Look plank, there's a distinction between breaking a precedent, and breaking the law.
he wont be breaking the law until it is signed into law by the Royal assent. Which can be (legitimately) delayed. Two can play at Parliamentary games.
Your language is unhelpful and betrays both a slightly weak mind as well as a weak argument.
Bills that pass both houses of parliament automatically become law on prorogation.
without royal assent? is that correct? Happy to be corrected if so.
You are duly corrected
From the Institute of Government :
"Any bills that have completed all their parliamentary stages at the point Parliament is prorogued, but have not yet been given Royal Assent (needed for a bill to become an Act of Parliament), receive Royal Assent as part of the prorogation ceremony. During the ceremony, the Clerk of the Crown announces each bill to receive Royal Assent. As each bill is announced, the Clerk of the Parliament then declares "Le Reyne le veult" (the Queen wishes it in Norman French), signifying Assent has been given."
That isn't really automatic, as there has to be some action to confirm assent. The Clerk could say something different, for example.
It's as automatic as every @HYUFD post claiming that Boris is the Messiah .... yes that automatic. There has never been an instance when the Clerk has not uttered the assent "Le Reyne le veult". Crossing his fingers behind his back doesn't invalidate it either .....
No bill and no election and no time to force a bill afterwards?
It would take a heart of stone . . .
I feel like we're missing something here because this is huge, everything comes down to the Lords or its no deal. Very few journalists seem to be focusing on this.
There's an assumption the Lords will always blink before the Commons. I see no reason they need to now. Especially with the Commons rejecting an election.
Heart of stone ...
Ironic to have seized control from the undemocratic EU, to have it decided in the Lords. The whole thing is a shambles.
It is a shambles, we need a GE asap to resolve it (hopefully).
Further along, we need a proper bloody constitution outlining, for a start, The powers of the executive, legislature, Speaker, Upper House and Head of State. The role and rules for referendums and their implementation. And Party funding. Instead of just making them up as we go along.
I am enjoying the reversal of positions in the Lords, now that amendments to frustrate a bill passed by the Commons is bad, and considering curtailing their time to debate is good.
To be absolutely fair, the anti-No Dealers would be right to point out that the unelected Lords attempting to veto the elected Commons in the midst of an emergency might be regarded as objectionable. But one might also reasonably contend that an element of hypocrisy is involved.
Quite. If they want to argue that their hypocrisy is less destructive than the hypocrisy of their opponents I am all for it - a truly honest approach which might well be justifiable without getting on a high horse.
Regardless of past rules on confidence votes, and whether it was a good idea or reasonable to make yesterday's vote a confidence vote, fact is that it was one and everyone who still opposed it went in knowing what would happen if they did. It seems to me to diminish their stand to quibble about the rightness or wrongness of it being a confidence vote in the first place. It was, they stood up and were heroes/traitors, either way good for them.
But it wasn't a confidence vote. First legally as the FTPA has changed what counts as a confidence vote. Second functionally as if it had been a confidence vote then Boris woukd have resigned as he lost it. But he didn't because it wasn't.
If you're a Leaver, but you generally liked Mrs May's deal, and you want to leave the EU in an orderly fashion, who do you vote for?
If Mann runs as an independent (And I'm amazed he still has the labour whip quite honestly) that could sort it. I still think the WA is the best route out
What utter crap. Soames voted with the marxists and nationalists against his own party on a matter of confidence. He was told beforehand the consequences of doing so but continued nonetheless. Soames decided how to vote and owns the outturn.
Yup. 3 rebellions in 3 decades. Shagger does 3 rebellions before breakfast. Obviously Somasey is the traitor and not Johnson.
It was a confidence vote. Your post is just irrelevant whataboutery.
I shall take that under advisement based on your expertise on irrelevance and whataboutery
How will Remainers react if there is an election and Boris wins a comfortable majority?
How will it be any different from what we are going through now?
We know it is a mistake and the Govt seem determined to make it. They sure as heck are not listening to Remainers.
If he gets a majority then he gets a majority. I will just note that Remainers, in general, are not the ones threatening violence, intimidation, deportations or civil disorder if we do not get our way...
You conveniently forget Philip Pullman suggesting that Boris should be hanged the other day. Can't think of anything more extreme. The fact is there are lunatics on both sides and if you don 't realise it you're probably one of them.
I see you missed the subclause "in general"...
