At some point, if the Opposition won't vote for an election, the government is going to have little choice but to resign. If they survive this week they need to get the budget passed next month.
What does it actually mean for the 'government to resign' post-FTPA? Johnson could resign as PM, of course, and he could presumably also tell the Queen he didn't think any other Tory MP would have the confidence of the house (implying that she should call for the LOTO). Does governmental resignation mean anything more than just doing that?
Yes, we are in uncharted waters with the FTPA, it's a messy piece of legislation that is noteable for what it doesn't say as much as what it does.
We've been around it here a few times and I think the consensus is that, as you suggest, the PM resigns to HMQ and either suggests nobody or suggests the LotO. It would then be up to Corbyn to tell the Queen whether or not he thinks he can survive a vote of confidence.
Johnson won't resign as Conservative Party Leader and will take the Conservatives into Opposition, immediately calling for a vote of no confidence in whoever has been appointed, to start the FTPA 14-day clock to a dissolution and election.
Some on here (not me) are of the opinion that Johnson can't actually resign until it becomes clear who would replace him, in which case he might try and call a vote of confidence in his own government.
In almost all countries there has to be a head of government at all times, and it is gross negligence to resign without being clear who the sucessor is, even if it is under the agreement that the person taking over is doing so as caretaker. This is why you often have a PM (or equivalent) remaining in position months or years after having lost an election. Gordon Brown was only able to get away with resigning before the next govenment had been agreed, as it was clear that whether or not a coalition could be formed, that David Cameron was the only sensible PM.
They have a mandate to leave (which is much weaker now than before), not an instruction. Important distinction.
Just as an elected Government has a mandate to deliver things in its manifesto. The strength of the mandate (initially) may depend on how prominent the issue was during an election campaign. But the mandate may diminish over time, to the extent that a Government does not feel it can continue with the plan without a renewed mandate.
Democratic votes give mandates, not instructions. The only real exception would be post legislative votes as automatic triggers. A la Scottish and Welsh Devolution referendums.
Nope. There’s an important distinction between elections and referendums
1. An election involves people competing to be a representative of an area. They do this on the basis of a statement of principles and objectives (manifesto). However, manifestos have no legal standing because under Burkean theory MPs are representatives not delegates
2. A referendum involves the sovereign authority being asked a specific question (should I stay or should I go in this case). The answer was clear: Leave. The sovereign authority did not provide any instruction on how, (which is a matter for delegated representatives)
(The way to square the results of the referendum and the election is that the people wanted a soft Brexit. Unfortunately May and the various extreme Remainers have created a situation where that is not likely. However, Boris’s deal is still compliant with the referendum and - assuming it is passed by Parliament - would be compliant with the election result as well)
Except the legislation said that the referendum was advisory. That people argued differently during the campaign does not change that. It was not a legally binding vote.
Parliament can’t limit the sovereignty of the people. It only has delegated authority
I see the Mail have a 'friend of Epstein' story about the disgusting slug Mandelson How very surprising
That is rather unexpected. Can't recall the last time the Mail published loosely sourced dirt on a quintessential member of the metropolitan liberal Remainer elite.
He was a pal of Epstein tbf, like a lot of people. Looks like the accusations about asking him a favour whilst he was banged up for kiddy fiddling is from an upcoming Dispatches
At some point, if the Opposition won't vote for an election, the government is going to have little choice but to resign. If they survive this week they need to get the budget passed next month.
What does it actually mean for the 'government to resign' post-FTPA? Johnson could resign as PM, of course, and he could presumably also tell the Queen he didn't think any other Tory MP would have the confidence of the house (implying that she should call for the LOTO). Does governmental resignation mean anything more than just doing that?
Yes, we are in uncharted waters with the FTPA, it's a messy piece of legislation that is noteable for what it doesn't say as much as what it does.
We've been around it here a few times and I think the consensus is that, as you suggest, the PM resigns to HMQ and either suggests nobody or suggests the LotO. It would then be up to Corbyn to tell the Queen whether or not he thinks he can survive a vote of confidence.
Johnson won't resign as Conservative Party Leader and will take the Conservatives into Opposition, immediately calling for a vote of no confidence in whoever has been appointed, to start the FTPA 14-day clock to a dissolution and election.
Some on here (not me) are of the opinion that Johnson can't actually resign until it becomes clear who would replace him, in which case he might try and call a vote of confidence in his own government.
In almost all countries there has to be a head of government at all times, and it is gross negligence to resign without being clear who the sucessor is, even if it is under the agreement that the person taking over is doing so as caretaker. This is why you often have a PM (or equivalent) remaining in position months or years after having lost an election. Gordon Brown was only able to get away with resigning before the next govenment had been agreed, as it was clear that whether or not a coalition could be formed, that David Cameron was the only sensible PM.
We are not talking about 'almost all countries'. We are talking about the specifics of our country. And here there is no impediment to the PM resigning without there being an immediate successor.
A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better. I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugs
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
Victim blaming?
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.
Dura_Ace: "No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit."
I`ve only just caught up with your comments. Were you joking?
Retaining the cultural identity of one`s country does not necessarily make one racist.
A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better. I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugs
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
Victim blaming?
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’s
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave.
Of course they have a right to ask if the instruction has changed
The instruction hasn’t changed
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.
Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?
Are we going to have to refer to Hobbes again? My copy of Leviathan is within easy reach.
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave.
Of course they have a right to ask if the instruction has changed
The instruction hasn’t changed
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.
Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?
Where do you think it comes from? And is that view based on the law or morals?
I know the answer (in my view).
I’m interested in whether either @Cyclefree or @Scott_P have a deep understanding of constitutional theory
They have a mandate to leave (which is much weaker now than before), not an instruction. Important distinction.
Just as an elected Government has a mandate to deliver things in its manifesto. The strength of the mandate (initially) may depend on how prominent the issue was during an election campaign. But the mandate may diminish over time, to the extent that a Government does not feel it can continue with the plan without a renewed mandate.
Democratic votes give mandates, not instructions. The only real exception would be post legislative votes as automatic triggers. A la Scottish and Welsh Devolution referendums.
Nope. There’s an important distinction between elections and referendums
1. An election involves people competing to be a representative of an area. They do this on the basis of a statement of principles and objectives (manifesto). However, manifestos have no legal standing because under Burkean theory MPs are representatives not delegates
2. A referendum involves the sovereign authority being asked a specific question (should I stay or should I go in this case). The answer was clear: Leave. The sovereign authority did not provide any instruction on how, (which is a matter for delegated representatives)
(The way to square the results of the referendum and the election is that the people wanted a soft Brexit. Unfortunately May and the various extreme Remainers have created a situation where that is not likely. However, Boris’s deal is still compliant with the referendum and - assuming it is passed by Parliament - would be compliant with the election result as well)
Except the legislation said that the referendum was advisory. That people argued differently during the campaign does not change that. It was not a legally binding vote.
