Actually, that's a bit dramatic. It would still be part of the UK but operating under different customs and regulatory rules in certain areas, so more detached. It would allow, though, mainland GB to fully exit the single market and customs union immediately following a transition period. It's also on the table from the EU because it's what they offered in the first place.
As soon as a GE campaign is called (and parliament dissolved) he could cut the DUP loose in the hope of an overall majority, and make any such deal subject to ratification via a vote in a new NI assembly and an updated GFA.
Problems would include Scotland wanting similar treatment and it would probably stoke the independence movement there. But it would deliver a 'Deal' that most of his party could accept.
You mean like the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Falklands etc. Maybe you could even hide your tax dodged money.
"Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Commission turned round on you — where would you hide, Boris, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — Benn's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Remain campaign benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."
~with apologies to Robert Bolt, and probably to Sunil who would have done this better
Yes I've had that quote floating around my head in recent days.
As has this one -
"I'll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far-fetched resolutions, they're then pickled into a rigid dogma and you go on, sticking to that ... misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs and you end up in the grotesque chaos of a Tory Prime Minister, a Tory Prime Minister, threatening to break the law.
I'm telling you, no matter how entertaining, how fulfilling for the short-term ego, you can't play politics with people's jobs and people's services."
With apologies to Neil Kinnock. But pertinent given that the ERG and the BXP are today's Militant Tendency.
Echo chamber isn't its usual Borg-like self tonight.
Looks like they realise what i've been saying all along is true.
Get yourself out and about with normal decent people and gauge the true anger at what remainer MPs are doing to our democracy.
What does this even mean?
Are you suggesting that we are not normal, decent people?
I work in manufacturing in County Durham. I interact on a daily basis with people you think seem to despise the ‘metropolitan liberal elite’.
Get your head out of your arse.
Wemed of themselves.
Sadly contempt for the law is one of the casualties to expect when MPs fail to respect the 2016 result and indeed fail to respect their own commitments when they voted for Article 50. I voted to Remain but the implication from many on here that all the evil lies on one side while all the good is on the other is pretty vomit inducing. Also there is as yet no clear evidence that the PM is actually planning to disobey the law. As so often people jump in on the basis of rumour and prejudice.
Some of his supporters are gleefully hoping he will disobey the law. If it is baseless rumour he can shut it down very simply. And as many have said, poor behaviour from one side does not excuse bad behaviour on the other. I voted leave, and I think some remain mps have acted disgracefully, and I think a great many MPs have acted very poorly in refusing to make decisions, being dishonest in their intents, The article 50 triggering then crying about no deal is a good example. But if the public is outraged about the failure to respect the 2016 vote MPs will face a consequence at an election, even if the government is having trouble getting that election right now.
But when people make the respect the vote argument they are seeking to present as better than their opponents, and that is not the case when that lack of respect fo the vote is countered with a lack of respect for the law. I'll give hyufd some credit for that at least, he does not seek to hold a moral high ground, he sees it as a war in which anything goes, however awful I think that view is.
"The crisis engulfing Johnson and his government, which saw the prime minister’s brother Jo resign from the cabinet on Thursday after 21 Tory MPs were stripped of the whip, deepened further last night when the most senior MP, Kenneth Clarke, said he was thinking about voting for the Liberal Democrats at the next election and regarded a Jeremy Corbyn government as less damaging to the UK than a no-deal Brexit.
In his first newspaper interview since being stripped of the whip after almost 60 years in the Conservative party, the father of the house told the Observer that if he were starting out on his political career now, he would not choose the Tories. “If I was 20 years old and thinking which political party I was going to join … I would not join the Conservative party. I would not follow Boris Johnson in this wild, rightwing nationalist stuff,” he said."
Sorry, how is that the crisis "deepening"? Clarke has been cast out, he no longer has the Tory whip, if he wants to vote for Corbyn or Swinson that's completely up to him. Of course he wouldn't fit in today's Tory party - that's why he's no longer representing it.
The Observer is trying to spin its story, as it would, but there is a certain symbolism about Clarke contemplating the Liberal Demorats, and it won't be welcome for many still inside the Tory party. At the same time, the Cummings wing, hopeful for more positive polls tonight to boost their "martyrdom" strategy, will see it as confirmation of the need for clearout and scorched-earth.
Whatever else, because of his status, it presages more ructions within the Tory party.
What is the best reasonably priced tablet around. My iPad is now nearly 6 years old and becoming unreliable.
I use it for reading/watching stuff etc and checking up on my personal and work emails.
Should I go for another Apple product or some other brand?
And if so which?
Thanks in advance. VM me if necessary.
I’m an Apple fanboy so feel free to ignore but the normal ‘iPad’ not the Pro or the Air is due to be upgraded within the next few weeks and is exceptional value for money. I do recommend that.
When I was a New York earlier I bought top of the range iPhones, and Pro MacBooks and iPads to replace all our old kit...spent a county fortune...
I gave away my 5 year old Mac and wish I hadn't. I have gone back to using my old lightweight phone 6 and fished out my 4 year old Mini iPad....
So...my advice would be to shop on Amazon for some 2/3 year old models
What didn’t you like? I’ve just bought an iPad Pro 11” for when I go back to University and it’s fantastic.
They were too heavy...and the keyboard on the Mac is annoying..I keep on making typos...
Technology wise I am a bit on the backward side mind...
I'm still driving my Megane which is now 14 years old, and by a country mile the worst car either on my road, or at my workplace carpark...
Welcome to my world. My 15 year old Ford Fiesta is still going strong!
It's great for parking in tight spaces too because you can always reverse into the parked car behind without worrying...Check though if anyone is sitting in said car..I've clouted a couple in my time with non plussed occupants inside...
Everyone is focused on arcane points of legal procedure and interpretation.
There is nothing arcane about expecting our Prime Minister to comply with the law. It is the very basis of a free country under the rule of law.
That we cannot - apparently - expect that because some advisor with no legal training thinks otherwise is not something to be cheered.
The right place to settle this is the ballot box and it is a constitutional mess to expect a PM to implement a law he vehemently opposes that has been forced by the opposition. The opposition should become the government if they have the numbers and put the law through themselves.