Not at all. There are many examples of Remainer fanatics - did you not see the guillotines in the crowds last week? What is spectacularly stupid is you trying to infer without a shred of evidence that the leavers have the majority of lunatics - as even if it were true kinda misses the point. It takes only one person as was so amply demonstrated with Jo Cox.
Jo Cox's killer was not exactly dragged from the Dock spouting "Remain! EU forever!"
Are you really too thick to understand the point being made? The implications of what you are saying are terrifying.
I am obviously too thick to understand the way you express it. So why not explain it more clearly?
Yawn. When it comes to fanatics on both sides it really isn't a numbers game despite your claim [ based on nothing] that there are more on one side than the other. If one lunatic is inspired by Pullman's tweet the result would be as bad as Jo Cox. In short none of it is acceptable.
Regardless of past rules on confidence votes, and whether it was a good idea or reasonable to make yesterday's vote a confidence vote, fact is that it was one and everyone who still opposed it went in knowing what would happen if they did. It seems to me to diminish their stand to quibble about the rightness or wrongness of it being a confidence vote in the first place. It was, they stood up and were heroes/traitors, either way good for them.
But it wasn't a confidence vote. First legally as the FTPA has changed what counts as a confidence vote. Second functionally as if it had been a confidence vote then Boris woukd have resigned as he lost it. But he didn't because it wasn't.
I was under the impression there was analysis stating that the view that the FPTA had done away with other confidence votes was not true, but regardless of whether that is right or not I don't see that it makes much difference. If they say they want to treat it as though it were a confidence vote, even if legally it is not one, surely a party is entitled to do that? How they enforce party discipline is their own business and they made clear they would be very firm on that, and whether that was stupid or not they let everyone know it too.
Looks like the filibuster is going to be successful. So now what?
Still options available 1. No confidence Johnson, tie Jezbollah up with duct tape, install KenClarke 2. Bercow refuses to prologue and challenges HM to arrest MPs
Or more likely 3. Space lizards interrupt No Deal preparations by parking their invasion fleet in orbit and destroying Brussels
No bill and no election and no time to force a bill afterwards?
It would take a heart of stone . . .
I feel like we're missing something here because this is huge, everything comes down to the Lords or its no deal. Very few journalists seem to be focusing on this.
There's an assumption the Lords will always blink before the Commons. I see no reason they need to now. Especially with the Commons rejecting an election.
Heart of stone ...
Ironic to have seized control from the undemocratic EU, to have it decided in the Lords. The whole thing is a shambles.
It is a shambles, we need a GE asap to resolve it (hopefully).
Further along, we need a proper bloody constitution outlining, for a start, The powers of the executive, legislature, Speaker, Upper House and Head of State. The role and rules for referendums and their implementation. And Party funding. Instead of just making them up as we go along.
Does writing them down actually mean they will be coherent in 10-50-100 years time? The evidence of the fixed term parliaments act or US constitution protecting individuals owning firearms that the founders would not have dreamed of suggest not.
I dont know if it is better or worse on balance, but just like VAR it changes one set of controversies for another.
How will Remainers react if there is an election and Boris wins a comfortable majority?
How will it be any different from what we are going through now?
We know it is a mistake and the Govt seem determined to make it. They sure as heck are not listening to Remainers.
If he gets a majority then he gets a majority. I will just note that Remainers, in general, are not the ones threatening violence, intimidation, deportations or civil disorder if we do not get our way...
You conveniently forget Philip Pullman suggesting that Boris should be hanged the other day. Can't think of anything more extreme. The fact is there are lunatics on both sides and if you don 't realise it you're probably one of them.
I see you missed the subclause "in general"...
Not at all. There are many examples of Remainer fanatics - did you not see the guillotines in the crowds last week? What is spectacularly stupid is you trying to infer without a shred of evidence that the leavers have the majority of lunatics - as even if it were true kinda misses the point. It takes only one person as was so amply demonstrated with Jo Cox.
Jo Cox's killer was not exactly dragged from the Dock spouting "Remain! EU forever!"
Are you really too thick to understand the point being made? The implications of what you are saying are terrifying.
I am obviously too thick to understand the way you express it. So why not explain it more clearly?
Found this quote somewhere "To suggest that those who support the current status quo are extremists just goes to show how extreme leavers have actually become. There is in fact no such thing as an extreme Remainer since there is only one version of remain, everything else is just different shades of leaving."
