The EU =/= Nazi Germany. There is a huge, monumental difference between erecting trade barriers if you can't get a deal which suits you, and subjugating countries via military force and sending minorities to the gas chambers. Checking with the EU whether they'd grant an extension doesn't make you Lord Halifax.
I'm now reasonably sure that Boris Johnson will resign. The exact timing depends on whether the Palace has been consulted yet, and whether or not the intention is to drag the Queen back from Balmoral, but I reckon he'll be off no later than Tuesday afternoon.
Wild hunch, or insider info?
Gracious, I don't have insider info about anything! It's not a wild hunch either, it's what the logic of his position suggests. The man can't openly defy the law without bringing the Tory Party down around his ears - and failing to apply for the extension won't have the desired effect anyway, because the ploy will be defeated in the courts.
Once you come to the conclusion that resignation is necessary, there's no point in his sitting in Downing Street for umpteen weeks as a lame duck. Best to get it out of the way, and then make his opponents own the A50 extension that they're insisting upon.
Plus if you do it early you force the opposition to select a PM to avoid an election on October 29th / October 31st.
The prorogation might put a spanner in that. Would they be able to have a VONC in time? Ooops.
The EU =/= Nazi Germany. There is a huge, monumental difference between erecting trade barriers if you can't get a deal which suits you, and subjugating countries via military force and sending minorities to the gas chambers. Checking with the EU whether they'd grant an extension doesn't make you Lord Halifax.
Aaaaand here come the Remainer bots to defend this grotesquery. They’re not worried. Nope. All is fine. Dandy, even.
I'm now reasonably sure that Boris Johnson will resign. The exact timing depends on whether the Palace has been consulted yet, and whether or not the intention is to drag the Queen back from Balmoral, but I reckon he'll be off no later than Tuesday afternoon.
Wild hunch, or insider info?
Gracious, I don't have insider info about anything! It's not a wild hunch either, it's what the logic of his position suggests. The man can't openly defy the law without bringing the Tory Party down around his ears - and failing to apply for the extension won't have the desired effect anyway, because the ploy will be defeated in the courts.
Once you come to the conclusion that resignation is necessary, there's no point in his sitting in Downing Street for umpteen weeks as a lame duck. Best to get it out of the way, and then make his opponents own the A50 extension that they're insisting upon.
But he will still have failed do or die to be out on 31st. Johnson can’t be trusted, he still wants a deal, he’s not pure enough so unless he deals with farage they will come after him and if he does deal with him then he will lose any self respecting tories left.
Whilst one imagines that Farage will find some excuse to criticise the ideological purity of Johnson under any circumstances - he needs to remain relevant, after all - such attacks are bound to be less effective if Johnson is no longer in a position to deliver Brexit on the originally promised date, because he has been stymied by an obstructionist Parliament. He can just appeal to the country to change the Parliamentary arithmetic for him. This is a situation sufficiently simple that a substantial proportion even of our largely politically disinterested and disengaged electorate ought to be able to comprehend it.
The Brexit Party won't just disappear, but the aim is presumably to shrink its support down to ex-Labour Never-Tories and the Plague-on-all-their-houses vote. The calculation must be that he can scrape together enough Leavers through these tactics, and keep hold of a sufficient number of centre-right voters who are more frightened of Corbyn than they are of Brexit, to get himself over the finishing line.
Whoah. So Cummings was right. The rebel alliance consulted with EU lawyers - lawyers of a hostile foreign power - before launching their attack on the government.
Treasonous? Maybe not. Good look? Definitely not. Ouch.
What's wrong with finding out what the other big player in the situation will do before deciding on your own course of action? If this, and Chicken Jezza, is the apogee of Cummings's master plan (and I'm starting to think that it is) then Boris should demand a refund.
You don’t get it. As expected.
I’ll try and make it simple for you.
Imagine that Scotland voted Yes to independence. Imagine that after the vote there was a prolonged and tortuous negotiation with England and rUK, to work out how Scotland would become independent (not hard to imagine - that’s what would have happened)
Now imagine, that at a crucial stage in Scotland’s independence negotiations, it was revealed that a bunch of Scottish MSPs has been secretly consulting with the English government, to find out ways to halt the cause of independence, and hopefully get the referendum result overturned. By whatever means necessary.
Those MSPs would be lynched from the modernist eaves of Holyrood.
In any putative independence negotiations no one would be remotely surprised if a bunch of SCon MSPs had been secretly consulting with the English government, to find out ways to halt the cause of independence. It's pretty much their current mo.
And you’d be very angered by it. Rightfully.
I don't think I would actually. As I say it's in their genetic code to do that sort of thing, and bathed in the warm glow of not having to carew hat these lads get up to any more, I'd satisfy myself with a bit of gentle mockery.
No, you wouldn’t, not if it looked like these guys had a real chance of overturning the Yes vote. Use your brain.
UK Remainerdom has much more influence & support than SCons do currently, and they seem intent on reducing themselves further to the irrelevant rump they were in the nineties and noughties. What're they going to do, smuggle in UDA mercenaries and consignments of balaclavas?
Mind you, after their constant screeching about respecting refendum results I'd definitely enjoy them not respecting a referendum result.
Don’t get sucked into the lies on the bus go round and round again!
It's not quite the same here - the bus stuff was a lie because 350m/week (18.2bn/year) didn't include the rebate (approx. 4bn).
Now our payments have dropped a bit, so post-rebate we're paying ~13bn, which is the 1bn/month above. However, we do get somewhere between 4 to 6bn of that back, depending on how you do the accounting.
I'm now reasonably sure that Boris Johnson will resign. The exact timing depends on whether the Palace has been consulted yet, and whether or not the intention is to drag the Queen back from Balmoral, but I reckon he'll be off no later than Tuesday afternoon.
Wild hunch, or insider info?
Gracious, I don't have insider info about anything! It's not a wild hunch either, it's what the logic of his position suggests. The man can't openly defy the law without bringing the Tory Party down around his ears - and failing to apply for the extension won't have the desired effect anyway, because the ploy will be defeated in the courts.
Once you come to the conclusion that resignation is necessary, there's no point in his sitting in Downing Street for umpteen weeks as a lame duck. Best to get it out of the way, and then make his opponents own the A50 extension that they're insisting upon.
Boris should propose a technical solution for the Irish border and pass the Withdrawal Agreement with that minus the backstop in the Commons (as the Brady amendment passed) propose that at the EU council on October 17th if the EU refuse then say he will resign with immediate effect as PM rather than agree an extension, then go into opposition on a platform of No Deal until the EU agree to remove the backstop
Don’t get sucked into the lies on the bus go round and round again!
It's not quite the same here - the bus stuff was a lie because 350m/week (18.2bn/year) didn't include the rebate (approx. 4bn).
Now our payments have dropped a bit, so post-rebate we're paying ~13bn, which is the 1bn/month above. However, we do get somewhere between 4 to 6bn of that back, depending on how you do the accounting.
The hilarious next act could be Johnson resigns The PCP decides to no confidence him because he’s has put Corbyn into no10 They restore the whip to the 21 The elect Hammond unapposed as LOTO
The hilarious next act could be Johnson resigns The PCP decides to no confidence him because he’s has put Corbyn into no10 They restore the whip to the 21 The elect Hammond unapposed as LOTO
Far fetched yes but........
Won't happen, Tory MPs know their Associations would deselect them immediately if they replace Boris with Hammond as Tory leader to agree an extension and the Brexit Party would surge past the Tories so they would lose their seats regardless anyway
The EU is definitely a hostile foreign power. Anyone who has been there is clearly a traitor and should be imprisoned whilst Good Old Boris does the patriotic thing and invades France
In their own words, the EU is trying to force us to sign a deal “so bad, in the end, the British will prefer to stay”
Which part of that strikes you as non-hostile?