Parliament can’t limit the sovereignty of the people. It only has delegated authority
I cannot quite believe we are still arguing over the legal status of the referendum. That was settled as part of the A50 case bloody years ago, and is completely irrelevant given parliament then acted to start things off anyway. Your statement seems to go completely against the concept of parliamentary sovereignty.
Those backing a customs union amendment are morons. The deal is what it is. Back it, or don't. Go for a second referendum, or an election.
But you can't unilaterally alter a deal which requires both sides to support it, nor compel the PM or Government to back something they clearly don't.
An honest decision to revoke or have a referendum or have an election having rejected the deal is a legitimate perspective. Trying to deliberately scuttle the deal without voting against it via stupid, meaningless amendments is cowardly, foolish, and pathetic.
This Parliament is wretched.
We elected it.
None of the above was not an option on the ballot paper
You have the option of standing yourself if you can find enough of your fellow constituents to sign your nomination papers and the money for a deposit.
Democracy isn't easy, as a fictional US President once said.
Even more difficult under FPTP. For a very large number of people, it is consistently a choice between the least crap of two options.
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave.
Of course they have a right to ask if the instruction has changed
The instruction hasn’t changed
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave.
Of course they have a right to ask if the instruction has changed
The instruction hasn’t changed
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.
Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?
Where do you think it comes from? And is that view based on the law or morals?
I know the answer (in my view).
I’m interested in whether either @Cyclefree or @Scott_P have a deep understanding of constitutional theory
Thank goodness we have you here to judge if that is the case.
I see the Mail have a 'friend of Epstein' story about the disgusting slug Mandelson How very surprising
That is rather unexpected. Can't recall the last time the Mail published loosely sourced dirt on a quintessential member of the metropolitan liberal Remainer elite.
He was a pal of Epstein tbf, like a lot of people. Looks like the accusations about asking him a favour whilst he was banged up for kiddy fiddling is from an upcoming Dispatches
Epstein seemed to know an awful lot of powerful people. The unravelling of the evidence he's left behind is going to be a huge story for years to come.
They have a mandate to leave (which is much weaker now than before), not an instruction. Important distinction.
Just as an elected Government has a mandate to deliver things in its manifesto. The strength of the mandate (initially) may depend on how prominent the issue was during an election campaign. But the mandate may diminish over time, to the extent that a Government does not feel it can continue with the plan without a renewed mandate.
Democratic votes give mandates, not instructions. The only real exception would be post legislative votes as automatic triggers. A la Scottish and Welsh Devolution referendums.
Nope. There’s an important distinction between elections and referendums
1. An election involves people competing to be a representative of an area. They do this on the basis of a statement of principles and objectives (manifesto). However, manifestos have no legal standing because under Burkean theory MPs are representatives not delegates
2. A referendum involves the sovereign authority being asked a specific question (should I stay or should I go in this case). The answer was clear: Leave. The sovereign authority did not provide any instruction on how, (which is a matter for delegated representatives)
(The way to square the results of the referendum and the election is that the people wanted a soft Brexit. Unfortunately May and the various extreme Remainers have created a situation where that is not likely. However, Boris’s deal is still compliant with the referendum and - assuming it is passed by Parliament - would be compliant with the election result as well)
Except the legislation said that the referendum was advisory. That people argued differently during the campaign does not change that. It was not a legally binding vote.
Parliament can’t limit the sovereignty of the people. It only has delegated authority
Hmmm, you're being a bit loose here. "Can't limit the sovereignty of the people"? Depends what you mean by "sovereignty of the people". Refusing to hold a referendum on an issue is, in one sense, limiting the sovereignty of the people. But that's probably not what you mean. So, what exactly do you mean?
I see the Mail have a 'friend of Epstein' story about the disgusting slug Mandelson How very surprising
That is rather unexpected. Can't recall the last time the Mail published loosely sourced dirt on a quintessential member of the metropolitan liberal Remainer elite.
He was a pal of Epstein tbf, like a lot of people. Looks like the accusations about asking him a favour whilst he was banged up for kiddy fiddling is from an upcoming Dispatches
Epstein seemed to know an awful lot of powerful people. The unravelling of the evidence he's left behind is going to be a huge story for years to come.
Oh massive. Lots of people stand to be rightly destroyed by it
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave.
Of course they have a right to ask if the instruction has changed
The instruction hasn’t changed
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.
Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?
Where do you think it comes from? And is that view based on the law or morals?
I know the answer (in my view).
I’m interested in whether either @Cyclefree or @Scott_P have a deep understanding of constitutional theory
Parliament has every right to do so, constitutionally. (It would be interesting to see you argue otherwise in a court.) The electorate get to punish them at the next election, if they think their wishes have been flouted.
Amber Rudd's support for the deal, notwithstanding her voting with Letwin, in a direct conversation with Boris does give rise to the likelyhood of the whip being restored and her standing in the next GE in a safe seat
For those who bet, Amber for next conservative leader could be a good call
Those who bet only decide if it's a "good call" once they know what the odds being offered are.
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave.
Of course they have a right to ask if the instruction has changed
The instruction hasn’t changed
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.
Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?
Are we going to have to refer to Hobbes again? My copy of Leviathan is within easy reach.
there can happen no breach of Covenant on the part of the Soveraigne; and consequently none of his Subjects, by any pretence of forfeiture, can be freed from his Subjection.
At some point, if the Opposition won't vote for an election, the government is going to have little choice but to resign. If they survive this week they need to get the budget passed next month.
What does it actually mean for the 'government to resign' post-FTPA? Johnson could resign as PM, of course, and he could presumably also tell the Queen he didn't think any other Tory MP would have the confidence of the house (implying that she should call for the LOTO). Does governmental resignation mean anything more than just doing that?
Yes, we are in uncharted waters with the FTPA, it's a messy piece of legislation that is noteable for what it doesn't say as much as what it does.
We've been around it here a few times and I think the consensus is that, as you suggest, the PM resigns to HMQ and either suggests nobody or suggests the LotO. It would then be up to Corbyn to tell the Queen whether or not he thinks he can survive a vote of confidence.
Johnson won't resign as Conservative Party Leader and will take the Conservatives into Opposition, immediately calling for a vote of no confidence in whoever has been appointed, to start the FTPA 14-day clock to a dissolution and election.
Some on here (not me) are of the opinion that Johnson can't actually resign until it becomes clear who would replace him, in which case he might try and call a vote of confidence in his own government.
In almost all countries there has to be a head of government at all times, and it is gross negligence to resign without being clear who the sucessor is, even if it is under the agreement that the person taking over is doing so as caretaker. This is why you often have a PM (or equivalent) remaining in position months or years after having lost an election. Gordon Brown was only able to get away with resigning before the next govenment had been agreed, as it was clear that whether or not a coalition could be formed, that David Cameron was the only sensible PM.
We are not talking about 'almost all countries'. We are talking about the specifics of our country. And here there is no impediment to the PM resigning without there being an immediate successor.
Maybe legally, but being prime minister does come one or two responsibilities. Ensuring you don't leave the country dangling without a leader is certainly one of them.
