Yep. That's the shit the electorate landed us with when they voted for Brexit by a narrow margin in 2016, when they crippled May's ability to implement their previous decision in 2017, and who knows what the fruits of their sublime genius will be in 2019?
No Deal Brexit is crazy but it's still better than putting Corbyn in charge of Britain for even 5 minutes.
I see no difference. Happily, it is a good time to live in a safe seat as my vote one way or the other won't contribute meaningfully to either outcome.
Oh, there's very much certainly a difference.
If you can't see one you're not looking or thinking hard enough, and falling back on whataboutism instead (because it's easier).
Not always inclined to give MPs the benefit of the doubt, but paraphrasing Gary Gibbons on C4, many of them on the edge and the whole place radiates (if depression can be radiated) clinical depression.
Not the best atmosphere for clear headed decision making.
I don’t think he actually wants to win to be honest. Number 10 have already accepted an election, it seems.
That said, it is Robert Peston, so what odds that the government squeaks home now!
Number 10 would like an election. However, I think they’re going to be disappointed.
How heavily have you laid it?
I am laying but I’m being cautious. An election could happen more or less by accident.
2020 looks likelier than 2019 now.
Boris will lose a VONC very soon especially if he sacks 16 mps from the party. It's likely someone will be put into bat with a one line QS, seek extension and call an election
Yep. That's the shit the electorate landed us with when they voted for Brexit by a narrow margin in 2016, when they crippled May's ability to implement their previous decision in 2017, and who knows what the fruits of their sublime genius will be in 2019?
The fruits will be endless future threads arguing about Brexit.
I don’t think he actually wants to win to be honest. Number 10 have already accepted an election, it seems.
That said, it is Robert Peston, so what odds that the government squeaks home now!
Number 10 would like an election. However, I think they’re going to be disappointed.
How heavily have you laid it?
I am laying but I’m being cautious. An election could happen more or less by accident.
2020 looks likelier than 2019 now.
Boris will lose a VONC very soon especially if he sacks 16 mps from the party. It's likely someone will be put into bat with a one line QS, seek extension and call an election
No one will want to launch a vote of no confidence till his credibility is shot. So not before November.
Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
That would be unprecedented and severely undermine the monarchy. I hope Liz tells him where to go.
She is a puppet, she shouldn't tell him anything.
The Commons has consented to Boris as PM and if it rejects an election will have confirmed its desire to keep him as PM. He is entitled to exercise the monarch's veto powers.
It would be unprecedented but I can't think of any precedent of the Commons passing a bill directly against the PM's ambitions. If the House acts in an unprecedented manner, the PM can reply in kind.
Quick question, if the Govts decision to prorogue can be taken to court, Can The Speakers decision also be taken to court?
Which one? Yes in theory to most things though
Which one indeed ? Most probably cannot - if he is supported by a majority in the House, which determines its own procedures, it’s hard to see how that might be justiciable outside of the House.
If he ruled benn cannot be refused consent as it does not infringe royal prerogative that could be challenged in court
I think you're confusing royal consent for legislation that affects the royal prerogative with royal assent for legislation in general. They are two different things.
This bill arguably affects royal prerogative.
Well, in any case royal consent and royal assent are two different things, and as far as I know the speaker isn't involved in either.
Speaker determines if a bill requires royal consent. If it does the PM advises HMQ whether to grant consent or not.
If this bill requires consent and Bercow says so then Boris can veto it via withholding consent. If it should require consent but Bercow claims it doesn't, it is hard to see how that can be remedied.
No, that's not right. Whether a bill requires royal consent is decided by the Clerk, not the Speaker.
Certainly, the fury of Leavers will be unbound and if Boris cannot deliver Brexit Deal or No Deal the odds on a Farage led Brexit Party achieving an SNP 2015 style surge, especially in Labour Leave seats would be very high
Brexit won't die if your man fails to deliver it on 31/10. You seem to assume everyone who is opposed to a No Deal Brexit is opposed to Brexit but that simply isn't the case.
There are plenty who reject No Deal and want to leave with something approaching a reasonable WA which May's clearly wasn't.
The diehard Leave fanatics will froth on Facebook and will flock to BP which will take over the Leave mantle from the failed Conservatives but ther eis an opportunity to strike a sensible deal which works for the country once the Tories are out of the way.
I disagree. Remember I have always favoured the EFTA route out of the EU and the idea of a long, slow process with safeguards to make sure it could not be undermined. I supported May's deal in spite of its flaws.
But I genuinely believe the aim of the majority of the House is to somehow reverse the referendum result whikst avoiding getting blamed for it. Indeed plenty of those who once dishonestly claimed to support the result of the referendum are now quite open in their support for cancelling it.
What reason should anyone have to trust any if these people voting against No Deal tonight when so many of them have already broken their promises to their own electorates.
Quick question, if the Govts decision to prorogue can be taken to court, Can The Speakers decision also be taken to court?
Which one? Yes in theory to most things though
Which one indeed ? Most probably cannot - if he is supported by a majority in the House, which determines its own procedures, it’s hard to see how that might be justiciable outside of the House.
If he ruled benn cannot be refused consent as it does not infringe royal prerogative that could be challenged in court
I think you're confusing royal consent for legislation that affects the royal prerogative with royal assent for legislation in general. They are two different things.
This bill arguably affects royal prerogative.
Well, in any case royal consent and royal assent are two different things, and as far as I know the speaker isn't involved in either.
Speaker determines if a bill requires royal consent. If it does the PM advises HMQ whether to grant consent or not.