That they are right and you are wrong? Whatever deal we get will be less comprehensive less financially rewarding than the one we have. And the same is true for all of the global deals we currently enjoy as EU members. Apparently someone like Japan will give us a far better deal than it gives the EU because the smaller and less relevant you are the better the deal you get. Apparently...
Won't happen, Tory MPs know their Associations would deselect them immediately if they replace Boris with Hammond as Tory leader to agree an extension and the Brexit Party would surge past the Tories so they would lose their seats regardless anyway
How will the associations know which Tory MPs voted for the no-confidence motion?
It's logical, but what would it really achieve, other than further cementing the resolve of the opposition parties, and alienating more Tory MPs? There would certainly be a legal challenge, given that this hasn't happened for more than 300 years.
If Johnson really wants to go for broke he will need to suspend parliament again immediately after it returns. Will he do that?
The EU is definitely a hostile foreign power. Anyone who has been there is clearly a traitor and should be imprisoned whilst Good Old Boris does the patriotic thing and invades France
In their own words, the EU is trying to force us to sign a deal “so bad, in the end, the British will prefer to stay”
Which part of that strikes you as non-hostile?
That they are right and you are wrong? Whatever deal we get will be less comprehensive less financially rewarding than the one we have. And the same is true for all of the global deals we currently enjoy as EU members. Apparently someone like Japan will give us a far better deal than it gives the EU because the smaller and less relevant you are the better the deal you get. Apparently...
Don’t get sucked into the lies on the bus go round and round again!
It's not quite the same here - the bus stuff was a lie because 350m/week (18.2bn/year) didn't include the rebate (approx. 4bn).
Now our payments have dropped a bit, so post-rebate we're paying ~13bn, which is the 1bn/month above. However, we do get somewhere between 4 to 6bn of that back, depending on how you do the accounting.
So not £1bn a month
Your walking into the same trap as last time because people think even 1/2 billion is a lot (when it actually isn’t) so you just reenforce the message. We should be arguing that 1/2 billion is quite cheap for access to the single market and over 70 other FTAs
It's simple. The laws of the land do not apply when you disagree with them. That is true whether the law is the one compelling you to do something you haven't done it the law governing malfeasance in public office.
Personally I think it's marvellous that we finally have a Prime Minister displaying nice Conservative values like this so that we can have The Purge on 1st November
Article also says Boris will resign as PM rather than agree an extension on a forced choice and as Tory leader therefore take the Tories into opposition
The Tories should 100% refuse royal assent unless the Commons has voted for an election first.
If the opposition wish to make this the law then let them bring down the government first.
You think dragging the Queen into this will end well. By the way Bercow ruled it only needs Royal Assent not Queens Consent . Big difference .
I couldn't care less whether the Queen is dragged into this or not. This is all out war and every constitutional trick in the book is being used.
Refusing an election has already dragged the Queen into this. There's going to have to be a minority government Queen's Speech with no majority to pass the speech, despite the fact the government has been seeking an election.
The EU is definitely a hostile foreign power. Anyone who has been there is clearly a traitor and should be imprisoned whilst Good Old Boris does the patriotic thing and invades France
In their own words, the EU is trying to force us to sign a deal “so bad, in the end, the British will prefer to stay”
Which part of that strikes you as non-hostile?
That they are right and you are wrong? Whatever deal we get will be less comprehensive less financially rewarding than the one we have. And the same is true for all of the global deals we currently enjoy as EU members. Apparently someone like Japan will give us a far better deal than it gives the EU because the smaller and less relevant you are the better the deal you get. Apparently...
We also get back control over our own borders and get out of the federal superstate project that poses an existential threat to our ancient democracy.
Remainers still making the mistake of "less financially rewarding" being the be all and end all of whether we stay or go. Democracy has value in and of itself.
The last time Royal Assent was refused was 1707 ! Leavers are becoming so desperate it’s almost sad .
When was the last time an election wasn't fought or a change of government after the government lost its flagship like this on what it called a matter of confidence?
Article also says Boris will resign as PM rather than agree an extension on a forced choice and as Tory leader therefore take the Tories into opposition
Won't happen, Tory MPs know their Associations would deselect them immediately if they replace Boris with Hammond as Tory leader to agree an extension and the Brexit Party would surge past the Tories so they would lose their seats regardless anyway
How will the associations know which Tory MPs voted for the no-confidence motion?
They would deselect all of them unless they had publicly backed Boris for leader in the summer and against extension and from the numbers it would be clear who had voted against Boris staying leader
I'm now reasonably sure that Boris Johnson will resign. The exact timing depends on whether the Palace has been consulted yet, and whether or not the intention is to drag the Queen back from Balmoral, but I reckon he'll be off no later than Tuesday afternoon.
Wild hunch, or insider info?
Gracious, I don't have insider info about anything! It's not a wild hunch either, it's what the logic of his position suggests. The man can't openly defy the law without bringing the Tory Party down around his ears - and failing to apply for the extension won't have the desired effect anyway, because the ploy will be defeated in the courts.
Once you come to the conclusion that resignation is necessary, there's no point in his sitting in Downing Street for umpteen weeks as a lame duck. Best to get it out of the way, and then make his opponents own the A50 extension that they're insisting upon.
Boris should propose a technical solution for the Irish border and pass the Withdrawal Agreement with that minus the backstop in the Commons (as the Brady amendment passed) propose that at the EU council on October 17th if the EU refuse then say he will resign with immediate effect as PM rather than agree an extension, then go into opposition on a platform of No Deal until the EU agree to remove the backstop
Slight flaw of logic there I think in last sentence.
Whoah. So Cummings was right. The rebel alliance consulted with EU lawyers - lawyers of a hostile foreign power - before launching their attack on the government.
Treasonous? Maybe not. Good look? Definitely not. Ouch.
Two wrongs don't make a right though.
It’s a terrible story for Remainers. Absolutely explosive. Beyond anything Boris has done
Lmao ! Wow checking to see if something would be accepted before pursuing it . Personally I have more faith in the EU looking after my interests than my own government . Please spare us the faux outrage !
I can tell you one thing for sure: my outrage is not faux, it’s the real deal
It does not however extend to boycotting the tourist industries of EU nations...
The EU is definitely a hostile foreign power. Anyone who has been there is clearly a traitor and should be imprisoned whilst Good Old Boris does the patriotic thing and invades France
In their own words, the EU is trying to force us to sign a deal “so bad, in the end, the British will prefer to stay”
Which part of that strikes you as non-hostile?
That they are right and you are wrong? Whatever deal we get will be less comprehensive less financially rewarding than the one we have. And the same is true for all of the global deals we currently enjoy as EU members. Apparently someone like Japan will give us a far better deal than it gives the EU because the smaller and less relevant you are the better the deal you get. Apparently...
We also get back control over our own borders and get out of the federal superstate project that poses an existential threat to our ancient democracy.
Remainers still making the mistake of "less financially rewarding" being the be all and end all of whether we stay or go. Democracy has value in and of itself.
“Our ancient democracy”? What was the democratic mandate to subsume England into the UK superstate?
Article also says Boris will resign as PM rather than agree an extension on a forced choice and as Tory leader therefore take the Tories into opposition
No, the article says Boris could do that.