Your Co, Durham workmates are worrying about the HoC being disrespected? If Boris whipped out his todger and p*ssed on them all, I suspect they're be cheering around here.
He may be an untrustworthy loon, but he's added ten percent to the Tories' polling. How has Jezza done?
Just had a very unpleasant experience. Was innocently listening to the calming tones of Sarah Montague at lunchtime, when I heard a repulsive blast from the past. That ginormous turd Michael Forsyth, who the voters of Stirling soundly dismissed in 1997, was on my bloody radio, splurging his usual lies, hatred and bile.
This is why the House of Lords has to go. Reptiles like Forsyth suck at the taxpayers’ teets for decades after losing elections. The vile serpent had the audacity to present himself as a champion of democracy.
A bit strong Stuart. I don't know Lord F but the feedback I've received is that he is a very courteous and extremely bright guy. Came from a generation of Tories influenced by the Manchester school of economists at St Andrews in the 70s. An interesting fellow and not to be dismissed in these kind of terms, however much you may disagree with him. He is also, unassailably, an authentic working-class Scot.
Words fail me.
A bit strong eh?
Clear that you were not in Scotland in the 80s and 90s.
Forsyth was utterly despised, throughout the nation. He managed to unite the (then dominant) Scottish Labour Party, Scottish Liberals, the SNP, half the Scottish Tory party, and the unaligned, against him. He was reviled more than Maggie. Why? Well, Maggie was English. She had an excuse. Forsyth didn’t.
Michael Forsyth is why devolution happened. He was the vital catalyst. Never again would Scots be mis-ruled as they had been under Forsyth.
And the wee bastard hasn’t changed one iota in 22 years.
There, that's a bit more measured. And he did bring back the Stone of Destiny.
Fair doos. In a flippin Land Rover!! 😳
Shame he repatriated it to the wrong bloody burgh. Twat.
Personally, I would have left the Stone of Destiny, if indeed it is the real stone, in Westminster Abbey. It has a historical context in the 13th C chair that was built for it. We can be self confident enough of our nationhood to accept the facts of history as they happened.
Still it was interesting that a highly unpopular Tory colonial administrator Secretary of State for Scotland should alight on the idea of shipping a lump of granite to Scotland from England as a way of shoring up his position.
It was indeed profoundly incongruous. And fascinating. In the same way that watching a great white shark using a sea lion as a toy is fascinating. The Scots tossed the Tory marionette a plaything, and the colonial governor played the perfect eejit.
No bill and no election and no time to force a bill afterwards?
It would take a heart of stone . . .
I feel like we're missing something here because this is huge, everything comes down to the Lords or its no deal. Very few journalists seem to be focusing on this.
There's an assumption the Lords will always blink before the Commons. I see no reason they need to now. Especially with the Commons rejecting an election.
Heart of stone ...
Ironic to have seized control from the undemocratic EU, to have it decided in the Lords. The whole thing is a shambles.
It is a shambles, we need a GE asap to resolve it (hopefully).
Further along, we need a proper bloody constitution outlining, for a start, The powers of the executive, legislature, Speaker, Upper House and Head of State. The role and rules for referendums and their implementation. And Party funding. Instead of just making them up as we go along.
Does writing them down actually mean they will be coherent in 10-50-100 years time? The evidence of the fixed term parliaments act or US constitution protecting individuals owning firearms that the founders would not have dreamed of suggest not.
I dont know if it is better or worse on balance, but just like VAR it changes one set of controversies for another.
Indeed. Perhaps it will improve matters to some degree, lord knows some of the confusion was probably avoidable, but the idea it will entirely avoid these arguments is demonstrably untrue from examples all over the world where such points still get argued. I think it is a solution looking for a problem.
Your Co, Durham workmates are worrying about the HoC being disrespected? If Boris whipped out his todger and p*ssed on them all, I suspect they're be cheering around here.
He may be an untrustworthy loon, but he's added ten percent to the Tories' polling. How has Jezza done?
I didn’t say they didn’t support Brexit. They just don’t like Tories.
If you're a Leaver, but you generally liked Mrs May's deal, and you want to leave the EU in an orderly fashion, who do you vote for?
Tricky one!
