculous old charlatan?
End the license fee. End the license fee.
Absolutely not. The BBC is the UK's greatest institution (now that Parliament is a busted flush). Just give it a little more money.
It's like so many things, living with the BBC is hard, living without it would be intolerable.
Personally I struggle to accept the cries of “constitutional outrage” from MPs that they are being restricted in the time they are having to debate and shape/prevent Brexit before Oct 31st, given that they have expressed no equivalent outrage that they have recently failed to “debate” Brexit over a lengthy Summer holiday, were expected to fail to “debate” Brexit over the coming 3 week period for party conferences, and have so far spent 3 years failing to show any evidence that “debating” has got us any closer to satisfactory Brexit outcomes anyway.
And am also quite relieved that the prospect of Johnson failing to get any changes from Brussels and subsequently proroguing Parliament over the period of October 31st to ensure no deal Brexit has now been ruled out.
It’s not
An analogy: Remainers in Parliament are like a toddler who came up with a cunning plan to creep downstairs in the middle of the night to eat all the cookies
At midnight they get downstairs to find their big brother has got there before them and there’s barely a crumb left
Their resection isn’t to reflect on the rights and wrongs of what they were planning. It’s to scream that they didn’t get any cookies
And lo! It came to pass.
And when we are living through the reality of No Deal, all voters will remember is that the PM said it would be easily manageable and that he closed down the Parliament the people elected to ensure that it all happened.
It has just got to be a deal. Even Boris isn't that mad as to if nothing else give his political opponents a golden attack line for all time.
There is no deal that Johnson can get from the EU that can keep the Conservative party together and prevent Nigel Farage from screaming betrayal. Having decided to close down Parliament, he has also burned all bridges with the anti-No Deal electorate. No Deal is his only way forward.
This has been a really curious move. Parliament is to be prorogued some time between the 9th and 12th of September and to reconvene for the Queens Speech on 14th October. The prorogation is therefore for between 32 and 35 days. Had Parliament merely been adjourned for the Conference season, as usual, it would have been adjourned for a minimum of 21 days, probably 28.
The amount of additional time lost to Parliament is therefore quite small. Why has No. 10 taken all this flak for such a marginal gain? The only answer that makes any sense to me is that it is only a part of a larger strategy which is designed to prevent the Opposition from taking control of Parliament or at least gives that impression.
What I think it is designed to do is to force Corbyn to submit his VoNC on the first day that Parliament is back. If he intimates such a motion on Monday it will be debated on Tuesday, superseding the spending review. If it is passed the 14 days will run to the 17th by which time Parliament is not sitting. The result, in terms of the FTPA is that there would be an election but if that election was fixed for 7th November there would be nothing Parliament could do about it because it would be dissolved.
If the VoNC is intimated on 14th October then Parliament is not dissolved until the 28th or 29th, far too late to do anything about a leave date of the 31st.
The result is that to stop Boris the opposition need to not only pass a VoNC but also have an alternative government in which confidence can be expressed as required by the Act by 9th or 12th September. I wonder if that is going to be possible. It would require some Tory MPs (or the DUP) to vote for Corbyn as PM. I think that is pretty inconceivable but we live in extraordinary times.
Yes. It also forces the opposition to react sooner than they hoped and just as they were showing tentative signs of getting organised
It depends whether they take to the streets. It wouldn't surprise me at all. September/October is always a good time for insurrection. But it's an ill wind that blows nobody any good. The model makers at Pinewood will be doing a roaring trade in Johnson/Cummings effigies
He’s just doing his job, pointing out crap administration by the Home Office
Not everything needs to be an opportunity to try and score political points
She could call a meeting of the privy council consisting of three arch tories who can advise her that she shouldn’t sign it. You have to laugh that people actually believed they were going to have a real meeting of the privy council which would take a day or two to organize whilst The Privy council flew up and told her maj what to do. And we complain about undemocratic countries.
Replied to the wrong person?
Yes it was a reply about the queen not giving royal assent!
