Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Halloween’s going to be a massive moment in British politics a

135678

Comments

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    edited September 2019

    kinabalu said:
    How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
    If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.

    The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.

    The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.

    * I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.

    It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    eristdoof said:

    Nigelb said:

    CatMan said:

    If anyone still cares, this thread seems to cover what really happened at the press conference:
    https://twitter.com/MatinaStevis/status/1173615806913159173?s=20

    That sounds fairly convincing. The idea that this was deliberately engineered (bearing in mind the protestors appeared to be British), is a bit odd.

    Both PMs had to make a decision of the spur of the moment. Neither came out of it particularly well.
    Boris is an idiot and coward. All he had to do was turn up, make his speech and leave.

    Who cares if no one heard it?

    The text would have been released to the Press and he then could have left making the Luxembourgers look like they could not organise a press conference.

    Instead, he showed that broad streak of yellow I have long suspected he possesses.

    The other alternative is that he had no speech and was going to wing it with bland platitudes and arming waving. I have no trouble believeing he would try that...
    There were microphones. What Boris had to say would have been heard by the press and the viewers at home. This was all about not having the guts to stand up in front of protestors.
    Exactly.

    However, I am coming round to the view that he had no speech and felt he would be unable to "wing it" with all the yelling and shouting.

    He's not very good off the cuff. After his Luxembourg debacle he was interviewed by Laura K. He was close to incoherent. Where exactly did his reputation come from? If you can't think on your feet being PM is a difficult job.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    CatMan said:
    I think no deal is a disaster and should be avoided at all costs. Really struggling to believe this survey though! Imagine it is an incredibly self selecting sample?
    This is the sort of bollocks you hear from Labour luvvie types eg if the Tories win the GE I am emigrating.. I seem to recall Paul O'Grady saying it. It was bollocks then and its bollocks now
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    edited September 2019
    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.

    I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.

    Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.

    Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
    Defending Johnson by saying he is not as cowardly as Cameron walking away from a constitutional crisis really is scraping an already well scraped out barrel.
    I’m not defending Johnson nor scraping a barrel. I just think it’s a strange logic that causes someone to say that the man who caused the entire mess we are in, then walked away after telling the HofC he would stay, is someone with a sense of duty.
    The mess was caused by the EU referendum, and especially leaves' disjointed promise-everything-to-everyone campaigns

    Blaming Cameron for causing the entire mess for calling a referendum many were crying out for is a little bit off.

    Eurosceptics and especially Europhobes helped create this mess. It's time they took some responsibility for it.

    (Edit: I include myself in this.)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,569
    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.

    I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.

    Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.

    Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
    Defending Johnson by saying he is not as cowardly as Cameron walking away from a constitutional crisis really is scraping an already well scraped out barrel.
    I’m not defending Johnson nor scraping a barrel. I just think it’s a strange logic that causes someone to say that the man who caused the entire mess we are in, then walked away after telling the HofC he would stay, is someone with a sense of duty.
    Cameron walked away to let a Leaver run the show as was proper. Then all the Leavers quit leaving May in charge.
    No, Cameron should have stayed on, however painful that might have been for him.
    The psychodrama might then have played itself out over the course of a few months, rather than three years.
  • Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:
    How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
    If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.

    The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.

    The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.

    * I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.

    It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
    It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
  • Chris said:

    Nigelb said:

    CatMan said:

    If anyone still cares, this thread seems to cover what really happened at the press conference:
    https://twitter.com/MatinaStevis/status/1173615806913159173?s=20

    That sounds fairly convincing. The idea that this was deliberately engineered (bearing in mind the protestors appeared to be British), is a bit odd.

    Both PMs had to make a decision of the spur of the moment. Neither came out of it particularly well.
    Boris is an idiot and coward. All he had to do was turn up, make his speech and leave.

    Who cares if no one heard it?

    The text would have been released to the Press and he then could have left making the Luxembourgers look like they could not organise a press conference.

    Instead, he showed that broad streak of yellow I have long suspected he possesses.
    How this kind of behaviour will play during a general election campaign is an interesting question.

    That would place Johnson under a greater degree of scrutiny and pressure than he has ever experienced (like the period since he was appointed PM, but much more so). Particularly given the Brexit factor. A London mayoral campaign isn't remotely comparable.
    Bozo spent most of the Tory leadership campaign hiding behind the sofa. When he did emerge to face questions his performance was lamentable - his interview with Andrew Neill was utterly clueless, he was obviously unprepared and could not answer even the most obvious questions. His one and only outing against Corbyn (Corbyn!) at PMQs was equally disastrous. His press conferences and TV interviews consist entirely of bluster and fatuous assertions which are transparently untrue (such as his interview on BBC news last night).

    And yet the Tory Party has convinced itself that he is a great communicator.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:
    How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
    If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.

    The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.

    The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.

    * I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.

    It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
    It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
    Under the assumption that ‘revoke’ would win? If ‘no deal’ won, which is entirely possible, we’d be in the same situation as we are now. Which mini deals do we make? What conditions are we prepared to accept for a FTA with the EU?
  • Those who think Boris has some magical masterplan are very probably wrong. I doubt he knows if he really wants to circumvent the law, go for No Deal or go for a Deal, or resign.

    He’s doing what he always does: winging it and making it up as he goes along. To the extent he may have a strategy, that will be devised by others (like Cummings) and the part he’ll play will be monarch of the glen.

    Past form suggests that when the heat gets too much Boris takes the path of least resistance, so if he’s really stuck I wouldn’t be surprised to see him bail out.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,569

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:
    How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
    If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.

    The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.

    The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.

    * I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.

    It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
    It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
    Except there is no mechanism to set up such a thing, and likely no possible Parliament willing to do so.
    A general election might be a highly imperfect proxy for it, but is at least feasible.

    And the politicians more or less mirror the public, however much we might enjoy berating them.
  • CatMan said:
    Whoever wrote that needs to go and look up what the word 'expat' means. Just because they are working over there doesn't make them any less expats. Nor is there some minimum age limit to be considered an expat.

    It might surprise some but many would prefer to be labelled immigrants. Whilst the words might both have very similar meanings, expat is also associated with not integrating, not learning local language and customs and therefore seen negatively. Just because someone is a member of a wider group, it does not follow it is polite to label them as such, especially if the word has a pejorative meaning. Not incorrect, but not polite either.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:
    How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
    If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.

    The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.

    The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.

    * I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.

    It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
    It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
    I don't think either side has the metaphorical balls for that particular course of action - the remain side is deciding between revocation and confirmatory referendum on a deal, and the leave side has decided it basically wants to declare war on France.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,911
    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.

    I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.

    Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.

    Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
    Defending Johnson by saying he is not as cowardly as Cameron walking away from a constitutional crisis really is scraping an already well scraped out barrel.
    I’m not defending Johnson nor scraping a barrel. I just think it’s a strange logic that causes someone to say that the man who caused the entire mess we are in, then walked away after telling the HofC he would stay, is someone with a sense of duty.
    I have some sympathy with the idea that Cameron could never have stayed on, the leavers would have howled him down at every turn.

    One thing is undeniable though, from Cameron through May to Bozo the Clown the Conservative Party owns this mess lock, stock and barrel
  • CatMan said:
    Meanwhile in the real world manufacturing output is higher now than it was before the referendum:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/output/timeseries/k22a/diop
  • Those who think Boris has some magical masterplan are very probably wrong. I doubt he knows if he really wants to circumvent the law, go for No Deal or go for a Deal, or resign.

    He’s doing what he always does: winging it and making it up as he goes along. To the extent he may have a strategy, that will be devised by others (like Cummings) and the part he’ll play will be monarch of the glen.

    Past form suggests that when the heat gets too much Boris takes the path of least resistance, so if he’s really stuck I wouldn’t be surprised to see him bail out.

    Great summing up of our great leader
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861
    HYUFD said:



    Corbyn would be a mouse PM, entirely at the mercy of cats Boris, Swinson and Sturgeon and Tory rebels like Hammond.

    As Boris has shown being PM with no majority offers little power at all and Corbyn would lose a confidence vote straight after extending if he got in at all

    At a press conference on 30th October as Johnson has just announces he has advised the Queen to invite Mr Corbyn to be PM.

    Journalist: "Mr. Johnson, Mr. Johnson, can you explain to us why you have let Mr Corbyn become Prime Minister"
    BJ: "Well yes, thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer that question. I have done it for the good of the country, and er .. to get Brexit done for once and for all by Christnmas, and you're all going to thank me for it"
    Journalist: "But Mr Corbyn has today asked the EU for a long extension and promised to hold another referendum. How is that 'getting brexit done'?"
    BJ: "We, will force an election and we will win! We will win with a mandate to be out by Christmas whatever"
    Journalist: "So you have resigned being Prime Minsiter, so that you can become Prime Minister again?"
    BJ: "Yes, that is my plan, and it is a great plan"
    Journalist: "Let me get this straight, after having promised that the UK would Brexit by the end of October and you would rather 'die in a ditch' than allow an extension, you have allowed your arch enemy, who in your words is a Marxist, into No 10, to get a long extension because you have a plan to get Brexit by Christmas?"
    BJ: "Yes, that is my plan, and by jolly it is a great plan, and come Christmas you will all be thanking me for it"
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,569

    CatMan said:
    Whoever wrote that needs to go and look up what the word 'expat' means. Just because they are working over there doesn't make them any less expats. Nor is there some minimum age limit to be considered an expat.

