Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
No-one is more guilty of caricaturing Leave voters as being anti-immigration than you.
It isn't caricaturing though. Leave voters (with a few exceptions) are anti-immigration, and many of them seem proud of it. I suspect if there was no such thing as free movement and Farage hadn't used his scare tactics Leave would have lost by a wide margin.
If there were no such thing as free movement, or if British people reciprocated the use of free movement of other EU nations, there wouldn’t have been a referendum to lose.
Free movement is reciprocal and millions of British people take advantage of it.
If it were anywhere near reciprocated, there would never have been a referendum. The fact it isn’t is the reason there was a referendum that Leave won.
Hmmm. Which EEA country has the most immigrants from other EEA countries?
Dominic Cummings is not the only player. Lynton Crosby also has the ear of Boris, whom he steered to the Mayoralty and leadership (and thus Number 10). I'm not sure where this gets us for betting purposes but it should be borne in mind even though official relations with Crosby were broken under Theresa May after 2017. Can't think why.
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
I accept both sides have made mistakes . However the polarization and hardening of opinion on the Remain side has been forced by the hijacking of the vote to no deal by the ERG .
We were promised an orderly exit with a deal . As a Remainer I’m willing to accept that but I’ll be damned if I’m going to accept no deal . There is no mandate for that .
Remain MPs voted against the only deal on the table
The opposition voted against May's Deal as they had no say in it and that's perfectly understandable as it was far harder than they wanted.
The idea Hunt is going to become PM is laughable, Labour and the SNP and LDs and DUP would vote against him and the Withdrawal Agreement, which is not going to pass regardless in his current form as it failed 3 times before. The Tories are also not going to vote for Hunt over Boris after he lost the Tory MPs voteand was heavily defeated in the Tory membership vote.
No, the only realistic option for a caretaker PM is Ken Clarke. The Tory rebels and LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership and the Tory rebels would also likely vote down any other Labour PM, only Clarke could get Labour LD, SNP and Tory anti No Deal rebel support to extend until a November general election, which the French have said they would allow extension for.
Boris would of course lead the Tories in opposition while Corbyn would have to face the risk of Labour Leavers seeing him put a Tory in yo block Brexit many might then go to Boris on the basis if Corbyn is willing to prop up a Tory I may as well vote for a Tory who respects my Leave vote
"LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership " - very soon you will have to eat those words and you will be reminded.
The LDs have got another issue here though with voting in Corbyn. Their seats in England - and, importantly, their target seats - are overwhelmingly focused on wealthy but Remain-voting Conservative seats where they were successful last time in flipping from Con to LD. If they back Corbyn, with his policies of attacking the independent school sector (which will have disproportionate influence in these towns), property etc., I think many of their potential voters will switch with Boris for fear of their wallets and, even more so, their kids.
I think the WDA was acceptable to a majority of MPs. If we leave, something very similar to it will be required.
The problem was thst it led to a blind Brexit. The final deal and shape of our future relationship depended on the PM (or next PM after May) and neither the Labour Party nor the ERG trusted that they'd get their sort of deal. That's why they voted against the WDA.
The problem will remain until there is a united overnment with a substantial majority. Even a referendum that votes for the WDA doesn't solve the problem because it leaves open the nature of our future relationship. The PD is malleable.
I half agree. It was indeed a blind Brexit but Lab (for example) would back it on the assumption (certainty, shurely) of winning a thumping victory in the imminent GE and therefore being the ones to negotiate the future trade agreement.
Superb piece Casino although it’s another piece by a Remainer. 🤣
Glad to see you responding to criticism 👍🏻
Although the thrust of the criticism was that the articles were all pro Remain, not necessarily that they were always written by Remain voters. This article is not pro Leave
Yeah because the likes of Alanbrooke and Tissue Price wrote pro Remain pieces.
Superb piece Casino although it’s another piece by a Remainer. 🤣
Glad to see you responding to criticism 👍🏻
Although the thrust of the criticism was that the articles were all pro Remain, not necessarily that they were always written by Remain voters. This article is not pro Leave
I campaigned for Leave, voted Leave and still advocate Leave. I am a Leaver. Further this article describes a course of action which would still result in us Leaving.
So that’s incorrect.
I never said you weren’t a leaver, so the first 15 words there are unnecessary.
It describes a course of action that results in us leaving, of course. That doesn’t make it pro or anti in my book. None of this was a criticism of you, get to work.
So Johnson is going for another pointless 2/3 vote for an election - which it's perfectly obvious he won't get - rather than a bill for an election on a specified date - which he might just get if some of the opposition aren't prepared to move from abstention to votin against.
Why?
I am baffled on this one. Apart from "I tried...." what else could it be ? After all, it was defeated only last week.
1. FTPA call for an election - requires a 2/3 majority fails. This is followed by -->
2. VONC in the PM called tonight/tomorrow. It might be worded as "This House has confidence in the Prime Minister to deliver a No Deal Brexit", for added shitz n gigglez. PM issues a 3-line whip to vote AGAINST. If he loses it, then the FTPA 2/3 majority is circumvented. (If he still wins the VONC, then he has the Confidence of the House to pursue a No Deal, given to him by the Remainers trying to be too clever by half.....)
3. PM immediately activates the prorogue provisions after the VONC vote.
4. The FTPA 14 days for the House to settle on a new PM is by-passed because the House is not sitting. Default is a general election must be called.
5. A general election gets called for 5th November. During the campaign, the PM either gets a deal to recommend to the House after the election (and to the voters) - or it's No Deal and we have left on 31st October as promised.
The idea Hunt is going to become PM is laughable, Labour and the SNP and LDs and DUP would vote against him and the Withdrawal Agreement, which is not going to pass regardless in his current form as it failed 3 times before. The Tories are also not going to vote for Hunt over Boris after he lost the Tory MPs voteand was heavily defeated in the Tory membership vote.
No, the only realistic option for a caretaker PM is Ken Clarke. The Tory rebels and LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership and the Tory rebels would also likely vote down any other Labour PM, only Clarke could get Labour LD, SNP and Tory anti No Deal rebel support to extend until a November general election, which the French have said they would allow extension for.
Boris would of course lead the Tories in opposition while Corbyn would have to face the risk of Labour Leavers seeing him put a Tory in yo block Brexit many might then go to Boris on the basis if Corbyn is willing to prop up a Tory I may as well vote for a Tory who respects my Leave vote
"LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership " - very soon you will have to eat those words and you will be reminded.
Interesting to re write the last paragraph with Corbyn as PM and everybody including farage telling the electorate that Johnson has handed the key over to Corbyn. Remember the need to support corbyn as PM only comes if VONC if Johnson resigns then corbyn is PM and gets to try and form a government.
The idea Hunt is going to become PM is laughable, Labour and the SNP and LDs and DUP would vote against him and the Withdrawal Agreement, which is not going to pass regardless in his current form as it failed 3 times before. The Tories are also not going to vote for Hunt over Boris after he lost the Tory MPs voteand was heavily defeated in the Tory membership vote.
No, the only realistic option for a caretaker PM is Ken Clarke. The Tory rebels and LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership and the Tory rebels would also likely vote down any other Labour PM, only Clarke could get Labour LD, SNP and Tory anti No Deal rebel support to extend until a November general election, which the French have said they would allow extension for.
Boris would of course lead the Tories in opposition while Corbyn would have to face the risk of Labour Leavers seeing him put a Tory in yo block Brexit many might then go to Boris on the basis if Corbyn is willing to prop up a Tory I may as well vote for a Tory who respects my Leave vote
"LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership " - very soon you will have to eat those words and you will be reminded.
The LDs have got another issue here though with voting in Corbyn. Their seats in England - and, importantly, their target seats - are overwhelmingly focused on wealthy but Remain-voting Conservative seats where they were successful last time in flipping from Con to LD. If they back Corbyn, with his policies of attacking the independent school sector (which will have disproportionate influence in these towns), property etc., I think many of their potential voters will switch with Boris for fear of their wallets and, even more so, their kids.
LDs have form. They helped enact Student Tuition Fees increase after going out of their way with pledges etc. not to do it. Swinson was one of them.
Superb piece Casino although it’s another piece by a Remainer. 🤣
Glad to see you responding to criticism 👍🏻
Although the thrust of the criticism was that the articles were all pro Remain, not necessarily that they were always written by Remain voters. This article is not pro Leave
To be fair this thread looks at a possible scenario with betting implications, which I much prefer to the "this is terrible, I don't like what's happening" threads.
Yes it’s preferable to the Remain repeats. I bothered to read it all which is highly unusual.
So Johnson is going for another pointless 2/3 vote for an election - which it's perfectly obvious he won't get - rather than a bill for an election on a specified date - which he might just get if some of the opposition aren't prepared to move from abstention to votin against.
Why?
I am baffled on this one. Apart from "I tried...." what else could it be ? After all, it was defeated only last week.
1. FTPA call for an election - requires a 2/3 majority fails. This is followed by -->
2. VONC in the PM called tonight/tomorrow. It might be worded as "This House has confidence in the Prime Minister to deliver a No Deal Brexit", for added shitz n gigglez. PM issues a 3-line whip to vote AGAINST. If he loses it, then the FTPA 2/3 majority is circumvented. (If he still wins the VONC, then he has the Confidence of the House to pursue a No Deal, given to him by the Remainers trying to be too clever by half.....)
3. PM immediately activates the prorogue provisions after the VONC vote.
4. The FTPA 14 days for the House to settle on a new PM is by-passed because the House is not sitting. Default is a general election must be called.
5. A general election gets called for 5th November. During the campaign, the PM either gets a deal to recommend to the House after the election (and to the voters) - or it's No Deal and we have left on 31st October as promised.
Discuss.
How does anyone except the LOTO call a VONC that takes priority over the business already scheduled for this week?
The idea Hunt is going to become PM is laughable, Labour and the SNP and LDs and DUP would vote against him and the Withdrawal Agreement, which is not going to pass regardless in his current form as it failed 3 times before. The Tories are also not going to vote for Hunt over Boris after he lost the Tory MPs voteand was heavily defeated in the Tory membership vote.
No, the only realistic option for a caretaker PM is Ken Clarke. The Tory rebels and LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership and the Tory rebels would also likely vote down any other Labour PM, only Clarke could get Labour LD, SNP and Tory anti No Deal rebel support to extend until a November general election, which the French have said they would allow extension for.
Boris would of course lead the Tories in opposition while Corbyn would have to face the risk of Labour Leavers seeing him put a Tory in yo block Brexit many might then go to Boris on the basis if Corbyn is willing to prop up a Tory I may as well vote for a Tory who respects my Leave vote
"LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership " - very soon you will have to eat those words and you will be reminded.
The LDs have got another issue here though with voting in Corbyn. Their seats in England - and, importantly, their target seats - are overwhelmingly focused on wealthy but Remain-voting Conservative seats where they were successful last time in flipping from Con to LD. If they back Corbyn, with his policies of attacking the independent school sector (which will have disproportionate influence in these towns), property etc., I think many of their potential voters will switch with Boris for fear of their wallets and, even more so, their kids.
Yes the LDs will vote down Corbyn PM as Swinson has confirmed
I think the WDA was acceptable to a majority of MPs. If we leave, something very similar to it will be required.
The problem was thst it led to a blind Brexit. The final deal and shape of our future relationship depended on the PM (or next PM after May) and neither the Labour Party nor the ERG trusted that they'd get their sort of deal. That's why they voted against the WDA.
The problem will remain until there is a united overnment with a substantial majority. Even a referendum that votes for the WDA doesn't solve the problem because it leaves open the nature of our future relationship. The PD is malleable.
If Boris wins a majority the Withdrawal Agreement will likely pass albeit with a NI only backstop until a technical solution for the Irish border is found as suggested last night
Just out of interest, what was your opinion on the NI only backstop back when Theresa May was saying that it could never be accepted by any UK PM?
And since this was the EU’s solution, with the full UK backstop May’s preference, why would he be able to pass the former but not the latter? The current deal does not preclude switching to the latter subsequently, so actually provides more flexibility for the UK.
I am sitting here wondering what the master plan is. Here are a few ideas that I have.
One. The Brexit Party backers have placed large bets on sterling going back up and will refuse to do a deal with the Tories at the last minute.
Two. BJ will offer Scotland independence to ensure he stays in power.
Three. Remainer MPs decide they have nothing left to lose and take full control under someone like Ken Clarke as discussed here and complete a Norwegian style Brexit over next couple of years.
In the real world of business we have now entered recession and the signs are that unemployment is going to start rising rapidly. The real world events are shortly going to overtake the Brexit discussion. For the last 3 1/2 years I saw no real evidence of Brexit having an impact but since the summer the levels of weakness amongst our UK customers and desperation amongst our suppliers has grown rapidly. We luckily started our diversification as soon as the vote was announced and rely less and less on the UK.
