Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The next Speaker

11012141516

Comments

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293
    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Unless the polls start showing something like Lab 45% and Con 30% I fear cowardly Labour are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a general election. :(
  • Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    In most circumstances, it wouldn't matter if they trusted him on the precise date. But in this situation, it's crucial.
    I had no idea the PM had the power to shift a GE date after it had been fixed. Has it ever happened? Under what law is this possible?

    However, bearing in mind Johnson's record of duplicity on prorogation and just about everything else he clearly cannot be trusted on this.
  • DougSeal said:

    Danny565 said:

    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.
    A veto on the advice of ministers is not though and the PM is simply the most senior of her ministers.

    I can't think of any precedent where the PM would want to veto a bill Parliament has passed. We are in unprecedented waters.
  • American and German global multinationals don't have the same level of investment or interest in the consequences to Britain and it's domestic citizens from the catastrophe of a Corbyn Government.

    They aren't thinking clearly but seem to believe (incorrectly) they can ride out the rest.
  • GIN1138 said:

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Unless the polls start showing something like Lab 45% and Con 30% I fear cowardly Labour are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a general election. :(
    Labour who up until 24 hours ago were apparently desperate for a GE....
  • DougSeal said:

    Danny565 said:

    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.
    A veto on the advice of ministers is not though and the PM is simply the most senior of her ministers.

    I can't think of any precedent where the PM would want to veto a bill Parliament has passed. We are in unprecedented waters.
    So absolutely no reason to give the Prime Minister a sweeping new executive power that has never been sought before.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    AndyJS said:

    "At the end of the day it’s a no-deal Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn
    Daniel Finkelstein

    Leaving the EU without an agreement will damage the country but it’s still just about preferable to the alternative" (£)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/at-the-end-of-the-day-its-no-deal-or-corbyn-k6wg69tzt

    That's xit is crazy but it's still better than putting Corbyn in charge of Britain for even 5 minutes.
    I see no dlly 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, ack a no deal Brexit.
    One example: Corbyn would do his utmost (for ideogical 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 ebemeies. 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.
    I'm not assuming anything about what Corbyn personally wants regarding Brexit, I think he is not driving the show on Brexit as he could not force such an outcome on his party even if he wants to. Boris cannot force no deal on his party and a lot more of them want it or could tolerate it than in Labour.

    And I didn't say he would not be an awful PM. I assume he will be, although you seem to assume he will have a massive majority to do a lot of things, or face no difficulty in trying so many things. If we've already no dealed there's not much we can do, but if an election is about whether we no deal or not, I think an awful lot of people will consider holding their nose when it comes to Corbyn. I won't, but I don't even need to since, as I said, I live in a safe seat - I voted Tory precisely so I could be considered responsible if they cocked things up.

    And I could not afford a house, if it matters.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    GIN1138 said:

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Unless the polls start showing something like Lab 45% and Con 30% I fear cowardly Labour are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a general election. :(
    I have a feeling Thornberry was talking out of her ample arse, and Corbyn and McDonnell will rein her in tomorrow

    If Labour wins this Surrender Bill, then they will accept a proposed GE, thereafter.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    DougSeal said:

    Danny565 said:

    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?
    Not really. That concept was only in its embryonic stage. The monarch was still the Chief Executive (as theoretically she is now) and the situation was still more like it is in the States today, the Head of Government and the Head of State was the same person. Yes, ministries were starting to emerge, but modern conventions only solidified under the Hanovers.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293

    GIN1138 said:

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Unless the polls start showing something like Lab 45% and Con 30% I fear cowardly Labour are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a general election. :(
    Labour who up until 24 hours ago were apparently desperate for a GE....
    That's the one. :D
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    In most circumstances, it wouldn't matter if they trusted him on the precise date. But in this situation, it's crucial.
    I had no idea the PM had the power to shift a GE date after it had been fixed. Has it ever happened? Under what law is this possible?

    However, bearing in mind Johnson's record of duplicity on prorogation and just about everything else he clearly cannot be trusted on this.
    It wouldn't be changed, not formally anyway. Boris might indicate that his preferred date is X, but then when he gets the writ issued it says Y.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Cummings must have a master strategy to deal with tonight's defeat, I just can't think what it might be.
  • DougSeal said:

    Danny565 said:

    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.
    A veto on the advice of ministers is not though and the PM is simply the most senior of her ministers.