    It might surprise some but many would prefer to be labelled immigrants. Whilst the words might both have very similar meanings, expat is also associated with not integrating, not learning local language and customs and therefore seen negatively. Just because someone is a member of a wider group, it does not follow it is polite to label them as such, especially if the word has a pejorative meaning. Not incorrect, but not polite either.
    As (currently) citizens of the EU, in what way are they expats ?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    Thank you @eristdoof I had a good laugh.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    If anyone wants a link to the written arguments before the Supreme Court, they can be found here - https://www.supremecourt.uk/brexit/written-cases-of-the-parties.html.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861

    CatMan said:
    Whoever wrote that needs to go and look up what the word 'expat' means. Just because they are working over there doesn't make them any less expats. Nor is there some minimum age limit to be considered an expat.

    It might surprise some but many would prefer to be labelled immigrants. Whilst the words might both have very similar meanings, expat is also associated with not integrating, not learning local language and customs and therefore seen negatively. Just because someone is a member of a wider group, it does not follow it is polite to label them as such, especially if the word has a pejorative meaning. Not incorrect, but not polite either.
    In the sense of the word "expat", they (and I) are emmigrants.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,726
    edited September 2019

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.

    I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.

    Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.

    Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
    Defending Johnson by saying he is not as cowardly as Cameron walking away from a constitutional crisis really is scraping an already well scraped out barrel.
    I’m not defending Johnson nor scraping a barrel. I just think it’s a strange logic that causes someone to say that the man who caused the entire mess we are in, then walked away after telling the HofC he would stay, is someone with a sense of duty.
    The mess was caused by the EU referendum, and especially leaves' disjointed promise-everything-to-everyone campaigns

    Blaming Cameron for causing the entire mess for calling a referendum many were crying out for is a little bit off.

    Eurosceptics and especially Europhobes helped create this mess. It's time they took some responsibility for it.

    (Edit: I include myself in this.)
    I think it’s true to say that Leave campaigned on the basis it would be Cameron who negotiated the departure. Of course they promised the world, that’s what campaigners do to put pressure on the people who have to do the deal. That’s why global warming activists promise Armageddon, rather than a cautious warning.

    I think it was wrong for a PM to call a referendum if they can’t cope with either result. He didn’t have to call it, so the blame lies with him in my opinion, doubly so after fleeing the scene after explicitly pledging not to (a broken promise that seems to be forgiven very readily)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:



    Corbyn would be a mouse PM, entirely at the mercy of cats Boris, Swinson and Sturgeon and Tory rebels like Hammond.

    As Boris has shown being PM with no majority offers little power at all and Corbyn would lose a confidence vote straight after extending if he got in at all

    At a press conference on 30th October as Johnson has just announces he has advised the Queen to invite Mr Corbyn to be PM.

    Journalist: "Mr. Johnson, Mr. Johnson, can you explain to us why you have let Mr Corbyn become Prime Minister"
    BJ: "Well yes, thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer that question. I have done it for the good of the country, and er .. to get Brexit done for once and for all by Christnmas, and you're all going to thank me for it"
    Journalist: "But Mr Corbyn has today asked the EU for a long extension and promised to hold another referendum. How is that 'getting brexit done'?"
    BJ: "We, will force an election and we will win! We will win with a mandate to be out by Christmas whatever"
    Journalist: "So you have resigned being Prime Minsiter, so that you can become Prime Minister again?"
    BJ: "Yes, that is my plan, and it is a great plan"
    Journalist: "Let me get this straight, after having promised that the UK would Brexit by the end of October and you would rather 'die in a ditch' than allow an extension, you have allowed your arch enemy, who in your words is a Marxist, into No 10, to get a long extension because you have a plan to get Brexit by Christmas?"
    BJ: "Yes, that is my plan, and by jolly it is a great plan, and come Christmas you will all be thanking me for it"
    I am assuming that plan was photographed as it was held by one of Boris' SPADs as they came out of No. 10?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Brilliant! 'Random post code generator.' The BBC randomly choose a post code and send a reporter to find a story. and if it's interesting they use it. Spalding was generated and this was the story the reporter found. Spalding is one of the most 'Leave' areas in the country. The case of the £3-50 illegal cigarettes.......

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0001cv9
  • Those who think Boris has some magical masterplan are very probably wrong. I doubt he knows if he really wants to circumvent the law, go for No Deal or go for a Deal, or resign.

    He’s doing what he always does: winging it and making it up as he goes along. To the extent he may have a strategy, that will be devised by others (like Cummings) and the part he’ll play will be monarch of the glen.

    Past form suggests that when the heat gets too much Boris takes the path of least resistance, so if he’s really stuck I wouldn’t be surprised to see him bail out.

    Boris is fundamentally unsuited to being in government.

    And May was fundamentally unsuited to being in politics.

    Do you think there is something wrong with the Conservative party's members and/or procedures which allowed both to reach the top ?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    Cyclefree said:

    If anyone wants a link to the written arguments before the Supreme Court, they can be found here - https://www.supremecourt.uk/brexit/written-cases-of-the-parties.html.

    You say De Kayser...
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.

    I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.

    Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.

    Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
    They are both cowards.

    Is this what Eton instills: a sense that if things get too tough just walk away - your privilege and wealth will ensure you survive just fine, and f*ck everyone else?
    I don't think you can blame the school for that. Character is determined long before the age of 13.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    kinabalu said:
    It’s not confusing, but...

    kinabalu said:
    How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
    Poorly.
  • Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:
    How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
    If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.

    The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.

    The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.

    * I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.

    It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
    I'm guessing it would just be May's Deal, but with permanent CU membership, single market alignment, and maybe some tweaks on state aid thrown in. I can't see why the EU would necessarily be opposed to that, as it would keep us close to the single market and wouldn't have to worry about us undercutting them. That way, in the unlikely event we did vote to the leave in ref2*, we'd still maintain a close economic relationship with them.
    *I'm assuming we'd likely vote to remain, because Farage, Steve Baker etc... would mostly boycott the referendum if the leave option was Corbyn's version.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    Cyclefree said:

    If anyone wants a link to the written arguments before the Supreme Court, they can be found here - https://www.supremecourt.uk/brexit/written-cases-of-the-parties.html.

    Can anyone tell me what “[t]he” means? What significance do the square brackets have?
    I’ve tried to Google but to no avail.
  • Those who think Boris has some magical masterplan are very probably wrong. I doubt he knows if he really wants to circumvent the law, go for No Deal or go for a Deal, or resign.

    He’s doing what he always does: winging it and making it up as he goes along. To the extent he may have a strategy, that will be devised by others (like Cummings) and the part he’ll play will be monarch of the glen.

    Past form suggests that when the heat gets too much Boris takes the path of least resistance, so if he’s really stuck I wouldn’t be surprised to see him bail out.

    Boris is fundamentally unsuited to being in government.

    And May was fundamentally unsuited to being in politics.

    Do you think there is something wrong with the Conservative party's members and/or procedures which allowed both to reach the top ?
    Looking around all the parties I would suggest there is something fundamentally wrong with politics and society rather than just the parties themselves.
  • isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.

    I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.

    Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.

    Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
    Defending Johnson by saying he is not as cowardly as Cameron walking away from a constitutional crisis really is scraping an already well scraped out barrel.
    I’m not defending Johnson nor scraping a barrel. I just think it’s a strange logic that causes someone to say that the man who caused the entire mess we are in, then walked away after telling the HofC he would stay, is someone with a sense of duty.
    The mess was caused by the EU referendum, and especially leaves' disjointed promise-everything-to-everyone campaigns

    Blaming Cameron for causing the entire mess for calling a referendum many were crying out for is a little bit off.

    Eurosceptics and especially Europhobes helped create this mess. It's time they took some responsibility for it.

    (Edit: I include myself in this.)
    The thing which confirmed my contempt for the Baker-Francois gang is that none of them were willing to stand for the Conservative leadership.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164

    Cyclefree said:

    If anyone wants a link to the written arguments before the Supreme Court, they can be found here - https://www.supremecourt.uk/brexit/written-cases-of-the-parties.html.

    Can anyone tell me what “[t]he” means? What significance do the square brackets have?
    I’ve tried to Google but to no avail.
    Does it not mean they are quoting something that was the start of the sentence? So they are indicating that they have altered a capital T to a lower case t.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,726
    edited September 2019
    OllyT said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.

    I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.

    Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.

    Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
    Defending Johnson by saying he is not as cowardly as Cameron walking away from a constitutional crisis really is scraping an already well scraped out barrel.
    I’m not defending Johnson nor scraping a barrel. I just think it’s a strange logic that causes someone to say that the man who caused the entire mess we are in, then walked away after telling the HofC he would stay, is someone with a sense of duty.
    I have some sympathy with the idea that Cameron could never have stayed on, the leavers would have howled him down at every turn.

    One thing is undeniable though, from Cameron through May to Bozo the Clown the Conservative Party owns this mess lock, stock and barrel
    Being a PM is a tough job, that’s what we were paying him for ( re howling from leavers) . The leavers all voted against Mays agreement with the EU, I’d say Cameron could have sold it better to remain inclined politicians and got it through... if only he had the sense of duty
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    tlg86 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If anyone wants a link to the written arguments before the Supreme Court, they can be found here - https://www.supremecourt.uk/brexit/written-cases-of-the-parties.html.

    Can anyone tell me what “[t]he” means? What significance do the square brackets have?
    I’ve tried to Google but to no avail.
    Does it not mean they are quoting something that was the start of the sentence? So they are indicating that they have altered a capital T to a lower case t.
    Ah. That would make sense. Thank you.
  • CatMan said:

    kle4 said:

    CatMan said:
    Insult seems a stretch. Inaccurate or poor terminology can be argued by insult is just looking for grievance.
    Maybe, but the effects of Brexit is very personal to them:
    https://twitter.com/mediawhizz/status/1173648159479914496?s=20
    They are European citizens having their citizenship stripped away from them by a death cult government.
    If they are that bothered they can take Luxembourg citizenship and so remain meaningless EU citizens. No one is stopping them doing that. Nor would they have to revoke UK citizenship.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:
    How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
    If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.