One thing missing in Casino Royale's fascinating article is that if he fails to get a deal fromt he EU at the European Council meeting Johnson has to request an extension by 19th October. If he doesn't, then he is breaking the law. At that poijnt the courts will get involved and, presumably, those Tory ministers and MPs who believe in the rule of law will resign.
An interesting point is whether not obeying the law while in public office disqualifies people from seeking public office. Does anyone know? If so, quite a few political careers could be ending quite soon.
They will comply with the law or resign. There is a small chance they can get a court to give them a favourable interpretation of the law.
The pampered multi-millionaire elite cabinet will not risk personal bankruptcy for this, which is what would happen from civil claims if they delivered no deal against a clear cut law.
The civil claims is an interesting point. Any lawyers wish to comment? Would a PM who pursued a policy in contravention of the law be personally liable ?
IANAL but it is not just the PM but anyone advising him. Rees Mogg is reportedly worth £150m, will he stick his money where his mouth is? (No). Life in prison is also a possible if very unlikely sanction.
If Boris was given life in prison for respecting the will of the people, the backlash from Leavers would be on a scale not seen in this country since the civil war and the Gordon riots
Is 'life' in prison your latest absurd comment to the debate.
If Boris fails to comply with the law he will rightly be banned from public office and may receive a suspended sentence
It is utterly bewildering to think that any PM would consider breaking the law
So Johnson is going for another pointless 2/3 vote for an election - which it's perfectly obvious he won't get - rather than a bill for an election on a specified date - which he might just get if some of the opposition aren't prepared to move from abstention to votin against.
Why?
I am baffled on this one. Apart from "I tried...." what else could it be ? After all, it was defeated only last week.
1. FTPA call for an election - requires a 2/3 majority fails. This is followed by -->
2. VONC in the PM called tonight/tomorrow. It might be worded as "This House has confidence in the Prime Minister to deliver a No Deal Brexit", for added shitz n gigglez. PM issues a 3-line whip to vote AGAINST. If he loses it, then the FTPA 2/3 majority is circumvented. (If he still wins the VONC, then he has the Confidence of the House to pursue a No Deal, given to him by the Remainers trying to be too clever by half.....)
3. PM immediately activates the prorogue provisions after the VONC vote.
4. The FTPA 14 days for the House to settle on a new PM is by-passed because the House is not sitting. Default is a general election must be called.
5. A general election gets called for 5th November. During the campaign, the PM either gets a deal to recommend to the House after the election (and to the voters) - or it's No Deal and we have left on 31st October as promised.
Discuss.
The vonc would be treated according to its implications not the wording. So other parties would vote for and the govt against. Not great for either side (Boris ridiculed for having no confidence in himself, Labour ridiculed for supporting Boris), terrible for public trust in parliament and our democracy but thats what would have to happen.
Superb piece Casino although it’s another piece by a Remainer. 🤣
Glad to see you responding to criticism 👍🏻
Although the thrust of the criticism was that the articles were all pro Remain, not necessarily that they were always written by Remain voters. This article is not pro Leave
Yeah because the likes of Alanbrooke and Tissue Price wrote pro Remain pieces.
They wrote maybe 6 in 3 years. The bias is obvious, but I don’t care, I don’t read them, just pointed it out. No need for a squabble.
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
I accept both sides have made mistakes . However the polarization and hardening of opinion on the Remain side has been forced by the hijacking of the vote to no deal by the ERG .
We were promised an orderly exit with a deal . As a Remainer I’m willing to accept that but I’ll be damned if I’m going to accept no deal . There is no mandate for that .
Some have been so forced. As an anti no dealer myself I didnt start out seeking to remain.
But lets not kid ourselves that the hardening is purely in response to others. A large number fought tooth and nail from the start, seeking delay, and clearly dont want to accept an exit that is orderly as that was opposed too.
So wouldn’t the bigger man resist that and argue courageously and vociferously for a compromise?
So Johnson is going for another pointless 2/3 vote for an election - which it's perfectly obvious he won't get - rather than a bill for an election on a specified date - which he might just get if some of the opposition aren't prepared to move from abstention to votin against.
Why?
I am baffled on this one. Apart from "I tried...." what else could it be ? After all, it was defeated only last week.
1. FTPA call for an election - requires a 2/3 majority fails. This is followed by -->
2. VONC in the PM called tonight/tomorrow. It might be worded as "This House has confidence in the Prime Minister to deliver a No Deal Brexit", for added shitz n gigglez. PM issues a 3-line whip to vote AGAINST. If he loses it, then the FTPA 2/3 majority is circumvented. (If he still wins the VONC, then he has the Confidence of the House to pursue a No Deal, given to him by the Remainers trying to be too clever by half.....)
3. PM immediately activates the prorogue provisions after the VONC vote.
4. The FTPA 14 days for the House to settle on a new PM is by-passed because the House is not sitting. Default is a general election must be called.
5. A general election gets called for 5th November. During the campaign, the PM either gets a deal to recommend to the House after the election (and to the voters) - or it's No Deal and we have left on 31st October as promised.
Discuss.
The vonc would be treated according to its implications not the wording. So other parties would vote for and the govt against. Not great for either side (Boris ridiculed for having no confidence in himself, Labour ridiculed for supporting Boris), terrible for public trust in parliament and our democracy but thats what would have to happen.
Look at the numbers.
Tell me if the SNP will give confidence to Boris.....
So Johnson is going for another pointless 2/3 vote for an election - which it's perfectly obvious he won't get - rather than a bill for an election on a specified date - which he might just get if some of the opposition aren't prepared to move from abstention to votin against.
Why?
I am baffled on this one. Apart from "I tried...." what else could it be ? After all, it was defeated only last week.
1. FTPA call for an election - requires a 2/3 majority fails. This is followed by -->
2. VONC in the PM called tonight/tomorrow. It might be worded as "This House has confidence in the Prime Minister to deliver a No Deal Brexit", for added shitz n gigglez. PM issues a 3-line whip to vote AGAINST. If he loses it, then the FTPA 2/3 majority is circumvented. (If he still wins the VONC, then he has the Confidence of the House to pursue a No Deal, given to him by the Remainers trying to be too clever by half.....)
3. PM immediately activates the prorogue provisions after the VONC vote.
4. The FTPA 14 days for the House to settle on a new PM is by-passed because the House is not sitting. Default is a general election must be called.
5. A general election gets called for 5th November. During the campaign, the PM either gets a deal to recommend to the House after the election (and to the voters) - or it's No Deal and we have left on 31st October as promised.
Discuss.
Obviously it wouldn't be straightforward, but there is a possible way around the fact that the House isn't sitting. If it became clear that a majority of MPs would support an alternative government, the Queen could appoint another prime minister and then the new session could be started immediately on the new prime minister's advice.
The idea Hunt is going to become PM is laughable, Labour and the SNP and LDs and DUP would vote against him and the Withdrawal Agreement, which is not going to pass regardless in his current form as it failed 3 times before. The Tories are also not going to vote for Hunt over Boris after he lost the Tory MPs voteand was heavily defeated in the Tory membership vote.
No, the only realistic option for a caretaker PM is Ken Clarke. The Tory rebels and LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership and the Tory rebels would also likely vote down any other Labour PM, only Clarke could get Labour LD, SNP and Tory anti No Deal rebel support to extend until a November general election, which the French have said they would allow extension for.
Boris would of course lead the Tories in opposition while Corbyn would have to face the risk of Labour Leavers seeing him put a Tory in yo block Brexit many might then go to Boris on the basis if Corbyn is willing to prop up a Tory I may as well vote for a Tory who respects my Leave vote
"LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership " - very soon you will have to eat those words and you will be reminded.
The LDs have got another issue here though with voting in Corbyn. Their seats in England - and, importantly, their target seats - are overwhelmingly focused on wealthy but Remain-voting Conservative seats where they were successful last time in flipping from Con to LD. If they back Corbyn, with his policies of attacking the independent school sector (which will have disproportionate influence in these towns), property etc., I think many of their potential voters will switch with Boris for fear of their wallets and, even more so, their kids.
LDs have form. They helped enact Student Tuition Fees increase after going out of their way with pledges etc. not to do it. Swinson was one of them.
And look where that got them on tuition fees. It is only the unique issue of Brexit that has reduced that stain.
If Boris wins a majority the Withdrawal Agreement will likely pass albeit with a NI only backstop until a technical solution for the Irish border is found as suggested last night
Let me just understand this - the Johnson line has been "we leave on 31/10 Deal or No Deal". You are saying if he won an overall majority before 31/10, his preference would be to leave with the existing WA but amended to remove the NI backstop. If, however, the EU refuse to remove the backstop, we will leave without a Deal on 31/10.
If the EU were to agree to remove the backstop, the WA could then be re-presented to the Commons but the UK would then enter a transition period until at least 31/12/20 when we would remain members of the SM and CU and still have financial obligations but no say. Could that be sold to the ERG and others in the Party who are clamouring for us to leave (and not even pay the divorce bill) ?
So Johnson is going for another pointless 2/3 vote for an election - which it's perfectly obvious he won't get - rather than a bill for an election on a specified date - which he might just get if some of the opposition aren't prepared to move from abstention to votin against.
Why?
I am baffled on this one. Apart from "I tried...." what else could it be ? After all, it was defeated only last week.
1. FTPA call for an election - requires a 2/3 majority fails. This is followed by -->
2. VONC in the PM called tonight/tomorrow. It might be worded as "This House has confidence in the Prime Minister to deliver a No Deal Brexit", for added shitz n gigglez. PM issues a 3-line whip to vote AGAINST. If he loses it, then the FTPA 2/3 majority is circumvented. (If he still wins the VONC, then he has the Confidence of the House to pursue a No Deal, given to him by the Remainers trying to be too clever by half.....)
3. PM immediately activates the prorogue provisions after the VONC vote.
4. The FTPA 14 days for the House to settle on a new PM is by-passed because the House is not sitting. Default is a general election must be called.
5. A general election gets called for 5th November. During the campaign, the PM either gets a deal to recommend to the House after the election (and to the voters) - or it's No Deal and we have left on 31st October as promised.
Discuss.
Obviously it wouldn't be straightforward, but there is a possible way around the fact that the House isn't sitting. If it became clear that a majority of MPs would support an alternative government, the Queen could appoint another prime minister and then the new session could be started immediately on the new prime minister's advice.
But I agree that if Johnson really wanted a general election, he would be trying this and/or a bill specifying an election on a particular date.
So Johnson is going for another pointless 2/3 vote for an election - which it's perfectly obvious he won't get - rather than a bill for an election on a specified date - which he might just get if some of the opposition aren't prepared to move from abstention to votin against.
Why?
I am baffled on this one. Apart from "I tried...." what else could it be ? After all, it was defeated only last week.
1. FTPA call for an election - requires a 2/3 majority fails. This is followed by -->
2. VONC in the PM called tonight/tomorrow. It might be worded as "This House has confidence in the Prime Minister to deliver a No Deal Brexit", for added shitz n gigglez. PM issues a 3-line whip to vote AGAINST. If he loses it, then the FTPA 2/3 majority is circumvented. (If he still wins the VONC, then he has the Confidence of the House to pursue a No Deal, given to him by the Remainers trying to be too clever by half.....)
3. PM immediately activates the prorogue provisions after the VONC vote.
4. The FTPA 14 days for the House to settle on a new PM is by-passed because the House is not sitting. Default is a general election must be called.
5. A general election gets called for 5th November. During the campaign, the PM either gets a deal to recommend to the House after the election (and to the voters) - or it's No Deal and we have left on 31st October as promised.
Discuss.
The vonc would be treated according to its implications not the wording. So other parties would vote for and the govt against. Not great for either side (Boris ridiculed for having no confidence in himself, Labour ridiculed for supporting Boris), terrible for public trust in parliament and our democracy but thats what would have to happen.
Look at the numbers.
Tell me if the SNP will give confidence to Boris.....
Would the Tory MPs allow this? I am not sure they are up for another Cummings wheeze today. Might lose another 20 MPs to the independents.
And yes if push comes to shove, parliament will do anything and everything to block no deal as I have said for close to a year, with leavers protesting that no deal is the default and is therefore bound to happen and coming up with spurious plans that never work as MPs do the things they think unthinkable.
Free movement is reciprocal and millions of British people take advantage of it.
If it were anywhere near reciprocated, there would never have been a referendum. The fact it isn’t is the reason there was a referendum that Leave won.
Which EU countries are we not allowed to move to and work in?
Not the killer question you think it is I’m afraid. I’m saying that British people don’t take up the option of free movement on the scale that other EU citizens do to come here, not that the option isn’t there. If they did, there wouldn’t have been a referendum.
