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.
I doubt voters will care about closing down parliament. But the government will be judged on the outcome of a no deal
I still believe there will be a deal. There were tentative signs of movement before the Revokers tried to eliminate the government’s leverage.
Part of the prorogation message is aimed at the EU to demonstrate the government’s seriousness.
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.
Given 56% of Monarchists voted Leave and 65% of Republicans voted Remain anyway I doubt this changes much and of course if Boris lost a VONC next week the Queen would simply appoint a new PM
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.
Is the logical conclusion.
And yet...and yet...
Oh I don't know it's just my naive belief that no one could possibly be as stupid or if they are that stupid to begin with (cf Theresa May) then they will have some sense knocked into them by their spads, civil servants, the treasury, BoE, etc. Although I'm pretty sure access to Johnson through Cummings is pretty hard to achieve.
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.
It’s utterly facile to equate a few procedural changes with suspending Parliament, an act you claimed on Tuesday would never happen.
I was thinking more in terms of a suspension through Oct 31, but yes I got it wrong.
And “a few procedural changes” are as important: either you bend the rules or you don’t. “I only bent them a bit” doesn’t wash.
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.
Cover the backstop in fudge. That will be sufficiently English to be accepted by the ERG (but probably not the DUP).
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
This is so frustrating. There is another piece of legislation that could fall now that is vital before we leave and is now causing panic and I can say no more without incurring the wrath of my wife! On that same topic I have been prevented from posting on related stuff when discussed here for the same reason. So, so frustrating when you know something you can't share that is being discussed on PB.
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?
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.
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.
Ha ! Project fear...
While you have a point, that quite reasonable argument failed to prevent the Brexit vote - and if we no deal, the prospect of rejoining the EU as an independent nation might look rather attractive to Scotland.
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.
I doubt voters will care about closing down parliament. But the government will be judged on the outcome of a no deal
I still believe there will be a deal. There were tentative signs of movement before the Revokers tried to eliminate the government’s leverage.
Part of the prorogation message is aimed at the EU to demonstrate the government’s seriousness.
No Deal has been a possible outcome since 2013 when Cameron first promised an in/out referendum. It’s never been the EU that didn’t take that seriously.
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.
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.
Of course we all said instantly that Boris is the only person alive who could actually bring a deal back to parliament, perhaps THE deal, with the chutzpah to get it through. Why we are all so amazed that he is enacting Stage I of that plan I really don't know.
But then there's the @SouthamObserver well-observed point that all roads lead to no deal, which for all the world they look like they do.
Who'd be away on holiday these next few weeks...!!??
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.
...Or Corbyn to back down and allow Ken Clarke or similar to lead a temporary GONU
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.
Noted; but I think if there were such words available the lawyers involved are expensive enough to have noticed them. Open to correction but I think the European Court just added this interpretation. The issue itself is important, and I think the European Court was wrong. Allowing revocation permits game playing with a nationally important issue. A court would be right to interpret the FTPA's '14 days' to mean 'sitting days' because it corrects an obvious lacuna.
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.
If Theresa May’s agreement with the EU had been passed by the MPs who’s said they’d honour the result of the referendum, the matter would have been settled and Farage would be screaming betrayal to himself. Had they wanted to avoid no deal at all costs, they could have voted for that agreement, but they decided the risk was worth it. Maybe they’ll get another chance to step in line. Fingers crossed they take it.
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.
The dream scenario for Johnson here is that some Labour grandee (Harman, Cooper, Beckett) gets appointed PM by the House of remain Commons, and gets an extension. He then immediately goes to the country and wins handily I think.
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.
Not HMQ but yes after her demise. It has been a lifetime view
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.
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.
I doubt voters will care about closing down parliament. But the government will be judged on the outcome of a no deal
I still believe there will be a deal. There were tentative signs of movement before the Revokers tried to eliminate the government’s leverage.
Part of the prorogation message is aimed at the EU to demonstrate the government’s seriousness.
I agree a last minute deal remains a possibility (though I doubt it will lok very different to TMay's deal).
Do you think @Charles, that Johnson would survive long if he cannot get a deal and we crash out with No Deal?
The dream scenario for Johnson here is that some Labour grandee (Harman, Cooper, Beckett) gets appointed PM by the House of remain Commons, and gets an extension. He then immediately goes to the country and wins handily I think.
If there is an extension for whatever reason then BoJo is toast. Nige will rise up, pitchfork in hand, and march on Uxbridge High Street.
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?
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.
Not HMQ but yes after her demise. It has been a lifetime view
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.
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.
I doubt voters will care about closing down parliament. But the government will be judged on the outcome of a no deal
I still believe there will be a deal. There were tentative signs of movement before the Revokers tried to eliminate the government’s leverage.
Part of the prorogation message is aimed at the EU to demonstrate the government’s seriousness.
Voters will remember that the No Deal they are living through was enabled by an unelected PM with no mandate closing the Parliament they elected down.
The EU will see a PM happy to close down Parliament to avoid scrutiny and will conclude they are right that binding mechanisms relating to the Irish border are the only way to guarantee the integrity of the Single Market.
Johnson knows all this. He must genuinely believe No Deal will be fine or not care if it isn’t.
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?
Yes.
With respect that is nonsense
I don't want your respect. To be a patriot means you love your country and, according to Webster's, would be willing to fight for it. Let's leave that last bit out and go with love your country a lot.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
The dream scenario for Johnson here is that some Labour grandee (Harman, Cooper, Beckett) gets appointed PM by the House of remain Commons, and gets an extension. He then immediately goes to the country and wins handily I think.
If there is an extension for whatever reason then BoJo is toast. Nige will rise up, pitchfork in hand, and march on Uxbridge High Street.
