Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Devastating defeat for Boris Johnson – and perhaps Brexit

1234568

Comments

  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,873
    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    LDs confirm they will support VONC even if no unity govt can be formed

    Are we finally moving to an election?
    Lab say non
    If SNP join Libs it will put the pressure on Labour surely?
    It should, and I think BBC are reporting both want to VoNC. Possible Bercow might call it if the 3rd and 4th parties are tabling it together. Labour would then be in a massive bind, as there is a reasonable chance the VoNC succeeds. A number of the '21' might either abstain, or in the case of Gyimah, would actively support the VoNC.
  • Mr. Pulpstar, aye, just one more dumb consequence of the Lib Dems' idiotic positioning.

    *sighs* And they were doing so fantastically well.
  • Pulpstar said:

    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.

    I think some were can kicking, with the hope to throw it out later on. But, at that stage, more felt duty bound to honour it.

    The politics changed most notably after GE2017 when the Parliamentary arithmetic changed.

    It provided a platform for stalemate and Brexit was then seriously ground down in trench warfare throughout the rest of 2017 in dull discussions over the divorce bill, which was sniped at by both sides.

    May totally failed to lead the debate, so she was already a wounded beast and in a poor position when she tried to fatten the pig on market day in November 2018.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,609
    Danny565 said:

    Selebian said:

    Danny565 said:

    Scott_P said:
    That polling seems surprisingly bad for Johnson.

    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).
    True, there's a distinction there. I wonder whether all those surveyed appreciated it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    edited September 2019
    Chris said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    kle4 said:

    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.
    The full judgment is here, should they wish to consider it:
    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf
    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.
    Yes, two of the judges on this panel ruled against Miller, and I think another one ruled against her from a lower court.

    As you say, a unanimous verdict from eleven judges in our top court is difficult to argue against, so the government have to deal with the decision and get on with the job.

    I’m expecting them to table a recess next week to coincide with the Con party conference, followed by a very short proroguing and a Queen’s Speech the following week.

    If the opposition don’t table a vote of no confidence tomorrow, then I’m not sure what the role of the opposition is supposed to be.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Sky News saying Attorney-General told Boris that what he was doing WAS lawful.
    Could be some difficult questions for him from both sides.

    Yes Cox's position specifically is untenable I think.
    He has honourable form so I’d expect him to go.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947

    The Conservate Party did not "support Leave". The majority of its MPs, including 90% of the Cabinet and the PM, supported Remain.

    I meant the 'party' - being its members.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    blueblue said:

    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Well.
    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.

    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.
    Huh? Offing the PM and preserving the government neuters a VONC.
    If the Conservative Party removes the person who caused this problem, they wash their hands clean. This is exactly the way to prevent an alternative government!
  • Pulpstar said:

    Sky News saying Attorney-General told Boris that what he was doing WAS lawful.
    Could be some difficult questions for him from both sides.

    Yes Cox's position specifically is untenable I think.
    A number of judges agreed with Cox - admittedly not those in the Supreme Court, but still there are senior members of our judiciary who believed it was not a matter for them to consider.

    Legal opinions will always vary and I do not believe that Cox would have given his advice without serious consideration. In the end, the Supreme Court did not agree with Cox - but that happens all the time in the courts - both sides of the argument can't win.
  • Sky News saying Attorney-General told Boris that what he was doing WAS lawful.
    Could be some difficult questions for him from both sides.

    I am sure that the Attorney General acted in good faith and felt that his interpretation was perfectly reasonable.

    If so, it just shows what a horlicks our system of governance has become now that the Supreme Court has seen fit to intervene in the political arena without having a written constitution there to limit the scope of their judgements. Without a rule book to act as guidance and to limit their reach, constitutional law turns into a matter of subjective interpretation and the predictability of rulings turns on a toss of a coin.
  • Agree with David that it was a brilliantly written judgment. And on most of the rest, too.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,895

    Pulpstar said:

    Sky News saying Attorney-General told Boris that what he was doing WAS lawful.
    Could be some difficult questions for him from both sides.

