Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
The poor lambs not only couldn't be bothered to decide what they want before taking a six week holiday they also can't be bothered to sit on Fridays let alone Saturday.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the precious dears holidays.
That's an awful lot of words from both of you to say that democracy is an inconvenience.
It's not an inconvenience it is ongoing.
The fact that the MPs in Parliament can't agree anything and can't organise a piss up in a brewery is a fault of our MPs not democracy. They still have plenty of time to do so and can find more time if the part timers can be bothered to turn up to work more often.
Suspending Parliament for five weeks to make it as hard as possible for MPs to hold to account an unelected Prime Minister leading a government with no majority in the Commons pursuing a policy that no one voted for is an affront to democracy.
If it's been good for one thing, it's been to flush out the enemies of democracy that lurk among us.
I'm appalled by Ruth Davidson's remarks. "referenda"? Ye Gods. It is always referendums.
What I worked at BBC News in the late 70s we had two referendums going on in Scotland and Wales and the dictat came from high - the plural was referenda. At the time I was Duty Editor for Radios 1 and 2 news and felt almost embarrassed by this for our audiences. We used to get into all sorts of verbal contortions to avoid "referendums" but we never used the form referenda
Stadia is the plural of stadium, media is the plural of medium, quanta is the plural of quantum. Referenda is the plural of referendum. I am trying desperately not to use the word "labia" here...
The word referendum is derived from the Latin word referendum, which means what must be referred. Some believe that the plural form is referenda, following the Latin rules of pluralization. This is incorrect. Referendum is now considered an English word and follows the English rules of pluralization, simply adding an s to form the plural as in referendums.
Referendums is logically preferable as a plural form meaning 'ballots on one issue' (as a Latin gerund referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues
It is closely related to agenda, "those matters which must be driven forward", from ago, to drive (cattle); and memorandum, "that matter which must be remembered", from memoro, to call to mind, corrigenda, from rego, to rule, make straight, those things which must be made straight (corrected), etc.
I went thru this the last time this happened. The source you cite (last time it was the Spectator and Sunil was doing the citing) rely on a two-stage process - firstly translate into English as a singular noun, then apply English rules to construct the plural as if it were an English singular. But I contend it would be more accurate if you construct the Latin plural then translate into English. Given the existence of other words, this is simpler and more consistent with English. Or, to consider your source directly, they are simply wrong when they say "This is incorrect".
Or more realistically, look at actual English usage. The two forms have been used regularly and interchangeably for quite some time.
F1: reckoned to be sunny and relatively hot on race day (warm rather than hot for qualifying).
With tiny stakes I've backed (Ladbrokes, with boost) Verstappen for a podium at 2.8, Verstappen win qualifying at 9 (each way, fifth the odds top three, for a lower stake), and Albon to be fastest in first practice (fifth the odds top three) at 14.
Just dinky sums. Ferrari should enjoy the straight sections but there's a bit of a risk of Mercedes overheating.
One thing I can't remember being discussed here is this scenario (disclaimer: This is not a prediction but a hypothetical).
Parliament finds a way to compell Johnson to go to Brussels and ask for another extension. Boris "kicks the can" until October 30 when he anounces that he was elected PM on the policy "we will be leaving on the 31st" and refuses to carry out the parliamentary mandate. The UK leaves with no deal on the 31st.
I understand that BJ will be held in contempt of parliament, but what exactly are the ramifications of that. Does he get a slap on the wrist from John Bercow, or is he thrown out of office? Somehow I cannot see the latter being forceable without a VoNC. And once again are there enough Tories prepared to give up their Westminster careers to win a VoNC once the UK has actually left the EU?
Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
The poor lambs not only couldn't be bothered to decide what they want before taking a six week holiday they also can't be bothered to sit on Fridays let alone Saturday.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the precious dears holidays.
That's an awful lot of words from both of you to say that democracy is an inconvenience.
It's not an inconvenience it is ongoing.
The fact that the MPs in Parliament can't agree anything and can't organise a piss up in a brewery is a fault of our MPs not democracy. They still have plenty of time to do so and can find more time if the part timers can be bothered to turn up to work more often.
Suspending Parliament for five weeks to make it as hard as possible for MPs to hold to account an unelected Prime Minister leading a government with no majority in the Commons pursuing a policy that no one voted for is an affront to democracy.
If it's been good for one thing, it's been to flush out the enemies of democracy that lurk among us.
There is no mandate for No Deal
That doesn’t matter to these loonies. Their only purpose is to show ‘Remainers’ who is boss.