    I can't think of any precedent where the PM would want to veto a bill Parliament has passed. We are in unprecedented waters.
    So absolutely no reason to give the Prime Minister a sweeping new executive power that has never been sought before.
    Nothing is being given, if the power exists it still exists even if it hasn't been required in a very long time.

    In Queen Anne's day ministers had that power. Has anything changed constitutionally to prevent ministers from still having that power?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,780

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, the Markit PMIs are sub 50 now in:

    the US
    the UK
    the Eurozone
    Canada
    Mexico
    Japan

    China is marginally above.

    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
    Nothing is forever.
    Do you have a family history that connects to England? I'm 1/8th Scottish - my good side obviously, but also my family name. I like that, and I'm proud of the adventure that my ancestors took.

    If the SNP (which I believe you told me is your party) get their wish then I presume there will be some degree of regret too.

    What does the best case look like for Scotland in 50 years time?

    (My view is it's whatever is the best case for London, but then I'd be casting adrift nations such as Iceland. So I know I'm partly wrong.)
  • Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    In most circumstances, it wouldn't matter if they trusted him on the precise date. But in this situation, it's crucial.
    I had no idea the PM had the power to shift a GE date after it had been fixed. Has it ever happened? Under what law is this possible?

    However, bearing in mind Johnson's record of duplicity on prorogation and just about everything else he clearly cannot be trusted on this.
    Didn't it become a possible issue during Foot and Mouth? I remember there were discussions about moving the election date because of restrictions on movement in the countryside
  • Jesus. Fucking Ian Blackford.

    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?
    Stopping No Deal Brexit is merely a step on the journey. We have bigger, more important goals. Pursuing, always, the interests of the Scottish nation.
    A step on the journey you will fail to take unless you can bury your myopic isolationist ideology.
    A Tory calling someone else myopic, isolationist and an ideologue. Folk in glass houses...
    Weak. You've defaulted to partisan mode.

    I'd like to say I'm surprised but I'm not. I'll take it as a complement as you only ever turn to this when you sense you're losing the argument.

    And you are.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    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.


    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
    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
    We’re talking about an extension. The people have not spoken on the issue of an extension. Opinion polls don’t count.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    In most circumstances, it wouldn't matter if they trusted him on the precise date. But in this situation, it's crucial.
    I had no idea the PM had the power to shift a GE date after it had been fixed. Has it ever happened? Under what law is this possible?

    However, bearing in mind Johnson's record of duplicity on prorogation and just about everything else he clearly cannot be trusted on this.
    Blair moved the 2001 local elections mid campaign due to foot and mouth, it requires a black swan to have any legitimacy
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    There’s no point even discussing the hypothetical veto until it does or doesn’t happen.
  • Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    In most circumstances, it wouldn't matter if they trusted him on the precise date. But in this situation, it's crucial.
    I had no idea the PM had the power to shift a GE date after it had been fixed. Has it ever happened? Under what law is this possible?

    However, bearing in mind Johnson's record of duplicity on prorogation and just about everything else he clearly cannot be trusted on this.
    The firm of the motion to Parliament for an early General Election just says (under FTPA) "on a day to be appointed by Her Majesty" which would be on advice from her PM. So the actual date never goes to Parliament. It would be highly, highly irregular for Johnson to say in Parliament " and I'll advise Liz to go for 14th" then change his mind. But we live in highly, highly irregular times.
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,251
    GIN1138 said:

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Unless the polls start showing something like Lab 45% and Con 30% I fear cowardly Labour are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a general election. :(
    Given this they are frit

    https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1168950227426074627
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    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
    So you, as a diehard remainer and (I'm guessing) monarchist, will be a bit of an oddity.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    There’s no point even discussing the hypothetical veto until it does or doesn’t happen.

    Theres consent withholding which has precedent and assent refusal which doesn't
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,733

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    In most circumstances, it wouldn't matter if they trusted him on the precise date. But in this situation, it's crucial.
    I had no idea the PM had the power to shift a GE date after it had been fixed. Has it ever happened? Under what law is this possible?

    However, bearing in mind Johnson's record of duplicity on prorogation and just about everything else he clearly cannot be trusted on this.
    Didn't it become a possible issue during Foot and Mouth? I remember there were discussions about moving the election date because of restrictions on movement in the countryside
    The Local elections were moved I think.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 4,239
    edited September 2019
    The "are you seeing this shit" expression on Letwin's face while Bill Cash is speaking is absolutely priceless.