Very surprised you think leavers care at all about the maybe 1.2 million UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU, and that if there were more of us (how many more do you think it would take?) that would persuade them to be remainers. Why?
So Johnson is going for another pointless 2/3 vote for an election - which it's perfectly obvious he won't get - rather than a bill for an election on a specified date - which he might just get if some of the opposition aren't prepared to move from abstention to votin against.
Why?
I am baffled on this one. Apart from "I tried...." what else could it be ? After all, it was defeated only last week.
1. FTPA call for an election - requires a 2/3 majority fails. This is followed by -->
2. VONC in the PM called tonight/tomorrow. It might be worded as "This House has confidence in the Prime Minister to deliver a No Deal Brexit", for added shitz n gigglez. PM issues a 3-line whip to vote AGAINST. If he loses it, then the FTPA 2/3 majority is circumvented. (If he still wins the VONC, then he has the Confidence of the House to pursue a No Deal, given to him by the Remainers trying to be too clever by half.....)
3. PM immediately activates the prorogue provisions after the VONC vote.
4. The FTPA 14 days for the House to settle on a new PM is by-passed because the House is not sitting. Default is a general election must be called.
5. A general election gets called for 5th November. During the campaign, the PM either gets a deal to recommend to the House after the election (and to the voters) - or it's No Deal and we have left on 31st October as promised.
Discuss.
The vonc would be treated according to its implications not the wording. So other parties would vote for and the govt against. Not great for either side (Boris ridiculed for having no confidence in himself, Labour ridiculed for supporting Boris), terrible for public trust in parliament and our democracy but thats what would have to happen.
2. He does not have the authority to pursue No Deal even if he wins. It would be against the law of the land.
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
No-one is more guilty of caricaturing Leave voters as being anti-immigration than you.
It isn't caricaturing though. Leave voters (with a few exceptions) are anti-immigration, and many of them seem proud of it. I suspect if there was no such thing as free movement and Farage hadn't used his scare tactics Leave would have lost by a wide margin.
If there were no such thing as free movement, or if British people reciprocated the use of free movement of other EU nations, there wouldn’t have been a referendum to lose.
Free movement is reciprocal and millions of British people take advantage of it.
If it were anywhere near reciprocated, there would never have been a referendum. The fact it isn’t is the reason there was a referendum that Leave won.
Hmmm. Which EEA country has the most immigrants from other EEA countries?
Hmmm don’t know, but the ratio of EU ex pats in the UK to UK immigrants in the EU is about 5:1. If it were 2:1 there probably wouldn’t have been enough resentment to fuel UKIP to the point where a referendum was felt necessary by David Cameron.
If as Casino suggests Parliament has to choose a leader to take the UK through these troubled waters that person would need several specific qualifications. No personal ambition the respect of most of the house be an international statesperson and have the respect of the EU. In an ideal world they would also be reasonably neutral between Leave and Remain to reflect the ambivalence in the country. The person best able to fit that bill is Theresa May.
Take away the shackles of all the crap she was obliged to spout by the ERG and you have a decent reasonably fair mided human being. And in neutral corner a million miles more respected than Johnson and Corbyn put together
So Johnson is going for another pointless 2/3 vote for an election - which it's perfectly obvious he won't get - rather than a bill for an election on a specified date - which he might just get if some of the opposition aren't prepared to move from abstention to votin against.
Why?
I am baffled on this one. Apart from "I tried...." what else could it be ? After all, it was defeated only last week.
1. FTPA call for an election - requires a 2/3 majority fails. This is followed by -->
2. VONC in the PM called tonight/tomorrow. It might be worded as "This House has confidence in the Prime Minister to deliver a No Deal Brexit", for added shitz n gigglez. PM issues a 3-line whip to vote AGAINST. If he loses it, then the FTPA 2/3 majority is circumvented. (If he still wins the VONC, then he has the Confidence of the House to pursue a No Deal, given to him by the Remainers trying to be too clever by half.....)
3. PM immediately activates the prorogue provisions after the VONC vote.
4. The FTPA 14 days for the House to settle on a new PM is by-passed because the House is not sitting. Default is a general election must be called.
5. A general election gets called for 5th November. During the campaign, the PM either gets a deal to recommend to the House after the election (and to the voters) - or it's No Deal and we have left on 31st October as promised.
Discuss.
Can someone explain to me how the formation of a new government happens under the FTPA? I know the existing gov has 14 to try and get confidence back, but during that time other parties can try and get confidence for their party / leader. How many people get a go? Is it just the LOTO? Can any MP put a potential government forward?
I also assume that in this instance the current provision for proroguement is cancelled and superseded by FTPA (a government that is VoNCd won't bring forward a QS, therefore don't need the five week proroguement). Otherwise does the existing proroguement not give longer for government / opposition forces to form a new government? Are the 14 days calendar days, or business days, I guess is what I'm asking....
So Johnson is going for another pointless 2/3 vote for an election - which it's perfectly obvious he won't get - rather than a bill for an election on a specified date - which he might just get if some of the opposition aren't prepared to move from abstention to votin against.
Why?
I am baffled on this one. Apart from "I tried...." what else could it be ? After all, it was defeated only last week.
1. FTPA call for an election - requires a 2/3 majority fails. This is followed by -->
2. VONC in the PM called tonight/tomorrow. It might be worded as "This House has confidence in the Prime Minister to deliver a No Deal Brexit", for added shitz n gigglez. PM issues a 3-line whip to vote AGAINST. If he loses it, then the FTPA 2/3 majority is circumvented. (If he still wins the VONC, then he has the Confidence of the House to pursue a No Deal, given to him by the Remainers trying to be too clever by half.....)
3. PM immediately activates the prorogue provisions after the VONC vote.
4. The FTPA 14 days for the House to settle on a new PM is by-passed because the House is not sitting. Default is a general election must be called.
5. A general election gets called for 5th November. During the campaign, the PM either gets a deal to recommend to the House after the election (and to the voters) - or it's No Deal and we have left on 31st October as promised.
Discuss.
The vonc would be treated according to its implications not the wording. So other parties would vote for and the govt against. Not great for either side (Boris ridiculed for having no confidence in himself, Labour ridiculed for supporting Boris), terrible for public trust in parliament and our democracy but thats what would have to happen.
2. He does not have the authority to pursue No Deal even if he wins. It would be against the law of the land.
But the same strategy could be followed for an earlier election date. But does Johnson really want that? Does it suit him better to be forced to extend?
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
No-one is more guilty of caricaturing Leave voters as being anti-immigration than you.
They are far more opposed to immigration than Remainers, I’m surprised you dispute it. It was the reason Leave won, it’s not a caricature, and doesn’t make them the bad guys.
It also means that only versions of Brexit that reduce immigration visibly will satisfy them. That's quite a tough ask. Not impossible, but far from easy.
Superb piece Casino although it’s another piece by a Remainer. 🤣
Glad to see you responding to criticism 👍🏻
Although the thrust of the criticism was that the articles were all pro Remain, not necessarily that they were always written by Remain voters. This article is not pro Leave
Yeah because the likes of Alanbrooke and Tissue Price wrote pro Remain pieces.
They wrote maybe 6 in 3 years. The bias is obvious, but I don’t care, I don’t read them, just pointed it out. No need for a squabble.
Any publication is completely reliant on the people willing to write an article for them (and in the case of this site willing to write one for free).
It seems that leavers aren't willing to write such articles as OGH have said they will publish them - as they did with Philips article last week.
Morning all and having watched with increasing dismay the lengths to which most MPs will go to thwart the wishes of the 17.4 million, I fear the unpredictable may now happen. For weeks we have seen middle class remoaners flounce around the country protesting at how illegal it is for the PM to try and force through a No Deal Brexit which scuppers their wish to revoke A50. Now their allies in the HoC have passed a bill "requiring" the PM to "ask" for a meaningless, kick the can down the road A50 extension. We started to see the violent reaction of a minority last week who see Parliament as the "enemy". Sadly I fear this could end in one of the leading remoaner signatories to the Benn Act meeting the same fate as Jo Cox!
If Boris wins a majority the Withdrawal Agreement will likely pass albeit with a NI only backstop until a technical solution for the Irish border is found as suggested last night
Let me just understand this - the Johnson line has been "we leave on 31/10 Deal or No Deal". You are saying if he won an overall majority before 31/10, his preference would be to leave with the existing WA but amended to remove the NI backstop. If, however, the EU refuse to remove the backstop, we will leave without a Deal on 31/10.
If the EU were to agree to remove the backstop, the WA could then be re-presented to the Commons but the UK would then enter a transition period until at least 31/12/20 when we would remain members of the SM and CU and still have financial obligations but no say. Could that be sold to the ERG and others in the Party who are clamouring for us to leave (and not even pay the divorce bill) ?
The argument will be that the ERG and DUP will not matter as many Labour MPs will support the NI Backstop only version of the WA. Personally, I doubt it.
One thing missing in Casino Royale's fascinating article is that if he fails to get a deal fromt he EU at the European Council meeting Johnson has to request an extension by 19th October. If he doesn't, then he is breaking the law. At that poijnt the courts will get involved and, presumably, those Tory ministers and MPs who believe in the rule of law will resign.
An interesting point is whether not obeying the law while in public office disqualifies people from seeking public office. Does anyone know? If so, quite a few political careers could be ending quite soon.
They will comply with the law or resign. There is a small chance they can get a court to give them a favourable interpretation of the law.
The pampered multi-millionaire elite cabinet will not risk personal bankruptcy for this, which is what would happen from civil claims if they delivered no deal against a clear cut law.
The civil claims is an interesting point. Any lawyers wish to comment? Would a PM who pursued a policy in contravention of the law be personally liable ?
IANAL but it is not just the PM but anyone advising him. Rees Mogg is reportedly worth £150m, will he stick his money where his mouth is? (No). Life in prison is also a possible if very unlikely sanction.
If Boris was given life in prison for respecting the will of the people, the backlash from Leavers would be on a scale not seen in this country since the civil war and the Gordon riots
Is 'life' in prison your latest absurd comment to the debate.
If Boris fails to comply with the law he will rightly be banned from public office and may receive a suspended sentence
It is utterly bewildering to think that any PM would consider breaking the law
I do find it very strange how everything has to be immediately turned up to 11 nowadays. It really doesn't help decisions being made when people instantly ramp things up and start complaining.
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
No-one is more guilty of caricaturing Leave voters as being anti-immigration than you.
It isn't caricaturing though. Leave voters (with a few exceptions) are anti-immigration, and many of them seem proud of it. I suspect if there was no such thing as free movement and Farage hadn't used his scare tactics Leave would have lost by a wide margin.
If there were no such thing as free movement, or if British people reciprocated the use of free movement of other EU nations, there wouldn’t have been a referendum to lose.
Free movement is reciprocal and millions of British people take advantage of it.
If it were anywhere near reciprocated, there would never have been a referendum. The fact it isn’t is the reason there was a referendum that Leave won.
Hmmm. Which EEA country has the most immigrants from other EEA countries?
Hmmm don’t know, but the ratio of EU ex pats in the UK to UK immigrants in the EU is about 5:1. If it were 2:1 there probably wouldn’t have been enough resentment to fuel UKIP to the point where a referendum was felt necessary by David Cameron.
How do you get to 5:1 from the commonly quoted figures of 3.2 million EU citizens in the UK and 1.3 million UK citizens in the rest of the EU?
So Johnson is going for another pointless 2/3 vote for an election - which it's perfectly obvious he won't get - rather than a bill for an election on a specified date - which he might just get if some of the opposition aren't prepared to move from abstention to votin against.
Why?
I am baffled on this one. Apart from "I tried...." what else could it be ? After all, it was defeated only last week.
1. FTPA call for an election - requires a 2/3 majority fails. This is followed by -->
2. VONC in the PM called tonight/tomorrow. It might be worded as "This House has confidence in the Prime Minister to deliver a No Deal Brexit", for added shitz n gigglez. PM issues a 3-line whip to vote AGAINST. If he loses it, then the FTPA 2/3 majority is circumvented. (If he still wins the VONC, then he has the Confidence of the House to pursue a No Deal, given to him by the Remainers trying to be too clever by half.....)
3. PM immediately activates the prorogue provisions after the VONC vote.
4. The FTPA 14 days for the House to settle on a new PM is by-passed because the House is not sitting. Default is a general election must be called.
5. A general election gets called for 5th November. During the campaign, the PM either gets a deal to recommend to the House after the election (and to the voters) - or it's No Deal and we have left on 31st October as promised.
Discuss.
Can someone explain to me how the formation of a new government happens under the FTPA? I know the existing gov has 14 to try and get confidence back, but during that time other parties can try and get confidence for their party / leader. How many people get a go? Is it just the LOTO? Can any MP put a potential government forward?
