So, it looks like it is McDonnell and Starmer v Corbyn and the Morning Star Brexiteers, with the vast majority of the PLP on the former's side. It is for moments like these that Labour MPs will tell you they have not walked away. Today they have real power and there is absolutely nothing Corbyn, Momentum, Milne or anyone else can do about it.
The real test doesn't come now. It comes if Labour wins an election outright and Corbyn and McDonnell choose to try to unleash Disaster Socialism upon the country. Which, if any, of the more extreme ideas in the Labour manifesto will the "moderates" vote down?
Aren't we generally seeing a shift to a looser age pf party allegiance? The first time is always the hardest, and all that.
Contrary to popular belief, isn't the current farrago evidence that the Fixed Term Parliament Act is an improvement on the previous system? I say that because, under the old system, an unelected minority PM could have crashed us out in chaos, despite the will of parliament, by using his personal power to call a GE to get parliament out of the way over the critical date. With the Act in place, the opposition parties can ensure that the options are kept open until we've had a GE and any new government can then decide what to do.
Maybe in that one specific scenario it is an improvement, but forcing a government without a majority to limp along for months or years is in no-ones interest.
Au contraire, the problem with most governments is hyperactivity.
A government that is unable to do much at all is often a blessing for businesses, who are safe in the knowledge that they aren't going to faff around with legislation needlessly, causing unintended consequences, as is exactly what happens 99.9% of the time.
True, but a common complaint against this and the last government is that it is myopically focused on Brexit.
At least it stops the clowns getting their grubby incompetent mitts into anything else
So, it looks like it is McDonnell and Starmer v Corbyn and the Morning Star Brexiteers, with the vast majority of the PLP on the former's side. It is for moments like these that Labour MPs will tell you they have not walked away. Today they have real power and there is absolutely nothing Corbyn, Momentum, Milne or anyone else can do about it.
The real test doesn't come now. It comes if Labour wins an election outright and Corbyn and McDonnell choose to try to unleash Disaster Socialism upon the country. Which, if any, of the more extreme ideas in the Labour manifesto will the "moderates" vote down?
I didn't know Labour had published a manifesto! I think you might have been reading too much Brexit supporting media, who make things up...
I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.
Contrary to popular belief, isn't the current farrago evidence that the Fixed Term Parliament Act is an improvement on the previous system? I say that because, under the old system, an unelected minority PM could have crashed us out in chaos, despite the will of parliament, by using his personal power to call a GE to get parliament out of the way over the critical date. With the Act in place, the opposition parties can ensure that the options are kept open until we've had a GE and any new government can then decide what to do.
Maybe in that one specific scenario it is an improvement, but forcing a government without a majority to limp along for months or years is in no-ones interest.
Is it clear what would happen next if Boris unilaterally resigned as PM and took his bat home, declining to name a successor? The FTPA seems not to allow for it, but if he did it it would be hard to see how he could be stopped.
The FTPA is nothing to do with who is prime minister. It's purely to do with when there's a parliamentary election. All the stuff to do with appointing prime ministers is just the same as it was before.
This was what I asked for the other day and nobody could find. Clearly I was wrong. But Corbyn would still wait to renegotiate first.
An extra thought on this. I can not imagine the new Tory Party, expunged of many Remainers both in parliament and in the electorate, will accept the result of a second referendum to Remain. They will say the other side wasn't bound by the previous one so why should they listen? It is highly likely they put a pledge to leave the EU in their manifesto for every GE from now on. Leaving the EU will be as much part of Tory DNA as leaving the UK is for the SNP.
The fallout from both 2014 and 2016 has been a masterclass in why representative and direct democracy are wholly incompatible. First the Scottish electorate votes in a Nationalist Government and then denies it its core policy objective at a referendum. Then the UK electorate votes for a policy in a referendum, but elects a Parliament that is unwilling and unable to implement the policy. The result is that the policy in dispute gains a life of its own and all else begins to revolve and polarise around it. Scotland has Ulsterized around independence, and it's quite possible that England will Ulsterize around membership of the EU. It's hugely destructive.
We should therefore follow the example of the Germans and ban plebiscites under all circumstances save two: an NI border poll, because of the GFA, and for ratification or amendment of a constitution, should Parliament decide that one is needed and put it to the people.
