Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Just a little bit of history repeating?

12346

Comments

  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    Noo said:

    I wonder what the commons mics will pick up when citizen Bercow rises for his first backbench offering? Much rudeness I suspect ;)

    I thought he was quitting as an MP too
    I’m more pointing out to Leavers why Boris’s deal isn’t what they think it is.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,060
    Sandpit said:

    pm215 said:

    Sandpit said:


    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.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    Great defending (and a little luck) from the Japanese. This match is surprisingly very much open at half time.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    alex. said:

    Charles said:

    alex. said:



    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
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    kinabalu said:

    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
  • Presumably the DUP would support this, too.
    https://twitter.com/GloriaDePiero/status/1185852275933220865
  • eristdoof said:

    Sandpit said:

    pm215 said:

    Sandpit said:


    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.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,147
    DougSeal said:

    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.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Scott_P said:

    Charles said:

    Parliament doesn’t have the authority to ask

    Parliament is Sovereign

    It can ask whatever, whenever it likes.
    Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    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.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    edited October 2019
    felix said:

    DougSeal said:

    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
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,965
    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    Charles said:

    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.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    Charles said:

    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
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,870
    edited October 2019
    Charles said:

    alex. said:

    Charles said:

    alex. said:



    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.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513

    alex. said:

    DougSeal said:

    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.
  • TudorRoseTudorRose Posts: 1,683
    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    Charles said:

    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?
    And when is the Sovereign sovereign?
  • Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    Charles said:

    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.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    edited October 2019
    Charles said:

    alex. said:

    Charles said:

    alex. said:



    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?
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    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
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344
    Since she's the Home Secretary...........

    I wonder how self-aware she is?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    Charles said:

    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.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,060

    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.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Charles said:

    Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?

    Has no bearing on Parliament's right to ask a question of the people
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    Charles said:

    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.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    nico67 said:

    Some Labour Leavers are likely to support a Customs Union Amendment.

    And the DUP might support this as a way of reducing the border issue . Labour MPs supporting the deal want some cover .

    But this is now going to cause the ERG to start moaning .

    The drama isn’t over yet !

    The DUP oppose remaining in the Customs Union.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,060

    eristdoof said:

    Sandpit said:

    pm215 said:

    Sandpit said:


    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.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    Charles said:

    Parliament doesn’t have the authority to ask

    Parliament is Sovereign

    It can ask whatever, whenever it likes.
    Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?
    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.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,965
    Noo said:

    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    Charles said:

    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.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Charles said:

    alex. said:

    Charles said:

    alex. said:



    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.
  • DougSeal said:

    felix said:

    DougSeal said:

    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?
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Noo said:

    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    Charles said:

    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.

    I'm afraid that's probably all of us on here
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    Noo said:

    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.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513

    Dura_Ace said:

    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.





  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,870
    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,870

    nico67 said:

    Some Labour Leavers are likely to support a Customs Union Amendment.

    And the DUP might support this as a way of reducing the border issue . Labour MPs supporting the deal want some cover .

    But this is now going to cause the ERG to start moaning .

    The drama isn’t over yet !

    The DUP oppose remaining in the Customs Union.
    More than they oppose the Johnson deal?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    eristdoof said:

    eristdoof said:

    Sandpit said:

    pm215 said:

    Sandpit said:


    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.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    edited October 2019

    DougSeal said:

    felix said:

    DougSeal said:

    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
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    kinabalu said:

    Noo said:

    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.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited October 2019
    Thats the first time I've read Letwin described as "useful":

    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
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    edited October 2019
    Stocky said:

    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.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    felix said:

    DougSeal said:

    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'.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    felix said:

    DougSeal said:

    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.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Stocky said:

    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.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,772
    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.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,798
    edited October 2019
    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    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.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    Noo said:

    Stocky said:

    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.
  • DougSeal said:

    Noo said:

    Stocky said:

    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.
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201

    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.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,209

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    felix said:

    DougSeal said:

    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'.
    Even by Tory standards she is a rank bad one.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314