    Yes Cox's position specifically is untenable I think.
    A number of judges agreed with Cox - admittedly not those in the Supreme Court, but still there are senior members of our judiciary who believed it was not a matter for them to consider.

    Legal opinions will always vary and I do not believe that Cox would have given his advice without serious consideration. In the end, the Supreme Court did not agree with Cox - but that happens all the time in the courts - both sides of the argument can't win.
    Yes I know I know, but at least one head needs to roll for this - and it'll likely be Cox's.
    Johnson will accept his resignation letter signalling that he will be able to return to Gov't later.
    It'll be one of those good mannered resignations.
  • Pulpstar said:

    isam said:


    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.
    Even before the vote Farage was more interested in attacking erstwhile competitors on the Leave side than those he professed to fundamentally disagree with. The campaign was full of friendly fire between him/Banks and Cummings, and there is absolutely no love lost there. It’s personal.

    It’s pretty obvious to me that he craves to be right on the inside but, failing that, he wants to be the only big swinging dick on the outside, harvesting grievance for a living.
  • Noo said:

    blueblue said:

    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Well.
    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.

    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.
    Huh? Offing the PM and preserving the government neuters a VONC.
    If the Conservative Party removes the person who caused this problem, they wash their hands clean. This is exactly the way to prevent an alternative government!
    It also crashes their poll ratings by jettisoning a popular (by present standards) leader and destroying the government's policy. Which guarantees a loss in an upcoming GE.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    There is much glee among Boris' righteous opponents, but their diversity of sectional interests is unlikely to yield any very stable alternative.

    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.

    Or the Tories force him to resign. Could be a way to bring the 21 back in. Well, some of them.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,873

    isam said:

    GIN1138 said:

    This tweet from Farage has gone down like a lead balloon with Leavers

    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

    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.

    I guess it fits with all the other madness.
    Not this leaver. The problem with some Remainers is they tar all those who voted Leave with the same brush. In their eyes, all Leavers are racist gammon.

    Some leavers are racist gammon. So are some Remainers.
    Don't think there aren't Leavers who think Johnson isn't a complete idiot. I know he is.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,895
    Johnson isn't going to resign as leader of the Tories. He might resign as PM.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,364
    How will the EU react?

    That's very easy. They will look after number one, or twenty seven/twenty eight. They want us to remain. It's not our pretty face, it's the 10 billion net contribution which would be impossible to replace.

    That means that if they keep quiet, and make no serious attempt to negotiate, the UK MPs will do their work for them. Hence, any extension will be agreed despite the uncertainty causing temporary problems.

    Does anyone suspect otherwise?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    I see the government is mouthing words of respect while sources do the opposite. So typical. Any guesses for daily mail headline? It's going to be ugly and the government will gleefully support it while pretending they dont
  • Scott_P said:
    Why wouldn't ERG vote against again?
    Labour would because 'our deal would be better'.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    blueblue said:

    Noo said:

    blueblue said:

    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Well.
    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.

    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.
    Huh? Offing the PM and preserving the government neuters a VONC.
    If the Conservative Party removes the person who caused this problem, they wash their hands clean. This is exactly the way to prevent an alternative government!
    It also crashes their poll ratings by jettisoning a popular (by present standards) leader and destroying the government's policy. Which guarantees a loss in an upcoming GE.
    Oh there are ways to spin this in the Tories' favour: we're the party of law and order, one person made a mistake and he paid for it, nobody's above the law, would Labour really have had the ethical backbone to do this if Corbyn had done this, etc.
    The alternative is the party is lost for good from the point of view of those moderate Tory MPs whose heads I was trying to get into. They have a chance to claw back the brand of being the unflashy competent stewards they used to enjoy. That image is an electoral asset.
  • isam said:

    GIN1138 said:

    This tweet from Farage has gone down like a lead balloon with Leavers

    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

    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.

    I guess it fits with all the other madness.
    Not this leaver. The problem with some Remainers is they tar all those who voted Leave with the same brush. In their eyes, all Leavers are racist gammon.

