That would presumably be the one in five who would have voted for Hunt in the leadership campaign.
43-39 overall split is actually pretty good for Boris in the present circumstances as that will soon erode once the next crisis comes along and people forget about this one....
One would have hoped that Blair, Cameron etc could have listened to the concerns of millions of voters before or after unleashing record levels of immigration on them rather than thinking the current mess was a risk worth taking
That is the same point.
All of this shit just to lock a stable door when the horse had bolted.
Pass the WA for god's sake.
Incredible that it wasn’t passed first time with no fuss
Because Labour decided to oppose whatever deal May brought back, regardles sof how close it was to their own envisaged Brexit deal. They played politics with it and now we're all in this mess.
No, they listened to Leavers like Boris Johnson who said Mrs May's deal was worse than Remaining.
I’m almost certain you don’t actually think that is the reason Labour MPs, elected on a manifesto to implement the referendum result, voted against the EUs agreement with Theresa May. Why do you make such comments?
Even in May's worst days, didn't polling usually say that she shouldn't resign (because even a section of voters who disapproved of her didn't want more chaos and/or feared the alternatives more).
The opposition wint be thrilled by the initial polling, it's a split country, not one United in anger at the govt, which plays Into Boris vs the establishment
One would have hoped that Blair, Cameron etc could have listened to the concerns of millions of voters before or after unleashing record levels of immigration on them rather than thinking the current mess was a risk worth taking
That is the same point.
All of this shit just to lock a stable door when the horse had bolted.
Pass the WA for god's sake.
Incredible that it wasn’t passed first time with no fuss
Because Labour decided to oppose whatever deal May brought back, regardles sof how close it was to their own envisaged Brexit deal. They played politics with it and now we're all in this mess.
No, they listened to Leavers like Boris Johnson who said Mrs May's deal was worse than Remaining.
I’m almost certain you don’t actually think that is the reason Labour MPs, elected on a manifesto to implement the referendum result, voted against the EUs agreement with Theresa May. Why do you make such comments?
Because sensible Leavers like Casino Royale also recognised the mistake the ERG made with comments like that.
You need to look closer at the Labour manifesto, May’s deal did not meet their requirements.
Prediction: Boris Johnson won't resign and he won't be pushed.
It'll be seen as another Leave/Remain divide. But his incompetence is more of a hindrance than an asset for those who want us to leave.
Not resigning and not sending the letter would be the balls of steel option. He'd be facing another defeat in the courts within about a day if he did that. If he can get Bercow or someone else to send the letter then its all good (politically)
For those asking the question "why should Parliament sit if it doesn't have business", that is the wrong question, in my view.
The reason Parliament should sit is because it wants to. If it doesn't want to, then that is Parliament's choice to make. Again, Parliament is the place where democratic mandate sits. People vote for representatives to do business, and the government needs to have the confidence of those representatives to govern.
For those asking "why no GE" or "why no VoNC" the answer will be: because Parliament wishes that. It isn't politically satisfying, but it is constitutionally and democratically satisfying. If Parliament wants to repeal the FTPA, it can. If Parliament wants a different government, it can create one. If Parliament chooses, as it looks like it will, to keep this zombie government in place as punishment so that Parliament can enact policy on the government through defeat after defeat... well, Parliament can do that if the government refuses to resign. The government cannot refuse to enact the law passed by Parliament.
Is this normal? No. Is this good? I think not. Is this better than the executive being able to close parliament at the drop of a hat, cancelling any legislation it wishes that may have already passed certain hurdles of procedure and allowing policy to happen by executive dictat or default? Certainly.
One would have hoped that Blair, Cameron etc could have listened to the concerns of millions of voters before or after unleashing record levels of immigration on them rather than thinking the current mess was a risk worth taking
That is the same point.
All of this shit just to lock a stable door when the horse had bolted.
Pass the WA for god's sake.
Incredible that it wasn’t passed first time with no fuss
Because Labour decided to oppose whatever deal May brought back, regardless of how close it was to their own envisaged Brexit deal. They played politics with it and now we're all in this mess.
Periodic reminder. The Conservatives plus allies had a majority.
One would have hoped that Blair, Cameron etc could have listened to the concerns of millions of voters before or after unleashing record levels of immigration on them rather than thinking the current mess was a risk worth taking
That is the same point.
All of this shit just to lock a stable door when the horse had bolted.
Pass the WA for god's sake.
Incredible that it wasn’t passed first time with no fuss
Because Labour decided to oppose whatever deal May brought back, regardles sof how close it was to their own envisaged Brexit deal. They played politics with it and now we're all in this mess.
No, they listened to Leavers like Boris Johnson who said Mrs May's deal was worse than Remaining.
I’m almost certain you don’t actually think that is the reason Labour MPs, elected on a manifesto to implement the referendum result, voted against the EUs agreement with Theresa May. Why do you make such comments?
It gave them a cast-iron excuse, though. Why on earth should they vote for a deal which the principal leaders of Vote Leave thought was awful?
The simple, inescapable fact is that the deal, and therefore the only chance of an orderly Brexit, was wrecked by an unholy alliance of ERG nutjobs and Boris on one side (egged on by Farage and his lot), and Labour on the other. That's all you need to know, it is futile and dishonest trying to blame one half of the unholy alliance whilst exonerating the other half.
One would have hoped that Blair, Cameron etc could have listened to the concerns of millions of voters before or after unleashing record levels of immigration on them rather than thinking the current mess was a risk worth taking
That is the same point.
All of this shit just to lock a stable door when the horse had bolted.
Pass the WA for god's sake.
Incredible that it wasn’t passed first time with no fuss
Because Labour decided to oppose whatever deal May brought back, regardles sof how close it was to their own envisaged Brexit deal. They played politics with it and now we're all in this mess.
No, they listened to Leavers like Boris Johnson who said Mrs May's deal was worse than Remaining.
I’m almost certain you don’t actually think that is the reason Labour MPs, elected on a manifesto to implement the referendum result, voted against the EUs agreement with Theresa May. Why do you make such comments?
Because sensible Leavers like Casino Royale also recognised the mistake the ERG made with comments like that.
You need to look closer at the Labour manifesto, May’s deal did not meet their requirements.
" a decision to prorogue Parliament (or to advise the monarch to prorogue Parliament) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In such a situation, the court will intervene if the effect is sufficiently serious to justify such an exceptional course."
This is the test against which every future prorogation will be judged unless Parliament chooses to legislate on it. It seems to me a highly subjective test in that parties might quite legitimately have different views on a number of the issues listed there but there we are...
It is, of course subjective to some extent - which is why the court went on to say a PM ought to be allowed substantial latitude in the reasons he gave, were the court to be looking at a prorogation which falls foul of that test.
This is what they had to say about the reasons given to them in the evidence in this case: ...most tellingly of all, the memorandum does not address the competing merits of going into recess and prorogation. It wrongly gives the impression that they are much the same. The Prime Minister’s reaction was to describe the September sitting as a “rigmarole”. Nowhere is there a hint that the Prime Minister, in giving advice to Her Majesty, is more than simply the leader of the Government seeking to promote its own policies; he has a constitutional responsibility, as we have explained in para 30 above. 61. It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September until 14th October. We cannot speculate, in the absence of further evidence, upon what such reasons might have been. It follows that the decision was unlawful...
I’m almost certain you don’t actually think that is the reason Labour MPs, elected on a manifesto to implement the referendum result, voted against the EUs agreement with Theresa May. Why do you make such comments?
It gave them a cast-iron excuse, though. Why on earth should they vote for a deal which the principal leaders of Vote Leave thought was awful?