No it says 'I understand that' Boris will resign as PM rather than extend after saying from consultation with Number 10 Boris will never agree extension
The last time Royal Assent was refused was 1707 ! Leavers are becoming so desperate it’s almost sad .
Given that Bercow relied on a precedent from the 1640s in one of his procedural rulings, age should be no barrier when it comes to finding permissable tactics.
The EU is definitely a hostile foreign power. Anyone who has been there is clearly a traitor and should be imprisoned whilst Good Old Boris does the patriotic thing and invades France
In their own words, the EU is trying to force us to sign a deal “so bad, in the end, the British will prefer to stay”
Which part of that strikes you as non-hostile?
That they are right and you are wrong? Whatever deal we get will be less comprehensive less financially rewarding than the one we have. And the same is true for all of the global deals we currently enjoy as EU members. Apparently someone like Japan will give us a far better deal than it gives the EU because the smaller and less relevant you are the better the deal you get. Apparently...
We also get back control over our own borders and get out of the federal superstate project that poses an existential threat to our ancient democracy.
Remainers still making the mistake of "less financially rewarding" being the be all and end all of whether we stay or go. Democracy has value in and of itself.
“Our ancient democracy”? What was the democratic mandate to subsume England into the UK superstate?
The Scots might ask the same. The UK is essentially a monarchical superstate, but with carefully balanced , ad hoc and haphazardly worked constitutional rules of consent that have sometimes served it very well over the years.
.Refusing an election has already dragged the Queen into this. There's going to have to be a minority government Queen's Speech with no majority to pass the speech, despite the fact the government has been seeking an election.
What do you mean refused an election? That implies it is in the PMs gift and parliament is acting out of order. Its the other way round - the Prime Minister no longer has any right at all to demand and the expect an election - that power was transferred to parliament by Cameron.
You do of course know this but think that if you keep lying to yourself about it the reality of the situation will change. You may as well tap your heels together three times or say Betelgeuse Betelgeuse Betelgeuse and not look like any more of a petulant child than you already do.
Making Boris a martyr I(If he really is willing to go all the way) I don't think is going to play well for remainers. Dragging him before the courts for refusing to...obey a law...
That is what the courts are for.
There is this incredible conceit amongst people, Remainers as well as Leavers, that the law does not apply to them. People think that if they express their objections as a conscience issue or explain it carefully, then the judge will believe them and set them free. It does not work like that. Courts are used to force people who break the law to do things that they don't want to do. A court was used (wrongly IMHO) to force May to get a Parliament vote before A50'ing, and a court will similarly be used to coerce Boris.
They would deselect all of them unless they had publicly backed Boris for leader in the summer and against extension and from the numbers it would be clear who had voted against Boris staying leader
The people who voted for the extension are already out of the party, so what you're actually saying is that they'd conduct a huge purge and deselect Michael Gove, Sajid Javid and anyone else who wasn't on the Boris train...
Making Boris a martyr I(If he really is willing to go all the way) I don't think is going to play well for remainers. Dragging him before the courts for refusing to...obey a law...
That is what the courts are for.
There is this incredible conceit amongst people, Remainers as well as Leavers, that the law does not apply to them. People think that if they express their objections as a conscience issue or explain it carefully, then the judge will believe them and set them free. It does not work like that. Courts are used to force people who break the law to do things that they don't want to do. A court was used (wrongly IMHO) to force May to get a Parliament vote before A50'ing, and a court will similarly be used to coerce Boris.
Boris will resign as PM first rather than be coerced by the courts to lead a Government agreeing extension and take the Tories into opposition on a hard Brexit platform
Boris Johnson is not President. Does not have executive power. Does not operate outside the law. Does not operate free of the democratic system. Does not get to decide what happens without persuading a majority to support those actions.
I know that Philip, HYUFD et al have engaged themselves in a dirty protest screaming in impotent rage at how unfair it is that their man has lost power in his first full week and that there's no way back for this. I know that you will continue to step up the rhetoric and say literally anything no matter how absurd illogical and illegal it may be.
< Lmao ! Wow checking to see if something would be accepted before pursuing it . Personally I have more faith in the EU looking after my interests than my own government . Please spare us the faux outrage !
There used to be a Private Eye columnist who noted claims that EU membership ultimately meant being governed by Belgian tax inspectors rather than a British government, and who said that on the whole he would have more faith in Belgian tax inspectors to govern wisely.
The last time Royal Assent was refused was 1707 ! Leavers are becoming so desperate it’s almost sad .
When was the last time an election wasn't fought or a change of government after the government lost its flagship like this on what it called a matter of confidence?
The Tories should 100% refuse royal assent unless the Commons has voted for an election first.
If the opposition wish to make this the law then let them bring down the government first.
You think dragging the Queen into this will end well. By the way Bercow ruled it only needs Royal Assent not Queens Consent . Big difference .
I couldn't care less whether the Queen is dragged into this or not.
Oh, I believe you. Loony No Dealers couldn't care less who or what they harm in the pursuit of their crazy monomania.
Why would I care?
I'm a democrat. A lifelong republican. Power belongs to our elected politicians, that is Parliament for the legislature and for anything under prerogative that is the PM. Since royal assent is a royal prerogative that must belong to the PM or it is undemocratic - and Parliament can pull down the PM if they don't like it.
If HMQ wants to not be involved she should abdicate and we should be a republic.
The last time Royal Assent was refused was 1707 ! Leavers are becoming so desperate it’s almost sad .
Given that Bercow relied on a precedent from the 1640s in one of his procedural rulings, age should be no barrier when it comes to finding permissable tactics.
Unlike many brexiteers and JRM the monarchy has moved on since the 1700s
The EU is definitely a hostile foreign power. Anyone who has been there is clearly a traitor and should be imprisoned whilst Good Old Boris does the patriotic thing and invades France
In their own words, the EU is trying to force us to sign a deal “so bad, in the end, the British will prefer to stay”
Which part of that strikes you as non-hostile?
That they are right and you are wrong? Whatever deal we get will be less comprehensive less financially rewarding than the one we have. And the same is true for all of the global deals we currently enjoy as EU members. Apparently someone like Japan will give us a far better deal than it gives the EU because the smaller and less relevant you are the better the deal you get. Apparently...
We also get back control over our own borders and get out of the federal superstate project that poses an existential threat to our ancient democracy.
Remainers still making the mistake of "less financially rewarding" being the be all and end all of whether we stay or go. Democracy has value in and of itself.
“Our ancient democracy”? What was the democratic mandate to subsume England into the UK superstate?
There was a brilliant post by seanT a while ago, which I can only paraphrase as sadly he's no longer with us. Where he said that the leave case could easily be set out by asking someone how you'd go about having a law enacted or revoked.
In the UK, it's as simple as electing a party that promises to enact the law. If they win a majority, they enact the law, job done.
In The EU - who knows?
The EU is quasi-democratic at best, and is probably better described as a technocracy dominated by a nomenklatura , with strong oligarchich elements and weak democratic ones.
I prefer our democratic values to the profoundly undemocratic ones of the EU. YMMV, however - we won the referendum.
Making Boris a martyr I(If he really is willing to go all the way) I don't think is going to play well for remainers. Dragging him before the courts for refusing to...obey a law...
That is what the courts are for.
There is this incredible conceit amongst people, Remainers as well as Leavers, that the law does not apply to them. People think that if they express their objections as a conscience issue or explain it carefully, then the judge will believe them and set them free. It does not work like that. Courts are used to force people who break the law to do things that they don't want to do. A court was used (wrongly IMHO) to force May to get a Parliament vote before A50'ing, and a court will similarly be used to coerce Boris.
