Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting opens on Beaconsfield which almost certainly will be o

12357

Comments

  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    nichomar said:

    Clarity required by an expert please. VONC passed what happens next, in who or what is a confidence vote required to be invited to form a government and also if BJ resigned having lost a confidence vote what happens next?

    Where's Mystic Meg when you need her?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,504

    Interesting suggestion doing the rounds on twitter.

    Instead of the Opposition parties squabbling, let them ALL do it. The joint leaders (Premiers) go to the Palace and to the EU, extend Article 50 and then call the election.

    A SO24 might be needed, but I'm not so sure it even is. The confidence motion is in the Government, not in a Prime Minister.

    So the Premiership is: Corbyn, Swinson, Blackford, Clarke and maybe a couple of others if needed.

    Job done.

    A Murder on the Orient Express type solution.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,616

    Interesting suggestion doing the rounds on twitter.

    Instead of the Opposition parties squabbling, let them ALL do it. The joint leaders (Premiers) go to the Palace and to the EU, extend Article 50 and then call the election.

    A SO24 might be needed, but I'm not so sure it even is. The confidence motion is in the Government, not in a Prime Minister.

    So the Premiership is: Corbyn, Swinson, Blackford, Clarke and maybe a couple of others if needed.

    Job done.

    A Murder on the Orient Express type solution.
    ....and about as likely.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,124
    justin124 said:

    rpjs said:

    nichomar said:

    Chris said:

    DavidL said:


    (3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.

    But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.

    The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.

    Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
    It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
    No. The FTPA wording for the motion to cancel the 14-day countdown is "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". Therefore, there has to be a government in place for the House to have confidence in, which of course would have to be different personnel than the one that the House does not have confidence in.

    Now, I don't think there's an actual definition of what constitutes "Her Majesty's Government" and while I doubt it means that the entire payroll vote needs to have been appointed, it would seem reasonable that at least the Great Offices such as the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, i.e. PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer at least, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney- and maybe Solicitor- General, Lord President and Lord Privy Seal and I should say at least one Secretary of State would need to have been appointed. (The Secretaries of State for technically share the historic office of Secretary of State and any one can act for another in case of absence or vacancy.)
    Agree with that. I imagine a new PM would have perhaps 72 hours before submitting the Government to an affirmative VOC.
    Would the current PM be wise to seek to table both a VOC and a VONC for every sitting day for the rest of the month? Effectively holes the humble address below the waterline, and allows the conservative benches an immediate shot at any new government before it can put anyone on the Eurostar.

    No risk of losing with the polls as they are, and by tabling both you ameliorate the bad optics of voncing yourself.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,900



    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?

    I'm no lawyer (mercifully). "Not frustrating the Benn Act" doesn't mean Johnson would himself sign up to an extension. Politically, were he to do so, he would destroy himself and his Party which would be no great loss in and of themselves but he's not that stupid.

    The position then becomes interesting - somebody has to agree to the extension if Boris resigns and presumably no one else in his Party would be willing so to do. The anti-No Deal majority has to form a Government because the EU deals with Governments not legislative chambers.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    stodge said:



    Is this the same WA that the EU has shredded to bits and then someone subsequently leaked to The Grauniad?

    No, the original one rejected by the Commons three times but which may look very attractive as the cliff edge of No Deal beckons.
    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?
    This may be old hat, but can Boris send the letter with a sticky note saying "if you think I'm going to accept any offer you make, you are delusioned"?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,151
    edited October 2019

    Jut seen Trump's last couple of tweets. He sounds like he's off his rocker.

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1181232249821388801

    ‘My great about his legendary modesty.
    Trumpton should seek help. Just like the idiots on here who support him.
    Who on here supports Trump? Name names....
    HY, TG and more.
    I do not support Trump as such (I would probably vote for Kasich if he ran) but nor do I think he is the devil incarnate and in fact his foreign policy statement tonight of US withdrawal from interfering in Syria now ISIS is beaten is something leftwingers would have applauded 4 years ago
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    stodge said:



    Is this the same WA that the EU has shredded to bits and then someone subsequently leaked to The Grauniad?

    No, the original one rejected by the Commons three times but which may look very attractive as the cliff edge of No Deal beckons.
    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?
    This may be old hat, but can Boris send the letter with a sticky note saying "if you think I'm going to accept any offer you make, you are delusioned"?
    Not without being in contempt of court
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited October 2019
    The surprising thing about Beaconsfield at the referendum was that it was so close. One would have expected it to have voted at least 55% Remain, and maybe as high as 60%.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    justin124 said:

    nichomar said:

    justin124 said:

    nichomar said:

    justin124 said:

    rpjs said:

    nichomar said:



    It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence

    No. The FTPA wording for the motion to cancel the 14-day countdown is "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". Therefore, there has to be a government in place for the House to have confidence in, which of course would have to be different personnel than the one that the House does not have confidence in.

    Now, I don't think there's an actual definition of what constitutes "Her Majesty's Government" and while I doubt it means that the entire payroll vote needs to have been appointed, it would seem reasonable that at least the Great Offices such as the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, i.e. PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer at least, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney- and maybe Solicitor- General, Lord President and Lord Privy Seal and I should say at least one Secretary of State would need to have been appointed. (The Secretaries of State for technically share the historic office of Secretary of State and any one can act for another in case of absence or vacancy.)
    Agree with that. I imagine a new PM would have perhaps 72 hours before submitting the Government to an affirmative VOC.
    If you are not PM you can’t appoint anyone therefore it is all about showing confidence in an individual through a voc before they become PM.
    But he would have already have formed a Government before the Commons voted on an affirmative VOC.
    How? At best it would be a list of names none of which would hold the seals of office or been confirmed by the Queen.
    The new PM takes office in advance of the affirmative VOC. If he is denied the latter, his administration is very short lived!
    A new PM, after an election, or a change of party leadership, is assumed to have the confidence of the Commons unless the Commons votes otherwise. In the case of an FPTA VONC, the VOC is not so much needed to confirm confidence per se but to cancel the trigger of a dissolution.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    nichomar said:

    stodge said:



    Is this the same WA that the EU has shredded to bits and then someone subsequently leaked to The Grauniad?

    No, the original one rejected by the Commons three times but which may look very attractive as the cliff edge of No Deal beckons.
    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?
    This may be old hat, but can Boris send the letter with a sticky note saying "if you think I'm going to accept any offer you make, you are delusioned"?
    Not without being in contempt of court
    and then?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,151

    Interesting suggestion doing the rounds on twitter.

