I thought the only way that the government falls under the FTPA is a specific vote of no-confidence. So we could have the very odd situation of the Queen's Speech being voted down but the zombie government left undead.
All of this nonsense follows from Boris's brain-dead October 31st pledge.
Its got absolutely the square root of nothing to do with 31/10.
If Parliament had voted for an election it would have been held weeks before 31/10 and a new PM could have requested an extension if they'd wanted one.
Only if Boris had immediately called for an election, as soon as he became leader. Which he didn't.
Yes, lawyers only became rich after we joined the EU.
As Cyclefree and myself have pointed out the legal profession actually needs a No Deal Brexit to increase earnings further.
So, do your emigration plans centre on EU countries?
Despite being fluent in several languages including French and German I'm only looking at English speaking countries, as I'd be taking my parents with me as well and they speak English, Urdu, and Punjabi
So Ireland is one possibility, I like Canada, have friends and family there, and Australia too, another a friend keeps on offering me a job with NAB.
Ireland has the a. He hated both
Cultural dr is atrocious. After 18 months of trying, I gave up on beer and drank cider in pubs.
I thought Aussie beer was supposed to be good? But then, all beer tastes dredful as far as I am concerned. I still have not got over a good friend in CAMRA's pub crawl where he promised me spectacular beers. What I got was undrinkable....
Brits often find this very isolating, get depressed, and fly home. Boomerang people.
I would suggest that's a bit of a holdover from the old Australian licensing laws, where pubs were typically closed at 1800.
Yes, that's part of the explanation. Also, the sheer lack of people, and the size of the country - meaning everyone is scattered - makes it hard for local bars to thrive (outside of central Sydney etc)
Ideally, Australia would have a population of about 150 million. Then it would be be perfect.
I think its more than just that. There is a culture of having a drink with your friends outside around a BBQ.
In the UK its wet and miserable much of the year and people drink in pubs, then when the weather is nice have BBQs or drink in pubs with beer gardens. The Aussie culture of having a barbecue with your mates makes sense for them.
It is also to do with the size of homes and gardens. It encourages you to retreat to your own backyard. The latest urban planning in the US is to have more communal facilities and walking paths, and smaller back gardens, to encourage people to get out and know their neighbours.
Shipman is a dick. The idea was shit at the the time, was generally thought to be shit, was denounced as “executive fiat” by the Speaker, and caused news headlines around the world about the suspension of democracy.
That Cox thought it legal and that we should therefore cut Boris some slack is risible.
But Shipman has become demented by his Leavey-ness.
The High Court agreed with Cox! So he wasn't being unreasonable.
Given half the cabinet said such a course of action would be unreasonable, or plain wrong, during the recent leadership election - so they thought it shit, too. They weren't even allowed to see Cox's advice ahead of prorogation - so 'reasonable' is hardly convincing.
Fairer to say that he thought he might get away with it, given the reluctance of the courts to intervene on the exercise of the prerogative. His entire argument was that the court had no right to look at the decision to prorogue.
That was arguable, but a deeply cynical view of the law. Having lost on the law, it's entirely appropriate to throw brickbats in his general direction.
The cabinet didn't discuss this prorogation during the leadership campaign.
The proposed hypothetical prorogation that Dominic Raab advocated which was rejected during the campaign was a prorogation from start of September until start of November so that Parliament was unable to legislate to prevent Brexit.
The actual prorogation Boris attempted was completely different. The Benn bill would have been impossible under Raab's proposal had it been legal and gone ahead.....
The cabinet didn't discuss it, but several members opined on the issue, and condemned it.
The Raab idea was different, but not 'completely different'. Both would be prorogations well outside of the modern norm, prompted by tactical political considerations, and designed to limit the amount of time Parliament could sit.
Cox rightly thought Raab's idea outrageous - but then pared it down to what he thought the government could get away with. As I said, deeply cynical.
Well we cant accuse the polling companies of herding.
There has been a fall in Tory support, is what I'm seeing/sensing,
That is true of the two most recent opinion polls, something you might expect to happen purely by chance (assuming public opinion was steady) somewhere between one time in nine and one time in four.
Cox does not see the hypocrisy of saying the people should have a chance to vote again.
What is the hypocrisy exactly? Parliament is deadlocked. There's an impasse. It's a mess. A general election is needed. Something quite different from wanting a referendum re-held because you don't like the result of the first one.
You clearly don’t like the result of the last GE. Deal with it, like you’ve been telling us to.
The result of the last election was "implemented" - the result of the referendum hasn't been.
Settle down everyone. The judges aren't biased. Nor were the judges at QBD or Outer Session biased the other way.
The judgment is a duffer imho, not least for the reasons below, but the judges should not be personally impugned because of this.
Anyway, reasons the judgment is bad:
1. It swings another prerogative power into the justiciable. What was controlled politically is now subject to lawfare. Nothing good this way lies. When one team is cheering the judgment and the other is decrying them, it's a shitshow. 2. It makes the test for lawfulness of the exercise of that power a three-fold test: judicial discretion as to reasonableness on justification, judicial foresight as to the effect on the activities of Parliament, and judicial discretion as to whether it's worth a remedy. All three of those are political judgements, and are not sensibly matters for a judge. 3. It declared all parts of the prorogation to be not a parliamentary procedure, in order to sidestep art ix bill of rights. That's obviously wrong, and it's too far an extension of the rule in Chaytor. 4. The absence of a dissenting opinion, or even a second line of reasoning with the same result, is a concern. Three weeks ago this case looked hopeless, and yet the bench came back unanimous in their decision to do 1,2, and 3 above? And on a line of reasoning that was pretty much an afterthought in Pannick's written submissions? A really controversial matter, a really short judgment on which eleven lawyers agreed, and a fairly activist way of getting to it?
Anyway, remember courts make judgments and we make judgements. With an extra E.
Cox does not see the hypocrisy of saying the people should have a chance to vote again.
What is the hypocrisy exactly? Parliament is deadlocked. There's an impasse. It's a mess. A general election is needed. Something quite different from wanting a referendum re-held because you don't like the result of the first one.