As far as any other issue, include Scottish independence, is concerned, it should be a matter for our representatives. England as well as Scotland and Wales should have its own Parliament and, if we are going to continue to recognise the Union between them as temporary and dissoluble rather than permanent, then all three of those bodies should have a right to vote for secession, subject to certain limited safeguards.
All very plausible and well argued. But the right of self determination by referendum is now getting fairly well established, and it is easier to get a genie out of the bottle than it is to put it back in. BTW, if we had such a system, Scotland would already be independent, and all the current bits of UK would be safely in the EU.
I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.
A phone call to Cambridge Analytica and another to Putin should get it sorted.
I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.
A phone call to Cambridge Analytica and another to Putin should get it sorted.
If the Tories win a majority will the whole 'Russian interference' meme kick off again ?
So, the masterplan, after losing control of the Commons, is to lose control of the Lords?
What sort of genius is Cumming supposed to be?
Cummings is an oppositionist, I don't think much of Boris's judgement in utilising someone like Cummings as it is a completely different skill set being in opposition to being in Government. When a PM makes decisions you will always find opponents internally and externally. The current administration does not seem interested in Governing, just blaming everybody else for the mess they have created.
I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.
Cummings is heading for a major fall from grace. The Sam Allardyce of politics.
No, he’s the Klinsmann. Appointed for a short term but specific gig (2006 World Cup hosting and prep) and will then slope off after being quite successful. Anyone worried that Cummings will be running the show in 2021 (or even easter 2020) isn’t paying much attention.
Contrary to popular belief, isn't the current farrago evidence that the Fixed Term Parliament Act is an improvement on the previous system? I say that because, under the old system, an unelected minority PM could have crashed us out in chaos, despite the will of parliament, by using his personal power to call a GE to get parliament out of the way over the critical date. With the Act in place, the opposition parties can ensure that the options are kept open until we've had a GE and any new government can then decide what to do.
Maybe in that one specific scenario it is an improvement, but forcing a government without a majority to limp along for months or years is in no-ones interest.
Is it clear what would happen next if Boris unilaterally resigned as PM and took his bat home, declining to name a successor? The FTPA seems not to allow for it, but if he did it it would be hard to see how he could be stopped.
The FTPA is nothing to do with who is prime minister. It's purely to do with when there's a parliamentary election. All the stuff to do with appointing prime ministers is just the same as it was before.
So, it looks like it is McDonnell and Starmer v Corbyn and the Morning Star Brexiteers, with the vast majority of the PLP on the former's side. It is for moments like these that Labour MPs will tell you they have not walked away. Today they have real power and there is absolutely nothing Corbyn, Momentum, Milne or anyone else can do about it.
The real test doesn't come now. It comes if Labour wins an election outright and Corbyn and McDonnell choose to try to unleash Disaster Socialism upon the country. Which, if any, of the more extreme ideas in the Labour manifesto will the "moderates" vote down?
I didn't know Labour had published a manifesto! I think you might have been reading too much Brexit supporting media, who make things up...
When the next Labour manifesto is published and it does NOT contain any plans for hundreds of billions in extra borrowing and/or money printing, a swathe of hugely expensive (and, in some or all cases, arguably wholly needless) renationalisations, and measures that amount to the expropriation of private property by the state, then I shall withdraw my remarks with a blend of surprise, relief and delight.
However, I do not presently expect to be surprised, relieved and delighted.
I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.
A phone call to Cambridge Analytica and another to Putin should get it sorted.
If the Tories win a majority will the whole 'Russian interference' meme kick off again ?
Is there an English translation of this available?
I've found out what is happening.
There are 86 amendments currently tabled. Every amendment needs 2 votes - a closure vote to agree that debate should be brought to a close followed by a vote on the amendment.
This is going to take time so it's a battle of wills - 478 Lords are taking part and the Non- Government Lords outnumber the Government Lords 2 to 1 by the looks of it.
30 Lords need to be there for a vote to take place and there clearly need to be more Non-government lords than Government Lords.
We should therefore follow the example of the Germans and ban plebiscites under all circumstances save two: an NI border poll, because of the GFA, and for ratification or amendment of a constitution, should Parliament decide that one is needed and put it to the people.
As far as any other issue, include Scottish independence, is concerned, it should be a matter for our representatives. England as well as Scotland and Wales should have its own Parliament and, if we are going to continue to recognise the Union between them as temporary and dissoluble rather than permanent, then all three of those bodies should have a right to vote for secession, subject to certain limited safeguards.