    The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.

    The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.

    * I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.

    It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
    I'm guessing it would just be May's Deal, but with permanent CU membership, single market alignment, and maybe some tweaks on state aid thrown in. I can't see why the EU would necessarily be opposed to that, as it would keep us close to the single market and wouldn't have to worry about us undercutting them. That way, in the unlikely event we did vote to the leave in ref2*, we'd still maintain a close economic relationship with them.
    *I'm assuming we'd likely vote to remain, because Farage, Steve Baker etc... would mostly boycott the referendum if the leave option was Corbyn's version.
    Sets up "real leave" as a probable Tory option for the next GE...
  • CatMan said:
    Whoever wrote that needs to go and look up what the word 'expat' means. Just because they are working over there doesn't make them any less expats. Nor is there some minimum age limit to be considered an expat.

    It might surprise some but many would prefer to be labelled immigrants. Whilst the words might both have very similar meanings, expat is also associated with not integrating, not learning local language and customs and therefore seen negatively. Just because someone is a member of a wider group, it does not follow it is polite to label them as such, especially if the word has a pejorative meaning. Not incorrect, but not polite either.
    If that is all they have to worry about in their lives they should be bloody grateful.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,569
    tlg86 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If anyone wants a link to the written arguments before the Supreme Court, they can be found here - https://www.supremecourt.uk/brexit/written-cases-of-the-parties.html.

    Can anyone tell me what “[t]he” means? What significance do the square brackets have?
    I’ve tried to Google but to no avail.
    Does it not mean they are quoting something that was the start of the sentence? So they are indicating that they have altered a capital T to a lower case t.
    Sounds right to me.
    There are similar inserts elsewhere to correct the grammar.
  • isam said:

    OllyT said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.

    I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.

    Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.

    Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
    Defending Johnson by saying he is not as cowardly as Cameron walking away from a constitutional crisis really is scraping an already well scraped out barrel.
    I’m not defending Johnson nor scraping a barrel. I just think it’s a strange logic that causes someone to say that the man who caused the entire mess we are in, then walked away after telling the HofC he would stay, is someone with a sense of duty.
    I have some sympathy with the idea that Cameron could never have stayed on, the leavers would have howled him down at every turn.

    One thing is undeniable though, from Cameron through May to Bozo the Clown the Conservative Party owns this mess lock, stock and barrel
    Being a PM is a tough job, that’s what we were paying him for ( re howling from leavers) . The leavers all voted against Mays agreement with the EU, I’d say Cameron could have sold it better to remain inclined politicians and got it through... if only he had the sense of duty
    Didn't TSE suggest that part of the reason Cameron resigned was because he thought it would make a softer Brexit more likely? That if he stayed on, the ERG would have demanded a very hard Brexit as their price. Of course they still did in the end, but I can see the thinking.
  • Those who think Boris has some magical masterplan are very probably wrong. I doubt he knows if he really wants to circumvent the law, go for No Deal or go for a Deal, or resign.

    He’s doing what he always does: winging it and making it up as he goes along. To the extent he may have a strategy, that will be devised by others (like Cummings) and the part he’ll play will be monarch of the glen.

    Past form suggests that when the heat gets too much Boris takes the path of least resistance, so if he’s really stuck I wouldn’t be surprised to see him bail out.

    Boris is fundamentally unsuited to being in government.

    And May was fundamentally unsuited to being in politics.

    Do you think there is something wrong with the Conservative party's members and/or procedures which allowed both to reach the top ?
    Looking around all the parties I would suggest there is something fundamentally wrong with politics and society rather than just the parties themselves.
    You see the bigger picture so well, Richard!

    Our Parliamentary democracy served us well through the 19th and most of the 20th Century, but it is struggling now. If I have a smidgeon of sympathy with Cummings and his wrecking ball strategy it is because I can understand the frustration of those trying to make an archaic system work for modern times.

    I'm not sure we need a thoroughgoing revolution though. I'd settle for PR myself, at least to start with.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,569

    CatMan said:
    Whoever wrote that needs to go and look up what the word 'expat' means. Just because they are working over there doesn't make them any less expats. Nor is there some minimum age limit to be considered an expat.

    It might surprise some but many would prefer to be labelled immigrants. Whilst the words might both have very similar meanings, expat is also associated with not integrating, not learning local language and customs and therefore seen negatively. Just because someone is a member of a wider group, it does not follow it is polite to label them as such, especially if the word has a pejorative meaning. Not incorrect, but not polite either.
    If that is all they have to worry about in their lives they should be bloody grateful.
    Why are you the only person with the right to get unduly exercised over abstract concepts ?
  • Nigelb said:

    CatMan said:
    Whoever wrote that needs to go and look up what the word 'expat' means. Just because they are working over there doesn't make them any less expats. Nor is there some minimum age limit to be considered an expat.

    It might surprise some but many would prefer to be labelled immigrants. Whilst the words might both have very similar meanings, expat is also associated with not integrating, not learning local language and customs and therefore seen negatively. Just because someone is a member of a wider group, it does not follow it is polite to label them as such, especially if the word has a pejorative meaning. Not incorrect, but not polite either.
    If that is all they have to worry about in their lives they should be bloody grateful.
    Why are you the only person with the right to get unduly exercised over abstract concepts ?
    Ah but I am bloody grateful. That is the difference.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,722
    OllyT said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.

    I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.

    Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.

    Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
    Defending Johnson by saying he is not as cowardly as Cameron walking away from a constitutional crisis really is scraping an already well scraped out barrel.
    I’m not defending Johnson nor scraping a barrel. I just think it’s a strange logic that causes someone to say that the man who caused the entire mess we are in, then walked away after telling the HofC he would stay, is someone with a sense of duty.
    I have some sympathy with the idea that Cameron could never have stayed on, the leavers would have howled him down at every turn.

    One thing is undeniable though, from Cameron through May to Bozo the Clown the Conservative Party owns this mess lock, stock and barrel
    Apparently not. It's Jeremy Corbyns fault.

    Don't you watch BBC news or read any newspapers!!
  • TOPPING said:


    UKIP campaigned for a referendum. They made it clear that their votes would go to whomever promised one. They comprised 4m/12% of the electorate and had until that point been effectively disenfranchised. David Cameron promised a referendum in order to attract those votes and form the next government.

    Pressure group exerts pressure on political party for political ends.

    It's precisely how democracy is supposed to work.

    As we have seen, a referendum is not an end in itself.

    UKIP should have been challenged to campaign for what they wanted - leaving the EU - rather than on having a vote about it.
  • OllyT said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.

    I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.

    Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.

    Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
    Defending Johnson by saying he is not as cowardly as Cameron walking away from a constitutional crisis really is scraping an already well scraped out barrel.
    I’m not defending Johnson nor scraping a barrel. I just think it’s a strange logic that causes someone to say that the man who caused the entire mess we are in, then walked away after telling the HofC he would stay, is someone with a sense of duty.
    I have some sympathy with the idea that Cameron could never have stayed on, the leavers would have howled him down at every turn.

    One thing is undeniable though, from Cameron through May to Bozo the Clown the Conservative Party owns this mess lock, stock and barrel
    Apparently not. It's Jeremy Corbyns fault.

    Don't you watch BBC news or read any newspapers!!
    And no matter how big a bollox up they make and how much they damage the country's future, a Corbyn Government would be worse.
  • FlannerFlanner Posts: 405



    And yet the Tory Party has convinced itself that [Johnson] ...is a great communicator.

    The bizarre thing about him is his inarticulateness. In Bournemouth on Sunday I watched Vince Cable, who shared with Cameron and Blair the ability to address an audience fluently, urbanely, humorously, sympathetically, eruditely and apparently without notes that's distinguished almost all British PMs - except Johnson - in my lifetime.

    By comparison, every aspect of Johnson's performance signals a lout who's forgotten his lines but is still trying to mimic Churchill. Even Sports Direct's Mike Ashley seems more on top of his subject - and to make his point with more authority.

    Is he on something? Or just suffering from early stage dementia?

    Seriously: I'd reject a checkout applicant communicating so ineptly.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,569

    Nigelb said:

    CatMan said:
    Whoever wrote that needs to go and look up what the word 'expat' means. Just because they are working over there doesn't make them any less expats. Nor is there some minimum age limit to be considered an expat.