That's why I think the cleanest and simplest solution is not to break the law, it is to veto the law and have the Commons VONC and put a new government in if they have the numbers to do so. Then the government implementing the law will be one that actually believes in it.
"it is a constitutional mess to expect a PM to implement a law he vehemently opposes that has been forced by the opposition."
This is your fundamental misunderstanding. It is not a constitutional mess at all. The law has been passed. The PM is obliged to implement it. In the same way that he is obliged to implement a court ruling which he vehemently opposes.
If he does not want to do this, he resigns. Quite why a 3 month delay should be such a matter of conscience is another matter of course. It's not exactly the agonies of Antigone, is it?
It may be a political crisis. But that does not make it a constitutional or legal one. There has always been the opportunity for MPs other than from the governing party to make legislation.
The only reason it is a problem is because Boris stupidly made a promise that boxed him in and which now he cannot keep. He should swallow his pride and use the time afforded to negotiate for the deal he claims he wants.
Our constitutional rules are not there to save a politician's face from the consequences of his own stupidity. The conflation of the blow to Boris's amour propre into some sort of constitutional crisis is a mark of a party which has forgotten that we have a government of laws, not a government of men.
It is about bloody time we remembered this important lesson.
All these independents and the LibDems must be a little bit tempted to formally ally in the House and freeze out the SNO from 3rd party status. Though I guess with an impending election, one way or another, it’s a bit less tempting.
I'm all for it if it means hearing less from the dreadful Ian Blackford.
Everyone is focused on arcane points of legal procedure and interpretation.
There is nothing arcane about expecting our Prime Minister to comply with the law. It is the very basis of a free country under the rule of law.
That we cannot - apparently - expect that because some advisor with no legal training thinks otherwise is not something to be cheered.
The right place to settle this is the ballot box and it is a constitutional mess to expect a PM to implement a law he vehemently opposes that has been forced by the opposition. The opposition should become the government if they have the numbers and put the law through themselves.
That's why I think the cleanest and simplest solution is not to break the law, it is to veto the law and have the Commons VONC and put a new government in if they have the numbers to do so. Then the government implementing the law will be one that actually believes in it.
"it is a constitutional mess to expect a PM to implement a law he vehemently opposes that has been forced by the opposition."
This is your fundamental misunderstanding. It is not a constitutional mess at all. The law has been passed. The PM is obliged to implement it. In the same way that he is obliged to implement a court ruling which he vehemently opposes.
Yes, I really struggle to understand this concept that because he opposed the law it is a legal/constitutional mess. It's a political mess. MPs in the House lose votes all the time and still have to abide by the laws that are passed, albeit this is an unusual situation where the government itself lost.
What is the best reasonably priced tablet around. My iPad is now nearly 6 years old and becoming unreliable.
I use it for reading/watching stuff etc and checking up on my personal and work emails.
Should I go for another Apple product or some other brand?
And if so which?
Thanks in advance. VM me if necessary.
I’m an Apple fanboy so feel free to ignore but the normal ‘iPad’ not the Pro or the Air is due to be upgraded within the next few weeks and is exceptional value for money. I do recommend that.
When I was a New York earlier I bought top of the range iPhones, and Pro MacBooks and iPads to replace all our old kit...spent a county fortune...
I gave away my 5 year old Mac and wish I hadn't. I have gone back to using my old lightweight phone 6 and fished out my 4 year old Mini iPad....
So...my advice would be to shop on Amazon for some 2/3 year old models
What didn’t you like? I’ve just bought an iPad Pro 11” for when I go back to University and it’s fantastic.
The new Macbook pro is crap. I've broken two keyboards already and it's a dongle-fest - forget or lose yours and you can't plug in a memory stick, a monitor, use wired internet etc. Piss poor design.
I have heard a lot of bad things about the keyboards.
However wired internet and memory sticks are fringe use-cases these days!
I need the wired connection to deal with large format video files on external hard drives and my wireless connection at work is slow as shit. You can argue it's a fringe case for most users but it's called the macbook "pro" for a reason. It's supposed to be for professionals.
And don't get me started on the number of times I've been on a 5:30 am red eye and, as I sip my first coffee of the day on the flight I realise I've left my dongle at home / in the hotel and it's either another few days without one or another £75 expenses bill for my employer.
@Tyson if you're having a problem with typos I recommend an app called Unshaky, it solves the double keypress problem.
But it's an absolute disgrace that a +£2k machine needs a third party app to make the keyboard work properly. In case you haven't figured it out the MBP belongs to my employer... I wouldn't pay fifty quid for one.
What is the best reasonably priced tablet around. My iPad is now nearly 6 years old and becoming unreliable.
I use it for reading/watching stuff etc and checking up on my personal and work emails.
Should I go for another Apple product or some other brand?
And if so which?
Thanks in advance. VM me if necessary.
I’m an Apple fanboy so feel free to ignore but the normal ‘iPad’ not the Pro or the Air is due to be upgraded within the next few weeks and is exceptional value for money. I do recommend that.
When I was a New York earlier I bought top of the range iPhones, and Pro MacBooks and iPads to replace all our old kit...spent a county fortune...
I gave away my 5 year old Mac and wish I hadn't. I have gone back to using my old lightweight phone 6 and fished out my 4 year old Mini iPad....
So...my advice would be to shop on Amazon for some 2/3 year old models
What didn’t you like? I’ve just bought an iPad Pro 11” for when I go back to University and it’s fantastic.
The new Macbook pro is crap. I've broken two keyboards already and it's a dongle-fest - forget or lose yours and you can't plug in a memory stick, a monitor, use wired internet etc. Piss poor design.
Agree, and the USB C ports are incredibly flimsy, such poor quality for a machine at this price point. Miss the keyboard on my 2011 Macbook Air.
Echo chamber isn't its usual Borg-like self tonight.
Looks like they realise what i've been saying all along is true.
Get yourself out and about with normal decent people and gauge the true anger at what remainer MPs are doing to our democracy.
What does this even mean?
Are you suggesting that we are not normal, decent people?
I work in manufacturing in County Durham. I interact on a daily basis with people you think seem to despise the ‘metropolitan liberal elite’.
Get your head out of your arse.