Boris will resign as PM first rather than be coerced by the courts to lead a Government agreeing extension and take the Tories into opposition on a hard Brexit platform
They would deselect all of them unless they had publicly backed Boris for leader in the summer and against extension and from the numbers it would be clear who had voted against Boris staying leader
The people who voted for the extension are already out of the party, so what you're actually saying is that they'd conduct a huge purge and deselect Michael Gove, Sajid Javid and anyone else who wasn't on the Boris train...
Yes, if a majority of Tory MPs voted no confidence in Boris and for Hammond to replace him and extend in defiance of the membership vote for Boris and Brexit Deal or No Deal or on 31st October then obviously all non Boris supporters in the leadership race would have voted against him and would have to be deselected, including Gove and replaced with Boris loyalists (Javid would be spared though as he backed Boris over Gove and Hunt once he was eliminated).
Boris Johnson is not President. Does not have executive power. Does not operate outside the law. Does not operate free of the democratic system. Does not get to decide what happens without persuading a majority to support those actions.
I know that Philip, HYUFD et al have engaged themselves in a dirty protest screaming in impotent rage at how unfair it is that their man has lost power in his first full week and that there's no way back for this. I know that you will continue to step up the rhetoric and say literally anything no matter how absurd illogical and illegal it may be.
Please do continue. It's piss funny
Boris Johnson is PM. He does have executive power.
If HMQ doesn't want executive power she should abdicate. Otherwise it is entrusted in the PM to wield.
The last time Royal Assent was refused was 1707 ! Leavers are becoming so desperate it’s almost sad .
Given that Bercow relied on a precedent from the 1640s in one of his procedural rulings, age should be no barrier when it comes to finding permissable tactics.
Unlike many brexiteers and JRM the monarchy has moved on since the 1700s
Perhaps you should be explaining that to the Speaker then.
Making Boris a martyr I(If he really is willing to go all the way) I don't think is going to play well for remainers. Dragging him before the courts for refusing to...obey a law...
That is what the courts are for.
There is this incredible conceit amongst people, Remainers as well as Leavers, that the law does not apply to them. People think that if they express their objections as a conscience issue or explain it carefully, then the judge will believe them and set them free. It does not work like that. Courts are used to force people who break the law to do things that they don't want to do. A court was used (wrongly IMHO) to force May to get a Parliament vote before A50'ing, and a court will similarly be used to coerce Boris.
Boris will resign as PM first rather than be coerced by the courts to lead a Government agreeing extension and take the Tories into opposition on a hard Brexit platform
Good!
Boris will then win the next general election on a promise to deliver Brexit Deal or No Deal
They would deselect all of them unless they had publicly backed Boris for leader in the summer and against extension and from the numbers it would be clear who had voted against Boris staying leader
The people who voted for the extension are already out of the party, so what you're actually saying is that they'd conduct a huge purge and deselect Michael Gove, Sajid Javid and anyone else who wasn't on the Boris train...
Yes, if a majority of Tory MPs voted no confidence in Boris and for Hammond to replace him and extend in defiance of the membership vote for Boris and Brexit Deal or No Deal or on 31st October then obviously all non Boris supporters in the leadership race would have voted against him and would have to be deselected, including Gove and replaced with Boris loyalists (Javid would be spared though as he backed Boris over Gove and Hunt once he was eliminated).
The person who called peak HYUFD a couple of days ago spoke too soon.
They would deselect all of them unless they had publicly backed Boris for leader in the summer and against extension and from the numbers it would be clear who had voted against Boris staying leader
The people who voted for the extension are already out of the party, so what you're actually saying is that they'd conduct a huge purge and deselect Michael Gove, Sajid Javid and anyone else who wasn't on the Boris train...
Yes, if a majority of Tory MPs voted no confidence in Boris and for Hammond to replace him and extend in defiance of the membership vote for Boris and Brexit Deal or No Deal or on 31st October then obviously all non Boris supporters in the leadership race would have voted against him and would have to be deselected, including Gove and replaced with Boris loyalists (Javid would be spared though as he backed Boris over Gove and Hunt once he was eliminated).
Pardon? If a majority of Tory MPs voted No Confidence in Boris, he wouldn't be leader, and banned from standing.
Yes, if a majority of Tory MPs voted no confidence in Boris then obviously all non Boris supporters in the leadership race would have voted against him and would have to be deselected, including Gove and replaced with Boris loyalists (Javid would be spared though as he backed Boris over Gove and Hunt once he was eliminated).
This is a fun idea but your logic obviously doesn't work, because people can change their minds between voting for someone who promises to unite the country and party and says there's a one-in-a-million chance of No Deal and that person bringing in an adviser from out of the party who treats everyone like shit, running amok with prerogative powers, losing all their key votes, throwing out a bunch of long-standing friends and colleagues and threatening to break the law. Maybe the MPs who like that kind of thing supported Michael Gove...
It's simple. The laws of the land do not apply when you disagree with them. That is true whether the law is the one compelling you to do something you haven't done it the law governing malfeasance in public office.
Personally I think it's marvellous that we finally have a Prime Minister displaying nice Conservative values like this so that we can have The Purge on 1st November
Law breaking has become much more common recently. Cyclists in big cities go through red lights because they feel like it, and a lot of drivers do the same. Neither used to happen until relatively recently. Many drivers refuse to obey the law on not using mobile phones while driving. Not good.
They would deselect all of them unless they had publicly backed Boris for leader in the summer and against extension and from the numbers it would be clear who had voted against Boris staying leader
The people who voted for the extension are already out of the party, so what you're actually saying is that they'd conduct a huge purge and deselect Michael Gove, Sajid Javid and anyone else who wasn't on the Boris train...
Yes, if a majority of Tory MPs voted no confidence in Boris and for Hammond to replace him and extend in defiance of the membership vote for Boris and Brexit Deal or No Deal or on 31st October then obviously all non Boris supporters in the leadership race would have voted against him and would have to be deselected, including Gove and replaced with Boris loyalists (Javid would be spared though as he backed Boris over Gove and Hunt once he was eliminated).
Pardon? If a majority of Tory MPs voted No Confidence in Boris, he wouldn't be leader, and banned from standing.
Raab would likely win the Tory membership vote instead against Hammond anyway and remove the Tory whip from all non Boris and non Raab supporting MPs who would also be deselected and replaced with Boris and Raab loyalists as Tory candidates to ensure he could not be no confidenced himself
They would deselect all of them unless they had publicly backed Boris for leader in the summer and against extension and from the numbers it would be clear who had voted against Boris staying leader
The people who voted for the extension are already out of the party, so what you're actually saying is that they'd conduct a huge purge and deselect Michael Gove, Sajid Javid and anyone else who wasn't on the Boris train...
Yes, if a majority of Tory MPs voted no confidence in Boris and for Hammond to replace him and extend in defiance of the membership vote for Boris and Brexit Deal or No Deal or on 31st October then obviously all non Boris supporters in the leadership race would have voted against him and would have to be deselected, including Gove and replaced with Boris loyalists (Javid would be spared though as he backed Boris over Gove and Hunt once he was eliminated).
Only a matter of time before the show trial in which Gove admits to secretly working for the EU to undermine Brexit for the last three years. He asks for the people's forgiveness before being led away.
They would deselect all of them unless they had publicly backed Boris for leader in the summer and against extension and from the numbers it would be clear who had voted against Boris staying leader
The people who voted for the extension are already out of the party, so what you're actually saying is that they'd conduct a huge purge and deselect Michael Gove, Sajid Javid and anyone else who wasn't on the Boris train...