    And it's slightly hilarious that Cash thinks now is a helpful time to make a generic anti-Europe speech. As if any MPs in the chamber are going to think "you know what, I was pro-Europe, but hearing this now from Bill, I'm completely convinced and am going to vote against".
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    edited September 2019

    GIN1138 said:

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Unless the polls start showing something like Lab 45% and Con 30% I fear cowardly Labour are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a general election. :(
    Labour who up until 24 hours ago were apparently desperate for a GE....
    Still are. In theory. Just as until 24 hours ago the Tories were not desperate for one. In theory.

    I assume they are just hoping for BXP to flare up again to help them out. Will Farage and co oblige?
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    RobD said:

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    In most circumstances, it wouldn't matter if they trusted him on the precise date. But in this situation, it's crucial.
    I had no idea the PM had the power to shift a GE date after it had been fixed. Has it ever happened? Under what law is this possible?

    However, bearing in mind Johnson's record of duplicity on prorogation and just about everything else he clearly cannot be trusted on this.
    It wouldn't be changed, not formally anyway. Boris might indicate that his preferred date is X, but then when he gets the writ issued it says Y.
    Surely easily covered by tacking on an amendment to a simple majority bill naming a date?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,733

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    In most circumstances, it wouldn't matter if they trusted him on the precise date. But in this situation, it's crucial.
    I had no idea the PM had the power to shift a GE date after it had been fixed. Has it ever happened? Under what law is this possible?

    However, bearing in mind Johnson's record of duplicity on prorogation and just about everything else he clearly cannot be trusted on this.
    Blair moved the 2001 local elections mid campaign due to foot and mouth, it requires a black swan to have any legitimacy
    Boris has proven with his prorogation that he cannot be trusted. The man couldn't lie straight in bed.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,572
    edited September 2019
    stodge said:



    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.
    I don't misunderstand their role at all. I just believe they are fundementally dishonest and act in their own interests and in support of their own beliefs even when they have said the exact opposite to get elected. MPs will never support a deal now they think they can safely ignore the referendum. One reason amongst many why they are unfit for public office.
  • Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    In most circumstances, it wouldn't matter if they trusted him on the precise date. But in this situation, it's crucial.
    I had no idea the PM had the power to shift a GE date after it had been fixed. Has it ever happened? Under what law is this possible?

    However, bearing in mind Johnson's record of duplicity on prorogation and just about everything else he clearly cannot be trusted on this.
    Blair moved the 2001 local elections mid campaign due to foot and mouth, it requires a black swan to have any legitimacy
    I'd not be surprised if Boris' new puppy was accidentally decapitated whilst fetching a stick, necessitating him to advise Liz that a regrettable six week delay would be appropriate.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Foxy said:

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    In most circumstances, it wouldn't matter if they trusted him on the precise date. But in this situation, it's crucial.
    I had no idea the PM had the power to shift a GE date after it had been fixed. Has it ever happened? Under what law is this possible?

    However, bearing in mind Johnson's record of duplicity on prorogation and just about everything else he clearly cannot be trusted on this.
    Blair moved the 2001 local elections mid campaign due to foot and mouth, it requires a black swan to have any legitimacy
    Boris has proven with his prorogation that he cannot be trusted. The man couldn't lie straight in bed.
    So we limp on to 2022 with no majority for anything in parliament?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936

    RobD said:

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    In most circumstances, it wouldn't matter if they trusted him on the precise date. But in this situation, it's crucial.
    I had no idea the PM had the power to shift a GE date after it had been fixed. Has it ever happened? Under what law is this possible?

    However, bearing in mind Johnson's record of duplicity on prorogation and just about everything else he clearly cannot be trusted on this.
    It wouldn't be changed, not formally anyway. Boris might indicate that his preferred date is X, but then when he gets the writ issued it says Y.
    Surely easily covered by tacking on an amendment to a simple majority bill naming a date?
    I don't think that particular motion can be amended, but you could have a one line bill.
  • Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, the Markit PMIs are sub 50 now in:

    the US
    the UK
    the Eurozone
    Canada
    Mexico
    Japan

    China is marginally above.

    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.
    LOL. Yet more Remoaner lies.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992

    The "are you seeing this shit" expression on Letwin's face while Bill Cash is speaking is absolutely priceless.

    And it's slightly hilarious that Cash thinks now is a helpful time to make a generic anti-Europe speech. As if any MPs in the chamber are going to think "you know what, I was pro-Europe, but hearing this now from Bill, I'm completely convinced and am going to vote against".

    If we leave with no deal according to Bill we will eliminate the deficit with the EU.