    Instead of the Opposition parties squabbling, let them ALL do it. The joint leaders (Premiers) go to the Palace and to the EU, extend Article 50 and then call the election.

    A SO24 might be needed, but I'm not so sure it even is. The confidence motion is in the Government, not in a Prime Minister.

    So the Premiership is: Corbyn, Swinson, Blackford, Clarke and maybe a couple of others if needed.

    Job done.

    For Boris too who has opposition all to himself
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    edited October 2019
    stodge said:



    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?

    I'm no lawyer (mercifully). "Not frustrating the Benn Act" doesn't mean Johnson would himself sign up to an extension. Politically, were he to do so, he would destroy himself and his Party which would be no great loss in and of themselves but he's not that stupid.

    The position then becomes interesting - somebody has to agree to the extension if Boris resigns and presumably no one else in his Party would be willing so to do. The anti-No Deal majority has to form a Government because the EU deals with Governments not legislative chambers.

    Court case in Scotland tomorrow about if court can send the letter. But if BJ resigns then JC is invited to for a government and is PM and can send letter.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    nichomar said:

    stodge said:



    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?

    I'm no lawyer (mercifully). "Not frustrating the Benn Act" doesn't mean Johnson would himself sign up to an extension. Politically, were he to do so, he would destroy himself and his Party which would be no great loss in and of themselves but he's not that stupid.

    The position then becomes interesting - somebody has to agree to the extension if Boris resigns and presumably no one else in his Party would be willing so to do. The anti-No Deal majority has to form a Government because the EU deals with Governments not legislative chambers.

    Court case in Scotland tomorrow about if court can send the letter.
    Does that mean the court has to make itself the UK Government? It surely can't be an enforced proxy?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Drutt said:

    justin124 said:

    rpjs said:

    nichomar said:

    Chris said:

    DavidL said:


    (3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.

    But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.

    The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.

    Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
    It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
    No. The FTPA wording for the motion to cancel the 14-day countdown is "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". Therefore, there has to be a government in place for the House to have confidence in, which of course would have to be different personnel than the one that the House does not have confidence in.

    Now, I don't think there's an actual definition of what constitutes "Her Majesty's Government" and while I doubt it means that the entire payroll vote needs to have been appointed, it would seem reasonable that at least the Great Offices such as the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, i.e. PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer at least, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney- and maybe Solicitor- General, Lord President and Lord Privy Seal and I should say at least one Secretary of State would need to have been appointed. (The Secretaries of State for technically share the historic office of Secretary of State and any one can act for another in case of absence or vacancy.)
    Agree with that. I imagine a new PM would have perhaps 72 hours before submitting the Government to an affirmative VOC.
    Would the current PM be wise to seek to table both a VOC and a VONC for every sitting day for the rest of the month? Effectively holes the humble address below the waterline, and allows the conservative benches an immediate shot at any new government before it can put anyone on the Eurostar.

    No risk of losing with the polls as they are, and by tabling both you ameliorate the bad optics of voncing yourself.
    The polls are all over the place. The BMG poll would not give Johnson a majority.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318

    stodge said:



    Is this the same WA that the EU has shredded to bits and then someone subsequently leaked to The Grauniad?

    No, the original one rejected by the Commons three times but which may look very attractive as the cliff edge of No Deal beckons.
    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?
    Under the Act it is Parliament - not the PM - which makes the decision to accept or not whatever extension the EU is offering.

    So the EU could offer a 5-year extension, say, and the PM could whip his MPs against it.

    I doubt this will be the EU’s offer, though.

    If the PM breaks any of the undertakings given to the Court, yes, he would be in contempt. I expect his legal team and the A-G would resign.

    It would not be perjury because he is not giving evidence. But breaking an undertaking to a Court is very serious indeed, especially for a PM.

  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    HYUFD said:

    Interesting suggestion doing the rounds on twitter.

    Instead of the Opposition parties squabbling, let them ALL do it. The joint leaders (Premiers) go to the Palace and to the EU, extend Article 50 and then call the election.

    A SO24 might be needed, but I'm not so sure it even is. The confidence motion is in the Government, not in a Prime Minister.

    So the Premiership is: Corbyn, Swinson, Blackford, Clarke and maybe a couple of others if needed.

    Job done.

    For Boris too who has opposition all to himself
    Boris does not want to be leader of the opposition he wants power! :wink:

    If he would be content to be leader of the opposition he would have resigned already. He could have quit for a number of reasons: Misleading HM Queen. His failure to get Parliament to support his legislation etc...
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    nichomar said:

    stodge said:



    Is this the same WA that the EU has shredded to bits and then someone subsequently leaked to The Grauniad?

    No, the original one rejected by the Commons three times but which may look very attractive as the cliff edge of No Deal beckons.
    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?
    This may be old hat, but can Boris send the letter with a sticky note saying "if you think I'm going to accept any offer you make, you are delusioned"?
    Not without being in contempt of court
    and then?
    Is either sacked by the Queen or locked up in the Westminster clock tower for contempt of parliament if the former she would have to ask JC to be PM and form a government, I would guess if the latter it would have to go down the VONC route
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237
    stodge said:

    The position on Turkey carries the stench of realpolitik. The YPG did much of the heavy lifting defeating ISIL and have ended up controlling much of the border area between Turkey and Syria which of course doesn't work for either Erdogan or Assad.

    The other thing to remember is Turkey is important and I'll be controversial and say more important than the UK. Its geographic and strategic position near Iran, Russia and the Middle East has always made it a valuable ally for the West via its membership of NATO.

    In terms of supporting US policy via-a-vis Iran as well as supporting a pro-US government in Baghdad while keeping an eye on Russian intentions in the region, being on good terms with Istanbul has never been so vital.

    Yes I can follow that.

    Wonder why Trump is doing it though?

    No foreign wars but ramp up spending on the military.

    What's the thinking there?

    Is it just to push the buttons of his softhead base?
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    HYUFD said:

    Jut seen Trump's last couple of tweets. He sounds like he's off his rocker.