The simple, inescapable fact is that the deal, and therefore the only chance of an orderly Brexit, was wrecked by an unholy alliance of ERG nutjobs and Boris on one side (egged on by Farage and his lot), and Labour on the other. That's all you need to know, it is futile and dishonest trying to blame one half of the unholy alliance whilst exonerating the other half.
Who is blaming one half while exonerating the other? Not me.
One would have hoped that Blair, Cameron etc could have listened to the concerns of millions of voters before or after unleashing record levels of immigration on them rather than thinking the current mess was a risk worth taking
That is the same point.
All of this shit just to lock a stable door when the horse had bolted.
Pass the WA for god's sake.
Incredible that it wasn’t passed first time with no fuss
Because Labour decided to oppose whatever deal May brought back, regardles sof how close it was to their own envisaged Brexit deal. They played politics with it and now we're all in this mess.
No, they listened to Leavers like Boris Johnson who said Mrs May's deal was worse than Remaining.
I’m almost certain you don’t actually think that is the reason Labour MPs, elected on a manifesto to implement the referendum result, voted against the EUs agreement with Theresa May. Why do you make such comments?
Actually, it probably is the reason.
OK, Corbyn (and most Labour MPs) was always going to oppose May's deal no matter what everyone else did, but there probably would've been enough Labour rebels if the deal had been universally popular with Leavers (voters and politicians). But, in the circumstances, why would a Labour MP take the risk of going against the whip to vote for the deal, if they were still going to have "traitor" and "BINO" screamed at them anyway?
One would have hoped that Blair, Cameron etc could have listened to the concerns of millions of voters before or after unleashing record levels of immigration on them rather than thinking the current mess was a risk worth taking
That is the same point.
All of this shit just to lock a stable door when the horse had bolted.
Pass the WA for god's sake.
Incredible that it wasn’t passed first time with no fuss
Because Labour decided to oppose whatever deal May brought back, regardles sof how close it was to their own envisaged Brexit deal. They played politics with it and now we're all in this mess.
No, they listened to Leavers like Boris Johnson who said Mrs May's deal was worse than Remaining.
I’m almost certain you don’t actually think that is the reason Labour MPs, elected on a manifesto to implement the referendum result, voted against the EUs agreement with Theresa May. Why do you make such comments?
Actually, it probably is the reason.
OK, Corbyn (and most Labour MPs) was always going to oppose May's deal no matter what everyone else did, but there probably would've been enough Labour rebels if the deal had been universally popular with Leavers (voters and politicians). But, in the circumstances, why would a Labour MP take the risk of going against the whip to vote for the deal, if they were still going to have "traitor" and "BINO" screamed at them anyway?
My Labour MP did, after I asked him to in an e-mail. He'll now be on £300 a day in the Lords I doubt he cares two hoots what anyone is calling him either.
Prediction: Boris Johnson won't resign and he won't be pushed.
It'll be seen as another Leave/Remain divide. But his incompetence is more of a hindrance than an asset for those who want us to leave.
Not resigning and not sending the letter would be the balls of steel option. He'd be facing another defeat in the courts within about a day if he did that. If he can get Bercow or someone else to send the letter then its all good (politically)
He really is out of options.
He now has less leverage than plasticine crowbar in EU negotiations. No unity or loyalty from his MPs, no way the opposition parties will aid him.
Looks like the only option(s) is an immediate VONC in himself, before the opposition take control of parliament. If that fails resignation.
I’m almost certain you don’t actually think that is the reason Labour MPs, elected on a manifesto to implement the referendum result, voted against the EUs agreement with Theresa May. Why do you make such comments?
It gave them a cast-iron excuse, though. Why on earth should they vote for a deal which the principal leaders of Vote Leave thought was awful?
The simple, inescapable fact is that the deal, and therefore the only chance of an orderly Brexit, was wrecked by an unholy alliance of ERG nutjobs and Boris on one side (egged on by Farage and his lot), and Labour on the other. That's all you need to know, it is futile and dishonest trying to blame one half of the unholy alliance whilst exonerating the other half.
Who is blaming one half while exonerating the other? Not me.
Actually it seems it is you!
It's not me, but I do think that in practice if the ERG nut jobs and fellow travellers hadn't trashed the deal with a load of utter nonsense about it 'not being true Brexit', then the chances are it would have passed. Or, if it hadn't, the fault would have been unambiguously Labour's. They gave a free gift to Corbyn, which he has only partially squandered.
Serious question - Is the Gov't "allowed" to resign ?
Yes, technically when the PM resigns the entire government resigns as well.
I think he resigns (As PM) on the day he's due to send the letter then. It'll probably trigger some letters to the 22 but I think he'll survive a Tory leadership confidence vote and become LoTO.
This is the other thing. All those "lead the Cons into opposition" thoughts. If he takes them into opposition it will be because he failed on his do or die Brexit pledge. At that point neither the Brexiter loons nor the moderates will want him as leader as what would he offer either faction? They could get Bridgen/Raab on the one hand or Hunt/Grieve on the other.
I reckon there might be one sacrificial lamb resignation - Geoffrey Cox may well have to consider his own position given he advised the Gov't prorogation would be legal.
He may not have done. If he did, why was the Cabinet not shown the advice, as requested?
Given the abject failure of the Government's legal eagles, the time has come for the man who can revitalise the judicial competency of the British executive, and who can be relied upon to deliver in its hour of need, and whose loyalty and staying power is never in question.
Step forward Charlie Falconer.
He has just announced his resignation from that post.
What a silly question. What do I know about uk constitutional law? Do you like it is a better question.
It would be more helpful if they clarified why people thought the judgment was wrong in law. Whether people felt the use of the royal prerogative was not justiciable in principle, whether they thought the judges had applied the wrong criterion in deciding whether the action lay within the lawful scope of the royal prerogative, and so on.
Prediction: Boris Johnson won't resign and he won't be pushed.
It'll be seen as another Leave/Remain divide. But his incompetence is more of a hindrance than an asset for those who want us to leave.
Not resigning and not sending the letter would be the balls of steel option. He'd be facing another defeat in the courts within about a day if he did that. If he can get Bercow or someone else to send the letter then its all good (politically)
Yes, I wonder for how many days he can get away with not sending the letter and not resigning? No doubt he’d outline his reasons on day 1 (19th) and be immediately judicially reviewed, but how long would it take for a final decision, a week?
A court allowing someone else to send the letter would be perfect for Boris, he’d go into the election still as PM and with his fingerprints nowhere near the extension.
The alternative been that he resigns (on 25th or 26th) as PM, then Parliament needs to decide what to do next - up against the deadline of 31st.
The first point to note is that these are Acts of Parliament. It is one of the principal roles of the courts to interpret Acts of Parliament. A recent example of this Court interpreting article 9 is R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52; [2011] 1 AC 684. The case concerned the prosecution of several Members of Parliament for allegedly making false expenses claims. They resisted this on the ground that those claims were “proceedings in Parliament” which ought not to be “impeached or questioned” in any court outside Parliament. An enlarged panel of nine Justices held unanimously that MPs’ expenses claims were not “proceedings in Parliament” nor were they in the exclusive cognisance of Parliament. There is a very full discussion of the authorities in the judgments of Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry which need not be repeated here. 66. That case clearly establishes: (1) that it is for the court and not for Parliament to determine the scope of Parliamentary privilege, whether under article 9 of the Bill of Rights or matters within the “exclusive cognisance of Parliament”; (2) that the principal matter to which article 9 is directed is “freedom of speech and debate in the Houses of Parliament and in parliamentary committees. This is where the core or essential business of Parliament takes place”
I’m pretty sure many of those decrying this judgment would have been entirely on the court’s side when it came to the justiciability of dodgy Parliamentary expense claims....