    Had anyone told the British public they will be forbidden to buy EU goods? Or will the pound be so weak they won't be able to afford anything not grown locally?
  • ab195ab195 Posts: 477
    It’s been established the date of the election can be fixed via a Bill that amends the FTPA. If offered that, Labour needs to be careful. You can’t accuse the Gvt of a Coup if you’ve voted not to have an election, unless you have a very good excuse (like gameplaying with the date).
  • The "are you seeing this shit" expression on Letwin's face while Bill Cash is speaking is absolutely priceless.

    And it's slightly hilarious that Cash thinks now is a helpful time to make a generic anti-Europe speech. As if any MPs in the chamber are going to think "you know what, I was pro-Europe, but hearing this now from Bill, I'm completely convinced and am going to vote against".

    But Cash gets to hear the rich and pleasant sound of his own voice reverberating around the Commons, so very much job done as far as he's concerned.
  • How many MPs voted for Article 50, voted against the withdrawal agreement all three times, and are now voting to block no deal?

    They should all lose their jobs.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293
    Norm said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Unless the polls start showing something like Lab 45% and Con 30% I fear cowardly Labour are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a general election. :(
    Given this they are frit

    https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1168950227426074627
    Seems that way but the lead was much bigger in 2017 and jezza was well up for it.

    The change from 2017 to now is very odd. Maybe its because they can't play the "we'll respect the refernedum" card in their northern leave seats this time?
  • AndyJS said:

    Cummings must have a master strategy to deal with tonight's defeat, I just can't think what it might be.

    Is there any scenario in which tonight's defeat WOULDN'T have happened? The entire reason May didn't achieve anything is because every time she tried, one wing of her Party would scare her off. Boris has drawn the lesson that the correct (but inevitably dangerous) solution is to say to one wing "You're not coming for me, I'm coming for you", cast them off, and then win the subsequent election.

    Of course, he needs to get to that election to carry out the strategy, but Labour cowardice will also rebound badly on them.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,847
    edited September 2019
    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    "At the end of the day it’s a no-deal Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn
    Daniel Finkelstein

    Leaving the EU without an agreement will damage the country but it’s still just about preferable to the alternative" (£)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/at-the-end-of-the-day-its-no-deal-or-corbyn-k6wg69tzt

    That's my view.

    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
    The only option where I prefer remain is against no deal. How is wanting to leave with a deal a diehard remainer? I may as well start calling you a speedboat, it has as much basis in reality and the English language.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468

    How many MPs voted for Article 50, voted against the withdrawal agreement all three times, and are now voting to block no deal?

    They should all lose their jobs.

    Good job that is not up to you.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    DougSeal said:

    Danny565 said:

    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.
    A veto on the advice of ministers is not though and the PM is simply the most senior of her ministers.

    I can't think of any precedent where the PM would want to veto a bill Parliament has passed. We are in unprecedented waters.
    So absolutely no reason to give the Prime Minister a sweeping new executive power that has never been sought before.
    Nothing is being given, if the power exists it still exists even if it hasn't been required in a very long time.

    In Queen Anne's day ministers had that power. Has anything changed constitutionally to prevent ministers from still having that power?
    That is simply not the case. The constitutional conventions that we now operate under had not fully formed by then. Only a few years earlier her predecessor, William III, vetoed six bills, five of them public bills - the Judges, Royal Mines, Triennial, Place, and MP Qualifications Bills. The last was in 1696. The constitution has changed significantly since then.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951
    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    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.


    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
    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
    We’re talking about an extension. The people have not spoken on the issue of an extension. Opinion polls don’t count.
    No, but they've spoken on the issue of leaving the EU.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,780
    Lady on bbc saying that they've hit their heads on the nail. :)

    Might finish up being one of the least odd comments of the evening.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,733

    Foxy said:

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    In most circumstances, it wouldn't matter if they trusted him on the precise date. But in this situation, it's crucial.
    I had no idea the PM had the power to shift a GE date after it had been fixed. Has it ever happened? Under what law is this possible?

    However, bearing in mind Johnson's record of duplicity on prorogation and just about everything else he clearly cannot be trusted on this.
    Blair moved the 2001 local elections mid campaign due to foot and mouth, it requires a black swan to have any legitimacy
    Boris has proven with his prorogation that he cannot be trusted. The man couldn't lie straight in bed.
    So we limp on to 2022 with no majority for anything in parliament?
    Not that long, but lets discuss a date when Brexit is out of the way.

    Lets see how mucky this "clean Brexit" is.
  • How many MPs voted for Article 50, voted against the withdrawal agreement all three times, and are now voting to block no deal?