You clearly don’t like the result of the last GE. Deal with it, like you’ve been telling us to.
The result of the last election was "implemented" - the result of the referendum hasn't been.
That's the difference as you fully well know...
Because the May Government and now the Johnson Government has been preventing it being implemented by not making it a settlement for 100% of the country rather than 52% of the country.
Surprise, surprise Hickley Point costs are over running already. Only a matter of time before the already cut back list of new reactor sites gets even shorter. Wind has won.
Interesting that Cox is speaking about a 1 line bill.
Not sure why they didn't try that first before prorogation?
Don't think they really wanted an election. Johnson did say he didn't want one, but had been forced. He made an attempt, half arsed, to get one. If he really had wanted one, he'd have: VoNCed his own government Laid down a one line bill And used the FTPA mechanism
He only did the latter. He should've tried all three. One of them might've worked.
Mr. Walker, the last mob outside a house that springs to mind is the one outside Mogg's home...
Deserved. He’s the nearest thing we have to a public enemy. He seems to be courting it too with his broadsides against the judiciary and his lies to the Queen.
Mobs turning up to people's personal homes to intimidate their families is despicable. As is your approval of it.
I thought the only way that the government falls under the FTPA is a specific vote of no-confidence. So we could have the very odd situation of the Queen's Speech being voted down but the zombie government left undead.
All of this nonsense follows from Boris's brain-dead October 31st pledge.
Its got absolutely the square root of nothing to do with 31/10.
If Parliament had voted for an election it would have been held weeks before 31/10 and a new PM could have requested an extension if they'd wanted one.
Only if Boris had immediately called for an election, as soon as he became leader. Which he didn't.
He called for an election when Parliament voted for the Benn Act. Had Parliament voted Aye then, we would be in a campaign now and a new PM could have requested an extension weeks before 31/10.
I thought the only way that the government falls under the FTPA is a specific vote of no-confidence. So we could have the very odd situation of the Queen's Speech being voted down but the zombie government left undead.
All of this nonsense follows from Boris's brain-dead October 31st pledge.
If the Tories extended again past October 31st their support would collapse to the Brexit Party no matter how often you deny it
I thought the only way that the government falls under the FTPA is a specific vote of no-confidence. So we could have the very odd situation of the Queen's Speech being voted down but the zombie government left undead.
All of this nonsense follows from Boris's brain-dead October 31st pledge.
Its got absolutely the square root of nothing to do with 31/10.
If Parliament had voted for an election it would have been held weeks before 31/10 and a new PM could have requested an extension if they'd wanted one.
Only if Boris had immediately called for an election, as soon as he became leader. Which he didn't.
He called for an election when Parliament voted for the Benn Act. Had Parliament voted Aye then, we would be in a campaign now and a new PM could have requested an extension weeks before 31/10.
That’s just not true and you know it. The PM could have simply changed the date of the election to after 31/10.
Cox does not see the hypocrisy of saying the people should have a chance to vote again.
What is the hypocrisy exactly? Parliament is deadlocked. There's an impasse. It's a mess. A general election is needed. Something quite different from wanting a referendum re-held because you don't like the result of the first one.
You clearly don’t like the result of the last GE. Deal with it, like you’ve been telling us to.
The result of the last election was "implemented" - the result of the referendum hasn't been.
That's the difference as you fully well know...
Because the May Government and now the Johnson Government has been preventing it being implemented by not making it a settlement for 100% of the country rather than 52% of the country.
This is your own fault.
That is simply not true. The majority of the votes against the WA did not provide any explanation for what they would need to support it. They then had indicative votes and most opposed other options. They also would not vote for a WA with the FR detached that kept open all options for a future Brexit deal. The problem is parliament will not vote for a soft Brexit deal, will not vote for a hard Brexit deal, will not vote for No Deal. They are trying to blame others for opposing every form of Brexit.
I thought the only way that the government falls under the FTPA is a specific vote of no-confidence. So we could have the very odd situation of the Queen's Speech being voted down but the zombie government left undead.
All of this nonsense follows from Boris's brain-dead October 31st pledge.
What happens if the Queen's Speech is voted down?
Now that it is no longer a confidence vote does it really have any practical meaning? A government has always been able to introduce legislation not mentioned in a Queen's Speech, for example in response to an emergency, so I think that beyond embarrassment and absurdity it wouldn't have any consequence.
Read it last nite. Proud of myself. It is however eminently readable, clear and concise.
The reasoning makes you wonder how the UK High Court reached a different decision. Did it consider different facts and issues? I know it doesn't matter in the end, especially as the SC supported the Scottish decision (which I believe was from a higher Court than the UK High Court), but I'd liked to know how it appeared to err so greatly.
Benchful of Leavers?! (Yeah, I know that's silly but in view of some of the tosh written about the Supreme Court judges, and the Scottish Court, couldn't resist.)
I'm not quibbling with the judgment. But I think the Supreme Court could have reached the same conclusion as the English [not UK] High Court and written just as eminently sensible and logical conclusion.
It is one of those issues where because the facts are largely obscure you can piece together a few logical points on either side, then build up to a conclusion that is quite clear and concise and logical. However if you'd chosen a few other points, a bit of a different emphasis elsewhere, then you could have come to just as clear, just as concise, just as logical a conclusion but the other way.
In a way its a bit like the famous push polling joke in Yes, Minister. What came forth before, all entirely logical, is what shapes the conclusion at the end. By the time you reach the conclusion there is only one logical conclusion - but had you put forth different points [which they could have] they could reach a different conclusion at the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
The High Court and the Supreme Court both did their job. Neither should be criticised.
Nor does this make us like America. If a majority in the Commons ever don't like a Supreme Court decision they can change the law. Problem solved.
Thanks Philip.
Yes, I suppose it's a bit like the VAR system. Anything that gets that far is by definition a close call and it depends how you see it. As a former referee I can sympathise with this. When you are on the pitch, you do quite literally perceive things differently, sometimes for the better, sometimes not.
I agree with you about the America comparison. Furthermore, the judgement made clear that the circumstances it was considering were exceptional so it is unlikely we will see a plethora of similar challenges, as Byronic and some others seem to imagine.