Prediction: Boris Johnson won't resign and he won't be pushed.
It'll be seen as another Leave/Remain divide. But his incompetence is more of a hindrance than an asset for those who want us to leave.
Not resigning and not sending the letter would be the balls of steel option. He'd be facing another defeat in the courts within about a day if he did that. If he can get Bercow or someone else to send the letter then its all good (politically)
Yes, I wonder for how many days he can get away with not sending the letter and not resigning? No doubt he’d outline his reasons on day 1 (19th) and be immediately judicially reviewed, but how long would it take for a final decision, a week?
A court allowing someone else to send the letter would be perfect for Boris, he’d go into the election still as PM and with his fingerprints nowhere near the extension.
The alternative been that he resigns (on 25th or 26th) as PM, then Parliament needs to decide what to do next - up against the deadline of 31st.
Someone friendly to the PM needs to take up that Scottish court case where some Scots judge sends the letter.
For those asking the question "why should Parliament sit if it doesn't have business", that is the wrong question, in my view.
The reason Parliament should sit is because it wants to. If it doesn't want to, then that is Parliament's choice to make. Again, Parliament is the place where democratic mandate sits. People vote for representatives to do business, and the government needs to have the confidence of those representatives to govern.
For those asking "why no GE" or "why no VoNC" the answer will be: because Parliament wishes that. It isn't politically satisfying, but it is constitutionally and democratically satisfying. If Parliament wants to repeal the FTPA, it can. If Parliament wants a different government, it can create one. If Parliament chooses, as it looks like it will, to keep this zombie government in place as punishment so that Parliament can enact policy on the government through defeat after defeat... well, Parliament can do that if the government refuses to resign. The government cannot refuse to enact the law passed by Parliament.
Is this normal? No. Is this good? I think not. Is this better than the executive being able to close parliament at the drop of a hat, cancelling any legislation it wishes that may have already passed certain hurdles of procedure and allowing policy to happen by executive dictat or default? Certainly.
And what about the people? What about the fact that they were given manifestos and told what would happen and could now end up with something completely different. What about the fact that 1,000's of voters elected MPs to represent them from one party and have now ended up with an MP freelancing?
Can anyone say they have a mandate for any course of action right now?
Ultimately, we need a General Election to re-set parliament and to give a clear direction, whether that be hard Brexit, soft Brexit or Remain.
One would have hoped that Blair, Cameron etc could have listened to the concerns of millions of voters before or after unleashing record levels of immigration on them rather than thinking the current mess was a risk worth taking
That is the same point.
All of this shit just to lock a stable door when the horse had bolted.
Pass the WA for god's sake.
Incredible that it wasn’t passed first time with no fuss
Because Labour decided to oppose whatever deal May brought back, regardless of how close it was to their own envisaged Brexit deal. They played politics with it and now we're all in this mess.
I'm sorry, I didn't realise it was the job of the Opposition to accept any deal bought forward by the government, as long as Leave happened.
I understood the opposition stood on a manifesto of a specific kind of Leave, and they felt that hadn't been met.
May, as the PM, needed to convince the house of the benefits of her deal. She failed at that. The house, in no way, was duty, politically or legally bound to accept any deal put before it.
Even in May's worst days, didn't polling usually say that she shouldn't resign (because even a section of voters who disapproved of her didn't want more chaos and/or feared the alternatives more).
Fairly bad, but I wonder whether those numbers would have been much different a week ago - there must be a minority who would still vote Conservative even with Johnson in charge but would very much like him gone.
Wonder what the equivalent figures for Corbyn would be with Labour voters?
What a silly question. What do I know about uk constitutional law? Do you like it is a better question.
It would be more helpful if they clarified why people thought the judgment was wrong in law. Whether people felt the use of the royal prerogative was not justiciable in principle, whether they thought the judges had applied the wrong criterion in deciding whether the action lay within the lawful scope of the royal prerogative, and so on.
Prediction: Boris Johnson won't resign and he won't be pushed.
It'll be seen as another Leave/Remain divide. But his incompetence is more of a hindrance than an asset for those who want us to leave.
Not resigning and not sending the letter would be the balls of steel option. He'd be facing another defeat in the courts within about a day if he did that. If he can get Bercow or someone else to send the letter then its all good (politically)
Yes, I wonder for how many days he can get away with not sending the letter and not resigning? No doubt he’d outline his reasons on day 1 (19th) and be immediately judicially reviewed, but how long would it take for a final decision, a week?
A court allowing someone else to send the letter would be perfect for Boris, he’d go into the election still as PM and with his fingerprints nowhere near the extension.
The alternative been that he resigns (on 25th or 26th) as PM, then Parliament needs to decide what to do next - up against the deadline of 31st.
An alternative is he can send the letter - he probably survives a Commons VoNC at that point (Austin won't let Corbyn in !) but perhaps not a Tory challenge...
For those asking the question "why should Parliament sit if it doesn't have business", that is the wrong question, in my view.
The reason Parliament should sit is because it wants to. If it doesn't want to, then that is Parliament's choice to make. Again, Parliament is the place where democratic mandate sits. People vote for representatives to do business, and the government needs to have the confidence of those representatives to govern.
For those asking "why no GE" or "why no VoNC" the answer will be: because Parliament wishes that. It isn't politically satisfying, but it is constitutionally and democratically satisfying. If Parliament wants to repeal the FTPA, it can. If Parliament wants a different government, it can create one. If Parliament chooses, as it looks like it will, to keep this zombie government in place as punishment so that Parliament can enact policy on the government through defeat after defeat... well, Parliament can do that if the government refuses to resign. The government cannot refuse to enact the law passed by Parliament.
Is this normal? No. Is this good? I think not. Is this better than the executive being able to close parliament at the drop of a hat, cancelling any legislation it wishes that may have already passed certain hurdles of procedure and allowing policy to happen by executive dictat or default? Certainly.
And what about the people? What about the fact that they were given manifestos and told what would happen and could now end up with something completely different. What about the fact that 1,000's of voters elected MPs to represent them from one party and have now ended up with an MP freelancing?
Can anyone say they have a mandate for any course of action right now?
Ultimately, we need a General Election to re-set parliament and to give a clear direction, whether that be hard Brexit, soft Brexit or Remain.
The law is there is an election every 5 years. The people voted, this is the parliament they voted for. If they dislike it, they wait 5 years. Other countries come to compromises when their governments can't govern. Or they sit it out until the next legally mandated election. We can do that too.
I’m almost certain you don’t actually think that is the reason Labour MPs, elected on a manifesto to implement the referendum result, voted against the EUs agreement with Theresa May. Why do you make such comments?
It gave them a cast-iron excuse, though. Why on earth should they vote for a deal which the principal leaders of Vote Leave thought was awful?
The simple, inescapable fact is that the deal, and therefore the only chance of an orderly Brexit, was wrecked by an unholy alliance of ERG nutjobs and Boris on one side (egged on by Farage and his lot), and Labour on the other. That's all you need to know, it is futile and dishonest trying to blame one half of the unholy alliance whilst exonerating the other half.
Who is blaming one half while exonerating the other? Not me.
Actually it seems it is you!
It's not me, but I do think that in practice if the ERG nut jobs and fellow travellers hadn't trashed the deal with a load of utter nonsense about it 'not being true Brexit', then the chances are it would have passed. Or, if it hadn't, the fault would have been unambiguously Labour's. They gave a free gift to Corbyn, which he has only partially squandered.