I also assume that in this instance the current provision for proroguement is cancelled and superseded by FTPA (a government that is VoNCd won't bring forward a QS, therefore don't need the five week proroguement). Otherwise does the existing proroguement not give longer for government / opposition forces to form a new government? Are the 14 days calendar days, or business days, I guess is what I'm asking....
If I understand correctly: (1) About alternative prime ministers, it depends on what advice the Queen is given about an alternative government commanding the confidence of the House. There are no formal rules, only conventions. (2) I don't think there's any reason to think prorogation would be cancelled if there were a VONC. (3) The Act just says "14 days."
I think the WDA was acceptable to a majority of MPs. If we leave, something very similar to it will be required.
The problem was thst it led to a blind Brexit. The final deal and shape of our future relationship depended on the PM (or next PM after May) and neither the Labour Party nor the ERG trusted that they'd get their sort of deal. That's why they voted against the WDA.
The problem will remain until there is a united overnment with a substantial majority. Even a referendum that votes for the WDA doesn't solve the problem because it leaves open the nature of our future relationship. The PD is malleable.
I half agree. It was indeed a blind Brexit but Lab (for example) would back it on the assumption (certainty, shurely) of winning a thumping victory in the imminent GE and therefore being the ones to negotiate the future trade agreement.
Labour might hope for a thumping majority but they can't think it is certain or even probable. Better to have the GE first and win and then agree the WDA.
The Scotland PMI report has been released this morning. Malcolm Buchanan, Chair, Scotland Board, Royal Bank of Scotland, comments:
“The Scottish private sector remained close to stagnation in August, with only fractional growth signalled by the headline Business Activity Index. The manufacturing sector remained the main source of weakness, although the downturn eased since July. Meanwhile, activity growth in the service sector slipped to a marginal pace.
“Latest data highlighted a fall in new orders following two months of growth, whilst further evidence spare capacity was reflected in employment as firms continued to shed jobs, with the fall in workforce numbers accelerating from July.
“Political uncertainty continued to weigh down expectations, with business confidence the weakest since July 2016. The level of positive sentiment in Scotland was the second-lowest across the 12 monitored UK areas, with only Northern Ireland holding a weaker outlook. Overall, the forward-looking components of the survey suggest firms are expecting further challenging times ahead.”
I can see that there's the potential for him to lead the majority of the Parliamentary Conservative Party into a genuine National Unity government, but his fellow MPs would have to give up on the dream of electoral victory via crushing the Brexit Party.
However, I'm not sure that I can see Corbyn going for it. He'd surely choose to be an Arthur Henderson figure to someone like Watson playing the role of Ramsay MacDonald to lead the majority of the PLP into a national unity government.
I'm less sure that a majority of Labour MPs would follow Watson (or Benn, or Cooper) than I am about the Tories following Hunt - and Tory MPs voted quite decisively, quite recently, for Johnson's crush Farage strategy.
Superb piece Casino although it’s another piece by a Remainer. 🤣
Glad to see you responding to criticism 👍🏻
Although the thrust of the criticism was that the articles were all pro Remain, not necessarily that they were always written by Remain voters. This article is not pro Leave
I campaigned for Leave, voted Leave and still advocate Leave. I am a Leaver. Further this article describes a course of action which would still result in us Leaving.
So Johnson is going for another pointless 2/3 vote for an election - which it's perfectly obvious he won't get - rather than a bill for an election on a specified date - which he might just get if some of the opposition aren't prepared to move from abstention to votin against.
Why?
I am baffled on this one. Apart from "I tried...." what else could it be ? After all, it was defeated only last week.
1. FTPA call for an election - requires a 2/3 majority fails. This is followed by -->
2. VONC in the PM called tonight/tomorrow. It might be worded as "This House has confidence in the Prime Minister to deliver a No Deal Brexit", for added shitz n gigglez. PM issues a 3-line whip to vote AGAINST. If he loses it, then the FTPA 2/3 majority is circumvented. (If he still wins the VONC, then he has the Confidence of the House to pursue a No Deal, given to him by the Remainers trying to be too clever by half.....)
3. PM immediately activates the prorogue provisions after the VONC vote.
4. The FTPA 14 days for the House to settle on a new PM is by-passed because the House is not sitting. Default is a general election must be called.
5. A general election gets called for 5th November. During the campaign, the PM either gets a deal to recommend to the House after the election (and to the voters) - or it's No Deal and we have left on 31st October as promised.
Discuss.
Can someone explain to me how the formation of a new government happens under the FTPA? I know the existing gov has 14 to try and get confidence back, but during that time other parties can try and get confidence for their party / leader. How many people get a go? Is it just the LOTO? Can any MP put a potential government forward?
I also assume that in this instance the current provision for proroguement is cancelled and superseded by FTPA (a government that is VoNCd won't bring forward a QS, therefore don't need the five week proroguement). Otherwise does the existing proroguement not give longer for government / opposition forces to form a new government? Are the 14 days calendar days, or business days, I guess is what I'm asking....
If I understand correctly: (1) About alternative prime ministers, it depends on what advice the Queen is given about an alternative government commanding the confidence of the House. There are no formal rules, only conventions. (2) I don't think there's any reason to think prorogation would be cancelled if there were a VONC. (3) The Act just says "14 days."
2) there is nothing to say proroguing stops. Most of the time you would expect things to continue as you they were to allow discussions to occur but these are definitely not normal times.
If as Casino suggests Parliament has to choose a leader to take the UK through these troubled waters that person would need several specific qualifications. No personal ambition the respect of most of the house be an international statesperson and have the respect of the EU. In an ideal world they would also be reasonably neutral between Leave and Remain to reflect the ambivalence in the country. The person best able to fit that bill is Theresa May.
Take away the shackles of all the crap she was obliged to spout by the ERG and you have a decent reasonably fair mided human being. And in neutral corner a million miles more respected than Johnson and Corbyn put together
I never thought I would see such a glowing tribute to TM from you Roger
I have always maintained that TM is just about the only grown up in the room and it is an excellent suggestion
Morning all and having watched with increasing dismay the lengths to which most MPs will go to thwart the wishes of the 17.4 million, I fear the unpredictable may now happen. For weeks we have seen middle class remoaners flounce around the country protesting at how illegal it is for the PM to try and force through a No Deal Brexit which scuppers their wish to revoke A50. Now their allies in the HoC have passed a bill "requiring" the PM to "ask" for a meaningless, kick the can down the road A50 extension. We started to see the violent reaction of a minority last week who see Parliament as the "enemy". Sadly I fear this could end in one of the leading remoaner signatories to the Benn Act meeting the same fate as Jo Cox!
Leavers threatening violence is nothing new. Virtually every political group in history who repeatedly use the phrase "will of the people" tend to have a violent threat alongside them. Of course they are afraid that it will be unleashed and hope nothing terrible happens.
Surely calling a VONC in yourself is really, really politically stupid.
For all those people saying that the average voter hate politicians trying to be overly clever, this would surely take the cake.
Johnson took the attack line of Corbyn being the first LOTO to not jump at a GE; Corbyn will take the attack line of Johnson being the first PM to declare, in the House, that he had no confidence in his own government.
That is not a good look.
Now, the difficulty is if a government VONCs itself, kind of by definition, everyone should VONC it. This is confidence that the government can govern, after all, and if the PM is declaring his inability to govern it doesn't make a VONC an opinion so much as a fact (probably why pre FTPA PMs could just call elections when they wanted). So it does seem perverse for Corbyn and Swinson to hold the PM in government when the PM has no confidence in the ability to govern...
The FTPA is really a shoddy piece of legislation that seriously messed up our constitutional norms more than I think anyone could have possibly considered at the time. The unintended consequences of what looked like an insignificant thing have been huge.
Good thing we aren't making massive constitutional change any time soon, certainly wouldn't expect any negative unintended consequences from that.
Free movement is reciprocal and millions of British people take advantage of it.
If it were anywhere near reciprocated, there would never have been a referendum. The fact it isn’t is the reason there was a referendum that Leave won.
Which EU countries are we not allowed to move to and work in?
Not the killer question you think it is I’m afraid. I’m saying that British people don’t take up the option of free movement on the scale that other EU citizens do to come here, not that the option isn’t there. If they did, there wouldn’t have been a referendum.
Very surprised you think leavers care at all about the maybe 1.2 million UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU, and that if there were more of us (how many more do you think it would take?) that would persuade them to be remainers. Why?
I just answered some of that in a different response to your earlier question.
I think a ratio of 2:1 would be more acceptable to people at a guess. I think it would make a difference because the UK would feel more European, Leave voters would know people who emigrated to work and made a better life etc The status quo for poor people is that a load of people from countries they’ve never heard of are suddenly a big part of their lives in a negative way. The offer of a job in Lithuania or Bulgaria isn’t enticing to them, so why would they have a positive view of EU membership?
If Boris wins a majority the Withdrawal Agreement will likely pass albeit with a NI only backstop until a technical solution for the Irish border is found as suggested last night
Let me just understand this - the Johnson line has been "we leave on 31/10 Deal or No Deal". You are saying if he won an overall majority before 31/10, his preference would be to leave with the existing WA but amended to remove the NI backstop. If, however, the EU refuse to remove the backstop, we will leave without a Deal on 31/10.
If the EU were to agree to remove the backstop, the WA could then be re-presented to the Commons but the UK would then enter a transition period until at least 31/12/20 when we would remain members of the SM and CU and still have financial obligations but no say. Could that be sold to the ERG and others in the Party who are clamouring for us to leave (and not even pay the divorce bill) ?
The argument will be that the ERG and DUP will not matter as many Labour MPs will support the NI Backstop only version of the WA. Personally, I doubt it.
Why would anyone wanting a closer relationship with the EU (i.e. most Labour MPs) vote for a deal that is worse than a whole UK backstop.
The idea that Labour would vote for it is for completely for the birds..
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
No-one is more guilty of caricaturing Leave voters as being anti-immigration than you.
It isn't caricaturing though. Leave voters (with a few exceptions) are anti-immigration, and many of them seem proud of it. I suspect if there was no such thing as free movement and Farage hadn't used his scare tactics Leave would have lost by a wide margin.
If there were no such thing as free movement, or if British people reciprocated the use of free movement of other EU nations, there wouldn’t have been a referendum to lose.
Free movement is reciprocal and millions of British people take advantage of it.
If it were anywhere near reciprocated, there would never have been a referendum. The fact it isn’t is the reason there was a referendum that Leave won.
Hmmm. Which EEA country has the most immigrants from other EEA countries?
Hmmm don’t know, but the ratio of EU ex pats in the UK to UK immigrants in the EU is about 5:1. If it were 2:1 there probably wouldn’t have been enough resentment to fuel UKIP to the point where a referendum was felt necessary by David Cameron.
Unfortunately those that are objecting to too much immigration only see one side of the equation and many don’t differentiate between EU immigration and the rest
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
No-one is more guilty of caricaturing Leave voters as being anti-immigration than you.
It isn't caricaturing though. Leave voters (with a few exceptions) are anti-immigration, and many of them seem proud of it. I suspect if there was no such thing as free movement and Farage hadn't used his scare tactics Leave would have lost by a wide margin.
If there were no such thing as free movement, or if British people reciprocated the use of free movement of other EU nations, there wouldn’t have been a referendum to lose.
Free movement is reciprocal and millions of British people take advantage of it.
If it were anywhere near reciprocated, there would never have been a referendum. The fact it isn’t is the reason there was a referendum that Leave won.
Hmmm. Which EEA country has the most immigrants from other EEA countries?
Hmmm don’t know, but the ratio of EU ex pats in the UK to UK immigrants in the EU is about 5:1. If it were 2:1 there probably wouldn’t have been enough resentment to fuel UKIP to the point where a referendum was felt necessary by David Cameron.
Germany. Or by percentage of population: Malta, followed by Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Cyprus, Iceland, Ireland, Malta, Belgium, Austria, Norway
I make the ratio closer to 3:1. You may be right that leave would have lost the referendum if EU immigration had been lower (I don't know), but I fail to see what difference the ratio makes. "If only more British citizens were emigrating to the rest of the EU I would vote to remain" seems an unlikely sentiment, especially as it would actually increase the foreign-born percentage of the population in the UK.
One thing missing in Casino Royale's fascinating article is that if he fails to get a deal fromt he EU at the European Council meeting Johnson has to request an extension by 19th October. If he doesn't, then he is breaking the law. At that poijnt the courts will get involved and, presumably, those Tory ministers and MPs who believe in the rule of law will resign.
An interesting point is whether not obeying the law while in public office disqualifies people from seeking public office. Does anyone know? If so, quite a few political careers could be ending quite soon.
They will comply with the law or resign. There is a small chance they can get a court to give them a favourable interpretation of the law.
The pampered multi-millionaire elite cabinet will not risk personal bankruptcy for this, which is what would happen from civil claims if they delivered no deal against a clear cut law.
