And what will the Supreme Court of Public Opinion make of all this? I suspect not very much and the Tory leads will persist. I think HYUFD is spot on that Johnson will never agree to extend beyond October 31st which makes the government's resignation more than probable (but after October 17th).
For once I think you've got this wrong. Support for your man seems to be slipping fast and he's out of the country. Traditionally a good time for a coup.
For the last two years pretty well every prediction I've made has turned out to be gloriously and spectacularly wide of the mark. You have serious competition!
This decision throws the impossible situation in Parliament into strong relief. We have a Government that does not have the confidence of the HoC and yet the HoC will not act to put it out of its misery. The key question now is what is Parliament going to do with the time that the SC has given it? Surely the only reasonable response is to VONC the Government and either call an election or try to find another Government which commands the confidence of the HoC (good luck with that!). What is the purpose and where is the dignity of keeping the Government in a straitjacket for another five weeks and just shouting at it?
The problem with that argument is the October 31st deadline which makes an election at the moment impossible.
I know this is going against the politically engaged groupthink on here but could this push Boris higher in the polls if people who currently back the Brexit Party think he is being thwarted? What percentage were they on in the last polls?
I know this is going against the politically engaged groupthink on here but could this push Boris higher in the polls if people who currently back the Brexit Party think he is being thwarted? What percentage were they on in the last polls?
Farage has other ideas, he is on the attack already sensing weakness in the Tories.
Who’d’ve thought the PM after May was going to be even worse than her?
Who'd have thought the PM after Cameron would be worse than him, or for that matter the PM after Brown being worse than him. They all make Blair and Major look like great statesmen. What a state we are in.
It's hardly surprising - there are a lot of ways to earn money with far less stress.
And being a politician in a world of 24 hour news and social media is a lot harder than before the invention of 24 hour news and social media.
People aren't stupid. They can see a load of Remainers in Parliament frustrating Brexit, a load of Remainers in Parliament rejecting an election and now Remainers have won a court case.
If you want to Leave you need to vote Tory. No Tory majority and Brexit is cancelled.
PM doesn't have the good grace to resign, LOTO doesn't have the balls to VONC him.
PMs have always lost court cases. That's why we have courts. I don't remember any resigning due to losing one.
Yes but this isn't a case about the notice provisions in an immigration appeals service dispute, or anything quite so trifling. The PM is the named party and he's lost and the inner session decision that he'd lied to HMQ stands.
It's a resigning matter, and if it isn't, it'll do until the resigning matter gets here.
Mrs T was out of the country at the crucial point in November 1990, wasn't she?
She was out of the country when the first round of the leadership vote took place. She went to the opera in Paris. Flew straight back to No. 10 late evening, and summoned her cabinet one by one.
It was these head-to-heads in No. 10 that I consider to be the "crucial point", when cabinet ministers could not tell her to her face that they would support her.
I know this is going against the politically engaged groupthink on here but could this push Boris higher in the polls if people who currently back the Brexit Party think he is being thwarted? What percentage were they on in the last polls?
Agreed. Nothing has changed my prediction Tories will poll 40% by end of next month.
I have updated the title to make it clear that it's the Rule of Law 11 Cummings/Johnson 0
The bigger picture is one of the establishment refusing to carry out the referendum result
Dream on
It’s the truth.
Did we vote to leave in 2016? Have we left?
And now we have a popular politician trying to force through the referendum result denied by faceless lawyers. I know this is a place where faceless lawyers and counter intuitive arguments are worshipped, but it’s not that way in the country as a whole.
This decision throws the impossible situation in Parliament into strong relief. We have a Government that does not have the confidence of the HoC and yet the HoC will not act to put it out of its misery. The key question now is what is Parliament going to do with the time that the SC has given it? Surely the only reasonable response is to VONC the Government and either call an election or try to find another Government which commands the confidence of the HoC (good luck with that!). What is the purpose and where is the dignity of keeping the Government in a straitjacket for another five weeks and just shouting at it?
The problem with that argument is the October 31st deadline which makes an election at the moment impossible.
If there was an election when first proposed we could have had a newly elected PM in before the EU summit in mid October.
PM doesn't have the good grace to resign, LOTO doesn't have the balls to VONC him.
PMs have always lost court cases. That's why we have courts. I don't remember any resigning due to losing one.