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1181232249821388801

    ‘My great about his legendary modesty.
    Trumpton should seek help. Just like the idiots on here who support him.
    Who on here supports Trump? Name names....
    HY, TG and more.
    I do not support Trump as such (I would probably vote for Kasich if he ran) but nor do I think he is the devil incarnate and in fact his foreign policy statement tonight of US withdrawal from interfering in Syria now ISIS is beaten is something leftwingers would have applauded 4 years ago

    ISIS is beaten! Another one to store away.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,616
    HYUFD said:

    Interesting suggestion doing the rounds on twitter.

    Instead of the Opposition parties squabbling, let them ALL do it. The joint leaders (Premiers) go to the Palace and to the EU, extend Article 50 and then call the election.

    A SO24 might be needed, but I'm not so sure it even is. The confidence motion is in the Government, not in a Prime Minister.

    So the Premiership is: Corbyn, Swinson, Blackford, Clarke and maybe a couple of others if needed.

    Job done.

    For Boris too who has opposition all to himself
    Boris and Cummings would love it. "There is only one political leader in Westminster serious about delivering Brexit. The rest are just intent on messing about, losing your jobs and our investment in their wake... They have no plan, other than avoiding your judgment."
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,151
    nichomar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jut seen Trump's last couple of tweets. He sounds like he's off his rocker.

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1181232249821388801

    ‘My great about his legendary modesty.
    Trumpton should seek help. Just like the idiots on here who support him.
    Who on here supports Trump? Name names....
    HY, TG and more.
    I do not support Trump as such (I would probably vote for Kasich if he ran) but nor do I think he is the devil incarnate and in fact his foreign policy statement tonight of US withdrawal from interfering in Syria now ISIS is beaten is something leftwingers would have applauded 4 years ago

    ISIS is beaten! Another one to store away.
    In both Iraq and Syria it is effectively, certainly compared to 5 years ago.

    It is still active in Afghanistan in parts but even the Taliban is fighting it there
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    nichomar said:

    stodge said:



    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?

    I'm no lawyer (mercifully). "Not frustrating the Benn Act" doesn't mean Johnson would himself sign up to an extension. Politically, were he to do so, he would destroy himself and his Party which would be no great loss in and of themselves but he's not that stupid.

    The position then becomes interesting - somebody has to agree to the extension if Boris resigns and presumably no one else in his Party would be willing so to do. The anti-No Deal majority has to form a Government because the EU deals with Governments not legislative chambers.

    Court case in Scotland tomorrow about if court can send the letter.
    Does that mean the court has to make itself the UK Government? It surely can't be an enforced proxy?
    IANAL but it’s about some obscure terminology which is well beyond me but in simple terms that is what it is about.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    AndyJS said:

    The surprising thing about Beaconsfield at the referendum was that it was so close. One would have expected it to have voted at least 55% Remain, and maybe as high as 60%.

    There are a lot of Home Counties eurosceptics.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163


    Boris and Cummings would love it. "There is only one political leader in Westminster serious about delivering Brexit. The rest are just intent on messing about, losing your jobs and our investment in their wake... "

    Typo fixed

    :D:D
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979

    HYUFD said:

    Interesting suggestion doing the rounds on twitter.

    Instead of the Opposition parties squabbling, let them ALL do it. The joint leaders (Premiers) go to the Palace and to the EU, extend Article 50 and then call the election.

    A SO24 might be needed, but I'm not so sure it even is. The confidence motion is in the Government, not in a Prime Minister.

    So the Premiership is: Corbyn, Swinson, Blackford, Clarke and maybe a couple of others if needed.

    Job done.

    For Boris too who has opposition all to himself
    Boris and Cummings would love it. "There is only one political leader in Westminster serious about delivering Brexit. The rest are just intent on messing about, losing your jobs and our investment in their wake... They have no plan, other than avoiding your judgment."
    "The rest are just intent on messing about, losing your jobs and our investment " - So you think No Deal Brexit will have no impact but delaying will cause people to lose their jobs and investment! :lol:
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163
    Good. The dead hand of Evangelistic Politics needs to be removed.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,710
    nichomar said:

    Clarity required by an expert please. VONC passed what happens next, in who or what is a confidence vote required to be invited to form a government and also if BJ resigned having lost a confidence vote what happens next?

    Tens of thousands of words have been written on this site alone by people all with different takes on how it would or could play out. The only consensus seems to be that there's no clear consensus.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163
    Cyclefree said:

    stodge said:



    Is this the same WA that the EU has shredded to bits and then someone subsequently leaked to The Grauniad?

    No, the original one rejected by the Commons three times but which may look very attractive as the cliff edge of No Deal beckons.
    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?
    Under the Act it is Parliament - not the PM - which makes the decision to accept or not whatever extension the EU is offering.

    So the EU could offer a 5-year extension, say, and the PM could whip his MPs against it.

    I doubt this will be the EU’s offer, though.

    If the PM breaks any of the undertakings given to the Court, yes, he would be in contempt. I expect his legal team and the A-G would resign.

    It would not be perjury because he is not giving evidence. But breaking an undertaking to a Court is very serious indeed, especially for a PM.

    Thank you :+1:
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,426

    Good. The dead hand of Evangelistic Politics needs to be removed.
    That's not what abortion is about...

    Is the slogan going to be, now defoetus?
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,138
    Cyclefree said:


    Under the Act it is Parliament - not the PM - which makes the decision to accept or not whatever extension the EU is offering.

    I think that's only right in one direction -- the PM can't *refuse* the offer without Parliament's agreement, but the PM is left the freedom to *agree* an offered extension of a different date without asking Parliament first. (Para 3(3) says refusal requires a motion to be moved and parliament to choose not to pass it, so a govt in favour of extension could simply not move the motion; and para 3(4) broadly says the PM can agree an extension in some way not described by the act anyhow.) This is of course entirely academic with the current PM though I suppose it might not be in some hypothetical futures...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,151
    The guidance makes clear abortion where the child could be born alive remains unlawful in Northern Ireland except to save the life of the mother
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,151

    HYUFD said:

    Interesting suggestion doing the rounds on twitter.

    Instead of the Opposition parties squabbling, let them ALL do it. The joint leaders (Premiers) go to the Palace and to the EU, extend Article 50 and then call the election.

    A SO24 might be needed, but I'm not so sure it even is. The confidence motion is in the Government, not in a Prime Minister.

    So the Premiership is: Corbyn, Swinson, Blackford, Clarke and maybe a couple of others if needed.

    Job done.