Naive of him, everyone in France hid the resistance in their cellar. In retrospect.
There was a book recently published which said (I paraphrase) that the French Resistance didn't really do much for the war effort but was hugely important for the national psyche.
I'd imagine that applied to most of the resistance movements in WWII, with the exceptions of the Balkans and the Eastern front where partisans caused significant impairment to the Germans. Different kind of war though.
The French Resistance was hugely important after D-Day in stopping German reinforcements reaching the battlefields, especially by sabotaging the railways. Largely run from London, of course.
Sans Grieve et al stirring the pot, May presumably would've signed off her Government's deal last December with bthe EU, as a middlish way. I was prepared to compromise to support it, but good old Dominic wanted his say.
Well here we are. Parliament's been having its say since last December. Going well isn't it? The poor lambs could've not had summer holidays and debated some more, had they so voted, or maybe the odd Saturday too. I'm sure Mr Bercow would've found a precedent from the 14th century to help them. But no.
The poor lambs not only couldn't be bothered to decide what they want before taking a six week holiday they also can't be bothered to sit on Fridays let alone Saturday.
Parliament is losing 4 sitting days to proroguation. If they vote to sit on Fridays that would make that up without disrupting the precious dears holidays.
That's an awful lot of words from both of you to say that democracy is an inconvenience.
It's not an inconvenience it is ongoing.
The fact that the MPs in Parliament can't agree anything and can't organise a piss up in a brewery is a fault of our MPs not democracy. They still have plenty of time to do so and can find more time if the part timers can be bothered to turn up to work more often.
Suspending Parliament for five weeks to make it as hard as possible for MPs to hold to account an unelected Prime Minister leading a government with no majority in the Commons pursuing a policy that no one voted for is an affront to democracy.
If it's been good for one thing, it's been to flush out the enemies of democracy that lurk among us.
CIVIL WAR KLAXON
Democrats Vs Democrats
Which side will you be on???
No Deal 31st October is the decisive Fulcrum in the whole history of UKs relationship in EU. Gammon generation narrowly won the referendum (if the Labour Party Leader was a younger man they wouldn’t have done). Once 2016 is honoured on 31st October with the Conservative Party’s No Deal Brexit it completely tips the other way, Pro EU in ascendency in UK for evermore.
F1: reckoned to be sunny and relatively hot on race day (warm rather than hot for qualifying).
With tiny stakes I've backed (Ladbrokes, with boost) Verstappen for a podium at 2.8, Verstappen win qualifying at 9 (each way, fifth the odds top three, for a lower stake), and Albon to be fastest in first practice (fifth the odds top three) at 14.
Just dinky sums. Ferrari should enjoy the straight sections but there's a bit of a risk of Mercedes overheating.
Is Verstappen your new favourite. At least this time he is actually good - unlike slow coach Bottas who's been re-signed for another year.
I have come to the conclusion that there are about 30 conservative mps who want to stop no deal, but they fear a vonc for the precise reason they are mainly from London and the South and are under serious threat from the Lib Dems. A GE now would be a wipe out for them.
Indeed labour only started panicking when the Lib Dems became a real threat to labour London seats including Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry and that threat still remains
LDs plummeting since Tory Swinson started making TV appearances. Next GE is Tory No Deal or Jezza.
You do talk some crap
LDs on 23% when Tory Swinson elected now at 17%
Main reason Tory Swinson being crap? or perhaps you can provide another explanation for LDs plummeting since Tory Swinson started making TV appearances.
Must be a new definition of 'plummeting'.
LD average of thelast 5 polls before Swinson became leader = 18% LD average of the last 5 polls up to today = 17.2%
During the same period Labour's average has risen from 25.2% all the way up to, er... 23.8% Ooops!
Surely if Gauke is involved they have the numbers already. If he is actively involved, you would guess another 15 Tories, maybe 25-30 would support.
How many "only opportunities" will there be before 31st October? There were a couple just before the PM changed, plus the missed VONC on his appointment. I would guess a further 4 or 5 to come (unless one of them is successfully taken).
I guess "only" is shorthand for "best we're realistically gonna get". And at this stage, the two probably mean similar things. Too many times the Remain/Anti No Deal alliance has fumbled the ball, thinking a better way was coming round the corner. But the demeanour of the govt and the fact of prorogation at this stage does/should focus the mind on their declining chances.
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 USA lacks a monarch and is full of republicans. Whatever anyone thinks of Americans, their patriotism rarely in doubt.