Well said. It seems to be a revelation to some of the more ardent Boris fans on here that it is possible to be pretty pissed off at the way MPs have behaved over the last three years (and to want them to agree to an orderly withdrawal from the EU) and also be pretty cross at the idea of a Prime Minister deliberately breaking the law. But MPs' failure to come to a decision does not justify the latter.
A PM who deliberately sets out to break the law is crossing a Rubicon. If we cannot expect our legislators to understand that they are subject to the law then we are heading for very dangerous waters. Those who cheer on Boris and others in his contempt for the law should be ashamed of themselves.
Sadly contempt for the law is one of the casualties to expect when MPs fail to respect the 2016 result and indeed fail to respect their own commitments when they voted for Article 50. I voted to Remain but the implication from many on here that all the evil lies on one side while all the good is on the other is pretty vomit inducing. Also there is as yet no clear evidence that the PM is actually planning to disobey the law. As so often people jump in on the basis of rumour and prejudice.
No: lots of us have criticised both sides. Both sides in this debate have behaved dreadfully in Parliament. But we have had a lot of rewriting of history by Leavers and their lies need to be called out.
The fact that the Leave vote has proved so difficult to implement is not a reason to start disobeying laws. None at all. A PM should be saying this not behaving like a child pointing at the other and whingeing: "he started it!"
And it is Boris's own words which have been quoted (at least in my header, including his statement that the government would obey the law). So if he is being criticised it is because of what he has said. Perhaps in future he could think before he opens his mouth or puts pen to paper.
Echo chamber isn't its usual Borg-like self tonight.
Looks like they realise what i've been saying all along is true.
Get yourself out and about with normal decent people and gauge the true anger at what remainer MPs are doing to our democracy.
What does this even mean?
Are you suggesting that we are not normal, decent people?
I work in manufacturing in County Durham. I interact on a daily basis with people you think seem to despise the ‘metropolitan liberal elite’.
Get your head out of your arse.
Well said. It seems to be a revelation to some of the more ardent Boris fans on here that it is possible to be pretty pissed off at the way MPs have behaved over the last three years (and to want them to agree to an orderly withdrawal from the EU) and also be pretty cross at the idea of a Prime Minister deliberately breaking the law. But MPs' failure to come to a decision does not justify the latter.
A PM who deliberately sets out to break the law is crossing a Rubicon. If we cannot expect our legislators to understand that they are subject to the law then we are heading for very dangerous waters. Those who cheer on Boris and others in his contempt for the law should be ashamed of themselves.
Sadly contempt for the law is one of the casualties to expect when MPs fail to respect the 2016 result and indeed fail to respect their own commitments when they voted for Article 50. I voted to Remain but the implication from many on here that all the evil lies on one side while all the good is on the other is pretty vomit inducing. Also there is as yet no clear evidence that the PM is actually planning to disobey the law. As so often people jump in on the basis of rumour and prejudice.
Both sides of the house have a lot to answer for in not agreeing a sensible withdrawal agreement.
They've been far more interesting in pursuing narrow party political advantage, and meanwhile the country strains at the seams and may yet burn.
I'm not a lawyer but I'm still waiting for someone who is to explain how Boris woukd be able to break the law. The Benn ' Act ' will create a statutory duty on the office of PM to request an extension in certain circumstances. The exact text of the letter doing so is in the text of the ' Act '. So hiw would Boris not comply ? What happens if the civil service just send the letter anyway ? Either automaticlly or because the Cabinet Secretary tells them to because the law says so ? What happens if Hilary Benn sends a copy of the Benn ' Act ' letter to EUCO ? Or Donald Tusk downloads a copy and habds it to his civil servants ?
In short is Boris legally able to break the law ? What is it that he coukd do or not do that woukd stop the statutory duty on the office of the PM sending the request letter ? That's what I'm not clear on.
"Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Commission turned round on you — where would you hide, Boris, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — Benn's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Remain campaign benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."
~with apologies to Robert Bolt, and probably to Sunil who would have done this better
Yes I've had that quote floating around my head in recent days.
As has this one -
"I'll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far-fetched resolutions, they're then pickled into a rigid dogma and you go on, sticking to that ... misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs and you end up in the grotesque chaos of a Tory Prime Minister, a Tory Prime Minister, threatening to break the law.
I'm telling you, no matter how entertaining, how fulfilling for the short-term ego, you can't play politics with people's jobs and people's services."
With apologies to Neil Kinnock. But pertinent given that the ERG and the BXP are today's Militant Tendency.
The difference is that the Militant Tendency didn't actually take over the Labour party. UKIP/Bxt Party have taken over the Tory party and control the UK government.
The difference is the voters did not vote for socialism in the 1980s but they have voted for Brexit now.
Not forgetting that Momentum now has far more control over the Labour Party now than even the Militant Tendency did under Foot and Kinnock
"it is a constitutional mess to expect a PM to implement a law he vehemently opposes that has been forced by the opposition."
This is your fundamental misunderstanding. It is not a constitutional mess at all. The law has been passed. The PM is obliged to implement it. In the same way that he is obliged to implement a court ruling which he vehemently opposes.
If he does not want to do this, he resigns. Quite why a 3 month delay should be such a matter of conscience is another matter of course. It's not exactly the agonies of Antigone, is it?
It may be a political crisis. But that does not make it a constitutional or legal one. There has always been the opportunity for MPs other than from the governing party to make legislation.
The only reason it is a problem is because Boris stupidly made a promise that boxed him in and which now he cannot keep. He should swallow his pride and use the time afforded to negotiate for the deal he claims he wants.
Our constitutional rules are not there to save a politician's face from the consequences of his own stupidity. The conflation of the blow to Boris's amour propre into some sort of constitutional crisis is a mark of a party which has forgotten that we have a government of laws, not a government of men.
It is about bloody time we remembered this important lesson.
The proposed law has not been passed yet. It has passed the Commons and the Lords yes but it is not yet the law, although you are acting as if it is. Royal assent remains a part of our constitution whether you like it or not and HMQ acts on the advice of her ministers quite appropriately.