The civil claims is an interesting point. Any lawyers wish to comment? Would a PM who pursued a policy in contravention of the law be personally liable ?
It’s not easy - the Railtrack misfeasance (slightly different) failed because they couldn’t prove malice aforethought.
I’m not sure you could prove malice with Boris - probably reckless disregard is as far as you could go
No, but we were compensated in full. The damage to the railways caused by deliberately running Railtrack into the ground has yet to be fully undone.
If there is any realistic legal defect in the Bill/Act then I would imagine that the government will begin court action about 10 mins after parliament is prorogued. Clearly the Bill/Act is repugnant to logic and so it is full of logical flaws - the one being bandied about this morning is not the MOST obvious.
Boris wanted a GE on 7 or 14 Nov. Will Labour acquiese to 15 Oct, no but they will live to regret their blunder in not doing so.
I don't think it is (or should be) beyond the pale for the LibDems to support a Corbyn premiership whose job is to request an extension and then call an election (with the explicit threat of a further VONC the next day if he fails). Massive difference between that and propping up a minority Labour administration which is going to actually do stuff.
But I tend to agree with those who think Labour would be better off swinging behind a non-Corbyn alternative (a Clarke or a Harman-type) for the same job. It keeps Corbyn's fingers off the levers of extension, which he probably sees as a good look.
I don't think Hunt is a realistic option - he wouldn't want to become a "disposable PM" against the Tory whip if he still harbours ambitions to pick up the pieces in a future incarnation of the Tory party, and others would be wary of giving a "living" player the kudos.
Morning all and having watched with increasing dismay the lengths to which most MPs will go to thwart the wishes of the 17.4 million, I fear the unpredictable may now happen. For weeks we have seen middle class remoaners flounce around the country protesting at how illegal it is for the PM to try and force through a No Deal Brexit which scuppers their wish to revoke A50. Now their allies in the HoC have passed a bill "requiring" the PM to "ask" for a meaningless, kick the can down the road A50 extension. We started to see the violent reaction of a minority last week who see Parliament as the "enemy". Sadly I fear this could end in one of the leading remoaner signatories to the Benn Act meeting the same fate as Jo Cox!
Leavers threatening violence is nothing new. Virtually every political group in history who repeatedly use the phrase "will of the people" tend to have a violent threat alongside them. Of course they are afraid that it will be unleashed and hope nothing terrible happens.
Indeed. It is a pathetic threat of the desperate who want to force an extreme version of what was offered at the referendum . Yes there are probably a few hundred neo-Nazi thugs they can call on, but it is well known that a large proportion of Leave voters are elderly and are about as likely to go on violent demos as they are to go to a hip-hop gig.
So Johnson is going for another pointless 2/3 vote for an election - which it's perfectly obvious he won't get - rather than a bill for an election on a specified date - which he might just get if some of the opposition aren't prepared to move from abstention to votin against.
Why?
I am baffled on this one. Apart from "I tried...." what else could it be ? After all, it was defeated only last week.
1. FTPA call for an election - requires a 2/3 majority fails. This is followed by -->
2. VONC in the PM called tonight/tomorrow. It might be worded as "This House has confidence in the Prime Minister to deliver a No Deal Brexit", for added shitz n gigglez. PM issues a 3-line whip to vote AGAINST. If he loses it, then the FTPA 2/3 majority is circumvented. (If he still wins the VONC, then he has the Confidence of the House to pursue a No Deal, given to him by the Remainers trying to be too clever by half.....)
As eek said the Johnson can't force a VONC. Corbyn can, and Corbyn's VONC vote will not have your suggested wording. Also as far as I understand if the Prime Minister calls a confidence vote then it is a "Vote of Confidence", not a "Vote of No Confidence", the resulting rules may well be different.
3. PM immediately activates the prorogue provisions after the VONC vote.
This assumes that Parliament can be Prorougued by a Prime Minister, in whom the House of Commons has no confidence. He probably can, but doing so will be a PR nightmare.
4. The FTPA 14 days for the House to settle on a new PM is by-passed because the House is not sitting. Default is a general election must be called.
5. A general election gets called for 5th November. During the campaign, the PM either gets a deal to recommend to the House after the election (and to the voters) - or it's No Deal and we have left on 31st October as promised.
Discuss.
But if there is an election campaign there is no sitting house to discuss any new deal, so cannot be aproved by Parliament, which it must. The Benn Law will still be the law and Johnson will still be PM. If Johnson allows an illegal No deal, the crash out will be 6 days before the GE. The threat would be that if the Conservatives win the GE the Johnson would be removed from the premiership by parliament (in contempt of parliament) at the soonest possible moment once the house convenes.
1. FTPA call for an election - requires a 2/3 majority fails. This is followed by -->
2. VONC in the PM called tonight/tomorrow. It might be worded as "This House has confidence in the Prime Minister to deliver a No Deal Brexit", for added shitz n gigglez. PM issues a 3-line whip to vote AGAINST. If he loses it, then the FTPA 2/3 majority is circumvented. (If he still wins the VONC, then he has the Confidence of the House to pursue a No Deal, given to him by the Remainers trying to be too clever by half.....)
3. PM immediately activates the prorogue provisions after the VONC vote.
4. The FTPA 14 days for the House to settle on a new PM is by-passed because the House is not sitting. Default is a general election must be called.
5. A general election gets called for 5th November. During the campaign, the PM either gets a deal to recommend to the House after the election (and to the voters) - or it's No Deal and we have left on 31st October as promised.
Discuss.
Can someone explain to me how the formation of a new government happens under the FTPA? I know the existing gov has 14 to try and get confidence back, but during that time other parties can try and get confidence for their party / leader. How many people get a go? Is it just the LOTO? Can any MP put a potential government forward?
I also assume that in this instance the current provision for proroguement is cancelled and superseded by FTPA (a government that is VoNCd won't bring forward a QS, therefore don't need the five week proroguement). Otherwise does the existing proroguement not give longer for government / opposition forces to form a new government? Are the 14 days calendar days, or business days, I guess is what I'm asking....
If I understand correctly: (1) About alternative prime ministers, it depends on what advice the Queen is given about an alternative government commanding the confidence of the House. There are no formal rules, only conventions. (2) I don't think there's any reason to think prorogation would be cancelled if there were a VONC. (3) The Act just says "14 days."
2) there is nothing to say proroguing stops. Most of the time you would expect things to continue as you they were to allow discussions to occur but these are definitely not normal times.
I really really hate the FTPA....
Anyone know if during debate etc. someone made it clear if those days are calendar or business days? Because, arguably, if they are business days, all the time of the proroguement would not be included, and so you may as well add 13 days to the length of the proroguement, meaning parliament would not sit again until well beyond Oct 31?
Free movement is reciprocal and millions of British people take advantage of it.
If it were anywhere near reciprocated, there would never have been a referendum. The fact it isn’t is the reason there was a referendum that Leave won.
Which EU countries are we not allowed to move to and work in?
Not the killer question you think it is I’m afraid. I’m saying that British people don’t take up the option of free movement on the scale that other EU citizens do to come here, not that the option isn’t there. If they did, there wouldn’t have been a referendum.
Very surprised you think leavers care at all about the maybe 1.2 million UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU, and that if there were more of us (how many more do you think it would take?) that would persuade them to be remainers. Why?
I just answered some of that in a different response to your earlier question.
I think a ratio of 2:1 would be more acceptable to people at a guess. I think it would make a difference because the UK would feel more European, Leave voters would know people who emigrated to work and made a better life etc The status quo for poor people is that a load of people from countries they’ve never heard of are suddenly a big part of their lives in a negative way. The offer of a job in Lithuania or Bulgaria isn’t enticing to them, so why would they have a positive view of EU membership?
How much do you think that Leavers' views on immigration were, er, coloured by the very visible non-EU immigration of the type that you previously suggested was responsible for white flight in some areas of London?
One thing missing in Casino Royale's fascinating article is that if he fails to get a deal fromt he EU at the European Council meeting Johnson has to request an extension by 19th October. If he doesn't, then he is breaking the law. At that poijnt the courts will get involved and, presumably, those Tory ministers and MPs who believe in the rule of law will resign.
An interesting point is whether not obeying the law while in public office disqualifies people from seeking public office. Does anyone know? If so, quite a few political careers could be ending quite soon.
They will comply with the law or resign. There is a small chance they can get a court to give them a favourable interpretation of the law.
The pampered multi-millionaire elite cabinet will not risk personal bankruptcy for this, which is what would happen from civil claims if they delivered no deal against a clear cut law.
The civil claims is an interesting point. Any lawyers wish to comment? Would a PM who pursued a policy in contravention of the law be personally liable ?
It’s not easy - the Railtrack misfeasance (slightly different) failed because they couldn’t prove malice aforethought.
I’m not sure you could prove malice with Boris - probably reckless disregard is as far as you could go
No, but we were compensated in full. The damage to the railways caused by deliberately running Railtrack into the ground has yet to be fully undone.
If there is any realistic legal defect in the Bill/Act then I would imagine that the government will begin court action about 10 mins after parliament is prorogued. Clearly the Bill/Act is repugnant to logic and so it is full of logical flaws - the one being bandied about this morning is not the MOST obvious.
Boris wanted a GE on 7 or 14 Nov. Will Labour acquiese to 15 Oct, no but they will live to regret their blunder in not doing so.
Labour need an election delayed as late as possible - given how the FTPA works they are merely using it to their (rather than Boris's) advantage.
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
So Leavers love think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
No-one is more guilty of caricaturing Leave voters as being anti-immigration than you.
It isn't caricaturing though. Leave voters (with a few exceptions) are anti-immigration, and many of them seem proud of it. I suspect if there was no such thing as free movement and Farage hadn't used his scare tactics Leave would have lost by a wide margin.
If there were no such thing as free movement, or
Free movement is reciprocal and millions of British people take advantage of it.
If won.
Hmmm. Which EEA country has the most immigrants from other EEA countries?
Hmmm don’t know, but the ratio of EU ex pats in the UK to UK immigrants in the EU is about 5:1. If it were 2:1 there probably wouldn’t have been enough resentment to fuel UKIP to the point where a referendum was felt necessary by David Cameron.
Germany. Or by percentage of population: Malta, followed by Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Cyprus, Iceland, Ireland, Malta, Belgium, Austria, Norway
I make the ratio closer to 3:1. You may be right that leave would have lost the referendum if EU immigration had been lower (I don't know), but I fail to see what difference the ratio makes. "If only more British citizens were emigrating to the rest of the EU I would vote to remain" seems an unlikely sentiment, especially as it would actually increase the foreign-born population in the UK.
I saw 750k uk emigrants to 3.7m EU in the UK, so thought 1 in 5
There wouldn’t have been a referendum to lose if immigration was lower.
If it were a good option for poor British citizens to move to EU countries and improve their lives then they wouldn’t have voted to close that option, is the point I’m trying to make. The fact is that they see FOM as a one way street not a reciprocal exchange.
"No 10 has about 20 different options to defy law intended to block no deal, Tory Brexiter claims
Immediately after the Today programme’s interview with the former supreme court judge Lord Sumption (see 9.07am), for a counter view they put up the backbench Tory Brexiter Nigel Evans. He did not seem too bothered by Sumption’s argument that the straegy outline in the Daily Telegraph would be unlawful. He said he and his colleagues had been discussing in the House of Commons tea room on Thursday what Boris Johnson might do to circumvent the law requiring him to ask for a no-deal Brexit, and Evans said: “We whittled them down to about 20.”
He did not list all 20, but he referred to two: the government tabling a vote of no confidence in itself, or the government passing a one-line bill setting the date for an early election.
Evans also argued that, even though Johnson did not have the support of the Commons, he did have the backing of the public. Evans explained:
You have to remember, 400 MPs represented leave seats voted remain. You really do have parliament against the people. It’s not a great look. And I will be standing alongside the prime minister in trying to deliver what the people voted for.
The two ideas Evans did propose are problematic. The government could in theory try to pass a vote of no confidence in itself, but that would open up a 14-day period during which MPs could agree to support an alternative PM and government. And it could try to pass primary legislation requiring an election on 15 October, but that would require a majority, which Johnson does not have, and it could be amended in ways unacceptable to Number 10."
Is this not just conspiracy to break the law? Like, if they are seriously trying to come up with plans to navigate not having to enact this law is that not, in and of itself, super illegal?
Free movement is reciprocal and millions of British people take advantage of it.
If it were anywhere near reciprocated, there would never have been a referendum. The fact it isn’t is the reason there was a referendum that Leave won.
Which EU countries are we not allowed to move to and work in?
Not the killer question you think it is I’m afraid. I’m saying that British people don’t take up the option of free movement on the scale that other EU citizens do to come here, not that the option isn’t there. If they did, there wouldn’t have been a referendum.