    For Boris too who has opposition all to himself
    Boris and Cummings would love it. "There is only one political leader in Westminster serious about delivering Brexit. The rest are just intent on messing about, losing your jobs and our investment in their wake... They have no plan, other than avoiding your judgment."
    Under FPTP it would be a great advantage to Boris
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,616


    Boris and Cummings would love it. "There is only one political leader in Westminster serious about delivering Brexit. The rest are just intent on messing about, losing your jobs and our investment in their wake... "

    Typo fixed

    :D:D
    Ha fucking ha...... Are you shallow or what?
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    TGOHF2 said:
    Boris likes to come! :wink: Usually into someone who is not his wife...
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    edited October 2019
    Heard a lecture tonight from Judge Sir Howard Morrison who’s the UK Judge at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

    Sobering thoughts on internationalism and the challenges we face as the human race.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,406
    HYUFD said:

    The guidance makes clear abortion where the child could be born alive remains unlawful in Northern Ireland except to save the life of the mother
    I believe that is the case through out the UK.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    edited October 2019
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Interesting suggestion doing the rounds on twitter.

    Instead of the Opposition parties squabbling, let them ALL do it. The joint leaders (Premiers) go to the Palace and to the EU, extend Article 50 and then call the election.

    A SO24 might be needed, but I'm not so sure it even is. The confidence motion is in the Government, not in a Prime Minister.

    So the Premiership is: Corbyn, Swinson, Blackford, Clarke and maybe a couple of others if needed.

    Job done.

    For Boris too who has opposition all to himself
    Boris and Cummings would love it. "There is only one political leader in Westminster serious about delivering Brexit. The rest are just intent on messing about, losing your jobs and our investment in their wake... They have no plan, other than avoiding your judgment."
    Under FPTP it would be a great advantage to Boris
    Your ass is on fire this evening! You seem to be posting in overdrive.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    stodge said:



    Is this the same WA that the EU has shredded to bits and then someone subsequently leaked to The Grauniad?

    No, the original one rejected by the Commons three times but which may look very attractive as the cliff edge of No Deal beckons.
    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?
    This may be old hat, but can Boris send the letter with a sticky note saying "if you think I'm going to accept any offer you make, you are delusioned"?
    Not without being in contempt of court
    and then?
    Is either sacked by the Queen or locked up in the Westminster clock tower for contempt of parliament if the former she would have to ask JC to be PM and form a government, I would guess if the latter it would have to go down the VONC route
    This smacks of wishful thinking
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,426
    TGOHF2 said:
    Funny, both Jennifer and Petronella have said he was quite good at coming anyway.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    Heard a lecture tonight from Judge Sir Howard Morrison who’s the UK Judge at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

    Sobering thoughts on internationalism and the challenges we face as the human race.

    The human race is doing pretty well at the moment, despite all the hand-wringing. Things have never been better for most people.
  • HYUFD said:

    The guidance makes clear abortion where the child could be born alive remains unlawful in Northern Ireland except to save the life of the mother
    Isn't NI part of the UK?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    AndyJS said:

    Heard a lecture tonight from Judge Sir Howard Morrison who’s the UK Judge at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

    Sobering thoughts on internationalism and the challenges we face as the human race.

    The human race is doing pretty well at the moment, despite all the hand-wringing. Things have never been better for most people.
    Is it sustainable?
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    HYUFD said:

    The guidance makes clear abortion where the child could be born alive remains unlawful in Northern Ireland except to save the life of the mother
    Isn't NI part of the UK?
    Just
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    stodge said:



    Is this the same WA that the EU has shredded to bits and then someone subsequently leaked to The Grauniad?

    No, the original one rejected by the Commons three times but which may look very attractive as the cliff edge of No Deal beckons.
    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?
    This may be old hat, but can Boris send the letter with a sticky note saying "if you think I'm going to accept any offer you make, you are delusioned"?
    Not without being in contempt of court
    and then?
    Is either sacked by the Queen or locked up in the Westminster clock tower for contempt of parliament if the former she would have to ask JC to be PM and form a government, I would guess if the latter it would have to go down the VONC route
    This smacks of wishful thinking
    We will have to wait and see, the clock tower option is wishful thinking but entirely within the law.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,772
    Hmmm.

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1181283048194596864

    Not if my mates and acquaintances are anything to go by it wont.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    AndyJS said:

    Heard a lecture tonight from Judge Sir Howard Morrison who’s the UK Judge at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

    Sobering thoughts on internationalism and the challenges we face as the human race.

    The human race is doing pretty well at the moment, despite all the hand-wringing. Things have never been better for most people.
    Is it sustainable?
    I bet you're really the life and soul of the party
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176

    AndyJS said:

    The surprising thing about Beaconsfield at the referendum was that it was so close. One would have expected it to have voted at least 55% Remain, and maybe as high as 60%.

    There are a lot of Home Counties eurosceptics.
    Obviously every vote counts the same in a referendum, but arguably Remain lost it because they didn't do well enough in the commuter belt.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,772

    AndyJS said:

    Heard a lecture tonight from Judge Sir Howard Morrison who’s the UK Judge at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

    Sobering thoughts on internationalism and the challenges we face as the human race.

    The human race is doing pretty well at the moment, despite all the hand-wringing. Things have never been better for most people.
    Is it sustainable?
    Yes. But only for another twenty years or so.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163
    edited October 2019


    Boris and Cummings would love it. "There is only one political leader in Westminster serious about delivering Brexit. The rest are just intent on messing about, losing your jobs and our investment in their wake... "

    Typo fixed

    :D:D
    Ha fucking ha...... Are you shallow or what?
    I'm sorry, but I was not aware that Brexit was a job-protection scheme. Quite the contrary. I have had Leavers on PB assure me that even if Brexit meant people losing jobs and sitting in houses with no electric that that was better than being in the EU.

    Repeatedly over the years, Leavers keep telling us that the Remainer mistake is to mistake Brexit for anything to do with economics - it is instead a matter of principle, a visceral need for sovereignty.

    So do not start getting high and mighty about the economics of Brexit, Leavers sank that boat long ago.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    stodge said:



    Is this the same WA that the EU has shredded to bits and then someone subsequently leaked to The Grauniad?