Small point of order. Referenda are allowed in Germany, but only at district or state level. You are right that at the federal level they are not allowed.
But on the main point. I agree, after Dave's big three, we will not be seeing many Referenda in the future.
I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.
If Cummings can persuade the masses that bien pensant Lib/Lab voters, with their pro-EU hysteria and shameless sense of entitlement, conspired to rob Boris of his democratic due through tactical voting, then perhaps we're talking a Boris landslide.
Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
It didn't cut any ice with those that accused the Treasury for lying when they made the same point in their short term impacts report back in 2016.
I admit to being surprised by suggestions that No Deal will cost a couple of percentage points over ten years when Brexit has already cost 3% over three years and we haven't left yet.
The fallout from both 2014 and 2016 has been a masterclass in why representative and direct democracy are wholly incompatible. First the Scottish electorate votes in a Nationalist Government and then denies it its core policy objective at a referendum. Then the UK electorate votes for a policy in a referendum, but elects a Parliament that is unwilling and unable to implement the policy. The result is that the policy in dispute gains a life of its own and all else begins to revolve and polarise around it. Scotland has Ulsterized around independence, and it's quite possible that England will Ulsterize around membership of the EU. It's hugely destructive.
We should therefore follow the example of the Germans and ban plebiscites under all circumstances save two: an NI border poll, because of the GFA, and for ratification or amendment of a constitution, should Parliament decide that one is needed and put it to the people.
As far as any other issue, include Scottish independence, is concerned, it should be a matter for our representatives. England as well as Scotland and Wales should have its own Parliament and, if we are going to continue to recognise the Union between them as temporary and dissoluble rather than permanent, then all three of those bodies should have a right to vote for secession, subject to certain limited safeguards.
I think you have spoken powerfully against the idea of referendums in out system, and I have a sympathy with your point of view. But there is an elephant in the room: consent. There must be a defined process that allows for a peaceful and democratic path for a part of any country to secede. The hazard is that an electoral system can throw up an result where a majority of representatives are elected with a minority of votes. 2015, less than a year after Scotland voted no, is a case in point. Should the election of 56/59 MPs be a mandate for independence? I do not think so, even if Margaret Thatcher did.
If that's not the pathway to withdrawal of consent, the only other one I can think of is a direct vote.
There is a stark difference between Scotland's and the UK's referendums. The Scottish one, combative as it was, rarely strayed into the darkness. The UK one certainly did. I think a major reason for that difference is the preparation that went into them. The independence referendum was years in the making, and both sides were responsible. The EUref was hurried and ill-planned. And there's the lesson. If you're gonna do something, take the time to do it properly. I'm sad to see this current government has not learned that important lesson.
I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.
If Cummings can persuade the masses that bien pensant Lib/Lab voters, with their pro-EU hysteria and shameless sense of entitlement, conspired to rob Boris of his democratic due through tactical voting, then perhaps we're talking a Boris landslide.
I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.
A phone call to Cambridge Analytica and another to Putin should get it sorted.
If the Tories win a majority will the whole 'Russian interference' meme kick off again ?
any batshit theory is possible.
Cambridge Brewdog spiked drinks with pro Boris mind altering hops.
I doubt any sage and balanced analysis of PM BJ will be possible before 1/11/19.
Certainly won’t be posted on here either.
One must remember the scenario he inherited - no disciple, no real majority, a single topic dominating the headlines.
Will his approach work ? impossible to judge with confidence before the election results come in
Until then it’s partisan tweets and anecdotes.
Meanwhile I’m sure focus group facilitators are doing a roaring trade.
As I said the other day, HYUFD's vision of a large Conservative majority in the near future is certainly within the realms of possibility. The problem is that a large Corbynite majority is also feasible, as is a Lib Dem/SNP/whatever coalition.
I'll be darned if I know what'll happen. I don't really have an idea which of the Brexit offerings I'd prefer, and which would be best for the country - but I do know who I don't want to vote, for, and that precludes both Corbyn and Boris.
I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.
A phone call to Cambridge Analytica and another to Putin should get it sorted.
If the Tories win a majority will the whole 'Russian interference' meme kick off again ?
any batshit theory is possible.
Yes, it's batshit, because of the steps taken by this and the previous government to prevent a repeat of that happening... although.. for some reason I've forgotten what steps /were/taken. Can anyone jog my memory?
Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
It didn't cut any ice with those that accused the Treasury for lying when they made the same point in their short term impacts report back in 2016.