Yes but this isn't a case about the notice provisions in an immigration appeals service dispute, or anything quite so trifling. The PM is the named party and he's lost and the inner session decision that he'd lied to HMQ stands.
It's a resigning matter, and if it isn't, it'll do until the resigning matter gets here.
What exactly is the “lie”?
Lady Hale mentioned that the judgement was based on the *effect* of prougation, not the fact of it. One might say that she specifically avoided making a judgement on any specifics related to the conduct of the PM personally.
Surely he doesn't make his speech to business leaders in NY now?
If he's not going to resign, and Corbyn and Co aren't going to call a VONC, why should he do anything other than just carry on?
Every Prime minister up until now would have resigned in similar circumstances.
Did May resign after she lost in the Supreme Court?
no, but he acts were not considered unlawful, she was told what the state of play was under the law. in this case BJ has been found to have performed acts which are unlawful.
Please don't use the phrase "Boris...performed acts..."
People aren't stupid. They can see a load of Remainers in Parliament frustrating Brexit, a load of Remainers in Parliament rejecting an election and now Remainers have won a court case.
If you want to Leave you need to vote Tory. No Tory majority and Brexit is cancelled.
The can also see that the PM is a total Arschloch.
Surely he doesn't make his speech to business leaders in NY now?
If he's not going to resign, and Corbyn and Co aren't going to call a VONC, why should he do anything other than just carry on?
Every Prime minister up until now would have resigned in similar circumstances.
Did May resign after she lost in the Supreme Court?
It is not the fact that he lost in court that ought to dish him. Rather it is the inferences anyone with a spark of intelligence can draw from the judgment. It's not even that the courts rules prorogation not legal, so much as the way in which they utterly demolished the ex post facto political justifications offered for the prorogation.
It is not the court case which should bring down the government, but rather the realisation of the government's own actions.
Of course we have a LOTO not worth the name, and it is doubtful that Swinson would be allowed to call a VONC even if she tried.
PM doesn't have the good grace to resign, LOTO doesn't have the balls to VONC him.
PMs have always lost court cases. That's why we have courts. I don't remember any resigning due to losing one.
Yes but this isn't a case about the notice provisions in an immigration appeals service dispute, or anything quite so trifling. The PM is the named party and he's lost and the inner session decision that he'd lied to HMQ stands.
It's a resigning matter, and if it isn't, it'll do until the resigning matter gets here.
What exactly is the “lie”?
Lady Hale mentioned that the judgement was based on the *effect* of prougation, not the fact of it. One might say that she specifically avoided making a judgement on any specifics related to the conduct of the PM personally.
This decision throws the impossible situation in Parliament into strong relief. We have a Government that does not have the confidence of the HoC and yet the HoC will not act to put it out of its misery. The key question now is what is Parliament going to do with the time that the SC has given it? Surely the only reasonable response is to VONC the Government and either call an election or try to find another Government which commands the confidence of the HoC (good luck with that!). What is the purpose and where is the dignity of keeping the Government in a straitjacket for another five weeks and just shouting at it?
The problem with that argument is the October 31st deadline which makes an election at the moment impossible.
If there was an election when first proposed we could have had a newly elected PM in before the EU summit in mid October.
But no guarantee that this is what the PM, who is a proven liar and law-breaker, would have scheduled...
This decision throws the impossible situation in Parliament into strong relief. We have a Government that does not have the confidence of the HoC and yet the HoC will not act to put it out of its misery. The key question now is what is Parliament going to do with the time that the SC has given it? Surely the only reasonable response is to VONC the Government and either call an election or try to find another Government which commands the confidence of the HoC (good luck with that!). What is the purpose and where is the dignity of keeping the Government in a straitjacket for another five weeks and just shouting at it?
The problem with that argument is the October 31st deadline which makes an election at the moment impossible.
If there was an election when first proposed we could have had a newly elected PM in before the EU summit in mid October.
Not this again. The supreme court ruled 11-0 the PM overreached his powers. One of his powers is setting the election date. Why on earth should opponents be expected to trust him on the election date?
People aren't stupid. They can see a load of Remainers in Parliament frustrating Brexit, a load of Remainers in Parliament rejecting an election and now Remainers have won a court case.
If you want to Leave you need to vote Tory. No Tory majority and Brexit is cancelled.
ROFL
one minute the people were stupid and tricked in to voting Leave, the next minute theyre not.