If there's an extension requested by Johnson he's toast. If it's requested by a Labour grandee the optics are entirely different.
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.
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?
Yes.
That's the stupidest comment I have ever read on PB, and that is a high bar. Big G outing himself as a Republican is one of the more surprising developments. I always love it when people surprise with their constellation of views. I am probably on the same page, although personally I have always found the monarchy to be one of the less appalling aspects of the English class system. The Queen has done a good job but her children are not a great advertisement for the hereditary principle.
The dream scenario for Johnson here is that some Labour grandee (Harman, Cooper, Beckett) gets appointed PM by the House of remain Commons, and gets an extension. He then immediately goes to the country and wins handily I think.
If there is an extension for whatever reason then BoJo is toast. Nige will rise up, pitchfork in hand, and march on Uxbridge High Street.
If there's an extension requested by Johnson he's toast. If it's requested by a Labour grandee the optics are entirely different.
do or die.
Whose dog it was who actually ate the homework is irrelevant.
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?
Yes.
With respect that is nonsense
I don't want your respect. To be a patriot means you love your country and, according to Webster's, would be willing to fight for it. Let's leave that last bit out and go with love your country a lot.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
so anybody who wants to change anything from how it is is not a patriot? therefore everybody who wants Britain to leave the EU, does not love Britain, and is not a patriot.
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?
Yes.
That's the stupidest comment I have ever read on PB, and that is a high bar. Big G outing himself as a Republican is one of the more surprising developments. I always love it when people surprise with their constellation of views. I am probably on the same page, although personally I have always found the monarchy to be one of the less appalling aspects of the English class system. The Queen has done a good job but her children are not a great advertisement for the hereditary principle.
It wasn't a comment it was a one word answer.
Please see my response to Big G. A patriot loves their country. Not some other mythical country that doesn't exist but has the Great Scythian Dark Commander as head of state. A British patriot loves their country as currently constituted.
They might be a patriot in waiting (O Come Great Commander) but they ain't a patriot now if they don't love the country as is.
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?
Yes.
With respect that is nonsense
I don't want your respect. To be a patriot means you love your country and, according to Webster's, would be willing to fight for it. Let's leave that last bit out and go with love your country a lot.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
so anybody who wants to change anything from how it is is not a patriot? therefore everybody who wants Britain to leave the EU, does not love Britain, and is not a patriot.
Britain is a constututional monarchy. It may have a Labour government or a Conservative one or a Monster Raving Loony one. It may be a member of the EU or NAFTA. But the fundamental make up of the country is that of a constitutional monarchy.
The dream scenario for Johnson here is that some Labour grandee (Harman, Cooper, Beckett) gets appointed PM by the House of remain Commons, and gets an extension. He then immediately goes to the country and wins handily I think.
How does Boris go to the country if he's no longer PM ?
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.
Not HMQ but yes after her demise. It has been a lifetime view
What if we skip Charles and go straight to William?
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?
Yes.
With respect that is nonsense
I don't want your respect. To be a patriot means you love your country and, according to Webster's, would be willing to fight for it. Let's leave that last bit out and go with love your country a lot.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
I am a patriot and love my country. Doesn't mean I don't think the country can't be better.
I am a republican. I love my country with its monarchy already but I think it would be better to abolish that undemocratic anachronism.
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?
Yes.
With respect that is nonsense
I don't want your respect. To be a patriot means you love your country and, according to Webster's, would be willing to fight for it. Let's leave that last bit out and go with love your country a lot.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
so anybody who wants to change anything from how it is is not a patriot? therefore everybody who wants Britain to leave the EU, does not love Britain, and is not a patriot.
Britain is a constututional monarchy. It may have a Labour government or a Conservative one or a Monster Raving Loony one. It may be a member of the EU or NAFTA. But the fundamental make up of the country is that of a constitutional monarchy.
You'd have been arguing 400 years ago that England is, and must always remain, an absolute monarchy, would you?
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?
Yes.
That's the stupidest comment I have ever read on PB, and that is a high bar. Big G outing himself as a Republican is one of the more surprising developments. I always love it when people surprise with their constellation of views. I am probably on the same page, although personally I have always found the monarchy to be one of the less appalling aspects of the English class system. The Queen has done a good job but her children are not a great advertisement for the hereditary principle.
It wasn't a comment it was a one word answer.
Please see my response to Big G. A patriot loves their country. Not some other mythical country that doesn't exist but has the Great Scythian Dark Commander as head of state. A British patriot loves their country as currently constituted.
They might be a patriot in waiting (O Come Great Commander) but they ain't a patriot now if they don't love the country as is.
That's like saying that I can't love my wife because I don't like how she fills the dishwasher. Surely a true patriot is somebody who wants to make their country better.
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?
Yes.
That's the stupidest comment I have ever read on PB, and that is a high bar. Big G outing himself as a Republican is one of the more surprising developments. I always love it when people surprise with their constellation of views. I am probably on the same page, although personally I have always found the monarchy to be one of the less appalling aspects of the English class system. The Queen has done a good job but her children are not a great advertisement for the hereditary principle.
It wasn't a comment it was a one word answer.
Please see my response to Big G. A patriot loves their country. Not some other mythical country that doesn't exist but has the Great Scythian Dark Commander as head of state. A British patriot loves their country as currently constituted.
They might be a patriot in waiting (O Come Great Commander) but they ain't a patriot now if they don't love the country as is.
The dream scenario for Johnson here is that some Labour grandee (Harman, Cooper, Beckett) gets appointed PM by the House of remain Commons, and gets an extension. He then immediately goes to the country and wins handily I think.
How does Boris go to the country if he's no longer PM ?
Yes sorry I thought about that and misexpressed myself.