    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.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    DougSeal said:

    Noo said:

    Stocky said:

    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.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,231

    Now the ERG want Letwin banged up.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7591983/Tory-MPs-push-law-threatening-JAIL-British-citizens-undermine-Government-talks-abroad.html

    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,870
    Sandpit said:

    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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    isam said:

    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.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,870
    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    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.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,772
    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    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.
  • DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Noo said:

    Stocky said:

    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.'
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    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.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,427

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    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.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163
    edited October 2019

    Now the ERG want Letwin banged up.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7591983/Tory-MPs-push-law-threatening-JAIL-British-citizens-undermine-Government-talks-abroad.html

    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..... :D:D
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    edited October 2019
    kle4 said:

    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
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    Now the ERG want Letwin banged up.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7591983/Tory-MPs-push-law-threatening-JAIL-British-citizens-undermine-Government-talks-abroad.html

    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
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,231
    felix said:

    DougSeal said:

    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.
    In the event, the difference was slim.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,231

    Now the ERG want Letwin banged up.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7591983/Tory-MPs-push-law-threatening-JAIL-British-citizens-undermine-Government-talks-abroad.html

    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..... :D:D
    Hopefully Hungary vetoes this one.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    edited October 2019
    Noo said:

    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.
  • DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    felix said:

    DougSeal said:

    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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    DougSeal said:

    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.
    :smile:
  • Now the ERG want Letwin banged up.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7591983/Tory-MPs-push-law-threatening-JAIL-British-citizens-undermine-Government-talks-abroad.html

    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..... :D:D
    Hopefully Hungary vetoes this one.
    And France and the Netherlands and . . .
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,687
    Nigelb said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    felix said:

    DougSeal said:

    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.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,965
    kinabalu said:

    Noo said:

    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.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163

    Now the ERG want Letwin banged up.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7591983/Tory-MPs-push-law-threatening-JAIL-British-citizens-undermine-Government-talks-abroad.html

    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..... :D:D
    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.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    edited October 2019

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    felix said:

    DougSeal said:




    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.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    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.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,687
    kinabalu said:

    DougSeal said:

    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.
    :smile:
    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.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502

    nico67 said:

    Some Labour Leavers are likely to support a Customs Union Amendment.

    And the DUP might support this as a way of reducing the border issue . Labour MPs supporting the deal want some cover .

    But this is now going to cause the ERG to start moaning .

    The drama isn’t over yet !

    The DUP oppose remaining in the Customs Union.
    Not if it helps reduce the border issue . They might offer to back that in return of Labour backing something else they’d like.

    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 .
  • TudorRoseTudorRose Posts: 1,683

    Now the ERG want Letwin banged up.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7591983/Tory-MPs-push-law-threatening-JAIL-British-citizens-undermine-Government-talks-abroad.html

    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..... :D:D
    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,357
    Sandpit said:

    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,870

    Sandpit said:

    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'?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    edited October 2019

    Nigelb said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    felix said:

    DougSeal said:



    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.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,793
    eristdoof said:

    ...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.

  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    edited October 2019
    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    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
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,965
    TudorRose said:

    Now the ERG want Letwin banged up.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7591983/Tory-MPs-push-law-threatening-JAIL-British-citizens-undermine-Government-talks-abroad.html

    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..... :D:D
    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.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,793

    Now the ERG want Letwin banged up.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7591983/Tory-MPs-push-law-threatening-JAIL-British-citizens-undermine-Government-talks-abroad.html

    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,870

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    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?
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    viewcode said:

    Now the ERG want Letwin banged up.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7591983/Tory-MPs-push-law-threatening-JAIL-British-citizens-undermine-Government-talks-abroad.html

    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
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,357

    Dura_Ace said:

    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
    It's the expertise he brings to pb.com.....
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    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)
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    edited October 2019

    '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.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited October 2019

    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.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480
    .
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    felix said:

    DougSeal said:



    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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    edited October 2019

    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.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    kinabalu said:

    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
This discussion has been closed.