As recently as 2005 the highest court in the land held that “ The bedrock of the British Constitution is … the Supremacy of the Crown in Parliament” (R (Jackson) v Attorney-General). Unless you have a democratically elected Crown then democracy is, in principal, fettered by an undemocratic source of sovereignty within in Parliament. Okay, I admit that Hobbes would say that the Crown’s power comes from a transfer of right from the people but I think one who maintains that the 2016 referendum was a transfer back need to back up that assertion with more than they have hitherto. Such a fundamental movement of such a Constitutional “bedrock” would, in my view, have been expressly flagged in advance.
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave.
Of course they have a right to ask if the instruction has changed
The instruction hasn’t changed
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.
Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?
Are we going to have to refer to Hobbes again? My copy of Leviathan is within easy reach.
there can happen no breach of Covenant on the part of the Soveraigne; and consequently none of his Subjects, by any pretence of forfeiture, can be freed from his Subjection.
'To make Covenant with bruit Beasts is impossible; because not understanding our speech, they understand not...'
They have a mandate to leave (which is much weaker now than before), not an instruction. Important distinction.
Just as an elected Government has a mandate to deliver things in its manifesto. The strength of the mandate (initially) may depend on how prominent the issue was during an election campaign. But the mandate may diminish over time, to the extent that a Government does not feel it can continue with the plan without a renewed mandate.
Democratic votes give mandates, not instructions. The only real exception would be post legislative votes as automatic triggers. A la Scottish and Welsh Devolution referendums.
Nope. There’s an important distinction between elections and referendums
1. An election involves people competing to be a representative of an area. They do this on the basis of a statement of principles and objectives (manifesto). However, manifestos have no legal standing because under Burkean theory MPs are representatives not delegates
2. A referendum involves the sovereign authority being asked a specific question (should I stay or should I go in this case). The answer was clear: Leave. The sovereign authority did not provide any instruction on how, (which is a matter for delegated representatives)
(The way to square the results of the referendum and the election is that the people wanted a soft Brexit. Unfortunately May and the various extreme Remainers have created a situation where that is not likely. However, Boris’s deal is still compliant with the referendum and - assuming it is passed by Parliament - would be compliant with the election result as well)
Except the legislation said that the referendum was advisory. That people argued differently during the campaign does not change that. It was not a legally binding vote.
Parliament can’t limit the sovereignty of the people. It only has delegated authority
Poppycock, Charles. The sovereignty of the people is a too-high-level-to-be-useful theory of the sort political theorists dream up to shore up the whole system. There is no reason to think it true or useful, and other theories are available - i.e. that the system governs by divine right, or (the correct one), because it can.
How, for instance, would the people revoke the delegation of its authority? Candidates need not invoke the death of Magna Carta in their answers.
A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better. I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugs
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
Victim blaming?
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’s
Rioters are criminals and the police going on riot control duty are going to deal with criminals.
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave.
Of course they have a right to ask if the instruction has changed
The instruction hasn’t changed
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.
Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?
Are we going to have to refer to Hobbes again? My copy of Leviathan is within easy reach.
there can happen no breach of Covenant on the part of the Soveraigne; and consequently none of his Subjects, by any pretence of forfeiture, can be freed from his Subjection.
'To make Covenant with bruit Beasts is impossible; because not understanding our speech, they understand not...'
So no deals with the ERG.
and to have stronger, and more vehement Passions for any thing, than is ordinarily seen in others, is that which men call MADNESSE.
Hmmm, you're being a bit loose here. "Can't limit the sovereignty of the people"? Depends what you mean by "sovereignty of the people". Refusing to hold a referendum on an issue is, in one sense, limiting the sovereignty of the people. But that's probably not what you mean. So, what exactly do you mean?
'Sovereignty of the people' is a noble sounding phrase but is essentially meaningless without definition. And the only definition which suffices is an accurate and concise summary of what the British Constitution, written and unwritten, entails.
Amber Rudd's support for the deal, notwithstanding her voting with Letwin, in a direct conversation with Boris does give rise to the likelyhood of the whip being restored and her standing in the next GE in a safe seat
For those who bet, Amber for next conservative leader could be a good call
No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit.
Do you get pleasure in writing that kind of insult
Scatological hyperbole is a consistent theme of @Dura_Ace ‘s writing. A constant diet of it would be tiring, but he is fairly sparing in its deployment.
The weak link being the ERG being 'disappointed' as he terms it.
And of course notes the big problem - if they can hang together on the Bill, the DUP can back a VONC from Labour and as seen on here and in that thread it is anticipated the Labour rebels would fall in line...thus torpedoing the thing they just fought to see happen.
At some point, if the Opposition won't vote for an election, the government is going to have little choice but to resign. If they survive this week they need to get the budget passed next month.
What does it actually mean for the 'government to resign' post-FTPA? Johnson could resign as PM, of course, and he could presumably also tell the Queen he didn't think any other Tory MP would have the confidence of the house (implying that she should call for the LOTO). Does governmental resignation mean anything more than just doing that?
Yes, we are in uncharted waters with the FTPA, it's a messy piece of legislation that is noteable for what it doesn't say as much as what it does.
We've been around it here a few times and I think the consensus is that, as you suggest, the PM resigns to HMQ and either suggests nobody or suggests the LotO. It would then be up to Corbyn to tell the Queen whether or not he thinks he can survive a vote of confidence.
Johnson won't resign as Conservative Party Leader and will take the Conservatives into Opposition, immediately calling for a vote of no confidence in whoever has been appointed, to start the FTPA 14-day clock to a dissolution and election.
Some on here (not me) are of the opinion that Johnson can't actually resign until it becomes clear who would replace him, in which case he might try and call a vote of confidence in his own government.
In almost all countries there has to be a head of government at all times, and it is gross negligence to resign without being clear who the sucessor is, even if it is under the agreement that the person taking over is doing so as caretaker. This is why you often have a PM (or equivalent) remaining in position months or years after having lost an election. Gordon Brown was only able to get away with resigning before the next govenment had been agreed, as it was clear that whether or not a coalition could be formed, that David Cameron was the only sensible PM.
We are not talking about 'almost all countries'. We are talking about the specifics of our country. And here there is no impediment to the PM resigning without there being an immediate successor.
Maybe legally, but being prime minister does come one or two responsibilities. Ensuring you don't leave the country dangling without a leader is certainly one of them.
Cameron managed to inflict three years of that on us. Though admittedly with the assistance of the Tory membership.
A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better. I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugs
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
Victim blaming?
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’s
Rioters are criminals and the police going on riot control duty are going to deal with criminals.
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?
Not all of them, and not rioting, but anyone who puts someone else at fear of their physical safety is liable in common assault or a section 4APublic Order Act offence. So any of the marchers who put JRM in fear of his safety are indeed criminals, yes, but not rioters which is a specific offence that did not occur here. Not all the marchers are criminals but any that made JRM or his son feel unsafe is potentially a criminal. I’m a Remainer but I will call out such behaviour from my “side” when I see it - as I would expect Leavers to do on theirs. And equally JRM should not have taken his son into that situation.
