People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
And London please!
Scotland, Wales and London are not being put inside some EU laws, so there is nothing of a scale needed to consent to.
If Scotland and Wales wish to rejoin the EU they should hold a referendum on exiting the UK then begin negotiations on accession to the EU.
But if it is good enough for NI why not us Scots? We DID vote against Brexit, you know.
The sad fact is that you have not threatened to kill people. The message that is being sent by allowing one solution for NI and not extending that to other parts of the UK if they desire is that the threats of violence work.
But if it is good enough for NI why not us Scots? We DID vote against Brexit, you know.
Because the EU wanted NI. They've not asked for you guys.
Not yet, and that's another factor to contemplate - the dynamic changes when UK or rather GB leaves the EU.
If the EU volunteers to give Scotland the same arrangements and if the Scottish Parliament votes to accept them I'd have no qualms whatsoever over that. The EU hasn't done that and we can't speak for them.
An extension to January 31st is automatically accepted if the EU offer it - so why would they offer anything else.
But equally why would anyone push for an election immediately they could easily spend 2 weeks pulling Boris's deal apart line by line before calling such an election.
And such a delay moves it into early January which would do wonders for Boris.
Deal would get pulled rather than enable the ridiculous grandstanding of remainers in parliament.
Pull the bill and allow the SNP to submit the VoNC.
Would Bercow allow that? I thought only the official opposition was allowed to submit a VoNC
Dominic Grieve voting against the deal at both second reading and programme motion. So much for being against "no deal", he's got no credibility he is just against any Brexit not no deal.
Grieve should never get the whip restored after this, anyone who has lost the whip but votes for the deal should get the whip back.
An extension to January 31st is automatically accepted if the EU offer it - so why would they offer anything else.
But equally why would anyone push for an election immediately they could easily spend 2 weeks pulling Boris's deal apart line by line before calling such an election.
And such a delay moves it into early January which would do wonders for Boris.
Deal would get pulled rather than enable the ridiculous grandstanding of remainers in parliament.
Pull the bill and allow the SNP to submit the VoNC.
Would Bercow allow that? I thought only the official opposition was allowed to submit a VoNC
Anyone gets to table it, only LOTO gets automatic acceptance by speaker.
An extension to January 31st is automatically accepted if the EU offer it - so why would they offer anything else.
But equally why would anyone push for an election immediately they could easily spend 2 weeks pulling Boris's deal apart line by line before calling such an election.
And such a delay moves it into early January which would do wonders for Boris.
Deal would get pulled rather than enable the ridiculous grandstanding of remainers in parliament.
Pull the bill and allow the SNP to submit the VoNC.
Would Bercow allow that? I thought only the official opposition was allowed to submit a VoNC
AFAIK only the official opposition is automatically given time for a VoNC but if the government provided time for an SNP VoNC then it could be held.
Under normal circumstances the government wouldn't give a minor party time for that.
But if it is good enough for NI why not us Scots? We DID vote against Brexit, you know.
Because the EU wanted NI. They've not asked for you guys.
Not yet, and that's another factor to contemplate - the dynamic changes when UK or rather GB leaves the EU.
If the EU volunteers to give Scotland the same arrangements and if the Scottish Parliament votes to accept them I'd have no qualms whatsoever over that. The EU hasn't done that and we can't speak for them.
Quite - an interesting thought. You wouldn't expect them to do anything like that while the UK still is, and might well remain, a member state.
On Topic I suspect the suggested rule that the Opposition must always agree to an election request still stands. The circumstances recently where an election was rejected under the guise of preventing no deal was unique.
Once we have either extended or exited that line falls away. I suspect the government if we get out soon will seek to let the dust settle and get an election next Spring, but the Opposition will have nowhere to hide by claiming it was due to preventing a no deal exit anymore.
I see we are in agreement. I expect an election on the 12th December.
Headmistresses nationwide say "no can do"...
I think the 19th is not logistically possible, the 5th is, and the 12th is marginal. I don't think this will be the chief determinant of the timing, so that's why I expect the 12th.
Johnson might even call it "glorious".