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
No one cares what you think, Big G. It's the way the monarchy works.
I really do not mind who cares, it is just the monarchy is an anachronism that needs to go
I suggest you have been a member of the wrong party for the last x years if you really hold that belief.
Personally I struggle to accept the cries of “constitutional outrage” from MPs that they are being restricted in the time they are having to debate and shape/prevent Brexit before Oct 31st, given that they have expressed no equivalent outrage that they have recently failed to “debate” Brexit over a lengthy Summer holiday, were expected to fail to “debate” Brexit over the coming 3 week period for party conferences, and have so far spent 3 years failing to show any evidence that “debating” has got us any closer to satisfactory Brexit outcomes anyway.
And am also quite relieved that the prospect of Johnson failing to get any changes from Brussels and subsequently proroguing Parliament over the period of October 31st to ensure no deal Brexit has now been ruled out.
It’s not
An analogy: Remainers in Parliament are like a toddler who came up with a cunning plan to creep downstairs in the middle of the night to eat all the cookies
At midnight they get downstairs to find their big brother has got there before them and there’s barely a crumb left
Their resection isn’t to reflect on the rights and wrongs of what they were planning. It’s to scream that they didn’t get any cookies
And lo! It came to pass.
And when we are living through the reality of No Deal, all voters will remember is that the PM said it would be easily manageable and that he closed down the Parliament the people elected to ensure that it all happened.
It has just got to be a deal. Even Boris isn't that mad as to if nothing else give his political opponents a golden attack line for all time.
Parliament will never vote for a deal unless the other option is no deal. They wanted to make it Mays Deal vs Remain, and nearly succeeded. Hopefully Boris’ action has shook them up.
38% of Scots voted to Leave the EU, more even the 28% who voted Tory in 2017. Not one poll has the SNP polling over 50%, the biggest gainers since 2017 in Scotland have been the LDs and the Brexit Party NOT the SNP
An hour ago you told me that it was untrue that the front pages in Scotland a dream for the SNP. I await your apology expectantly. Or have you now given up on any kind of pretence that the truth matters?
They aren't, as I said the Daily Record is a pro Labour, anti Tory paper and prefers the SNP to the Tories and all the Scottish only papers are pro Remain despite 38% of Scots voting Leave
In what way are these headlines not a dream for the SNP? They are a direct assault on the idea of the union, illustrated by the poster child of unionism.
They are a direct assault on the union by diehard Remainers who dream of breaking up the Union as punishment for the Leave vote, what is new?
Yet still the SNP is polling below the 50% it got in 2015 BEFORE the Brexit vote
Funny how when it comes to Brexit HY always adds Brexit Party and UKIP to the Con vote, but when it comes to Scottish sovereignty, HY pretends that the SNP stand alone. We don’t. We have the Greens, various small left-wing groups, 40% of SLab voters and a small, but significant, number of SCon and SLD voters behind us.
Remember, support for independence was at 28% before the last referendum, and ended up at 45%. So, we are quite happy to be going into the next referendum starting at 50%.
The idea that Scotland is going to vote for independence after the shitshow of the last three years (which the breakup of the UK would make look like a cakewalk) is for the birds.
'But let's not give them the chance, just in case'
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
That's it then. Remainers have conceded that it's all over?
I think to use a hackneyed phrase it is only the end of the beginning.
This is the end of brexit in Scotland. Whether it happens quickly or slowly is the only question.
I think so too. I regret the coming end of the Union and it infuriates me that the reason for its demise is so stupid. But I suppose it forges the consensus that was missing in Scotland in 2014. That has to be a good thing.
Personally I struggle to accept the cries of “constitutional outrage” from MPs that they are being restricted in the time they are having to debate and shape/prevent Brexit before Oct 31st, given that they have expressed no equivalent outrage that they have recently failed to “debate” Brexit over a lengthy Summer holiday, were expected to fail to “debate” Brexit over the coming 3 week period for party conferences, and have so far spent 3 years failing to show any evidence that “debating” has got us any closer to satisfactory Brexit outcomes anyway.