I think in fairness you should also acknowledge the May deal was attacked by the Tory "left", Tory Reform Groupers, Sam Gyimah and the other ex Tory now Lib Dem/Change MPs and EU friendly Tory journalists in the press such as Matthew Parris
For those asking the question "why should Parliament sit if it doesn't have business", that is the wrong question, in my view.
The reason Parliament should sit is because it wants to. If it doesn't want to, then that is Parliament's choice to make. Again, Parliament is the place where democratic mandate sits. People vote for representatives to do business, and the government needs to have the confidence of those representatives to govern.
For those asking "why no GE" or "why no VoNC" the answer will be: because Parliament wishes that. It isn't politically satisfying, but it is constitutionally and democratically satisfying. If Parliament wants to repeal the FTPA, it can. If Parliament wants a different government, it can create one. If Parliament chooses, as it looks like it will, to keep this zombie government in place as punishment so that Parliament can enact policy on the government through defeat after defeat... well, Parliament can do that if the government refuses to resign. The government cannot refuse to enact the law passed by Parliament.
Is this normal? No. Is this good? I think not. Is this better than the executive being able to close parliament at the drop of a hat, cancelling any legislation it wishes that may have already passed certain hurdles of procedure and allowing policy to happen by executive dictat or default? Certainly.
What a silly question. What do I know about uk constitutional law? Do you like it is a better question.
It would be more helpful if they clarified why people thought the judgment was wrong in law. Whether people felt the use of the royal prerogative was not justiciable in principle, whether they thought the judges had applied the wrong criterion in deciding whether the action lay within the lawful scope of the royal prerogative, and so on.
One would have hoped that Blair, Cameron etc could have listened to the concerns of millions of voters before or after unleashing record levels of immigration on them rather than thinking the current mess was a risk worth taking
That is the same point.
All of this shit just to lock a stable door when the horse had bolted.
Pass the WA for god's sake.
Incredible that it wasn’t passed first time with no fuss
Because Labour decided to oppose whatever deal May brought back, regardless of how close it was to their own envisaged Brexit deal. They played politics with it and now we're all in this mess.
I'm sorry, I didn't realise it was the job of the Opposition to accept any deal bought forward by the government, as long as Leave happened.
I understood the opposition stood on a manifesto of a specific kind of Leave, and they felt that hadn't been met.
May, as the PM, needed to convince the house of the benefits of her deal. She failed at that. The house, in no way, was duty, politically or legally bound to accept any deal put before it.
So, yeah, Labour voted against the Deal purely for political reasons.
One would have hoped that Blair, Cameron etc could have listened to the concerns of millions of voters before or after unleashing record levels of immigration on them rather than thinking the current mess was a risk worth taking
That is the same point.
All of this shit just to lock a stable door when the horse had bolted.
Pass the WA for god's sake.
Incredible that it wasn’t passed first time with no fuss
Because Labour decided to oppose whatever deal May brought back, regardless of how close it was to their own envisaged Brexit deal. They played politics with it and now we're all in this mess.
I'm sorry, I didn't realise it was the job of the Opposition to accept any deal bought forward by the government, as long as Leave happened.
I understood the opposition stood on a manifesto of a specific kind of Leave, and they felt that hadn't been met.
May, as the PM, needed to convince the house of the benefits of her deal. She failed at that. The house, in no way, was duty, politically or legally bound to accept any deal put before it.
That argument might have had some merit if Labour had any coherent objections to the deal. They didn't, and still don't. It is 100% in line with their stated objectives.
In addition, you can't look at the deal without looking at the alternatives.
Even in May's worst days, didn't polling usually say that she shouldn't resign (because even a section of voters who disapproved of her didn't want more chaos and/or feared the alternatives more).
Fairly bad, but I wonder whether those numbers would have been much different a week ago - there must be a minority who would still vote Conservative even with Johnson in charge but would very much like him gone.
Wonder what the equivalent figures for Corbyn would be with Labour voters?
Probably much worse, but someone "resigning as PM" is always going to seem a scarier prospect to voters than someone "resigning as LotO", because the former implies a vacuum with God knows what chaos. Again, I refer you to how May always did better on the "should she resign" questions than on personal approval ratings (or standard voting intention).
I’m almost certain you don’t actually think that is the reason Labour MPs, elected on a manifesto to implement the referendum result, voted against the EUs agreement with Theresa May. Why do you make such comments?
It gave them a cast-iron excuse, though. Why on earth should they vote for a deal which the principal leaders of Vote Leave thought was awful?
The simple, inescapable fact is that the deal, and therefore the only chance of an orderly Brexit, was wrecked by an unholy alliance of ERG nutjobs and Boris on one side (egged on by Farage and his lot), and Labour on the other. That's all you need to know, it is futile and dishonest trying to blame one half of the unholy alliance whilst exonerating the other half.
Who is blaming one half while exonerating the other? Not me.
Actually it seems it is you!
It's not me, but I do think that in practice if the ERG nut jobs and fellow travellers hadn't trashed the deal with a load of utter nonsense about it 'not being true Brexit', then the chances are it would have passed. Or, if it hadn't, the fault would have been unambiguously Labour's. They gave a free gift to Corbyn, which he has only partially squandered.
I think in fairness you should also acknowledge the May deal was attacked by the Tory "left", Tory Reform Groupers, Sam Gyimah and the other ex Tory now Lib Dem/Change MPs and EU friendly Tory journalists in the press such as Matthew Parris
All the centrist Tory MPs voted for it except Grieve and Gyimah, didn't they?
Because Labour decided to oppose whatever deal May brought back, regardless of how close it was to their own envisaged Brexit deal. They played politics with it and now we're all in this mess.
The more straightforward explanation is the better one. It is as follows -
The Conservative Party offered and held an EU referendum. The Conservative Party supported Leave. The Labour Party did not support holding a Referendum and when it came supported Remain.
The Country voted Leave thus delivering an instruction to the Conservative & Unionist government to negotiate an exit deal. They did so and had the numbers to pass it. It was their flagship policy. Their only policy.
They failed to vote for it.
This is a Tory project gone wrong for Tory reasons. It is utterly ridiculous to lay anything but a fraction of the blame at the door of the Labour opposition.
Keep them there and pile on the pain. Try and do some real damage. Hopefully turn the polls.
But I thought the government could put down a specific one liner bill for a election on a named date which would need just a simple majority rather than 2/3.
Is that not right?
To be honest, I’m not sure what the political advantage is in releasing more Yellowhammer stuff. Everyone decided what they thought of it months ago.
I can’t see it moving a single vote either way even if the secret papers showed that No Deal would result in death of the first born.
What a silly question. What do I know about uk constitutional law? Do you like it is a better question.
It would be more helpful if they clarified why people thought the judgment was wrong in law. Whether people felt the use of the royal prerogative was not justiciable in principle, whether they thought the judges had applied the wrong criterion in deciding whether the action lay within the lawful scope of the royal prerogative, and so on.
Yeah, but easier to spaff on about them being a bunch of treacherous remoaners motivated only by political malice.
Prediction: Boris Johnson won't resign and he won't be pushed.
It'll be seen as another Leave/Remain divide. But his incompetence is more of a hindrance than an asset for those who want us to leave.
Not resigning and not sending the letter would be the balls of steel option. He'd be facing another defeat in the courts within about a day if he did that. If he can get Bercow or someone else to send the letter then its all good (politically)
Yes, I wonder for how many days he can get away with not sending the letter and not resigning? No doubt he’d outline his reasons on day 1 (19th) and be immediately judicially reviewed, but how long would it take for a final decision, a week?
A court allowing someone else to send the letter would be perfect for Boris, he’d go into the election still as PM and with his fingerprints nowhere near the extension.