    Some leavers are racist gammon. So are some Remainers.
    Don't think there aren't Leavers who think Johnson isn't a complete idiot. I know he is.
    It's all too easy to take twitter as representative of the world, instead of one particular slice of it. A fault easier to see in others than oneself.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,895
    edited September 2019
    kle4 said:

    I see the government is mouthing words of respect while sources do the opposite. So typical. Any guesses for daily mail headline? It's going to be ugly and the government will gleefully support it while pretending they dont

    The Mail online has a thing where they toss a vaguely negative headline (For Brexit) up into the air, in the full knowledge that the comments section will absolubtely smash it out the park.
    Headline : Bozza humiliated
    Comments : Fuck off Corbyn
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    Boris Johnson should resign as PM!

    Shame on the Tories if they keep a lawbreaker.

    In other news I am in Gibraltar! Interesting place. Got talking to some people from the US and we had much in common in political terms! They were registered Democrats and hate Trump, they got bonus points because they think Boris is like Trump and Brexit is against the UK national interest! When they left I wished them well and they said they were working to get shot of Trump in Pennsylvania where they lived. It was an interesting conversation and maybe reflects a more motivated democratic base. Met some other Brits who were complaining in a bar about Brexit. So i joined in with them and connected with them. I am staying in Spain as the accomadation is half the price. The hard border is not so good. The first time i went through it i had drunk 10 pints! So the queue time went quickly, however this morning it went slow! Not that they even look at the passport! I can understand why they dont want a hard border in Ireland!

    On a final note I am at the top of the rock and the people running away from the monkeys is very funny! One bloke went up a spiral staircase and tripped over in shock when he saw a monkey poised to pounce on him! I laughed out loud and the other people laughed too! :lol:
  • Sky News saying Attorney-General told Boris that what he was doing WAS lawful.
    Could be some difficult questions for him from both sides.

    I am sure that the Attorney General acted in good faith and felt that his interpretation was perfectly reasonable.

    If so, it just shows what a horlicks our system of governance has become now that the Supreme Court has seen fit to intervene in the political arena without having a written constitution there to limit the scope of their judgements. Without a rule book to act as guidance and to limit their reach, constitutional law turns into a matter of subjective interpretation and the predictability of rulings turns on a toss of a coin.
    Just about everything from the Supreme Court judgement is fine, except its surprising use of the word “quashed”.

    Quashed is almost colloquial and suggests a level of emotion behind its judgement against the Government’s actions.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947

    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.

    Not 100% of the blame with the Tories - that's fair - but up there close. It is a Tory project gone wrong for Tory reasons.

    Let's say 80%. And, yes, we can spray the other 20% across the rest of the - be still my pulsating brow - 'Political Class'.

    I'm happy with that.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    kle4 said:

    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.

    How is that different to how everyone has acted?
    It isn't.

    But as it is Conservative voters who mainly seem to be angry that Brexit deals were not just voted through regardless of their content (because the people voted leave) I was just curious if this was a consistent position and they were annoyed at Conservatives for voting against all the options other parties or even Tory Ken Clarke came up with.

    Or is it that MPs were supposed to blindly vote through only a Conservative Brexit?
  • Noo said:

    blueblue said:

    Noo said:

    blueblue said:

    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Well.
    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.

    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.
    Huh? Offing the PM and preserving the government neuters a VONC.
    If the Conservative Party removes the person who caused this problem, they wash their hands clean. This is exactly the way to prevent an alternative government!
    It also crashes their poll ratings by jettisoning a popular (by present standards) leader and destroying the government's policy. Which guarantees a loss in an upcoming GE.
    Oh there are ways to spin this in the Tories' favour: we're the party of law and order, one person made a mistake and he paid for it, nobody's above the law, would Labour really have had the ethical backbone to do this if Corbyn had done this, etc.
    The alternative is the party is lost for good from the point of view of those moderate Tory MPs whose heads I was trying to get into. They have a chance to claw back the brand of being the unflashy competent stewards they used to enjoy. That image is an electoral asset.
    Those days are gone - we're in a populist time now. Big blocs of voters on both left and right don't give the slightest shadow of a fuck how they get what they want, only that they get it.