If Boris Johnson has no intention of honouring this law then he should advise HMQ to deny royal assent - then ensure there is time for the Commons to debate what he has done prior to prorogation. If the Commons can live with that decision then it is not the law. If the Commons refuses to accept that veto then the Commons should No Confidence the PM and put in a PM who advises to give consent. Either way the law is never broken and the Commons gets the final say either way.
If the law gets royal assent then the PM needs to obey the law. No ifs, no buts. But it is entirely proper IMHO for a PM to say "I can not accept this law" and veto it - in many countries the executive have veto powers for this reason and ours officially still does too even if it has laid dormant for the last 3 centuries.
Echo chamber isn't its usual Borg-like self tonight.
Looks like they realise what i've been saying all along is true.
Get yourself out and about with normal decent people and gauge the true anger at what remainer MPs are doing to our democracy.
What does this even mean?
Are you suggesting that we are not normal, decent people?
I work in manufacturing in County Durham. I interact on a daily basis with people you think seem to despise the ‘metropolitan liberal elite’.
Get your head out of your arse.
Well said. It seems to be a revelation to some of the more ardent Boris fans on here that it is possible to be pretty pissed off at the way MPs have behaved over the last three years (and to want them to agree to an orderly withdrawal from the EU) and also be pretty cross at the idea of a Prime Minister deliberately breaking the law. But MPs' failure to come to a decision does not justify the latter.
A PM who deliberately sets out to break the law is crossing a Rubicon. If we cannot expect our legislators to understand that they are subject to the law then we are heading for very dangerous waters. Those who cheer on Boris and others in his contempt for the law should be ashamed of themselves.
Sadly contempt for the law is one of the casualties to expect when MPs fail to respect the 2016 result and indeed fail to respect their own commitments when they voted for Article 50. I voted to Remain but the implication from many on here that all the evil lies on one side while all the good is on the other is pretty vomit inducing. Also there is as yet no clear evidence that the PM is actually planning to disobey the law. As so often people jump in on the basis of rumour and prejudice.
Both sides of the house have a lot to answer for in not agreeing a sensible withdrawal agreement.
They've been far more interesting in pursuing narrow party political advantage, and meanwhile the country strains at the seams and may yet burn.
Echo chamber isn't its usual Borg-like self tonight.
Looks like they realise what i've been saying all along is true.
Get yourself out and about with normal decent people and gauge the true anger at what remainer MPs are doing to our democracy.
What does this even mean?
Are you suggesting that we are not normal, decent people?
I work in manufacturing in County Durham. I interact on a daily basis with people you think seem to despise the ‘metropolitan liberal elite’.
Get your head out of your arse.
Wemed of themselves.
Sadly contempt for the law is one of the casualties to expect when MPs fail to respect the 2016 result and indeed fail to respect their own commitments when they voted for Article 50. Also there is as yet no clear evidence that the PM is actually planning to disobey the law. As so often people jump in on the basis of rumour and prejudice.
Some of his supporters are gleefully hoping he will disobey the law. If it is baseless rumour he can shut it down very simply. And as many have said, poor behaviour from one side does not excuse bad behaviour on the other. I voted leave, and I think some remain mps have acted disgracefully, and I think a great many MPs have acted very poorly in refusing to make decisions, being dishonest in their intents, The article 50 triggering then crying about no deal is a good example. But if the public is outraged about the failure to respect the 2016 vote MPs will face a consequence at an election, even if the government is having trouble getting that election right now.
But when people make the respect the vote argument they are seeking to present as better than their opponents, and that is not the case when that lack of respect fo the vote is countered with a lack of respect for the law. I'll give hyufd some credit for that at least, he does not seek to hold a moral high ground, he sees it as a war in which anything goes, however awful I think that view is.
Cyclefree is spot on.
The Executive ignoring a law of the land (in Britain, of all places in the world) is a Rubicon that can never be crossed, and we can't come back to.
It's rather surprising to me at times, when I go abroad, that for all our diminished power in the world these days we are still seen as a totem of fair play, good governance, democracy and the rule of law. Many people in other countries look up to that and respect us accordingly.
If we destroy that in collateral damage for Brexit the repercussions will be felt right around the world and affect a far broader spectrum of humanity, in a far darker way.
Echo chamber isn't its usual Borg-like self tonight.
Are you suggesting that we are not normal, decent people?
I work in manufacturing in County Durham. I interact on a daily basis with people you think seem to despise the ‘metropolitan liberal elite’.
Get your head out of your arse.
Well said. It seems to be a revelation to some of the more ardent Boris fans on here that it is possible to be pretty pissed off at the way MPs have behaved over the last three years (and to want them to agree to an orderly withdrawal from the EU) and also be pretty cross at the idea of a Prime Minister deliberately breaking the law. But MPs' failure to come to a decision does not justify the latter.
A PM who deliberately sets out to break the law is crossing a Rubicon. If we cannot expect our legislators to understand that they are subject to the law then we are heading for very dangerous waters. Those who cheer on Boris and others in his contempt for the law should be ashamed of themselves.
Sadly contempt for the law is one of the casualties to expect when MPs fail to respect the 2016 result and indeed fail to respect their own commitments when they voted for Article 50. I voted to Remain but the implication from many on here that all the evil lies on one side while all the good is on the other is pretty vomit inducing. Also there is as yet no clear evidence that the PM is actually planning to disobey the law. As so often people jump in on the basis of rumour and prejudice.
No: lots of us have criticised both sides. Both sides in this debate have behaved dreadfully in Parliament. But we have had a lot of rewriting of history by Leavers and their lies need to be called out.
The fact that the Leave vote has proved so difficult to implement is not a reason to start disobeying laws. None at all. A PM should be saying this not behaving like a child pointing at the other and whingeing: "he started it!"
And it is Boris's own words which have been quoted (at least in my header, including his statement that the government would obey the law). So if he is being criticised it is because of what he has said. Perhaps in future he could think before he opens his mouth or puts pen to paper.
Confused. When has Boris said he will disobey the law? Not at all according to you. So presumably your beef is with the spinners. Fair enough - and there's a fair amount of this on both sides. I missed your header denouncing P. Pullman when he suggested hanging Boris. Selective outrage butters no parsnips I think.
Both sides of the house have a lot to answer for in not agreeing a sensible withdrawal agreement.