Harman appointed somehow - she'll be PM solely to extend A50, Corbyn will want a GE immediately after I suspect. Obviously the former Gov't will have no confidence in her either. So with both front benches there'll be the votes to create a GE in short order.
d have so far spent 3 years failing to show any evidence that “debating” has got us any closer to satisfactory Brexit outcomes anyway.
out.
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.
Is the logical conclusion.
And yet...and yet...
Oh I don't know it's just my naive belief that no one could possibly be as stupid or if they are that stupid to begin with (cf Theresa May) then they will have some sense knocked into them by their spads, civil servants, the treasury, BoE, etc. Although I'm pretty sure access to Johnson through Cummings is pretty hard to achieve.
The logical conclusion was that we left in March 29th. In fact @AlastairMeeks put it up as a great bet at 6/4, which it was, and it traded heavily odds on. That’s because it was thought to be outrageous, beyond comprehension, at that time that our parliament would ignore the referendum result and filibuster the public until Remain became the default option... but that’s what they did try
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?
Yes.
With respect that is nonsense
I don't want your respect. To be a patriot means you love your country and, according to Webster's, would be willing to fight for it. Let's leave that last bit out and go with love your country a lot.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
so anybody who wants to change anything from how it is is not a patriot? therefore everybody who wants Britain to leave the EU, does not love Britain, and is not a patriot.
Britain is a constututional monarchy. It may have a Labour government or a Conservative one or a Monster Raving Loony one. It may be a member of the EU or NAFTA. But the fundamental make up of the country is that of a constitutional monarchy.
You'd have been arguing 400 years ago that England is, and must always remain, an absolute monarchy, would you?
who knows what s/he's trying to argue? saying someone is "not a patriot" is a sure sign of having no arguments at all
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?
Yes.
That's the stupidest comment I have ever read on PB, and that is a high bar. Big G outing himself as a Republican is one of the more surprising developments. I always love it when people surprise with their constellation of views. I am probably on the same page, although personally I have always found the monarchy to be one of the less appalling aspects of the English class system. The Queen has done a good job but her children are not a great advertisement for the hereditary principle.
It wasn't a comment it was a one word answer.
Please see my response to Big G. A patriot loves their country. Not some other mythical country that doesn't exist but has the Great Scythian Dark Commander as head of state. A British patriot loves their country as currently constituted.
They might be a patriot in waiting (O Come Great Commander) but they ain't a patriot now if they don't love the country as is.
Patriotism is a shit 'ism' anyway tbf. No one should be proud of being a patriot imo.
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?
Yes.
With respect that is nonsense
I don't want your respect. To be a patriot means you love your country and, according to Webster's, would be willing to fight for it. Let's leave that last bit out and go with love your country a lot.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
so anybody who wants to change anything from how it is is not a patriot? therefore everybody who wants Britain to leave the EU, does not love Britain, and is not a patriot.
Britain is a constututional monarchy. It may have a Labour government or a Conservative one or a Monster Raving Loony one. It may be a member of the EU or NAFTA. But the fundamental make up of the country is that of a constitutional monarchy.
You'd have been arguing 400 years ago that England is, and must always remain, an absolute monarchy, would you?
who knows what s/he's trying to argue? saying someone is "not a patriot" is a sure sign of having no arguments at all
Proroguing to stop parliament having the final say on Brexit would have been a coup. That has not been done, this is a watered down version of the initial prorogation threat (and indeed removes the real threat of parliament not being able to sit across the deadline).
It is still a very unwise and cynical power grab by the executive over parliament, which should be condemned by all who believe in the constitution and democracy.
It moves us closer to a world where Corbyn is PM, cynically manipulating parliament and without the checks and balances that the EU and EU courts would enforce. In ten years time the UK could be a very different place, if it still exists.
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?
Yes.
That's the stupidest comment I have ever read on PB, and that is a high bar. Big G outing himself as a Republican is one of the more surprising developments. I always love it when people surprise with their constellation of views. I am probably on the same page, although personally I have always found the monarchy to be one of the less appalling aspects of the English class system. The Queen has done a good job but her children are not a great advertisement for the hereditary principle.
It wasn't a comment it was a one word answer.
Please see my response to Big G. A patriot loves their country. Not some other mythical country that doesn't exist but has the Great Scythian Dark Commander as head of state. A British patriot loves their country as currently constituted.
They might be a patriot in waiting (O Come Great Commander) but they ain't a patriot now if they don't love the country as is.
A load of horse.
It's obviously possible to love something despite its faults, and the wish to correct those faults. Uncritical love of one's country is mere servility.
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?
Yes.
That's the stupidest comment I have ever read on PB, and that is a high bar. Big G outing himself as a Republican is one of the more surprising developments. I always love it when people surprise with their constellation of views. I am probably on the same page, although personally I have always found the monarchy to be one of the less appalling aspects of the English class system. The Queen has done a good job but her children are not a great advertisement for the hereditary principle.
It wasn't a comment it was a one word answer.
Please see my response to Big G. A patriot loves their country. Not some other mythical country that doesn't exist but has the Great Scythian Dark Commander as head of state. A British patriot loves their country as currently constituted.
They might be a patriot in waiting (O Come Great Commander) but they ain't a patriot now if they don't love the country as is.
That's like saying that I can't love my wife because I don't like how she fills the dishwasher. Surely a true patriot is somebody who wants to make their country better.
And a loving husband offers unsolicited advice on how to fill the dishwasher?
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.
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?
Yes.
That's the stupidest comment I have ever read on PB, and that is a high bar. Big G outing himself as a Republican is one of the more surprising developments. I always love it when people surprise with their constellation of views. I am probably on the same page, although personally I have always found the monarchy to be one of the less appalling aspects of the English class system. The Queen has done a good job but her children are not a great advertisement for the hereditary principle.