    No, the original one rejected by the Commons three times but which may look very attractive as the cliff edge of No Deal beckons.
    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?
    This may be old hat, but can Boris send the letter with a sticky note saying "if you think I'm going to accept any offer you make, you are delusioned"?
    Not without being in contempt of court
    and then?
    Is either sacked by the Queen or locked up in the Westminster clock tower for contempt of parliament if the former she would have to ask JC to be PM and form a government, I would guess if the latter it would have to go down the VONC route
    This smacks of wishful thinking
    We will have to wait and see, the clock tower option is wishful thinking but entirely within the law.
    What's wrong with the Tower?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095


    Boris and Cummings would love it. "There is only one political leader in Westminster serious about delivering Brexit. The rest are just intent on messing about, losing your jobs and our investment in their wake... "

    Typo fixed

    :D:D
    Ha fucking ha...... Are you shallow or what?
    I'm sorry, but I was not aware that Brexit was a job-protection scheme. Quite the contrary. I have had Leavers on PB assure me that even if Brexit meant people losing jobs and sitting in houses with no electric that that was better than being in the EU.

    Repeatedly over the years, Leavers keep telling us that the Remainer mistake is to mistake Brexit for anything to do with economics - it is instead a matter of principle, a visceral need for sovereignty.

    So do not start getting high and mighty about the economics of Brexit, Leavers sank that boat long ago.
    Grammar police ..no electricity
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,426
    edited October 2019

    Hmmm.

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1181283048194596864

    Not if my mates and acquaintances are anything to go by it wont.

    My understanding is at this moment Labour have said they will consider offering a referendum. But they want to negotiate a new deal first before holding said referendum, then advising people not to vote for their deal. Such a policy isn't meant to be taken seriously. It's a figleaf to cover up the leadership's own intentions.

    The reality is that the only way to stop Britain leaving the EU is to give the Liberal Democrats at least the balance of power. If Corbyn wins outright there is a good chance he will want to leave the EU because otherwise his entire programme will be stillborn.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318

    stodge said:



    Is this the same WA that the EU has shredded to bits and then someone subsequently leaked to The Grauniad?

    No, the original one rejected by the Commons three times but which may look very attractive as the cliff edge of No Deal beckons.
    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?
    This may be old hat, but can Boris send the letter with a sticky note saying "if you think I'm going to accept any offer you make, you are delusioned"?
    No.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    I am not sure that declaring his support for the Poll Tax will do Johnson any favours. Opposition parties should be able to make good use of that.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    Cyclefree said:

    stodge said:



    Is this the same WA that the EU has shredded to bits and then someone subsequently leaked to The Grauniad?

    No, the original one rejected by the Commons three times but which may look very attractive as the cliff edge of No Deal beckons.
    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?
    This may be old hat, but can Boris send the letter with a sticky note saying "if you think I'm going to accept any offer you make, you are delusioned"?
    No.
    Not strictly correct, so presumably not a legal opinion. Of course he can, with consequences, but he can.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,772
    ydoethur said:

    Hmmm.

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1181283048194596864

    Not if my mates and acquaintances are anything to go by it wont.

    My understanding is at this moment Labour have said they will consider offering a referendum. But they want to negotiate a new deal first before holding said referendum, then advising people not to vote for their deal. Such a policy isn't meant to be taken seriously. It's a figleaf to cover up the leadership's own intentions.

    The reality is that the only way to stop Britain leaving the EU is to give the Liberal Democrats at least the balance of power. If Corbyn wins outright there is a good chance he will want to leave the EU because otherwise his entire programme will be stillborn.
    This. A thousand times this. Post of the day.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,698

    stodge said:



    Is this the same WA that the EU has shredded to bits and then someone subsequently leaked to The Grauniad?

    No, the original one rejected by the Commons three times but which may look very attractive as the cliff edge of No Deal beckons.
    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?
    This may be old hat, but can Boris send the letter with a sticky note saying "if you think I'm going to accept any offer you make, you are delusioned"?
    Certainly not...

    BoJo's expensive education would surely cause him to choose 'deluded' rather than 'delusioned'; no matter that the EU may well be disillusioned with whatever he writes.

  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    justin124 said:

    I am not sure that declaring his support for the Poll Tax will do Johnson any favours. Opposition parties should be able to make good use of that.

    No favours with people who would never vote for Boris. It really is history with a life of an hour or two except for those who wish it were longer.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    stodge said:



    Is this the same WA that the EU has shredded to bits and then someone subsequently leaked to The Grauniad?

    No, the original one rejected by the Commons three times but which may look very attractive as the cliff edge of No Deal beckons.
    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?
    This may be old hat, but can Boris send the letter with a sticky note saying "if you think I'm going to accept any offer you make, you are delusioned"?
    Not without being in contempt of court
    and then?
    Is either sacked by the Queen or locked up in the Westminster clock tower for contempt of parliament if the former she would have to ask JC to be PM and form a government, I would guess if the latter it would have to go down the VONC route
    This smacks of wishful thinking
    We will have to wait and see, the clock tower option is wishful thinking but entirely within the law.
    What's wrong with the Tower?
    Nothing, but it was last used in the 1800’s to incarcerate politicians in contempt of parliament but those bells, if they were working would drive one round the bend. Useless facts Big Ben has the heaviest static bell in the U K Liverpool Anglican cathedral has the heaviest bell capable of being used in change ringing and normalcy needs two people to ring it.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    stodge said:



    Is this the same WA that the EU has shredded to bits and then someone subsequently leaked to The Grauniad?

    No, the original one rejected by the Commons three times but which may look very attractive as the cliff edge of No Deal beckons.
    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?
    This may be old hat, but can Boris send the letter with a sticky note saying "if you think I'm going to accept any offer you make, you are delusioned"?
    Certainly not...

    BoJo's expensive education would surely cause him to choose 'deluded' rather than 'delusioned'; no matter that the EU may well be disillusioned with whatever he writes.

    Ooh
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    justin124 said:

    I am not sure that declaring his support for the Poll Tax will do Johnson any favours. Opposition parties should be able to make good use of that.

    The SNP will! :wink: The Tories instigated it first on Scotland as a social experiment on a grand scale. Boris Johnson cannot help but say the wrong thing. If he did not have the Brexit supporting media to save him. He would be in big trouble, taking the Tories down with him...
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,698

    nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    stodge said:



    Is this the same WA that the EU has shredded to bits and then someone subsequently leaked to The Grauniad?