    They should all lose their jobs.

    Good job that is not up to you.
    Probably a good job it's not up to you either.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    "At the end of the day it’s a no-deal Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn
    Daniel Finkelstein

    Leaving the EU without an agreement will damage the country but it’s still just about preferable to the alternative" (£)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/at-the-end-of-the-day-its-no-deal-or-corbyn-k6wg69tzt

    That's my view.

    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
    The only option I prefer remain to is no deal, how is wanting to leave with a deal a diehard remainer? I may as well start calling you a speedboat, it has as much basis in reality and the English language.
    @HYUFD is going through a difficult period as he realises the party he hitherto supported no longer represents his views.

    He is casting around for an alternative party to support.
  • I can’t believe Rees-Mogg is adopting his usual pose on the front bench too.

    https://twitter.com/rhodri/status/1168972605107384326?s=21
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,712
    What's the normal timetable for Royal Assent?

    Not sure it's always requested immediately - think sometimes several Bills get Royal Assent at once.

    So could Govt just delay the "application" for Royal Assent rather than actually formally blocking it?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293
    edited September 2019
    Foxy said:

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    In most circumstances, it wouldn't matter if they trusted him on the precise date. But in this situation, it's crucial.
    I had no idea the PM had the power to shift a GE date after it had been fixed. Has it ever happened? Under what law is this possible?

    However, bearing in mind Johnson's record of duplicity on prorogation and just about everything else he clearly cannot be trusted on this.
    Blair moved the 2001 local elections mid campaign due to foot and mouth, it requires a black swan to have any legitimacy
    Boris has proven with his prorogation that he cannot be trusted. The man couldn't lie straight in bed.
    If the electiondate 14th October is defined in law then it can't be changed unless the law is changed? Boris can't change it on a whim?

    If there's a Black swan" event Parliament would have to be recalled mid-campaign to change the law.

    This is all bullshit. :D
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    In most circumstances, it wouldn't matter if they trusted him on the precise date. But in this situation, it's crucial.
    I had no idea the PM had the power to shift a GE date after it had been fixed. Has it ever happened? Under what law is this possible?

    However, bearing in mind Johnson's record of duplicity on prorogation and just about everything else he clearly cannot be trusted on this.
    Blair moved the 2001 local elections mid campaign due to foot and mouth, it requires a black swan to have any legitimacy
    Boris has proven with his prorogation that he cannot be trusted. The man couldn't lie straight in bed.
    So we limp on to 2022 with no majority for anything in parliament?
    Not that long, but lets discuss a date when Brexit is out of the way. ..
    2035 looks good.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468

    How many MPs voted for Article 50, voted against the withdrawal agreement all three times, and are now voting to block no deal?

    They should all lose their jobs.

    Good job that is not up to you.
    Probably a good job it's not up to you either.
    Exactly!
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    In most circumstances, it wouldn't matter if they trusted him on the precise date. But in this situation, it's crucial.
    I had no idea the PM had the power to shift a GE date after it had been fixed. Has it ever happened? Under what law is this possible?

    However, bearing in mind Johnson's record of duplicity on prorogation and just about everything else he clearly cannot be trusted on this.
    Blair moved the 2001 local elections mid campaign due to foot and mouth, it requires a black swan to have any legitimacy
    Boris has proven with his prorogation that he cannot be trusted. The man couldn't lie straight in bed.
    So we limp on to 2022 with no majority for anything in parliament?
    Not that long, but lets discuss a date when Brexit is out of the way.

    Lets see how mucky this "clean Brexit" is.
    Parliament has made it clear it will not accept Brexit. It will continually delay. Unacceptable to the majority I'd guess
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    kyf_100 said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    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.


    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
    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
    We’re talking about an extension. The people have not spoken on the issue of an extension. Opinion polls don’t count.
    No, but they've spoken on the issue of leaving the EU.
    Straw man. We’re talking about an extension. In your own words “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.
  • Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    In most circumstances, it wouldn't matter if they trusted him on the precise date. But in this situation, it's crucial.
    I had no idea the PM had the power to shift a GE date after it had been fixed. Has it ever happened? Under what law is this possible?