The Queen may determine to use her reserve powers and her personal prerogative to dismiss the Prime Minister.
Of course Her Majesty may be merciful and offer Boris a political pearl handle revolver and the opportunity to resign.
Titter ....
That really would be too much for ERII to do. what I suspect will happen is that someone like Ken Clarke will be asked to be emergency PM in a temporary government. Get extension from EU with the guarantee of a new referendum on TMs deal.
I have updated the title to make it clear that it's the Rule of Law 11 Cummings/Johnson 0
The bigger picture is one of the establishment refusing to carry out the referendum result
No it's not. The bigger picture is that anyone who voted leave and is surprised that the UK then continued to function as an adversarial parliamentary democracy should not be allowed to vote again.
This decision throws the impossible situation in Parliament into strong relief. We have a Government that does not have the confidence of the HoC and yet the HoC will not act to put it out of its misery. The key question now is what is Parliament going to do with the time that the SC has given it? Surely the only reasonable response is to VONC the Government and either call an election or try to find another Government which commands the confidence of the HoC (good luck with that!). What is the purpose and where is the dignity of keeping the Government in a straitjacket for another five weeks and just shouting at it?
The clear way out is for the government to force the issue by resigning and throwing the gauntlet down to Parliament to come up with something better if they can.
If they can't then we'll have to have an election.
I have updated the title to make it clear that it's the Rule of Law 11 Cummings/Johnson 0
The bigger picture is one of the establishment refusing to carry out the referendum result
No it's not. The bigger picture is that anyone who voted leave and is surprised that the UK then continued to function as an adversarial parliamentary democracy, should not be allowed to vote again.
Adversarial doesn't usually mean "against the electorate".
I know this is going against the politically engaged groupthink on here but could this push Boris higher in the polls if people who currently back the Brexit Party think he is being thwarted? What percentage were they on in the last polls?
I think it's entirely possible. Doesn't change the fact that this is a PM and Government that will live on in infamy for the damage it has done to British institutions - to democracy, the rule of law, and the position of the monarch. Regardless of what the next YouGov says, Johnson's place in history is secure.
Surely he doesn't make his speech to business leaders in NY now?
If he's not going to resign, and Corbyn and Co aren't going to call a VONC, why should he do anything other than just carry on?
Every Prime minister up until now would have resigned in similar circumstances.
Did May resign after she lost in the Supreme Court?
no, but he acts were not considered unlawful, she was told what the state of play was under the law. in this case BJ has been found to have performed acts which are unlawful.
Please don't use the phrase "Boris...performed acts..."
Even worse the implication is that "Boris Performed acts with the queen".
One is shocked that a man a lot of people thought would be shit at being PM is, in fact, shit at being PM.
The big giveaway was that so many Torys thought he’d be shit. They’re the one who knew him best.
It does rather suggest there was some truth in the belief that the Tory Party Membership was heavily infiltrated by UKIPpers.
Belief? Shome mishtake shurely? I thought it was an established fact. Today's Tory paty is very different from that of even 10 years ago. As for comparisons from 20 or 30 years ago...
Imagine you're a Conservative MP (not one of the completely nuts ones) and a vote of no confidence is tabled over the Prime Minister leading the Queen into an unlawful prorogation. Enjoy defending that one in Parliament or voting for him.
Is Corbyn even going to table one though ?
If I was Swinson (or Blackford) I would table one, and kindly ask the Speaker to consider hearing it, saying they have the support of the other party and that whilst not convention(!), if the third and fourth largest parties in Parliament support one, at such a crucial time, it should be debated. Bercow would probably call it.
Then roar with laughter as Labour troop through the 'No' lobby the next day.
I have updated the title to make it clear that it's the Rule of Law 11 Cummings/Johnson 0
The bigger picture is one of the establishment refusing to carry out the referendum result
Dream on
It’s the truth.
Did we vote to leave in 2016? Have we left?
And now we have a popular politician trying to force through the referendum result denied by faceless lawyers. I know this is a place where faceless lawyers and counter intuitive arguments are worshipped, but it’s not that way in the country as a whole.
"We" didn't, though I guess "you" did, along with 52% of people many of whom were told it was going to be easy and were conned on a massive scale . The percentage might well be different now reality has dawned, except you are no doubt still a religious observer of the con trick called Brexit no doubt?