    No, the original one rejected by the Commons three times but which may look very attractive as the cliff edge of No Deal beckons.
    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?
    This may be old hat, but can Boris send the letter with a sticky note saying "if you think I'm going to accept any offer you make, you are delusioned"?
    Not without being in contempt of court
    and then?
    Is either sacked by the Queen or locked up in the Westminster clock tower for contempt of parliament if the former she would have to ask JC to be PM and form a government, I would guess if the latter it would have to go down the VONC route
    This smacks of wishful thinking
    We will have to wait and see, the clock tower option is wishful thinking but entirely within the law.
    What's wrong with the Tower?
    Would you trust leaving Boris in the same building as the crown jewels?!
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,900
    ydoethur said:

    My understanding is at this moment Labour have said they will consider offering a referendum. But they want to negotiate a new deal first before holding said referendum, then advising people not to vote for their deal. Such a policy isn't meant to be taken seriously. It's a figleaf to cover up the leadership's own intentions.

    The reality is that the only way to stop Britain leaving the EU is to give the Liberal Democrats at least the balance of power. If Corbyn wins outright there is a good chance he will want to leave the EU because otherwise his entire programme will be stillborn.

    Quite. Corbyn knows his radical Marxist agenda is only possible outside the EU because most of his spending plans and nationalisation policies would be outlawed by EU competition rules.

    That's the corollary for the supporters of Johnson and the No Dealers. Wanting sovereignty and control is fine but the risk is it empowers Corbyn and his ilk because they will only be one election away from imposing radical marxism on Britain.

    Perhaps the Johnson Conservatives believe they can be in power for ever - perhaps they believe they should be.

  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 1,337
    rpjs said:

    justin124 said:

    nichomar said:

    justin124 said:

    nichomar said:

    justin124 said:

    rpjs said:

    nichomar said:



    No. The FTPA wording for the motion to cancel the 14-day countdown is "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". Therefore, there has to be a government in place for the House to have confidence in,

    Now, I don't think there's an actual definition of what constitutes "Her Majesty's Government" and while I doubt it means that the entire payroll vote needs to have been appointed, it would seem reasonable that at least the Great Offices such as the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, i.e. PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer at least, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney- and maybe Solicitor- General, Lord President and Lord Privy Seal and I should say at least one Secretary of State would need to have been appointed. (The Secretaries of State for technically share the historic office of Secretary of State and any one can act for another in case of absence or vacancy.)
    Agree with that. I imagine a new PM would have perhaps 72 hours before submitting the Government to an affirmative VOC.
    If you are not PM you can’t appoint anyone therefore it is all about showing confidence in an individual through a voc before they become PM.
    But he would have already have formed a Government before the Commons voted on an affirmative VOC.
    How? At best it would be a list of names none of which would hold the seals of office or been confirmed by the Queen.
    The new PM takes office in advance of the affirmative VOC. If he is denied the latter, his administration is very short lived!
    A new PM, after an election, or a change of party leadership, is assumed to have the confidence of the Commons unless the Commons votes otherwise. In the case of an FPTA VONC, the VOC is not so much needed to confirm confidence per se but to cancel the trigger of a dissolution.
    Should the FTPA have mandated a confirmatory VOC in a new PM/govt and maybe introduce some thoughts who could call one (like the priority given to a LOTO VONC)? It might give parties pause for thought before electing a divisive leader, at least in a tight HoC, and would require a proper job of coalitions. It would also reduce what is clearly an abusable prerogative power in the current situation

    Given the consequences of FTPA, I see the argument for less tinkering rather than more, but the “Corbyn getting a bus to the Palace and demanding to be let in”/“Boris squatting” stories (or for that matter TM’s assumption of DUP support in 2017) suggest current convention is creaking a bit.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,698
    edited October 2019

    stodge said:



    Is this the same WA that the EU has shredded to bits and then someone subsequently leaked to The Grauniad?

    No, the original one rejected by the Commons three times but which may look very attractive as the cliff edge of No Deal beckons.
    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?
    This may be old hat, but can Boris send the letter with a sticky note saying "if you think I'm going to accept any offer you make, you are delusioned"?
    Certainly not...

    BoJo's expensive education would surely cause him to choose 'deluded' rather than 'delusioned'; no matter that the EU may well be disillusioned with whatever he writes.

    Ooh
    Wasn't meant seriously - I'm always getting the wrong word myself. In fact I quite like delusioned and we all knew what you meant. :wink:
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,151
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    The guidance makes clear abortion where the child could be born alive remains unlawful in Northern Ireland except to save the life of the mother
    I believe that is the case through out the UK.
    It has not been fully decriminalised in GB either so it is a mistake to say abortion has been decriminalised in Northern Ireland
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    stodge said:



    Is this the same WA that the EU has shredded to bits and then someone subsequently leaked to The Grauniad?

    No, the original one rejected by the Commons three times but which may look very attractive as the cliff edge of No Deal beckons.
    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?
    This may be old hat, but can Boris send the letter with a sticky note saying "if you think I'm going to accept any offer you make, you are delusioned"?
    Not without being in contempt of court
    and then?
    Is either sacked by the Queen or locked up in the Westminster clock tower for contempt of parliament if the former she would have to ask JC to be PM and form a government, I would guess if the latter it would have to go down the VONC route
    This smacks of wishful thinking
    We will have to wait and see, the clock tower option is wishful thinking but entirely within the law.
    What's wrong with the Tower?
    Would you trust leaving Boris in the same building as the crown jewels?!
    I assumed you meant the clock tower not TTOL but apparently the clock tower of the Palace of Westminster is deemed to be where those in contempt of parliament are locked up.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    edited October 2019
    The VONC is getting everyone in a spin.

    If the PM is defeated in a VONC under the FTPA in some circumstances he can legitimately remain PM for 14 days. This means there is no VOC in his or any other government during that period.

    If HMQ is advised that Mr/Sir/Mrs/Miss/Ms/Lady X would be expected to have the confidence of the house HMQ will ask X to become PM and form a government. At that point the previously defeated PM has to resign. Within the 14 day period the new government has to win a VOC.

    The tricky bit is if you have listened to the outpourings of LibDems and Tory 21 over the last month they all rule out Corbyn, so why should HMQ call him as the evidence available clearly shows there is no majority for him.

    If you add into the mix Corbyn categorically ruling out anyone but himself, that rules out Beckett, Clarke, Milliband, Swinson, Harmon.

    If there is nobody who it is thought can win a VOC, then it is legitimate for Johnson to stay as PM for the 14 days (and therefore the election campaign).