I admit to being surprised by suggestions that No Deal will cost a couple of percentage points over ten years when Brexit has already cost 3% over three years and we haven't left yet.
For my sins, I’ve just read the BoE report on No Deal Brexit. To be fair, me, Nabavi and the Guardian are allowed to be confused, because the bank itself is confused. These predictions are so tenuous as to be practically valueless. Also, we have no real idea what might have happened in alternative scenarios, not more than a year or so into the “future”, anyway
The one thing we can say is that No Deal will be painful. With a potential to be hideously painful. And is really best avoided, if poss.
The fallout from both 2014 and 2016 has been a masterclass in why representative and direct democracy are wholly incompatible.
We should therefore follow the example of the Germans and ban plebiscites under all circumstances save two: an NI border poll, because of the GFA, and for ratification or amendment of a constitution, should Parliament decide that one is needed and put it to the people.
As far as any other issue, include Scottish independence, is concerned, it should be a matter for our representatives. England as well as Scotland and Wales should have its own Parliament and, if we are going to continue to recognise the Union between them as temporary and dissoluble rather than permanent, then all three of those bodies should have a right to vote for secession, subject to certain limited safeguards.
I think you have spoken powerfully against the idea of referendums in out system, and I have a sympathy with your point of view. But there is an elephant in the room: consent. There must be a defined process that allows for a peaceful and democratic path for a part of any country to secede. The hazard is that an electoral system can throw up an result where a majority of representatives are elected with a minority of votes. 2015, less than a year after Scotland voted no, is a case in point. Should the election of 56/59 MPs be a mandate for independence? I do not think so, even if Margaret Thatcher did.
If that's not the pathway to withdrawal of consent, the only other one I can think of is a direct vote.
There is a stark difference between Scotland's and the UK's referendums. The Scottish one, combative as it was, rarely strayed into the darkness. The UK one certainly did. I think a major reason for that difference is the preparation that went into them. The independence referendum was years in the making, and both sides were responsible. The EUref was hurried and ill-planned. And there's the lesson. If you're gonna do something, take the time to do it properly. I'm sad to see this current government has not learned that important lesson.
Yes if Cameron had invited a panel of senior leavers at the time to get togerther 100 civil servants for a year, negotiate with the EU and put a framework together for leave, then the referendum would have been much cleaner and the result either way easier to implement.
All very plausible and well argued. But the right of self determination by referendum is now getting fairly well established, and it is easier to get a genie out of the bottle than it is to put it back in. BTW, if we had such a system, Scotland would already be independent, and all the current bits of UK would be safely in the EU.
We can't be certain that Scotland would be independent under such circumstances, because arming the Scottish Parliament with the right to demand independence directly would change the terms of the election of its members and could dissuade some voters from backing pro-independence legislators. But I won't dig any further into the mechanics as this is a wholly hypothetical argument in any event.
I certainly see no particular reason why secession could not be decided by votes in legislatures rather than direct democracy. We can craft our own rules; after all, we're unusual in entertaining the notion of secession in the first place. In most jurisdictions with formal federal systems in place - the US, Germany and Australia to name but three - the nation is considered indissoluble.
I doubt any sage and balanced analysis of PM BJ will be possible before 1/11/19.
Certainly won’t be posted on here either.
One must remember the scenario he inherited - no disciple, no real majority, a single topic dominating the headlines.
Will his approach work ? impossible to judge with confidence before the election results come in
Until then it’s partisan tweets and anecdotes.
Meanwhile I’m sure focus group facilitators are doing a roaring trade.
As I said the other day, HYUFD's vision of a large Conservative majority in the near future is certainly within the realms of possibility. The problem is that a large Corbynite majority is also feasible, as is a Lib Dem/SNP/whatever coalition.
I'll be darned if I know what'll happen. I don't really have an idea which of the Brexit offerings I'd prefer, and which would be best for the country - but I do know who I don't want to vote, for, and that precludes both Corbyn and Boris.
All very plausible and well argued. But the right of self determination by referendum is now getting fairly well established, and it is easier to get a genie out of the bottle than it is to put it back in. BTW, if we had such a system, Scotland would already be independent, and all the current bits of UK would be safely in the EU.
We can't be certain that Scotland would be independent under such circumstances, because arming the Scottish Parliament with the right to demand independence directly would change the terms of the election of its members and could dissuade some voters from backing pro-independence legislators. But I won't dig any further into the mechanics as this is a wholly hypothetical argument in any event.