Yes, if a majority of Tory MPs voted no confidence in Boris and for Hammond to replace him and extend in defiance of the membership vote for Boris and Brexit Deal or No Deal or on 31st October then obviously all non Boris supporters in the leadership race would have voted against him and would have to be deselected, including Gove and replaced with Boris loyalists (Javid would be spared though as he backed Boris over Gove and Hunt once he was eliminated).
Pardon? If a majority of Tory MPs voted No Confidence in Boris, he wouldn't be leader, and banned from standing.
They would deselect all of them unless they had publicly backed Boris for leader in the summer and against extension and from the numbers it would be clear who had voted against Boris staying leader
The people who voted for the extension are already out of the party, so what you're actually saying is that they'd conduct a huge purge and deselect Michael Gove, Sajid Javid and anyone else who wasn't on the Boris train...
Yes, if a majority of Tory MPs voted no confidence in Boris and for Hammond to replace him and extend in defiance of the membership vote for Boris and Brexit Deal or No Deal or on 31st October then obviously all non Boris supporters in the leadership race would have voted against him and would have to be deselected, including Gove and replaced with Boris loyalists (Javid would be spared though as he backed Boris over Gove and Hunt once he was eliminated).
Pardon? If a majority of Tory MPs voted No Confidence in Boris, he wouldn't be leader, and banned from standing.
Let’s purge all the MPs from the party then we can start again, how many will be left by election day
There was a brilliant post by seanT a while ago, which I can only paraphrase as sadly he's no longer with us. Where he said that the leave case could easily be set out by asking someone how you'd go about having a law enacted or revoked.
In the UK, it's as simple as electing a party that promises to enact the law. If they win a majority, they enact the law, job done.
In The EU - who knows?
The EU is quasi-democratic at best, and is probably better described as a technocracy dominated by a nomenklatura , with strong oligarchich elements and weak democratic ones.
I prefer our democratic values to the profoundly undemocratic ones of the EU. YMMV, however - we won the referendum.
Is the US undemocratic because laws also have to pass the Senate and survive a possible presidential veto???
< Lmao ! Wow checking to see if something would be accepted before pursuing it . Personally I have more faith in the EU looking after my interests than my own government . Please spare us the faux outrage !
There used to be a Private Eye columnist who noted claims that EU membership ultimately meant being governed by Belgian tax inspectors rather than a British government, and who said that on the whole he would have more faith in Belgian tax inspectors to govern wisely.
I now see what he meant.
Auberon Waugh: his ideal government would be a "junta of Belgian ticket inspectors"
Making Boris a martyr I(If he really is willing to go all the way) I don't think is going to play well for remainers. Dragging him before the courts for refusing to...obey a law...
That is what the courts are for.
There is this incredible conceit amongst people, Remainers as well as Leavers, that the law does not apply to them. People think that if they express their objections as a conscience issue or explain it carefully, then the judge will believe them and set them free. It does not work like that. Courts are used to force people who break the law to do things that they don't want to do. A court was used (wrongly IMHO) to force May to get a Parliament vote before A50'ing, and a court will similarly be used to coerce Boris.
Making Boris a martyr I(If he really is willing to go all the way) I don't think is going to play well for remainers. Dragging him before the courts for refusing to...obey a law...
That is what the courts are for.
There is this incredible conceit amongst people, Remainers as well as Leavers, that the law does not apply to them. People think that if they express their objections as a conscience issue or explain it carefully, then the judge will believe them and set them free. It does not work like that. Courts are used to force people who break the law to do things that they don't want to do. A court was used (wrongly IMHO) to force May to get a Parliament vote before A50'ing, and a court will similarly be used to coerce Boris.
Gandhi broke the law and accepted the consequences of doing so in order to achieve independence for India.
The EU is definitely a hostile foreign power. Anyone who has been there is clearly a traitor and should be imprisoned whilst Good Old Boris does the patriotic thing and invades France
In their own words, the EU is trying to force us to sign a deal “so bad, in the end, the British will prefer to stay”
Which part of that strikes you as non-hostile?
That they are right and you are wrong? Whatever deal we get will be less comprehensive less financially rewarding than the one we have. And the same is true for all of the global deals we currently enjoy as EU members. Apparently someone like Japan will give us a far better deal than it gives the EU because the smaller and less relevant you are the better the deal you get. Apparently...
We also get back control over our own borders and get out of the federal superstate project that poses an existential threat to our ancient democracy.
Remainers still making the mistake of "less financially rewarding" being the be all and end all of whether we stay or go. Democracy has value in and of itself.
True, both constitutional and philosophical differences can be important in votes, but typically the wallet is the main motivator (especially for the uncommitted types floating around in the middle who decide matters.)
I strongly suspect that Scotland would've voted for independence in 2014 were it not for the Scottish Government deficit and the wrangling over the currency; that Remain would've won in 2016 if there were fewer people living in poverty or just about managing, who felt that they had little to lose from disturbing the current settlement; that Labour did better than expected in 2017 primarily due to a combination of austerity fatigue amongst the struggling and the Dementia Tax scare amongst the well-off; and that the prospects for Irish reunification would be brighter if the Republic had enough room in its budget to prop up public spending in the North.
Boris Johnson will likewise win a General Election if enough people are convinced of one or more of the following:
1. He means what he says about a Deal and will get one, preventing too much boat rocking and, therefore, economic dislocation 2. The expert advice on the economic effects of No Deal is overstated (remember, there'll be plenty of voters who recall the failure of Armageddon to show up in the second half of 2016, and will discount further warnings accordingly) 3. That Jeremy Corbyn's Labour in power would be a bigger threat to their prosperity than any form of Brexit
We’re in the difficult and unpleasant third act, either way, and the remainers’ tails are up. But the forces unleashed won’t go away. We won’t be in the EU in ten years, but this farce just means we have to put up with a ridiculous culture war as well, with everyone picking “sides” and enabling other bits of lunacy from their own “side”.
For example, I am furious that I am on the same “side” as the right of the Tory Party and Farage, and have to accept No Deal as the only possible form of Brexit, but I have to travel with them for now because I won’t tolerate revocation.
There was a brilliant post by seanT a while ago, which I can only paraphrase as sadly he's no longer with us. Where he said that the leave case could easily be set out by asking someone how you'd go about having a law enacted or revoked.
In the UK, it's as simple as electing a party that promises to enact the law. If they win a majority, they enact the law, job done.
In The EU - who knows?
The EU is quasi-democratic at best, and is probably better described as a technocracy dominated by a nomenklatura , with strong oligarchich elements and weak democratic ones.
I prefer our democratic values to the profoundly undemocratic ones of the EU. YMMV, however - we won the referendum.
Is the US undemocratic because laws also have to pass the Senate and survive a possible presidential veto???
Considering both the Senate and POTUS are elected - no.
They would deselect all of them unless they had publicly backed Boris for leader in the summer and against extension and from the numbers it would be clear who had voted against Boris staying leader
The people who voted for the extension are already out of the party, so what you're actually saying is that they'd conduct a huge purge and deselect Michael Gove, Sajid Javid and anyone else who wasn't on the Boris train...
Yes, if a majority of Tory MPs voted no confidence in Boris and for Hammond to replace him and extend in defiance of the membership vote for Boris and Brexit Deal or No Deal or on 31st October then obviously all non Boris supporters in the leadership race would have voted against him and would have to be deselected, including Gove and replaced with Boris loyalists (Javid would be spared though as he backed Boris over Gove and Hunt once he was eliminated).
Pardon? If a majority of Tory MPs voted No Confidence in Boris, he wouldn't be leader, and banned from standing.