I see. You're distinguishing between those who want to leave because of "overcrowding" and those who want to leave because they simply don't like foreigners. The latter group would always have wanted to leave, no matter how many British people had used the freedom they had to move abroad.
Morning all and having watched with increasing dismay the lengths to which most MPs will go to thwart the wishes of the 17.4 million, I fear the unpredictable may now happen. For weeks we have seen middle class remoaners flounce around the country protesting at how illegal it is for the PM to try and force through a No Deal Brexit which scuppers their wish to revoke A50. Now their allies in the HoC have passed a bill "requiring" the PM to "ask" for a meaningless, kick the can down the road A50 extension. We started to see the violent reaction of a minority last week who see Parliament as the "enemy". Sadly I fear this could end in one of the leading remoaner signatories to the Benn Act meeting the same fate as Jo Cox!
Leavers threatening violence is nothing new. Virtually every political group in history who repeatedly use the phrase "will of the people" tend to have a violent threat alongside them. Of course they are afraid that it will be unleashed and hope nothing terrible happens.
Indeed. It is a pathetic threat of the desperate who want to force an extreme version of what was offered at the referendum . Yes there are probably a few hundred neo-Nazi thugs they can call on, but it is well known that a large proportion of Leave voters are elderly and are about as likely to go on violent demos as they are to go to a hip-hop gig.
PS Mr. NorthCadboll , if you write anything like that again on here I will report it for what it clearly could be seen to be: incitement
Morning all and having watched with increasing dismay the lengths to which most MPs will go to thwart the wishes of the 17.4 million, I fear the unpredictable may now happen. For weeks we have seen middle class remoaners flounce around the country protesting at how illegal it is for the PM to try and force through a No Deal Brexit which scuppers their wish to revoke A50. Now their allies in the HoC have passed a bill "requiring" the PM to "ask" for a meaningless, kick the can down the road A50 extension. We started to see the violent reaction of a minority last week who see Parliament as the "enemy". Sadly I fear this could end in one of the leading remoaner signatories to the Benn Act meeting the same fate as Jo Cox!
Leavers threatening violence is nothing new. Virtually every political group in history who repeatedly use the phrase "will of the people" tend to have a violent threat alongside them. Of course they are afraid that it will be unleashed and hope nothing terrible happens.
Indeed. It is a pathetic threat of the desperate who want to force an extreme version of what was offered at the referendum . Yes there are probably a few hundred neo-Nazi thugs they can call on, but it is well known that a large proportion of Leave voters are elderly and are about as likely to go on violent demos as they are to go to a hip-hop gig.
Even about a third of under 35s voted Leave as did a majority of over 45s.
If diehard Remainers ignore the biggest democratic vote in peacetime history continually and refuse to allow an election either to let the people have a say they will reap what they sow
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
The two sides in the debate are coming to loathe each other. For the “Leave” side (which is my side), our national system of democracy is at stake: For the first time since Britain became a truly democratic country, the political and cultural establishment is refusing under a variety of pretexts to obey a legal popular vote. On the “Remain” side, it seems to have become less about loving the European Union than detesting those who are against it, seen as deplorables who must not be allowed to win.
So “parliamentary sovereignty” has been pitted against “popular sovereignty,” in this case championed by the Johnson government. It is not yet clear how our constitution will cope with this fight between two conceptions of democracy. Who will have the final say — the people or the establishment?
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
I accept both sides have made mistakes . However the polarization and hardening of opinion on the Remain side has been forced by the hijacking of the vote to no deal by the ERG .
We were promised an orderly exit with a deal . As a Remainer I’m willing to accept that but I’ll be damned if I’m going to accept no deal . There is no mandate for that .
Some have been so forced. As an anti no dealer myself I didnt start out seeking to remain.
But lets not kid ourselves that the hardening is purely in response to others. A large number fought tooth and nail from the start, seeking delay, and clearly dont want to accept an exit that is orderly as that was opposed too.
So wouldn’t the bigger man resist that and argue courageously and vociferously for a compromise?
Superb piece Casino although it’s another piece by a Remainer. 🤣
Glad to see you responding to criticism 👍🏻
Although the thrust of the criticism was that the articles were all pro Remain, not necessarily that they were always written by Remain voters. This article is not pro Leave
I campaigned for Leave, voted Leave and still advocate Leave. I am a Leaver. Further this article describes a course of action which would still result in us Leaving.
Interesting article- given it’s from a Leave supporter it makes an interesting change from the NYT’s usual take.
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
No-one is more guilty of caricaturing Leave voters as being anti-immigration than you.
It isn't caricaturing though. Leave voters (with a few exceptions) are anti-immigration, and many of them seem proud of it. I suspect if there was no such thing as free movement and Farage hadn't used his scare tactics Leave would have lost by a wide margin.
If there were no such thing as free movement, or if British people reciprocated the use of free movement of other EU nations, there wouldn’t have been a referendum to lose.
Free movement is reciprocal and millions of British people take advantage of it.
If it were anywhere near reciprocated, there would never have been a referendum. The fact it isn’t is the reason there was a referendum that Leave won.
Hmmm. Which EEA country has the most immigrants from other EEA countries?
Hmmm don’t know, but the ratio of EU ex pats in the UK to UK immigrants in the EU is about 5:1. If it were 2:1 there probably wouldn’t have been enough resentment to fuel UKIP to the point where a referendum was felt necessary by David Cameron.
How do you get to 5:1 from the commonly quoted figures of 3.2 million EU citizens in the UK and 1.3 million UK citizens in the rest of the EU?
Any coalition of the unwilling is going to be led by either Jeremy Corbyn or by someone acceptable to him. So look at the Labour grandees. Margaret Beckett, Harriet Harman and Ed Miliband look most plausible.
This seems like a very dangerous thing for Jeremy Corbyn to agree to. If you have a Prime Minister, supported by Labour MPs, supported by Labour Party members, who turns out to be popular with the voters in general, how safe would Jeremy Corbyn be as Labour Party leader?
Corbyn has a veto, so if it's not him, I think it needs to be either an ex-Con or Sylvia Hermon.
Morning all and having watched with increasing dismay the lengths to which most MPs will go to thwart the wishes of the 17.4 million, I fear the unpredictable may now happen. For weeks we have seen middle class remoaners flounce around the country protesting at how illegal it is for the PM to try and force through a No Deal Brexit which scuppers their wish to revoke A50. Now their allies in the HoC have passed a bill "requiring" the PM to "ask" for a meaningless, kick the can down the road A50 extension. We started to see the violent reaction of a minority last week who see Parliament as the "enemy". Sadly I fear this could end in one of the leading remoaner signatories to the Benn Act meeting the same fate as Jo Cox!
Leavers threatening violence is nothing new. Virtually every political group in history who repeatedly use the phrase "will of the people" tend to have a violent threat alongside them. Of course they are afraid that it will be unleashed and hope nothing terrible happens.
Indeed. It is a pathetic threat of the desperate who want to force an extreme version of what was offered at the referendum . Yes there are probably a few hundred neo-Nazi thugs they can call on, but it is well known that a large proportion of Leave voters are elderly and are about as likely to go on violent demos as they are to go to a hip-hop gig.
Even about a third of under 35s voted Leave as did a majority of over 45s.
If diehard Remainers ignore the biggest democratic vote in peacetime history continually and refuse to allow an election either to let the people have a say they will reap what they sow
Any coalition of the unwilling is going to be led by either Jeremy Corbyn or by someone acceptable to him. So look at the Labour grandees. Margaret Beckett, Harriet Harman and Ed Miliband look most plausible.
Ed Miliband is not going to interrupt his pod casting career.
I love the Tory legal minds trying to devise a way around the law. "What if Boris crossed his fingers while asking for the extension?" "Does 'no take-backsies' have any legal force?"
I think the WDA was acceptable to a majority of MPs. If we leave, something very similar to it will be required.
The problem was thst it led to a blind Brexit. The final deal and shape of our future relationship depended on the PM (or next PM after May) and neither the Labour Party nor the ERG trusted that they'd get their sort of deal. That's why they voted against the WDA.
The problem will remain until there is a united overnment with a substantial majority. Even a referendum that votes for the WDA doesn't solve the problem because it leaves open the nature of our future relationship. The PD is malleable.
If Boris wins a majority the Withdrawal Agreement will likely pass albeit with a NI only backstop until a technical solution for the Irish border is found as suggested last night
Just out of interest, what was your opinion on the NI only backstop back when Theresa May was saying that it could never be accepted by any UK PM?
And since this was the EU’s solution, with the full UK backstop May’s preference, why would he be able to pass the former but not the latter? The current deal does not preclude switching to the latter subsequently, so actually provides more flexibility for the UK.
I did not have a big problem with it until a technical solution for the Irish border was found, that was more Philip Thompson
I saw 750k uk emigrants to 3.7m EU in the UK, so thought 1 in 5
There wouldn’t have been a referendum to lose if immigration was lower.
If it were a good option for poor British citizens to move to EU countries and improve their lives then they wouldn’t have voted to close that option, is the point I’m trying to make. The fact is that they see FOM as a one way street not a reciprocal exchange.
OK right now I see what you are saying.
Just for a different perspective here in Germany (which also has a very ratio of immigrants to emigrants under FoM, and similar numbers in terms of % of population to UK) polling seems to show an even more overwhelming majority of Germans think that Freedom of Movement is a positive thing for Germany, than would vote to stay in the EU if they had a referendum! So obviously more to it than numbers and ratios.
Germany. Or by percentage of population: Malta, followed by Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Cyprus, Iceland, Ireland, Malta, Belgium, Austria, Norway
I make the ratio closer to 3:1. You may be right that leave would have lost the referendum if EU immigration had been lower (I don't know), but I fail to see what difference the ratio makes. "If only more British citizens were emigrating to the rest of the EU I would vote to remain" seems an unlikely sentiment, especially as it would actually increase the foreign-born percentage of the population in the UK.
Of course your sentence is an unlikely sentiment. But if there were more UK citizens living in the rest of the EU, more UK residents would have friends and relations living in the rest of the EU, and many would then think twice about casting them off.
If Boris wins a majority the Withdrawal Agreement will likely pass albeit with a NI only backstop until a technical solution for the Irish border is found as suggested last night
Let me just understand this - the Johnson line has been "we leave on 31/10 Deal or No Deal". You are saying if he won an overall majority before 31/10, his preference would be to leave with the existing WA but amended to remove the NI backstop. If, however, the EU refuse to remove the backstop, we will leave without a Deal on 31/10.
If the EU were to agree to remove the backstop, the WA could then be re-presented to the Commons but the UK would then enter a transition period until at least 31/12/20 when we would remain members of the SM and CU and still have financial obligations but no say. Could that be sold to the ERG and others in the Party who are clamouring for us to leave (and not even pay the divorce bill) ?
Provided the backstop is removed for GB which leaves the single market and customs union and there is a Tory majority not reliant on the DUP then yes I believe most of the ERG would vote for the Withdrawal Agreement, indeed most of the ERG would vote for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3
How many MP votes would Johnson have received in the leadership election if he'd mentioned that perfect execution of his plan would lead to him resigning as PM before October 31st and Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM?
So Johnson is going for another pointless 2/3 vote for an election - which it's perfectly obvious he won't get - rather than a bill for an election on a specified date - which he might just get if some of the opposition aren't prepared to move from abstention to votin against.
Why?
I am baffled on this one. Apart from "I tried...." what else could it be ? After all, it was defeated only last week.
1. FTPA call for an election - requires a 2/3 majority fails. This is followed by -->
2. VONC in the PM called tonight/tomorrow. It might be worded as "This House has confidence in the Prime Minister to deliver a No Deal Brexit", for added shitz n gigglez. PM issues a 3-line whip to vote AGAINST. If he loses it, then the FTPA 2/3 majority is circumvented. (If he still wins the VONC, then he has the Confidence of the House to pursue a No Deal, given to him by the Remainers trying to be too clever by half.....)
3. PM immediately activates the prorogue provisions after the VONC vote.
4. The FTPA 14 days for the House to settle on a new PM is by-passed because the House is not sitting. Default is a general election must be called.
5. A general election gets called for 5th November. During the campaign, the PM either gets a deal to recommend to the House after the election (and to the voters) - or it's No Deal and we have left on 31st October as promised.
Discuss.
Can someone explain to me how the formation of a new government happens under the FTPA? I know the existing gov has 14 to try and get confidence back, but during that time other parties can try and get confidence for their party / leader. How many people get a go? Is it just the LOTO? Can any MP put a potential government forward?
I also assume that in this instance the current provision for proroguement is cancelled and superseded by FTPA (a government that is VoNCd won't bring forward a QS, therefore don't need the five week proroguement). Otherwise does the existing proroguement not give longer for government / opposition forces to form a new government? Are the 14 days calendar days, or business days, I guess is what I'm asking....