Called tomorrow an election not via a VoNC could be on November 28th
After tomorrow i think it's the December 5th if Boris calls it or 19th if via a VoNC.
Thanks to the 25 working day rules we rapidly enter Christmas and then rapidly hit Jan 9th due to bank holidays over Christmas.
An election campaign over Christmas would be an utter fiasco.
A VoNC anytime after this week makes it incredibly likely.
A Christmas election ain't gonna happen IMO. Nor one on 9 Jan, which would necessitate a farcical campaign when most of Britain is lying semi-comatose on the sofa watching reruns of Del Boy.
Agreed - there's no way that a campaign will be fought over the christmas break. If it isn't in November, it isn't going to be until late Feb, maybe March?
5th December is like the latest eariest date I think is still viable.
After that it's late February/early March.
I think it'll be 5th December.
It's only 5th December if 430 MPS vote for an election.
We are into the following week already if there is a VONC instead.
The sad fact is that you have not threatened to kill people. The message that is being sent by allowing one solution for NI and not extending that to other parts of the UK if they desire is that the threats of violence work.
It is possible that there would be violence had there been physical border infrastructure placed on the island of Ireland. The British government understood this and decided against pursuing that plan.
I am sure that many MPs today will feel empathy for members of the Reichstag facing pressure to pass Hitler's Enabling Act in March 1933.
What is wrong with you.
Time is coming for the moderators to consider your constant references to Hitler.
I remember the immediate aftermath of the concentration camps as a child and it is seared into my memory. Your comments are unnecessary
Your respect for free expression of opinion is clearly pretty limited.
You do have free expression of opinion insofar as you can host your own site and put your own opinions on it. But when you're posting on someone else's site, you play by their rules.
Which rules have been broken?
Technically, we post at the whim of the site owner, a Mr Mike Smithson, colloquially known as "OGH" or "Our Genial Host". It's an absolute monarchy and he can wield the banhammer how he pleases. In practice these powers are delegated to the moderators (or "mods") whose identity is not fixed, although I'm sure they will make themselves known to you.
The site tolerates a wide range of opinions but contributions thought to be gratuitously offensive and politically naive may be banned. Indeed, one of the most skilful contributors was banned for sneaking progressively more obvious Hitler-idolatory references into his posts. Doxxing - revealing the identity of anonymous posters - is also frowned upon and can result in a rapid ban. Posts that lay the site owners open to legal action are also bad.
In your specific example, the point is not just that the post is offensive, it's also politically naive: whatever Boris's defects (and I bow to no one in my excoriation of him) he is not Hitler, and however bad the latest Deal is, it is not a carte blanche.
On Topic I suspect the suggested rule that the Opposition must always agree to an election request still stands. The circumstances recently where an election was rejected under the guise of preventing no deal was unique.
Once we have either extended or exited that line falls away. I suspect the government if we get out soon will seek to let the dust settle and get an election next Spring, but the Opposition will have nowhere to hide by claiming it was due to preventing a no deal exit anymore.
I see we are in agreement. I expect an election on the 12th December.
Headmistresses nationwide say "no can do"...
I think the 19th is not logistically possible, the 5th is, and the 12th is marginal. I don't think this will be the chief determinant of the timing, so that's why I expect the 12th.
Johnson might even call it "glorious".
Called tomorrow an election not via a VoNC could be on November 28th
After tomorrow i think it's the December 5th if Boris calls it or 19th if via a VoNC.
Thanks to the 25 working day rules we rapidly enter Christmas and then rapidly hit Jan 9th due to bank holidays over Christmas.
An election campaign over Christmas would be an utter fiasco.
A VoNC anytime after this week makes it incredibly likely.
A Christmas election ain't gonna happen IMO. Nor one on 9 Jan, which would necessitate a farcical campaign when most of Britain is lying semi-comatose on the sofa watching reruns of Del Boy.
Agreed - there's no way that a campaign will be fought over the christmas break. If it isn't in November, it isn't going to be until late Feb, maybe March?
5th December is like the latest eariest date I think is still viable.
After that it's late February/early March.
I think it'll be 5th December.