A monarch is not required to be a patriot.
Would you view an American citizen who campaigned for the Queen to be crowned as Queen of the US as a patriot?
Indeed. That was my point but I used Kim Jong-Un as an example.
so what else is on the Topping Requirements for someone else to be allowed to say they love Britain? So far all I know is nobody is allowed to say that they think we should end the monarchy. But what about other constitutional changes eg: wanting to end FPTP for elections? wanting to get rid of the unelected House of Lords? wanting to disestablish the CofE?
or other symbolic changes: wanting to change the national flag? wanting to change the national anthem? wanting to change the colour of the passports?
I'm really curious what would be on your list, or is it solely a monarchy fetish?
And does it apply to other countries with the Queen as head of state eg: are Australians who want the Queen to no longer be head of state of Australia allowed to say they love Australia?
You seem quite het up. That was this morning's discussion.
no just curious what your position is, because it seems extremely weird to me, so I'm just trying to get my head around it
edit: but as you don't want to answer any questions I'll just assume your original comment was just a way to insult someone you don't agree with, which is usually the case with people accusing other people of not really being patriots
Both partly correct IMHO. But Article 50 does not require binding agreement beyond the WA. Taking account of 'framework for its future relationship' is not clear enough to amount to need agreement, nor is it without force or meaning.
One could argue the PD is "taking account" of the future relationship.
Personally, I think we made a number of major errors:
1. A terrible job was done in replicating existing trading arrangements early on, which made us extremely vulnerable to No Deal.
2. There was no attempt to reach out beyond the Conservative Party to Leavers and moderate Remainers, this meant that the government had no allies on the other side of the House.
3. The language used about the EU in the early stages of the negotiation was ridiculously triumphant and unnecessarily antagonistic. When you dump someone, it's always best to say "it's not you, it's me"
4. Mrs May barely reported on any of her discussions with Brussels in the first two years of negotiations.
5. We forgot that when we leave the EU, then there needs to be primary legislation in many EU countries (and the UK) in areas such as citizens rights and taxation. These are agreements we fall out of when we leave, and which the EU has no say over once we become a third party. That only Spain has passed appropriate tax legislation is going to come back and bite us hard if there's no transition. 5a. We've also done a shit job with EU citizens already in the UK, such that the ones we want to stay will be the ones most likely to go.
I could go on.
All very fair points RCS. One question: do you think we were/are ever likely to get better trade deals outside the EU than the EU as a very large collective could?
RCS's only arguments for leaving were based on exceptionalism that has since been proven to be built on sand.
Everyone except the Conservatives has an interest in seeing him stay in office until November without Britain leaving the EU. Why would they help him escape this fate?
Q: What happens if he resigns? Potentially advising HM that there is no one that can command the Commons?
He can resign. His views on the lack of a successor would no doubt be taken into account by HRH but she would need to call for someone, and then test that out.
That advice in any case would be quite irresponsible. There manifestly are people who could for the time being command the confidence of the House of Commons if called upon (eg Harriet Harman, Ken Clarke). The only question is whether other more contentious candidates, such as Jeremy Corbyn, need to be tested out first.
“HRH”? Are you guys going to demote her now because of yesterday?
I don’t the PM can resign.
He can offer his resignation but until the Seal of Office is taken from him and given to someone else he remains PM
Everyone except the Conservatives has an interest in seeing him stay in office until November without Britain leaving the EU. Why would they help him escape this fate?
Q: What happens if he resigns? Potentially advising HM that there is no one that can command the Commons?
He can resign. His views on the lack of a successor would no doubt be taken into account by HRH but she would need to call for someone, and then test that out.
That advice in any case would be quite irresponsible. There manifestly are people who could for the time being command the confidence of the House of Commons if called upon (eg Harriet Harman, Ken Clarke). The only question is whether other more contentious candidates, such as Jeremy Corbyn, need to be tested out first.
“HRH”? Are you guys going to demote her now because of yesterday?
Both partly correct IMHO. But Article 50 does not require binding agreement beyond the WA. Taking account of 'framework for its future relationship' is not clear enough to amount to need agreement, nor is it without force or meaning.
One could argue the PD is "taking account" of the future relationship.
Personally, I think we made a number of major errors:
1. A terrible job was done in replicating existing trading arrangements early on, which made us extremely vulnerable to No Deal.
2. There was no attempt to reach out beyond the Conservative Party to Leavers and moderate Remainers, this meant that the government had no allies on the other side of the House.