If this bill requires consent and Bercow says so then Boris can veto it via withholding consent. If it should require consent but Bercow claims it doesn't, it is hard to see how that can be remedied.
No, that's not right. Whether a bill requires royal consent is decided by the Clerk, not the Speaker.
Are you sure? Everyone said Speaker earlier.
And what happens if the Speaker overrules the Clerk as he did in January?
I don’t think he actually wants to win to be honest. Number 10 have already accepted an election, it seems.
That said, it is Robert Peston, so what odds that the government squeaks home now!
Number 10 would like an election. However, I think they’re going to be disappointed.
How heavily have you laid it?
I am laying but I’m being cautious. An election could happen more or less by accident.
2020 looks likelier than 2019 now.
Boris will lose a VONC very soon especially if he sacks 16 mps from the party. It's likely someone will be put into bat with a one line QS, seek extension and call an election
No one will want to launch a vote of no confidence till his credibility is shot. So not before November.
Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.
Quick question, if the Govts decision to prorogue can be taken to court, Can The Speakers decision also be taken to court?
Which one? Yes in theory to most things though
Which one indeed ? Most probably cannot - if he is supported by a majority in the House, which determines its own procedures, it’s hard to see how that might be justiciable outside of the House.
If he ruled benn cannot be refused consent as it does not infringe royal prerogative that could be challenged in court
I think you're confusing royal consent for legislation that affects the royal prerogative with royal assent for legislation in general. They are two different things.
This bill arguably affects royal prerogative.
Well, in any case royal consent and royal assent are two different things, and as far as I know the speaker isn't involved in either.
Speaker determines if a bill requires royal consent. If it does the PM advises HMQ whether to grant consent or not.
If this bill requires consent and Bercow says so then Boris can veto it via withholding consent. If it should require consent but Bercow claims it doesn't, it is hard to see how that can be remedied.
No, that's not right. Whether a bill requires royal consent is decided by the Clerk, not the Speaker.
Are you sure? Everyone said Speaker earlier.
And what happens if the Speaker overrules the Clerk as he did in January?
Speaker takes advice from the clerk, going against it would be grounds for court action I'd say
I know he's SNP but every time he stands up it's Scotland this.. Scotland that.. Pushing SNP propaganda and attack lines.
Always divides the House rather than seeking to influence it to his greater advantage.
We aim to dissolve the Union, not repair it.
Yes, but this vote is about stopping a No Deal Brexit.
Are the SNP interested in reaching out to stop that across party lines,or not?
Hey, we were looking to the Ruth Davidson Party mps "to be standing up for Scotland's interests from within the Conservative party". Isn't that happening any more?
Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
That would be unprecedented and severely undermine the monarchy. I hope Liz tells him where to go.
Refusal of royal assent would be the end of monarchy, or the catalyst that begins that ending
It wouldn't when voters opposed further extension by 47% to 41% with Survation at the weekend and backed the Queen asserting to proroguing Parliament by a 20% margin.
Indeed Monarchists, the Queen's base, voted 56% Leave while republicans voted 65% Remain.
If you want to have an election, I'd have it now. Because those PMIs tend to lead changes in unemployment rates by six months.
The Renainers really are dumb. They are going to kill Brexit just in time for a major recession which every Leave supporting politician will take great pleasure in pinning on them. So with economic hardship and a betrayal narrative we are going to see a huge increase in support for the real extremist parties and a backlash against the politicians like you can't imagine.
A first? First time I’ve seen a Leaver admit that Brexit is dead.
There have been plenty of us warning this would happen for months. I go further and say if Brexit is dead then so is democracy in this country. You will reap what you sowed.
It was a Tory who did the sowing: David Cameron.
Nope. He just gave the electorate a choice. It is the Remainers who have chosen to ignore that choice and so undermine the basic principles of democracy. I assume ftom your comments a future Parliament should ignore any future Indy Referendum
Quick question, if the Govts decision to prorogue can be taken to court, Can The Speakers decision also be taken to court?
Which one? Yes in theory to most things though
Which one indeed ? Most probably cannot - if he is supported by a majority in the House, which determines its own procedures, it’s hard to see how that might be justiciable outside of the House.
If he ruled benn cannot be refused consent as it does not infringe royal prerogative that could be challenged in court
I think you're confusing royal consent for legislation that affects the royal prerogative with royal assent for legislation in general. They are two different things.
This bill arguably affects royal prerogative.
Well, in any case royal consent and royal assent are two different things, and as far as I know the speaker isn't involved in either.
Speaker determines if a bill requires royal consent. If it does the PM advises HMQ whether to grant consent or not.
If this bill requires consent and Bercow says so then Boris can veto it via withholding consent. If it should require consent but Bercow claims it doesn't, it is hard to see how that can be remedied.
No, that's not right. Whether a bill requires royal consent is decided by the Clerk, not the Speaker.
Are you sure? Everyone said Speaker earlier.
And what happens if the Speaker overrules the Clerk as he did in January?
Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.
The only precedent (I think) is the Cooper Letwin Bill. The government allowed consent there and should do so again.
I think Bercow will stand at the coming General Election, and - even if the Conservatives stand against him - will win. This means there is a fair likelihood the bet will not payout for some time.
It requires, effectively, the Conservatives to win enough of a majority that they wish to take on the Speaker. Possible? Yes. But anything other than a decent majority (i.e. 25+) sees him stay in place.
You really think Bercow would win in Buckingham against a Conservative candidate?
Yes, because the LibDems, Labour and Green won't stand, and the Brexit Party would.
Also, when it was Bercow vs John Stevens vs Nigel Farage, then John Stevens comfortably beat Farage, which tells you quite a lot about the seat.