The alternative been that he resigns (on 25th or 26th) as PM, then Parliament needs to decide what to do next - up against the deadline of 31st.
An alternative is he can send the letter - he probably survives a Commons VoNC at that point (Austin won't let Corbyn in !) but perhaps not a Tory challenge...
If Boris signs the letter he’s politically dead, and he knows it.
Look what happened to his predecessor when she signed off on an extension in March.
On the 75th anniversary of Operation Market Garden it feels like the reasons for the failure to deliver Brexit are as manifest as the reasons for failure during the war.
I reckon a Brexit deal was lost the minute Theresa May lost her majority. At that point the EU and the opposition parties saw blood, the ERG saw the prospect of Brexit being watered down (and also saw blood) and now we are in a big fucking mess.
Boris and his gang tried a macho way out but have been blocked by a pretty robust legal and political establishment.
Deadlock.
And it'll be the Tories who suffer most from a failure to deliver Brexit.
To be fair to Boris, I think he sees that bigger picture and wants to get a deal to avoid the party crumbling.
I'm trying to see this whole sorry mess from the point of view of a Conservative MP whose general outlook is one of quiet competence in government (if there any of them left). Where do they stand now, and what do they do? My opinion is that they should see to it that Boris disappears as quickly and quietly as possible. The PM should fall, but the government doesn't need to. The government only becomes culpable if they allow the PM to stumble on despite this catastrophic verdict. They have a couple of days at most. If they can lock Boris in a room with the metaphorical revolver, things can move on. If the cannot or will not, they have condoned the very thing they are against, chaos and mismanagement.
This is now D-Day fight for the soul of the Conservative & Unionist Party. If they blink, their side has lost the war. Moderates, do not resile. Your party needs you.
I’m almost certain you don’t actually think that is the reason Labour MPs, elected on a manifesto to implement the referendum result, voted against the EUs agreement with Theresa May. Why do you make such comments?
It gave them a cast-iron excuse, though. Why on earth should they vote for a deal which the principal leaders of Vote Leave thought was awful?
The simple, inescapable fact is that the deal, and therefore the only chance of an orderly Brexit, was wrecked by an unholy alliance of ERG nutjobs and Boris on one side (egged on by Farage and his lot), and Labour on the other. That's all you need to know, it is futile and dishonest trying to blame one half of the unholy alliance whilst exonerating the other half.
Who is blaming one half while exonerating the other? Not me.
Actually it seems it is you!
It's not me, but I do think that in practice if the ERG nut jobs and fellow travellers hadn't trashed the deal with a load of utter nonsense about it 'not being true Brexit', then the chances are it would have passed. Or, if it hadn't, the fault would have been unambiguously Labour's. They gave a free gift to Corbyn, which he has only partially squandered.
I think in fairness you should also acknowledge the May deal was attacked by the Tory "left", Tory Reform Groupers, Sam Gyimah and the other ex Tory now Lib Dem/Change MPs and EU friendly Tory journalists in the press such as Matthew Parris
All the centrist Tory MPs voted for it except Grieve and Gyimah, didn't they?
I haven't the figures to hand but around 10 voted against the May deal from the Tory left even after the Change defections. They included the second referendum brigade such as Justine Greening.
What a silly question. What do I know about uk constitutional law? Do you like it is a better question.
It would be more helpful if they clarified why people thought the judgment was wrong in law. Whether people felt the use of the royal prerogative was not justiciable in principle, whether they thought the judges had applied the wrong criterion in deciding whether the action lay within the lawful scope of the royal prerogative, and so on.
Mr. kinabalu, you missed out the electorate giving the political class an instruction and said political class endorsing the referendum result in a vote in the Commons.
Having done that, honour would require they at least attempt to try and get a deal done.
Instead, MPs have opposed everything and agreed nothing.
Pretending this is a Conservative-only matter is to rewrite history and close one eye to the present situation. It was only yesterday Corbyn made his splinter-arsed policy a confidence matter, thereby securing his conference's support instead of losing and Labour adopting a Remain position.
I’m almost certain you don’t actually think that is the reason Labour MPs, elected on a manifesto to implement the referendum result, voted against the EUs agreement with Theresa May. Why do you make such comments?
It gave them a cast-iron excuse, though. Why on earth should they vote for a deal which the principal leaders of Vote Leave thought was awful?
The simple, inescapable fact is that the deal, and therefore the only chance of an orderly Brexit, was wrecked by an unholy alliance of ERG nutjobs and Boris on one side (egged on by Farage and his lot), and Labour on the other. That's all you need to know, it is futile and dishonest trying to blame one half of the unholy alliance whilst exonerating the other half.
Who is blaming one half while exonerating the other? Not me.
Actually it seems it is you!
It's not me, but I do think that in practice if the ERG nut jobs and fellow travellers hadn't trashed the deal with a load of utter nonsense about it 'not being true Brexit', then the chances are it would have passed. Or, if it hadn't, the fault would have been unambiguously Labour's. They gave a free gift to Corbyn, which he has only partially squandered.
I think in fairness you should also acknowledge the May deal was attacked by the Tory "left", Tory Reform Groupers, Sam Gyimah and the other ex Tory now Lib Dem/Change MPs and EU friendly Tory journalists in the press such as Matthew Parris
All the centrist Tory MPs voted for it except Grieve and Gyimah, didn't they?
For those asking the question "why should Parliament sit if it doesn't have business", that is the wrong question, in my view.
The reason Parliament should sit is because it wants to. If it doesn't want to, then that is Parliament's choice to make. Again, Parliament is the place where democratic mandate sits. People vote for representatives to do business, and the government needs to have the confidence of those representatives to govern.
For those asking "why no GE" or "why no VoNC" the answer will be: because Parliament wishes that. It isn't politically satisfying, but it is constitutionally and democratically satisfying. If Parliament wants to repeal the FTPA, it can. If Parliament wants a different government, it can create one. If Parliament chooses, as it looks like it will, to keep this zombie government in place as punishment so that Parliament can enact policy on the government through defeat after defeat... well, Parliament can do that if the government refuses to resign. The government cannot refuse to enact the law passed by Parliament.
Is this normal? No. Is this good? I think not. Is this better than the executive being able to close parliament at the drop of a hat, cancelling any legislation it wishes that may have already passed certain hurdles of procedure and allowing policy to happen by executive dictat or default? Certainly.
And what about the people? What about the fact that they were given manifestos and told what would happen and could now end up with something completely different. What about the fact that 1,000's of voters elected MPs to represent them from one party and have now ended up with an MP freelancing?
Can anyone say they have a mandate for any course of action right now?
Ultimately, we need a General Election to re-set parliament and to give a clear direction, whether that be hard Brexit, soft Brexit or Remain.
The law is there is an election every 5 years. The people voted, this is the parliament they voted for. If they dislike it, they wait 5 years. Other countries come to compromises when their governments can't govern. Or they sit it out until the next legally mandated election. We can do that too.
And the 5 year rule was only brought in recently and is completely daft. It is certainly not unreasonable for a government to go 5 years if they are following policies set out in their manifesto. Thatcher was controversial but there was no doubt she had a mandate. What is not reasonable is for a group of politicians to leave their existing parties and then create a new Government with no mandate from the people.
What you are expounding is essentially short-tern parliamentary tyranny, where if enough MPs come together they can pass whatever laws they like without checks and balances.
I’m almost certain you don’t actually think that is the reason Labour MPs, elected on a manifesto to implement the referendum result, voted against the EUs agreement with Theresa May. Why do you make such comments?
It gave them a cast-iron excuse, though. Why on earth should they vote for a deal which the principal leaders of Vote Leave thought was awful?