It wasn't a comment it was a one word answer.
Please see my response to Big G. A patriot loves their country. Not some other mythical country that doesn't exist but has the Great Scythian Dark Commander as head of state. A British patriot loves their country as currently constituted.
They might be a patriot in waiting (O Come Great Commander) but they ain't a patriot now if they don't love the country as is.
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.
Not HMQ but yes after her demise. It has been a lifetime view
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?
Yes.
With respect that is nonsense
I don't want your respect. To be a patriot means you love your country and, according to Webster's, would be willing to fight for it. Let's leave that last bit out and go with love your country a lot.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
I am a patriot and love my country. Doesn't mean I don't think the country can't be better.
I am a republican. I love my country with its monarchy already but I think it would be better to abolish that undemocratic anachronism.
@HYUFD will have you down as a 'diehard Traitor' for that wobble.
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?
Yes.
That's the stupidest comment I have ever read on PB, and that is a high bar. Big G outing himself as a Republican is one of the more surprising developments. I always love it when people surprise with their constellation of views. I am probably on the same page, although personally I have always found the monarchy to be one of the less appalling aspects of the English class system. The Queen has done a good job but her children are not a great advertisement for the hereditary principle.
It wasn't a comment it was a one word answer.
Please see my response to Big G. A patriot loves their country. Not some other mythical country that doesn't exist but has the Great Scythian Dark Commander as head of state. A British patriot loves their country as currently constituted.
They might be a patriot in waiting (O Come Great Commander) but they ain't a patriot now if they don't love the country as is.
Utter, utter horseshit
You unpatriotic thickie
Says twatmeister in chief. I think we can safely ignore your contributions to the debate such as it is.
Hmm.... arrived at Court of Session and there is no sign of the interdict application and no media. I think it must have been dropped although it may be calling later in the day. Not on the boards though.
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?
Yes.
That's the stupidest comment I have ever read on PB, and that is a high bar. Big G outing himself as a Republican is one of the more surprising developments. I always love it when people surprise with their constellation of views. I am probably on the same page, although personally I have always found the monarchy to be one of the less appalling aspects of the English class system. The Queen has done a good job but her children are not a great advertisement for the hereditary principle.
It wasn't a comment it was a one word answer.
Please see my response to Big G. A patriot loves their country. Not some other mythical country that doesn't exist but has the Great Scythian Dark Commander as head of state. A British patriot loves their country as currently constituted.
They might be a patriot in waiting (O Come Great Commander) but they ain't a patriot now if they don't love the country as is.
That's like saying that I can't love my wife because I don't like how she fills the dishwasher. Surely a true patriot is somebody who wants to make their country better.
Also, cannot I aspire for my country to be better? Not that I particularly care for labels like patriot (I don't consider the idea of love for one's country particularly useful), but by your definition @TOPPING if ANYONE wants ANY change to the country, that means they aren't patriots. Want to get rid of FPTP, not a patriot. Want to see an elected HoL, not a patriot. Reformism is not anti patriotic. Revolutionaryism may be, and I may be willing to put myself in that camp.
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.
Their daily 10 minute podcasts are great, listen to them everyday after work. They have some good journalists there, James Forsyth, Isabel Hardman and Katy Balls. However, the magazine itself is mostly just troll columnists these days (Rod liddle, Toby Young etc) who exist solely to write provacative nonsense to "own the libs" like Brendan O'Neill in Spiked.
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?
Yes.
That's the stupidest comment I have ever read on PB, and that is a high bar. Big G outing himself as a Republican is one of the more surprising developments. I always love it when people surprise with their constellation of views. I am probably on the same page, although personally I have always found the monarchy to be one of the less appalling aspects of the English class system. The Queen has done a good job but her children are not a great advertisement for the hereditary principle.
It wasn't a comment it was a one word answer.
Please see my response to Big G. A patriot loves their country. Not some other mythical country that doesn't exist but has the Great Scythian Dark Commander as head of state. A British patriot loves their country as currently constituted.
They might be a patriot in waiting (O Come Great Commander) but they ain't a patriot now if they don't love the country as is.
That's like saying that I can't love my wife because I don't like how she fills the dishwasher. Surely a true patriot is somebody who wants to make their country better.
Your position is like saying I love my wife but I want her to be Taylor Swift.
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.
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?
Yes.
That's the stupidest comment I have ever read on PB, and that is a high bar. Big G outing himself as a Republican is one of the more surprising developments. I always love it when people surprise with their constellation of views. I am probably on the same page, although personally I have always found the monarchy to be one of the less appalling aspects of the English class system. The Queen has done a good job but her children are not a great advertisement for the hereditary principle.
It wasn't a comment it was a one word answer.
Please see my response to Big G. A patriot loves their country. Not some other mythical country that doesn't exist but has the Great Scythian Dark Commander as head of state. A British patriot loves their country as currently constituted.
They might be a patriot in waiting (O Come Great Commander) but they ain't a patriot now if they don't love the country as is.
That's like saying that I can't love my wife because I don't like how she fills the dishwasher. Surely a true patriot is somebody who wants to make their country better.
And a loving husband offers unsolicited advice on how to fill the dishwasher?
The dream scenario for Johnson here is that some Labour grandee (Harman, Cooper, Beckett) gets appointed PM by the House of remain Commons, and gets an extension. He then immediately goes to the country and wins handily I think.
How does Boris go to the country if he's no longer PM ?
Yes sorry I thought about that and misexpressed myself.
Harman appointed somehow - she'll be PM solely to extend A50, Corbyn will want a GE immediately after I suspect. Obviously the former Gov't will have no confidence in her either. So with both front benches there'll be the votes to create a GE in short order.