I think it tells you more about how useless Farage is at FPTP elections.
The Conservatives know how to fight a FPTP election and would have the data and organisation etc that Farage lacks.
If you want £10 on the result, I think it might be fun.
There are lots of combos at work. Will he get shunted off to the Lords as ex-Speakers are want to be? If not, who will stand against him? When will the election be?
Bercow wins Buckingham at the next General Election, I win. Anybody else, you win.
Too many combos at work.
Will he retire? If so, he's gone. 5% maybe?
Will they stand against him? 50% maybe? Depends upon what triggers the election and how vitriolic it is.
If they stand will they win? I'd make this 50/50 - Bercow has the name, Tories have the organisation.
Overall then I'd say roughly 25% chance he's defeated at an election. Which is very high by historical terms.
VoNC in speaker called, passes (or is so close that, like MM, he quits), Bercow doesn't fancy being a backbencher is another variable. At evens I'd still say he wins the next election.
Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.
AFAIK Queen Anne is the most recent precedent, which AFAIK is the most recent time that Parliament has passed a bill that the government then wanted to veto.
Petrol has been getting poured all year and neither side wants to be the side to lose.
Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
That would be unprecedented and severely undermine the monarchy. I hope Liz tells him where to go.
Refusal of royal assent would be the end of monarchy, or the catalyst that begins that ending
It wouldn't when voters oppose further extension by 47% to 41% with Survation at the weekend and backed the Queen asserting to proroguing Parliament by a 20% margin.
The Queen rightly should not aid the Commons defy the will of the people
No, once that cat is out of the bag it's too late. It makes the monarchy unsustainable, how can you have am unelected hereditary monarch refusing to enact law passed by her subjects elected representatives? There a reason nobody since Anne has done so
Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
That would be unprecedented and severely undermine the monarchy. I hope Liz tells him where to go.
Refusal of royal assent would be the end of monarchy, or the catalyst that begins that ending
It wouldn't when voters oppose further extension by 47% to 41% with Survation at the weekend and backed the Queen asserting to proroguing Parliament by a 20% margin.
Indeed Monarchists, the Queen's base, voted 56% Leave while republicans voted 65% Remain.
Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.
The only precedent (I think) is the Cooper Letwin Bill. The government allowed consent there and should do so again.
I don't think Cooper-Letwin required consent (Speaker ruled it did not) but a subsequent legal ruling has cast doubt on whether that was technically correct.
No Deal Brexit is crazy but it's still better than putting Corbyn in charge of Britain for even 5 minutes.
I see no difference. Happily, it is a good time to live in a safe seat as my vote one way or the other won't contribute meaningfully to either outcome.
Oh, there's very much certainly a difference.
If you can't see one you're not looking or thinking hard enough, and falling back on whataboutism instead (because it's easier).
Oh, they don't have the same effect, but the impact seems little different.
I'm sorry, but reliant on 'Corbyn is a boogeyman' is just plain laziness. I cannot stand the man, I voted Tory for the first time in large part because of that, but the Tories no longer care about anything other than no deal Brexit in order to preserve their party, and no deal Brexit appears to me to have a high chance of unacceptable impacts which will not be mitigated even if they can be. Corbyn will, I am sure, be terrible, but I need a bit more than an appeal to fear of an incompetent old trot to back a no deal Brexit.
No Deal Brexit is crazy but it's still better than putting Corbyn in charge of Britain for even 5 minutes.
No Deal Brexit is major collateral damage in ideogically pursuing a single policy. Corbyn is a political, economic, security and social nuclear suicide weapon who'd actively seek to tear down as much as he could, rather than mitigate it.
The only possible way this country will deliver a majority Corbyn govt is no deal.
The choice is not no deal vs Corbyn but no deal followed by a Corbyn majority govt vs a Corbyn coalition govt.
That is where the conservatives have led us. A triumphant achievements thinks the party cheerleader!
If you want to have an election, I'd have it now. Because those PMIs tend to lead changes in unemployment rates by six months.
The Renainers really are dumb. They are going to kill Brexit just in time for a major recession which every Leave supporting politician will take great pleasure in pinning on them. So with economic hardship and a betrayal narrative we are going to see a huge increase in support for the real extremist parties and a backlash against the politicians like you can't imagine.
A first? First time I’ve seen a Leaver admit that Brexit is dead.
There have been plenty of us warning this would happen for months. I go further and say if Brexit is dead then so is democracy in this country. You will reap what you sowed.
It was a Tory who did the sowing: David Cameron.
Nope. He just gave the electorate a choice. It is the Remainers who have chosen to ignore that choice and so undermine the basic principles of democracy. I assume ftom your comments a future Parliament should ignore any future Indy Referendum
English constitutional principle: parliamentary sovereignty.
Scottish constitutional principle: popular sovereignty.
You stick to your principles. We’ll stick to ours.
Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.
The only precedent (I think) is the Cooper Letwin Bill. The government allowed consent there and should do so again.
I don't think Cooper-Letwin required consent (Speaker ruled it did not) but a subsequent legal ruling has cast doubt on whether that was technically correct.
It didn't as it mandated the PM to have to seek an extension, it did not state she had to accept, and was superceded by events. Its having to accept any extension offered that affects prerogative
Criticises threat to sack those who oppose a deal? That should be a fascinating read, given the elation he no doubt has toward sacking those who rebel tonight. It's always good for a laugh to see ideologues tie themselves in knotts trying to justify themselves.
No Deal Brexit is crazy but it's still better than putting Corbyn in charge of Britain for even 5 minutes.