    However, bearing in mind Johnson's record of duplicity on prorogation and just about everything else he clearly cannot be trusted on this.
    Blair moved the 2001 local elections mid campaign due to foot and mouth, it requires a black swan to have any legitimacy
    Boris has proven with his prorogation that he cannot be trusted. The man couldn't lie straight in bed.
    So we limp on to 2022 with no majority for anything in parliament?
    Not that long, but lets discuss a date when Brexit is out of the way. ..
    2035 looks good.
    I'm getting my hair cut that year. Can we make it 2038?
  • GIN1138 said:

    Norm said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Unless the polls start showing something like Lab 45% and Con 30% I fear cowardly Labour are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a general election. :(
    Given this they are frit

    https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1168950227426074627
    Seems that way but the lead was much bigger in 2017 and jezza was well up for it.

    The change from 2017 to now is very odd. Maybe its because they can't play the "we'll respect the refernedum" card in their northern leave seats this time?
    It's only temporary. As soon as there is an extension signed, sealed and delivered, they will back a general election.

    I'm not certain Johnson will still want one, but we'll see. It might be out of his hands.
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,251
    GIN1138 said:

    Norm said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Unless the polls start showing something like Lab 45% and Con 30% I fear cowardly Labour are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a general election. :(
    Given this they are frit

    https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1168950227426074627
    Seems that way but the lead was much bigger in 2017 and jezza was well up for it.

    The change from 2017 to now is very odd. Maybe its because they can't play the "we'll respect the refernedum" card in their northern leave seats this time?
    Nevertheless I'd take that lead at this stage. In 2017 Corbyn and the Tories themselves via their idiotic manifesto successfully deflected attention away from the EU so it was virtually a non-issue. That won't happen this time.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293

    I can’t believe Rees-Mogg is adopting his usual pose on the front bench too.

    https://twitter.com/rhodri/status/1168972605107384326?s=21

    Is that Nadine sitting with him? :D
  • AndyJS said:

    "At the end of the day it’s a no-deal Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn
    Daniel Finkelstein

    Leaving the EU without an agreement will damage the country but it’s still just about preferable to the alternative" (£)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/at-the-end-of-the-day-its-no-deal-or-corbyn-k6wg69tzt

    That's my view.

    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.
    Because no deal is shit.
    Yes, and that disproves my point how?
    OK to expand, the tories main strength over the last few decades has been economic competence and stable government. When no deal is shit and has been delivered shambolically to an arbitrary date of the moody French presidents choosing with those USPs well and truly surrendered, voters will clamber out of their trenches and head for the opposition, any opposition.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,124

    Drutt said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Nigelb said:

    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.
    Yes,a constitutional blockage ought to have a constitutional unblock, not a legislative unblock.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951
    DougSeal said:

    kyf_100 said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    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.


    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
    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
    We’re talking about an extension. The people have not spoken on the issue of an extension. Opinion polls don’t count.
    No, but they've spoken on the issue of leaving the EU.
    Straw man. We’re talking about an extension. In your own words “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.
    I think those might be HYUFD's words...
  • eekeek Posts: 28,406
    GIN1138 said:

    Norm said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Unless the polls start showing something like Lab 45% and Con 30% I fear cowardly Labour are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a general election. :(
    Given this they are frit

    https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1168950227426074627
    Seems that way but the lead was much bigger in 2017 and jezza was well up for it.

    The change from 2017 to now is very odd. Maybe its because they can't play the "we'll respect the refernedum" card in their northern leave seats this time?
    We will give you a chance to confirm that you still want to leave
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,698
    Late to the party but interesting thread header @Philip_Thompson, many thanks.

    It's good to get a Leaver written thread header, even if it's not directly about Brexit. For what's it's worth I suspect Bercow might stand and win in an early GE.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,381

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, the Markit PMIs are sub 50 now in:

    the US
    the UK
    the Eurozone
    Canada
    Mexico
    Japan

    China is marginally above.

    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.
    LOL. Yet more Remoaner lies.
    Remain cheating was presumably fine and dandy.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    kle4 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Unless the polls start showing something like Lab 45% and Con 30% I fear cowardly Labour are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a general election. :(
    Labour who up until 24 hours ago were apparently desperate for a GE....
    Still are. In theory. Just as until 24 hours ago the Tories were not desperate for one. In theory.

    I assume they are just hoping for BXP to flare up again to help them out. Will Farage and co oblige?
    Depends on the Brexit supporting media.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,814
    edited September 2019
    GIN1138 said:

    Norm said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Unless the polls start showing something like Lab 45% and Con 30% I fear cowardly Labour are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a general election. :(
    Given this they are frit

    https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1168950227426074627
    Seems that way but the lead was much bigger in 2017 and jezza was well up for it.