Obviously there isn't an answer, but FWIW, taken at face value (not much of that around at the moment) the present government's policy is, roughly:
oppose the backstop but don't talk about any other aspects of TMs deal get some sort of alteration to the backstop, which can be sold as a reversal and victory win an election on October 15th on basis of leave with that deal or if necessary without one use the last two weeks of October to force an orderly and moderate deal out of EU.
You have to get behind a lot of hype and, if Mr Meeks is correct, be prepared to buy a bridge from him, to get to this point; but no other party offers anything half as clear and coherent by way of a deal. Shame no-one believes a word they say, and not without reason. But for those who still want to leave it remains the best (only?) chance. Which is why I think for the moment the share price of Remain is rising a bit.
Parliament comes back on Mon 14 Oct. Could Parliament then pass a Bill in time to force PM to get an extension on Sat 19 Oct?
Maybe, maybe not!!!
They would install a new PM to act in the same manner as the bill if it was needed.
Comes back to are there ~322 MPs willing to give Corbyn confidence. Corbyn will NOT give anyone else confidence.
I wonder if there's anything Johnson could do to make it easier for Tory MPs to act against a lifetime of political practise and vote to support a Labour PM?
Oh...
The issue isn't whether they are willing to vote to support a Labour PM. The issue is whether they are willing to support Jeremy Corbyn.
If this was a vote to support Starmer or Harman then I think Grieve would happily do so. Corbyn is a different matter.
I really don't understand what the filibuster is going to achieve from the government's point of view. What's to stop this bill being passed after parliament returns next month?
No bill and no election and no time to force a bill afterwards?
It would take a heart of stone . . .
I feel like we're missing something here because this is huge, everything comes down to the Lords or its no deal. Very few journalists seem to be focusing on this.
There's an assumption the Lords will always blink before the Commons. I see no reason they need to now. Especially with the Commons rejecting an election.
Heart of stone ...
Ironic to have seized control from the undemocratic EU, to have it decided in the Lords. The whole thing is a shambles.
It is a shambles, we need a GE asap to resolve it (hopefully).
Further along, we need a proper bloody constitution outlining, for a start, The powers of the executive, legislature, Speaker, Upper House and Head of State. The role and rules for referendums and their implementation. And Party funding. Instead of just making them up as we go along.
Does writing them down actually mean they will be coherent in 10-50-100 years time? The evidence of the fixed term parliaments act or US constitution protecting individuals owning firearms that the founders would not have dreamed of suggest not.
I dont know if it is better or worse on balance, but just like VAR it changes one set of controversies for another.
Maybe, maybe not. Tough to argue the system is running smoothly right now, though. And the US is a special case. It has a Constitution worshipped with Holy reverence, and one difficult to alter.
If the Lords talk out the extension bill - as looks likely - we are back to there being a No Deal Brexit on 31st October, aren't we? But now without Johnson being able to call an election in advance of it. I am not sure that is an ideal outcome for his chances of winning an election when one does come.
I really don't understand what the filibuster is going to achieve from the government's point of view. What's to stop this bill being passed after parliament returns next month?
It is to make leavers believe they really really wanted to leave on Oct 31, even though they dont, because they have no plan and no negotiating power with either the EU or parliament, let alone both of them.
I really don't understand what the filibuster is going to achieve from the government's point of view. What's to stop this bill being passed after parliament returns next month?
Didn't Letwin say this week is the final week to stop "No Deal" ?
You know how this week's Markit numbers were bad in the US. The ISM numbers are even worse:
"But the details of Tuesday's ISM report were ugly, with new orders, production and employment sub-indices all contracting last month. New export orders shrunk for the second consecutive month and fell to their lowest since April 2009, when global trade was hit following the financial crisis."
And the figures from the UK, Japan and the Eurozone aren't any better.
Looks like the filibuster is going to be successful. So now what?
Still options available 1. No confidence Johnson, tie Jezbollah up with duct tape, install KenClarke
VONC is a terrible risk: it starts the clock running on the formation of an alternative Government and, if one cannot be assembled by the time the clock runs down to zero, dissolution follows automatically and Boris Johnson (as caretaker PM) can simply nominate an election date after October 31st. This is not an impossibility: a lot of MPs are reluctant to back Corbyn as PM, and Corbyn himself would be damaged by consenting to his own setting aside.
The best option would be to ram through a one-line bill overruling the FTPA, nominating October 15th as the date of the next election. Given that Boris Johnson has already called for this, neither he nor, more pertinently, the Tory wreckers in the Lords would have any grounds on which to prevent it from passing. Johnson then wins the dissolution battle, but the anti-No Deal alliance has one final chance to thwart him through beating him at the ballot box.