The simple, inescapable fact is that the deal, and therefore the only chance of an orderly Brexit, was wrecked by an unholy alliance of ERG nutjobs and Boris on one side (egged on by Farage and his lot), and Labour on the other. That's all you need to know, it is futile and dishonest trying to blame one half of the unholy alliance whilst exonerating the other half.
Who is blaming one half while exonerating the other? Not me.
Actually it seems it is you!
It's not me, but I do think that in practice if the ERG nut jobs and fellow travellers hadn't trashed the deal with a load of utter nonsense about it 'not being true Brexit', then the chances are it would have passed. Or, if it hadn't, the fault would have been unambiguously Labour's. They gave a free gift to Corbyn, which he has only partially squandered.
I think in fairness you should also acknowledge the May deal was attacked by the Tory "left", Tory Reform Groupers, Sam Gyimah and the other ex Tory now Lib Dem/Change MPs and EU friendly Tory journalists in the press such as Matthew Parris
All the centrist Tory MPs voted for it except Grieve and Gyimah, didn't they?
Plus Jo Johnson, Guto Bebb and Philip Lee.
The New Bastards.
Jo Johnson's journey on Brexit votes has been an odd one.
Because Labour decided to oppose whatever deal May brought back, regardless of how close it was to their own envisaged Brexit deal. They played politics with it and now we're all in this mess.
The more straightforward explanation is the better one. It is as follows -
The Conservative Party offered and held an EU referendum. The Conservative Party supported Leave. The Labour Party did not support holding a Referendum and when it came supported Remain.
The Country voted Leave thus delivering an instruction to the Conservative & Unionist government to negotiate an exit deal. They did so and had the numbers to pass it. It was their flagship policy. Their only policy.
They failed to vote for it.
This is a Tory project gone wrong for Tory reasons. It is utterly ridiculous to lay anything but a fraction of the blame at the door of the Labour opposition.
The Conservate Party did not "support Leave". The majority of its MPs, including 90% of the Cabinet and the PM, supported Remain.
The opposition aren't VONCing at the moment for a perceived political advantage in delaying the move till later. That's entirely their right but can we not have bleatings about Johnson not being the correct PM as of now.
But Pulpy, he was never the correct PM. Everyone knew what he was like. No excuses for it.
VONC him then. Jesus H Christ.
Indeed. But why would the Opposition parties VONC at a time to Boris's advantage?
The Prime Minister is politically dangling in the wind. Why provide him with a lifeline before 31st October?
Boris intoned "Do or Die". He wasn't wrong.
That's why the government should resign tomorrow and let the rablle that call themselves the UK Parliament try and work somerthing out if they actually can...
If the government resigns tomorrow it obviously loses all the levers of power and the advantageous optics that surrounds it.
The government haven't got any "levers of power" - What's the point in jusat sitting their and allowing themselves to be kicked around day after day.
Better to grasp the nettle, resign and see what if anything the rabble in Westminster can cobble together.
Mr. Isam, the next election could be a diabolically complicated mixture of party loyalties, tactical voting, and weird things happening with Leave/Remain voters transcending party boundaries.
Thinking back, I was surprised at the size of the A50 majority in the Commons initially. I considered everyone who voted for A50 to be pretty much duty bound to subsequently vote EU withdrawal through no matter the deal (Which is why the A50 numbers were so shockingly high), or be prepared to leave without a deal.
Fair play to those MPs that didn't vote through A50, and even more kudos to those remainers that didn't vote through the original referendum.
Keep them there and pile on the pain. Try and do some real damage. Hopefully turn the polls.
But I thought the government could put down a specific one liner bill for a election on a named date which would need just a simple majority rather than 2/3.
Is that not right?
To be honest, I’m not sure what the political advantage is in releasing more Yellowhammer stuff. Everyone decided what they thought of it months ago.
I can’t see it moving a single vote either way even if the secret papers showed that No Deal would result in death of the first born.
As we’ve seen with the Thomas Cook operation this week, government contingency planning is comprehensive and effective when it needs to be.
All that releasing more Yellowhammer documents will do is stop planning scenarios from being written down, in case they are forced to be published.
What a silly question. What do I know about uk constitutional law? Do you like it is a better question.
It would be more helpful if they clarified why people thought the judgment was wrong in law. Whether people felt the use of the royal prerogative was not justiciable in principle, whether they thought the judges had applied the wrong criterion in deciding whether the action lay within the lawful scope of the royal prerogative, and so on.
That’s well worth reading. Very well written and understandable for a layman, as opposed to the usual legalese that comes from court documents.
Lady Hale was also very eloquent in her statement this morning explaining the reasoning behind the decision.
I agree. It seems difficult to argue with - which is obviously reflected by the fact that none of the 11 judges dissented. I think I'm right in saying two of the present judges dissented from the Gina Miller judgment in 2017.
MPs from across the house voted in triple figures in favour of various Brexit options, the Conservatives defeated every single one of them because it wasn't their Brexit.
I'm trying to see this whole sorry mess from the point of view of a Conservative MP whose general outlook is one of quiet competence in government (if there any of them left). Where do they stand now, and what do they do? My opinion is that they should see to it that Boris disappears as quickly and quietly as possible. The PM should fall, but the government doesn't need to. The government only becomes culpable if they allow the PM to stumble on despite this catastrophic verdict. They have a couple of days at most. If they can lock Boris in a room with the metaphorical revolver, things can move on. If the cannot or will not, they have condoned the very thing they are against, chaos and mismanagement.
This is now D-Day fight for the soul of the Conservative & Unionist Party. If they blink, their side has lost the war. Moderates, do not resile. Your party needs you.
chortle
yesterday I watched the bleating of Labour MPs who disagree fundamentally with their boss but tamely go down his road to perdition without the balls to leave.
I'm trying to see this whole sorry mess from the point of view of a Conservative MP whose general outlook is one of quiet competence in government (if there any of them left). Where do they stand now, and what do they do? My opinion is that they should see to it that Boris disappears as quickly and quietly as possible. The PM should fall, but the government doesn't need to. The government only becomes culpable if they allow the PM to stumble on despite this catastrophic verdict. They have a couple of days at most. If they can lock Boris in a room with the metaphorical revolver, things can move on. If the cannot or will not, they have condoned the very thing they are against, chaos and mismanagement.
This is now D-Day fight for the soul of the Conservative & Unionist Party. If they blink, their side has lost the war. Moderates, do not resile. Your party needs you.
chortle
yesterday I watched the bleating of Labour MPs who disagree fundamentally with their boss but tamely go down his road to perdition without the balls to leave.
I think today has cemented Boris’ position as the voice of Leave and The BP will be sidelined
Advising the Queen to break the law and having a unanimous judgement against you by the Supreme Court is now seen as proof of being a good egg by Leavers.
For those asking the question "why should Parliament sit if it doesn't have business", that is the wrong question, in my view.
The reason Parliament should sit is because it wants to. If it doesn't want to, then that is Parliament's choice to make. Again, Parliament is the place where democratic mandate sits. People vote for representatives to do business, and the government needs to have the confidence of those representatives to govern.
For those asking "why no GE" or "why no VoNC" the answer will be: because Parliament wishes that. It isn't politically satisfying, but it is constitutionally and democratically satisfying. If Parliament wants to repeal the FTPA, it can. If Parliament wants a different government, it can create one. If Parliament chooses, as it looks like it will, to keep this zombie government in place as punishment so that Parliament can enact policy on the government through defeat after defeat... well, Parliament can do that if the government refuses to resign. The government cannot refuse to enact the law passed by Parliament.