They've been far more interesting in pursuing narrow party political advantage, and meanwhile the country strains at the seams and may yet burn.
It's an absolute fucking disgrace.
The worst thing is that both sides, Remain/Revoke and Hard Brexit, seem to think Brexit can be over soon, or at least no longer occupying so much political time. That is total nonsense, the only thing that might plausibly quieten things down is a sensible compromise, but maybe only 1 in 10 MPs are interested in that.
Sam Coates on Twitter saying Dom Cummings stated he didn't think the act imparted a legal compulsion on Boris or that it was unenforceable so hes canvassing for thoughts from lawyers to see if that's true. I think this will definitely be in the courts before Oct 19
I get that the point is to prove Brexity credentials, but if Mr Cummings is wrong about his interpretation is it a good look for the Tories to be so focused on arcane points of legal procedure and interpretation?
Everyone is focused on arcane points of legal procedure and interpretation.
There is nothing arcane about expecting our Prime Minister to comply with the law. It is the very basis of a free country under the rule of law.
That we cannot - apparently - expect that because some advisor with no legal training thinks otherwise is not something to be cheered.
I don't understand on what basis Cummings has a different interpretation of the law, it seems pretty watertight to me, but if lawyers have different interpretations of the law is the latter not entitled to take it to court if they so desire?
That is also part of a free country under the rule of law too. That is what courts are for. But I think its moot, if there is a loophole in the law Parliament will have the numbers to close it anyway.
The right place to settle this is the ballot box and it is a constitutional mess to expect a PM to implement a law he vehemently opposes that has been forced by the opposition. The opposition should become the government if they have the numbers and put the law through themselves.
That's why I think the cleanest and simplest solution is not to break the law, it is to veto the law and have the Commons VONC and put a new government in if they have the numbers to do so. Then the government implementing the law will be one that actually believes in it.
"Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Commission turned round on you — where would you hide, Boris, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — Benn's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Remain campaign benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."
~with apologies to Robert Bolt, and probably to Sunil who would have done this better
Yes I've had that quote floating around my head in recent days.
As has this one -
"I'll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far-fetched resolutions, they're then pickled into a rigid dogma and you go on, sticking to that ... misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs and you end up in the grotesque chaos of a Tory Prime Minister, a Tory Prime Minister, threatening to break the law.
I'm telling you, no matter how entertaining, how fulfilling for the short-term ego, you can't play politics with people's jobs and people's services."
With apologies to Neil Kinnock. But pertinent given that the ERG and the BXP are today's Militant Tendency.
The difference is that the Militant Tendency didn't actually take over the Labour party.
What is the best reasonably priced tablet around. My iPad is now nearly 6 years old and becoming unreliable.
I use it for reading/watching stuff etc and checking up on my personal and work emails.
Should I go for another Apple product or some other brand?
And if so which?
Thanks in advance. VM me if necessary.
I’m an Apple fanboy so feel free to ignore but the normal ‘iPad’ not the Pro or the Air is due to be upgraded within the next few weeks and is exceptional value for money. I do recommend that.
When I was a New York earlier I bought top of the range iPhones, and Pro MacBooks and iPads to replace all our old kit...spent a county fortune...
I gave away my 5 year old Mac and wish I hadn't. I have gone back to using my old lightweight phone 6 and fished out my 4 year old Mini iPad....
So...my advice would be to shop on Amazon for some 2/3 year old models
What didn’t you like? I’ve just bought an iPad Pro 11” for when I go back to University and it’s fantastic.
The new Macbook pro is crap. I've broken two keyboards already and it's a dongle-fest - forget or lose yours and you can't plug in a memory stick, a monitor, use wired internet etc. Piss poor design.
Agree, and the USB C ports are incredibly flimsy, such poor quality for a machine at this price point. Miss the keyboard on my 2011 Macbook Air.
Yup. I still have my 2012 Macbook Air and the difference when typing on it is extraordinary. You wonder how anyone at Apple ever signed off on the keyboard for the Pro, let alone had the nerve to charge people two grand for it.
It's al going to depend on who has the most effective pact from either side. The Tories may not need a full pact, rather than a cross-seat understanding, but Remain is dead without one.
"Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Commission turned round on you — where would you hide, Boris, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — Benn's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Remain campaign benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."
~with apologies to Robert Bolt, and probably to Sunil who would have done this better
Yes I've had that quote floating around my head in recent days.
As has this one -
"I'll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far-fetched resolutions, they're then pickled into a rigid dogma and you go on, sticking to that ... misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs and you end up in the grotesque chaos of a Tory Prime Minister, a Tory Prime Minister, threatening to break the law.
I'm telling you, no matter how entertaining, how fulfilling for the short-term ego, you can't play politics with people's jobs and people's services."
With apologies to Neil Kinnock. But pertinent given that the ERG and the BXP are today's Militant Tendency.
The difference is that the Militant Tendency didn't actually take over the Labour party.
It's al going to depend on who has the most effective pact from either side. The Tories may not need a full pact, rather than a cross-seat understanding, but Remain is dead without one.
Why? Remain/Soft Brexit has just had another MP freed from the Tory whip. There is no election yet remember!
14% Tory lead, would be the biggest Tory lead at a general election since 1983 if repeated on election night.
LDs now just 2% behind Corbyn Labour too
Who would have thought their convoluted, not to say bonkers brexit strategy added to their other err negative qualities would put them in this position.
It's al going to depend on who has the most effective pact from either side. The Tories may not need a full pact, rather than a cross-seat understanding, but Remain is dead without one.
No way with Corbyn and Momentum in control.A formal even limited pact would be a very bad move by LDs. I'm currently planning to vote for them but if it becomes a proxy for Corbyn then I won't.
" If he does not want to do this, he resigns. Quite why a 3 month delay should be such a matter of conscience is another matter of course. It's not exactly the agonies of Antigone, is it?
It may be a political crisis. But that does not make it a constitutional or legal one. There has always been the opportunity for MPs other than from the governing party to make legislation.
The only reason it is a problem is because Boris stupidly made a promise that boxed him in and which now he cannot keep. He should swallow his pride and use the time afforded to negotiate for the deal he claims he wants.