I certainly see no particular reason why secession could not be decided by votes in legislatures rather than direct democracy. We can craft our own rules; after all, we're unusual in entertaining the notion of secession in the first place. In most jurisdictions with formal federal systems in place - the US, Germany and Australia to name but three - the nation is considered indissoluble.
The Scots joined the United Kingdom as a result of decision in their Parliament
Unless the Queen signs a law requiring further extension Boris will not be breaking the law as passage of an Act of Parliament alone does not a law make, it also requires royal assent.
With over 20% of UK voters believing the Queen was right to assent to proroguing Parliament the current crisis is not harming the monarchy but the legislature
I'm not keen on referendums, but if you have them there should be rules. I suggest:
1. Selection of two choices, each of which must be viable and clear in its effect 2. One option must the status quo 3. The other option must be a fully enabling Act of Parliament, where the final ratification is the referendum.
The fallout from both 2014 and 2016 has been a masterclass in why representative and direct democracy are wholly incompatible.
We should therefore follow the example of the Germans and ban plebiscites under all circumstances save two: an NI border poll, because of the GFA, and for ratification or amendment of a constitution, should Parliament decide that one is needed and put it to the people.
As far as any other issue, include Scottish independence, is concerned, it should be a matter for our representatives. England as well as Scotland and Wales should have its own Parliament and, if we are going to continue to recognise the Union between them as temporary and dissoluble rather than permanent, then all three of those bodies should have a right to vote for secession, subject to certain limited safeguards.
I think you have spoken powerfully against the idea of referendums in out system, and I have a sympathy with your point of view. But there is an elephant in the room: consent. There must be a defined process that allows for a peaceful and democratic path for a part of any country to secede. The hazard is that an electoral system can throw up an result where a majority of representatives are elected with a minority of votes. 2015, less than a year after Scotland voted no, is a case in point. Should the election of 56/59 MPs be a mandate for independence? I do not think so, even if Margaret Thatcher did.
If that's not the pathway to withdrawal of consent, the only other one I can think of is a direct vote.
There is a stark difference between Scotland's and the UK's referendums. The Scottish one, combative as it was, rarely strayed into the darkness. The UK one certainly did. I think a major reason for that difference is the preparation that went into them. The independence referendum was years in the making, and both sides were responsible. The EUref was hurried and ill-planned. And there's the lesson. If you're gonna do something, take the time to do it properly. I'm sad to see this current government has not learned that important lesson.
Yes if Cameron had invited a panel of senior leavers at the time to get togerther 100 civil servants for a year, negotiate with the EU and put a framework together for leave, then the referendum would have been much cleaner and the result either way easier to implement.
Absolutely. The shitshow of Brexit has surely put paid to the idea that “we’re British, we will muddle through, we can wing it and it will be fine, somehow”
No, we’re not fine, and we’re not muddling through. We needed a plan from the start.
To be fair to the much-maligned Dom Cummings, he did point this out in his infamous blog.
Unless the Queen signs a law requiring further extension Boris will not be breaking the law as passage of an Act of Parliament alone does not a law make, it also requires royal assent.
With over 20% of UK voters believing the Queen was right to assent to proroguing Parliament the current crisis is not harming the monarchy but the legislature
Over 20%. Wow. A colossal level of public support.
Some interesting ideas floating about tonight that Cummings could have actually gamed for a second referendum. After all, it was the first that made his name ; but it would be a much harder task for him than the first.
Some interesting ideas floating about tonight that Cummings could have actually gamed for a second referendum. After all, it was the first that made his name ; but it would be a much harder task for him than the first.
Contrary to popular belief, isn't the current farrago evidence that the Fixed Term Parliament Act is an improvement on the previous system? I say that because, under the old system, an unelected minority PM could have crashed us out in chaos, despite the will of parliament, by using his personal power to call a GE to get parliament out of the way over the critical date. With the Act in place, the opposition parties can ensure that the options are kept open until we've had a GE and any new government can then decide what to do.
Maybe in that one specific scenario it is an improvement, but forcing a government without a majority to limp along for months or years is in no-ones interest.
Is it clear what would happen next if Boris unilaterally resigned as PM and took his bat home, declining to name a successor? The FTPA seems not to allow for it, but if he did it it would be hard to see how he could be stopped.