It's only 5th December if 430 MPS vote for an election.
We are into the following week already if there is a VONC instead.
Jezza will whip Labour to vote for it because Nicola will force his hand.
The sad fact is that you have not threatened to kill people. The message that is being sent by allowing one solution for NI and not extending that to other parts of the UK if they desire is that the threats of violence work.
It is possible that there would be violence had there been physical border infrastructure placed on the island of Ireland. The British government understood this and decided against pursuing that plan.
Is that the same as a threat of violence?
You miss my point. I wasn't arguing in favour of one solution or another. But the fact is we would not be considering NI as a problem at all were it not for its history of violence and the implicit threat of it returning. That applies to both sides and apparently all solutions.
But if it is good enough for NI why not us Scots? We DID vote against Brexit, you know.
Because the EU wanted NI. They've not asked for you guys.
Not yet, and that's another factor to contemplate - the dynamic changes when UK or rather GB leaves the EU.
If the EU volunteers to give Scotland the same arrangements and if the Scottish Parliament votes to accept them I'd have no qualms whatsoever over that. The EU hasn't done that and we can't speak for them.
Quite - an interesting thought. You wouldn't expect them to do anything like that while the UK still is, and might well remain, a member state.
I am pretty sure there would be a lot of opposition to it given the separatist movement in Catalonia. Which is a shame because it seems a perfectly reasonable idea.
It's a fair point. Why should NI get a sweetheart deal and Scotland not?
Wales is different. It voted Leave.
It's also not unlike the deal the SNP suggested right at the start, in late 2016 IIRC (I have a feeling the Scottish Pmt also approved it, but can't remember the details).
I'm not whinging here, so much as thinking out objectively some other ways in which the NI deal could affect politics in Scotland to add to the points made by Burgessian.
Burgessian is just crapping it as the union is bust, desperate to believe there are still enough idiots to retain the union.
The sad fact is that you have not threatened to kill people. The message that is being sent by allowing one solution for NI and not extending that to other parts of the UK if they desire is that the threats of violence work.
It is possible that there would be violence had there been physical border infrastructure placed on the island of Ireland. The British government understood this and decided against pursuing that plan.
Is that the same as a threat of violence?
You miss my point. I wasn't arguing in favour of one solution or another. But the fact is we would not be considering NI as a problem at all were it not for its history of violence and the implicit threat of it returning. That applies to both sides and apparently all solutions.
Jezza will whip Labour to vote for it because Nicola will force his hand.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you convinced the SNP would support the early-election motion in September, too?
Yes.
But things developed singificantly yesterday when the SNP put down a motion calling for an election. Labour accused them of "abandoning a people's vote"
An extension to January 31st is automatically accepted if the EU offer it - so why would they offer anything else.
But equally why would anyone push for an election immediately they could easily spend 2 weeks pulling Boris's deal apart line by line before calling such an election.
And such a delay moves it into early January which would do wonders for Boris.
Deal would get pulled rather than enable the ridiculous grandstanding of remainers in parliament.
Pull the bill and allow the SNP to submit the VoNC.
Would Bercow allow that? I thought only the official opposition was allowed to submit a VoNC
AFAIK only the official opposition is automatically given time for a VoNC but if the government provided time for an SNP VoNC then it could be held.
Under normal circumstances the government wouldn't give a minor party time for that.
Dominic Grieve voting against the deal at both second reading and programme motion. So much for being against "no deal", he's got no credibility he is just against any Brexit not no deal.
Grieve should never get the whip restored after this, anyone who has lost the whip but votes for the deal should get the whip back.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
And London please!
Scotland, Wales and London are not being put inside some EU laws, so there is nothing of a scale needed to consent to.
London is not a country no matter how much idiots on here pretend AND WOULD NOT LAST 5 MINUTES ONCE IT DID NOT HAVE THE REST OF THE COUNTRY FUNNELLING RESOURCES AND MONEY INTO IT.
Damn right.
If there's one thing history has taught us, it's that there's no such thing as a successful city state.