Our constitutional rules are not there to save a politician's face from the consequences of his own stupidity. The conflation of the blow to Boris's amour propre into some sort of constitutional crisis is a mark of a party which has forgotten that we have a government of laws, not a government of men.
It is about bloody time we remembered this important lesson.
The proposed law has not been passed yet. It has passed the Commons and the Lords yes but it is not yet the law, although you are acting as if it is. Royal assent remains a part of our constitution whether you like it or not and HMQ acts on the advice of her ministers quite appropriately.
If Boris Johnson has no intention of honouring this law then he should advise HMQ to deny royal assent - then ensure there is time for the Commons to debate what he has done prior to prorogation. If the Commons can live with that decision then it is not the law. If the Commons refuses to accept that veto then the Commons should No Confidence the PM and put in a PM who advises to give consent. Either way the law is never broken and the Commons gets the final say either way.
If the law gets royal assent then the PM needs to obey the law. No ifs, no buts. But it is entirely proper IMHO for a PM to say "I can not accept this law" and veto it - in many countries the executive have veto powers for this reason and ours officially still does too even if it has laid dormant for the last 3 centuries.
Royal Assent is not given on the basis of whether the PM is going to abide by the law.
Parliament makes the law. It has passed a law. HMQ's assent is a formality. The idea that a PM should be able to avoid the consequences of defying the law by stopping something which has been passed by the supreme legislative body in this country is for the birds.
This is not a law which would put us in breach of the ECHR or which would be a moral outrage e.g. ordering the slaughter of anyone with a "P" in their name. The only reason he does not like it is because, the poor diddums, he would have to break a promise. And not even a legally binding commitment mind.
You seem to think that our Parliament should be overriden to save the blushes of one Minister.
Entirely predictable. Bet the gap closes in November when jester has died in his ditch (not) though.
Yes - of course Labour standing in the way of the ONE thing they have been screaming for is a sure fire vote winner - alongside that spiffing Brexit policy ...
Thanks to Corbyn, the Tories are going to win the next general election, but then they will collapse. The No Deal they will deliver and their morph into a hard right English Nationalist Party is not a sustainable offering.
It's al going to depend on who has the most effective pact from either side. The Tories may not need a full pact, rather than a cross-seat understanding, but Remain is dead without one.
Why? Remain/Soft Brexit has just had another MP freed from the Tory whip. There is no election yet remember!
Look at the numbers, though, and their distribution. Unless Corbyn and Swinson can somehow more fully co-operate, Remain voters have a mountain to climb.
Exactly it. The cosy club where they all get rich and play at politics is being shaken to its core. They hate that they are being expected to deliver, and that it appears the PM intends to do that.
On the polls tonight - they are pretty much as expected. Not sure they tell us what happens in a GE. I do feel however, admittedly subjectively, that the dleaying much beyond the period required to enact the law will damage the opposition most. Because as ever, the opposition are clear about what they don't want but there seem as yet no unity about what they do want. In the meantime the country is desperate for resolution.
I think one point we are all forgetting - particularly when looking at the polling - is that acts that are illegal, unconstitutional or downright crazy are not necessarily unpopular. A few obvious examples spring to mind - Bonar Law's support for the UVF, Thatcher's use of the police without showing their numbers in the miners' strike, George III sacking Portland in 1783. And that's just in this country - de Gaulle's coup in 1958 would also be a good example. The key was the people doing the rule breaking were popular and those being hammered were not.
Johnson remains personally popular due to his TV appearances, and he is offering to leave the EU which, like it or not, whether its supporters know what they're doing or not, is a popular programme. So the fact he is breaking every rule in the book and a number that aren't may not condemn him as it should.
It's al going to depend on who has the most effective pact from either side. The Tories may not need a full pact, rather than a cross-seat understanding, but Remain is dead without one.
No way with Corbyn and Momentum in control.A formal even limited pact would be a very bad move by LDs. I'm currently planning to vote for them but if it becomes a proxy for Corbyn then I won't.
This is exactly why I would be feeling quite chipper tonight if I was Cummings. The obstacles to a cross-Remain understanding are, at the moment, hugely greater than a cross-Brexit understanding.
That's an appalling split in the opposition figures. The LDs and Lab are like two goalposts, placed so wide apart an arthritic slug could slot a goal between them. And Boris is nimbler than an arthritic slug.
Well said. It seems to be a revelation to some of the more ardent Boris fans on here that it is possible to be pretty pissed off at the way MPs have behaved over the last three years (and to want them to agree to an orderly withdrawal from the EU) and also be pretty cross at the idea of a Prime Minister deliberately breaking the law. But MPs' failure to come to a decision does not justify the latter.
A PM who deliberately sets out to break the law is crossing a Rubicon. If we cannot expect our legislators to understand that they are subject to the law then we are heading for very dangerous waters. Those who cheer on Boris and others in his contempt for the law should be ashamed of themselves.
No: lots of us have criticised both sides. Both sides in this debate have behaved dreadfully in Parliament. But we have had a lot of rewriting of history by Leavers and their lies need to be called out.
The fact that the Leave vote has proved so difficult to implement is not a reason to start disobeying laws. None at all. A PM should be saying this not behaving like a child pointing at the other and whingeing: "he started it!"
And it is Boris's own words which have been quoted (at least in my header, including his statement that the government would obey the law). So if he is being criticised it is because of what he has said. Perhaps in future he could think before he opens his mouth or puts pen to paper.
Confused. When has Boris said he will disobey the law? Not at all according to you. So presumably your beef is with the spinners. Fair enough - and there's a fair amount of this on both sides. I missed your header denouncing P. Pullman when he suggested hanging Boris. Selective outrage butters no parsnips I think.
Read the header: Boris has said it on two occasions. In literature to party members and in answer to a journalist when in Yorkshire, both of them this week. I referred to both of these in the header, along with the statement he made to the House which, interestingly, refers to the "government" complying with the law, not himself.
All Labour Leavers have left. So the Remain : Leave split is consistently 54:46. It is paramount that the Labour leadership understands that it is the second referendum which must come first, the general election later. Not the other way round.
Thanks to Corbyn, the Tories are going to win the next general election, but then they will collapse. The No Deal they will deliver and their morph into a hard right English Nationalist Party is not a sustainable offering.