This decision throws the impossible situation in Parliament into strong relief. We have a Government that does not have the confidence of the HoC and yet the HoC will not act to put it out of its misery. The key question now is what is Parliament going to do with the time that the SC has given it? Surely the only reasonable response is to VONC the Government and either call an election or try to find another Government which commands the confidence of the HoC (good luck with that!). What is the purpose and where is the dignity of keeping the Government in a straitjacket for another five weeks and just shouting at it?
The problem with that argument is the October 31st deadline which makes an election at the moment impossible.
If there was an election when first proposed we could have had a newly elected PM in before the EU summit in mid October.
But no guarantee that this is what the PM, who is a proven liar and law-breaker, would have scheduled...
Parliament could vote for the date of the election. A one line bill was posted here that would have guaranteed it.
The question for Tory MPs & Johnson is, do they have the stomach for the fight ahead. I reckon a very good result for them can be in prospect in the forthcoming General Election if they do.
I assume Farage is delighted at the spectacle of the Forces of Remain circling the wagons?
His day as PM marches on apace....
Yep. Brexiteers are clearly going to have to go the long way round to what what they voted for implemented - which is to vote a majority Brexit Party government into office.
Surely he doesn't make his speech to business leaders in NY now?
If he's not going to resign, and Corbyn and Co aren't going to call a VONC, why should he do anything other than just carry on?
Every Prime minister up until now would have resigned in similar circumstances.
Did May resign after she lost in the Supreme Court?
no, but he acts were not considered unlawful, she was told what the state of play was under the law. in this case BJ has been found to have performed acts which are unlawful.
Please don't use the phrase "Boris...performed acts..."
Even worse the implication is that "Boris Performed acts with the queen".
Surely he doesn't make his speech to business leaders in NY now?
If he's not going to resign, and Corbyn and Co aren't going to call a VONC, why should he do anything other than just carry on?
Every Prime minister up until now would have resigned in similar circumstances.
Did May resign after she lost in the Supreme Court?
no, but he acts were not considered unlawful, she was told what the state of play was under the law. in this case BJ has been found to have performed acts which are unlawful.
Please don't use the phrase "Boris...performed acts..."
Even worse the implication is that "Boris Performed acts with the queen".
They were all done with complete propriety and in the normal way.
This decision throws the impossible situation in Parliament into strong relief. We have a Government that does not have the confidence of the HoC and yet the HoC will not act to put it out of its misery. The key question now is what is Parliament going to do with the time that the SC has given it? Surely the only reasonable response is to VONC the Government and either call an election or try to find another Government which commands the confidence of the HoC (good luck with that!). What is the purpose and where is the dignity of keeping the Government in a straitjacket for another five weeks and just shouting at it?
The problem with that argument is the October 31st deadline which makes an election at the moment impossible.
If there was an election when first proposed we could have had a newly elected PM in before the EU summit in mid October.
Not this again. The supreme court ruled 11-0 the PM overreached his powers. One of his powers is setting the election date. Why on earth should opponents be expected to trust him on the election date?
Parliament could have voted to enshrine the date in law.
Without getting into the rights or wrongs of this issue, I would be interested to know what legal advice was given the No10 in the run up to this.
Legal opinions do differ from lawyer to lawyer and from judge to judge - as we have seen over the course of these cases. If the internal legal advice was that a prorogation as proposed was legal, then there was no lie. The fact that other legal minds reached a different conclusion does not mean that there was a lie - just that someone was acting on different legal advice.
It serves none of us any good to keep using the words 'lie' and 'liar' - unless and until we have evidence that No.10 had received advice and wilfully chose to ignore it.
This decision throws the impossible situation in Parliament into strong relief. We have a Government that does not have the confidence of the HoC and yet the HoC will not act to put it out of its misery. The key question now is what is Parliament going to do with the time that the SC has given it? Surely the only reasonable response is to VONC the Government and either call an election or try to find another Government which commands the confidence of the HoC (good luck with that!). What is the purpose and where is the dignity of keeping the Government in a straitjacket for another five weeks and just shouting at it?
The clear way out is for the government to force the issue by resigning and throwing the gauntlet down to Parliament to come up with something better if they can.
If they can't then we'll have to have an election.
The only way out of this is an election. The current House of Commons can’t agree on anything or anyone.