No Deal Brexit is major collateral damage in ideogically pursuing a single policy. Corbyn is a political, economic, security and social nuclear suicide weapon who'd actively seek to tear down as much as he could, rather than mitigate it.
I think we’ll hit the jackpot, No Deal followed by Corbyn.
The only way we get Corbyn is if Boris extends again, so precisely the opposite.
Though there is a small chance of PM Farage more likely the Brexit Party splits the Leave vote with the Tories and lets Corbyn through the middle (Though there is still a chance Swinson would veto a Corbyn Premiership).
Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
That would be unprecedented and severely undermine the monarchy. I hope Liz tells him where to go.
Refusal of royal assent would be the end of monarchy, or the catalyst that begins that ending
It wouldn't when voters opposed further extension by 47% to 41% with Survation at the weekend and backed the Queen asserting to proroguing Parliament by a 20% margin.
Indeed Monarchists, the Queen's base, voted 56% Leave while republicans voted 65% Remain.
The Queen rightly should not aid the Commons defy the will of the people
That’s absurd. YouGov and Survation are fine organisation but are you seriously suggesting that the Queen should withold consent to a bill passed by the legislature based on an opinion poll? Seriously? That’s insane.
Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.
AFAIK Queen Anne is the most recent precedent, which AFAIK is the most recent time that Parliament has passed a bill that the government then wanted to veto.
Petrol has been getting poured all year and neither side wants to be the side to lose.
We are watching the Corn Laws Redux. History is being written tonight as the Tory party splits before our eyes.
Possibly.
Although keep in mind the numbers voting against Boris actually quite small and consist mostly of the old guard.
The direction of the Tory Party has been clear since Thatchers Bruges speech so in a lot of ways this is a final roll of the dice of the EU-Loving Old Guard.
Once they're out the Party tonight the Tories will almost certainly coalesce around whatever it is they become under Boris (or whoever follows him)
Tonight is the final act of a drama that began with the knifing of Mrs Thacther.
Well one thing the Corn Laws did was purge the Tory party of those who were really liberals not conservatives, if Brexit does the same thing so be it.
The Peelites in the Tories ended up with the Whigs in the Liberals and if more diehard Remainers like Lee today join the LDs fair enough
Busy on here tonight, I am normally just a lurker, but here goes. I am a pensioner, some would say well off, former MD of a successful company, I voted remain, and deplore the polarisation of both remainers and leavers, I am not an old thickie, or a Remoniac. I was a supporter of Boris, and a Con voter, but not any more, I now have nowhere to go, Corbyn, definitely not, Libdems, no. Greens absolutely not, despite the fact I spent my career in recycling and environmental matters. I mainly live in a marginal Con/Lab, but close to a Libdem hotspot, I could also vote for Rory as I also could have my main residence in his constituency. Think I will change my residence and vote Rory, as a likely independent.
Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.
The only precedent (I think) is the Cooper Letwin Bill. The government allowed consent there and should do so again.
I don't think Cooper-Letwin required consent (Speaker ruled it did not) but a subsequent legal ruling has cast doubt on whether that was technically correct.
It didn't as it mandated the PM to have to seek an extension, it did not state she had to accept, and was superceded by events. Its having to accept any extension offered that affects prerogative
And that extension can be voted down by the HOC as included in the bill but deliberately left out by the loonies in their publicity
No Deal Brexit is crazy but it's still better than putting Corbyn in charge of Britain for even 5 minutes.
No Deal Brexit is major collateral damage in ideogically pursuing a single policy. Corbyn is a political, economic, security and social nuclear suicide weapon who'd actively seek to tear down as much as he could, rather than mitigate it.
The only possible way this country will deliver a majority Corbyn govt is no deal.
The choice is not no deal vs Corbyn but no deal followed by a Corbyn majority govt vs a Corbyn coalition govt.
That is where the conservatives have led us. A triumphant achievements thinks the party cheerleader!
What makes you think the dials will shift following No Deal?
Views are so entrenched now that I wouldn't expect meaningful movement on it for months after a No Deal Brexit. Everyone has their pantomime villains to blame (which won't be them) and will be looking for evidence to validate their confirmation bias.
Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
That would be unprecedented and severely undermine the monarchy. I hope Liz tells him where to go.
Refusal of royal assent would be the end of monarchy, or the catalyst that begins that ending
It wouldn't when voters oppose further extension by 47% to 41% with Survation at the weekend and backed the Queen asserting to proroguing Parliament by a 20% margin.
The Queen rightly should not aid the Commons defy the will of the people
No, once that cat is out of the bag it's too late. It makes the monarchy unsustainable, how can you have am unelected hereditary monarch refusing to enact law passed by her subjects elected representatives? There a reason nobody since Anne has done so
How can you have a monarchy defying the will of the people and 17 million people and aiding a coup by die hard Remainers to refuse to implement the will of the people?
In the civil war we are now beginning most Monarchists are on the Leave side, most Republicans on the die hard Remainer side and it will now continue in that vein
Anne refused assent to the scottish militia bill of 1708 on advice of her ministers as she feared the Scots may be disloyal. Prior to that William of orange vetoed 6 times and before that Charles and James 2nd tried rule by decree
If you want to have an election, I'd have it now. Because those PMIs tend to lead changes in unemployment rates by six months.
The Renainers really are dumb. They are going to kill Brexit just in time for a major recession which every Leave supporting politician will take great pleasure in pinning on them. So with economic hardship and a betrayal narrative we are going to see a huge increase in support for the real extremist parties and a backlash against the politicians like you can't imagine.
A first? First time I’ve seen a Leaver admit that Brexit is dead.