Is this normal? No. Is this good? I think not. Is this better than the executive being able to close parliament at the drop of a hat, cancelling any legislation it wishes that may have already passed certain hurdles of procedure and allowing policy to happen by executive dictat or default? Certainly.
Excellent post.
But very few of the voter types that Johnson is targeting will understand these arguments let alone agree with them.
I reckon there might be one sacrificial lamb resignation - Geoffrey Cox may well have to consider his own position given he advised the Gov't prorogation would be legal.
He may not have done. If he did, why was the Cabinet not shown the advice, as requested?
Given the abject failure of the Government's legal eagles, the time has come for the man who can revitalise the judicial competency of the British executive, and who can be relied upon to deliver in its hour of need, and whose loyalty and staying power is never in question.
Step forward Charlie Falconer.
He has just announced his resignation from that post.
I’m almost certain you don’t actually think that is the reason Labour MPs, elected on a manifesto to implement the referendum result, voted against the EUs agreement with Theresa May. Why do you make such comments?
It gave them a cast-iron excuse, though. Why on earth should they vote for a deal which the principal leaders of Vote Leave thought was awful?
The simple, inescapable fact is that the deal, and therefore the only chance of an orderly Brexit, was wrecked by an unholy alliance of ERG nutjobs and Boris on one side (egged on by Farage and his lot), and Labour on the other. That's all you need to know, it is futile and dishonest trying to blame one half of the unholy alliance whilst exonerating the other half.
Who is blaming one half while exonerating the other? Not me.
Actually it seems it is you!
It's not me, but I do think that in practice if the ERG nut jobs and fellow travellers hadn't trashed the deal with a load of utter nonsense about it 'not being true Brexit', then the chances are it would have passed. Or, if it hadn't, the fault would have been unambiguously Labour's. They gave a free gift to Corbyn, which he has only partially squandered.
I think in fairness you should also acknowledge the May deal was attacked by the Tory "left", Tory Reform Groupers, Sam Gyimah and the other ex Tory now Lib Dem/Change MPs and EU friendly Tory journalists in the press such as Matthew Parris
All the centrist Tory MPs voted for it except Grieve and Gyimah, didn't they?
Plus Jo Johnson, Guto Bebb and Philip Lee.
The New Bastards.
Jo Johnson's journey on Brexit votes has been an odd one.
I'm trying to see this whole sorry mess from the point of view of a Conservative MP whose general outlook is one of quiet competence in government (if there any of them left). Where do they stand now, and what do they do? My opinion is that they should see to it that Boris disappears as quickly and quietly as possible. The PM should fall, but the government doesn't need to. The government only becomes culpable if they allow the PM to stumble on despite this catastrophic verdict. They have a couple of days at most. If they can lock Boris in a room with the metaphorical revolver, things can move on. If the cannot or will not, they have condoned the very thing they are against, chaos and mismanagement.
This is now D-Day fight for the soul of the Conservative & Unionist Party. If they blink, their side has lost the war. Moderates, do not resile. Your party needs you.
chortle
yesterday I watched the bleating of Labour MPs who disagree fundamentally with their boss but tamely go down his road to perdition without the balls to leave.
Irrelevant to my point. I'm not a Labour voter.
Irrelevant to reality. The action you advocate would guarantee a Labour Government.
I think today has cemented Boris’ position as the voice of Leave and The BP will be sidelined
Farage joins the long list of traitors and Quislings. Amusing - I thought he would outlast Boris.
Brexiteers are starting to (I know I know) sniff out that personal vendettas and keeping on the EU gravy train are more important to him than leaving the EU.
MPs from across the house voted in triple figures in favour of various Brexit options, the Conservatives defeated every single one of them because it wasn't their Brexit.
I'm trying to see this whole sorry mess from the point of view of a Conservative MP whose general outlook is one of quiet competence in government (if there any of them left). Where do they stand now, and what do they do? My opinion is that they should see to it that Boris disappears as quickly and quietly as possible. The PM should fall, but the government doesn't need to. The government only becomes culpable if they allow the PM to stumble on despite this catastrophic verdict. They have a couple of days at most. If they can lock Boris in a room with the metaphorical revolver, things can move on. If the cannot or will not, they have condoned the very thing they are against, chaos and mismanagement.
This is now D-Day fight for the soul of the Conservative & Unionist Party. If they blink, their side has lost the war. Moderates, do not resile. Your party needs you.
chortle
yesterday I watched the bleating of Labour MPs who disagree fundamentally with their boss but tamely go down his road to perdition without the balls to leave.
Mr. kle4, I agree. And I'd be keeping an eye out for the betting markets for a large margin Remain win (if the alternative is May's deal).
By virtue of *cough cough* parliamentary sovereignty the "Remain" win can be overturned in a subsequent GE. Lib Dem positioning has given legs to this idea long term.
The opposition aren't VONCing at the moment for a perceived political advantage in delaying the move till later. That's entirely their right but can we not have bleatings about Johnson not being the correct PM as of now.
But Pulpy, he was never the correct PM. Everyone knew what he was like. No excuses for it.
VONC him then. Jesus H Christ.
Indeed. But why would the Opposition parties VONC at a time to Boris's advantage?
The Prime Minister is politically dangling in the wind. Why provide him with a lifeline before 31st October?
Boris intoned "Do or Die". He wasn't wrong.
That's why the government should resign tomorrow and let the rablle that call themselves the UK Parliament try and work somerthing out if they actually can...
If the government resigns tomorrow it obviously loses all the levers of power and the advantageous optics that surrounds it.
The government haven't got any "levers of power" - What's the point in jusat sitting their and allowing themselves to be kicked around day after day.
Better to grasp the nettle, resign and see what if anything the rabble in Westminster can cobble together.
Yes, if Corbyn, Swinson and the SNP are calling for Johnson to go, why not oblige them by choosing to go into opposition and then set the 14 day clock ticking while they fight it out like rabbits in a hat and succeed only in showing that none of them can command a working majority?
Comments
43-39 overall split is actually pretty good for Boris in the present circumstances as that will soon erode once the next crisis comes along and people forget about this one....
It'll be seen as another Leave/Remain divide. But his incompetence is more of a hindrance than an asset for those who want us to leave.
Even in May's worst days, didn't polling usually say that she shouldn't resign (because even a section of voters who disapproved of her didn't want more chaos and/or feared the alternatives more).
You need to look closer at the Labour manifesto, May’s deal did not meet their requirements.
The reason Parliament should sit is because it wants to. If it doesn't want to, then that is Parliament's choice to make. Again, Parliament is the place where democratic mandate sits. People vote for representatives to do business, and the government needs to have the confidence of those representatives to govern.
For those asking "why no GE" or "why no VoNC" the answer will be: because Parliament wishes that. It isn't politically satisfying, but it is constitutionally and democratically satisfying. If Parliament wants to repeal the FTPA, it can. If Parliament wants a different government, it can create one. If Parliament chooses, as it looks like it will, to keep this zombie government in place as punishment so that Parliament can enact policy on the government through defeat after defeat... well, Parliament can do that if the government refuses to resign. The government cannot refuse to enact the law passed by Parliament.
Is this normal? No. Is this good? I think not. Is this better than the executive being able to close parliament at the drop of a hat, cancelling any legislation it wishes that may have already passed certain hurdles of procedure and allowing policy to happen by executive dictat or default? Certainly.
The simple, inescapable fact is that the deal, and therefore the only chance of an orderly Brexit, was wrecked by an unholy alliance of ERG nutjobs and Boris on one side (egged on by Farage and his lot), and Labour on the other. That's all you need to know, it is futile and dishonest trying to blame one half of the unholy alliance whilst exonerating the other half.