Hi Peter,
I found your “UK High Court” very jarring. There is no such thing. There are three distinct jurisdictions in the UK:
England and Wales Scotland N Ireland
The High Court in London is responsible for E&W only.
Probably a common misapprehension, but jarring in one otherwise very knowledgable in governance, administration and public life.
I thought the only way that the government falls under the FTPA is a specific vote of no-confidence. So we could have the very odd situation of the Queen's Speech being voted down but the zombie government left undead.
All of this nonsense follows from Boris's brain-dead October 31st pledge.
Its got absolutely the square root of nothing to do with 31/10.
If Parliament had voted for an election it would have been held weeks before 31/10 and a new PM could have requested an extension if they'd wanted one.
Only if Boris had immediately called for an election, as soon as he became leader. Which he didn't.
He called for an election when Parliament voted for the Benn Act. Had Parliament voted Aye then, we would be in a campaign now and a new PM could have requested an extension weeks before 31/10.
The timescale didn't work reliably, even if he could have been trusted not to fool with the date. It would not have left enough time to be sure (and that's without even thinking about the fact, which everyone seems to have forgotten, that there's a massive amount of indispensable legislation to pass if we are, God forbid, going to crash out in chaos).
Nope they are spot on, after May extended the Tories were often third in the polls behind both Labour and the Brexit Party, only Boris' refusal to extend again has taken the Tories back to first in the polls
Nope they are spot on, after May extended the Tories were often third in the polls behind both Labour and the Brexit Party, only Boris' refusal to extend again has taken the Tories back to first in the polls
Cox does not see the hypocrisy of saying the people should have a chance to vote again.
What is the hypocrisy exactly? Parliament is deadlocked. There's an impasse. It's a mess. A general election is needed. Something quite different from wanting a referendum re-held because you don't like the result of the first one.
You clearly don’t like the result of the last GE. Deal with it, like you’ve been telling us to.
The result of the last election was "implemented" - the result of the referendum hasn't been.
That's the difference as you fully well know...
Because the arithmetic of the GE called the result of the referendum into doubt. If there was the clear mandate in the country for Brexit that Leavers attempt to con themselves and others into believing, the Conservatives would have won a large majority. It was their inability to do so on a fairly uncompromising hard Brexit prospectus that has led us to the mess we are in.
If the Tories extended again past October 31st their support would collapse to the Brexit Party no matter how often you deny it
When have I ever denied it? Yes of course that is right - that is EXACTLY why it was such a brain-dead pledge.
What you don't seem to have understood is that crashing out without a deal on October 31st would also be totally disastrous for the Conservative Party (and the country, of course, but you don't seem in the least bit concerned about that).
I thought the only way that the government falls under the FTPA is a specific vote of no-confidence. So we could have the very odd situation of the Queen's Speech being voted down but the zombie government left undead.
All of this nonsense follows from Boris's brain-dead October 31st pledge.
Its got absolutely the square root of nothing to do with 31/10.
If Parliament had voted for an election it would have been held weeks before 31/10 and a new PM could have requested an extension if they'd wanted one.
Only if Boris had immediately called for an election, as soon as he became leader. Which he didn't.
He called for an election when Parliament voted for the Benn Act. Had Parliament voted Aye then, we would be in a campaign now and a new PM could have requested an extension weeks before 31/10.
That’s just not true and you know it. The PM could have simply changed the date of the election to after 31/10.
Why would anyone trust that he wouldn’t?
Not with a one line bill he couldn't have. Corbyn could have agreed to an election on condition of a one-line bill. Boris couldn't have rejected that.
Government tactics becoming clear via coxs statements
Not near a telly. What's happening?
Decrying parliament as a dead parliament and bigging up a one line election bill
So Con + DUP + Lib-Dem + ???
Refusing to implement a democratic referendum and then refusing to be held to account in a democratic election is a terrible look. It really does cement the image of an elite who think they know better and don't want the people to interfere.
I thought the only way that the government falls under the FTPA is a specific vote of no-confidence. So we could have the very odd situation of the Queen's Speech being voted down but the zombie government left undead.
All of this nonsense follows from Boris's brain-dead October 31st pledge.
Its got absolutely the square root of nothing to do with 31/10.
If Parliament had voted for an election it would have been held weeks before 31/10 and a new PM could have requested an extension if they'd wanted one.
Only if Boris had immediately called for an election, as soon as he became leader. Which he didn't.
He called for an election when Parliament voted for the Benn Act. Had Parliament voted Aye then, we would be in a campaign now and a new PM could have requested an extension weeks before 31/10.
The timescale didn't work reliably, even if he could have been trusted not to fool with the date. It would not have left enough time to be sure (and that's without even thinking about the fact, which everyone seems to have forgotten, that there's a massive amount of indispensable legislation to pass if we are, God forbid, going to crash out in chaos).
Passing legislation [or an extension] would be easier with a majority government endorsing that after an election would it not?
I thought the only way that the government falls under the FTPA is a specific vote of no-confidence. So we could have the very odd situation of the Queen's Speech being voted down but the zombie government left undead.
All of this nonsense follows from Boris's brain-dead October 31st pledge.
Its got absolutely the square root of nothing to do with 31/10.
If Parliament had voted for an election it would have been held weeks before 31/10 and a new PM could have requested an extension if they'd wanted one.
Only if Boris had immediately called for an election, as soon as he became leader. Which he didn't.
He called for an election when Parliament voted for the Benn Act. Had Parliament voted Aye then, we would be in a campaign now and a new PM could have requested an extension weeks before 31/10.
That’s just not true and you know it. The PM could have simply changed the date of the election to after 31/10.
Why would anyone trust that he wouldn’t?
Not with a one line bill he couldn't have. Corbyn could have agreed to an election on condition of a one-line bill. Boris couldn't have rejected that.
As I said. Boris is free to put that forward. The Government should be in control of the business of the Commons right? Or at least that’s what you guys have been frothing about for months.
Cox does not see the hypocrisy of saying the people should have a chance to vote again.