    It might surprise some but many would prefer to be labelled immigrants. Whilst the words might both have very similar meanings, expat is also associated with not integrating, not learning local language and customs and therefore seen negatively. Just because someone is a member of a wider group, it does not follow it is polite to label them as such, especially if the word has a pejorative meaning. Not incorrect, but not polite either.
    If that is all they have to worry about in their lives they should be bloody grateful.
    Why are you the only person with the right to get unduly exercised over abstract concepts ?
    Ah but I am bloody grateful. That is the difference.
    And sometimes you display that in a manner remarkably similar to them.
  • DavidL said:

    Chris said:

    The government submission to the Supreme Court - doesn’t pull many punches when it comes to the Scottish decision - and makes the point:

    Thirdly, the claim is both academic, and untenable on the facts. Under the terms of s.3 of NIEFA and the Order in Council, Parliament was able to sit after the summer recess until 9 September 2019 and will be able to sit on and after 14 October 2019. Parliament was, and will be able to use that time for any purpose, including legislating at pace, if it wishes. Recent events could not more graphically illustrate that fact: the new Act was introduced, considered and enacted by Parliament before the prorogation even began; and it could have legislated, but did not legislate, to ensure that Parliament continued to sit during the prorogation if that had been Parliament’s wish.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/written-case-for-the-prime-minister-and-advocate-general-for-scotland.pdf

    How is that supposed to be relevant to the question of whether prorogation is lawful?
    It demonstrates that the premise on which it was deemed to be unlawful, namely that there would be insufficient time for Parliament to act, was and is nonsense. The written submission for the PM is compelling and its demolition of the Court of Session judgment is comprehensive.
    I thought it pretty brutal on the Court of Session too, but thought I’d wait until someone more qualified had commented!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,569
    DavidL said:

    Chris said:

    The government submission to the Supreme Court - doesn’t pull many punches when it comes to the Scottish decision - and makes the point:

    Thirdly, the claim is both academic, and untenable on the facts. Under the terms of s.3 of NIEFA and the Order in Council, Parliament was able to sit after the summer recess until 9 September 2019 and will be able to sit on and after 14 October 2019. Parliament was, and will be able to use that time for any purpose, including legislating at pace, if it wishes. Recent events could not more graphically illustrate that fact: the new Act was introduced, considered and enacted by Parliament before the prorogation even began; and it could have legislated, but did not legislate, to ensure that Parliament continued to sit during the prorogation if that had been Parliament’s wish.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/written-case-for-the-prime-minister-and-advocate-general-for-scotland.pdf

    How is that supposed to be relevant to the question of whether prorogation is lawful?
    It demonstrates that the premise on which it was deemed to be unlawful, namely that there would be insufficient time for Parliament to act, was and is nonsense. The written submission for the PM is compelling and its demolition of the Court of Session judgment is comprehensive.
    In your opinion.
    There are others.

  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Flanner said:

    Seriously: I'd reject a checkout applicant communicating so ineptly.

    I hadn't thought about it that way, but yes, me too.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:


    UKIP campaigned for a referendum. They made it clear that their votes would go to whomever promised one. They comprised 4m/12% of the electorate and had until that point been effectively disenfranchised. David Cameron promised a referendum in order to attract those votes and form the next government.

    Pressure group exerts pressure on political party for political ends.

    It's precisely how democracy is supposed to work.

    As we have seen, a referendum is not an end in itself.

    UKIP should have been challenged to campaign for what they wanted - leaving the EU - rather than on having a vote about it.
    I think even they realised that it would be absolutely bonkers to state that you actually wanted to leave the EU and, rightly, everyone would have laughed them out of the house.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,722

    OllyT said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.

    I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.

    Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.

    Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
    Defending Johnson by saying he is not as cowardly as Cameron walking away from a constitutional crisis really is scraping an already well scraped out barrel.
    I’m not defending Johnson nor scraping a barrel. I just think it’s a strange logic that causes someone to say that the man who caused the entire mess we are in, then walked away after telling the HofC he would stay, is someone with a sense of duty.
    I have some sympathy with the idea that Cameron could never have stayed on, the leavers would have howled him down at every turn.

    One thing is undeniable though, from Cameron through May to Bozo the Clown the Conservative Party owns this mess lock, stock and barrel
    Apparently not. It's Jeremy Corbyns fault.

    Don't you watch BBC news or read any newspapers!!
    And no matter how big a bollox up they make and how much they damage the country's future, a Corbyn Government would be worse.
    Apparently so I heard that too.
    I
    Even those people on he streets or using the food banks should fear Corbyn.

    He is going to nationalise the streets and ban the homeless from using them I think.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:
    How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
    If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.

    The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.

    The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.

    * I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.

    It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
    I'm guessing it would just be May's Deal, but with permanent CU membership, single market alignment, and maybe some tweaks on state aid thrown in. I can't see why the EU would necessarily be opposed to that, as it would keep us close to the single market and wouldn't have to worry about us undercutting them. That way, in the unlikely event we did vote to the leave in ref2*, we'd still maintain a close economic relationship with them.
    *I'm assuming we'd likely vote to remain, because Farage, Steve Baker etc... would mostly boycott the referendum if the leave option was Corbyn's version.
    Sets up "real leave" as a probable Tory option for the next GE...
    Being honest, I think Labour should just have the referendum before any negotiations on what our relationship would be like with the EU post-Brexit. Though they'd possibly renegotiate the backstop such that it applied to NI only (the Labour leadership will obviously have no issues with checks in the Irish Sea, given their views on NI lol) prior to it, and indicate that May's Deal would be the *basis* to any negotiations, and perhaps publish a white paper setting out their aims would be in any such renegotiation. That'd avoid the whole awkward position of "campaigning against your own deal", and probably better avoid the claim they were rigging the referendum by choosing the specific leave option (and without having to put no deal on the ballot paper).
  • Roger said:

    eristdoof said:

    Nigelb said:

    CatMan said:

    If anyone still cares, this thread seems to cover what really happened at the press conference:
    https://twitter.com/MatinaStevis/status/1173615806913159173?s=20

    That sounds fairly convincing. The idea that this was deliberately engineered (bearing in mind the protestors appeared to be British), is a bit odd.

    Both PMs had to make a decision of the spur of the moment. Neither came out of it particularly well.
    Boris is an idiot and coward. All he had to do was turn up, make his speech and leave.

    Who cares if no one heard it?

    The text would have been released to the Press and he then could have left making the Luxembourgers look like they could not organise a press conference.

    Instead, he showed that broad streak of yellow I have long suspected he possesses.

    The other alternative is that he had no speech and was going to wing it with bland platitudes and arming waving. I have no trouble believeing he would try that...
    There were microphones. What Boris had to say would have been heard by the press and the viewers at home. This was all about not having the guts to stand up in front of protestors.
    Exactly.

    However, I am coming round to the view that he had no speech and felt he would be unable to "wing it" with all the yelling and shouting.

    He's not very good off the cuff. After his Luxembourg debacle he was interviewed by Laura K. He was close to incoherent. Where exactly did his reputation come from? If you can't think on your feet being PM is a difficult job.
    He went to Eton. He is a "Sound chap", a good 'un and did Classics, by Jove.

    PM material :+1:

    :D:D:D:D
  • isamisam Posts: 40,726
    edited September 2019

    TOPPING said:


    UKIP campaigned for a referendum. They made it clear that their votes would go to whomever promised one. They comprised 4m/12% of the electorate and had until that point been effectively disenfranchised. David Cameron promised a referendum in order to attract those votes and form the next government.

    Pressure group exerts pressure on political party for political ends.

    It's precisely how democracy is supposed to work.

    As we have seen, a referendum is not an end in itself.

    UKIP should have been challenged to campaign for what they wanted - leaving the EU - rather than on having a vote about it.
    Had they got more than one seat for 12% of the vote, we would have heard what they had to say loud and clear. It suited people who didn’t want to hear what they had to say to ignore that injustice.
  • Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Chris said:

    The government submission to the Supreme Court - doesn’t pull many punches when it comes to the Scottish decision - and makes the point:

    Thirdly, the claim is both academic, and untenable on the facts. Under the terms of s.3 of NIEFA and the Order in Council, Parliament was able to sit after the summer recess until 9 September 2019 and will be able to sit on and after 14 October 2019. Parliament was, and will be able to use that time for any purpose, including legislating at pace, if it wishes. Recent events could not more graphically illustrate that fact: the new Act was introduced, considered and enacted by Parliament before the prorogation even began; and it could have legislated, but did not legislate, to ensure that Parliament continued to sit during the prorogation if that had been Parliament’s wish.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/written-case-for-the-prime-minister-and-advocate-general-for-scotland.pdf

    How is that supposed to be relevant to the question of whether prorogation is lawful?
    It demonstrates that the premise on which it was deemed to be unlawful, namely that there would be insufficient time for Parliament to act, was and is nonsense. The written submission for the PM is compelling and its demolition of the Court of Session judgment is comprehensive.
    In your opinion.
    There are others.
    Whose else’s opinion could it be?

    Do you have any links to the “others”?
  • eristdoof said:

    eristdoof said:

    Nigelb said:

    CatMan said:

    If anyone still cares, this thread seems to cover what really happened at the press conference:
    https://twitter.com/MatinaStevis/status/1173615806913159173?s=20

    That sounds fairly convincing. The idea that this was deliberately engineered (bearing in mind the protestors appeared to be British), is a bit odd.

    Both PMs had to make a decision of the spur of the moment. Neither came out of it particularly well.
    Boris is an idiot and coward. All he had to do was turn up, make his speech and leave.

    Who cares if no one heard it?

    The text would have been released to the Press and he then could have left making the Luxembourgers look like they could not organise a press conference.

    Instead, he showed that broad streak of yellow I have long suspected he possesses.

    The other alternative is that he had no speech and was going to wing it with bland platitudes and arming waving. I have no trouble believeing he would try that...
    There were microphones. What Boris had to say would have been heard by the press and the viewers at home. This was all about not having the guts to stand up in front of protestors.
    Exactly.

    However, I am coming round to the view that he had no speech and felt he would be unable to "wing it" with all the yelling and shouting.

    From what I've seen Mr Johnson is terrible at ad-libbing (unlike Mr Trump), whether or not there are hecklers there.
    :+1:
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,224
    edited September 2019
    I'm not generally one for public demonstrations and going on marches but have occasionally been moved to do so. It beats me however why anybody protests outside the Courts of Justice for the upholding of democracy. Surely the whole point of the forthcoming case is to find out what the law is. If you don't trust the judges to do their level best to ascertain that, you're pretty much sunk as a free country. Protesting to get them to come up with the 'right' answer is surely pointless.

    Have these people nothing better to do?
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Tabman said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.

    I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.

    Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.

    Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
    They are both cowards.