Hmmm, you're being a bit loose here. "Can't limit the sovereignty of the people"? Depends what you mean by "sovereignty of the people". Refusing to hold a referendum on an issue is, in one sense, limiting the sovereignty of the people. But that's probably not what you mean. So, what exactly do you mean?
'Sovereignty of the people' is a noble sounding phrase but is essentially meaningless without definition. And the only definition which suffices is an accurate and concise summary of what the British Constitution, written and unwritten, entails.
That will be my next post.
See you in a bit.
Slight issue: there are truths hiding inside the constitution that aren't always spelled out. On question I have it what would result from a majority in parliament decreeing that all future elections would be cancelled. Would the courts strike such legislation down? I can imagine they would. Perhaps the real answer is that there is no such thing as sovereignty, that we are all subjects of the dominion of others. And no bad thing, if so.
Retaining the cultural identity of one`s country does not necessarily make one racist.
No, it does not. However, if one bumps into a person for whom retaining the cultural identity of their country is of such concern that it keeps them up at night and causes a certain animation in their conversation, then it is a reasonable deduction, and also my experience, that said person will be more infected than most with the blight of racism.
A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better. I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugs
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
Victim blaming?
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’s
Rioters are criminals and the police going on riot control duty are going to deal with criminals.
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?
Not all of them, and not rioting, but anyone who puts someone else at fear of their physical safety is liable in common assault or a section 5 Public Order Act offence. So any of the marchers who put JRM in fear of his safety are indeed criminals, yes, but not rioters which is a specific offence that did not occur here. Not all the marchers are criminals but any that made JRM or his son feel unsafe is potentially a criminal. I’m a Remainer but I will call out such behaviour from my “side” when I see it - as I would expect Leavers to do on theirs. And equally JRM should not have taken his son into that situation.
Four or five years ago a delegation of elderly people arrived at Priti Patel's constituency office. Can't recall what they were protesting about, I'm afraid. Some were in a wheelchairs and several those that were not had walking sticks. Patel complained that this demonstration had put her staff 'in fear'.
A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better. I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugs
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
Victim blaming?
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’s
Rioters are criminals and the police going on riot control duty are going to deal with criminals.
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?
Not all of them, and not rioting, but anyone who puts someone else at fear of their physical safety is liable in common assault or a section 4APublic Order Act offence. So any of the marchers who put JRM in fear of his safety are indeed criminals, yes, but not rioters which is a specific offence that did not occur here. Not all the marchers are criminals but any that made JRM or his son feel unsafe is potentially a criminal. I’m a Remainer but I will call out such behaviour from my “side” when I see it - as I would expect Leavers to do on theirs. And equally JRM should not have taken his son into that situation.
*edit - sorry, section 4A
That’s fair (and I applaud the insertion of “potentially”). One might think JRM irresponsible, even provocative, but that it no way removes him from the protection of the law. And nor should it.
Dura_Ace: "No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit."
I`ve only just caught up with your comments. Were you joking?
Retaining the cultural identity of one`s country does not necessarily make one racist.
There is no such thing as a cultural identity of a country. Countries are in all cases made up of multiple cultures, many of which are partially shared with other countries.
Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
Retaining the cultural identity of one`s country does not necessarily make one racist.
No, it does not. However, if one bumps into a person for whom retaining the cultural identity of their country is of such concern that it keeps them up at night and causes a certain animation in their conversation, then it is a reasonable deduction, and also my experience, that said person will be more infected than most with the blight of racism.
Yup. One suspects it would be only a matter of time before 'our Judeo-Christian heritage is under attack' barges its way into the convo.
Dura_Ace: "No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit."
I`ve only just caught up with your comments. Were you joking?
Retaining the cultural identity of one`s country does not necessarily make one racist.
There is no such thing as a cultural identity of a country. Countries are in all cases made up of multiple cultures, many of which are partially shared with other countries.
Indeed. Only a fool would say that Derry is more like Kent than Donegal.
Dura_Ace: "No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit."
I`ve only just caught up with your comments. Were you joking?
Retaining the cultural identity of one`s country does not necessarily make one racist.
There is no such thing as a cultural identity of a country. Countries are in all cases made up of multiple cultures, many of which are partially shared with other countries.
Indeed. Only a fool would say that Derry is more like Kent than Donegal.
Though to juggle it about a bit, Morningside is probably more like Hampstead than The Calton.
Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
If the national leaders comeback and say you have a 1 month extension to pass the deal we have negotiated, then what will happen with the referendum.
I believe now that the national leaders have given up on the UK changing it's mind and decided that close cooperation economically and politically is the way to go for perhaps the next decade.
A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better. I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugs
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
Victim blaming?
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’s
Rioters are criminals and the police going on riot control duty are going to deal with criminals.
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?
Not all of them, and not rioting, but anyone who puts someone else at fear of their physical safety is liable in common assault or a section 5 Public Order Act offence. So any of the marchers who put JRM in fear of his safety are indeed criminals, yes, but not rioters which is a specific offence that did not occur here. Not all the marchers are criminals but any that made JRM or his son feel unsafe is potentially a criminal. I’m a Remainer but I will call out such behaviour from my “side” when I see it - as I would expect Leavers to do on theirs. And equally JRM should not have taken his son into that situation.
Four or five years ago a delegation of elderly people arrived at Priti Patel's constituency office. Can't recall what they were protesting about, I'm afraid. Some were in a wheelchairs and several those that were not had walking sticks. Patel complained that this demonstration had put her staff 'in fear'.
Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
The problem with a second referendum amendment, is that this amendment would not be sufficient by itself to hold the second referendum.
That would require fresh primary legislation, consultation periods etc. I won't say it's impossible, but it's going to be very difficult to get this through Parliament (both houses, and committees) against the wishes of the government, it's several days over a period of months. Government could also simply pull the Brexit Bill if it gets amended.
Dura_Ace: "No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit."
I`ve only just caught up with your comments. Were you joking?
Retaining the cultural identity of one`s country does not necessarily make one racist.
There is no such thing as a cultural identity of a country. Countries are in all cases made up of multiple cultures, many of which are partially shared with other countries.
Indeed. Only a fool would say that Derry is more like Kent than Donegal.
Though to juggle it about a bit, Morningside is probably more like Hampstead than The Calton.
Yeah. Similarly the posher parts of Dublin have a lot more in common with N London than rural Ireland.
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
If the existing treason laws aren't adequate, I agree.
Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
The problem with a second referendum amendment, is that this amendment would not be sufficient by itself to hold the second referendum.
That would require fresh primary legislation, consultation periods etc. I won't say it's impossible, but it's going to be very difficult to get this through Parliament (both houses, and committees) against the wishes of the government, it's several days over a period of months. Government could also simply pull the Brexit Bill if it gets amended.