What is the hypocrisy exactly? Parliament is deadlocked. There's an impasse. It's a mess. A general election is needed. Something quite different from wanting a referendum re-held because you don't like the result of the first one.
You clearly don’t like the result of the last GE. Deal with it, like you’ve been telling us to.
The result of the last election was "implemented" - the result of the referendum hasn't been.
That's the difference as you fully well know...
The result of the last general election, which is more recent than the referendum, gave guidance to the government on how the electorate expected the referendum result to be interpreted and implemented. Some form of soft Brexit was clearly called for and the hung parliament demanded a consensual approach and cross-party working.The Tories, driven by the ERG, ignored all this and instead moved to a more and more extreme position, now only a "clean break" will do. This created the current impasse. It is far from clear that a new general election can resolve it.
Cox does not see the hypocrisy of saying the people should have a chance to vote again.
What is the hypocrisy exactly? Parliament is deadlocked. There's an impasse. It's a mess. A general election is needed. Something quite different from wanting a referendum re-held because you don't like the result of the first one.
You clearly don’t like the result of the last GE. Deal with it, like you’ve been telling us to.
The result of the last election was "implemented" - the result of the referendum hasn't been.
That's the difference as you fully well know...
Because the arithmetic of the GE called the result of the referendum into doubt. If there was the clear mandate in the country for Brexit that Leavers attempt to con themselves and others into believing, the Conservatives would have won a large majority. It was their inability to do so on a fairly uncompromising hard Brexit prospectus that has led us to the mess we are in.
Perhaps... But Theresa May threatening her own voters and running the worst campaign anyone can remember didn't help.
But you have a point and as I said on here at the time the Tories (and all other parties) were crazy not to go with May's deal on MV2 so we could say Brexit had been implemented, leave the treaties and move the hell on...
of course Boris wants to make it MPs vs the electorate. There's only going to be one winner. That was obvious from the beginning of Boris' permiership.
MPs rushing back to gaze at their navel. "What an impressive navel you are."
It's making Cox's job easy. "Put your money where your mouth is."
"No, we just want to sit and let the weeks go by. Oh, look, there goes some tumbleweed."
It is quite amusing watching some real venom from the opposition benches - Sheerman being just the latest - in recent weeks when their very parties refuse to trigger a general election.
Argos, like Thomas Cook, what the point of it? Why would you shop in Argos (as a stand alone store), when I can get everything they sell from Amazon, but cheaper.
Cox does not see the hypocrisy of saying the people should have a chance to vote again.
What is the hypocrisy exactly? Parliament is deadlocked. There's an impasse. It's a mess. A general election is needed. Something quite different from wanting a referendum re-held because you don't like the result of the first one.
You clearly don’t like the result of the last GE. Deal with it, like you’ve been telling us to.
The result of the last election was "implemented" - the result of the referendum hasn't been.
That's the difference as you fully well know...
The result of the last general election, which is more recent than the referendum, gave guidance to the government on how the electorate expected the referendum result to be interpreted and implemented. Some form of soft Brexit was clearly called for and the hung parliament demanded a consensual approach and cross-party working.The Tories, driven by the ERG, ignored all this and instead moved to a more and more extreme position, now only a "clean break" will do. This created the current impasse. It is far from clear that a new general election can resolve it.
The DUP and Tories got a majority on a Brexit that was more hard Brexit than May's deal. We are where we are because a coalition of a handful of ERGers and a vast number of Remain MPs voted it down.
Passing legislation [or an extension] would be easier with a majority government endorsing that after an election would it not?
Yes, if it was a majority government. That would of course also be true if Boris had done the sensible thing, which would have been to use his allegedly immense communication skills to point out the truth - that the October 31st deadline could not be met given the date on which he became PM - and to explain that he needed to ask for an extension, and then hold a GE without the absurd looming deadline.
Government tactics becoming clear via coxs statements
Not near a telly. What's happening?
Decrying parliament as a dead parliament and bigging up a one line election bill
So Con + DUP + Lib-Dem + ???
Refusing to implement a democratic referendum and then refusing to be held to account in a democratic election is a terrible look. It really does cement the image of an elite who think they know better and don't want the people to interfere.
There was a very strong attempt to implement the result of the referendum. The headbangers of the ERG and the DUP blocked it. They should be the people that are called to account for their gross stupidity. Instead BoZo gives them frontbench jobs
MPs rushing back to gaze at their navel. "What an impressive navel you are."
It's making Cox's job easy. "Put your money where your mouth is."
"No, we just want to sit and let the weeks go by. Oh, look, there goes some tumbleweed."
It is quite amusing watching some real venom from the opposition benches - Sheerman being just the latest - in recent weeks when their very parties refuse to trigger a general election.
You’ve refused a 2nd referendum. What’s your point?
MPs rushing back to gaze at their navel. "What an impressive navel you are."
It's making Cox's job easy. "Put your money where your mouth is."
"No, we just want to sit and let the weeks go by. Oh, look, there goes some tumbleweed."
It is quite amusing watching some real venom from the opposition benches - Sheerman being just the latest - in recent weeks when their very parties refuse to trigger a general election.
You’ve refused a 2nd referendum. What’s your point?
'I' have done nothing.
The people made their decision, in 2016. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
MPs rushing back to gaze at their navel. "What an impressive navel you are."
It's making Cox's job easy. "Put your money where your mouth is."
"No, we just want to sit and let the weeks go by. Oh, look, there goes some tumbleweed."
It is quite amusing watching some real venom from the opposition benches - Sheerman being just the latest - in recent weeks when their very parties refuse to trigger a general election.
You’ve refused a 2nd referendum. What’s your point?
'I' have done nothing.
The people made their decision, in 2016. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
The people made their decision, in 2017. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
Argos, like Thomas Cook, what the point of it? Why would you shop in Argos (as a stand alone store), when I can get everything they sell from Amazon, but cheaper.
MPs rushing back to gaze at their navel. "What an impressive navel you are."
It's making Cox's job easy. "Put your money where your mouth is."
"No, we just want to sit and let the weeks go by. Oh, look, there goes some tumbleweed."