They would deselect all of them unless they had publicly backed Boris for leader in the summer and against extension and from the numbers it would be clear who had voted against Boris staying leader
The people who voted for the extension are already out of the party, so what you're actually saying is that they'd conduct a huge purge and deselect Michael Gove, Sajid Javid and anyone else who wasn't on the Boris train...
Yes, if a majority of Tory MPs voted no confidence in Boris and for Hammond to replace him and extend in defiance of the membership vote for Boris and Brexit Deal or No Deal or on 31st October then obviously all non Boris supporters in the leadership race would have voted against him and would have to be deselected, including Gove and replaced with Boris loyalists (Javid would be spared though as he backed Boris over Gove and Hunt once he was eliminated).
Pardon? If a majority of Tory MPs voted No Confidence in Boris, he wouldn't be leader, and banned from standing.
Let’s purge all the MPs from the party then we can start again, how many will be left by election day
Far more after election day than if the Tories extend again
Making Boris a martyr I(If he really is willing to go all the way) I don't think is going to play well for remainers. Dragging him before the courts for refusing to...obey a law...
That is what the courts are for.
There is this incredible conceit amongst people, Remainers as well as Leavers, that the law does not apply to them. People think that if they express their objections as a conscience issue or explain it carefully, then the judge will believe them and set them free. It does not work like that. Courts are used to force people who break the law to do things that they don't want to do. A court was used (wrongly IMHO) to force May to get a Parliament vote before A50'ing, and a court will similarly be used to coerce Boris.
Boris will resign as PM first rather than be coerced by the courts to lead a Government agreeing extension and take the Tories into opposition on a hard Brexit platform
Good!
Boris will then win the next general election on a promise to deliver Brexit Deal or No Deal
I think this is exactly right. The more I think about it, his best course of action is to wait for the last day, resign and recommend Tom Watson as his successor. He could say in his letter to the Queen that Labour is the opposition but as the leader is a national security threat, has provided moral support to terrorists and has encouraged anti-Semitism, it would not be responsible to recommend him.
The resulting debate in the media would then be all about is Corbyn just bad or bad enough to not be PM. It would then put Jo Swinson in the position of having to say Corbyn is fit to be PM or Corbyn in the position to implictly admit he is not. The "Remainer establishment" would then be the ones extending and Boris could attack all the compromises and contradictions from opposition. It would also pick a fight that would swing anti-Corbyn BXP types behind him.
Making Boris a martyr I(If he really is willing to go all the way) I don't think is going to play well for remainers. Dragging him before the courts for refusing to...obey a law...
That is what the courts are for.
There is this incredible conceit amongst people, Remainers as well as Leavers, that the law does not apply to them. People think that if they express their objections as a conscience issue or explain it carefully, then the judge will believe them and set them free. It does not work like that. Courts are used to force people who break the law to do things that they don't want to do. A court was used (wrongly IMHO) to force May to get a Parliament vote before A50'ing, and a court will similarly be used to coerce Boris.
Making Boris a martyr I(If he really is willing to go all the way) I don't think is going to play well for remainers. Dragging him before the courts for refusing to...obey a law...
That is what the courts are for.
There is this incredible conceit amongst people, Remainers as well as Leavers, that the law does not apply to them. People think that if they express their objections as a conscience issue or explain it carefully, then the judge will believe them and set them free. It does not work like that. Courts are used to force people who break the law to do things that they don't want to do. A court was used (wrongly IMHO) to force May to get a Parliament vote before A50'ing, and a court will similarly be used to coerce Boris.
Gandhi broke the law and accepted the consequences of doing so in order to achieve independence for India.
Boris should refuse royal assent then prorogue Parliament
Is anyone still buying the line that Boris wants a deal and all this is an attempt to strengthen his negotiating position?
Yes. The EU have no reason to blink if they think the UK will blink.
You're describing your belief that it would be a good idea if that actually was Boris's approach. Jonathan was asking as to whether that actually is Boris's approach in fact. Your answer did not match the question.
Making Boris a martyr I(If he really is willing to go all the way) I don't think is going to play well for remainers. Dragging him before the courts for refusing to...obey a law...
That is what the courts are for.
There is this incredible conceit amongst people, Remainers as well as Leavers, that the law does not apply to them. People think that if they express their objections as a conscience issue or explain it carefully, then the judge will believe them and set them free. It does not work like that. Courts are used to force people who break the law to do things that they don't want to do. A court was used (wrongly IMHO) to force May to get a Parliament vote before A50'ing, and a court will similarly be used to coerce Boris.
Boris will resign as PM first rather than be coerced by the courts to lead a Government agreeing extension and take the Tories into opposition on a hard Brexit platform
Good!
Boris will then win the next general election on a promise to deliver Brexit Deal or No Deal
I think this is exactly right. The more I think about it, his best course of action is to wait for the last day, resign and recommend Tom Watson as his successor. He could say in his letter to the Queen that Labour is the opposition but as the leader is a national security threat, has provided moral support to terrorists and has encouraged anti-Semitism, it would not be responsible to recommend him.
The resulting debate in the media would then be all about is Corbyn just bad or bad enough to not be PM. It would then put Jo Swinson in the position of having to say Corbyn is fit to be PM or Corbyn in the position to implictly admit he is not. The "Remainer establishment" would then be the ones extending and Boris could attack all the compromises and contradictions from opposition. It would also pick a fight that would swing anti-Corbyn BXP types behind him.
Making Boris a martyr I(If he really is willing to go all the way) I don't think is going to play well for remainers. Dragging him before the courts for refusing to...obey a law...
That is what the courts are for.
There is this incredible conceit amongst people, Remainers as well as Leavers, that the law does not apply to them. People think that if they express their objections as a conscience issue or explain it carefully, then the judge will believe them and set them free. It does not work like that. Courts are used to force people who break the law to do things that they don't want to do. A court was used (wrongly IMHO) to force May to get a Parliament vote before A50'ing, and a court will similarly be used to coerce Boris.
Making Boris a martyr I(If he really is willing to go all the way) I don't think is going to play well for remainers. Dragging him before the courts for refusing to...obey a law...
That is what the courts are for.
There is this incredible conceit amongst people, Remainers as well as Leavers, that the law does not apply to them. People think that if they express their objections as a conscience issue or explain it carefully, then the judge will believe them and set them free. It does not work like that. Courts are used to force people who break the law to do things that they don't want to do. A court was used (wrongly IMHO) to force May to get a Parliament vote before A50'ing, and a court will similarly be used to coerce Boris.
Gandhi broke the law and accepted the consequences of doing so in order to achieve independence for India.
There was a brilliant post by seanT a while ago, which I can only paraphrase as sadly he's no longer with us. Where he said that the leave case could easily be set out by asking someone how you'd go about having a law enacted or revoked.
In the UK, it's as simple as electing a party that promises to enact the law. If they win a majority, they enact the law, job done.
In The EU - who knows?
The EU is quasi-democratic at best, and is probably better described as a technocracy dominated by a nomenklatura , with strong oligarchich elements and weak democratic ones.
I prefer our democratic values to the profoundly undemocratic ones of the EU. YMMV, however - we won the referendum.
Is the US undemocratic because laws also have to pass the Senate and survive a possible presidential veto???
The senate and president are directly elected. Who the f**k voted for the European commission and Jean Claude juncker?
There is a Plan B, just not one the EU will ever want to accept unless they're forced to do so to avoid no deal.
The EU's Plan B is to let the UK exit with no deal and see how it gets on...
So Remainers opposed to Brexit like to claim.