As a first step I would imagine if such an amendment is passed the EU would then offer an extension until mid 2020, on the grounds that parliament has given a pretty clear indication they want a referendum. That then gives time to either have the remainers agreed a Government for Remainer Unity, or have an election. If Boris wins that election he can pass his deal in peace, if he does not then a referendum is held by the others.
What is there to negotiate? Our PM and the EU have agreed a deal that looked as if it would pass a vote in parliament. Yesterday was a really sad day, like when you give one more chance to someone you know is going to let you down. This was the Brexit blockers time to shine, prove they did accept the result, and that they would honour the pledge they made to get elected. Unfortunately they just cant do it.
I would not worry too much if I were you. The macro politics is behind this Deal. It will be passed - and most probably this year.
Furthermore this outcome flows logically from the 2016 referendum - which was essentially an instruction to the UK government to take us out of the EU in an orderly fashion under the best exit terms that could in practice and in its view be achieved. There is no valid interpretation other than that. Everything else is special pleading.
So, OK, it is about to happen. Took a while but so what? It was always going to be difficult once parliament was granted an effective veto.
Australian style points system coming your way very very soon now.
Valiant Japanese rugby players have finally met their match in the Springboks. A great addition to the tournament though, international rugby is in a better place for their emerging as a top side.
What is there to negotiate? Our PM and the EU have agreed a deal that looked as if it would pass a vote in parliament. Yesterday was a really sad day, like when you give one more chance to someone you know is going to let you down. This was the Brexit blockers time to shine, prove they did accept the result, and that they would honour the pledge they made to get elected. Unfortunately they just cant do it.
I would not worry too much if I were you. The macro politics is behind this Deal. It will be passed - and most probably this year.
'most probably this year'. Rather blows the government's optimistic timetable out of the water.
Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
The problem with a second referendum amendment, is that this amendment would not be sufficient by itself to hold the second referendum.
That would require fresh primary legislation, consultation periods etc. I won't say it's impossible, but it's going to be very difficult to get this through Parliament (both houses, and committees) against the wishes of the government, it's several days over a period of months. Government could also simply pull the Brexit Bill if it gets amended.
As a first step I would imagine if such an amendment is passed the EU would then offer an extension until mid 2020, on the grounds that parliament has given a pretty clear indication they want a referendum. That then gives time to either have the remainers agreed a Government for Remainer Unity, or have an election. If Boris wins that election he can pass his deal in peace, if he does not then a referendum is held by the others.
We are definitely heading for an election whatever happens next week. If I were the Tories I’d see both benefits and drawbacks for going to the country either pre- or post-Brexit. If it takes place before, I think Labour are damaged but there’s a chance of a Brexit Party spoiler. If after, Labour could do better but the Lib Dems are likely to be a bit dented. Ho hum.
Dura_Ace: "No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit."
I`ve only just caught up with your comments. Were you joking?
Retaining the cultural identity of one`s country does not necessarily make one racist.
There is no such thing as a cultural identity of a country. Countries are in all cases made up of multiple cultures, many of which are partially shared with other countries.
Indeed. Only a fool would say that Derry is more like Kent than Donegal.
Though to juggle it about a bit, Morningside is probably more like Hampstead than The Calton.
Yeah. Similarly the posher parts of Dublin have a lot more in common with N London than rural Ireland.
'Is class the greatest signifier of cultural identity in C21st Britain? Use both sides of the paper if required.'
What is there to negotiate? Our PM and the EU have agreed a deal that looked as if it would pass a vote in parliament. Yesterday was a really sad day, like when you give one more chance to someone you know is going to let you down. This was the Brexit blockers time to shine, prove they did accept the result, and that they would honour the pledge they made to get elected. Unfortunately they just cant do it.
I would not worry too much if I were you. The macro politics is behind this Deal. It will be passed - and most probably this year.
Furthermore this outcome flows logically from the 2016 referendum - which was essentially an instruction to the UK government to take us out of the EU in an orderly fashion under the best exit terms that could in practice and in its view be achieved. There is no valid interpretation other than that. Everything else is special pleading.
So, OK, it is about to happen. Took a while but so what? It was always going to be difficult once parliament was granted an effective veto.
Australian style points system coming your way very very soon now.
Your daily reminder that we already have an “Australian” points style system for people outside the EEA and, being charitable, it’s completely broken.
Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
The problem with a second referendum amendment, is that this amendment would not be sufficient by itself to hold the second referendum.
That would require fresh primary legislation, consultation periods etc. I won't say it's impossible, but it's going to be very difficult to get this through Parliament (both houses, and committees) against the wishes of the government, it's several days over a period of months. Government could also simply pull the Brexit Bill if it gets amended.
As a first step I would imagine if such an amendment is passed the EU would then offer an extension until mid 2020, on the grounds that parliament has given a pretty clear indication they want a referendum. That then gives time to either have the remainers agreed a Government for Remainer Unity, or have an election. If Boris wins that election he can pass his deal in peace, if he does not then a referendum is held by the others.
We are definitely heading for an election whatever happens next week. If I were the Tories I’d see both benefits and drawbacks for going to the country either pre- or post-Brexit. If it takes place before, I think Labour are damaged but there’s a chance of a Brexit Party spoiler. If after, Labour could do better but the Lib Dems are likely to be a bit dented. Ho hum.
Remainer backlash has the potential to be an electoral threat. For example see Scotland after the failed referendum.
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
If the existing treason laws aren't adequate, I agree.
Would that include, say, asking Hungary to veto extensions?
The weak link being the ERG being 'disappointed' as he terms it.
And of course notes the big problem - if they can hang together on the Bill, the DUP can back a VONC from Labour and as seen on here and in that thread it is anticipated the Labour rebels would fall in line...thus torpedoing the thing they just fought to see happen.
A VONC to torpedo Brexit at the death = election = an utter destruction of those that did it. Boris would not be remotely worried about an 11th hour VONC
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
If the existing treason laws aren't adequate, I agree.
Boles absolutely spat his dummy out over it and threatened to withdraw deal support. Of course such a law will not be introduced nor even suggested by government
A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better. I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugs
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
Victim blaming?
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
If the existing treason laws aren't adequate, I agree.
Would that include, say, asking Hungary to veto extensions?
Slight issue: there are truths hiding inside the constitution that aren't always spelled out. On question I have it what would result from a majority in parliament decreeing that all future elections would be cancelled. Would the courts strike such legislation down? I can imagine they would. Perhaps the real answer is that there is no such thing as sovereignty, that we are all subjects of the dominion of others. And no bad thing, if so.
Well it was going to be quite a long post from me - relieved to be off the hook tbh - because as you say it would need to cover not only the unwritten parts but the erstwhile unspoken parts - the very subtle nuances - some of which cannot be known with any certainty to exist until they spring to life in a particular set of circumstances. So, yes, all told it is perhaps better to go with 'there is no such thing as sovereignty'. There is only something which is far more concrete and understandable. Power.
A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better. I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugs
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
Victim blaming?