    Taking the moral high ground will win glowing editorials on PB and in a few broadsheets, but lose millions of votes. Thanks, but no thanks.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Having read the BBC account of the ruling only, it looks to be a very, very good ruling not only for the particulars of this case, but for the future of the Constitution.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Jezza speech running late amid rumours he's been kidnapped by the Queen to be installed as Prime Minister in time for the BBC Six O'clock News .....
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,490
    looks like they are going to sit it out...

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1176519587745214464
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,251
    JackW said:
    Michael Gove does not reach the parts that Boris does.
  • Scott_P said:
    He really ought to resign so I can do the headline ‘Cox out, BJ next’
  • Absolutely pissing it down again.

    Hope the evening walk is better than the early afternoon perambulation. Been a while since I had to wear waterproof trousers.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,895
    Cox not resigning is perhaps more interesting than him resigning tbh.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    blueblue said:

    Taking the moral high ground [...] no thanks.

    Remarkable.
  • Scott_P said:
    Good. No one will give a damn in a few days. We might even have prorogued again by then!

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302
    edited September 2019
    MTimT said:

    Having read the BBC account of the ruling only, it looks to be a very, very good ruling not only for the particulars of this case, but for the future of the Constitution.

    Indeed.

    What a contrast to the ‘limited to the present circumstances only’ from another Supreme Court.
  • blueblueblueblue Posts: 875
    edited September 2019
    Noo said:

    blueblue said:

    Taking the moral high ground [...] no thanks.

    Remarkable.
    But true.

    No sane Conservative could allow a far left takeover of the UK in the name of "playing fair" or "doing the right thing". It's not a game.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947

    Just about everything from the Supreme Court judgement is fine, except its surprising use of the word “quashed”.

    Quashed is almost colloquial and suggests a level of emotion behind its judgement against the Government’s actions.

    Listening to the judgement I did detect some anger - and a touch of contempt.

    Just a trace.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,828

    Scott_P said:
    He really ought to resign so I can do the headline ‘Cox out, BJ next’
    Not 'Cox out, Johnson stands firm'?
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268

    Scott_P said:
    Why wouldn't ERG vote against again?
    Labour would because 'our deal would be better'.
    A "confirmatory vote" is very misleading language. It means a second referendum to keep on asking the people until they give the right answer. An actual confirmatory vote would just be on the deal, not on the decision that has already be made.

    The only way to fairly have a second referendum on membership is after the first has been abided by.
  • RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    He really ought to resign so I can do the headline ‘Cox out, BJ next’
    Not 'Cox out, Johnson stands firm'?
    Excellent.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    LDs confirm they will support VONC even if no unity govt can be formed

    Are we finally moving to an election?
    Lab say non
    If SNP join Libs it will put the pressure on Labour surely?
    It should, and I think BBC are reporting both want to VoNC. Possible Bercow might call it if the 3rd and 4th parties are tabling it together. Labour would then be in a massive bind, as there is a reasonable chance the VoNC succeeds. A number of the '21' might either abstain, or in the case of Gyimah, would actively support the VoNC.
    I JUST HEARD IAN BLACKWELL

    He said GE once it is impossible for Boris to get No Deal
  • Pulpstar said:

    Johnson isn't going to resign as leader of the Tories. He might resign as PM.

    Yup, and leave Corbyn to request the extension prior to a GE.

    The next election is going to be RAGE.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,316

    Scott_P said:
    He really ought to resign so I can do the headline ‘Cox out, BJ next’
    ah shadows of your old self, welcome back :-)
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,490
    Scott_P said:
    I'd assume that there was a lot of rewriting over the last couple of hours
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Sky News saying Attorney-General told Boris that what he was doing WAS lawful.
    Could be some difficult questions for him from both sides.

    I am sure that the Attorney General acted in good faith and felt that his interpretation was perfectly reasonable.