It is quite amusing watching some real venom from the opposition benches - Sheerman being just the latest - in recent weeks when their very parties refuse to trigger a general election.
You’ve refused a 2nd referendum. What’s your point?
'I' have done nothing.
The people made their decision, in 2016. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
The people made their decision, in 2017. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
Which is why there needs to be a GE to break the deadlock!
Argos, like Thomas Cook, what the point of it? Why would you shop in Argos (as a stand alone store), when I can get everything they sell from Amazon, but cheaper.
If you want it that day?
That isn't really a sustainable business model, especially as Amazon increasingly has same day delivery. These days, for odds and ends I need then and there, I get from the supermarket, everything else the t'interweb.
I just don't see where a standalone Argos fit into that future.
Passing legislation [or an extension] would be easier with a majority government endorsing that after an election would it not?
Yes, if it was a majority government. That would of course also be true if Boris had done the sensible thing, which would have been to use his allegedly immense communication skills to point out the truth - that the October 31st deadline could not be met given the date on which he became PM - and to explain that he needed to ask for an extension, and then hold a GE without the absurd looming deadline.
That's your opinion, its not mine. Without an imminent deadline no talks with Europe would happen and we already have the information available to us. There's no need for an extension, but if the election was won by someone who wanted an extension that could have still happened.
MPs rushing back to gaze at their navel. "What an impressive navel you are."
It's making Cox's job easy. "Put your money where your mouth is."
"No, we just want to sit and let the weeks go by. Oh, look, there goes some tumbleweed."
It is quite amusing watching some real venom from the opposition benches - Sheerman being just the latest - in recent weeks when their very parties refuse to trigger a general election.
You’ve refused a 2nd referendum. What’s your point?
'I' have done nothing.
The people made their decision, in 2016. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
The people made their decision, in 2017. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
Which is why there needs to be a GE to break the deadlock!
Which is why there needs to be a 2nd referendum against a specific Brexit settlement to break the deadlock!
I thought the only way that the government falls under the FTPA is a specific vote of no-confidence. So we could have the very odd situation of the Queen's Speech being voted down but the zombie government left undead.
All of this nonsense follows from Boris's brain-dead October 31st pledge.
If the Tories extended again past October 31st their support would collapse to the Brexit Party no matter how often you deny it
I think there's a difference, in the eyes of Leave supporters, between the government choosing to extend, and being forced to by a House of Commons that will never tolerate Brexit.
On topic. I don’t like the FTPA. My reasoning is simple. Either the party(s) who won the last election and formed government shapes the date of the early election, or the losing parties in the last election shapes the date of the early election.
It is black and white as this one or other, in which case
1. what is fairest to own that little bit of power to shape it? 2. If it’s in the hands of the opposition, the losers last time, they can prolong the chaos of a government that is in office but not in power, and that chaos cannot be good for the country, economy, households or anything other than perhaps their parties self interest.
I think a compromise on 2 is for minority governments to be able to obtain an election if they have clearly lost control of the legislative programme and nobody else could (or wants to try to) form a functioning administration either. One way of doing that would be to reinstate the right to make important policy/legislative votes serve as votes of no confidence.
Prolonged periods of zombie government are unlikely to be healthy for the country even in less contentious times. Not just because it increases the chances of poor government or logically incoherent legislation (some which suits the government's policies and some designed to frustrate them) but because it encourages the legislature to dabble directly in the work of the executive - something rather dangerous in terms of checks and balances, since traditionally the main check on the government's executive actions was their accountability to parliament. Who would (which members of) parliament be accountable to if there are, effectively, ministries of the back benches?
Philip had a reasonable suggestion for amending it. That was surely the logic behind the 14 day window, but the opposition refusing to trigger the window is what is causing this constitutional horlicks. The government should be able to trigger the 14 day window too - then the opposition would [quite reasonably] have 14 days to demonstrate it has its own majority, or we go to the polls.
I like it, thanks. Difficult to keep up with the flow of comments here at times like this!
If the Tories extended again past October 31st their support would collapse to the Brexit Party no matter how often you deny it
When have I ever denied it? Yes of course that is right - that is EXACTLY why it was such a brain-dead pledge.
What you don't seem to have understood is that crashing out without a deal on October 31st would also be totally disastrous for the Conservative Party (and the country, of course, but you don't seem in the least bit concerned about that).
Wrong again, No Deal is clearly far better for the Tories than extend or revoke
MPs rushing back to gaze at their navel. "What an impressive navel you are."
It's making Cox's job easy. "Put your money where your mouth is."
"No, we just want to sit and let the weeks go by. Oh, look, there goes some tumbleweed."
It is quite amusing watching some real venom from the opposition benches - Sheerman being just the latest - in recent weeks when their very parties refuse to trigger a general election.
You’ve refused a 2nd referendum. What’s your point?
'I' have done nothing.
The people made their decision, in 2016. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
They appeared to change their mind in the following GE though. A significant TMay majority would have passed the WA. My 2017 GE trumps your 2016 referendum 🤣🤣🤣
MPs rushing back to gaze at their navel. "What an impressive navel you are."
It's making Cox's job easy. "Put your money where your mouth is."
"No, we just want to sit and let the weeks go by. Oh, look, there goes some tumbleweed."
It is quite amusing watching some real venom from the opposition benches - Sheerman being just the latest - in recent weeks when their very parties refuse to trigger a general election.
You’ve refused a 2nd referendum. What’s your point?
'I' have done nothing.
The people made their decision, in 2016. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
The people made their decision, in 2017. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
Which is why there needs to be a GE to break the deadlock!
Which is why there needs to be a 2nd referendum against a specific Brexit settlement to break the deadlock!
The result would only be implemented if we voted to Remain
Cox - THIS IS A DEAD PARLIAMENT, IT HAS NO RIGHT TO SIT
Blimey. Resign the government then mate.
Be careful what you wish for.
Why? Resigning the government means no election.