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’s
Rioters are criminals and the police going on riot control duty are going to deal with criminals.
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?
Not all of them, and not rioting, but anyone who puts someone else at fear of their physical safety is liable in common assault or a section 4APublic Order Act offence. So any of the marchers who put JRM in fear of his safety are indeed criminals, yes, but not rioters which is a specific offence that did not occur here. Not all the marchers are criminals but any that made JRM or his son feel unsafe is potentially a criminal. I’m a Remainer but I will call out such behaviour from my “side” when I see it - as I would expect Leavers to do on theirs. And equally JRM should not have taken his son into that situation.
*edit - sorry, section 4A
Why should JRM not take his son into that situation? That is victim blaming. This was supposed to be a lawful situation - why should JRM's son not be free to walk the street lawfully in what is meant to be a lawful situation?
If any marchers broke the law then they are the criminals not JRM's son.
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
If the existing treason laws aren't adequate, I agree.
Would that include, say, asking Hungary to veto extensions?
A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better. I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugs
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
Victim blaming?
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’s
Rioters are criminals and the police going on riot control duty are going to deal with criminals.
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?
Not all of them, and not rioting, but anyone who puts someone else at fear of their physical safety is liable in common assault or a section 4APublic Order Act offence. So any of the marchers who put JRM in fear of his safety are indeed criminals, yes, but not rioters which is a specific offence that did not occur here. Not all the marchers are criminals but any that made JRM or his son feel unsafe is potentially a criminal. I’m a Remainer but I will call out such behaviour from my “side” when I see it - as I would expect Leavers to do on theirs. And equally JRM should not have taken his son into that situation.
*edit - sorry, section 4A
That’s fair (and I applaud the insertion of “potentially”). One might think JRM irresponsible, even provocative, but that it no way removes him from the protection of the law. And nor should it.
Quite right. I bow to nobody in my dislike of JRM and everything he stands for, but anyone who threatens him with violence should have their collar felt. Even more so anyone who raises their fists to his poor benighted child.
Slight issue: there are truths hiding inside the constitution that aren't always spelled out. On question I have it what would result from a majority in parliament decreeing that all future elections would be cancelled. Would the courts strike such legislation down? I can imagine they would. Perhaps the real answer is that there is no such thing as sovereignty, that we are all subjects of the dominion of others. And no bad thing, if so.
Well it was going to be quite a long post from me - relieved to be off the hook tbh - because as you say it would need to cover not only the unwritten parts but the erstwhile unspoken parts - the very subtle nuances - some of which cannot be known with any certainty to exist until they spring to life in a particular set of circumstances. So, yes, all told it is perhaps better to go with 'there is no such thing as sovereignty'. There is only something which is far more concrete and understandable. Power.
Can I throw in 'a monopoly on the legitimate use of force'. When that is seen to break down, so does power, sovereignty and everything else.
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
If the existing treason laws aren't adequate, I agree.
Would that include, say, asking Hungary to veto extensions?
Asking for a SPAD.....
Hopefully Hungary vetoes this one.
And France and the Netherlands and . . .
I would be surprised if they did veto it. It costs the EU nothing other than time to give us an extension. That way, when we hang ourselves with Brexit we cannot point the finger at them.
Considering how often they where accused of interfereing in UK politics, they have been remarkably hands-off (apart from negotiations) in Brexit.
If it all goes horribly wrong, we will have no else to blame but ourselves.
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
Victim blaming?
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’s
Rioters are criminals and the police going on riot control duty are going to deal with criminals.
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?
Not all of them, and not rioting, but anyone who puts someone else at fear of their physical safety is liable in common assault or a section 4APublic Order Act offence. So any of the marchers who put JRM in fear of his safety are indeed criminals, yes, but not rioters which is a specific offence that did not occur here. Not all the marchers are criminals but any that made JRM or his son feel unsafe is potentially a criminal. I’m a Remainer but I will call out such behaviour from my “side” when I see it - as I would expect Leavers to do on theirs. And equally JRM should not have taken his son into that situation.
*edit - sorry, section 4A
Why should JRM not take his son into that situation? That is victim blaming. This was supposed to be a lawful situation - why should JRM's son not be free to walk the street lawfully in what is meant to be a lawful situation?
If any marchers broke the law then they are the criminals not JRM's son.
You are so disingenuous. You are just repeating what you said before and not reading my post.. I’m not calling JRM or his son a criminal. I’m saying JRM was irresponsible, not criminal, to take his son into that situation. It is irresponsible to take a child into a combustible situation such as that where tempers run high. I would not take my child into a situation where tempers were that high. It’s like putting on a Union Jack top and a bowler hat and taking your child for a tour of the Falls Road while singing the Sash. It’s irresponsible, not criminal, but irresponsible and arguably provocative.
I'm loving some of the twitterati wanting the courts to determine that the PM is not allowed to express an opinion and should be locked up for doing so.
Your daily reminder that we already have an “Australian” points style system for people outside the EEA and, being charitable, it’s completely broken.
But this will be called an Australian style points system.
I think it's quite revealing that all the things that Brexiteers want to introduce after Brexit - the "Australian points system" and the "Canada plus plus deal" - hark back to the (white) commonwealth. I confidently expect to see a "New Zealand style pet passport scheme" and a "Union of South Africa phytosanitary regime" added to the lexicon soon, and await the "Look Just Make It The Fucking 1950s Again (2019) Act" going on the statute book. It's all very retro, but also just a little bit sad.
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
If the existing treason laws aren't adequate, I agree.
Would that include, say, asking Hungary to veto extensions?
Asking for a SPAD.....
Hopefully Hungary vetoes this one.
And France and the Netherlands and . . .
I would be surprised if they did veto it. It costs the EU nothing other than time to give us an extension. That way, when we hang ourselves with Brexit we cannot point the finger at them.
Considering how often they where accused of interfereing in UK politics, they have been remarkably hands-off (apart from negotiations) in Brexit.
If it all goes horribly wrong, we will have no else to blame but ourselves.
There is, however, a cost to individual EU countries. There are areas of Europe (Dordogne, Brittany, Costa del Sol, Canaries for examples) where ex-pat Brits make up an important component of the local economy and where Brexit is having a significant impact on household decisions (people choosing to emigrate or return to UK). This has a knock-on effect on housing/commerce and the lack of certainty is having a detrimental effect on these areas. I can well imagine the countries affected will want to force a decision one way or the other as soon as possible.
Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
The problem with a second referendum amendment, is that this amendment would not be sufficient by itself to hold the second referendum.
That would require fresh primary legislation, consultation periods etc. I won't say it's impossible, but it's going to be very difficult to get this through Parliament (both houses, and committees) against the wishes of the government, it's several days over a period of months. Government could also simply pull the Brexit Bill if it gets amended.
Plus the delay and the uncertainty around myriad "what happens if....?" under dozens of Referendum scenarios is not what the EU wants.
Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
The problem with a second referendum amendment, is that this amendment would not be sufficient by itself to hold the second referendum.