The only way a grandee makes it to PM is if enough MPs leave the Tory and Labour parties. I suspect that grandee would make it all the way to 2022 before handing over to a successor seen as best placed to win for the new party.
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
It is not crap administration by the Home Office. They are following the instructions of the Home Secretary and the laws that the govt are making.
The govt refuse to legislate to protect the rights of EU citizens despite making promises to do so, as they are scared the legislation would be amended.
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.
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?
Yes.
That's the stupidest comment I have ever read on PB, and that is a high bar. Big G outing himself as a Republican is one of the more surprising developments. I always love it when people surprise with their constellation of views. I am probably on the same page, although personally I have always found the monarchy to be one of the less appalling aspects of the English class system. The Queen has done a good job but her children are not a great advertisement for the hereditary principle.
It wasn't a comment it was a one word answer.
Please see my response to Big G. A patriot loves their country. Not some other mythical country that doesn't exist but has the Great Scythian Dark Commander as head of state. A British patriot loves their country as currently constituted.
They might be a patriot in waiting (O Come Great Commander) but they ain't a patriot now if they don't love the country as is.
You do talk nonsense.
I love my country just as much as anyone else and you do not need to be a monarchist to do so.
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.
Anyone voting for Andrea Jenkyns is a fellow thickie
Also, cannot I aspire for my country to be better? Not that I particularly care for labels like patriot (I don't consider the idea of love for one's country particularly useful), but by your definition @TOPPING if ANYONE wants ANY change to the country, that means they aren't patriots. Want to get rid of FPTP, not a patriot. Want to see an elected HoL, not a patriot. Reformism is not anti patriotic. Revolutionaryism may be, and I may be willing to put myself in that camp.
No it's not. You can say you love your wife and wish she had blond hair, was better at loading the dishwasher, and wouldn't stop me going out with my mates.
But it is difficult to say I love my wife but I wish she was Priti Patel.
Likewise, the country is at core a constitutional monarchy and as such that is what we get given. You can say you wish it was driven by Labour, the Greens or the LibDems but the core make up, as it is currently constituted, is a constitutional monarchy. If you want to change that then the country becomes something else and your "patriotic view" becomes meaningless.
You can say I would like to make Britain a republic and then it would be a country I love but you can't say you love Britain because you want to change its nature fundamentally.
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
This is so frustrating. There is another piece of legislation that could fall now that is vital before we leave and is now causing panic and I can say no more without incurring the wrath of my wife! On that same topic I have been prevented from posting on related stuff when discussed here for the same reason. So, so frustrating when you know something you can't share that is being discussed on PB.
A brief skim showed up a few bills still before Parliament. Any of these ?
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19
Trade Bill 2017-19
Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill [HL] 2017-19
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?
Yes.
That's the stupidest comment I have ever read on PB, and that is a high bar. Big G outing himself as a Republican is one of the more surprising developments. I always love it when people surprise with their constellation of views. I am probably on the same page, although personally I have always found the monarchy to be one of the less appalling aspects of the English class system. The Queen has done a good job but her children are not a great advertisement for the hereditary principle.
It wasn't a comment it was a one word answer.
Please see my response to Big G. A patriot loves their country. Not some other mythical country that doesn't exist but has the Great Scythian Dark Commander as head of state. A British patriot loves their country as currently constituted.
They might be a patriot in waiting (O Come Great Commander) but they ain't a patriot now if they don't love the country as is.
That is absolutely absurd and is an argument against any changes at all as all changes disrupt how the country is currently constituted.
That is like suggesting a patriot during the Troubles would have opposed the GFA as the Troubles and an absence of power sharing and military in NI and no Stormont was how the country was currently constituted.
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.
Not HMQ but yes after her demise. It has been a lifetime view
What if we skip Charles and go straight to William?
Not really. The whole idea of the monarchy is an anachronism
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.
I doubt voters will care about closing down parliament. But the government will be judged on the outcome of a no deal
I still believe there will be a deal. There were tentative signs of movement before the Revokers tried to eliminate the government’s leverage.
Part of the prorogation message is aimed at the EU to demonstrate the government’s seriousness.
Voters will remember that the No Deal they are living through was enabled by an unelected PM with no mandate closing the Parliament they elected down.
The EU will see a PM happy to close down Parliament to avoid scrutiny and will conclude they are right that binding mechanisms relating to the Irish border are the only way to guarantee the integrity of the Single Market.
Johnson knows all this. He must genuinely believe No Deal will be fine or not care if it isn’t.
Or that parliament will stop him from no dealing, and provide an extension and a GE.
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
It is not crap administration by the Home Office. They are following the instructions of the Home Secretary and the laws that the govt are making.
The govt refuse to legislate to protect the rights of EU citizens despite making promises to do so, as they are scared the legislation would be amended.
It is a political point, not administrative. Legislate and it could be sorted properly.
If the Home Office is telling someone their application was rejected because they "clicked the wrong button", then that does suggest the administration of the process isn't working especially well.
The dream scenario for Johnson here is that some Labour grandee (Harman, Cooper, Beckett) gets appointed PM by the House of remain Commons, and gets an extension. He then immediately goes to the country and wins handily I think.
How does Boris go to the country if he's no longer PM ?
Yes sorry I thought about that and misexpressed myself.
Harman appointed somehow - she'll be PM solely to extend A50, Corbyn will want a GE immediately after I suspect. Obviously the former Gov't will have no confidence in her either. So with both front benches there'll be the votes to create a GE in short order.
The "somehow" is the tricky part. A GONU PM would have to enjoy the confidence of the HoC before any attempt to extend Article 50.