What's forcing an election got to do with it? It's about tactical positioning prior to the inevitable election that is coming now as soon as the extension beyond 31st October is secured. The scenario of being in a very short lived opposition will be significantly more favourable to the Conservatives than if the status quo continues for another few weeks and Johnson continues just to be pushed around reactively as a lame duck PM by parliament, the EU and the courts. The most important aspect is that Johnson escapes the consequences of being forced to seek a humiliating extension and can excoriate Corbyn for backing a government that does if he votes down a VONC sought by Johnson. Or otherwise we do get an immediate election, again with Johnson having his hands clean of an extension.
I thought the only way that the government falls under the FTPA is a specific vote of no-confidence. So we could have the very odd situation of the Queen's Speech being voted down but the zombie government left undead.
All of this nonsense follows from Boris's brain-dead October 31st pledge.
If the Tories extended again past October 31st their support would collapse to the Brexit Party no matter how often you deny it
I think there's a difference, in the eyes of Leave supporters, between the government choosing to extend, and being forced to by a House of Commons that will never tolerate Brexit.
Of course there is.
That is why hypothetical polls are meaningless, as much as HYUFD swears by them.
Argos, like Thomas Cook, what the point of it? Why would you shop in Argos (as a stand alone store), when I can get everything they sell from Amazon, but cheaper.
If you want it that day?
Exactly - last night I thought I had lost my mobile phone power pack and I'm going on holiday today, I was actually looking up what Argos might have to offer. As it happens, I found it this morning, I had absently-mindedly put it somewhere silly.
MPs rushing back to gaze at their navel. "What an impressive navel you are."
It's making Cox's job easy. "Put your money where your mouth is."
"No, we just want to sit and let the weeks go by. Oh, look, there goes some tumbleweed."
It is quite amusing watching some real venom from the opposition benches - Sheerman being just the latest - in recent weeks when their very parties refuse to trigger a general election.
You’ve refused a 2nd referendum. What’s your point?
'I' have done nothing.
The people made their decision, in 2016. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
The people made their decision, in 2017. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
Which is why there needs to be a GE to break the deadlock!
Which is why there needs to be a 2nd referendum against a specific Brexit settlement to break the deadlock!
The result would only be implemented if we voted to Remain
Not this bollocks again. Let me guess, the Queen is a lizard and 5G causes brain cancer as well?
MPs rushing back to gaze at their navel. "What an impressive navel you are."
It's making Cox's job easy. "Put your money where your mouth is."
"No, we just want to sit and let the weeks go by. Oh, look, there goes some tumbleweed."
It is quite amusing watching some real venom from the opposition benches - Sheerman being just the latest - in recent weeks when their very parties refuse to trigger a general election.
You’ve refused a 2nd referendum. What’s your point?
'I' have done nothing.
The people made their decision, in 2016. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
The people made their decision, in 2017. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
Which is why there needs to be a GE to break the deadlock!
Which is why there needs to be a 2nd referendum against a specific Brexit settlement to break the deadlock!
MPs rushing back to gaze at their navel. "What an impressive navel you are."
It's making Cox's job easy. "Put your money where your mouth is."
"No, we just want to sit and let the weeks go by. Oh, look, there goes some tumbleweed."
It is quite amusing watching some real venom from the opposition benches - Sheerman being just the latest - in recent weeks when their very parties refuse to trigger a general election.
You’ve refused a 2nd referendum. What’s your point?
'I' have done nothing.
The people made their decision, in 2016. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
The people made their decision, in 2017. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
Which is why there needs to be a GE to break the deadlock!
Which is why there needs to be a 2nd referendum against a specific Brexit settlement to break the deadlock!
Argos, like Thomas Cook, what the point of it? Why would you shop in Argos (as a stand alone store), when I can get everything they sell from Amazon, but cheaper.
If you want it that day?
Exactly - last night I thought I had lost my mobile phone power pack and I'm going on holiday today, I was actually looking up what Argos might have to offer. As it happens, I found it this morning, I had absently-mindedly put it somewhere silly.
I don't see that as a viable long term business just catering to the occasions when the absent minded lose something the day before they need it.
I thought the only way that the government falls under the FTPA is a specific vote of no-confidence. So we could have the very odd situation of the Queen's Speech being voted down but the zombie government left undead.
All of this nonsense follows from Boris's brain-dead October 31st pledge.
If the Tories extended again past October 31st their support would collapse to the Brexit Party no matter how often you deny it
I think there's a difference, in the eyes of Leave supporters, between the government choosing to extend, and being forced to by a House of Commons that will never tolerate Brexit.
Yes had Hunt won and chosen to extend again the Tories would be third behind the Brexit Party now as that poll shows
Argos, like Thomas Cook, what the point of it? Why would you shop in Argos (as a stand alone store), when I can get everything they sell from Amazon, but cheaper.
You could say that about almost anything. Convenience, habit, who knows? The crucial point is that whatever this loyalty factor is, it will be disrupted. The Sainsbury's gamble is that when they close these shops, their customers will be displaced into Sainsbury's and not Amazon.
We see the same thing often at work. Shutter X in favour of new product Y then watch customers desert us for rival product Z, because what we paint as an upgrade is seen by them as a reason for new RFPs and the whole procurement cycle.
But the important thing is that our directors get to make a bunch of short-term savings on X to qualify for bonuses, and there will be an uptick on Y as at least some customers transfer, so that's good too, right?
I thought the only way that the government falls under the FTPA is a specific vote of no-confidence. So we could have the very odd situation of the Queen's Speech being voted down but the zombie government left undead.
All of this nonsense follows from Boris's brain-dead October 31st pledge.
If the Tories extended again past October 31st their support would collapse to the Brexit Party no matter how often you deny it
I think there's a difference, in the eyes of Leave supporters, between the government choosing to extend, and being forced to by a House of Commons that will never tolerate Brexit.
We will find out, but as noted the hypotheticals are very worrying for the tories on that score. Some really do seem to think it makes no difference and they will punish Boris and sink Brexit as a result.
Argos, like Thomas Cook, what the point of it? Why would you shop in Argos (as a stand alone store), when I can get everything they sell from Amazon, but cheaper.
If you want it that day?
That isn't really a sustainable business model, especially as Amazon increasingly has same day delivery. These days, for odds and ends I need then and there, I get from the supermarket, everything else the t'interweb.