Its 14 calendar days. The Act itself is silent on the possibility of an alternative government, it simply provides that if a motion of confidence is passed in the correct form then the election does not happen.
I think the drafters assumed that a situation where the government lost the vote but then were able to cobble together some agreement but it does not specifically provide that. I see no reason why the Speaker would not allow a credible new government to enroll the appropriate motion to test its support in the Commons. If the new coalition won it would become the government.
So Leavers love democracy, and Remainers are snobs. If this is what passes for nuanced analysis on the Leave side, maybe they really are as dumb as Remainers apparently think they are.
A perfect illustration of what the article was saying.
The more extreme Remainers have spent years telling themselves, and virtue signalling to others, how considerate and empathetic to people less fortunate than themselves they are, whilst the type of people who voted Leave played the role of bad guy in their minds. This seems to make it impossible for them to realise that they are, or could even be capable of being, the villains of the piece now
No-one is more guilty of caricaturing Leave voters as being anti-immigration than you.
It isn't caricaturing though. .
If there were no such thing as free movement, or if British people reciprocated the use of free movement of other EU nations, there wouldn’t have been a referendum to lose.
Free movement is reciprocal and millions of British people take advantage of it.
If it were anywhere near reciprocated, there would never have been a referendum. The fact it isn’t is the reason there was a referendum that Leave won.
Hmmm. Which EEA country has the most immigrants from other EEA countries?
Hmmm don’t know, but the ratio of EU ex pats in the UK to UK immigrants in the EU is about 5:1. If it were 2:1 there probably wouldn’t have been enough resentment to fuel UKIP to the point where a referendum was felt necessary by David Cameron.
How do you get to 5:1 from the commonly quoted figures of 3.2 million EU citizens in the UK and 1.3 million UK citizens in the rest of the EU?
There will be EU born people who are UK citizens, and UK born people who are no longer UK citizens.
So comparing EU born : UK born or EU citizens;UK citizens is better than EU born: UK citizens, if you want to paint a fair picture that is.
The idea Hunt is going to become PM is laughable, Labour and the SNP and LDs and DUP would vote against him and the Withdrawal Agreement, which is not going to pass regardless in his current form as it failed 3 times before. The Tories are also not going to vote for Hunt over Boris after he lost the Tory MPs voteand was heavily defeated in the Tory membership vote.
No, the only realistic option for a caretaker PM is Ken Clarke. The Tory rebels and LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership and the Tory rebels would also likely vote down any other Labour PM, only Clarke could get Labour LD, SNP and Tory anti No Deal rebel support to extend until a November general election, which the French have said they would allow extension for.
Boris would of course lead the Tories in opposition while Corbyn would have to face the risk of Labour Leavers seeing him put a Tory in yo block Brexit many might then go to Boris on the basis if Corbyn is willing to prop up a Tory I may as well vote for a Tory who respects my Leave vote
"LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership " - very soon you will have to eat those words and you will be reminded.
I don’t think so. I think HYUFD would be very happy to be wrong on this one. It would help the Tories’ electoral prospects enormously
The message the LDs support the Labour position - in any way - will cost them some of their traditional votes. Not their local election votes but there extra GE votes. There is little that has happened in the last week that Boris's team will find overly unhelpful.
Morning all and having watched with increasing dismay the lengths to which most MPs will go to thwart the wishes of the 17.4 million, I fear the unpredictable may now happen. For weeks we have seen middle class remoaners flounce around the country protesting at how illegal it is for the PM to try and force through a No Deal Brexit which scuppers their wish to revoke A50. Now their allies in the HoC have passed a bill "requiring" the PM to "ask" for a meaningless, kick the can down the road A50 extension. We
Indeed. It is a pathetic threat of the desperate who want to force an extreme version of what was offered at the referendum . Yes there are probably a few hundred neo-Nazi thugs they can call on, but it is well known that a large proportion of Leave voters are elderly and are about as likely to go on violent demos as they are to go to a hip-hop gig.
Even about a third of under 35s voted Leave as did a majority of over 45s.
If diehard Remainers ignore the biggest democratic vote in peacetime history continually and refuse to allow an election either to let the people have a say they will reap what they sow
Morning all and having watched with increasing dismay the lengths to which most MPs will go to thwart the wishes of the 17.4 million, I fear the unpredictable may now happen. For weeks we have seen middle class remoaners flounce around the country protesting at how illegal it is for the PM to try and force through a No Deal Brexit which scuppers their wish to revoke A50. Now their allies in the HoC have passed a bill "requiring" the PM to "ask" for a meaningless, kick the can down the road A50 extension. We started to see the violent reaction of a minority last week who see Parliament as the "enemy". Sadly I fear
Indeed. It is a pathetic threat of the desperate who want to force an extreme version of what was offered at the referendum . Yes there are probably a few hundred neo-Nazi thugs they can call on, but it is well known that a large proportion of Leave voters are elderly and are about as likely to go on violent demos as they are to go to a hip-hop gig.
Even about a third of under 35s voted Leave as did a majority of over 45s.
If diehard Remainers ignore the biggest democratic vote in peacetime history continually and refuse to allow an election either to let the people have a say they will reap what they sow
GE1992 was biggest democratic vote in peacetime history
Morning all and having watched with increasing dismay the lengths to which most MPs will go to thwart the wishes of the 17.4 million, I fear the unpredictable may now happen. For weeks we have seen middle class remoaners flounce around the country protesting at how illegal it is for the PM to try and force through a No Deal Brexit which scuppers their wish to revoke A50. Now their allies in the HoC have passed a bill "requiring" the PM to "ask" for a meaningless, kick the can down the road A50 extension. We
Indeed. It is a pathetic threat of the desperate who want to force an extreme version of what was offered at the referendum . Yes there are probably a few hundred neo-Nazi thugs they can call on, but it is well known that a large proportion of Leave voters are elderly and are about as likely to go on violent demos as they are to go to a hip-hop gig.
Even about a third of under 35s voted Leave as did a majority of over 45s.
If diehard Remainers ignore the biggest democratic vote in peacetime history continually and refuse to allow an election either to let the people have a say they will reap what they sow
Morning all and having watched with increasing dismay the lengths to which most MPs will go to thwart the wishes of the 17.4 million, I fear the unpredictable may now happen. For weeks we have seen middle class remoaners flounce around the country protesting at how illegal it is for the PM to try and force through a No Deal Brexit which scuppers their wish to revoke A50. Now their allies in the HoC have passed a bill "requiring" the PM to "ask" for a meaningless, kick the can down the road A50 extension. We started to see the violent reaction of a minority last week who see Parliament as the "enemy". Sadly I fear
Indeed. It is a pathetic threat of the desperate who want to force an extreme version of what was offered at the referendum . Yes there are probably a few hundred neo-Nazi thugs they can call on, but it is well known that a large proportion of Leave voters are elderly and are about as likely to go on violent demos as they are to go to a hip-hop gig.
Even about a third of under 35s voted Leave as did a majority of over 45s.
If diehard Remainers ignore the biggest democratic vote in peacetime history continually and refuse to allow an election either to let the people have a say they will reap what they sow
GE1992 was biggest democratic vote in peacetime history
It wasn't, 14 million voted for Major, 17 million voted to Leave the EU
Germany. Or by percentage of population: Malta, followed by Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Cyprus, Iceland, Ireland, Malta, Belgium, Austria, Norway
I make the ratio closer to 3:1. You may be right that leave would have lost the referendum if EU immigration had been lower (I don't know), but I fail to see what difference the ratio makes. "If only more British citizens were emigrating to the rest of the EU I would vote to remain" seems an unlikely sentiment, especially as it would actually increase the foreign-born percentage of the population in the UK.
Of course your sentence is an unlikely sentiment. But if there were more UK citizens living in the rest of the EU, more UK residents would have friends and relations living in the rest of the EU, and many would then think twice about casting them off.
They wouldn’t have thought they were doing that. The exceptionalist mindset is that we are a rung above the rest of Europe, so would naturally retain the ability to move there as we please. To those people, Brexit was about ending the unnatural state of equality imposed on us by Brussels.
It’s perfectly logical. In a very difficult situation you can follow the best and cleverest course possible, yet still find this isn’t good enough, as things are so dire.
That’s not a bad summary of what BDSM* have done. And they haven’t failed entirely, yet
*Boris, Dominic, Sajid & Michael - I get bored of writing their names
The idea Hunt is going to become PM is laughable, Labour and the SNP and LDs and DUP would vote against him and the Withdrawal Agreement, which is not going to pass regardless in his current form as it failed 3 times before. The Tories are also not going to vote for Hunt over Boris after he lost the Tory MPs voteand was heavily defeated in the Tory membership vote.
No, the only realistic option for a caretaker PM is Ken Clarke. The Tory rebels and LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership and the Tory rebels would also likely vote down any other Labour PM, only Clarke could get Labour LD, SNP and Tory anti No Deal rebel support to extend until a November general election, which the French have said they would allow extension for.
Boris would of course lead the Tories in opposition while Corbyn would have to face the risk of Labour Leavers seeing him put a Tory in yo block Brexit many might then go to Boris on the basis if Corbyn is willing to prop up a Tory I may as well vote for a Tory who respects my Leave vote
"LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership " - very soon you will have to eat those words and you will be reminded.
I don’t think so. I think HYUFD would be very happy to be wrong on this one. It would help the Tories’ electoral prospects enormously
The message the LDs support the Labour position - in any way - will cost them some of their traditional votes. Not their local election votes but there extra GE votes. There is little that has happened in the last week that Boris's team will find overly unhelpful.
Indeed, posters of Swinson in Corbyn's pocket would go up in Tory Remain seats and Swinson will not do it therefore
The idea Hunt is going to become PM is laughable, Labour and the SNP and LDs and DUP would vote against him and the Withdrawal Agreement, which is not going to pass regardless in his current form as it failed 3 times before. The Tories are also not going to vote for Hunt over Boris after he lost the Tory MPs voteand was heavily defeated in the Tory membership vote.
No, the only realistic option for a caretaker PM is Ken Clarke. The Tory rebels and LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership and the Tory rebels would also likely vote down any other Labour PM, only Clarke could get Labour LD, SNP and Tory anti No Deal rebel support to extend until a November general election, which the French have said they would allow extension for.
Boris would of course lead the Tories in opposition while Corbyn would have to face the risk of Labour Leavers seeing him put a Tory in yo block Brexit many might then go to Boris on the basis if Corbyn is willing to prop up a Tory I may as well vote for a Tory who respects my Leave vote
"LDs would vote down a Corbyn Premiership " - very soon you will have to eat those words and you will be reminded.
I don’t think so. I think HYUFD would be very happy to be wrong on this one. It would help the Tories’ electoral prospects enormously
The message the LDs support the Labour position - in any way - will cost them some of their traditional votes. Not their local election votes but there extra GE votes. There is little that has happened in the last week that Boris's team will find overly unhelpful.
Why would it cost them votes.
Labour offer a referendum Lib Dems can vote for revoke / remain
Both positions work given their target audiences and ensure they aren't identical remain parties.
Morning all and having watched with increasing dismay the lengths to which most MPs will go to thwart the wishes of the 17.4 million, I fear the unpredictable may now happen. For weeks we have seen middle class remoaners flounce around the country protesting at how illegal it is for the PM to try and force through a No Deal Brexit which scuppers their wish to revoke A50. Now their allies in the HoC have passed a bill "requiring" the PM to "ask" for a meaningless, kick the can down the road A50 extension. We started to see the violent reaction of a minority last week who see Parliament as the "enemy". Sadly I fear this could end in one of the leading remoaner signatories to the Benn Act meeting the same fate as Jo Cox!
Leavers threatening violence is nothing new. Virtually every political group in history who repeatedly use the phrase "will of the people" tend to have a violent threat alongside them. Of course they are afraid that it will be unleashed and hope nothing terrible happens.
Indeed. It is a pathetic threat of the desperate who want to force an extreme version of what was offered at the referendum . Yes there are probably a few hundred neo-Nazi thugs they can call on, but it is well known that a large proportion of Leave voters are elderly and are about as likely to go on violent demos as they are to go to a hip-hop gig.
Even about a third of under 35s voted Leave as did a majority of over 45s.
If diehard Remainers ignore the biggest democratic vote in peacetime history continually and refuse to allow an election either to let the people have a say they will reap what they sow
Oh dear Boris's doe-eyed puppy dog is back in. Many of us diehard remainers, remoaners, traitors, or what other childish epithet you wish to give us are actually keen to deliver some sort of action on the referendum result, but it needs to reflect the marginal nature of that result, as was stated by the diehard Brexit traitor Daniel Hannon. What most of us do not want to give way on is what will be Putin's favourite outcome: No-deal. We all know the pound-shop Churchill impersonator wants to game the system to please Cummy, but thankfully even Corbyn saw through that one.