That's basically my view as well. Almost anybody other than Corbyn would do significantly better for Labour, but the cultists appear blind to that fact.
All Labour Leavers have left. So the Remain : Leave split is consistently 54:46. It is paramount that the Labour leadership understands that it is the second referendum which must come first, the general election later. Not the other way round.
Don't be daft. You're right, of course, from a Remainery point of view, but Corbyn will NEVER agree to what you suggest. Never. He's had to be squashed, very hard, to get him to agree to a short delay in the election.
Corbyn is the obstacle for Remainers. Without him, they would be able to force a revote and revoke.
I think 40 per cent looks realistic -- the Tories need to squeeze half the remaining TBP vote.
The Remain split looks the worst you could possibly want, almost 50:50. I don't think Labour can afford to let the LibDems take so much of the Remain vote because they risk being supplanted.
Sure, tactical voting will take place, but it is never 100 per cent efficient.
I expect more to follow after Clarke's statement. It signals a walking-away.
Bye then if so.
Maybe the Wets can takeover the LDs. At least then when Brexit is behind us there's a party that could align with the Tories. Then the LDs can die again.
I think one point we are all forgetting - particularly when looking at the polling - is that acts that are illegal, unconstitutional or downright crazy are not necessarily unpopular. A few obvious examples spring to mind - Bonar Law's support for the UVF, Thatcher's use of the police without showing their numbers in the miners' strike, George III sacking Portland in 1783. And that's just in this country - de Gaulle's coup in 1958 would also be a good example. The key was the people doing the rule breaking were popular and those being hammered were not.
Johnson remains personally popular due to his TV appearances, and he is offering to leave the EU which, like it or not, whether its supporters know what they're doing or not, is a popular programme. So the fact he is breaking every rule in the book and a number that aren't may not condemn him as it should.
Indeed. It is one reason why I think his approach could win him the next GE.
But it is still wrong. Breaking the law is wrong. And having a government which does this degrades our polity, degrades our country and should be criticised. Morality and legality do not depend on popularity. They matter more - in the end - than popularity. Without integrity we are nothing as a people or as a country, however unfashionable or unpopular it may be to say so.
Just came back from Scotland after probably my most epic week of railway geekery ever!
On Monday evening did Stirling to Alloa, as well as Camelon (near Falkirk) to Larbert. Tuesday did Craigendoran to Oban (one of the West Highland Lines) Wednesday did Ladybank to Perth and Aviemore to Inverness Thursday did Crianlarich to Mallaig (the other West Highland) Friday did Leuchars to Dundee to Aberdeen And finally today did the loop from Inverkeithing round to Kirkcaldy via Cowdenbeath
That just leaves Inverness to Kyle, Inverness to Thurso and Wick, and Inverness to Aberdeen for me to complete the normal weekday National Rail network of Great Britain!
But will probably will wait until the days get longer again in the spring, though.
Its fascinating, the remainers are deserting the Tories and Boris but all it is doing is stiffening the support of brexiteers behind him, it's like every desertion by a remainer convinces that its Boris not Farage that is the deliverer of Brexit. If leave is more United than remain in voting plan then none of this is de facto harmful to the Tories electorally, but what is the cost long term?
I think 40 per cent looks realistic -- the Tories need to squeeze half the remaining TBP vote.
The Remain split looks the worst you could possibly want, almost 50:50. I don't think Labour can afford to let the LibDems take so much of the Remain vote because they risk being supplanted.
Sure, tactical voting will take place, but it is never 100 per cent efficient.
Corbyn has to come out now. completely in favour of revote and revoke, to staunch the bleeding of votes to the Lib Dems.
It's too late for him to stop Labour being roundly beaten in any election, but right now he risks - as you say - Labour being supplanted as the opposition.
Again I predicted this last week. If Britain post Bexitref copies Scotland post indyref, then the party most opposed to Brexit - Lib Dems - should greatly benefit from the polarisation, just as the Scots Tories benefited from being the hardcore Unionist party.
The problem is the strong Conservative numbers will re-enforce the desire of those opposed to No Deal not to give Johnson his election.
He has the polling numbers, they have the Parliamentary numbers.
Can Johnson hold the line if an alternative Government were to sign up to a 12-24 month extension and then just sit there in Parliament blocking every attempt at a GE? Johnson would have to wait until 2022 by which time 2016 will be ancient history.
Thanks to Corbyn, the Tories are going to win the next general election, but then they will collapse. The No Deal they will deliver and their morph into a hard right English Nationalist Party is not a sustainable offering.
That's basically my view as well. Almost anybody other than Corbyn would do significantly better for Labour, but the cultists appear blind to that fact.
The big Tory issue is how to deliver a Brexit that works for its new voter demographic. A cabinet of hard right, post-Thatcherites, supported by a much more right-wing cohort of MPs than even now, is not going to be throwing money at provincial, working class England for very long once the realities of No Deal bite.
One thing I do find confusing is why Boris has failed to make bigger inroads into the BXP vote. Certainly a potential mine to exploit in the GE campaign
Comments
But when people make the respect the vote argument they are seeking to present as better than their opponents, and that is not the case when that lack of respect fo the vote is countered with a lack of respect for the law. I'll give hyufd some credit for that at least, he does not seek to hold a moral high ground, he sees it as a war in which anything goes, however awful I think that view is.
Whatever else, because of his status, it presages more ructions within the Tory party.
This is your fundamental misunderstanding. It is not a constitutional mess at all. The law has been passed. The PM is obliged to implement it. In the same way that he is obliged to implement a court ruling which he vehemently opposes.
If he does not want to do this, he resigns. Quite why a 3 month delay should be such a matter of conscience is another matter of course. It's not exactly the agonies of Antigone, is it?
It may be a political crisis. But that does not make it a constitutional or legal one. There has always been the opportunity for MPs other than from the governing party to make legislation.
The only reason it is a problem is because Boris stupidly made a promise that boxed him in and which now he cannot keep. He should swallow his pride and use the time afforded to negotiate for the deal he claims he wants.
Our constitutional rules are not there to save a politician's face from the consequences of his own stupidity. The conflation of the blow to Boris's amour propre into some sort of constitutional crisis is a mark of a party which has forgotten that we have a government of laws, not a government of men.