The FTPA is nothing to do with who is prime minister. It's purely to do with when there's a parliamentary election. All the stuff to do with appointing prime ministers is just the same as it was before.
Which, leaving the FTPA out of it, is what?
The outgoing PM is obliged to name a successsor.
After a sucessfull VoNC there are 14 days to find a successor. The PM would then make the recommendation to the queen. As I understand it the PM is not 100% legally compelled to go the queen if there is a VoNC followed by confidence vote in a new PM, but refusing would be a very quick route to the PM being held in contempt and being expelled.
I do not think the Queen will be impressed if Johnson phones her and says "I'm moving out of Downing Street. The keys are in the post. It's your problem now"
From the Guardian: MPs have voted to give the bill to stop a no-deal Brexit on 31 October a second reading by 329 votes to 300 - a majority of 29.
Looks like noone has changed their mind. I include Spelman in that because she probably would have voted with the rebels yesterday but chose not to as they had the numbers in order to be a test case for "Does she lose the whip or not" if she rebels today.
Unless the Queen signs a law requiring further extension Boris will not be breaking the law as passage of an Act of Parliament alone does not a law make, it also requires royal assent.
With over 20% of UK voters believing the Queen was right to assent to proroguing Parliament the current crisis is not harming the monarchy but the legislature
Over 20%. Wow. A colossal level of public support.
Over 20% - which means over 70% believe the Queen was wrong to assent to proroguing Parliament.
Boris is really going to be remembered - as the person who destroyed the UK and destroyed the monarchy with it.
Is there an English translation of this available?
I've found out what is happening.
There are 86 amendments currently tabled. Every amendment needs 2 votes - a closure vote to agree that debate should be brought to a close followed by a vote on the amendment.
This is going to take time so it's a battle of wills - 478 Lords are taking part and the Non- Government Lords outnumber the Government Lords 2 to 1 by the looks of it.
30 Lords need to be there for a vote to take place and there clearly need to be more Non-government lords than Government Lords.
Each vote takes 15 minutes so it's at the very least 30 minutes per amendment plus there must be some time to debate each amendment - even if only 5 to 10 minutes that's a total of 35 to 40 minutes per amendment.
Some interesting ideas floating about tonight that Cummings could have actually gamed for a second referendum. After all, it was the first that made his name ; but it would be a much harder task for him than the first.
Maybe he did not realise how badly his previous advice was going to go down and the fact that the opposition are not playing ball. Given the opposition to a second referendum maybe the penny is beginning to drop the No Deal Brexit is not welcome and he is trying to save Brexit from death? A desperate last throw of the dice!
I'm not keen on referendums, but if you have them there should be rules. I suggest:
1. Selection of two choices, each of which must be viable and clear in its effect 2. One option must the status quo 3. The other option must be a fully enabling Act of Parliament, where the final ratification is the referendum.
The Irish example is the one to follow.
The Government had a plan they wanted to implement, knew how and when it would be done, and used a referendum for public consent.
Some interesting ideas floating about tonight that Cummings could have actually gamed for a second referendum. After all, it was the first that made his name ; but it would be a much harder task for him than the first.
A second referendum has always been the most likely way to get a no deal brexit.
Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?
What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.
Finally a remain voter is in the mindset of the people who voted Leave because of the mass immigration of cheap EU labour
Is the average EU migrant earning more or less than you, I wonder?
Me personally? It depends which year
But the pressure put on wages, job security & state services added to the rapid change in their neighbourhood demographic were the equivalent of a No Deal Brexit on the lowest paid British workers from 2004-2016, that's why they voted Leave, and the lack of negative impact on richer Brits was the reason they didn't/don't understand the problem with FOM
The fallout from both 2014 and 2016 has been a masterclass in why representative and direct democracy are wholly incompatible. First the Scottish electorate votes in a Nationalist Government and then denies it its core policy objective at a referendum. Then the UK electorate votes for a policy in a referendum, but elects a Parliament that is unwilling and unable to implement the policy. The result is that the policy in dispute gains a life of its own and all else begins to revolve and polarise around it. Scotland has Ulsterized around independence, and it's quite possible that England will Ulsterize around membership of the EU. It's hugely destructive.
We should therefore follow the example of the Germans and ban plebiscites under all circumstances save two: an NI border poll, because of the GFA, and for ratification or amendment of a constitution, should Parliament decide that one is needed and put it to the people.