    Is this what Eton instills: a sense that if things get too tough just walk away - your privilege and wealth will ensure you survive just fine, and f*ck everyone else?
    I don't think you can blame the school for that. Character is determined long before the age of 13.
    Right wingers who extol the virtues of national service or harsh prison sentences seem to think otherwise.
  • I'm not generally one for public demonstrations and going on marches but have occasionally been moved to do so. It beats me however why anybody protests outside the Courts of Justice for the upholding of democracy. Surely the whole point of the forthcoming case is to find out what the law is. If you don't trust the judges to do their level best to ascertain that, you're pretty much sunk as a free country. Protesting to get them to come up with the 'right' answer is surely pointless.

    Have these people nothing better to do?

    They are expressing their democratic viewpoint. There might even be Leavers in there somewhere.

    It is not what I would choose to do, but if it lights their fire....
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    isam said:



    TOPPING said:


    UKIP campaigned for a referendum. They made it clear that their votes would go to whomever promised one. They comprised 4m/12% of the electorate and had until that point been effectively disenfranchised. David Cameron promised a referendum in order to attract those votes and form the next government.

    Pressure group exerts pressure on political party for political ends.

    It's precisely how democracy is supposed to work.

    As we have seen, a referendum is not an end in itself.

    UKIP should have been challenged to campaign for what they wanted - leaving the EU - rather than on having a vote about it.
    Had they got more than one seat for 12% of the vote, we would have heard what they had to say loud and clear. It suited people who didn’t want to hear what they had to say to ignore that injustice.
    While as I stated earlier I have tremendous sympathy for the first part of this, the second part of your post implies that there is some great conspiracy against UKIP whereas as we know it is simply the good old British electoral system that we know and love and that the UK decided against changing when asked.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    Im shocked

    Gerry Adams was an IRA member after all

    “That lie he comes out with that he was never in the IRA, that’s a lie, and I’m saying that now as having sat opposite him in meetings. I’ll probably get shot for it, but I’m saying it,” he adds.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/gerry-adams-ira-denial-a-lie-veteran-republican-says-in-tv-series-1.4020604
  • isam said:

    OllyT said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.

    I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.

    Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.

    Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
    Defending Johnson by saying he is not as cowardly as Cameron walking away from a constitutional crisis really is scraping an already well scraped out barrel.
    I’m not defending Johnson nor scraping a barrel. I just think it’s a strange logic that causes someone to say that the man who caused the entire mess we are in, then walked away after telling the HofC he would stay, is someone with a sense of duty.
    I have some sympathy with the idea that Cameron could never have stayed on, the leavers would have howled him down at every turn.

    One thing is undeniable though, from Cameron through May to Bozo the Clown the Conservative Party owns this mess lock, stock and barrel
    Being a PM is a tough job, that’s what we were paying him for ( re howling from leavers) . The leavers all voted against Mays agreement with the EU, I’d say Cameron could have sold it better to remain inclined politicians and got it through... if only he had the sense of duty
    Agreed, except Cameron's 'Leave' may have been softer than May's. He would have been more skillful if calling an election and better at handling his MPs if not. We would probably be out by now or have had a second referendum and stayed.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005

    DavidL said:

    Chris said:

    The government submission to the Supreme Court - doesn’t pull many punches when it comes to the Scottish decision - and makes the point:

    Thirdly, the claim is both academic, and untenable on the facts. Under the terms of s.3 of NIEFA and the Order in Council, Parliament was able to sit after the summer recess until 9 September 2019 and will be able to sit on and after 14 October 2019. Parliament was, and will be able to use that time for any purpose, including legislating at pace, if it wishes. Recent events could not more graphically illustrate that fact: the new Act was introduced, considered and enacted by Parliament before the prorogation even began; and it could have legislated, but did not legislate, to ensure that Parliament continued to sit during the prorogation if that had been Parliament’s wish.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/written-case-for-the-prime-minister-and-advocate-general-for-scotland.pdf

    How is that supposed to be relevant to the question of whether prorogation is lawful?
    It demonstrates that the premise on which it was deemed to be unlawful, namely that there would be insufficient time for Parliament to act, was and is nonsense. The written submission for the PM is compelling and its demolition of the Court of Session judgment is comprehensive.
    I thought it pretty brutal on the Court of Session too, but thought I’d wait until someone more qualified had commented!
    Was 'insufficient time' a part of the court of session judgment?
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    CatMan said:
    Google expat definition- someone live outside their native country. Seems like they are looking to take offence where there is none. Just because the same word is mostly used for retirees in France and Spain doesn’t change its meaning. There is a huge difference between a Bugatti Veyron and a Ford Fiesta but I can’t really argue that they aren’t both cars.
  • Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:
    How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
    If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.

    The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.

    The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.

    * I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.

    It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
    It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
    I don’t see why the WA/PD can’t be put to a referendum.

    In fact, I think it should.
  • Roger said:

    eristdoof said:

    Nigelb said:

    CatMan said:

    If anyone still cares, this thread seems to cover what really happened at the press conference:
    https://twitter.com/MatinaStevis/status/1173615806913159173?s=20

    That sounds fairly convincing. The idea that this was deliberately engineered (bearing in mind the protestors appeared to be British), is a bit odd.

    Both PMs had to make a decision of the spur of the moment. Neither came out of it particularly well.
    Boris is an idiot and coward. All he had to do was turn up, make his speech and leave.

    Who cares if no one heard it?

    The text would have been released to the Press and he then could have left making the Luxembourgers look like they could not organise a press conference.

    Instead, he showed that broad streak of yellow I have long suspected he possesses.

    The other alternative is that he had no speech and was going to wing it with bland platitudes and arming waving. I have no trouble believeing he would try that...
    There were microphones. What Boris had to say would have been heard by the press and the viewers at home. This was all about not having the guts to stand up in front of protestors.
    Exactly.

    However, I am coming round to the view that he had no speech and felt he would be unable to "wing it" with all the yelling and shouting.

    He's not very good off the cuff. After his Luxembourg debacle he was interviewed by Laura K. He was close to incoherent. Where exactly did his reputation come from? If you can't think on your feet being PM is a difficult job.
    He went to Eton. He is a "Sound chap", a good 'un and did Classics, by Jove.

    PM material :+1:

    :D:D:D:D
    IIRC Classics has the lowest number of applicants per place of all Oxbridge courses - not surprisingly since hardly anyone learns Latin and Greek these days. Which suggests that the intellectual firepower required to get in is much lower than most courses. Johnson appears to be a case in point.
  • Those who think Boris has some magical masterplan are very probably wrong. I doubt he knows if he really wants to circumvent the law, go for No Deal or go for a Deal, or resign.

    He’s doing what he always does: winging it and making it up as he goes along. To the extent he may have a strategy, that will be devised by others (like Cummings) and the part he’ll play will be monarch of the glen.

    Past form suggests that when the heat gets too much Boris takes the path of least resistance, so if he’s really stuck I wouldn’t be surprised to see him bail out.

    Boris is fundamentally unsuited to being in government.

    And May was fundamentally unsuited to being in politics.

    Do you think there is something wrong with the Conservative party's members and/or procedures which allowed both to reach the top ?
    Looking around all the parties I would suggest there is something fundamentally wrong with politics and society rather than just the parties themselves.
    You see the bigger picture so well, Richard!

    Our Parliamentary democracy served us well through the 19th and most of the 20th Century, but it is struggling now. If I have a smidgeon of sympathy with Cummings and his wrecking ball strategy it is because I can understand the frustration of those trying to make an archaic system work for modern times.

    I'm not sure we need a thoroughgoing revolution though. I'd settle for PR myself, at least to start with.
    I made the point many moons ago that one noticeable feature of many of tthe high profile anti-Brexiteers such as Dominic Grieve, Anna Soubry and Ken Clarke were QCs and their tactics at trying to stop Brexit reflected that, namely using procedural minutiae to achieve their aim rather than take a head on approach to getting their way (in that regards, I think Swinson's policy of revoking Article 50, while leading to likely diaster, is at least honest). I think it is one of the main reasons we are in this mess. If they had come out cleanly and said we oppose Brexit and we think it is a bad idea, ironically there may have been more understanding of their position. Instead, all these attempts come across as sneakily trying to thwart the result.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    isam said:

    OllyT said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.

    I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.

    Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.

    Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
    Defending Johnson by saying he is not as cowardly as Cameron walking away from a constitutional crisis really is scraping an already well scraped out barrel.
    I’m not defending Johnson nor scraping a barrel. I just think it’s a strange logic that causes someone to say that the man who caused the entire mess we are in, then walked away after telling the HofC he would stay, is someone with a sense of duty.
    I have some sympathy with the idea that Cameron could never have stayed on, the leavers would have howled him down at every turn.

    One thing is undeniable though, from Cameron through May to Bozo the Clown the Conservative Party owns this mess lock, stock and barrel
    Being a PM is a tough job, that’s what we were paying him for ( re howling from leavers) . The leavers all voted against Mays agreement with the EU, I’d say Cameron could have sold it better to remain inclined politicians and got it through... if only he had the sense of duty
    Agreed, except Cameron's 'Leave' may have been softer than May's. He would have been more skillful if calling an election and better at handling his MPs if not. We would probably be out by now or have had a second referendum and stayed.
    Really?