There have been plenty of us warning this would happen for months. I go further and say if Brexit is dead then so is democracy in this country. You will reap what you sowed.
It was a Tory who did the sowing: David Cameron.
Nope. He just gave the electorate a choice. It is the Remainers who have chosen to ignore that choice and so undermine the basic principles of democracy. I assume ftom your comments a future Parliament should ignore any future Indy Referendum
English constitutional principle: parliamentary sovereignty.
Scottish constitutional principle: popular sovereignty.
You stick to your principles. We’ll stick to ours.
The people of Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 using that popular sovereignty principle
No Deal Brexit is crazy but it's still better than putting Corbyn in charge of Britain for even 5 minutes.
No Deal Brexit is major collateral damage in ideogically pursuing a single policy. Corbyn is a political, economic, security and social nuclear suicide weapon who'd actively seek to tear down as much as he could, rather than mitigate it.
The only possible way this country will deliver a majority Corbyn govt is no deal.
The choice is not no deal vs Corbyn but no deal followed by a Corbyn majority govt vs a Corbyn coalition govt.
That is where the conservatives have led us. A triumphant achievements thinks the party cheerleader!
What makes you think the dials will shift following No Deal?
Views are so entrenched now that I wouldn't expect meaningful movement on it for months after a No Deal Brexit. Everyone has their pantomime villains to blame (which won't be them) and will be looking for evidence to validate their confirmation bias.
Anne refused assent to the scottish militia bill of 1708 on advice of her ministers as she feared the Scots may be disloyal. Prior to that William of orange vetoed 6 times and before that Charles and James 2nd tried rule by decree
Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.
The only precedent (I think) is the Cooper Letwin Bill. The government allowed consent there and should do so again.
I don't think Cooper-Letwin required consent (Speaker ruled it did not) but a subsequent legal ruling has cast doubt on whether that was technically correct.
Interesting. Thanks.
I have, maybe naively, always thought that the giving of royal consent is one of the sole prerogatives reserved to the monarch acting independently of government. But perhaps I’m wrong and the advice of government always overrides. Would be a complete clusterf**k of epic proportions though, I can’t see the palace being happy at all if they’re dragged into this particular quagmire.
Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
That would be unprecedented and severely undermine the monarchy. I hope Liz tells him where to go.
Refusal of royal assent would be the end of monarchy, or the catalyst that begins that ending
It wouldn't when voters oppose further extension by 47% to 41% with Survation at the weekend and backed the Queen asserting to proroguing Parliament by a 20% margin.
The Queen rightly should not aid the Commons defy the will of the people
No, once that cat is out of the bag it's too late. It makes the monarchy unsustainable, how can you have am unelected hereditary monarch refusing to enact law passed by her subjects elected representatives? There a reason nobody since Anne has done so
How can you have a monarchy defying the will of the people and 17 million people and aiding a coup by die hard Remainers to refuse to implement the will of the people?
In the civil war we are now beginning most Monarchists are on the Leave side, most Republicans on the die hard Remainer side and it will now continue in that vein
I see you've decided to respond to hyperbolic references to a coup by trying to use it yourself. How very adult of you.
If you want to have an election, I'd have it now. Because those PMIs tend to lead changes in unemployment rates by six months.
The Renainers really are dumb. They are going to kill Brexit just in time for a major recession which every Leave supporting politician will take great pleasure in pinning on them. So with economic hardship and a betrayal narrative we are going to see a huge increase in support for the real extremist parties and a backlash against the politicians like you can't imagine.
A first? First time I’ve seen a Leaver admit that Brexit is dead.
There have been plenty of us warning this would happen for months. I go further and say if Brexit is dead then so is democracy in this country. You will reap what you sowed.
It was a Tory who did the sowing: David Cameron.
Nope. He just gave the electorate a choice. It is the Remainers who have chosen to ignore that choice and so undermine the basic principles of democracy. I assume ftom your comments a future Parliament should ignore any future Indy Referendum
English constitutional principle: parliamentary sovereignty.
Scottish constitutional principle: popular sovereignty.
You stick to your principles. We’ll stick to ours.
The people of Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 using that popular sovereignty principle
No Deal Brexit is crazy but it's still better than putting Corbyn in charge of Britain for even 5 minutes.
I see no difference. Happily, it is a good time to live in a safe seat as my vote one way or the other won't contribute meaningfully to either outcome.
Oh, there's very much certainly a difference.
If you can't see one you're not looking or thinking hard enough, and falling back on whataboutism instead (because it's easier).
Oh, they don't have the same effect, but the impact seems little different.
I'm sorry, but reliant on 'Corbyn is a boogeyman' is just plain laziness. I cannot stand the man, I voted Tory for the first time in large part because of that, but the Tories no longer care about anything other than no deal Brexit in order to preserve their party, and no deal Brexit appears to me to have a high chance of unacceptable impacts which will not be mitigated even if they can be. Corbyn will, I am sure, be terrible, but I need a bit more than an appeal to fear of an incompetent old trot to back a no deal Brexit.
One example: Corbyn would do his utmost (for ideological reasons) to inhibit aspects of the work of our security services from day one, and start to dismantle parts of our military. He would ignore advice and warnings that conflicted with his worldview. He'd share confidential advice with our enemies. He'd undermine NATO. He could easily get people killed.
He would quickly move to nationalisations and currency controls. He would try an emergency budget and confiscate whatever assets he could. Including your pension. He would tax your income heavily and your house.
The Conservatives would never do any of that (even for a No Deal Brexit, which you're assuming Corbyn also secretly doesn't want) so I wouldn't put the man anywhere near Downing Street under any circumstances.