Looking at the voting record from Saturday.. I think Letwin, Rudd, Gauke, Hammond will all flip to the government's side. I'll lean towards Stephen Lloyd sticking to opposition, but I'm not 100%. I think the rest of the ex-Tories (Bebb, Boles, Greening, Sandbach) will vote against again.
I'll assume the DUP and Lady Hermon will vote against, though again it's not 100%.
I'm not sure there'll be any more Labour rebels on the programme motion - a few like De Piero have said they'll vote for the second reading, but want a lot of time to debate/amend.
I'll assume O'Mara will abstain this time, unlike Saturday.
I make it that the programme motion fails 317-310, but obviously very tight. And if the DUP abstain rather than vote against (still possible I think?) then it scrapes through.
But if it is good enough for NI why not us Scots? We DID vote against Brexit, you know.
Because the EU wanted NI. They've not asked for you guys.
Not yet, and that's another factor to contemplate - the dynamic changes when UK or rather GB leaves the EU.
If the EU volunteers to give Scotland the same arrangements and if the Scottish Parliament votes to accept them I'd have no qualms whatsoever over that. The EU hasn't done that and we can't speak for them.
Quite - an interesting thought. You wouldn't expect them to do anything like that while the UK still is, and might well remain, a member state.
I am pretty sure there would be a lot of opposition to it given the separatist movement in Catalonia. Which is a shame because it seems a perfectly reasonable idea.
The point is however that the UK (or what is left of it even then) would not be an EU member. No veto. Nothing. Which does change the dynamic. The main Spanish criterion is whether the referendum is constitutional - not whether (say) Catalunya is to become an EU member or not. Of course, the Madrid Gmt might be difficult about that, as Mr Cameron might have tried to veto an independent Scotland jkoining the EU. But, again, that does not apply.
I'll be very interested to see if a NI-Scotland Fixed Link (sbridge, tunnel or floating causeway) is ever built, and with whose money.
The sad fact is that you have not threatened to kill people. The message that is being sent by allowing one solution for NI and not extending that to other parts of the UK if they desire is that the threats of violence work.
It is possible that there would be violence had there been physical border infrastructure placed on the island of Ireland. The British government understood this and decided against pursuing that plan.
Is that the same as a threat of violence?
You miss my point. I wasn't arguing in favour of one solution or another. But the fact is we would not be considering NI as a problem at all were it not for its history of violence and the implicit threat of it returning. That applies to both sides and apparently all solutions.
The NI issue isn't to do with violence in Northern Ireland it's more the impossibility of securing a border where a lot of people already know how to cross it without being noticed.
one thing I've noticed travelling along the border in Ireland is that you can cross it 10-15 times without noticing in a short journey. Buying a car once I'm sure we crossed the border 8 times in a 3 mile journey.
Crunch time coming up...deal or GE, take your pick.
Why do we get a general election.
The default is for things to continue on with the can being kicked further what's actually changed to stop that can kicking.
Just come back from Town and Stephen Gethins confirmed on the radio the SNP will back Boris if he calls an election. Please tell me how Corbyn says no in that climate
Jezza will whip Labour to vote for it because Nicola will force his hand.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you convinced the SNP would support the early-election motion in September, too?
The issue is I think, Blackford in particular seems to be far more interested in remaining in the EU than seeking Scottish independence.
This isn't the case with Sturgeon.
Interesting you think that, as it's not a perception some people have. However, in fairness, it could simply be a matter of the relative emphasis of the two legislatures at present.
It's a fair point. Why should NI get a sweetheart deal and Scotland not?
Wales is different. It voted Leave.
It's also not unlike the deal the SNP suggested right at the start, in late 2016 IIRC (I have a feeling the Scottish Pmt also approved it, but can't remember the details).
I'm not whinging here, so much as thinking out objectively some other ways in which the NI deal could affect politics in Scotland to add to the points made by Burgessian.
Burgessian is just crapping it as the union is bust, desperate to believe there are still enough idiots to retain the union.
I am not an idiot am I Malc and are you not on your way to Lanzarotte today
Looking at the voting record from Saturday.. I think Letwin, Rudd, Gauke, Hammond will all flip to the government's side. I'll lean towards Stephen Lloyd sticking to opposition, but I'm not 100%. I think the rest of the ex-Tories (Bebb, Boles, Greening, Sandbach) will vote against again.