And am also quite relieved that the prospect of Johnson failing to get any changes from Brussels and subsequently proroguing Parliament over the period of October 31st to ensure no deal Brexit has now been ruled out.
It’s not
An analogy: Remainers in Parliament are like a toddler who came up with a cunning plan to creep downstairs in the middle of the night to eat all the cookies
At midnight they get downstairs to find their big brother has got there before them and there’s barely a crumb left
Their resection isn’t to reflect on the rights and wrongs of what they were planning. It’s to scream that they didn’t get any cookies
And lo! It came to pass.
And when we are living through the reality of No Deal, all voters will remember is that the PM said it would be easily manageable and that he closed down the Parliament the people elected to ensure that it all happened.
It has just got to be a deal. Even Boris isn't that mad as to if nothing else give his political opponents a golden attack line for all time.
What is this deal of which you speak. With backstop or with unicorn?
Is the €64,000 question. So he will come with a deal but he has said the backstop will have to go so he can't turn up with a deal plus backstop but no backstop = no deal and in any case the EU has said they won't reopen the WA so why are we talking about a different deal which means....AAARRRGGGHHHH
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
No one cares what you think, Big G. It's the way the monarchy works.
I really do not mind who cares, it is just the monarchy is an anachronism that needs to go
Disgraceful comment from a supposed patriot.
Being a patriot means you have to be pro the continuation of the monarchy?
Personally I struggle to accept the cries of “constitutional outrage” from MPs that they are being restricted in the time they are having to debate and shape/prevent Brexit before Oct 31st, given that they have expressed no equivalent outrage that they have recently failed to “debate” Brexit over a lengthy Summer holiday, were expected to fail to “debate” Brexit over the coming 3 week period for party conferences, and have so far spent 3 years failing to show any evidence that “debating” has got us any closer to satisfactory Brexit outcomes anyway.
And am also quite relieved that the prospect of Johnson failing to get any changes from Brussels and subsequently proroguing Parliament over the period of October 31st to ensure no deal Brexit has now been ruled out.
It’s not
An analogy: Remainers in Parliament are like a toddler who came up with a cunning plan to creep downstairs in the middle of the night to eat all the cookies
At midnight they get downstairs to find their big brother has got there before them and there’s barely a crumb left
Their resection isn’t to reflect on the rights and wrongs of what they were planning. It’s to scream that they didn’t get any cookies
And lo! It came to pass.
And when we are living through the reality of No Deal, all voters will remember is that the PM said it would be easily manageable and that he closed down the Parliament the people elected to ensure that it all happened.
It has just got to be a deal. Even Boris isn't that mad as to if nothing else give his political opponents a golden attack line for all time.
There is no deal that Johnson can get from the EU that can keep the Conservative party together and prevent Nigel Farage from screaming betrayal. Having decided to close down Parliament, he has also burned all bridges with the anti-No Deal electorate. No Deal is his only way forward.
The betting seems to suggest it's about an even chance.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
No one cares what you think, Big G. It's the way the monarchy works.
I really do not mind who cares, it is just the monarchy is an anachronism that needs to go
I’m surprised - all the loyalty you invested in silly old Theresa yet you’re happy to throw Liz to the wolves.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
No one cares what you think, Big G. It's the way the monarchy works.
I really do not mind who cares, it is just the monarchy is an anachronism that needs to go
I am interested in what you think Big_G - and surprised in this instance - good on you!
It has been a long held view and is shared in my family.
Time for them to be sidelined but only after the queen has passed
Everyone calmed down? Or are we still staging an English Civil War reeanactment?
It's more pantomime than anything else at the moment. Johnson did what he did to provoke outrage, cue everyone getting outraged.
The crunch comes on Oct 31st when we leave with no deal contrary to what the leavers assured us would not happen or Johnson panics and goes for WA + small fig leaf and Farage's mob get their pitchforks out again.
I believe Johnson is desperate to avoid that crunch and I think parliament would be unwise to let him off the hook.