    I assume on a VOC it has to be 50% + 1. Is that 50% of the members or 50% of those that vote (ie do our missing Irish friends count as well as any abstentions or absentees in the 100% figure).

    That only leaves the Jocker in the Pack sitting on a woolsack.

    The above in in my opinion, so probably wrong!
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    I am not sure that declaring his support for the Poll Tax will do Johnson any favours. Opposition parties should be able to make good use of that.

    No favours with people who would never vote for Boris. It really is history with a life of an hour or two except for those who wish it were longer.
    It opens the door to the suggestion that Johnson would like to bring back the Poll Tax.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Heidi Allen joins lib dems no surprise now 19
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,698
    TGOHF2 said:
    Er... Sputniknews. Say no more.
  • TGOHF2 said:
    Er... Sputniknews. Say no more.
    George Galloway?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Unsure what to do with left over BLTs, roast lamb, beef, pork, chicken, cheese, eggs then donate them now to the starving hordes on Whitehall.


    https://twitter.com/ExtinctionR/status/1181285857996750850
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,698
    Off topic: Is Trump going to have to cough up his tax returns, and why is he so reticent to do so?

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/07/trump-tax-returns-subpoena-new-york-federal-judge
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,534
    ydoethur said:

    My understanding is at this moment Labour have said they will consider offering a referendum. But they want to negotiate a new deal first before holding said referendum, then advising people not to vote for their deal. Such a policy isn't meant to be taken seriously. It's a figleaf to cover up the leadership's own intentions.

    The reality is that the only way to stop Britain leaving the EU is to give the Liberal Democrats at least the balance of power. If Corbyn wins outright there is a good chance he will want to leave the EU because otherwise his entire programme will be stillborn.

    Sorry, but your understanding is mistaken. Labour WILL offer a referendum, offering what we think is a non-disastrous variety of Brexit or Remain. In principle, the party reserves the right to make a recommendation either way, depending on what the deal looks like, but in either case the choice will be up to voters. What Corbyn recommends himself will be interesting, but it won't be up to him to decide the outcome, any more than Cameron's view decided the last referendum.

    None of that, however, will happen if the opposition vote is split in Con-Lab and Lab-Con marginals. Nor will a LibDem grasp on the balance of power. We'll simply get a humungous Johnson majority and a No Deal Brexit.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    edited October 2019
    Heidi Allen has defected to LD apparently! :smiley:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176
    nichomar said:

    Heidi Allen joins lib dems no surprise now 19

    There will soon be more Lib Dem MPs who were elected for another party.

    It reminds me of a Jimmy Carr joke. "I have an organ donor card. But I've put a condition on it to state that all of my organs have to go to the same person. So it's less a donation and more a hostile takeover."
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,698

    ydoethur said:

    My understanding is at this moment Labour have said they will consider offering a referendum. But they want to negotiate a new deal first before holding said referendum, then advising people not to vote for their deal. Such a policy isn't meant to be taken seriously. It's a figleaf to cover up the leadership's own intentions.

    The reality is that the only way to stop Britain leaving the EU is to give the Liberal Democrats at least the balance of power. If Corbyn wins outright there is a good chance he will want to leave the EU because otherwise his entire programme will be stillborn.

    Sorry, but your understanding is mistaken. Labour WILL offer a referendum, offering what we think is a non-disastrous variety of Brexit or Remain. In principle, the party reserves the right to make a recommendation either way, depending on what the deal looks like, but in either case the choice will be up to voters. What Corbyn recommends himself will be interesting, but it won't be up to him to decide the outcome, any more than Cameron's view decided the last referendum.

    None of that, however, will happen if the opposition vote is split in Con-Lab and Lab-Con marginals. Nor will a LibDem grasp on the balance of power. We'll simply get a humungous Johnson majority and a No Deal Brexit.
    Perhaps Labour should try to come to some pre-election deal with the LDs, Greens and PC then?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293
    dr_spyn said:

    Unsure what to do with left over BLTs, roast lamb, beef, pork, chicken, cheese, eggs then donate them now to the starving hordes on Whitehall.


    https://twitter.com/ExtinctionR/status/1181285857996750850

    Failing that they can just pop into McDonalds :D


    https://twitter.com/MahyarTousi/status/1181239048033181698
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,426

    ydoethur said:

    My understanding is at this moment Labour have said they will consider offering a referendum. But they want to negotiate a new deal first before holding said referendum, then advising people not to vote for their deal. Such a policy isn't meant to be taken seriously. It's a figleaf to cover up the leadership's own intentions.

    The reality is that the only way to stop Britain leaving the EU is to give the Liberal Democrats at least the balance of power. If Corbyn wins outright there is a good chance he will want to leave the EU because otherwise his entire programme will be stillborn.

    Sorry, but your understanding is mistaken. Labour WILL offer a referendum, offering what we think is a non-disastrous variety of Brexit or Remain. In principle, the party reserves the right to make a recommendation either way, depending on what the deal looks like, but in either case the choice will be up to voters. What Corbyn recommends himself will be interesting, but it won't be up to him to decide the outcome, any more than Cameron's view decided the last referendum.
    So, they've moved on to, we'll have a vote but we're not sure what it will be on or how we will advise you to vote?

    Not sure that's progress, tbh.

    Whatever you think of the Liberal Democrats' policy, at least it's clear and straightforward. Labour's is not. Even a contortionist would protest at the twists going on here. Partly it's due to the nature of the beast - too many Leave voters in Labour - but it's clearly also due to Corbyn's lack of leadership and personal ambivalence.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,605
    rpjs said:

    Romney has clearly unhitched himself from the Trump train now, and is the most senior Republican to yet do so. Angling for another run in 2020 if Trump is deposed or decides not to run?
    Republican senators including the Senate leader McConnell, Kasich, Romney, Trump's best friend Lindsay Graham, Rubio and others have come out against him on the Kurds. Hence Trump's abrupt U-turn.

    Liar Trump tweets "As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate ..." 

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/us/politics/turkey-syria-trump.html?campaign_id=60&instance_id=0&segment_id=17664&user_id=e1a1abde69c06b2b379acf28b1212c55&regi_id=98749083ing-news
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,129
    edited October 2019

    Off topic: Is Trump going to have to cough up his tax returns, and why is he so reticent to do so?