I wonder if the government might even call a vote of confidence in itself to start the ball rolling?
I have updated the title to make it clear that it's the Rule of Law 11 Cummings/Johnson 0
The bigger picture is one of the establishment refusing to carry out the referendum result
No it's not. The bigger picture is that anyone who voted leave and is surprised that the UK then continued to function as an adversarial parliamentary democracy, should not be allowed to vote again.
Adversarial doesn't usually mean "against the electorate".
No it doesn't you're right. It means seeking party political advantage at the expense of your opponents. The central premise in the scenario analysis of those who voted Leave should have been a logjam in parliament as the Labour Party would not just not through anything the government suggested. From that point, party politics would have seen one party's vision gain the upper hand at GE2017 but this didn't happen either. All very predictable.
Got to say I disagree with this view from 'top psychologists'. It reminds me of what a biopsychologist lecturer I had at university said about social psychologists: they blame everything on society.
Dancing around on the head of a linguistic pin and abandoned personal responsibility (and therefore personal agency too) is ridiculous. Not to mention the ongoing pathologising of everything under the sun (which was recognised as a problem when I was at university).
I have updated the title to make it clear that it's the Rule of Law 11 Cummings/Johnson 0
The bigger picture is one of the establishment refusing to carry out the referendum result
The bigger picture is actually that no-one is above the law. If we are to remain a democracy, that principle is fundamental. The smaller picture is that delivering a Brexit that did not cause immense harm to the country was always going to be immensely difficult - and that is still the case. Those who claimed otherwise - and are now running the country - would do everyonr a favour is they admitted that and started looking beyond the base for solutions. EFTA/EEA will take us out. That's what shouold happen now.
I know this is going against the politically engaged groupthink on here but could this push Boris higher in the polls if people who currently back the Brexit Party think he is being thwarted? What percentage were they on in the last polls?
I think it's entirely possible. Doesn't change the fact that this is a PM and Government that will live on in infamy for the damage it has done to British institutions - to democracy, the rule of law, and the position of the monarch. Regardless of what the next YouGov says, Johnson's place in history is secure.
Much as I disagree with him I think your view of what history will write about Boris will be somewhat different to reality.
It wouldn't surprise me if this is all going to plan as far as Cummings is concerned. People vs the elites. (Not my view incidentally).
That's at least the second time you've suggested as much this morning. I wonder when the penny will drop that Cummings is as much a moron as Boris Johnson?
He had one good knock. When he didn't have to relate to people, was fighting the establishment and wasn't accountable to anyone.
I have updated the title to make it clear that it's the Rule of Law 11 Cummings/Johnson 0
The bigger picture is one of the establishment refusing to carry out the referendum result
Dream on
I love how Leave fanatics refer to the "establishment" while simultaneously supporting Eton and Oxford educated Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, with his side kick bench slouching Jacob Rees-Mogg. How much more fecking "establishment" do you get than those two?
The question for Tory MPs & Johnson is, do they have the stomach for the fight ahead. I reckon a very good result for them can be in prospect in the forthcoming General Election if they do.
“It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave.
Your decision.
Nobody else’s.
Not politicians’.
Not Parliament’s.
Not lobby groups’.
Not mine.
Just you.
You, the British people, will decide.
At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands.
This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes.
And it will be the final decision.
So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave…
…would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay…
…I say think again.
The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice.
An in or out referendum.
When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored.
If we vote to leave, then we will leave.”
Precisely. The only way we will leave now is it a majority of MPs honour their obligations that they made before the referendum. And the only way that will happen is if leavers vote to give Boris a majority.
I have updated the title to make it clear that it's the Rule of Law 11 Cummings/Johnson 0
The bigger picture is one of the establishment refusing to carry out the referendum result
The bigger picture is actually that no-one is above the law. If we are to remain a democracy, that principle is fundamental. The smaller picture is that delivering a Brexit that did not cause immense harm to the country was always going to be immensely difficult - and that is still the case. Those who claimed otherwise - and are now running the country - would do everyonr a favour is they admitted that and started looking beyond the base for solutions. EFTA/EEA will take us out. That's what shouold happen now.
The front page of the pro EU Standard spells it out “‘MPs could be back in days to thwart Britain’s exit from the EU’”... if that’s how George Osborne sees it, how do you think Leave voters will?