I just don't see where a standalone Argos fit into that future.
Maybe, I just tried to answered your question!
What’s the point of any High St store that sells stuff you can get on the internet? The latest parking charges in my town are just killing it more quickly. My guess is that in 20 years most high streets will be residential housing
I thought the only way that the government falls under the FTPA is a specific vote of no-confidence. So we could have the very odd situation of the Queen's Speech being voted down but the zombie government left undead.
All of this nonsense follows from Boris's brain-dead October 31st pledge.
If the Tories extended again past October 31st their support would collapse to the Brexit Party no matter how often you deny it
I think there's a difference, in the eyes of Leave supporters, between the government choosing to extend, and being forced to by a House of Commons that will never tolerate Brexit.
Yes had Hunt won and chosen to extend again the Tories would be third behind the Brexit Party now as that poll shows
Maybe they’d be 3rd but at least they wouldn’t be fearmongering populist scum.
Read it last nite. Proud of myself. It is however eminently readable, clear and concise.
The reasoning makes you wonder how the UK High Court reached a different decision. Did it consider different facts and issues? I know it doesn't matter in the end, especially as the SC supported the Scottish decision (which I believe was from a higher Court than the UK High Court), but I'd liked to know how it appeared to err so greatly.
Benchful of Leavers?! (Yeah, I know that's silly but in view of some of the tosh written about the Supreme Court judges, and the Scottish Court, couldn't resist.)
I'm not quibbling with the judgment. But I think the Supreme Court could have reached the same conclusion as the English [not UK] High Court and written just as eminently sensible and logical conclusion.
It is one of those issues where because the facts are largely obscure you can piece together a few logical points on either side, then build up to a conclusion that is quite clear and concise and logical. However if you'd chosen a few other points, a bit of a different emphasis elsewhere, then you could have come to just as clear, just as concise, just as logical a conclusion but the other way.
In a way its a bit like the famous push polling joke in Yes, Minister. What came forth before, all entirely logical, is what shapes the conclusion at the end. By the time you reach the conclusion there is only one logical conclusion - but had you put forth different points [which they could have] they could reach a different conclusion at the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
The High Court and the Supreme Court both did their job. Neither should be criticised.
Nor does this make us like America. If a majority in the Commons ever don't like a Supreme Court decision they can change the law. Problem solved.
Thanks Philip.
SNIP
Hi Peter,
I found your “UK High Court” very jarring. There is no such thing. There are three distinct jurisdictions in the UK:
England and Wales Scotland N Ireland
The High Court in London is responsible for E&W only.
Probably a common misapprehension, but jarring in one otherwise very knowledgable in governance, administration and public life.
Stuart , surprised you expect anything different here as in the country,media , etc it is as it always is UK = England
Argos, like Thomas Cook, what the point of it? Why would you shop in Argos (as a stand alone store), when I can get everything they sell from Amazon, but cheaper.
If you want it that day?
That isn't really a sustainable business model, especially as Amazon increasingly has same day delivery. These days, for odds and ends I need then and there, I get from the supermarket, everything else the t'interweb.
I just don't see where a standalone Argos fit into that future.
Back in my consulting days I did several detailed studies of Argos (though admittedly pre Sainsbury's purchase), and use it as a customer too.
It is poised, IMO, to be the main competitor to Amazon because:
1) Same day purchase. I can't see how this will never take off outside of the M25 for Amazon. 2) Demographic advantage. Did you know, for example, that you can reserve something online and pay cash in store? It is still a trusted brand by the baby boomers, too. 3) Pricing. Some of their products are tremendously good value - flat back bookcases, for example, are very cheap.
But first, Boris needs to deliver on his promise that he can get a Deal.
That is the promise he made to the Tory Party and to the country: “Do or Die” by October 31.
Since he seems to have spent his entire time since 2016 hanging out with No Dealers, plotting against Dealers, and has now promoted a bunch of No Dealers to Cabinet while attempting to suspend democratic norms and alienating anyone with a sense of right and wrong — it is true, that “Die” looks more likely at this point.
Argos, like Thomas Cook, what the point of it? Why would you shop in Argos (as a stand alone store), when I can get everything they sell from Amazon, but cheaper.
If you want it that day?
That isn't really a sustainable business model, especially as Amazon increasingly has same day delivery. These days, for odds and ends I need then and there, I get from the supermarket, everything else the t'interweb.
I just don't see where a standalone Argos fit into that future.
Maybe, I just tried to answered your question!
What’s the point of any High St store that sells stuff you can get on the internet? The latest parking charges in my town are just killing it more quickly. My guess is that in 20 years most high streets will be residential housing
Well, not everything is best bought on the internet e.g. clothing is harder.
But for general generic household items, I think you have to be either selling something novel or that you add value by high quality knowledge / advice.
Waitrose do that for food. A better example in the US, Best Buy is going strong, even though you can get all their stuff on Amazon. The reason is that their in-store staff are now highly trained, can give really good advice and also they offer services to come to your home and set up all that new equipment.
Argos doesn't do that, you go in and basically go through exactly the process you would on the internet. You can't see the product beforehand, you can't test it, and there is nobody giving you wide ranging advice.
And as I was saying, Leavers basically detest their country and wish to tear all the good parts down utterly.
Cox is a cock.
Another one whose reputation has been utterly salvaged by the demands of Brexit - which is acting as kind of gruelling machine for exposing your actual value set.
Argos, like Thomas Cook, what the point of it? Why would you shop in Argos (as a stand alone store), when I can get everything they sell from Amazon, but cheaper.
If you want it that day?
That isn't really a sustainable business model, especially as Amazon increasingly has same day delivery. These days, for odds and ends I need then and there, I get from the supermarket, everything else the t'interweb.
I just don't see where a standalone Argos fit into that future.
Back in my consulting days I did several detailed studies of Argos (though admittedly pre Sainsbury's purchase), and use it as a customer too.