3. The language used about the EU in the early stages of the negotiation was ridiculously triumphant and unnecessarily antagonistic. When you dump someone, it's always best to say "it's not you, it's me"
4. Mrs May barely reported on any of her discussions with Brussels in the first two years of negotiations.
5. We forgot that when we leave the EU, then there needs to be primary legislation in many EU countries (and the UK) in areas such as citizens rights and taxation. These are agreements we fall out of when we leave, and which the EU has no say over once we become a third party. That only Spain has passed appropriate tax legislation is going to come back and bite us hard if there's no transition. 5a. We've also done a shit job with EU citizens already in the UK, such that the ones we want to stay will be the ones most likely to go.
I could go on.
Triggering Article 50 and then having an election was also surely the wrong way round.
The PM after the referendum should have just said "we have fulfilled the Conservative 2015 manifesto commitment to have an in/out referendum. We will now honour that result by taking us out of the EU while also honouring the commitment made in the same manifesto (on the same page even!) to maintain Britain's place in the Single Market. Britain will leave the EU and stay in the Single Market, as we have pledged to do."
Status quo not no deal perhaps.....what a shame that would be for no dealers, who might have to win a pesky vote instead of stopping them happening.
I don’t see what his argument is. Parliament passed the A50 notification act in full knowledge that it would involve leaving at the end of a two year period, whether or not a deal had been signed. Perhaps PB legal insiders have a more informed view.
More sneering drivel. You know full well that no-one fully appreciated what enacting Article 50 would entail. That doesn’t mean they should be taught a lesson.
This is people’s lives for f*ck sake. This isn’t a game.
Bullshit. Those enacting Article 50 were in the perfect position to know what it entailed and the potential outcomes. If they claim they didn't then they are unfit to be in their jobs.
People, including MPs, are entitled to change their minds Richard as the facts change. If they are so dogmatic they are unable to have humility and admit a mistake, then they are most definitely unfit for their jobs. From the poll on this header it would suggest that there are quite a lot of people who now realise it was a mistake, and also want to change their minds.
I wasn't arguing that. I was calling out Gallowgate for the ridiculous idea that the 650 MPs who voted on whether or not to invoke Article 50 didn't know what they were voting for. It is a facile and fraudulent argument which implies that Parliamentary Sovereignty is a bankrupt concept. After all if MPs are so dumb they didn't understand something as straight forward as Article 50 then Boris should do us all a favour and shut down Psrliament permanently..
Richard, You can bet most of them had no clue , had not read it and those who had , most did not understand it. When you see them in parliament they are like sheep, herded in to vote and back to the subsidised bars asap. The debating is done in front of a few suckers under orders and majority pile in at the end , vote and back to the bar.
Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.
Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.
Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.
Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.
How is a legitimate Privy Council meeting can comprise only the Queen, the Leader of the HoC, the Leader of the HoL and the Government Chief Whip?
Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?
Quorom is 4 including the Queen. As for balance: No, why should they?
It is Parliament that has whatever balance we elect, the PC is just how the executive implements its functions and there is no balance to the executive.
Comments
Betting PostF1: reckoned to be sunny and relatively hot on race day (warm rather than hot for qualifying).
With tiny stakes I've backed (Ladbrokes, with boost) Verstappen for a podium at 2.8, Verstappen win qualifying at 9 (each way, fifth the odds top three, for a lower stake), and Albon to be fastest in first practice (fifth the odds top three) at 14.
Just dinky sums. Ferrari should enjoy the straight sections but there's a bit of a risk of Mercedes overheating.
NEW THREAD
LD average of thelast 5 polls before Swinson became leader = 18%
LD average of the last 5 polls up to today = 17.2%
During the same period Labour's average has risen from 25.2% all the way up to, er... 23.8% Ooops!
Alex Carey †
Paine being dropped ?
https://twitter.com/KirstyS_Hughes/status/1167056612214939648
edit: but as you don't want to answer any questions I'll just assume your original comment was just a way to insult someone you don't agree with, which is usually the case with people accusing other people of not really being patriots
He can offer his resignation but until the Seal of Office is taken from him and given to someone else he remains PM
The PM after the referendum should have just said "we have fulfilled the Conservative 2015 manifesto commitment to have an in/out referendum. We will now honour that result by taking us out of the EU while also honouring the commitment made in the same manifesto (on the same page even!) to maintain Britain's place in the Single Market. Britain will leave the EU and stay in the Single Market, as we have pledged to do."
It is Parliament that has whatever balance we elect, the PC is just how the executive implements its functions and there is no balance to the executive.