    Camerons big failing was he couldnt do party management.
  • CatMan said:
    Google expat definition- someone live outside their native country. Seems like they are looking to take offence where there is none. Just because the same word is mostly used for retirees in France and Spain doesn’t change its meaning. There is a huge difference between a Bugatti Veyron and a Ford Fiesta but I can’t really argue that they aren’t both cars.
    Perhaps they should be called “expatriots”?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    edited September 2019

    DavidL said:

    Chris said:

    The government submission to the Supreme Court - doesn’t pull many punches when it comes to the Scottish decision - and makes the point:

    Thirdly, the claim is both academic, and untenable on the facts. Under the terms of s.3 of NIEFA and the Order in Council, Parliament was able to sit after the summer recess until 9 September 2019 and will be able to sit on and after 14 October 2019. Parliament was, and will be able to use that time for any purpose, including legislating at pace, if it wishes. Recent events could not more graphically illustrate that fact: the new Act was introduced, considered and enacted by Parliament before the prorogation even began; and it could have legislated, but did not legislate, to ensure that Parliament continued to sit during the prorogation if that had been Parliament’s wish.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/written-case-for-the-prime-minister-and-advocate-general-for-scotland.pdf

    How is that supposed to be relevant to the question of whether prorogation is lawful?
    It demonstrates that the premise on which it was deemed to be unlawful, namely that there would be insufficient time for Parliament to act, was and is nonsense. The written submission for the PM is compelling and its demolition of the Court of Session judgment is comprehensive.
    I thought it pretty brutal on the Court of Session too, but thought I’d wait until someone more qualified had commented!
    I think you’re missing the point . The court is being asked whether at the time the order was made what the intention was and whether that was lawful .

    The fact that the Commons have done something since then re no deal isn’t the main issue , because it’s possible MPs with a different speaker would not have been able to take control.


  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Roger said:

    eristdoof said:

    Nigelb said:

    CatMan said:

    If anyone still cares, this thread seems to cover what really happened at the press conference:
    https://twitter.com/MatinaStevis/status/1173615806913159173?s=20

    That sounds fairly convincing. The idea that this was deliberately engineered (bearing in mind the protestors appeared to be British), is a bit odd.

    Both PMs had to make a decision of the spur of the moment. Neither came out of it particularly well.
    Boris is an idiot and coward. All he had to do was turn up, make his speech and leave.

    Who cares if no one heard it?

    The text would have been released to the Press and he then could have left making the Luxembourgers look like they could not organise a press conference.

    Instead, he showed that broad streak of yellow I have long suspected he possesses.

    The other alternative is that he had no speech and was going to wing it with bland platitudes and arming waving. I have no trouble believeing he would try that...
    There were microphones. What Boris had to say would have been heard by the press and the viewers at home. This was all about not having the guts to stand up in front of protestors.
    Exactly.

    However, I am coming round to the view that he had no speech and felt he would be unable to "wing it" with all the yelling and shouting.

    He's not very good off the cuff. After his Luxembourg debacle he was interviewed by Laura K. He was close to incoherent. Where exactly did his reputation come from? If you can't think on your feet being PM is a difficult job.
    He went to Eton. He is a "Sound chap", a good 'un and did Classics, by Jove.

    PM material :+1:

    :D:D:D:D
    IIRC Classics has the lowest number of applicants per place of all Oxbridge courses - not surprisingly since hardly anyone learns Latin and Greek these days. Which suggests that the intellectual firepower required to get in is much lower than most courses. Johnson appears to be a case in point.
    looking at the Oxbridge MPs "intellectual firepower" seems hugely overrated as a selection parameter.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715

    CatMan said:
    Google expat definition- someone live outside their native country. Seems like they are looking to take offence where there is none. Just because the same word is mostly used for retirees in France and Spain doesn’t change its meaning. There is a huge difference between a Bugatti Veyron and a Ford Fiesta but I can’t really argue that they aren’t both cars.
    I've more experiences with Brits (and others living in Thailand). Expats is OK..... perhaps mildly pejorative, but only very mildly. Farang, the Thai term for Caucasians can be a bit more doubtful. It's more expensive though; the 'farang price' is always at least double the Thai!
  • isamisam Posts: 40,726
    TOPPING said:

    isam said:



    TOPPING said:


    UKIP campaigned for a referendum. They made it clear that their votes would go to whomever promised one. They comprised 4m/12% of the electorate and had until that point been effectively disenfranchised. David Cameron promised a referendum in order to attract those votes and form the next government.

    Pressure group exerts pressure on political party for political ends.

    It's precisely how democracy is supposed to work.

    As we have seen, a referendum is not an end in itself.

    UKIP should have been challenged to campaign for what they wanted - leaving the EU - rather than on having a vote about it.
    Had they got more than one seat for 12% of the vote, we would have heard what they had to say loud and clear. It suited people who didn’t want to hear what they had to say to ignore that injustice.
    While as I stated earlier I have tremendous sympathy for the first part of this, the second part of your post implies that there is some great conspiracy against UKIP whereas as we know it is simply the good old British electoral system that we know and love and that the UK decided against changing when asked.
    I don’t think there is a conspiracy, I just think that it suited the establishment not to be bothered by the unfairness of the way the system worked against UKIP. If UKIP had got 5 or 6 MPs for 12% the course of history would have been altered, as representative and direct democracy wouldn’t have clashed so much. It’s my belief that Westminster kind of forgot that 1/8th of the country voted UKIP in the run up to the referendum, and that left them underprepared for defeat
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited September 2019
    nico67 said:

    DavidL said:

    Chris said:

    The government submission to the Supreme Court - doesn’t pull many punches when it comes to the Scottish decision - and makes the point:

    Thirdly, the claim is both academic, and untenable on the facts. Under the terms of s.3 of NIEFA and the Order in Council, Parliament was able to sit after the summer recess until 9 September 2019 and will be able to sit on and after 14 October 2019. Parliament was, and will be able to use that time for any purpose, including legislating at pace, if it wishes. Recent events could not more graphically illustrate that fact: the new Act was introduced, considered and enacted by Parliament before the prorogation even began; and it could have legislated, but did not legislate, to ensure that Parliament continued to sit during the prorogation if that had been Parliament’s wish.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/written-case-for-the-prime-minister-and-advocate-general-for-scotland.pdf

    How is that supposed to be relevant to the question of whether prorogation is lawful?
    It demonstrates that the premise on which it was deemed to be unlawful, namely that there would be insufficient time for Parliament to act, was and is nonsense. The written submission for the PM is compelling and its demolition of the Court of Session judgment is comprehensive.
    I thought it pretty brutal on the Court of Session too, but thought I’d wait until someone more qualified had commented!
    I think you’re missing the point . The court is being asked whether at the time the order was made what the intention was and whether that was lawful .

    The fact that the Commons have done something since then re no deal isn’t the main issue , because it’s possible MPs with a different speaker would not have been able to take control.
    Let’s see what the Supreme Court decides, shall we?

    https://twitter.com/BBCDomC/status/1173890981336428544?s=20

    Live feed:

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html
  • isam said:

    OllyT said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.

    I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.

    Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.

    Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
    Defending Johnson by saying he is not as cowardly as Cameron walking away from a constitutional crisis really is scraping an already well scraped out barrel.
    I’m not defending Johnson nor scraping a barrel. I just think it’s a strange logic that causes someone to say that the man who caused the entire mess we are in, then walked away after telling the HofC he would stay, is someone with a sense of duty.
    I have some sympathy with the idea that Cameron could never have stayed on, the leavers would have howled him down at every turn.

    One thing is undeniable though, from Cameron through May to Bozo the Clown the Conservative Party owns this mess lock, stock and barrel
    Being a PM is a tough job, that’s what we were paying him for ( re howling from leavers) . The leavers all voted against Mays agreement with the EU, I’d say Cameron could have sold it better to remain inclined politicians and got it through... if only he had the sense of duty
    Agreed, except Cameron's 'Leave' may have been softer than May's. He would have been more skillful if calling an election and better at handling his MPs if not. We would probably be out by now or have had a second referendum and stayed.
    Yes, but that's all small potatoes. The fundamental problem for decades was the Europhobic wing of the Conservative Party. It was never properly addressed and ended up infecting us all.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741
    Morning all :)

    My Earlsfield Moment this morning was thinking I'd trust an LD Government to manage Brexit, I'd trust a Conservative Government to introduce a radical Marxist economic policy and I'd trust a Labour Government to cut taxes and be pro-business.

    Sometimes it's easier to do the things you don't want to do than the things you do and in politics if you get the ideological fervour out of the way and offer the counter-intuitive task without the naivete you might find the Party in Government more able to approach the task unromantically and more aware of the downsides.

    Just a thought on a crowded train on a fine autumn morning.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502

    nico67 said:

    DavidL said:

    Chris said:

    The government submission to the Supreme Court - doesn’t pull many punches when it comes to the Scottish decision - and makes the point:

    Thirdly, the claim is both academic, and untenable on the facts. Under the terms of s.3 of NIEFA and the Order in Council, Parliament was able to sit after the summer recess until 9 September 2019 and will be able to sit on and after 14 October 2019. Parliament was, and will be able to use that time for any purpose, including legislating at pace, if it wishes. Recent events could not more graphically illustrate that fact: the new Act was introduced, considered and enacted by Parliament before the prorogation even began; and it could have legislated, but did not legislate, to ensure that Parliament continued to sit during the prorogation if that had been Parliament’s wish.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/written-case-for-the-prime-minister-and-advocate-general-for-scotland.pdf

    How is that supposed to be relevant to the question of whether prorogation is lawful?
    It demonstrates that the premise on which it was deemed to be unlawful, namely that there would be insufficient time for Parliament to act, was and is nonsense. The written submission for the PM is compelling and its demolition of the Court of Session judgment is comprehensive.
    I thought it pretty brutal on the Court of Session too, but thought I’d wait until someone more qualified had commented!
    I think you’re missing the point . The court is being asked whether at the time the order was made what the intention was and whether that was lawful .