Personally I struggle to accept the cries of “constitutional outrage” from MPs that they are being restricted in the time they are having to debate and shape/prevent Brexit before Oct 31st, given that they have expressed no equivalent outrage that they have recently failed to “debate” Brexit over a lengthy Summer holiday, were expected to fail to “debate” Brexit over the coming 3 week period for party conferences, and have so far spent 3 years failing to show any evidence that “debating” has got us any closer to satisfactory Brexit outcomes anyway.
And am also quite relieved that the prospect of Johnson failing to get any changes from Brussels and subsequently proroguing Parliament over the period of October 31st to ensure no deal Brexit has now been ruled out.
It’s not
An analogy: Remainers in Parliament are like a toddler who came up with a cunning plan to creep downstairs in the middle of the night to eat all the cookies
At midnight they get downstairs to find their big brother has got there before them and there’s barely a crumb left
Their resection isn’t to reflect on the rights and wrongs of what they were planning. It’s to scream that they didn’t get any cookies
And lo! It came to pass.
And when we are living through the reality of No Deal, all voters will remember is that the PM said it would be easily manageable and that he closed down the Parliament the people elected to ensure that it all happened.
It has just got to be a deal. Even Boris isn't that mad as to if nothing else give his political opponents a golden attack line for all time.
What is this deal of which you speak. With backstop or with unicorn?
Is the €64,000 question. So he will come with a deal but he has said the backstop will have to go so he can't turn up with a deal plus backstop but no backstop = no deal and in any case the EU has said they won't reopen the WA so why are we talking about a different deal which means....AAARRRGGGHHHH
Fudged backstop (longstop? third man?) on the way post mid October.
Note how a court (European) decided that Art 50 could be revoked even though there are no words at all to indicate this possibility, and indeed the Miller case proceeded on the basis that it could not, up to and including our Supreme Court.
Do you really mean that there are "no words at all to indicate this possibliity" or simply that Article 50 does not itself include this possibility. Article 50 itself is a short paragraph and of course this relies on many other EU laws. It would be impossible to ensure that every article, ammendment and rule is self contained.
Comments
Nonetheless I think the government is more to blame here because ever since simmer 2016 it has done everything it could to avoid scrutiny in Parliament. It has tried to treat Parliament as a mere rubber stamp. Johnson is continuing in the dishonourable tradition established by Mrs May. A government that seeks to avoid scrutiny is a bad thing, no matter whether you agree with their policies or not. And politicians who do not put themselves under scrutiny are usually very bad at scrutinising others.
Two other points: the Speaker is not meant to be neutral. He is meant to defend the rights of Parliament against the executive. That critical point is too often forgotten.
Finally, the reason why MPs did nothing re the accusations against Bercow is because rather too many of them faced similar accusations too. It was mutual back-scratching at its absolute worst.
The '...but conference season...' argument is utterly disingenuous.
Everyone calmed down? Or are we still staging an English Civil War reeanactment?
Nick Boles=/= all the remainers
https://twitter.com/georgeperetzqc/status/1166974014306344960?s=21
If the government is going to arse around, it should be called on it.
Most edifying.
But none of that is the point is it? I pointed out that Blitzkrieg failed in Russia. German planned to take Moscow in 2 months. If Blitzkrieg had worked the Russian winter would have been irrelevant. So it failed simple.
The reasons for the failure are irrelevant although there is plenty of stuff out there to explain why.
The point is that because of Russian tactics Blitzkrieg failed and it is that that caused the Germans to be bogged down in the mud of Autumn and snow of winter.
It failed. That is what I said and all I said and it did. As do historians, which is where I get my 'facts' from.
It is bizarre that you argue this. Just type it into to Google and you get article after article.
Similarly the issue over Germany declaring war on USA. You said they had to because of the pact with Japan. Lots of us on here pointed out that was not true. You then gave reasons why Hitler did it. Obviously he had reasons (rational or irrational). The only point we were making is your statement was factually wrong, which is so easy to check. He was not bound by the pact to do so.