Morning all and having watched with increasing dismay the lengths to which most MPs will go to thwart the wishes of the 17.4 million, I fear the unpredictable may now happen. For weeks we have seen middle class remoaners flounce around the country protesting at how illegal it is for the PM to try and force through a No Deal Brexit which scuppers their wish to revoke A50. Now their allies in the HoC have passed a bill "requiring" the PM to "ask" for a meaningless, kick the can down the road A50 extension. We started to see the violent reaction of a minority last week who see Parliament as the "enemy". Sadly I fear this could end in one of the leading remoaner signatories to the Benn Act meeting the same fate as Jo Cox!
Leavers threatening violence is nothing new. Virtually every political group in history who repeatedly use the phrase "will of the people" tend to have a violent threat alongside them. Of course they are afraid that it will be unleashed and hope nothing terrible happens.
Indeed. It is a pathetic threat of the desperate who want to force an extreme version of what was offered at the referendum . Yes there are probably a few hundred neo-Nazi thugs they can call on, but it is well known that a large proportion of Leave voters are elderly and are about as likely to go on violent demos as they are to go to a hip-hop gig.
PS Mr. NorthCadboll , if you write anything like that again on here I will report it for what it clearly could be seen to be: incitement
Comments
It describes a course of action that results in us leaving, of course. That doesn’t make it pro or anti in my book. None of this was a criticism of you, get to work.
2. VONC in the PM called tonight/tomorrow. It might be worded as "This House has confidence in the Prime Minister to deliver a No Deal Brexit", for added shitz n gigglez. PM issues a 3-line whip to vote AGAINST. If he loses it, then the FTPA 2/3 majority is circumvented. (If he still wins the VONC, then he has the Confidence of the House to pursue a No Deal, given to him by the Remainers trying to be too clever by half.....)
3. PM immediately activates the prorogue provisions after the VONC vote.
4. The FTPA 14 days for the House to settle on a new PM is by-passed because the House is not sitting. Default is a general election must be called.
5. A general election gets called for 5th November. During the campaign, the PM either gets a deal to recommend to the House after the election (and to the voters) - or it's No Deal and we have left on 31st October as promised.
Discuss.
Yes it’s preferable to the Remain repeats. I bothered to read it all which is highly unusual.
Just out of interest, what was your opinion on the NI only backstop back when Theresa May was saying that it could never be accepted by any UK PM?
And since this was the EU’s solution, with the full UK backstop May’s preference, why would he be able to pass the former but not the latter? The current deal does not preclude switching to the latter subsequently, so actually provides more flexibility for the UK.
One. The Brexit Party backers have placed large bets on sterling going back up and will refuse to do a deal with the Tories at the last minute.
Two. BJ will offer Scotland independence to ensure he stays in power.
Three. Remainer MPs decide they have nothing left to lose and take full control under someone like Ken Clarke as discussed here and complete a Norwegian style Brexit over next couple of years.
In the real world of business we have now entered recession and the signs are that unemployment is going to start rising rapidly. The real world events are shortly going to overtake the Brexit discussion. For the last 3 1/2 years I saw no real evidence of Brexit having an impact but since the summer the levels of weakness amongst our UK customers and desperation amongst our suppliers has grown rapidly. We luckily started our diversification as soon as the vote was announced and rely less and less on the UK.
If Boris fails to comply with the law he will rightly be banned from public office and may receive a suspended sentence
It is utterly bewildering to think that any PM would consider breaking the law
Tell me if the SNP will give confidence to Boris.....
If the EU were to agree to remove the backstop, the WA could then be re-presented to the Commons but the UK would then enter a transition period until at least 31/12/20 when we would remain members of the SM and CU and still have financial obligations but no say. Could that be sold to the ERG and others in the Party who are clamouring for us to leave (and not even pay the divorce bill) ?
There seems to be no expectation that he will.
And yes if push comes to shove, parliament will do anything and everything to block no deal as I have said for close to a year, with leavers protesting that no deal is the default and is therefore bound to happen and coming up with spurious plans that never work as MPs do the things they think unthinkable.
Take away the shackles of all the crap she was obliged to spout by the ERG and you have a decent reasonably fair mided human being. And in neutral corner a million miles more respected than Johnson and Corbyn put together
I also assume that in this instance the current provision for proroguement is cancelled and superseded by FTPA (a government that is VoNCd won't bring forward a QS, therefore don't need the five week proroguement). Otherwise does the existing proroguement not give longer for government / opposition forces to form a new government? Are the 14 days calendar days, or business days, I guess is what I'm asking....
It seems that leavers aren't willing to write such articles as OGH have said they will publish them - as they did with Philips article last week.
Personally, I doubt it.
(1) About alternative prime ministers, it depends on what advice the Queen is given about an alternative government commanding the confidence of the House. There are no formal rules, only conventions.
(2) I don't think there's any reason to think prorogation would be cancelled if there were a VONC.
(3) The Act just says "14 days."
“The Scottish private sector remained close to stagnation in August, with only fractional growth signalled by the headline Business Activity Index. The manufacturing sector remained the main source of weakness, although the downturn eased since July. Meanwhile, activity growth in the service sector slipped to a marginal pace.
“Latest data highlighted a fall in new orders following two months of growth, whilst further evidence spare capacity was reflected in employment as firms continued to shed jobs, with the fall in workforce numbers accelerating from July.
“Political uncertainty continued to weigh down expectations, with business confidence the weakest since July 2016. The level of positive sentiment in Scotland was the second-lowest across the 12 monitored UK areas, with only Northern Ireland holding a weaker outlook. Overall, the forward-looking components of the survey suggest firms are expecting further challenging times ahead.”
I can see that there's the potential for him to lead the majority of the Parliamentary Conservative Party into a genuine National Unity government, but his fellow MPs would have to give up on the dream of electoral victory via crushing the Brexit Party.
However, I'm not sure that I can see Corbyn going for it. He'd surely choose to be an Arthur Henderson figure to someone like Watson playing the role of Ramsay MacDonald to lead the majority of the PLP into a national unity government.
I'm less sure that a majority of Labour MPs would follow Watson (or Benn, or Cooper) than I am about the Tories following Hunt - and Tory MPs voted quite decisively, quite recently, for Johnson's crush Farage strategy.
2016 £187bn
2017 £190bn
2018 £189bn
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/datasets/businessinvestmentbyindustryandasset
Real world not twatter world.
I have always maintained that TM is just about the only grown up in the room and it is an excellent suggestion
For all those people saying that the average voter hate politicians trying to be overly clever, this would surely take the cake.
Johnson took the attack line of Corbyn being the first LOTO to not jump at a GE; Corbyn will take the attack line of Johnson being the first PM to declare, in the House, that he had no confidence in his own government.
That is not a good look.
Now, the difficulty is if a government VONCs itself, kind of by definition, everyone should VONC it. This is confidence that the government can govern, after all, and if the PM is declaring his inability to govern it doesn't make a VONC an opinion so much as a fact (probably why pre FTPA PMs could just call elections when they wanted). So it does seem perverse for Corbyn and Swinson to hold the PM in government when the PM has no confidence in the ability to govern...
The FTPA is really a shoddy piece of legislation that seriously messed up our constitutional norms more than I think anyone could have possibly considered at the time. The unintended consequences of what looked like an insignificant thing have been huge.
Good thing we aren't making massive constitutional change any time soon, certainly wouldn't expect any negative unintended consequences from that.
I think a ratio of 2:1 would be more acceptable to people at a guess. I think it would make a difference because the UK would feel more European, Leave voters would know people who emigrated to work and made a better life etc The status quo for poor people is that a load of people from countries they’ve never heard of are suddenly a big part of their lives in a negative way. The offer of a job in Lithuania or Bulgaria isn’t enticing to them, so why would they have a positive view of EU membership?
The idea that Labour would vote for it is for completely for the birds..
I make the ratio closer to 3:1. You may be right that leave would have lost the referendum if EU immigration had been lower (I don't know), but I fail to see what difference the ratio makes. "If only more British citizens were emigrating to the rest of the EU I would vote to remain" seems an unlikely sentiment, especially as it would actually increase the foreign-born percentage of the population in the UK.
If there is any realistic legal defect in the Bill/Act then I would imagine that the government will begin court action about 10 mins after parliament is prorogued. Clearly the Bill/Act is repugnant to logic and so it is full of logical flaws - the one being bandied about this morning is not the MOST obvious.
Boris wanted a GE on 7 or 14 Nov. Will Labour acquiese to 15 Oct, no but they will live to regret their blunder in not doing so.
But I tend to agree with those who think Labour would be better off swinging behind a non-Corbyn alternative (a Clarke or a Harman-type) for the same job. It keeps Corbyn's fingers off the levers of extension, which he probably sees as a good look.
I don't think Hunt is a realistic option - he wouldn't want to become a "disposable PM" against the Tory whip if he still harbours ambitions to pick up the pieces in a future incarnation of the Tory party, and others would be wary of giving a "living" player the kudos.
But frankly anything could happen..
He probably can, but doing so will be a PR nightmare. But if there is an election campaign there is no sitting house to discuss any new deal, so cannot be aproved by Parliament, which it must. The Benn Law will still be the law and Johnson will still be PM. If Johnson allows an illegal No deal, the crash out will be 6 days before the GE. The threat would be that if the Conservatives win the GE the Johnson would be removed from the premiership by parliament (in contempt of parliament) at the soonest possible moment once the house convenes.
Anyone know if during debate etc. someone made it clear if those days are calendar or business days? Because, arguably, if they are business days, all the time of the proroguement would not be included, and so you may as well add 13 days to the length of the proroguement, meaning parliament would not sit again until well beyond Oct 31?
There wouldn’t have been a referendum to lose if immigration was lower.
If it were a good option for poor British citizens to move to EU countries and improve their lives then they wouldn’t have voted to close that option, is the point I’m trying to make. The fact is that they see FOM as a one way street not a reciprocal exchange.
"No 10 has about 20 different options to defy law intended to block no deal, Tory Brexiter claims
Immediately after the Today programme’s interview with the former supreme court judge Lord Sumption (see 9.07am), for a counter view they put up the backbench Tory Brexiter Nigel Evans. He did not seem too bothered by Sumption’s argument that the straegy outline in the Daily Telegraph would be unlawful. He said he and his colleagues had been discussing in the House of Commons tea room on Thursday what Boris Johnson might do to circumvent the law requiring him to ask for a no-deal Brexit, and Evans said: “We whittled them down to about 20.”
He did not list all 20, but he referred to two: the government tabling a vote of no confidence in itself, or the government passing a one-line bill setting the date for an early election.
Evans also argued that, even though Johnson did not have the support of the Commons, he did have the backing of the public. Evans explained:
You have to remember, 400 MPs represented leave seats voted remain. You really do have parliament against the people. It’s not a great look. And I will be standing alongside the prime minister in trying to deliver what the people voted for.
The two ideas Evans did propose are problematic. The government could in theory try to pass a vote of no confidence in itself, but that would open up a 14-day period during which MPs could agree to support an alternative PM and government. And it could try to pass primary legislation requiring an election on 15 October, but that would require a majority, which Johnson does not have, and it could be amended in ways unacceptable to Number 10."
Is this not just conspiracy to break the law? Like, if they are seriously trying to come up with plans to navigate not having to enact this law is that not, in and of itself, super illegal?
The latter group would always have wanted to leave, no matter how many British people had used the freedom they had to move abroad.
I wonder what the proportions are?
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1170962438356971520?s=20
If diehard Remainers ignore the biggest democratic vote in peacetime history continually and refuse to allow an election either to let the people have a say they will reap what they sow
Corbyn has a veto, so if it's not him, I think it needs to be either an ex-Con or Sylvia Hermon.
But it will be fractionally down.
Just for a different perspective here in Germany (which also has a very ratio of immigrants to emigrants under FoM, and similar numbers in terms of % of population to UK) polling seems to show an even more overwhelming majority of Germans think that Freedom of Movement is a positive thing for Germany, than would vote to stay in the EU if they had a referendum! So obviously more to it than numbers and ratios.
I think the drafters assumed that a situation where the government lost the vote but then were able to cobble together some agreement but it does not specifically provide that. I see no reason why the Speaker would not allow a credible new government to enroll the appropriate motion to test its support in the Commons. If the new coalition won it would become the government.
So comparing EU born : UK born or EU citizens;UK citizens is better than EU born: UK citizens, if you want to paint a fair picture that is.
That’s not a bad summary of what BDSM* have done. And they haven’t failed entirely, yet
*Boris, Dominic, Sajid & Michael - I get bored of writing their names
Labour offer a referendum
Lib Dems can vote for revoke / remain
Both positions work given their target audiences and ensure they aren't identical remain parties.