    The change from 2017 to now is very odd. Maybe its because they can't play the "we'll respect the refernedum" card in their northern leave seats this time?
    To be fair to Jezza, I think he is still “well up for it”. It’s the rest of his party that aren’t.

    There are various reasons for this, firstly I think Jezza’s standing in the country is even weaker than it was than at the start of the campaign in 2017, the LD resurgence has spooked them, and as you say they’re going to find it a lot harder to sit on the Brexit fence this time now they’re staring down the barrel.

    They could also be sitting on some internal polling that is, to put it mildly, sub-optimal.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,698
    GIN1138 said:

    I can’t believe Rees-Mogg is adopting his usual pose on the front bench too.

    https://twitter.com/rhodri/status/1168972605107384326?s=21

    Is that Nadine sitting with him? :D
    Or nanny?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238
    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    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
    So you, as a diehard remainer and (I'm guessing) monarchist, will be a bit of an oddity.
    I thought the New Model HYUFD was a pikemen ?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    kyf_100 said:

    DougSeal said:

    kyf_100 said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    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.


    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
    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
    We’re talking about an extension. The people have not spoken on the issue of an extension. Opinion polls don’t count.
    No, but they've spoken on the issue of leaving the EU.
    Straw man. We’re talking about an extension. In your own words “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.
    I think those might be HYUFD's words...
    Sorry, yes, it’s late, I thought I was taking to him
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    edited September 2019

    GIN1138 said:

    Norm said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Unless the polls start showing something like Lab 45% and Con 30% I fear cowardly Labour are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a general election. :(
    Given this they are frit

    https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1168950227426074627
    Seems that way but the lead was much bigger in 2017 and jezza was well up for it.

    The change from 2017 to now is very odd. Maybe its because they can't play the "we'll respect the refernedum" card in their northern leave seats this time?
    To be fair to Jezza, I think he is still “well up for it”. It’s the rest of his party that aren’t.

    There are various reasons for this, firstly I think Jezza’s standing in the country is even weaker than it was than at the start of the campaign in 2017, the LD resurgence has spooked them, and as you say they’re going to find it a lot harder to sit on the Brexit fence this time now they’re staring down the barrel.

    They could also be sitting on some internal polling that is, to put it mildly, sub-optimal.
    Yes I think he hit his ceiling in 2017. But the opportunity for the Cons to shed votes is huge. I don't see a hugely different result, all told, if we have a GE soon.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293
    edited September 2019

    GIN1138 said:

    Norm said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Unless the polls start showing something like Lab 45% and Con 30% I fear cowardly Labour are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a general election. :(
    Given this they are frit

    https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1168950227426074627
    Seems that way but the lead was much bigger in 2017 and jezza was well up for it.

    The change from 2017 to now is very odd. Maybe its because they can't play the "we'll respect the refernedum" card in their northern leave seats this time?
    It's only temporary. As soon as there is an extension signed, sealed and delivered, they will back a general election.

    I'm not certain Johnson will still want one, but we'll see. It might be out of his hands.
    Not sure. @Byronic was reporting Thornberry as saying Labour would NEVER agree to a Johnson election?

    And why does Labour care so much about an extension if they think they will win the election?

    Everything they are sayling and doing today looks like they've pretty given up on any chance at the election and are desperate to avoid it.

    It looks strange.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    GIN1138 said:

    I can’t believe Rees-Mogg is adopting his usual pose on the front bench too.

    https://twitter.com/rhodri/status/1168972605107384326?s=21

    Is that Nadine sitting with him? :D
    It looks like JRM is putting his ear to a speaker, which is more challenging when you are very tall.
  • MikeL said:

    What's the normal timetable for Royal Assent?

    Not sure it's always requested immediately - think sometimes several Bills get Royal Assent at once.

    So could Govt just delay the "application" for Royal Assent rather than actually formally blocking it?

    Rather unhelpfully for the government, there is now a prorogation happening next week, and I think assent is generally dealt with in the wash up.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,698
    Is @HYUFD now saying the Queen should ignore the HoC?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238
    AndyJS said:

    Cummings must have a master strategy to deal with tonight's defeat, I just can't think what it might be.

    Start planning his move on to the next gig.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751
    So the BBC is now reporting that the government is trying to prevent the bill getting through the Lords by tabling 90 amendments to the business motion.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268

    How many MPs voted for Article 50, voted against the withdrawal agreement all three times, and are now voting to block no deal?

    They should all lose their jobs.