    If so, it just shows what a horlicks our system of governance has become now that the Supreme Court has seen fit to intervene in the political arena without having a written constitution there to limit the scope of their judgements. Without a rule book to act as guidance and to limit their reach, constitutional law turns into a matter of subjective interpretation and the predictability of rulings turns on a toss of a coin.
    Just about everything from the Supreme Court judgement is fine, except its surprising use of the word “quashed”.

    Quashed is almost colloquial and suggests a level of emotion behind its judgement against the Government’s actions.
    Quashed is a perfectly usual legal term in both civil and criminal proceedings.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    Absolutely disgusting. They are now laughing at Jews having a problem with Anti-Semitism and doing what they can to celebrate and award anti-Semitic materials as prizes.

    Anyone that votes Labour at the next election will have a moral stain upon them.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    kle4 said:

    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.
    The full judgment is here, should they wish to consider it:
    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf
    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.
    Lady H is my new crush. :smile:
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,316
    Jezza going for a GE ?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947

    Not this leaver. The problem with some Remainers is they tar all those who voted Leave with the same brush. In their eyes, all Leavers are racist gammon.

    Some leavers are racist gammon. So are some Remainers.
    Don't think there aren't Leavers who think Johnson isn't a complete idiot. I know he is.

    Very few 'racist gammon' would have voted Remain.

    Is that not a tautology btw - racist gammon?
  • Gabs2 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Why wouldn't ERG vote against again?
    Labour would because 'our deal would be better'.
    A "confirmatory vote" is very misleading language. It means a second referendum to keep on asking the people until they give the right answer. An actual confirmatory vote would just be on the deal, not on the decision that has already be made.

    The only way to fairly have a second referendum on membership is after the first has been abided by.
    It is surprising how few people have suggested deal vs extend as a referendum. It respects the orignal vote whilst also taking out the reckless no deal as a short term outcome.

    It would particularly have suited T Mays government very well, forcing the ERG wing into being the ones asking for the extension, and been hard for Labour to refuse, Labour leavers could have got behind it too.
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,316
    CatMan said:
    yes, but thats 26 working days away. Then what ?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Norm said:

    JackW said:
    Michael Gove does not reach the parts that Boris does.
    Are you another Boris paramour ?!? :astonished:
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637
    Gabs2 said:

    Absolutely disgusting. They are now laughing at Jews having a problem with Anti-Semitism and doing what they can to celebrate and award anti-Semitic materials as prizes.

    Anyone that votes Labour at the next election will have a moral stain upon them.
    Whereas anyone who votes for the in Trumps Pocket Law Breaking Racist Jester would be morally superior!!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,828
    edited September 2019
    CatMan said:
    They didn't seem that bothered about a disastrous no deal when they voted down May's deal three times.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,490
    CatMan said:
    but he's going to cause as much humiliation to BJ until then
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    .

    Scott_P said:
    He really ought to resign so I can do the headline ‘Cox out, BJ next’
    Damn you, Eagles. I now have to explain the uncontainable laughter to the missus.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    edited September 2019

    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).

    I'd buy at 60 without hesitation.

    It would be verging on a Fix.
  • FlannerFlanner Posts: 437

    Noo said:


    If [Tory MPs] 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.

    Is this possible? Understandably, it's highly likely most Tories - even if you include the real Conservatives, whom Johnson has withdrawn the whip from - won't force Johnson to resign if the alternative is Corbyn.

    If the alternative is a Tory, it takes 6 weeks to elect a new leader - and it'd probably be another Johnsonite fanatic anyway, since YouGov is showing that 60% of Tory voters (and therefore a higher proportion of Tory members) think the SC is wrong. So we'd still get a Tory PM in favour of no deal. If anything most of them (Leadsome, Raab, etc) are worse than Johnson

    So your plan only works if the Rebel Alliance can find a non-Tory, non-Corbyn, it'll all back. In the light of yesterday's Conference vote, that calls for an AWFUL lot of Labour Remain MPs to stab their leader in the back.