If you were uber cynical, you'd say that Never Dealers would claim the EU would budge if only we were more trenchant.
Because that's the best way of them getting what they want.
True.
But I want a deal, I'm just opposed to the backstop not a never dealer. Parliament voted for the Brady Amendment.
Considering there's no backstop if there's no deal, I don't think a backstopless deal is at all unreasonable. What solution do the EU have for a no deal scenario? That can be what happens at the end of transition in the worst case that we're not ready - but immediately their concerns are better addressed by a transition than no deal.
Raab would likely win the Tory membership vote instead against Hammond anyway and remove the Tory whip from all non Boris and non Raab supporting MPs who would also be deselected and replaced with Boris and Raab loyalists as Tory candidates to ensure he could not be no confidenced himself
If Raab is the likely beneficiary in this scenario then guess who's the number 1 suspect for knifing Boris?
The Tories should 100% refuse royal assent unless the Commons has voted for an election first.
If the opposition wish to make this the law then let them bring down the government first.
You think dragging the Queen into this will end well. By the way Bercow ruled it only needs Royal Assent not Queens Consent . Big difference .
I couldn't care less whether the Queen is dragged into this or not.
Oh, I believe you. Loony No Dealers couldn't care less who or what they harm in the pursuit of their crazy monomania.
Why would I care?
I'm a democrat. A lifelong republican. Power belongs to our elected politicians, that is Parliament for the legislature and for anything under prerogative that is the PM. Since royal assent is a royal prerogative that must belong to the PM or it is undemocratic - and Parliament can pull down the PM if they don't like it.
If HMQ wants to not be involved she should abdicate and we should be a republic.
A republican who believes in the royal prerogative. Marvellous!
Making Boris a martyr I(If he really is willing to go all the way) I don't think is going to play well for remainers. Dragging him before the courts for refusing to...obey a law...
That is what the courts are for.
There is this incredible conceit amongst people, Remainers as well as Leavers, that the law does not apply to them. People think that if they express their objections as a conscience issue or explain it carefully, then the judge will believe them and set them free. It does not work like that. Courts are used to force people who break the law to do things that they don't want to do. A court was used (wrongly IMHO) to force May to get a Parliament vote before A50'ing, and a court will similarly be used to coerce Boris.
Boris will resign as PM first rather than be coerced by the courts to lead a Government agreeing extension and take the Tories into opposition on a hard Brexit platform
Good!
Boris will then win the next general election on a promise to deliver Brexit Deal or No Deal
I think this is exactly right. The more I think about it, his best course of action is to wait for the last day, resign and recommend Tom Watson as his successor. He could say in his letter to the Queen that Labour is the opposition but as the leader is a national security threat, has provided moral support to terrorists and has encouraged anti-Semitism, it would not be responsible to recommend him.
The resulting debate in the media would then be all about is Corbyn just bad or bad enough to not be PM. It would then put Jo Swinson in the position of having to say Corbyn is fit to be PM or Corbyn in the position to implictly admit he is not. The "Remainer establishment" would then be the ones extending and Boris could attack all the compromises and contradictions from opposition. It would also pick a fight that would swing anti-Corbyn BXP types behind him.
I don't think he would be allowed to wait until the last day before he was coerced by the court. Given the action is time-limited, I assume that the court would be prompt.
I think this is exactly right. The more I think about it, his best course of action is to wait for the last day, resign and recommend Tom Watson as his successor. He could say in his letter to the Queen that Labour is the opposition but as the leader is a national security threat, has provided moral support to terrorists and has encouraged anti-Semitism, it would not be responsible to recommend him.
The resulting debate in the media would then be all about is Corbyn just bad or bad enough to not be PM. It would then put Jo Swinson in the position of having to say Corbyn is fit to be PM or Corbyn in the position to implictly admit he is not. The "Remainer establishment" would then be the ones extending and Boris could attack all the compromises and contradictions from opposition. It would also pick a fight that would swing anti-Corbyn BXP types behind him.
That would backfire. I am confident that in that scenario the PLP would put their personal views aside and back Corbyn as the elected leader.
Making Boris a martyr I(If he really is willing to go all the way) I don't think is going to play well for remainers. Dragging him before the courts for refusing to...obey a law...
That is what the courts are for.
There is this incredible conceit amongst people, Remainers as well as Leavers, that the law does not apply to them. People think that if they express their objections as a conscience issue or explain it carefully, then the judge will believe them and set them free. It does not work like that. Courts are used to force people who break the law to do things that they don't want to do. A court was used (wrongly IMHO) to force May to get a Parliament vote before A50'ing, and a court will similarly be used to coerce Boris.
Boris will resign as PM first rather than be coerced by the courts to lead a Government agreeing extension and take the Tories into opposition on a hard Brexit platform
Good!
Boris will then win the next general election on a promise to deliver Brexit Deal or No Deal
I think this is exactly right. The more I think about it, his best course of action is to wait for the last day, resign and recommend Tom Watson as his successor. He could say in his letter to the Queen that Labour is the opposition but as the leader is a national security threat, has provided moral support to terrorists and has encouraged anti-Semitism, it would not be responsible to recommend him.
The resulting debate in the media would then be all about is Corbyn just bad or bad enough to not be PM. It would then put Jo Swinson in the position of having to say Corbyn is fit to be PM or Corbyn in the position to implictly admit he is not. The "Remainer establishment" would then be the ones extending and Boris could attack all the compromises and contradictions from opposition. It would also pick a fight that would swing anti-Corbyn BXP types behind him.
There would be no need for anybody to do anything Tom Watson would probably not be asked by the queen over Corbyn but even if she did he comes back from the palace sends the letter waits for the response agrees to whatever date the EU propose and then seeks a GE under 2/3 majority route. Resignation is outside of the FTPA for the appointment of successor
Boris should refuse royal assent then prorogue Parliament
Is anyone still buying the line that Boris wants a deal and all this is an attempt to strengthen his negotiating position?
Yes. The EU have no reason to blink if they think the UK will blink.
You're describing your belief that it would be a good idea if that actually was Boris's approach. Jonathan was asking as to whether that actually is Boris's approach in fact. Your answer did not match the question.
I do believe it's Boris's approach.
I believe he [like me] does want an acceptable deal, and does recognise he won't get it without strength from the UK.
I think this is exactly right. The more I think about it, his best course of action is to wait for the last day, resign and recommend Tom Watson as his successor. He could say in his letter to the Queen that Labour is the opposition but as the leader is a national security threat, has provided moral support to terrorists and has encouraged anti-Semitism, it would not be responsible to recommend him.
The resulting debate in the media would then be all about is Corbyn just bad or bad enough to not be PM. It would then put Jo Swinson in the position of having to say Corbyn is fit to be PM or Corbyn in the position to implictly admit he is not. The "Remainer establishment" would then be the ones extending and Boris could attack all the compromises and contradictions from opposition. It would also pick a fight that would swing anti-Corbyn BXP types behind him.
The problem there is that it potentially requires Johnson to lie to the Queen. He will expected to report to the Queen whether there is a reliable indication - such as a motion signed by 326 MPs - that someone enjoys the support of the majority of the House. He can't just make something up unless he's prepared to lie to her, and she has advisors who would intervene if he did.
He can of course seek to persuade Watson (or anyone else, including you or me) to stand and to find 326 MPs willing to support it. Watson would then be seen as Johnson's puppet, and would not fall for it.
Boris should refuse royal assent then prorogue Parliament
Is anyone still buying the line that Boris wants a deal and all this is an attempt to strengthen his negotiating position?