    Completely agree.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    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
    So you, as a diehard remainer and (I'm guessing) monarchist, will be a bit of an oddity.
    I thought the New Model HYUFD was a pikemen ?
    He evidently failed to land a blow on EU-consorting JRM. Although perhaps he did wound him and hence it hurts JRM to sit down properly.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238
    Chris said:

    So the BBC is now reporting that the government is trying to prevent the bill getting through the Lords by tabling 90 amendments to the business motion.

    A simple motion to consider all 90 amendments together as one might deal with that.
  • How many MPs voted for Article 50, voted against the withdrawal agreement all three times, and are now voting to block no deal?

    They should all lose their jobs.

    Even though I disagree with Ken Clarke on our EU membership, I have much respect for his path through this. Iirc, he voted against A50, for the WA all three times, and is set to vote against the government tonight.
  • Scott_P said:
    Sad he doesn't realise his career is already over.
  • Gabs2 said:

    How many MPs voted for Article 50, voted against the withdrawal agreement all three times, and are now voting to block no deal?

    They should all lose their jobs.

    Completely agree.
    That’s a matter for their constituents, not executive fiat by angry Leavers.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238
    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Norm said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Byronic said:

    Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.

    How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?

    Unless the polls start showing something like Lab 45% and Con 30% I fear cowardly Labour are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a general election. :(
    Given this they are frit

    https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1168950227426074627
    Seems that way but the lead was much bigger in 2017 and jezza was well up for it.

    The change from 2017 to now is very odd. Maybe its because they can't play the "we'll respect the refernedum" card in their northern leave seats this time?
    It's only temporary. As soon as there is an extension signed, sealed and delivered, they will back a general election.

    I'm not certain Johnson will still want one, but we'll see. It might be out of his hands.
    Not sure. @Byronic was reporting Thornberry as saying Labour would NEVER agree to a Johnson election?

    And why does Labour care so much about an extension if they think they will win the election?

    Everything they are sayling and doing today looks like they've pretty given up on any chance at the election and are desperate to avoid it.

    It looks strange.
    Jeremy has taken a tip from Dominic and wargamed it.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 4,239
    edited September 2019
    Grieve roasting JRM here. JRM's insouciant "lying on the front bench" is not a good look.

    Truly hoping that Theresa May gets the whip withdrawn this evening: that would be Banter Heuristic par excellence.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    Chris said:

    So the BBC is now reporting that the government is trying to prevent the bill getting through the Lords by tabling 90 amendments to the business motion.

    Why do I get the feeling that we'll see a switch around from when a remainery Lords was trying to frustrate the Commons and were feted as great heroes and lots of amendments was condemned by the government as perfidy, and now the government will defend glorious amendments and the Lords seek to curtail debate?
  • Gabs2 said:

    How many MPs voted for Article 50, voted against the withdrawal agreement all three times, and are now voting to block no deal?

    They should all lose their jobs.

    Completely agree.
    That’s a matter for their constituents, not executive fiat by angry Leavers.
    We're all allowed an opinion, even if we're not as important as you.
  • DanSmithDanSmith Posts: 1,215
    They are mad. There are more votes tomorrow where some of the tory rebels might wobble ! but not going to happen if they kick them out.
  • Chris said:

    So the BBC is now reporting that the government is trying to prevent the bill getting through the Lords by tabling 90 amendments to the business motion.

    I can't imagine Remainers would complain about amendments being tabled. Surely not.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,698
    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    So the BBC is now reporting that the government is trying to prevent the bill getting through the Lords by tabling 90 amendments to the business motion.

    A simple motion to consider all 90 amendments together as one might deal with that.
    What are the chances that the HoL might actually block this bill?
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    TGOHF said:

    Jesus. Fucking Ian Blackford.

    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?
    Stopping No Deal Brexit is merely a step on the journey. We have bigger, more important goals. Pursuing, always, the interests of the Scottish nation.
    A step on the journey you will fail to take unless you can bury your myopic isolationist ideology.
    The Nat say its ok to ignore referendums - precedent set. Twice.
    The UK should be quite happy to have another Scottish referendum. They could just refuse to have any deal that doesn't include Edinburgh being ruled by English law and be happy to extend forever.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238

    Gabs2 said:

    How many MPs voted for Article 50, voted against the withdrawal agreement all three times, and are now voting to block no deal?

    They should all lose their jobs.

    Completely agree.
    That’s a matter for their constituents, not executive fiat by angry Leavers.
    We’ll all get a vote on it fairly soon.
    We can even campaign if we so wish.
This discussion has been closed.