That would require fresh primary legislation, consultation periods etc. I won't say it's impossible, but it's going to be very difficult to get this through Parliament (both houses, and committees) against the wishes of the government, it's several days over a period of months. Government could also simply pull the Brexit Bill if it gets amended.
Plus the delay and the uncertainty around myriad "what happens if....?" under dozens of Referendum scenarios is not what the EU wants.
So what do the EU do if parliament votes for a referendum amendment? Say 'tough, you've got one more week'?
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
Victim blaming?
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’s
Rioters are criminals and the police going on riot control duty are going to deal with criminals.
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?
Not all of them, and not rioting, but anyone who puts someone else at fear of their physical safety is liable in common assault or a section 4APublic Order Act offence. So any of the marchers who put JRM in fear of his safety are indeed criminals, yes, but not rioters which is a specific offence that did not occur here. Not all the marchers are criminals but any that made JRM or his son feel unsafe is potentially a criminal. I’m a Remainer but I will call out such behaviour from my “side” when I see it - as I would expect Leavers to do on theirs. And equally JRM should not have taken his son into that situation.
*edit - sorry, section 4A
That’s fair (and I applaud the insertion of “potentially”). One might think JRM irresponsible, even provocative, but that it no way removes him from the protection of the law. And nor should it.
Quite right. I bow to nobody in my dislike of JRM and everything he stands for, but anyone who threatens him with violence should have their collar felt. Even more so anyone who raises their fists to his poor benighted child.
Sadly a number of government ministers had to be escorted from Parliament by police yesterday. When there's a crowd in the six figures, it can be 99% peaceful but still have thousands of idiots involved.
What probably happened is that government people were identified by the crowd and a few idiots over-reacted, but thankfully the police intervened and no-one was hurt. It's a fine line between allowing people to protest the government and letting people get on with their business, we're not a democracy if people aren't allowed to shout at politicians in the street.
For all the criticism that gets levelled at the Met Police it appears they did a good job yesterday, with the event being mostly peaceful and good-natured.
...In almost all countries there has to be a head of government at all times...
The UK is not one of them. Churchill was out of action due to a stroke, and there was a gap between Eden and Macmillan. Apart from certain functions (launching nukes, hiring/firing Ministers, some others), the Government can run without a head, at least for a while.
Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
The problem with a second referendum amendment, is that this amendment would not be sufficient by itself to hold the second referendum.
That would require fresh primary legislation, consultation periods etc. I won't say it's impossible, but it's going to be very difficult to get this through Parliament (both houses, and committees) against the wishes of the government, it's several days over a period of months. Government could also simply pull the Brexit Bill if it gets amended.
Plus the delay and the uncertainty around myriadi "what happens if....?" under dozens of Referendum scenarios is not what the EU wants.
So what do the EU do if parliament votes for a referendum amendment? Say 'tough, you've got one more week'?
A referendum cannot happen without a change of government, an amendment just kicks the can and precipitates a GE, they will extend for a GE and to see if a referendum parliament is elected
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
If the existing treason laws aren't adequate, I agree.
Would that include, say, asking Hungary to veto extensions?
Asking for a SPAD.....
Hopefully Hungary vetoes this one.
And France and the Netherlands and . . .
I would be surprised if they did veto it. It costs the EU nothing other than time to give us an extension. That way, when we hang ourselves with Brexit we cannot point the finger at them.
Considering how often they where accused of interfereing in UK politics, they have been remarkably hands-off (apart from negotiations) in Brexit.
If it all goes horribly wrong, we will have no else to blame but ourselves.
There is, however, a cost to individual EU countries. There are areas of Europe (Dordogne, Brittany, Costa del Sol, Canaries for examples) where ex-pat Brits make up an important component of the local economy and where Brexit is having a significant impact on household decisions (people choosing to emigrate or return to UK). This has a knock-on effect on housing/commerce and the lack of certainty is having a detrimental effect on these areas. I can well imagine the countries affected will want to force a decision one way or the other as soon as possible.
Immigrants, not ex-pats. They have moved there permanently, they aren't on a short-term work assignment.
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
If the existing treason laws aren't adequate, I agree.
Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
The problem with a second referendum amendment, is that this amendment would not be sufficient by itself to hold the second referendum.
That would require fresh primary legislation, consultation periods etc. I won't say it's impossible, but it's going to be very difficult to get this through Parliament (both houses, and committees) against the wishes of the government, it's several days over a period of months. Government could also simply pull the Brexit Bill if it gets amended.
Plus the delay and the uncertainty around myriad "what happens if....?" under dozens of Referendum scenarios is not what the EU wants.
So what do the EU do if parliament votes for a referendum amendment? Say 'tough, you've got one more week'?
A referendum cannot happen without a change of government, an amendment just kicks the can and precipitates a GE
I agree, but if parliament gives in the form of that an amendment an indication a majority of them want a referendum, the EU has been given a signal about how long to give us. If the government can look like it can pass its deal unamended then even if it won't be by 31 October it won't be much beyond it.
But the government will lose some amendments. How much are the ERG willing to slide on to get it through?
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
If the existing treason laws aren't adequate, I agree.
So you'll be putting Priti Patel in prison then.
If she broke the law after it was put in place she'd be in trouble. But it wont ever be brought forward as a bill
Amber Rudd's support for the deal, notwithstanding her voting with Letwin, in a direct conversation with Boris does give rise to the likelyhood of the whip being restored and her standing in the next GE in a safe seat
For those who bet, Amber for next conservative leader could be a good call
No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit.
Do you get pleasure in writing that kind of insult
Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
The problem with a second referendum amendment, is that this amendment would not be sufficient by itself to hold the second referendum.
That would require fresh primary legislation, consultation periods etc. I won't say it's impossible, but it's going to be very difficult to get this through Parliament (both houses, and committees) against the wishes of the government, it's several days over a period of months. Government could also simply pull the Brexit Bill if it gets amended.
Plus the delay and the uncertainty around myriad "what happens if....?" under dozens of Referendum scenarios is not what the EU wants.
So what do the EU do if parliament votes for a referendum amendment? Say 'tough, you've got one more week'?
A referendum cannot happen without a change of government, an amendment just kicks the can and precipitates a GE
I agree, but if parliament gives in the form of that an amendment an indication a majority of them want a referendum, the EU has been given a signal about how long to give us. If the government can look like it can pass its deal unamended then even if it won't be by 31 October it won't be much beyond it.
But the government will lose some amendments. How much are the ERG willing to slide on to get it through?
Anything that isn't a total spoiler and allows the trade deal negotiations to proceed as per the current PD (any CU amendment will be dropped after a GE, but is on any case unlikely to pass)
'Is class the greatest signifier of cultural identity in C21st Britain? Use both sides of the paper if required.'
I would think it probably is. Religion is still a factor, though, sometimes as a cypher for something else. For example, the militant atheist Richard Dawkins has said that he would feel more comfortable sitting in an English country church than in an urban Mosque - I would be seeking to get this into my answer in some fashion. Examining its implications could in itself hit up against the word limit if I was not careful, so exam technique would be key here.
Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
Nice try, but both the timing of an election and the prospect of No Deal is still in Parliament's hands, not the government's.
Labour have nothing to lose by trying to bolt on a whole load of things to the Withdrawal Agreement (customs union, workers' rights, no exit from the transition without a full agreement, etc.). The one question mark for me is I'm not sure those amendments are going to get majority support - I can just see the Lib Dems and a few ultra-Remain Labour MPs playing silly buggers again with their "I'm not voting for a customs union because that's Brexit and any form of Brexit is the spawn of the devil" nonsense.
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
Victim blaming?
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’s
Rioters are criminals and the police going on riot control duty are going to deal with criminals.
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?
Not all of them, and not rioting, but
*edit - sorry, section 4A
That’s fair (and I applaud the insertion of “potentially”). One might think JRM irresponsible, even provocative, but that it no way removes him from the protection of the law. And nor should it.
Quite right. I bow to nobody in my dislike of JRM and everything he stands for, but anyone who threatens him with violence should have their collar felt. Even more so anyone who raises their fists to his poor benighted child.
Sadly a number of government ministers had to be escorted from Parliament by police yesterday. When there's a crowd in the six figures, it can be 99% peaceful but still have thousands of idiots involved.
What probably happened is that government people were identified by the crowd and a few idiots over-reacted, but thankfully the police intervened and no-one was hurt. It's a fine line between allowing people to protest the government and letting people get on with their business, we're not a democracy if people aren't allowed to shout at politicians in the street.
For all the criticism that gets levelled at the Met Police it appears they did a good job yesterday, with the event being mostly peaceful and good-natured.
Was there any threat of violence involved? Sounded more like booing and some verbal insults, not very different to the terms used by the PM and JRM about their opponents.
Obviously threats of violence are out of order, but heckling of politicians is part of democratic protest.
Why should JRM not take his son into that situation? That is victim blaming. This was supposed to be a lawful situation - why should JRM's son not be free to walk the street lawfully in what is meant to be a lawful situation?
I wonder if Mogg was using his son as a kind of human shield? - rather like when a terrorist takes an innocent child hostage as a deterrent against being 'stormed' by the armed police who have him cornered.
Why should JRM not take his son into that situation? That is victim blaming. This was supposed to be a lawful situation - why should JRM's son not be free to walk the street lawfully in what is meant to be a lawful situation?
I wonder if Mogg was using his son as a kind of human shield? - rather like when a terrorist takes an innocent child hostage as a deterrent against being 'stormed' by the armed police who have him cornered.
Reprehensible if so.
The Rees Mogg is like a terrorist angle. It's a view I suppose
Comments
Gordon Brown was only able to get away with resigning before the next govenment had been agreed, as it was clear that whether or not a coalition could be formed, that David Cameron was the only sensible PM.
https://twitter.com/GloriaDePiero/status/1185852275933220865
I`ve only just caught up with your comments. Were you joking?
Retaining the cultural identity of one`s country does not necessarily make one racist.
I’m interested in whether either @Cyclefree or @Scott_P have a deep understanding of constitutional theory
For a very large number of people, it is consistently a choice between the least crap of two options.
I wonder how self-aware she is?
The electorate get to punish them at the next election, if they think their wishes have been flouted.
So no deals with the ERG.
How, for instance, would the people revoke the delegation of its authority? Candidates need not invoke the death of Magna Carta in their answers.
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?
I'm afraid that's probably all of us on here
A good thread
That will be my next post.
See you in a bit.
A constant diet of it would be tiring, but he is fairly sparing in its deployment.
And of course notes the big problem - if they can hang together on the Bill, the DUP can back a VONC from Labour and as seen on here and in that thread it is anticipated the Labour rebels would fall in line...thus torpedoing the thing they just fought to see happen.
Though admittedly with the assistance of the Tory membership.
*edit - sorry, section 4A
On question I have it what would result from a majority in parliament decreeing that all future elections would be cancelled. Would the courts strike such legislation down? I can imagine they would.
Perhaps the real answer is that there is no such thing as sovereignty, that we are all subjects of the dominion of others. And no bad thing, if so.
Oliver Letwin 'is Remainer QC's useful idiot':
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7592141/Lawyer-masterminded-Supreme-Court-humiliation-helped-draft-wrecking-amendment.html
One might think JRM irresponsible, even provocative, but that it no way removes him from the protection of the law. And nor should it.
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
I believe now that the national leaders have given up on the UK changing it's mind and decided that close cooperation economically and politically is the way to go for perhaps the next decade.
That would require fresh primary legislation, consultation periods etc. I won't say it's impossible, but it's going to be very difficult to get this through Parliament (both houses, and committees) against the wishes of the government, it's several days over a period of months. Government could also simply pull the Brexit Bill if it gets amended.
Furthermore this outcome flows logically from the 2016 referendum - which was essentially an instruction to the UK government to take us out of the EU in an orderly fashion under the best exit terms that could in practice and in its view be achieved. There is no valid interpretation other than that. Everything else is special pleading.
So, OK, it is about to happen. Took a while but so what? It was always going to be difficult once parliament was granted an effective veto.
Australian style points system coming your way very very soon now.
Asking for a SPAD.....
If any marchers broke the law then they are the criminals not JRM's son.
Considering how often they where accused of interfereing in UK politics, they have been remarkably hands-off (apart from negotiations) in Brexit.
If it all goes horribly wrong, we will have no else to blame but ourselves.
The DUP need to be seen to be doing everything to either alleviate Unionist concerns, they could call it damage limitation .
Quite something yesterday to see Dodd’s chatting with the Labour Chief Whip!
Don’t expect the DUP to go quietly , Johnson’s deal is seen by Unionists as doing more to bring about a United Ireland than the IRA.
They will do everything possible to kill the deal or amend it to help them . No amount of money from Bozo will change that .
What probably happened is that government people were identified by the crowd and a few idiots over-reacted, but thankfully the police intervened and no-one was hurt. It's a fine line between allowing people to protest the government and letting people get on with their business, we're not a democracy if people aren't allowed to shout at politicians in the street.
For all the criticism that gets levelled at the Met Police it appears they did a good job yesterday, with the event being mostly peaceful and good-natured.
But the government will lose some amendments. How much are the ERG willing to slide on to get it through?
But it wont ever be brought forward as a bill
Labour have nothing to lose by trying to bolt on a whole load of things to the Withdrawal Agreement (customs union, workers' rights, no exit from the transition without a full agreement, etc.). The one question mark for me is I'm not sure those amendments are going to get majority support - I can just see the Lib Dems and a few ultra-Remain Labour MPs playing silly buggers again with their "I'm not voting for a customs union because that's Brexit and any form of Brexit is the spawn of the devil" nonsense.
Obviously threats of violence are out of order, but heckling of politicians is part of democratic protest.
Reprehensible if so.