The single factor to note in this whole issue is Boris's ambition to remain Prime Minister. All other matters are secondary to it. So it's :
1. We leave on October 31st and Boris calls a general election. 2. We fail to leave by October 31st and Boris calls a general election
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?
Yes.
That's the stupidest comment I have ever read on PB, and that is a high bar. Big G outing himself as a Republican is one of the more surprising developments. I always love it when people surprise with their constellation of views. I am probably on the same page, although personally I have always found the monarchy to be one of the less appalling aspects of the English class system. The Queen has done a good job but her children are not a great advertisement for the hereditary principle.
It wasn't a comment it was a one word answer.
Please see my response to Big G. A patriot loves their country. Not some other mythical country that doesn't exist but has the Great Scythian Dark Commander as head of state. A British patriot loves their country as currently constituted.
They might be a patriot in waiting (O Come Great Commander) but they ain't a patriot now if they don't love the country as is.
You do talk nonsense.
I love my country just as much as anyone else and you do not need to be a monarchist to do so.
You love your country and want to change its fundamental constitution.
Like @HYUFD loves the Conservative Party but disagrees with its central policy.
Also, cannot I aspire for my country to be better? Not that I particularly care for labels like patriot (I don't consider the idea of love for one's country particularly useful), but by your definition @TOPPING if ANYONE wants ANY change to the country, that means they aren't patriots. Want to get rid of FPTP, not a patriot. Want to see an elected HoL, not a patriot. Reformism is not anti patriotic. Revolutionaryism may be, and I may be willing to put myself in that camp.
No it's not. You can say you love your wife and wish she had blond hair, was better at loading the dishwasher, and wouldn't stop me going out with my mates.
But it is difficult to say I love my wife but I wish she was Priti Patel.
Likewise, the country is at core a constitutional monarchy and as such that is what we get given...
I think that statement might be what is accurately termed begging the question.
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?
Yes.
That's the stupidest comment I have ever read on PB, and that is a high bar. Big G outing himself as a Republican is one of the more surprising developments. I always love it when people surprise with their constellation of views. I am probably on the same page, although personally I have always found the monarchy to be one of the less appalling aspects of the English class system. The Queen has done a good job but her children are not a great advertisement for the hereditary principle.
It wasn't a comment it was a one word answer.
Please see my response to Big G. A patriot loves their country. Not some other mythical country that doesn't exist but has the Great Scythian Dark Commander as head of state. A British patriot loves their country as currently constituted.
They might be a patriot in waiting (O Come Great Commander) but they ain't a patriot now if they don't love the country as is.
A load of horse.
It's obviously possible to love something despite its faults, and the wish to correct those faults. Uncritical love of one's country is mere servility.
Obviously so. One of the defining features of Patriots is that they see the country as going to the dogs, and want change. This is true of both right and left wing patriots, though their proposals differ.
I don't want your respect. To be a patriot means you love your country and, according to Webster's, would be willing to fight for it. Let's leave that last bit out and go with love your country a lot.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
Semantics. You're choosing a definition of the word "patriot" which excludes lots of people who feel strongly attached to the country but would like changes. You're entitled to do so, but don't expect the word to carry any resonance for the rest of us.
It's liker those tiresome debates about "what is a socialist" and "what is a Christian". They tend to confuse rather than illuminate. We are all complex beings and the natural thing is to resist being pigeonholed anyway.
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
It is not crap administration by the Home Office. They are following the instructions of the Home Secretary and the laws that the govt are making.
The govt refuse to legislate to protect the rights of EU citizens despite making promises to do so, as they are scared the legislation would be amended.
It is a political point, not administrative. Legislate and it could be sorted properly.
If the Home Office is telling someone their application was rejected because they "clicked the wrong button", then that does suggest the administration of the process isn't working especially well.
If there was legislation the applicants could take the Home Office to court if their rights were breached.
As the Tory MP Alberto Costa puts it himself:
“Boris Johnson personally pledged to me and to the country in the House of Commons that he would unequivocally guarantee the rights of citizens. Nothing is enshrined in primary legislation to guarantee these rights,” he said. “If we leave without a deal, many EU member states have said they will not protect the rights of British citizens until their citizens’ rights are enshrined in British law. And the obligation is on 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.
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?
Yes.
With respect that is nonsense
I don't want your respect. To be a patriot means you love your country and, according to Webster's, would be willing to fight for it. Let's leave that last bit out and go with love your country a lot.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
I think you're allowing your resentment over Big G not voting for 'Fox' Hunty to fester. Let it go.
JRM providing a timely reminder that affected education, wealth and pinstripe suits should never be confused with integrity, honour and intelligence.
He's a berk, and was spouting absolute rubbish on the radio this morning.
One caller to Radio 5 astutely suggested that the "domestic agenda" line was being repeated by every minister and Tory MP as if they did otherwise and told the truth — it's about Brexit — that would undermine the goverment's defence come the inevitable legal challenges to prorogation. Whether the courts will believe the government will be interesting to see.
From the point of view of the man on the omnibus: the big picture is that Westminster has been agonising over Brexit for 3 years and got nowhere. Boris is just cutting through all the arcane frippery and getting it sorted. Three cheers for Boris. This is why it is fairly smart politics in the short-term.
Downstream, the big problem for the Tories is that many thoughtful Conservative-inclined voters will be profoundly uncomfortable about what looks like a move to continental-style (or US-style) right-wing falangism. If it really is the case that the Party has been taken over by the Francois tendency then we have a major problem in a two-party system where the alternative is the bleach-boned zombie-Marxists who managed to escape from the sepulchre that Mandelson mistakenly thought he had consigned them to.
That is absolutely absurd and is an argument against any changes at all as all changes disrupt how the country is currently constituted.