    Seriously likely?
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    blueblue said:

    Noo said:

    blueblue said:

    Taking the moral high ground [...] no thanks.

    Remarkable.
    But true.

    No sane Conservative could allow a far left takeover of the UK in the name of "playing fair" or "doing the right thing". It's not a game.
    Fuck me, are you thick? I'm talking about how the Conservatives stay in government. Someone has to pay for this disaster. The Conservatives can make it the whole party, or they can make it Boris alone. No Boris = no VONC = no Corbyn government.
  • CatMan said:
    No. It's the PLP that has the whip hand in this, they are not at Corbyn's command and after the attempt to get rid of Watson they will be even more wary of supporting an early election if they aren't sure it will ultimately lead to remain. I think that calls for ref 2 will become louder over the next few weeks and I'd say the chances of that happening before a GE are rising rapidly.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268

    Gabs2 said:

    Absolutely disgusting. They are now laughing at Jews having a problem with Anti-Semitism and doing what they can to celebrate and award anti-Semitic materials as prizes.

    Anyone that votes Labour at the next election will have a moral stain upon them.
    Whereas anyone who votes for the in Trumps Pocket Law Breaking Racist Jester would be morally superior!!
    False equivalence is the go-to position of the Corbynites who can't defend the vile Anti-Semitism of Labour. Awarding anti-Semitic cartoons as competition prizes after the scandal is truly sickening.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,141

    Pulpstar said:

    Sky News saying Attorney-General told Boris that what he was doing WAS lawful.
    Could be some difficult questions for him from both sides.

    Yes Cox's position specifically is untenable I think.
    A number of judges agreed with Cox - admittedly not those in the Supreme Court, but still there are senior members of our judiciary who believed it was not a matter for them to consider.

    Legal opinions will always vary and I do not believe that Cox would have given his advice without serious consideration. In the end, the Supreme Court did not agree with Cox - but that happens all the time in the courts - both sides of the argument can't win.
    Very eminent judges in the High Court agreed with the government, so I don't think his position is untenable.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,316

    CatMan said:
    No. It's the PLP that has the whip hand in this, they are not at Corbyn's command and after the attempt to get rid of Watson they will be even more wary of supporting an early election if they aren't sure it will ultimately lead to remain. I think that calls for ref 2 will become louder over the next few weeks and I'd say the chances of that happening before a GE are rising rapidly.
    well as was pointed out by the commentariat whats the point of a ref framed by HMG and administered by it if the vote is remain. Twaddle.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    RobD said:

    CatMan said:
    They didn't seem that bothered about a disastrous no deal when they voted down May's deal three times.
    Shush, were supposed to pretend that does not count.
  • Sandpit said:

    .

    Scott_P said:
    He really ought to resign so I can do the headline ‘Cox out, BJ next’
    Damn you, Eagles. I now have to explain the uncontainable laughter to the missus.
    Sorry, not sorry.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 1,982

    148grss said:

    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.
    Your MP owes you his judgement, not his free will.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,316
    Jezza inspiring the faithful
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,153
    spudgfsh said:

    CatMan said:
    but he's going to cause as much humiliation to BJ until then
    He won't be able to if the government resigns.
  • Are you referring to the initials of the Prime Minister?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    CatMan said:
    I've said it a few times, seemed fairly obvious to me. It is the reason all the parties didn't go for the election in the first place. Johnson cannot be trusted.
  • Noo said:

    blueblue said:

    Noo said:

    blueblue said:

    Taking the moral high ground [...] no thanks.

    Remarkable.
    But true.

    No sane Conservative could allow a far left takeover of the UK in the name of "playing fair" or "doing the right thing". It's not a game.
    Fuck me, are you thick? I'm talking about how the Conservatives stay in government. Someone has to pay for this disaster. The Conservatives can make it the whole party, or they can make it Boris alone. No Boris = no VONC = no Corbyn government.
    I'm afraid you're the thick one, unless you can explain what alternative Conservative leader with what alternative policy is going to perform better. And no, no one has to "pay" for this disaster - we just need to ride it out for a few news cycles and it will be forgotten when the next big news item comes around.