    The fact that the Commons have done something since then re no deal isn’t the main issue , because it’s possible MPs with a different speaker would not have been able to take control.
    Let’s see what the Supreme Court decides, shall we?
    I’m not making any forecasts simply saying that the key point is the run up to the order not what happened afterwards .
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,132

    Roger said:

    eristdoof said:

    Nigelb said:

    CatMan said:

    If anyone still cares, this thread seems to cover what really happened at the press conference:
    https://twitter.com/MatinaStevis/status/1173615806913159173?s=20

    That sounds fairly convincing. The idea that this was deliberately engineered (bearing in mind the protestors appeared to be British), is a bit odd.

    Both PMs had to make a decision of the spur of the moment. Neither came out of it particularly well.
    Boris is an idiot and coward. All he had to do was turn up, make his speech and leave.

    Who cares if no one heard it?

    The text would have been released to the Press and he then could have left making the Luxembourgers look like they could not organise a press conference.

    Instead, he showed that broad streak of yellow I have long suspected he possesses.

    The other alternative is that he had no speech and was going to wing it with bland platitudes and arming waving. I have no trouble believeing he would try that...
    There were microphones. What Boris had to say would have been heard by the press and the viewers at home. This was all about not having the guts to stand up in front of protestors.
    Exactly.

    However, I am coming round to the view that he had no speech and felt he would be unable to "wing it" with all the yelling and shouting.

    He's not very good off the cuff. After his Luxembourg debacle he was interviewed by Laura K. He was close to incoherent. Where exactly did his reputation come from? If you can't think on your feet being PM is a difficult job.
    He went to Eton. He is a "Sound chap", a good 'un and did Classics, by Jove.

    PM material :+1:

    :D:D:D:D
    IIRC Classics has the lowest number of applicants per place of all Oxbridge courses - not surprisingly since hardly anyone learns Latin and Greek these days. Which suggests that the intellectual firepower required to get in is much lower than most courses. Johnson appears to be a case in point.
    In fairness the Classics have declined in recent decades, so that may not have been so true in the 1970s. And scoring a 2:1 degree in Greats should indicate some real combination of time put in, intellectual ability and memory, even if the exact balance varies from person to person..
  • Roger said:

    eristdoof said:

    Nigelb said:

    CatMan said:

    If anyone still cares, this thread seems to cover what really happened at the press conference:
    https://twitter.com/MatinaStevis/status/1173615806913159173?s=20

    That sounds fairly convincing. The idea that this was deliberately engineered (bearing in mind the protestors appeared to be British), is a bit odd.

    Both PMs had to make a decision of the spur of the moment. Neither came out of it particularly well.
    Boris is an idiot and coward. All he had to do was turn up, make his speech and leave.

    Who cares if no one heard it?

    The text would have been released to the Press and he then could have left making the Luxembourgers look like they could not organise a press conference.

    Instead, he showed that broad streak of yellow I have long suspected he possesses.

    The other alternative is that he had no speech and was going to wing it with bland platitudes and arming waving. I have no trouble believeing he would try that...
    There were microphones. What Boris had to say would have been heard by the press and the viewers at home. This was all about not having the guts to stand up in front of protestors.
    Exactly.

    However, I am coming round to the view that he had no speech and felt he would be unable to "wing it" with all the yelling and shouting.

    He's not very good off the cuff. After his Luxembourg debacle he was interviewed by Laura K. He was close to incoherent. Where exactly did his reputation come from? If you can't think on your feet being PM is a difficult job.
    He went to Eton. He is a "Sound chap", a good 'un and did Classics, by Jove.

    PM material :+1:

    :D:D:D:D
    IIRC Classics has the lowest number of applicants per place of all Oxbridge courses - not surprisingly since hardly anyone learns Latin and Greek these days. Which suggests that the intellectual firepower required to get in is much lower than most courses. Johnson appears to be a case in point.
    looking at the Oxbridge MPs "intellectual firepower" seems hugely overrated as a selection parameter.
    I did Greek and Latin A level in the late 80s and my teachers suggested I did Classics as the easy route into Oxford as it had an 80% acceptance rate. Not sure what the figures are now.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,726
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    My Earlsfield Moment this morning was thinking I'd trust an LD Government to manage Brexit, I'd trust a Conservative Government to introduce a radical Marxist economic policy and I'd trust a Labour Government to cut taxes and be pro-business.

    Sometimes it's easier to do the things you don't want to do than the things you do and in politics if you get the ideological fervour out of the way and offer the counter-intuitive task without the naivete you might find the Party in Government more able to approach the task unromantically and more aware of the downsides.

    Just a thought on a crowded train on a fine autumn morning.

    Didn’t go so well for Theresa!
  • CatMan said:
    Google expat definition- someone live outside their native country. Seems like they are looking to take offence where there is none. Just because the same word is mostly used for retirees in France and Spain doesn’t change its meaning. There is a huge difference between a Bugatti Veyron and a Ford Fiesta but I can’t really argue that they aren’t both cars.
    Perhaps they should be called “expatriots”?
    Would that make them "ex-scoundrels"?

    After all "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" - Samuel Johnson, April 1775
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,569
    edited September 2019

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Chris said:

    The government submission to the Supreme Court - doesn’t pull many punches when it comes to the Scottish decision - and makes the point:

    Thirdly, the claim is both academic, and untenable on the facts. Under the terms of s.3 of NIEFA and the Order in Council, Parliament was able to sit after the summer recess until 9 September 2019 and will be able to sit on and after 14 October 2019. Parliament was, and will be able to use that time for any purpose, including legislating at pace, if it wishes. Recent events could not more graphically illustrate that fact: the new Act was introduced, considered and enacted by Parliament before the prorogation even began; and it could have legislated, but did not legislate, to ensure that Parliament continued to sit during the prorogation if that had been Parliament’s wish.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/written-case-for-the-prime-minister-and-advocate-general-for-scotland.pdf

    How is that supposed to be relevant to the question of whether prorogation is lawful?
    It demonstrates that the premise on which it was deemed to be unlawful, namely that there would be insufficient time for Parliament to act, was and is nonsense. The written submission for the PM is compelling and its demolition of the Court of Session judgment is comprehensive.
    In your opinion.
    There are others.
    Whose else’s opinion could it be?

    Do you have any links to the “others”?
    I believe Cyclefree provided at least one of them already. :smile:

    David's opinion seems simply to be that the government's case "is compelling". Mine is simply that is isn't.

    This is particular struck me as disingenuous on its face:
    ...it would be positively inconsistent with Parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers for the courts to devise further constraints on the sittings of Parliament...

    Consistent, though, with my opinion (FWTW) that the English court approached the arguments arse about face.
    I was surprised by the Scottish court's decision, as I think in this particular case, the length of prorogation is just about arguable.
    On the principle itself, I think they were quite right.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:



    TOPPING said:


    UKIP campaigned for a referendum. They made it clear that their votes would go to whomever promised one. They comprised 4m/12% of the electorate and had until that point been effectively disenfranchised. David Cameron promised a referendum in order to attract those votes and form the next government.

    Pressure group exerts pressure on political party for political ends.

    It's precisely how democracy is supposed to work.

    As we have seen, a referendum is not an end in itself.

    UKIP should have been challenged to campaign for what they wanted - leaving the EU - rather than on having a vote about it.
    Had they got more than one seat for 12% of the vote, we would have heard what they had to say loud and clear. It suited people who didn’t want to hear what they had to say to ignore that injustice.
    While as I stated earlier I have tremendous sympathy for the first part of this, the second part of your post implies that there is some great conspiracy against UKIP whereas as we know it is simply the good old British electoral system that we know and love and that the UK decided against changing when asked.
    I don’t think there is a conspiracy, I just think that it suited the establishment not to be bothered by the unfairness of the way the system worked against UKIP. If UKIP had got 5 or 6 MPs for 12% the course of history would have been altered, as representative and direct democracy wouldn’t have clashed so much. It’s my belief that Westminster kind of forgot that 1/8th of the country voted UKIP in the run up to the referendum, and that left them underprepared for defeat
    Yes to the last part and yes the system worked against UKIP. As it worked against all minority parties. The country was asked if it wanted to change the system and it said no (and I would be interested to know the proportion of Kippers who voted for or against that change).
  • isam said:

    OllyT said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    Cameron .

    I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.

    Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.

    Johnson
    Defending
    I’m not
    I have some sympathy with the idea that Cameron could never have stayed on, the leavers would have howled him down at every turn.

    One thing is undeniable though, from Cameron through May to Bozo the Clown the Conservative Party owns this mess lock, stock and barrel
    Being a PM is a tough job, that’s what we were paying him for ( re howling from leavers) . The leavers all voted against Mays agreement with the EU, I’d say Cameron could have sold it better to remain inclined politicians and got it through... if only he had the sense of duty
    Agreed, except Cameron's 'Leave' may have been softer than May's. He would have been more skillful if calling an election and better at handling his MPs if not. We would probably be out by now or have had a second referendum and stayed.
    Yes, but that's all small potatoes. The fundamental problem for decades was the Europhobic wing of the Conservative Party. It was never properly addressed and ended up infecting us all.
    This is an age-old europhile trope though, still being trotted out today, which is in the dog-ate-my-homework category of excuses.

    The splits in the Conservative party reflect the split in the country. It arose due to the federalist direction the EU took after the late 80s and the fact that, amongst the electorate as a whole, there was disquiet about it amongst a vocal minority who had no obvious parliamentary representation.

    It’s the symptom not the cause. If it hadn’t been the eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party, another political outlet would have been found.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:



    TOPPING said:


    UKIP campaigned for a referendum. They made it clear that their votes would go to whomever promised one. They comprised 4m/12% of the electorate and had until that point been effectively disenfranchised. David Cameron promised a referendum in order to attract those votes and form the next government.

    Pressure group exerts pressure on political party for political ends.

    It's precisely how democracy is supposed to work.

    As we have seen, a referendum is not an end in itself.