It is poised, IMO, to be the main competitor to Amazon because:
1) Same day purchase. I can't see how this will never take off outside of the M25 for Amazon. 2) Demographic advantage. Did you know, for example, that you can reserve something online and pay cash in store? It is still a trusted brand by the baby boomers, too. 3) Pricing. Some of their products are tremendously good value - flat back bookcases, for example, are very cheap.
Buying items from physical stores rather than Amazon increasingly feels like a charitable donation.
Comments
My word Barry Shearman, what an embarrassment. 🙈
The Raab idea was different, but not 'completely different'.
Both would be prorogations well outside of the modern norm, prompted by tactical political considerations, and designed to limit the amount of time Parliament could sit.
Cox rightly thought Raab's idea outrageous - but then pared it down to what he thought the government could get away with.
As I said, deeply cynical.
Need. More. Polls.
That's the difference as you fully well know...
The judgment is a duffer imho, not least for the reasons below, but the judges should not be personally impugned because of this.
Anyway, reasons the judgment is bad:
1. It swings another prerogative power into the justiciable. What was controlled politically is now subject to lawfare. Nothing good this way lies. When one team is cheering the judgment
and the other is decrying them, it's a shitshow.
2. It makes the test for lawfulness of the exercise of that power a three-fold test: judicial discretion as to reasonableness on justification, judicial foresight as to the effect on the activities of Parliament, and judicial discretion as to whether it's worth a remedy. All three of those are political judgements, and are not sensibly matters for a judge.
3. It declared all parts of the prorogation to be not a parliamentary procedure, in order to sidestep art ix bill of rights. That's obviously wrong, and it's too far an extension of the rule in Chaytor.
4. The absence of a dissenting opinion, or even a second line of reasoning with the same result, is a concern. Three weeks ago this case looked hopeless, and yet the bench came back unanimous in their decision to do 1,2, and 3 above? And on a line of reasoning that was pretty much an afterthought in Pannick's written submissions? A really controversial matter, a really short judgment on which eleven lawyers agreed, and a fairly activist way of getting to it?
Anyway, remember courts make judgments and we make judgements. With an extra E.
This is your own fault.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/25/hinkley-point-nuclear-plant-to-run-29m-over-budget
He made an attempt, half arsed, to get one. If he really had wanted one, he'd have:
VoNCed his own government
Laid down a one line bill
And used the FTPA mechanism
He only did the latter. He should've tried all three. One of them might've worked.
The more that Tory support in the polls falls the more likely it becomes that Corbyn will call a general election.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/07/04/legal-adage/
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1176087917149728768?s=20
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1176096370702180355?s=20
The PM could have simply changed the date of the election to after 31/10.
Why would anyone trust that he wouldn’t?
Now that it is no longer a confidence vote does it really have any practical meaning? A government has always been able to introduce legislation not mentioned in a Queen's Speech, for example in response to an emergency, so I think that beyond embarrassment and absurdity it wouldn't have any consequence.
I found your “UK High Court” very jarring. There is no such thing. There are three distinct jurisdictions in the UK:
England and Wales
Scotland
N Ireland
The High Court in London is responsible for E&W only.
Probably a common misapprehension, but jarring in one otherwise very knowledgable in governance, administration and public life.
It's making Cox's job easy. "Put your money where your mouth is."
"No, we just want to sit and let the weeks go by. Oh, look, there goes some tumbleweed."
What you don't seem to have understood is that crashing out without a deal on October 31st would also be totally disastrous for the Conservative Party (and the country, of course, but you don't seem in the least bit concerned about that).
Best prices:
No 1/5
Yes 4/1
But you have a point and as I said on here at the time the Tories (and all other parties) were crazy not to go with May's deal on MV2 so we could say Brexit had been implemented, leave the treaties and move the hell on...
The people made their decision, in 2016. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
The government is like an LV-426 colonist having been grabbed and cocooned by the Alien.
I just don't see where a standalone Argos fit into that future.
No Deal is now, has always been, and will forever remain a Not Happening event.
Laying it - sometimes even below 3 - has been a licence to print money.
And it still is.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1176103416990437377?s=20
Https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1176087917149728768?s=20
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1176096370702180355?s=20
That is why hypothetical polls are meaningless, as much as HYUFD swears by them.
We see the same thing often at work. Shutter X in favour of new product Y then watch customers desert us for rival product Z, because what we paint as an upgrade is seen by them as a reason for new RFPs and the whole procurement cycle.
But the important thing is that our directors get to make a bunch of short-term savings on X to qualify for bonuses, and there will be an uptick on Y as at least some customers transfer, so that's good too, right?
What’s the point of any High St store that sells stuff you can get on the internet? The latest parking charges in my town are just killing it more quickly. My guess is that in 20 years most high streets will be residential housing
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1176823526399139840?s=20
It is poised, IMO, to be the main competitor to Amazon because:
1) Same day purchase. I can't see how this will never take off outside of the M25 for Amazon.
2) Demographic advantage. Did you know, for example, that you can reserve something online and pay cash in store? It is still a trusted brand by the baby boomers, too.
3) Pricing. Some of their products are tremendously good value - flat back bookcases, for example, are very cheap.
But first, Boris needs to deliver on his promise that he can get a Deal.
That is the promise he made to the Tory Party and to the country: “Do or Die” by October 31.
Since he seems to have spent his entire time since 2016 hanging out with No Dealers, plotting against Dealers, and has now promoted a bunch of No Dealers to Cabinet while attempting to suspend democratic norms and alienating anyone with a sense of right and wrong — it is true, that “Die” looks more likely at this point.
But he should be given a fair crack of the whip.
But for general generic household items, I think you have to be either selling something novel or that you add value by high quality knowledge / advice.
Waitrose do that for food. A better example in the US, Best Buy is going strong, even though you can get all their stuff on Amazon. The reason is that their in-store staff are now highly trained, can give really good advice and also they offer services to come to your home and set up all that new equipment.
Argos doesn't do that, you go in and basically go through exactly the process you would on the internet. You can't see the product beforehand, you can't test it, and there is nobody giving you wide ranging advice.
Cox is a cock.
Another one whose reputation has been utterly salvaged by the demands of Brexit - which is acting as kind of gruelling machine for exposing your actual value set.