    If Corbyn were to be installed by a VONC before an election, he will be far off a majority for his loony ideas, and an election will soon follow that Boris will have a pretty good chance of winning.
  • JackW said:

    Sky News saying Attorney-General told Boris that what he was doing WAS lawful.
    Could be some difficult questions for him from both sides.

    I am sure that the Attorney General acted in good faith and felt that his interpretation was perfectly reasonable.

    If so, it just shows what a horlicks our system of governance has become now that the Supreme Court has seen fit to intervene in the political arena without having a written constitution there to limit the scope of their judgements. Without a rule book to act as guidance and to limit their reach, constitutional law turns into a matter of subjective interpretation and the predictability of rulings turns on a toss of a coin.
    Just about everything from the Supreme Court judgement is fine, except its surprising use of the word “quashed”.

    Quashed is almost colloquial and suggests a level of emotion behind its judgement against the Government’s actions.
    Quashed is a perfectly usual legal term in both civil and criminal proceedings.
    The one bit of the ruling that I felt was a bit iffy was in para 57, which said

    "A fundamental change was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October 2019. Whether or not this is a good thing is not for this or any other court to judge"

    While on the face of it that's a neutral comment, there's still a bit of an implication that "but if we were to judge, we'd say it was bloody stupid". It would have been better to have left the point out, not least because it adds nothing and no-one raised it as an issue.
  • NEW THREAD

  • Scott_P said:
    Haha, BoZo must know he is shit when a LoTO as crap as Corbyn says "I don't think he is fit to be PM"!! The irony!
  • blueblue said:

    Noo said:

    blueblue said:

    Noo said:

    blueblue said:

    Taking the moral high ground [...] no thanks.

    Remarkable.
    But true.

    No sane Conservative could allow a far left takeover of the UK in the name of "playing fair" or "doing the right thing". It's not a game.
    Fuck me, are you thick? I'm talking about how the Conservatives stay in government. Someone has to pay for this disaster. The Conservatives can make it the whole party, or they can make it Boris alone. No Boris = no VONC = no Corbyn government.
    I'm afraid you're the thick one, unless you can explain what alternative Conservative leader with what alternative policy is going to perform better. And no, no one has to "pay" for this disaster - we just need to ride it out for a few news cycles and it will be forgotten when the next big news item comes around.

    If Corbyn were to be installed by a VONC before an election, he will be far off a majority for his loony ideas, and an election will soon follow that Boris will have a pretty good chance of winning.
    As it is, there's no VONC coming because Corbyn is too cowardly to call one against Boris!
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    Sky News saying Attorney-General told Boris that what he was doing WAS lawful.
    Could be some difficult questions for him from both sides.

    I am sure that the Attorney General acted in good faith and felt that his interpretation was perfectly reasonable.

    If so, it just shows what a horlicks our system of governance has become now that the Supreme Court has seen fit to intervene in the political arena without having a written constitution there to limit the scope of their judgements. Without a rule book to act as guidance and to limit their reach, constitutional law turns into a matter of subjective interpretation and the predictability of rulings turns on a toss of a coin.
    Just about everything from the Supreme Court judgement is fine, except its surprising use of the word “quashed”.

    Quashed is almost colloquial and suggests a level of emotion behind its judgement against the Government’s actions.
    Disagree, Casino. Dictionary definition.

    quash: reject or void, especially by legal procedure
  • Gabs2 said:

    Absolutely disgusting. They are now laughing at Jews having a problem with Anti-Semitism and doing what they can to celebrate and award anti-Semitic materials as prizes.

    Anyone that votes Labour at the next election will have a moral stain upon them.
    The two main parties: One is anti-Semite, with an incompetent "leader", and the other is "led" by an incompetent liar and law breaker!
  • CatMan said:
    I've said it a few times, seemed fairly obvious to me. It is the reason all the parties didn't go for the election in the first place. Johnson cannot be trusted.
    And because Boris would smash them :smile:
  • Noo said:


    Fuck me, are you thick? I'm talking about how the Conservatives stay in government. Someone has to pay for this disaster. The Conservatives can make it the whole party, or they can make it Boris alone. No Boris = no VONC = no Corbyn government.