That is like suggesting a patriot during the Troubles would have opposed the GFA as the Troubles and an absence of power sharing and military in NI and no Stormont was how the country was currently constituted.
That is prima facie absurd.
What?
Your analogy is so tortured I'm afraid I can't make head nor tail of it.
Let me put it this way. Britain is a constitutional monarchy. Patriots love that (I don't particularly like the word patriot either btw). They love their country. They might choose to fight for it. But they can't then say they want to fundamentally change its constitution while still loving it because then what do they love about it?
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.
Their daily 10 minute podcasts are great, listen to them everyday after work. They have some good journalists there, James Forsyth, Isabel Hardman and Katy Balls. However, the magazine itself is mostly just troll columnists these days (Rod liddle, Toby Young etc) who exist solely to write provacative nonsense to "own the libs" like Brendan O'Neill in Spiked.
It's a mixture. They make some good points at times about challenging the lack of critical thinking that goes for "debate" these days.
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
It is not crap administration by the Home Office. They are following the instructions of the Home Secretary and the laws that the govt are making.
The govt refuse to legislate to protect the rights of EU citizens despite making promises to do so, as they are scared the legislation would be amended.
It is a political point, not administrative. Legislate and it could be sorted properly.
If the Home Office is telling someone their application was rejected because they "clicked the wrong button", then that does suggest the administration of the process isn't working especially well.
If there was legislation the applicants could take the Home Office to court if their rights were breached.
As the Tory MP Alberto Costa puts it himself:
“Boris Johnson personally pledged to me and to the country in the House of Commons that he would unequivocally guarantee the rights of citizens. Nothing is enshrined in primary legislation to guarantee these rights,” he said. “If we leave without a deal, many EU member states have said they will not protect the rights of British citizens until their citizens’ rights are enshrined in British law. And the obligation is on us.
I expect it'd be one of the first items on the agenda. The Gov't won't introduce it now because it would likely be amended to "And this house believes Brexit should be stopped" etc.
I don't want your respect. To be a patriot means you love your country and, according to Webster's, would be willing to fight for it. Let's leave that last bit out and go with love your country a lot.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
Semantics. You're choosing a definition of the word "patriot" which excludes lots of people who feel strongly attached to the country but would like changes. You're entitled to do so, but don't expect the word to carry any resonance for the rest of us.
It's liker those tiresome debates about "what is a socialist" and "what is a Christian". They tend to confuse rather than illuminate. We are all complex beings and the natural thing is to resist being pigeonholed anyway.
I'm choosing the Webster's definition of the word "patriot".
The rest of your post comes over slightly holier-than-thou, Nick but many thanks for your contribution.
That is absolutely absurd and is an argument against any changes at all as all changes disrupt how the country is currently constituted.
That is like suggesting a patriot during the Troubles would have opposed the GFA as the Troubles and an absence of power sharing and military in NI and no Stormont was how the country was currently constituted.
That is prima facie absurd.
What?
Your analogy is so tortured I'm afraid I can't make head nor tail of it.
Let me put it this way. Britain is a constitutional monarchy. Patriots love that (I don't particularly like the word patriot either btw). They love their country. They might choose to fight for it. But they can't then say they want to fundamentally change its constitution while still loving it because then what do they love about it?
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?
Yes.
With respect that is nonsense
I don't want your respect. To be a patriot means you love your country and, according to Webster's, would be willing to fight for it. Let's leave that last bit out and go with love your country a lot.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
I think you're allowing your resentment over Big G not voting for 'Fox' Hunty to fester. Let it go.
You can't be a patriot and want to abolish the monarchy.
Big G can turn his home into a fox sanctuary and feed them live mice all day for all I care.
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
Yes, crap administration by the Home Office was completely unforeseeable
Sure - but don’t kick Hannan for it.
He said it was irresponsible to suggest their status would change. Clearly he was wrong, it was entirely accurate to suggest that. He should apologize for misleading the public.
From the point of view of the man on the omnibus: the big picture is that Westminster has been agonising over Brexit for 3 years and got nowhere. Boris is just cutting through all the arcane frippery and getting it sorted. Three cheers for Boris. This is why it is fairly smart politics in the short-term.
Downstream, the big problem for the Tories is that many thoughtful Conservative-inclined voters will be profoundly uncomfortable about what looks like a move to continental-style (or US-style) right-wing falangism. If it really is the case that the Party has been taken over by the Francois tendency then we have a major problem in a two-party system where the alternative is the bleach-boned zombie-Marxists who managed to escape from the sepulchre that Mandelson mistakenly thought he had consigned them to.
Boris only cares about Boris though, shorely if he somehow gets through brexit unscathed and finds he needs to pivot he'll pivot?
Comments
Dan bottles it.
I still believe there will be a deal. There were tentative signs of movement before the Revokers tried to eliminate the government’s leverage.
Part of the prorogation message is aimed at the EU to demonstrate the government’s seriousness.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists
And yet...and yet...
Oh I don't know it's just my naive belief that no one could possibly be as stupid or if they are that stupid to begin with (cf Theresa May) then they will have some sense knocked into them by their spads, civil servants, the treasury, BoE, etc. Although I'm pretty sure access to Johnson through Cummings is pretty hard to achieve.
And “a few procedural changes” are as important: either you bend the rules or you don’t. “I only bent them a bit” doesn’t wash.
While you have a point, that quite reasonable argument failed to prevent the Brexit vote - and if we no deal, the prospect of rejoining the EU as an independent nation might look rather attractive to Scotland.
But then there's the @SouthamObserver well-observed point that all roads lead to no deal, which for all the world they look like they do.