It is about bloody time we remembered this important lesson.
And don't get me started on the number of times I've been on a 5:30 am red eye and, as I sip my first coffee of the day on the flight I realise I've left my dongle at home / in the hotel and it's either another few days without one or another £75 expenses bill for my employer.
@Tyson if you're having a problem with typos I recommend an app called Unshaky, it solves the double keypress problem.
But it's an absolute disgrace that a +£2k machine needs a third party app to make the keyboard work properly. In case you haven't figured it out the MBP belongs to my employer... I wouldn't pay fifty quid for one.
The fact that the Leave vote has proved so difficult to implement is not a reason to start disobeying laws. None at all. A PM should be saying this not behaving like a child pointing at the other and whingeing: "he started it!"
And it is Boris's own words which have been quoted (at least in my header, including his statement that the government would obey the law). So if he is being criticised it is because of what he has said. Perhaps in future he could think before he opens his mouth or puts pen to paper.
They've been far more interesting in pursuing narrow party political advantage, and meanwhile the country strains at the seams and may yet burn.
It's an absolute fucking disgrace.
In short is Boris legally able to break the law ? What is it that he coukd do or not do that woukd stop the statutory duty on the office of the PM sending the request letter ? That's what I'm not clear on.
Not forgetting that Momentum now has far more control over the Labour Party now than even the Militant Tendency did under Foot and Kinnock
If Boris Johnson has no intention of honouring this law then he should advise HMQ to deny royal assent - then ensure there is time for the Commons to debate what he has done prior to prorogation. If the Commons can live with that decision then it is not the law. If the Commons refuses to accept that veto then the Commons should No Confidence the PM and put in a PM who advises to give consent. Either way the law is never broken and the Commons gets the final say either way.
If the law gets royal assent then the PM needs to obey the law. No ifs, no buts. But it is entirely proper IMHO for a PM to say "I can not accept this law" and veto it - in many countries the executive have veto powers for this reason and ours officially still does too even if it has laid dormant for the last 3 centuries.
Never say never !
14% Tory lead, would be the biggest Tory lead at a general election since 1983 if repeated on election night.
LDs now just 2% behind Corbyn Labour too
The Executive ignoring a law of the land (in Britain, of all places in the world) is a Rubicon that can never be crossed, and we can't come back to.
It's rather surprising to me at times, when I go abroad, that for all our diminished power in the world these days we are still seen as a totem of fair play, good governance, democracy and the rule of law. Many people in other countries look up to that and respect us accordingly.
If we destroy that in collateral damage for Brexit the repercussions will be felt right around the world and affect a far broader spectrum of humanity, in a far darker way.
Tories 404
Labour 149
LDs 41
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?CON=35&LAB=21&LIB=19&Brexit=12&Green=3&UKIP=1&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTBrexit=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017base
I don't think he's had a bad week [bar losing his brother, that was self-inflicted stupidity].
I forecast a few threads ago that if we have a November election it could be
Tories 40
Labour 22
Lib Dems 20
BXP 5
Not far off that here.
Surely even Labour can't mess that one up?
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1170427559517048834
Parliament makes the law. It has passed a law. HMQ's assent is a formality. The idea that a PM should be able to avoid the consequences of defying the law by stopping something which has been passed by the supreme legislative body in this country is for the birds.
This is not a law which would put us in breach of the ECHR or which would be a moral outrage e.g. ordering the slaughter of anyone with a "P" in their name. The only reason he does not like it is because, the poor diddums, he would have to break a promise. And not even a legally binding commitment mind.
You seem to think that our Parliament should be overriden to save the blushes of one Minister.
Loool
Johnson remains personally popular due to his TV appearances, and he is offering to leave the EU which, like it or not, whether its supporters know what they're doing or not, is a popular programme. So the fact he is breaking every rule in the book and a number that aren't may not condemn him as it should.
It is paramount that the Labour leadership understands that it is the second referendum which must come first, the general election later. Not the other way round.
Corbyn is the obstacle for Remainers. Without him, they would be able to force a revote and revoke.
The Remain split looks the worst you could possibly want, almost 50:50. I don't think Labour can afford to let the LibDems take so much of the Remain vote because they risk being supplanted.
Sure, tactical voting will take place, but it is never 100 per cent efficient.
NEW THREAD
Maybe the Wets can takeover the LDs. At least then when Brexit is behind us there's a party that could align with the Tories. Then the LDs can die again.
But it is still wrong. Breaking the law is wrong. And having a government which does this degrades our polity, degrades our country and should be criticised. Morality and legality do not depend on popularity. They matter more - in the end - than popularity. Without integrity we are nothing as a people or as a country, however unfashionable or unpopular it may be to say so.
On Monday evening did Stirling to Alloa, as well as Camelon (near Falkirk) to Larbert.
Tuesday did Craigendoran to Oban (one of the West Highland Lines)
Wednesday did Ladybank to Perth and Aviemore to Inverness
Thursday did Crianlarich to Mallaig (the other West Highland)
Friday did Leuchars to Dundee to Aberdeen
And finally today did the loop from Inverkeithing round to Kirkcaldy via Cowdenbeath
That just leaves Inverness to Kyle, Inverness to Thurso and Wick, and Inverness to Aberdeen for me to complete the normal weekday National Rail network of Great Britain!
But will probably will wait until the days get longer again in the spring, though.
If leave is more United than remain in voting plan then none of this is de facto harmful to the Tories electorally, but what is the cost long term?
It's too late for him to stop Labour being roundly beaten in any election, but right now he risks - as you say - Labour being supplanted as the opposition.
Again I predicted this last week. If Britain post Bexitref copies Scotland post indyref, then the party most opposed to Brexit - Lib Dems - should greatly benefit from the polarisation, just as the Scots Tories benefited from being the hardcore Unionist party.
He has the polling numbers, they have the Parliamentary numbers.
Can Johnson hold the line if an alternative Government were to sign up to a 12-24 month extension and then just sit there in Parliament blocking every attempt at a GE? Johnson would have to wait until 2022 by which time 2016 will be ancient history.
https://twitter.com/rtayloruk/status/1020721701112483841?s=21