As far as any other issue, include Scottish independence, is concerned, it should be a matter for our representatives. England as well as Scotland and Wales should have its own Parliament and, if we are going to continue to recognise the Union between them as temporary and dissoluble rather than permanent, then all three of those bodies should have a right to vote for secession, subject to certain limited safeguards.
Couldn't disagree more. Plenty of countries make referendums a key part of their legislation and do it very well. And your two examples of failure are spurious.
In the case of the Scottish vote there is nothing problematic or inconsistent with having the SNP elected with one their policies being independence and then having that specific policy rejected by the electorate. They still have many other policies they can enact in Government. Moreover the alternative would be to say that the SNP should simply have declared independence without a referendum - something that at the time clearly had only minority support as we well know from the referendum itself.
As far as Brexit is concerned I would suggest many of those MPs now obstructing or trying to reverse Brexit would never have got elected in 2015 had they been honest and said they would try to reverse the referendum.
One wonders how we will all get on if we Revoke and Remain, after, say, a 2nd referendum. Very uncomfortable.
Of course.
It's like a spouse going through a mid life crisis, threatening to move out, talking about the gorgeous person at work they've been going for drinks with, and fancy moving in with.
Then coming back in a fit of remorse and saying it was just a phase.
The other spouse will be understandably treating them as on probation.
Unless the Queen signs a law requiring further extension Boris will not be breaking the law as passage of an Act of Parliament alone does not a law make, it also requires royal assent.
With over 20% of UK voters believing the Queen was right to assent to proroguing Parliament the current crisis is not harming the monarchy but the legislature
Over 20%. Wow. A colossal level of public support.
Over 20% - which means over 70% believe the Queen was wrong to assent to proroguing Parliament.
Boris is really going to be remembered - as the person who destroyed the UK and destroyed the monarchy with it.
The Queen acts on the advice of her PM. The truly revolutionary act would have been to refuse Johnson's request (which after all was only for 4 days).
You people are sowing dragons' teeth with this nonsense...
If Cummings had looked back even briefly, he would have seen that there was a good chance the EU would only offer an extension for a "new dispensation" such as a referendum. He would surely have anticipated the forcing of an extension, too, so in fact it seems quite likely he should have factored the combined sequential forcing of a referendum, by parliament and then the EU, into his plans.
Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?
What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.
Finally a remain voter is in the mindset of the people who voted Leave because of the mass immigration of cheap EU labour
Is the average EU migrant earning more or less than you, I wonder?
Me personally? It depends which year
But the pressure put on wages, job security & state services added to the rapid change in their neighbourhood demographic were the equivalent of a No Deal Brexit on the lowest paid British workers from 2004-2016, that's why they voted Leave, and the lack of negative impact on richer Brits was the reason they didn't/don't understand the problem with FOM
Trouble is, you expel productive European workers and sack higher rate taxpayers, shrink the economy and wreck trade for decades, you're not going to make life any better for anyone.
Unless the Queen signs a law requiring further extension Boris will not be breaking the law as passage of an Act of Parliament alone does not a law make, it also requires royal assent.
With over 20% of UK voters believing the Queen was right to assent to proroguing Parliament the current crisis is not harming the monarchy but the legislature
This figure seems very dodgy. Almost everyone knows the Queen approved the proroguing that is the protocol, and not in practice a decision that she makes. The 20% is probably the figure for "Proroguing was right".
As a follow up the Queen is not going to refuse to give assent to an act that has been approved by both houses.
Comments
What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.
However, I do not presently expect to be surprised, relieved and delighted.
There are 86 amendments currently tabled. Every amendment needs 2 votes - a closure vote to agree that debate should be brought to a close followed by a vote on the amendment.
This is going to take time so it's a battle of wills - 478 Lords are taking part and the Non- Government Lords outnumber the Government Lords 2 to 1 by the looks of it.
30 Lords need to be there for a vote to take place and there clearly need to be more Non-government lords than Government Lords.
But on the main point. I agree, after Dave's big three, we will not be seeing many Referenda in the future.
I admit to being surprised by suggestions that No Deal will cost a couple of percentage points over ten years when Brexit has already cost 3% over three years and we haven't left yet.
Certainly won’t be posted on here either.
One must remember the scenario he inherited - no disciple, no real majority, a single topic dominating the headlines.
Will his approach work ? impossible to judge with confidence before the election results come in
Until then it’s partisan tweets and anecdotes.
Meanwhile I’m sure focus group facilitators are doing a roaring trade.