If you want to have an election, I'd have it now. Because those PMIs tend to lead changes in unemployment rates by six months.
The Renainers really are dumb. They are going to kill Brexit just in time for a major recession which every Leave supporting politician will take great pleasure in pinning on them. So with economic hardship and a betrayal narrative we are going to see a huge increase in support for the real extremist parties and a backlash against the politicians like you can't imagine.
A first? First time I’ve seen a Leaver admit that Brexit is dead.
There have been plenty of us warning this would happen for months. I go further and say if Brexit is dead then so is democracy in this country. You will reap what you sowed.
It was a Tory who did the sowing: David Cameron.
Nope. He just gave the electorate a choice. It is the Remainers who have chosen to ignore that choice and so undermine the basic principles of democracy. I assume ftom your comments a future Parliament should ignore any future Indy Referendum
English constitutional principle: parliamentary sovereignty.
Scottish constitutional principle: popular sovereignty.
You stick to your principles. We’ll stick to ours.
The people of Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 using that popular sovereignty principle
No Deal Brexit is crazy but it's still better than putting Corbyn in charge of Britain for even 5 minutes.
No Deal Brexit is major collateral damage in ideogically pursuing a single policy. Corbyn is a political, economic, security and social nuclear suicide weapon who'd actively seek to tear down as much as he could, rather than mitigate it.
The only possible way this country will deliver a majority Corbyn govt is no deal.
The choice is not no deal vs Corbyn but no deal followed by a Corbyn majority govt vs a Corbyn coalition govt.
That is where the conservatives have led us. A triumphant achievements thinks the party cheerleader!
Nope, Corbyn will never get a majority Government, indeed Swinson now leads Corbyn as preferred PM.
The only way Corbyn becomes PM is by listening to diehard Remainers like you, splitting the Leave vote between the Brexit Party and the Tories under FPTP and allowing Corbyn in the back door
Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.
AFAIK Queen Anne is the most recent precedent, which AFAIK is the most recent time that Parliament has passed a bill that the government then wanted to veto.
Petrol has been getting poured all year and neither side wants to be the side to lose.
Queen Anne did not have a Prime Minister.
Hence why I used the word government. She did have a government did she not?
If you want to have an election, I'd have it now. Because those PMIs tend to lead changes in unemployment rates by six months.
The Renainers really are dumb. They are going to kill Brexit just in time for a major recession which every Leave supporting politician will take great pleasure in pinning on them. So with economic hardship and a betrayal narrative we are going to see a huge increase in support for the real extremist parties and a backlash against the politicians like you can't imagine.
A first? First time I’ve seen a Leaver admit that Brexit is dead.
There have been plenty of us warning this would happen for months. I go further and say if Brexit is dead then so is democracy in this country. You will reap what you sowed.
It was a Tory who did the sowing: David Cameron.
Nope. He just gave the electorate a choice. It is the Remainers who have chosen to ignore that choice and so undermine the basic principles of democracy. I assume ftom your comments a future Parliament should ignore any future Indy Referendum
The referendum was advisory. If it had been binding the result would have been annulled by the courts. Due to Leave cheating.
Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.
AFAIK Queen Anne is the most recent precedent, which AFAIK is the most recent time that Parliament has passed a bill that the government then wanted to veto.
Petrol has been getting poured all year and neither side wants to be the side to lose.
Yes but Queen Anne didn’t have a Prime Minister in the modern sense. Walpole was the first under George I. A Government used to resign when bills were passed they wanted to veto and request a dissolution of Parliament. The FTPA put a stop to that. These are uncharted waters.
Quick question, if the Govts decision to prorogue can be taken to court, Can The Speakers decision also be taken to court?
Which one? Yes in theory to most things though
Which one indeed ? Most probably cannot - if he is supported by a majority in the House, which determines its own procedures, it’s hard to see how that might be justiciable outside of the House.
If he ruled benn cannot be refused consent as it does not infringe royal prerogative that could be challenged in court
I think you're confusing royal consent for legislation that affects the royal prerogative with royal assent for legislation in general. They are two different things.
This bill arguably affects royal prerogative.
Well, in any case royal consent and royal assent are two different things, and as far as I know the speaker isn't involved in either.
Speaker determines if a bill requires royal consent. If it does the PM advises HMQ whether to grant consent or not.
If this bill requires consent and Bercow says so then Boris can veto it via withholding consent. If it should require consent but Bercow claims it doesn't, it is hard to see how that can be remedied.
If it doesn't require Queen's Consent then the prerogative power is unaffected by the legislation. The PM could say he'd ignore it in so far as prerogative power was being exercised. That's why he said he'd uphold the constitution and the law when asked earlier. The only constitutional remedy would be a VoNC.
Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.
AFAIK Queen Anne is the most recent precedent, which AFAIK is the most recent time that Parliament has passed a bill that the government then wanted to veto.
Petrol has been getting poured all year and neither side wants to be the side to lose.
Queen Anne did not have a Prime Minister.
Hence why I used the word government. She did have a government did she not?
The point being that a veto on the advice of a Prime Minister is literally without precedent.
Busy on here tonight, I am normally just a lurker, but here goes. I am a pensioner, some would say well off, former MD of a successful company, I voted remain, and deplore the polarisation of both remainers and leavers, I am not an old thickie, or a Remoniac. I was a supporter of Boris, and a Con voter, but not any more, I now have nowhere to go, Corbyn, definitely not, Libdems, no. Greens absolutely not, despite the fact I spent my career in recycling and environmental matters. I mainly live in a marginal Con/Lab, but close to a Libdem hotspot, I could also vote for Rory as I also could have my main residence in his constituency. Think I will change my residence and vote Rory, as a likely independent.