No bill and no election and no time to force a bill afterwards?
It would take a heart of stone . . .
I feel like we're missing something here because this is huge, everything comes down to the Lords or its no deal. Very few journalists seem to be focusing on this.
There's an assumption the Lords will always blink before the Commons. I see no reason they need to now. Especially with the Commons rejecting an election.
Heart of stone ...
Ironic to have seized control from the undemocratic EU, to have it decided in the Lords. The whole thing is a shambles.
It is a shambles, we need a GE asap to resolve it (hopefully).
Further along, we need a proper bloody constitution outlining, for a start, The powers of the executive, legislature, Speaker, Upper House and Head of State. The role and rules for referendums and their implementation. And Party funding. Instead of just making them up as we go along.
Does writing them down actually mean they will be coherent in 10-50-100 years time? The evidence of the fixed term parliaments act or US constitution protecting individuals owning firearms that the founders would not have dreamed of suggest not.
I dont know if it is better or worse on balance, but just like VAR it changes one set of controversies for another.
Indeed. Perhaps it will improve matters to some degree, lord knows some of the confusion was probably avoidable, but the idea it will entirely avoid these arguments is demonstrably untrue from examples all over the world where such points still get argued. I think it is a solution looking for a problem.
That's like saying " We now consider dropping litter to be murder and offenders wiill get life imprisionment ". On the one hand you are correct. Anyone subsequently dropping litter knew the consequences of their actions. On the other hand no one was murdered, dropping litter clearly isn't murder and those sentenced to life imprisionment would be entitled to say so. As well as pointing out it was a back of a fag packet abuse of executive power with no obvious precedent.
I really don't understand what the filibuster is going to achieve from the government's point of view. What's to stop this bill being passed after parliament returns next month?
Didn't Letwin say this week is the final week to stop "No Deal" ?
They said that the week before Johnson was elected as well. In the 31st March processes there were around six last chances to stop brexit before it was stopped.
The real last chance is around the end of October.
Anecdote alert. Was mentioning to a relative about being on the electoral register, their reply: What's the point? The one time I voted and MPs just betrayed us, they should all be arrested for treason.
I think I'll avoid further Brexit talk in the household, just for the sake of harmony.
You know how this week's Markit numbers were bad in the US. The ISM numbers are even worse:
"But the details of Tuesday's ISM report were ugly, with new orders, production and employment sub-indices all contracting last month. New export orders shrunk for the second consecutive month and fell to their lowest since April 2009, when global trade was hit following the financial crisis."
And the figures from the UK, Japan and the Eurozone aren't any better.
I really don't understand what the filibuster is going to achieve from the government's point of view. What's to stop this bill being passed after parliament returns next month?
The final European Union Council meeting before Halloween is 17/10, it wouldn't be possible to pass the law before then. They could pass it after that but that would then rely upon the EU setting up an emergency meeting.
You know how this week's Markit numbers were bad in the US. The ISM numbers are even worse:
"But the details of Tuesday's ISM report were ugly, with new orders, production and employment sub-indices all contracting last month. New export orders shrunk for the second consecutive month and fell to their lowest since April 2009, when global trade was hit following the financial crisis."
And the figures from the UK, Japan and the Eurozone aren't any better.
If you're a Leaver, but you generally liked Mrs May's deal, and you want to leave the EU in an orderly fashion, who do you vote for?
Tricky one!
Obviously there isn't an answer, but FWIW, taken at face value (not much of that around at the moment) the present government's policy is, roughly:
oppose the backstop but don't talk about any other aspects of TMs deal get some sort of alteration to the backstop, which can be sold as a reversal and victory win an election on October 15th on basis of leave with that deal or if necessary without one use the last two weeks of October to force an orderly and moderate deal out of EU.
You have to get behind a lot of hype and, if Mr Meeks is correct, be prepared to buy a bridge from him, to get to this point; but no other party offers anything half as clear and coherent by way of a deal. Shame no-one believes a word they say, and not without reason. But for those who still want to leave it remains the best (only?) chance. Which is why I think for the moment the share price of Remain is rising a bit.
The problem I have is this:
If Mr Johnson was really serious about replacing the backstop, he would be publicly talking about the alternative. He would be making the EU sound unreasonable to people in Ireland and beyond.