    Why would the Tories want to deliver the extension request?

    I would much rather see the government resign and Corbyn do the dirty before a GE.

    I'm a Tory and I WANT a Labour PM to request the extension.
  • ab195ab195 Posts: 477
    This is not going to end well. In normal times I’d be first to say a PM in this position should resign. However because of the Remain/Leave battle I’m now the first to say he needs to stay. I also now find myself hoping for a full throated Leave win when the election comes, and a democratic revolution that destroys everything the average Remain voter holds dear.

    That it has come to this, and we couldn’t find a traditional British compromise is sad. But change is going to have to come. We might stay in the EU for now, but my god those who make that happen are going to reap what they have sown.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Johnson isn't going to resign as leader of the Tories. He might resign as PM.

    Yup, and leave Corbyn to request the extension prior to a GE.

    The next election is going to be RAGE.
    I agree. It will be a RAGE against a Labour Party led by an anti-Semite and RAGE against a party led by an incompetent lying law breaker. Plenty to RAGE about that is far more important than the childish notion that is Brexit. No wonder the real "establishment" love Brexit so much. It creates the conditions where the most stupid rage against something that is less important than many other things they would rather were not noticed.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    blueblue said:

    CatMan said:
    I've said it a few times, seemed fairly obvious to me. It is the reason all the parties didn't go for the election in the first place. Johnson cannot be trusted.
    And because Boris would smash them :smile:
    That wouldn't be a reason to put it back only 6 weeks.

    I look forward to the chance to possibly boot the Blonde tyrant and his brown shirts out of office :)
  • blueblue said:

    CatMan said:
    I've said it a few times, seemed fairly obvious to me. It is the reason all the parties didn't go for the election in the first place. Johnson cannot be trusted.
    And because Boris would smash them :smile:
    Yea right. Keep believing your fantasies. Boris has fooled some of the people some of the time, and even maybe all of the people some of the time......
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    blueblue said:

    Noo said:

    blueblue said:

    Noo said:

    blueblue said:

    Taking the moral high ground [...] no thanks.

    Remarkable.
    But true.

    No sane Conservative could allow a far left takeover of the UK in the name of "playing fair" or "doing the right thing". It's not a game.
    Fuck me, are you thick? I'm talking about how the Conservatives stay in government. Someone has to pay for this disaster. The Conservatives can make it the whole party, or they can make it Boris alone. No Boris = no VONC = no Corbyn government.
    I'm afraid you're the thick one, unless you can explain what alternative Conservative leader with what alternative policy is going to perform better. And no, no one has to "pay" for this disaster - we just need to ride it out for a few news cycles and it will be forgotten when the next big news item comes around.

    If Corbyn were to be installed by a VONC before an election, he will be far off a majority for his loony ideas, and an election will soon follow that Boris will have a pretty good chance of winning.
    The Conservatives don't have to change policy. I'd like them to, but this case was not about policy. It was about the rule of law. A different leader who isn't tainted by the unlawful actions could pursue exactly the same policy. Actually, thinking about it, probably Dominic Raab is ruled out because he also wanted to prorogue parliament.
    As for "riding it out"... this is never going to go away. Boris Johnson will always be the PM who illegally suspended parliament. The Conservative Party can wash their hands of that action, or they can own it. If they choose to own it, so be it. It will always be used against them.
    If your calculation really is that this won't make any difference, then clearly owning it makes sense. But that is antithetical to the style and ideology of those moderates I was talking about from the start. That's not the way they see the world. And any election they stand in would be extremely uncomfortable because they would be forced to field questions about Boris's conduct. And either they have to disown their own leader, or they have to disown their own ideology about the importance of standards in public life and rule of law.
This discussion has been closed.