You can register to vote at both properties. You can vote in only one at a GE but both in locals. As far as I'm aware you don't have to nominate one. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
That would be unprecedented and severely undermine the monarchy. I hope Liz tells him where to go.
Refusal of royal assent would be the end of monarchy, or the catalyst that begins that ending
It wouldn't when voters opposed further extension by 47% to 41% with Survation at the weekend and backed the Queen asserting to proroguing Parliament by a 20% margin.
Indeed Monarchists, the Queen's base, voted 56% Leave while republicans voted 65% Remain.
The Queen rightly should not aid the Commons defy the will of the people
That’s absurd. YouGov and Survation are fine organisation but are you seriously suggesting that the Queen should withold consent to a bill passed by the legislature based on an opinion poll? Seriously? That’s insane.
I am saying the Queen should resist the coup to defy the Leave vote and deny the will of the people
Quick question, if the Govts decision to prorogue can be taken to court, Can The Speakers decision also be taken to court?
Which one? Yes in theory to most things though
Which one indeed ? Most probably cannot - if he is supported by a majority in the House, which determines its own procedures, it’s hard to see how that might be justiciable outside of the House.
If he ruled benn cannot be refused consent as it does not infringe royal prerogative that could be challenged in court
I think you're confusing royal consent for legislation that affects the royal prerogative with royal assent for legislation in general. They are two different things.
This bill arguably affects royal prerogative.
Well, in any case royal consent and royal assent are two different things, and as far as I know the speaker isn't involved in either.
Speaker determines if a bill requires royal consent. If it does the PM advises HMQ whether to grant consent or not.
If this bill requires consent and Bercow says so then Boris can veto it via withholding consent. If it should require consent but Bercow claims it doesn't, it is hard to see how that can be remedied.
If it doesn't require Queen's Consent then the prerogative power is unaffected by the legislation. The PM could say he'd ignore it in so far as prerogative power was being exercised. That's why he said he'd uphold the constitution and the law when asked earlier. The only constitutional remedy would be a VoNC.
Another reason why FTPA is a ridiculous piece of legislation.
No Deal Brexit is crazy but it's still better than putting Corbyn in charge of Britain for even 5 minutes.
No Deal Brexit is major collateral damage in ideogically pursuing a single policy. Corbyn is a political, economic, security and social nuclear suicide weapon who'd actively seek to tear down as much as he could, rather than mitigate it.
The only possible way this country will deliver a majority Corbyn govt is no deal.
The choice is not no deal vs Corbyn but no deal followed by a Corbyn majority govt vs a Corbyn coalition govt.
That is where the conservatives have led us. A triumphant achievements thinks the party cheerleader!
What makes you think the dials will shift following No Deal?
Views are so entrenched now that I wouldn't expect meaningful movement on it for months after a No Deal Brexit. Everyone has their pantomime villains to blame (which won't be them) and will be looking for evidence to validate their confirmation bias.
Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.
The only precedent (I think) is the Cooper Letwin Bill. The government allowed consent there and should do so again.
I don't think Cooper-Letwin required consent (Speaker ruled it did not) but a subsequent legal ruling has cast doubt on whether that was technically correct.
It didn't as it mandated the PM to have to seek an extension, it did not state she had to accept, and was superceded by events. Its having to accept any extension offered that affects prerogative
And that extension can be voted down by the HOC as included in the bill but deliberately left out by the loonies in their publicity
Just as the Iraq War bill that Blair vetoed consent to would have passed the vote to the HOC.
Transferring the decision from HMG to HOC affects royal prerogative and requires consent.
Would be hilarious if after all this the Clerk rules consent is required and Boris refuses to give it.
I disagree. Remember I have always favoured the EFTA route out of the EU and the idea of a long, slow process with safeguards to make sure it could not be undermined. I supported May's deal in spite of its flaws.
But I genuinely believe the aim of the majority of the House is to somehow reverse the referendum result whikst avoiding getting blamed for it. Indeed plenty of those who once dishonestly claimed to support the result of the referendum are now quite open in their support for cancelling it.
What reason should anyone have to trust any if these people voting against No Deal tonight when so many of them have already broken their promises to their own electorates.
It's my turn to disagree. MPs are representatives not delegates. Within the remit is the key part about using their judgement in the interests of the safety of the UK. There are clearly those who view No Deal as contrary to the better interests of the UK - that doesn't mean they don't support leaving the EU, just not on this basis.
It's this misunderstanding of an MP's role which poisons the debate. MPs can't be mandated - even if a majority of their constituents, for example, supported restoring the death penalty for the murder of a Police Officer, the MP isn't obliged to follow that if their conscience doesn't permit it.
I still believe there is a deal to be done but it may require starting all over again and being a lot clearer about Ulster and what we want. Go back to Theresa May's Lancaster House speech and you realise it's all generalities and platitudes - the real hard work hadn't been done before we jumped into A50 and I think her supporters believed with a landslide she could get any Deal she dished up through Parliament.
Re VONC not being called before November. If consent is withheld it will be VONC the next day then the one line QS and election IF a candidate can be agreed in 14 days
Comments
If you can't see one you're not looking or thinking hard enough, and falling back on whataboutism instead (because it's easier).
Not the best atmosphere for clear headed decision making.
2020 looks likelier than 2019 now.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.
https://twitter.com/pm4eastren/status/1168960672786472961?s=21
Are the SNP interested in reaching out to stop that across party lines,or not?