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/07/trump-tax-returns-subpoena-new-york-federal-judge

    I have always thought that is less about being accused of using tax efficiency (he has already admitted in the debates, where he said something along the lines of you are an idiot if you don't), I think it is they will probably show he isn't anywhere near as rich as he likes to boast.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,772

    nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    stodge said:



    Is this the same WA that the EU has shredded to bits and then someone subsequently leaked to The Grauniad?

    No, the original one rejected by the Commons three times but which may look very attractive as the cliff edge of No Deal beckons.
    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?
    This may be old hat, but can Boris send the letter with a sticky note saying "if you think I'm going to accept any offer you make, you are delusioned"?
    Not without being in contempt of court
    and then?
    Is either sacked by the Queen or locked up in the Westminster clock tower for contempt of parliament if the former she would have to ask JC to be PM and form a government, I would guess if the latter it would have to go down the VONC route
    This smacks of wishful thinking
    We will have to wait and see, the clock tower option is wishful thinking but entirely within the law.
    What's wrong with the Tower?
    Would you trust leaving Boris in the same building as the crown jewels?!
    Will no one think of the ravens?
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584
    Heidi the LD - what a surprise🤔🤔
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,698

    Off topic: Is Trump going to have to cough up his tax returns, and why is he so reticent to do so?

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/07/trump-tax-returns-subpoena-new-york-federal-judge

    I have always thought that is less about being accused of using tax efficiency (he has already admitted in the debates, where he said something along the lines of you are an idiot if you don't), I think it is they will probably show he isn't anywhere near as rich as he likes to boast.
    I've got a feeling it's likely to be a very damp squib.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,772
    Indie:

    Allen "suggests at least 20 more ‘one-nation' Tories would like to follow suit"
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    ydoethur said:

    My understanding is at this moment Labour have said they will consider offering a referendum. But they want to negotiate a new deal first before holding said referendum, then advising people not to vote for their deal. Such a policy isn't meant to be taken seriously. It's a figleaf to cover up the leadership's own intentions.

    The reality is that the only way to stop Britain leaving the EU is to give the Liberal Democrats at least the balance of power. If Corbyn wins outright there is a good chance he will want to leave the EU because otherwise his entire programme will be stillborn.

    Sorry, but your understanding is mistaken. Labour WILL offer a referendum, offering what we think is a non-disastrous variety of Brexit or Remain. In principle, the party reserves the right to make a recommendation either way, depending on what the deal looks like, but in either case the choice will be up to voters. What Corbyn recommends himself will be interesting, but it won't be up to him to decide the outcome, any more than Cameron's view decided the last referendum.

    None of that, however, will happen if the opposition vote is split in Con-Lab and Lab-Con marginals. Nor will a LibDem grasp on the balance of power. We'll simply get a humungous Johnson majority and a No Deal Brexit.
    Classic labour view that you have the right to be the ‘obvious’ vote to stop a Tory majority unless you change your leader and hard left policies you will not be elected.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,900



    Sorry, but your understanding is mistaken. Labour WILL offer a referendum, offering what we think is a non-disastrous variety of Brexit or Remain. In principle, the party reserves the right to make a recommendation either way, depending on what the deal looks like, but in either case the choice will be up to voters. What Corbyn recommends himself will be interesting, but it won't be up to him to decide the outcome, any more than Cameron's view decided the last referendum.

    None of that, however, will happen if the opposition vote is split in Con-Lab and Lab-Con marginals. Nor will a LibDem grasp on the balance of power. We'll simply get a humungous Johnson majority and a No Deal Brexit.

    The bit I don't get is Labour presumably will seek to renegotiate the A50 Withdrawal Agreement (presumably the EU will agree to this re-negotiation).

    Out of the process will come a new Withdrawal Agreement (the bit we have to do before the Political Declaration) but the way you put it Labour will be neutral (?) just as the Conservatives were in 2016.

    The options as you state them mean if you reject the new WA you are supporting Remain which presumably means revoking A50 and returning to the EU as though 23/6/16 never happened.

    There's little in that for the diehard No Dealers so how does this begin to mend the division and vitriol?
  • GIN1138 said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Unsure what to do with left over BLTs, roast lamb, beef, pork, chicken, cheese, eggs then donate them now to the starving hordes on Whitehall.


    https://twitter.com/ExtinctionR/status/1181285857996750850

    Failing that they can just pop into McDonalds :D


    https://twitter.com/MahyarTousi/status/1181239048033181698
    You never had a McDonald's Veggie Wrap?

    https://www.mcdonalds.com/gb/en-gb/product/the-spicy-veggie-one.html
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,129
    edited October 2019

    Off topic: Is Trump going to have to cough up his tax returns, and why is he so reticent to do so?

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/07/trump-tax-returns-subpoena-new-york-federal-judge

    I have always thought that is less about being accused of using tax efficiency (he has already admitted in the debates, where he said something along the lines of you are an idiot if you don't), I think it is they will probably show he isn't anywhere near as rich as he likes to boast.
    I've got a feeling it's likely to be a very damp squib.
    I kinda of think so too.

    I am sure they will show he has been tax efficient, probably stretching the elastic to the limit, hence why he has been audited a load of times, and that he is very wealthy but isn't worth $100bn (or whatever inflated amount he claims).

    And would anybody be shocked or change their vote over either of those revelations.

    In the mad bad world of Donald Trumps presidency, I think his tax returns are way way down the list of issues.
  • blueblueblueblue Posts: 875
    Cyclefree said:

    stodge said:



    Is this the same WA that the EU has shredded to bits and then someone subsequently leaked to The Grauniad?

    No, the original one rejected by the Commons three times but which may look very attractive as the cliff edge of No Deal beckons.
    Thanks.

    BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?

    Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?
    Under the Act it is Parliament - not the PM - which makes the decision to accept or not whatever extension the EU is offering.

    So the EU could offer a 5-year extension, say, and the PM could whip his MPs against it.

    I doubt this will be the EU’s offer, though.

    If the PM breaks any of the undertakings given to the Court, yes, he would be in contempt. I expect his legal team and the A-G would resign.

    It would not be perjury because he is not giving evidence. But breaking an undertaking to a Court is very serious indeed, especially for a PM.

    "It would not be perjury because he is not giving evidence. But breaking an undertaking to a Court is very serious indeed, especially for a PM."

    So nothing would actually happen to him? Then who cares? If his opponents can use legal niceties to ensnare him, he is perfectly entitled to use his own to escape...
This discussion has been closed.