    UKIP should have been challenged to campaign for what they wanted - leaving the EU - rather than on having a vote about it.
    Had they got more than one seat for 12% of the vote, we would have heard what they had to say loud and clear. It suited people who didn’t want to hear what they had to say to ignore that injustice.
    While as I stated earlier I have tremendous sympathy for the first part of this, the second part of your post implies that there is some great conspiracy against UKIP whereas as we know it is simply the good old British electoral system that we know and love and that the UK decided against changing when asked.
    I don’t think there is a conspiracy, I just think that it suited the establishment not to be bothered by the unfairness of the way the system worked against UKIP. If UKIP had got 5 or 6 MPs for 12% the course of history would have been altered, as representative and direct democracy wouldn’t have clashed so much. It’s my belief that Westminster kind of forgot that 1/8th of the country voted UKIP in the run up to the referendum, and that left them underprepared for defeat
    Yes to the last part and yes the system worked against UKIP. As it worked against all minority parties. The country was asked if it wanted to change the system and it said no (and I would be interested to know the proportion of Kippers who voted for or against that change).
    The country was not asked whether it wanted to change the system in general, it was asked whether it wanted AV. Almost nobody wants AV as their first choice (pun not intended).
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Shami Chakrabati confident of victory, Sumption lacks the gumption to be so sure and predicts a government victory.
  • Shami Chakrabati confident of victory, Sumption lacks the gumption to be so sure and predicts a government victory.

    Personally I want justice to win. Am I an extremist?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:
    How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
    If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.

    The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.

    The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.

    * I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.

    It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
    It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
    I don’t see why the WA/PD can’t be put to a referendum.

    In fact, I think it should.
    I don't see why revoke/remain should be in a referendum; we already decided to leave in a referendum accepted as binding. The issue is how to leave.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    The supreme court judges really need a titantron and entrance music
    Oh my God! That's Lord Sales music. Stone cold, stone cold!
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    isam said:

    OllyT said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    isam said:

    eristdoof said:

    Cameron .

    I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.

    Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.

    Johnson
    Defending
    I’m not
    I have some sympathy with the idea that Cameron could never have stayed on, the leavers would have howled him down at every turn.

    One thing is undeniable though, from Cameron through May to Bozo the Clown the Conservative Party owns this mess lock, stock and barrel
    Being a PM is a tough job, that’s what we were paying him for ( re howling from leavers) . The leavers all voted against Mays agreement with the EU, I’d say Cameron could have sold it better to remain inclined politicians and got it through... if only he had the sense of duty
    Agreed, except Cameron's 'Leave' may have been softer than May's. He would have been more skillful if calling an election and better at handling his MPs if not. We would probably be out by now or have had a second referendum and stayed.
    Yes, but that's all small potatoes. The fundamental problem for decades was the Europhobic wing of the Conservative Party. It was never properly addressed and ended up infecting us all.
    This is an age-old europhile trope though, still being trotted out today, which is in the dog-ate-my-homework category of excuses.

    The splits in the Conservative party reflect the split in the country. It arose due to the federalist direction the EU took after the late 80s and the fact that, amongst the electorate as a whole, there was disquiet about it amongst a vocal minority who had no obvious parliamentary representation.

    It’s the symptom not the cause. If it hadn’t been the eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party, another political outlet would have been found.
    Europe didn't figure as a major issue in the voting public before 2014. It was largely a niche (conservative) talking point.
    The reasons for the explosion of interest can be debated, but it doesn't coincide with the "late 80s", Maastricht, the eastern European enlargement, or the Lisbon Treaty.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    Shami Chakrabati confident of victory, Sumption lacks the gumption to be so sure and predicts a government victory.

    Personally I want justice to win. Am I an extremist?
    It will, that's the beauty of the SC
  • Im shocked

    Gerry Adams was an IRA member after all

    “That lie he comes out with that he was never in the IRA, that’s a lie, and I’m saying that now as having sat opposite him in meetings. I’ll probably get shot for it, but I’m saying it,” he adds.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/gerry-adams-ira-denial-a-lie-veteran-republican-says-in-tv-series-1.4020604

    Shocked my a*se.

    I did not know anyone in NI in the 70s/80s who thought that Gerry Adams was not in the IRA.

    Even that priest who was often a go-between and was always on the telly - I knew people who suspected he was in as well. Heck even I suspected it. He was probably just trying to do his best for his parishoners and people in general but the principle seemed to be that if you lay down with dogs, you got fleas. ;)

    It was a very polarised place. It may not be perfect yet, but it is slowly improving. Or was...
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    MattW said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:
    How exactly do you propose to negotiate something you’re then going to campaign against?
    If you're referring to the Labour position, I believe Corbyn has hinted he'll essentially play a Wilson role on the proposed deal.

    The position of some of his colleagues such as Thornberry is ridiculous though.

    The issue though, which you rightly point to though, is that it would encourage the EU to offer us a terrible deal* in order that we stay in the club.

    * I think the negotiated WA is fine, it's been labelled a terrible deal for all sorts of political purposes by plenty though.

    It's very possible to pick holes in any way forward from here, but time marches inexorably onward.
    It’s hard to see past a revoke/no deal referendum from here. The politicians have failed, the public should be reconsulted.
    I don’t see why the WA/PD can’t be put to a referendum.

    In fact, I think it should.
    I don't see why revoke/remain should be in a referendum; we already decided to leave in a referendum accepted as binding. The issue is how to leave.
    shouldn't be a problem including it if it's very unpopular.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046

    Those who think Boris has some magical masterplan are very probably wrong. I doubt he knows if he really wants to circumvent the law, go for No Deal or go for a Deal, or resign.

    He’s doing what he always does: winging it and making it up as he goes along. To the extent he may have a strategy, that will be devised by others (like Cummings) and the part he’ll play will be monarch of the glen.

    Past form suggests that when the heat gets too much Boris takes the path of least resistance, so if he’s really stuck I wouldn’t be surprised to see him bail out.

    Boris is fundamentally unsuited to being in government.

    And May was fundamentally unsuited to being in politics.

    Do you think there is something wrong with the Conservative party's members and/or procedures which allowed both to reach the top ?
    Looking around all the parties I would suggest there is something fundamentally wrong with politics and society rather than just the parties themselves.
    You see the bigger picture so well, Richard!

    Our Parliamentary democracy served us well through the 19th and most of the 20th Century, but it is struggling now. If I have a smidgeon of sympathy with Cummings and his wrecking ball strategy it is because I can understand the frustration of those trying to make an archaic system work for modern times.

    I'm not sure we need a thoroughgoing revolution though. I'd settle for PR myself, at least to start with.
    Part of it is the system; part of it is the individuals who are in the system.

    As a general rule, those who get to the top (and not just in politics) exhibit a certain portfolio of personality characteristics that are not necessarily the best for the role. When you couple that with the personal scrutiny that accompanies politicians, you're excluding a huge number of capable individuals who are put off by the conditions they would have to operate in.

    And in 70% of seats the MP is chosen by party members not the public.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Noo said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:



    TOPPING said:


    UKIP campaigned for a referendum. They made it clear that their votes would go to whomever promised one. They comprised 4m/12% of the electorate and had until that point been effectively disenfranchised. David Cameron promised a referendum in order to attract those votes and form the next government.

    Pressure group exerts pressure on political party for political ends.

    It's precisely how democracy is supposed to work.

    As we have seen, a referendum is not an end in itself.

    UKIP should have been challenged to campaign for what they wanted - leaving the EU - rather than on having a vote about it.
    Had they got more than one seat for 12% of the vote, we would have heard what they had to say loud and clear. It suited people who didn’t want to hear what they had to say to ignore that injustice.
    While as I stated earlier I have tremendous sympathy for the first part of this, the second part of your post implies that there is some great conspiracy against UKIP whereas as we know it is simply the good old British electoral system that we know and love and that the UK decided against changing when asked.
    I don’t think there is a conspiracy, I just think that it suited the establishment not to be bothered by the unfairness of the way the system worked against UKIP. If UKIP had got 5 or 6 MPs for 12% the course of history would have been altered, as representative and direct democracy wouldn’t have clashed so much. It’s my belief that Westminster kind of forgot that 1/8th of the country voted UKIP in the run up to the referendum, and that left them underprepared for defeat
    Yes to the last part and yes the system worked against UKIP. As it worked against all minority parties. The country was asked if it wanted to change the system and it said no (and I would be interested to know the proportion of Kippers who voted for or against that change).
    The country was not asked whether it wanted to change the system in general, it was asked whether it wanted AV. Almost nobody wants AV as their first choice (pun not intended).
    Yes I was going to amend that to the "first step along the road to" changing the system. But I think people signalled that they weren't interested in any change, incremental or otherwise.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861

    CatMan said:
    Google expat definition- someone live outside their native country. Seems like they are looking to take offence where there is none. Just because the same word is mostly used for retirees in France and Spain doesn’t change its meaning. There is a huge difference between a Bugatti Veyron and a Ford Fiesta but I can’t really argue that they aren’t both cars.
    I've more experiences with Brits (and others living in Thailand). Expats is OK..... perhaps mildly pejorative, but only very mildly. Farang, the Thai term for Caucasians can be a bit more doubtful. It's more expensive though; the 'farang price' is always at least double the Thai!
    I don't particularly like the word "expat" but I don't take offence at people using it. As with most words, how insulting it is is determined by the other words around it.

    My (slight) issue is that it sounds like an "expat" used to be patriotic but is no longer, but there is no reason to assume that patriotism decreases, just because someone moves overseas.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    edited September 2019
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Earlsfield Moment

    That looks like a pivotal event in Lib Dem history that I have not heard of.

    Or is it being within a few miles of the esteemed Dr Pack that gets the intellect flowing?
This discussion has been closed.