Here's the solution, he'd say. Please EU, do the right thing for the Irish and accept it.
Instead he tells us there are "intensive" negotiations going on, which is (I'm afraid) bullshit.
Anecdote alert. Was mentioning to a relative about being on the electoral register, their reply: What's the point? The one time I voted and MPs just betrayed us, they should all be arrested for treason.
I think I'll avoid further Brexit talk in the household, just for the sake of harmony.
I note how MPs have gone quiet on greater voter paticiaption and the need for wider democracy.
Blow the place up build a new one in Birmingham with all mod cons in a non confrontational semi circle this is bloody ridiculous
Colour me skeptical that a 'non confrontational semi circle' makes a blind bit of difference. The US House of Representatives is legendary for its non-confrontational style?
Comments
Instead of just making them up as we go along.
And an even greater percentage now....
1. No confidence Johnson, tie Jezbollah up with duct tape, install KenClarke
2. Bercow refuses to prologue and challenges HM to arrest MPs
Or more likely
3. Space lizards interrupt No Deal preparations by parking their invasion fleet in orbit and destroying Brussels
I dont know if it is better or worse on balance, but just like VAR it changes one set of controversies for another.
"To suggest that those who support the current status quo are extremists just goes to show how extreme leavers have actually become. There is in fact no such thing as an extreme Remainer since there is only one version of remain, everything else is just different shades of leaving."
Your Co, Durham workmates are worrying about the HoC being disrespected? If Boris whipped out his todger and p*ssed on them all, I suspect they're be cheering around here.
He may be an untrustworthy loon, but he's added ten percent to the Tories' polling. How has Jezza done?
(Incidentally, not granite. Sandstone.)
Johnson says 'intense negotiations are going on now'
"That's bullshit" says the EU chief negotiator.
Ch 4 News is very funny. Boris can't help himself.
May only halfheartedly was against.
oppose the backstop but don't talk about any other aspects of TMs deal
get some sort of alteration to the backstop, which can be sold as a reversal and victory
win an election on October 15th on basis of leave with that deal or if necessary without one
use the last two weeks of October to force an orderly and moderate deal out of EU.
You have to get behind a lot of hype and, if Mr Meeks is correct, be prepared to buy a bridge from him, to get to this point; but no other party offers anything half as clear and coherent by way of a deal. Shame no-one believes a word they say, and not without reason. But for those who still want to leave it remains the best (only?) chance. Which is why I think for the moment the share price of Remain is rising a bit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_of_the_House_of_Lords#Votes_of_March_2007
If this was a vote to support Starmer or Harman then I think Grieve would happily do so. Corbyn is a different matter.
"They just don’t like Tories."
That I can understand, but that's why the answer to Mr 1000's question is no one. The Labour party is now a captive of the London Elite.
And as for the EU - well they would say that wouldn't they?
"But the details of Tuesday's ISM report were ugly, with new orders, production and employment sub-indices all contracting last month. New export orders shrunk for the second consecutive month and fell to their lowest since April 2009, when global trade was hit following the financial crisis."
And the figures from the UK, Japan and the Eurozone aren't any better.
no, fuck it, +2
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/04/philip-hammond-deselected-conservative-candidate/
The best option would be to ram through a one-line bill overruling the FTPA, nominating October 15th as the date of the next election. Given that Boris Johnson has already called for this, neither he nor, more pertinently, the Tory wreckers in the Lords would have any grounds on which to prevent it from passing. Johnson then wins the dissolution battle, but the anti-No Deal alliance has one final chance to thwart him through beating him at the ballot box.
ok stand down, should be able to get cleared if this is the case. Paul Waugh such a troll.
The real last chance is around the end of October.
I think I'll avoid further Brexit talk in the household, just for the sake of harmony.
probably time for one too
If I was a Unionist.
Which I’m not.
Skullduggery 😂
If so what currencies to hold the cash in?
If Mr Johnson was really serious about replacing the backstop, he would be publicly talking about the alternative. He would be making the EU sound unreasonable to people in Ireland and beyond.
Here's the solution, he'd say. Please EU, do the right thing for the Irish and accept it.
Instead he tells us there are "intensive" negotiations going on, which is (I'm afraid) bullshit.
Anyone even vaguely sane who is left in the Commons would be advised to ratify it.