Without getting into the rights or wrongs of this issue, I would be interested to know what legal advice was given the No10 in the run up to this.
Legal opinions do differ from lawyer to lawyer and from judge to judge - as we have seen over the course of these cases. If the internal legal advice was that a prorogation as proposed was legal, then there was no lie. The fact that other legal minds reached a different conclusion does not mean that there was a lie - just that someone was acting on different legal advice.
It serves none of us any good to keep using the words 'lie' and 'liar' - unless and until we have evidence that No.10 had received advice and wilfully chose to ignore it.
We are not allowed to see the legal advice. Even the cabinet is not allowed to see it!
Surely we have to infer that if the cabinet is not allowed to see it, it was dodgy to start with?
Comments
Brexit Shmexit
The incumbent PM does not.
Go on, Conservatives. Show some teeth. Rid yourself and the nation of a wretched imbecile.
Of course Her Majesty may be merciful and offer Boris a political pearl handle revolver and the opportunity to resign.
Titter ....
And being a politician in a world of 24 hour news and social media is a lot harder than before the invention of 24 hour news and social media.
If you want to Leave you need to vote Tory. No Tory majority and Brexit is cancelled.
It's a resigning matter, and if it isn't, it'll do until the resigning matter gets here.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/24/supreme-court-have-sided-usurping-remainers-people/
It was these head-to-heads in No. 10 that I consider to be the "crucial point", when cabinet ministers could not tell her to her face that they would support her.
Did we vote to leave in 2016?
Have we left?
And now we have a popular politician trying to force through the referendum result denied by faceless lawyers. I know this is a place where faceless lawyers and counter intuitive arguments are worshipped, but it’s not that way in the country as a whole.
Lady Hale mentioned that the judgement was based on the *effect* of prougation, not the fact of it. One might say that she specifically avoided making a judgement on any specifics related to the conduct of the PM personally.
Does the end really justifiy the means?
Rather it is the inferences anyone with a spark of intelligence can draw from the judgment.
It's not even that the courts rules prorogation not legal, so much as the way in which they utterly demolished the ex post facto political justifications offered for the prorogation.
It is not the court case which should bring down the government, but rather the realisation of the government's own actions.
Of course we have a LOTO not worth the name, and it is doubtful that Swinson would be allowed to call a VONC even if she tried.
one minute the people were stupid and tricked in to voting Leave, the next minute theyre not.
It's all someone else's fault, screech the Brexiteers.
His day as PM marches on apace....
If they can't then we'll have to have an election.
The Queen will do her duty as Sovereign as she has done from the moment her father died in 1952.
The current Tory party *is* UKIP
Then roar with laughter as Labour troop through the 'No' lobby the next day.
And, yet....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k9fE28koW4
Legal opinions do differ from lawyer to lawyer and from judge to judge - as we have seen over the course of these cases. If the internal legal advice was that a prorogation as proposed was legal, then there was no lie. The fact that other legal minds reached a different conclusion does not mean that there was a lie - just that someone was acting on different legal advice.
It serves none of us any good to keep using the words 'lie' and 'liar' - unless and until we have evidence that No.10 had received advice and wilfully chose to ignore it.
I wonder if the government might even call a vote of confidence in itself to start the ball rolling?
After they rejected May's Deal the law of the land was that we would still leave on a set date. They didn't change that.
ONLY MPs who voted to extend are the reason we are still in.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49795808
Dancing around on the head of a linguistic pin and abandoned personal responsibility (and therefore personal agency too) is ridiculous. Not to mention the ongoing pathologising of everything under the sun (which was recognised as a problem when I was at university).
Your decision.
Nobody else’s.
Not politicians’.
Not Parliament’s.
Not lobby groups’.
Not mine.
Just you.
You, the British people, will decide.
At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands.
This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes.
And it will be the final decision.
So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave…
…would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay…
…I say think again.
The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice.
An in or out referendum.
When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored.
If we vote to leave, then we will leave.”
He had one good knock. When he didn't have to relate to people, was fighting the establishment and wasn't accountable to anyone.
He's an idiot.
It's unlike them not to have at least a "Downing St source says Lady Hale's an old bag" quote up their sleeve.
In New York.
No Boris majority and Brexit WILL be cancelled.
a bit optimistic to say the least
Surely we have to infer that if the cabinet is not allowed to see it, it was dodgy to start with?