I think he didnt want to no deal in October, but wants to be seen as desperate to do so, hence the ludicrous spinning of random outlandish examples, that all ultimately would fail even if he went for them, as he lost his numbers in parliament with the half hearted prorogation.
In that sense he wants a deal, or at least an attempt at a deal when he has a majority and post October when there are new EU representatives to negotiate with.
The Tories should 100% refuse royal assent unless the Commons has voted for an election first.
If the opposition wish to make this the law then let them bring down the government first.
You think dragging the Queen into this will end well. By the way Bercow ruled it only needs Royal Assent not Queens Consent . Big difference .
I couldn't care less whether the Queen is dragged into this or not.
Oh, I believe you. Loony No Dealers couldn't care less who or what they harm in the pursuit of their crazy monomania.
Why would I care?
I'm a democrat. A lifelong republican. Power belongs to our elected politicians, that is Parliament for the legislature and for anything under prerogative that is the PM. Since royal assent is a royal prerogative that must belong to the PM or it is undemocratic - and Parliament can pull down the PM if they don't like it.
If HMQ wants to not be involved she should abdicate and we should be a republic.
A republican who believes in the royal prerogative. Marvellous!
That's like saying "a doctor who believes in cancer. Marcellous!"
Royal prerogative exists today whether I like it or not. I'd rather those powers were explicitly in the hands of a PM or President, but they're not so we have to act with the situation we have today.
Comments
But if you're denying that the offence would carry a custodial sentence then you're only underlining your own ignorance.
The Brexit Party won't just disappear, but the aim is presumably to shrink its support down to ex-Labour Never-Tories and the Plague-on-all-their-houses vote. The calculation must be that he can scrape together enough Leavers through these tactics, and keep hold of a sufficient number of centre-right voters who are more frightened of Corbyn than they are of Brexit, to get himself over the finishing line.
Mind you, after their constant screeching about respecting refendum results I'd definitely enjoy them not respecting a referendum result.
If the opposition wish to make this the law then let them bring down the government first.
It's not quite the same here - the bus stuff was a lie because 350m/week (18.2bn/year) didn't include the rebate (approx. 4bn).
Now our payments have dropped a bit, so post-rebate we're paying ~13bn, which is the 1bn/month above. However, we do get somewhere between 4 to 6bn of that back, depending on how you do the accounting.
Johnson resigns
The PCP decides to no confidence him because he’s has put Corbyn into no10
They restore the whip to the 21
The elect Hammond unapposed as LOTO
Far fetched yes but........
If Johnson really wants to go for broke he will need to suspend parliament again immediately after it returns. Will he do that?
Or Bercow...
Briefing about the refusal of Royal Assent is classic Dom.
Personally I think it's marvellous that we finally have a Prime Minister displaying nice Conservative values like this so that we can have The Purge on 1st November
Refusing an election has already dragged the Queen into this. There's going to have to be a minority government Queen's Speech with no majority to pass the speech, despite the fact the government has been seeking an election.
Remainers still making the mistake of "less financially rewarding" being the be all and end all of whether we stay or go. Democracy has value in and of itself.
[Can live in hope - more chance of that than our politicians acting like grown ups it seems]
Sure. A VONC takes 24 hours. A new PM, if one can be agreed, need take no longer. I don't think the Commons would let Oct 31 pass without finding one.
Not recently.
You do of course know this but think that if you keep lying to yourself about it the reality of the situation will change. You may as well tap your heels together three times or say Betelgeuse Betelgeuse Betelgeuse and not look like any more of a petulant child than you already do.
There is this incredible conceit amongst people, Remainers as well as Leavers, that the law does not apply to them. People think that if they express their objections as a conscience issue or explain it carefully, then the judge will believe them and set them free. It does not work like that. Courts are used to force people who break the law to do things that they don't want to do. A court was used (wrongly IMHO) to force May to get a Parliament vote before A50'ing, and a court will similarly be used to coerce Boris.
I know that Philip, HYUFD et al have engaged themselves in a dirty protest screaming in impotent rage at how unfair it is that their man has lost power in his first full week and that there's no way back for this. I know that you will continue to step up the rhetoric and say literally anything no matter how absurd illogical and illegal it may be.
Please do continue. It's piss funny
I now see what he meant.
I'm a democrat. A lifelong republican. Power belongs to our elected politicians, that is Parliament for the legislature and for anything under prerogative that is the PM. Since royal assent is a royal prerogative that must belong to the PM or it is undemocratic - and Parliament can pull down the PM if they don't like it.
If HMQ wants to not be involved she should abdicate and we should be a republic.
In the UK, it's as simple as electing a party that promises to enact the law. If they win a majority, they enact the law, job done.
In The EU - who knows?
The EU is quasi-democratic at best, and is probably better described as a technocracy dominated by a nomenklatura , with strong oligarchich elements and weak democratic ones.
I prefer our democratic values to the profoundly undemocratic ones of the EU. YMMV, however - we won the referendum.
9 more of that please!
If HMQ doesn't want executive power she should abdicate. Otherwise it is entrusted in the PM to wield.
(But I bet Javid is relieved.)
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/cricket/market/1.161754901
I strongly suspect that Scotland would've voted for independence in 2014 were it not for the Scottish Government deficit and the wrangling over the currency; that Remain would've won in 2016 if there were fewer people living in poverty or just about managing, who felt that they had little to lose from disturbing the current settlement; that Labour did better than expected in 2017 primarily due to a combination of austerity fatigue amongst the struggling and the Dementia Tax scare amongst the well-off; and that the prospects for Irish reunification would be brighter if the Republic had enough room in its budget to prop up public spending in the North.
Boris Johnson will likewise win a General Election if enough people are convinced of one or more of the following:
1. He means what he says about a Deal and will get one, preventing too much boat rocking and, therefore, economic dislocation
2. The expert advice on the economic effects of No Deal is overstated (remember, there'll be plenty of voters who recall the failure of Armageddon to show up in the second half of 2016, and will discount further warnings accordingly)
3. That Jeremy Corbyn's Labour in power would be a bigger threat to their prosperity than any form of Brexit
For example, I am furious that I am on the same “side” as the right of the Tory Party and Farage, and have to accept No Deal as the only possible form of Brexit, but I have to travel with them for now because I won’t tolerate revocation.
The resulting debate in the media would then be all about is Corbyn just bad or bad enough to not be PM. It would then put Jo Swinson in the position of having to say Corbyn is fit to be PM or Corbyn in the position to implictly admit he is not. The "Remainer establishment" would then be the ones extending and Boris could attack all the compromises and contradictions from opposition. It would also pick a fight that would swing anti-Corbyn BXP types behind him.
Now I really have heard it all.
Because that's the best way of them getting what they want.
But I want a deal, I'm just opposed to the backstop not a never dealer. Parliament voted for the Brady Amendment.
Considering there's no backstop if there's no deal, I don't think a backstopless deal is at all unreasonable. What solution do the EU have for a no deal scenario? That can be what happens at the end of transition in the worst case that we're not ready - but immediately their concerns are better addressed by a transition than no deal.
I believe he [like me] does want an acceptable deal, and does recognise he won't get it without strength from the UK.
He can of course seek to persuade Watson (or anyone else, including you or me) to stand and to find 326 MPs willing to support it. Watson would then be seen as Johnson's puppet, and would not fall for it.
In that sense he wants a deal, or at least an attempt at a deal when he has a majority and post October when there are new EU representatives to negotiate with.
Royal prerogative exists today whether I like it or not. I'd rather those powers were explicitly in the hands of a PM or President, but they're not so we have to act with the situation we have today.