The Commons has consented to Boris as PM and if it rejects an election will have confirmed its desire to keep him as PM. He is entitled to exercise the monarch's veto powers.
It would be unprecedented but I can't think of any precedent of the Commons passing a bill directly against the PM's ambitions. If the House acts in an unprecedented manner, the PM can reply in kind.
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1168962418975936513
And I think a longer Parliament following a new election (which he lost) would result in his removal.
But I genuinely believe the aim of the majority of the House is to somehow reverse the referendum result whikst avoiding getting blamed for it. Indeed plenty of those who once dishonestly claimed to support the result of the referendum are now quite open in their support for cancelling it.
What reason should anyone have to trust any if these people voting against No Deal tonight when so many of them have already broken their promises to their own electorates.
And what happens if the Speaker overrules the Clerk as he did in January?
He's disappeared up his own arsehole.
The deal should be a confidence issue and if he rebels on a deal he should lose the whip. No ifs, no buts.
Indeed Monarchists, the Queen's base, voted 56% Leave while republicans voted 65% Remain.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists
The Queen rightly should not aid the Commons defy the will of the people
"... the final decision on whether Consent is needed is made by the Clerks of Legislation in both Houses."
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmpolcon/784/784.pdf
Petrol has been getting poured all year and neither side wants to be the side to lose.
Oh and has someone told him to down down the "Fs"? (Dunt that is not JRM
But it doesn't help the arithmetic when everyone has dug their trenches as deep as they will go and care nothing for the consequences.
I'm sorry, but reliant on 'Corbyn is a boogeyman' is just plain laziness. I cannot stand the man, I voted Tory for the first time in large part because of that, but the Tories no longer care about anything other than no deal Brexit in order to preserve their party, and no deal Brexit appears to me to have a high chance of unacceptable impacts which will not be mitigated even if they can be. Corbyn will, I am sure, be terrible, but I need a bit more than an appeal to fear of an incompetent old trot to back a no deal Brexit.
The choice is not no deal vs Corbyn but no deal followed by a Corbyn majority govt vs a Corbyn coalition govt.
That is where the conservatives have led us. A triumphant achievements thinks the party cheerleader!
Scottish constitutional principle: popular sovereignty.
You stick to your principles. We’ll stick to ours.
Though there is a small chance of PM Farage more likely the Brexit Party splits the Leave vote with the Tories and lets Corbyn through the middle (Though there is still a chance Swinson would veto a Corbyn Premiership).
Hoping my gamble (for it is very much one) pays off.
If she'd lost the VONC there's a very good chance we'd have left on 29th March.
Everything that's happened this year stems from the Tories bottling removing May in December.
I am a pensioner, some would say well off, former MD of a successful company, I voted remain, and deplore the polarisation of both remainers and leavers, I am not an old thickie, or a Remoniac.
I was a supporter of Boris, and a Con voter, but not any more, I now have nowhere to go, Corbyn, definitely not, Libdems, no. Greens absolutely not, despite the fact I spent my career in recycling and environmental matters.
I mainly live in a marginal Con/Lab, but close to a Libdem hotspot, I could also vote for Rory as I also could have my main residence in his constituency. Think I will change my residence and vote Rory, as a likely independent.
Views are so entrenched now that I wouldn't expect meaningful movement on it for months after a No Deal Brexit. Everyone has their pantomime villains to blame (which won't be them) and will be looking for evidence to validate their confirmation bias.
Was that really your first piece, Philip? You should do more.
In the civil war we are now beginning most Monarchists are on the Leave side, most Republicans on the die hard Remainer side and it will now continue in that vein
How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/09/03/corbyn-better-no-deal-brexit-say-investment-banks-anti-capitalist/
https://youtu.be/unORPOtavqM?t=47
I have, maybe naively, always thought that the giving of royal consent is one of the sole prerogatives reserved to the monarch acting independently of government. But perhaps I’m wrong and the advice of government always overrides. Would be a complete clusterf**k of epic proportions though, I can’t see the palace being happy at all if they’re dragged into this particular quagmire.
He would quickly move to nationalisations and currency controls. He would try an emergency budget and confiscate whatever assets he could. Including your pension. He would tax your income heavily and your house.
The Conservatives would never do any of that (even for a No Deal Brexit, which you're assuming Corbyn also secretly doesn't want) so I wouldn't put the man anywhere near Downing Street under any circumstances.
The only way Corbyn becomes PM is by listening to diehard Remainers like you, splitting the Leave vote between the Brexit Party and the Tories under FPTP and allowing Corbyn in the back door
https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1168966162060849153
Yes but Queen Anne didn’t have a Prime Minister in the modern sense. Walpole was the first under George I. A Government used to resign when bills were passed they wanted to veto and request a dissolution of Parliament. The FTPA put a stop to that. These are uncharted waters.
Please someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Transferring the decision from HMG to HOC affects royal prerogative and requires consent.
Would be hilarious if after all this the Clerk rules consent is required and Boris refuses to give it.
It's this misunderstanding of an MP's role which poisons the debate. MPs can't be mandated - even if a majority of their constituents, for example, supported restoring the death penalty for the murder of a Police Officer, the MP isn't obliged to follow that if their conscience doesn't permit it.
I still believe there is a deal to be done but it may require starting all over again and being a lot clearer about Ulster and what we want. Go back to Theresa May's Lancaster House speech and you realise it's all generalities and platitudes - the real hard work hadn't been done before we jumped into A50 and I think her supporters believed with a landslide she could get any Deal she dished up through Parliament.
http://viz.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Screen-Shot-2014-11-17-at-10.58.20.png