Go on admit you made a mistake. Once you have done it once it is easy.
Hitler made some militarily ropey decisions, for which we must be thankful. Halting the pursuit of Allied forces heading for Dunkirk was pretty damned helpful.
THE UK has finally concluded that the monarchy is as useful in a crisis as an upside-down urinal, it has emerged.
Conditioned by decades of fond sycophancy, many of the British public believed that when the sh*t really went down she would make a benevolent intervention for the common good.
Tom Logan of Carlisle said: “I’m Labour, but I’ve always maintained that a constitutional monarch is a valuable safeguard on the democratic process. Except it isn’t and it’s b*llocks.
“She always seemed so nice in her Christmas speeches, concerned for the benefit of her people, home and abroad, but it seems I was simply watching them through a warm drunken haze.
“So it’s a kick in the teeth to realise she’ll wave through any 1933 Nazi chicanery as long as it doesn’t disturb the grouse shoot. Posh cow.”
Nikki Hollis, aged 32, agreed, “I suppose it’s a bit like when you read human qualities into animals. You look at the Royals and imagine they’re human beings with human feelings like the rest of us.
“Nah. Really, they’re all like Prince Andrew.”
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/queen-fat-lot-of-fking-use-realises-britain-20190829188601
The main difference between a president and the current UK monarchy system is that yesterday the Queen automatically caried out the wish of the Prime Minister. To do anything else would really would have been a constituional crisis. A president, however, would be obliged to make the "best decision" with in the scope of the current convention/constitution (delete as appropriate).
*A good joke to tell when travelling is "the UK has a constitution, an unwritten one." Guaranteeed to get a good laugh.
What's the alternative for the Queen? Direct intervention in politics contradicting her own Government.
In very rare circumstances that may be necessary but it's an immense step.
Indeed, if the rumours of trying to fiddle with royal assent are true then the Government might finds the Queen's neutral role plays against them.
https://twitter.com/andreajenkyns/status/1166792547827687426?s=21
Queen will that keep Andrew of the front pages
RM yes
Queen ok is five weeks enough?
We don't have a political, interventionist head of state. This is not news.
As for 'fellow Brexiteers': I'm not responsible for what individual MPs say or think, any more than you're responsible for the doings of your 'fellow Remainers' such as Gerry Adams.
Eg if they invaded in April it would have been ok. Well maybe but it wouldn't have been Blitzkrieg then would it?
Turns out he's already acting on my request and doing all he can to argue against proroguation and No Deal. This is a middle-of-the-road, always-tow-the-party-line MP until now.
That does not mean I'm responsible for every utterance of Andrea Jenkyns, whether I agree with it or not.
If Corbyn isn't still leading Labour, and they're led by someone vaguely sane, I'll be weighing up whether to vote Labour (or another party). Depends how things have developed, of course.
It was greater control over *future* immigration from the EU
There was a clear promise to protect rights of settled citizens, as is right. (By the way very few European countries - I saw Portugal and I think Belgium - have reciprocated the U.K.’s unilateral offer in the event of No Deal).
So if they are being denied this there are only four possibilities: (1) they don’t have the right they claim; (2) they don’t have the evidence to support their claim; (3) the Home Office is incompetent; and (4) the Home Office is wilfully ignoring the rules in pursuit of its own agenda
The most likely reasons are a combination of 2 and 3.
He was one of the shysters who sold us this crock of shit.
But, it has been trumpeting Boris's praises since Day One. I assume that's because he used to edit the magazine and is still held in affection there.
'Dan Hannan’s problem with the truth'
https://tinyurl.com/y68677kf
Time for them to be sidelined but only after the queen has passed
The crunch comes on Oct 31st when we leave with no deal contrary to what the leavers assured us would not happen or Johnson panics and goes for WA + small fig leaf and Farage's mob get their pitchforks out again.
I believe Johnson is desperate to avoid that crunch and I think parliament would be unwise to let him off the hook.