Who'd be away on holiday these next few weeks...!!??
remainCommons, and gets an extension. He then immediately goes to the country and wins handily I think.Do you think @Charles, that Johnson would survive long if he cannot get a deal and we crash out with No Deal?
If people use it, it's a word.
The EU will see a PM happy to close down Parliament to avoid scrutiny and will conclude they are right that binding mechanisms relating to the Irish border are the only way to guarantee the integrity of the Single Market.
Johnson knows all this. He must genuinely believe No Deal will be fine or not care if it isn’t.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
Big G outing himself as a Republican is one of the more surprising developments. I always love it when people surprise with their constellation of views. I am probably on the same page, although personally I have always found the monarchy to be one of the less appalling aspects of the English class system. The Queen has done a good job but her children are not a great advertisement for the hereditary principle.
Whose dog it was who actually ate the homework is irrelevant.
therefore everybody who wants Britain to leave the EU, does not love Britain, and is not a patriot.
Please see my response to Big G. A patriot loves their country. Not some other mythical country that doesn't exist but has the Great Scythian Dark Commander as head of state. A British patriot loves their country as currently constituted.
They might be a patriot in waiting (O Come Great Commander) but they ain't a patriot now if they don't love the country as is.
Just asking.
I am a republican. I love my country with its monarchy already but I think it would be better to abolish that undemocratic anachronism.
Surely a true patriot is somebody who wants to make their country better.
You unpatriotic thickie
Harman appointed somehow - she'll be PM solely to extend A50, Corbyn will want a GE immediately after I suspect. Obviously the former Gov't will have no confidence in her either. So with both front benches there'll be the votes to create a GE in short order.
It is still a very unwise and cynical power grab by the executive over parliament, which should be condemned by all who believe in the constitution and democracy.
It moves us closer to a world where Corbyn is PM, cynically manipulating parliament and without the checks and balances that the EU and EU courts would enforce. In ten years time the UK could be a very different place, if it still exists.
The opposite of conservative.
It's obviously possible to love something despite its faults, and the wish to correct those faults.
Uncritical love of one's country is mere servility.
@HYUFD will have you down as a 'diehard Traitor' for that wobble.
The govt refuse to legislate to protect the rights of EU citizens despite making promises to do so, as they are scared the legislation would be amended.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/16/tory-mp-alberto-costa-urges-boris-johnson-to-honour-citizens-rights-pledge
It is a political point, not administrative. Legislate and it could be sorted properly.
I love my country just as much as anyone else and you do not need to be a monarchist to do so.
But it is difficult to say I love my wife but I wish she was Priti Patel.
Likewise, the country is at core a constitutional monarchy and as such that is what we get given. You can say you wish it was driven by Labour, the Greens or the LibDems but the core make up, as it is currently constituted, is a constitutional monarchy. If you want to change that then the country becomes something else and your "patriotic view" becomes meaningless.
You can say I would like to make Britain a republic and then it would be a country I love but you can't say you love Britain because you want to change its nature fundamentally.
A brief skim showed up a few bills still before Parliament.
Any of these ?
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19
Trade Bill 2017-19
Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill [HL] 2017-19
Fisheries Bill 2017-19
Agriculture Bill 2017-19
That is like suggesting a patriot during the Troubles would have opposed the GFA as the Troubles and an absence of power sharing and military in NI and no Stormont was how the country was currently constituted.
That is prima facie absurd.
The single factor to note in this whole issue is Boris's ambition to remain Prime Minister. All other matters are secondary to it. So it's :
1. We leave on October 31st and Boris calls a general election.
2. We fail to leave by October 31st and Boris calls a general election
You see the common factor ?? ....
Like @HYUFD loves the Conservative Party but disagrees with its central policy.
Both absurd.
It's liker those tiresome debates about "what is a socialist" and "what is a Christian". They tend to confuse rather than illuminate. We are all complex beings and the natural thing is to resist being pigeonholed anyway.
As the Tory MP Alberto Costa puts it himself:
“Boris Johnson personally pledged to me and to the country in the House of Commons that he would unequivocally guarantee the rights of citizens. Nothing is enshrined in primary legislation to guarantee these rights,” he said. “If we leave without a deal, many EU member states have said they will not protect the rights of British citizens until their citizens’ rights are enshrined in British law. And the obligation is on us.
One caller to Radio 5 astutely suggested that the "domestic agenda" line was being repeated by every minister and Tory MP as if they did otherwise and told the truth — it's about Brexit — that would undermine the goverment's defence come the inevitable legal challenges to prorogation. Whether the courts will believe the government will be interesting to see.
Downstream, the big problem for the Tories is that many thoughtful Conservative-inclined voters will be profoundly uncomfortable about what looks like a move to continental-style (or US-style) right-wing falangism. If it really is the case that the Party has been taken over by the Francois tendency then we have a major problem in a two-party system where the alternative is the bleach-boned zombie-Marxists who managed to escape from the sepulchre that Mandelson mistakenly thought he had consigned them to.
Your analogy is so tortured I'm afraid I can't make head nor tail of it.
Let me put it this way. Britain is a constitutional monarchy. Patriots love that (I don't particularly like the word patriot either btw). They love their country. They might choose to fight for it. But they can't then say they want to fundamentally change its constitution while still loving it because then what do they love about it?
The rest of your post comes over slightly holier-than-thou, Nick but many thanks for your contribution.
Big G can turn his home into a fox sanctuary and feed them live mice all day for all I care.
Clearly he was wrong, it was entirely accurate to suggest that. He should apologize for misleading the public.
Boris Johnson assures Abe of smooth Brexit at G7, seeking to calm Japan firms' concerns
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/08/27/national/politics-diplomacy/boris-johnson-abe-smooth-brexit/