The hazard is that an electoral system can throw up an result where a majority of representatives are elected with a minority of votes. 2015, less than a year after Scotland voted no, is a case in point. Should the election of 56/59 MPs be a mandate for independence? I do not think so, even if Margaret Thatcher did.
If that's not the pathway to withdrawal of consent, the only other one I can think of is a direct vote.
There is a stark difference between Scotland's and the UK's referendums. The Scottish one, combative as it was, rarely strayed into the darkness. The UK one certainly did. I think a major reason for that difference is the preparation that went into them. The independence referendum was years in the making, and both sides were responsible.
The EUref was hurried and ill-planned. And there's the lesson. If you're gonna do something, take the time to do it properly. I'm sad to see this current government has not learned that important lesson.
The betting market doesn't seem to think Johnson will sweep to victory on a No Deal election platform.
So the mad Cat woman told me..
I'll be darned if I know what'll happen. I don't really have an idea which of the Brexit offerings I'd prefer, and which would be best for the country - but I do know who I don't want to vote, for, and that precludes both Corbyn and Boris.
https://twitter.com/MarinaHyde/status/1169275560956239872
although..
for some reason I've forgotten what steps /were/taken. Can anyone jog my memory?
The one thing we can say is that No Deal will be painful. With a potential to be hideously painful. And is really best avoided, if poss.
Once this has all blown over some of these threads will be looked back on with good-natured amusement and no small amount of embarrassment I suspect.
I certainly see no particular reason why secession could not be decided by votes in legislatures rather than direct democracy. We can craft our own rules; after all, we're unusual in entertaining the notion of secession in the first place. In most jurisdictions with formal federal systems in place - the US, Germany and Australia to name but three - the nation is considered indissoluble.
More expulsions incoming
With over 20% of UK voters believing the Queen was right to assent to proroguing Parliament the current crisis is not harming the monarchy but the legislature
1. Selection of two choices, each of which must be viable and clear in its effect
2. One option must the status quo
3. The other option must be a fully enabling Act of Parliament, where the final ratification is the referendum.
No, we’re not fine, and we’re not muddling through. We needed a plan from the start.
To be fair to the much-maligned Dom Cummings, he did point this out in his infamous blog.
MPs have voted to give the bill to stop a no-deal Brexit on 31 October a second reading by 329 votes to 300 - a majority of 29.
After a sucessfull VoNC there are 14 days to find a successor. The PM would then make the recommendation to the queen.
As I understand it the PM is not 100% legally compelled to go the queen if there is a VoNC followed by confidence vote in a new PM, but refusing would be a very quick route to the PM being held in contempt and being expelled.
I do not think the Queen will be impressed if Johnson phones her and says "I'm moving out of Downing Street. The keys are in the post. It's your problem now"
Boris is really going to be remembered - as the person who destroyed the UK and destroyed the monarchy with it.
So it looks like a minimum of approx 50 hours.
The Government had a plan they wanted to implement, knew how and when it would be done, and used a referendum for public consent.
CUMMINGS HAS WARGAMED THIS !!!
But the pressure put on wages, job security & state services added to the rapid change in their neighbourhood demographic were the equivalent of a No Deal Brexit on the lowest paid British workers from 2004-2016, that's why they voted Leave, and the lack of negative impact on richer Brits was the reason they didn't/don't understand the problem with FOM
In the case of the Scottish vote there is nothing problematic or inconsistent with having the SNP elected with one their policies being independence and then having that specific policy rejected by the electorate. They still have many other policies they can enact in Government. Moreover the alternative would be to say that the SNP should simply have declared independence without a referendum - something that at the time clearly had only minority support as we well know from the referendum itself.
As far as Brexit is concerned I would suggest many of those MPs now obstructing or trying to reverse Brexit would never have got elected in 2015 had they been honest and said they would try to reverse the referendum.
The problem is not referendums it is the MPs.
It's like a spouse going through a mid life crisis, threatening to move out, talking about the gorgeous person at work they've been going for drinks with, and fancy moving in with.
Then coming back in a fit of remorse and saying it was just a phase.
The other spouse will be understandably treating them as on probation.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/09/john-bercow-decision-endangers-the-office-of-speaker-and-our-democracy
You people are sowing dragons' teeth with this nonsense...
Kicking out Spelman is sure to calm some nerves...
As a follow up the Queen is not going to refuse to give assent to an act that has been approved by both houses.