Right after Stargate: SG-1.
This is what they had to say about the reasons given to them in the evidence in this case:
...most tellingly of all, the memorandum does not address the competing merits of going into recess and prorogation. It wrongly gives the impression that they are much the same. The Prime Minister’s reaction was to describe the September sitting as a “rigmarole”. Nowhere is there a hint that the Prime Minister, in giving advice to Her Majesty, is more than simply the leader of the Government seeking to promote its own policies; he has a constitutional responsibility, as we have explained in para 30 above.
61. It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September until 14th October. We cannot speculate, in the absence of further evidence, upon what such reasons might have been. It follows that the decision was unlawful...
Actually it seems it is you!
OK, Corbyn (and most Labour MPs) was always going to oppose May's deal no matter what everyone else did, but there probably would've been enough Labour rebels if the deal had been universally popular with Leavers (voters and politicians). But, in the circumstances, why would a Labour MP take the risk of going against the whip to vote for the deal, if they were still going to have "traitor" and "BINO" screamed at them anyway?
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1176504252065296387?s=20
I doubt he cares two hoots what anyone is calling him either.
He now has less leverage than plasticine crowbar in EU negotiations.
No unity or loyalty from his MPs, no way the opposition parties will aid him.
Looks like the only option(s) is an immediate VONC in himself, before the opposition take control of parliament. If that fails resignation.
A court allowing someone else to send the letter would be perfect for Boris, he’d go into the election still as PM and with his fingerprints nowhere near the extension.
The alternative been that he resigns (on 25th or 26th) as PM, then Parliament needs to decide what to do next - up against the deadline of 31st.
The first point to note is that these are Acts of Parliament. It is one of the principal roles of the courts to interpret Acts of Parliament. A recent example of this Court interpreting article 9 is R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52; [2011] 1 AC 684. The case concerned the prosecution of several Members of Parliament for allegedly making false expenses claims. They resisted this on the ground that those claims were “proceedings in Parliament” which ought not to be “impeached or questioned” in any court outside Parliament. An enlarged panel of nine Justices held unanimously that MPs’ expenses claims were not “proceedings in Parliament” nor were they in the exclusive cognisance of Parliament. There is a very full discussion of the authorities in the judgments of Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry which need not be repeated here.
66. That case clearly establishes: (1) that it is for the court and not for Parliament to determine the scope of Parliamentary privilege, whether under article 9 of the Bill of Rights or matters within the “exclusive cognisance of Parliament”; (2) that the principal matter to which article 9 is directed is “freedom of speech and debate in the Houses of Parliament and in parliamentary committees. This is where the core or essential business of Parliament takes place”
I’m pretty sure many of those decrying this judgment would have been entirely on the court’s side when it came to the justiciability of dodgy Parliamentary expense claims....
Can anyone say they have a mandate for any course of action right now?
Ultimately, we need a General Election to re-set parliament and to give a clear direction, whether that be hard Brexit, soft Brexit or Remain.
I understood the opposition stood on a manifesto of a specific kind of Leave, and they felt that hadn't been met.
May, as the PM, needed to convince the house of the benefits of her deal. She failed at that. The house, in no way, was duty, politically or legally bound to accept any deal put before it.
Wonder what the equivalent figures for Corbyn would be with Labour voters?
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf
In addition, you can't look at the deal without looking at the alternatives.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1176511824382058496?s=20
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1176436372045029376
The response shows that Boris (and Cummings) get the benefit of the doubt from Brexiteers in a way Theresa May never could.
If Brexit is delayed in 31/10/19 I think the idea Brexi voters will all blame Boris is wide off the mark. These response's to Farage seems typical
https://twitter.com/richardm680923/status/1176437396105244677
https://twitter.com/andybrexiteer/status/1176447453161283584
The Conservative Party offered and held an EU referendum. The Conservative Party supported Leave. The Labour Party did not support holding a Referendum and when it came supported Remain.
The Country voted Leave thus delivering an instruction to the Conservative & Unionist government to negotiate an exit deal. They did so and had the numbers to pass it. It was their flagship policy. Their only policy.
They failed to vote for it.
This is a Tory project gone wrong for Tory reasons. It is utterly ridiculous to lay anything but a fraction of the blame at the door of the Labour opposition.
I can’t see it moving a single vote either way even if the secret papers showed that No Deal would result in death of the first born.
Look what happened to his predecessor when she signed off on an extension in March.
He’s Barnier’s inside man.
I reckon a Brexit deal was lost the minute Theresa May lost her majority. At that point the EU and the opposition parties saw blood, the ERG saw the prospect of Brexit being watered down (and also saw blood) and now we are in a big fucking mess.
Boris and his gang tried a macho way out but have been blocked by a pretty robust legal and political establishment.
Deadlock.
And it'll be the Tories who suffer most from a failure to deliver Brexit.
To be fair to Boris, I think he sees that bigger picture and wants to get a deal to avoid the party crumbling.
What a day it's been.
I'm trying to see this whole sorry mess from the point of view of a Conservative MP whose general outlook is one of quiet competence in government (if there any of them left). Where do they stand now, and what do they do?
My opinion is that they should see to it that Boris disappears as quickly and quietly as possible. The PM should fall, but the government doesn't need to. The government only becomes culpable if they allow the PM to stumble on despite this catastrophic verdict. They have a couple of days at most.
If they can lock Boris in a room with the metaphorical revolver, things can move on. If the cannot or will not, they have condoned the very thing they are against, chaos and mismanagement.
This is now D-Day fight for the soul of the Conservative & Unionist Party. If they blink, their side has lost the war. Moderates, do not resile. Your party needs you.
Lady Hale was also very eloquent in her statement this morning explaining the reasoning behind the decision.
Having done that, honour would require they at least attempt to try and get a deal done.
Instead, MPs have opposed everything and agreed nothing.
Pretending this is a Conservative-only matter is to rewrite history and close one eye to the present situation. It was only yesterday Corbyn made his splinter-arsed policy a confidence matter, thereby securing his conference's support instead of losing and Labour adopting a Remain position.
The New Bastards.
What you are expounding is essentially short-tern parliamentary tyranny, where if enough MPs come together they can pass whatever laws they like without checks and balances.
Better to grasp the nettle, resign and see what if anything the rabble in Westminster can cobble together.
What could possibly go wrong ?? ....
Of course, if Wollaston, Allen and Soubry had still been Tories you could have added them to the list.
On GE2017 numbers for MV3 about 8-9 New Bastards and about 28 Old Bastards.
Fair play to those MPs that didn't vote through A50, and even more kudos to those remainers that didn't vote through the original referendum.
All that releasing more Yellowhammer documents will do is stop planning scenarios from being written down, in case they are forced to be published.
yesterday I watched the bleating of Labour MPs who disagree fundamentally with their boss but tamely go down his road to perdition without the balls to leave.
Boris Johnson should resign. He won't.
Then he must be defeated in a General Election. But Corbz doesn't want one.
So it will be the usual bollocks about Evil Tories all the while he's choosing to prop them up.
The country switches off.
I guess it fits with all the other madness.
Didn't the Baldwin government do something similar in 1923 before winning a landslide in 1924?
But very few of the voter types that Johnson is targeting will understand these arguments let alone agree with them.
Could be some difficult questions for him from both sides.
The problem is not Boris. His opponents have the numbers and can sling him out tomorrow as PM.
The problem is that there is no stable alternative to Boris. If there was one, Boris would have been VNOCed by now.
If there is no stable alternative, then we really do have to have an election.
But we will see - Farage is a formidable politician.