I'll assume the DUP and Lady Hermon will vote against, though again it's not 100%.
I'm not sure there'll be any more Labour rebels on the programme motion - a few like De Piero have said they'll vote for the second reading, but want a lot of time to debate/amend.
I'll assume O'Mara will abstain this time, unlike Saturday.
I make it that the programme motion fails 317-310, but obviously very tight. And if the DUP abstain rather than vote against (still possible I think?) then it scrapes through.
Given Sammy Wilson’s comments I would be shocked if they abstained .
Crunch time coming up...deal or GE, take your pick.
Why do we get a general election.
The default is for things to continue on with the can being kicked further what's actually changed to stop that can kicking.
Johnson resigns as PM ‘in protest’ at losing a program motion...
If the Lib Dems refuse to put Corbyn in No.10, then election it is.
It’s quite clear Johnson is looking for an excuse to do so without damaging his polling ratings, and he thinks this is it.
Refusing to give Parliament time to discuss the most complex and significant change in UK law in 40 years - one that is likely to break the union with Northern Ireland is a very strange hill to willing die on..
The sad fact is that you have not threatened to kill people. The message that is being sent by allowing one solution for NI and not extending that to other parts of the UK if they desire is that the threats of violence work.
It is possible that there would be violence had there been physical border infrastructure placed on the island of Ireland. The British government understood this and decided against pursuing that plan.
Is that the same as a threat of violence?
You miss my point. I wasn't arguing in favour of one solution or another. But the fact is we would not be considering NI as a problem at all were it not for its history of violence and the implicit threat of it returning. That applies to both sides and apparently all solutions.
The NI issue isn't to do with violence in Northern Ireland it's more the impossibility of securing a border where a lot of people already know how to cross it without being noticed.
one thing I've noticed travelling along the border in Ireland is that you can cross it 10-15 times without noticing in a short journey. Buying a car once I'm sure we crossed the border 8 times in a 3 mile journey.
Securing that border would be no issue at all were it not for the history of violence and the subsequent need to have no border infrastructure. If it were not for that fact it would be no bigger a problem Than the Swiss border or the Norway/Sweden border.
It is specifically the history of violence that makes it problematic.
Jezza will whip Labour to vote for it because Nicola will force his hand.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you convinced the SNP would support the early-election motion in September, too?
Yes.
But things developed singificantly yesterday when the SNP put down a motion calling for an election. Labour accused them of "abandoning a people's vote"
The Rabble Alliance has split!
It was an empty gesture because they knew Bercow wouldn't allow the motion their amendment was for.
Are MPs going to vote on the programme motion first?
Nope:-
Second reading vote - determines that the bill is worthy of very discussion. Programming motion then determines the speed at which it will be processed.
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
And London please!
Scotland, Wales and London are not being put inside some EU laws, so there is nothing of a scale needed to consent to.
London is not a country no matter how much idiots on here pretend AND WOULD NOT LAST 5 MINUTES ONCE IT DID NOT HAVE THE REST OF THE COUNTRY FUNNELLING RESOURCES AND MONEY INTO IT.
Damn right.
If there's one thing history has taught us, it's that there's no such thing as a successful city state.
Has history given us any examples of a capital city cutting itself off from its hinterland in a huff ?
It would be a radically hardball move, and the hinterland could exact some pretty hardball payback... Wouldn’t end well for either.
Jezza will whip Labour to vote for it because Nicola will force his hand.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you convinced the SNP would support the early-election motion in September, too?
Yes.
But things developed singificantly yesterday when the SNP put down a motion calling for an election. Labour accused them of "abandoning a people's vote"
The Rabble Alliance has split!
But the SNP were already saying back in September that they wanted an election, and that Labour were "running scared" of one, Sturgeon at one point even said they should get a date set before Parliament prorogued ... but they still refused to back Boris's election motion anyway.
The SNP want an election for sure, and they do have a mutual interest with the Tories in trying to goad Labour into agreeing to one - but I'm not convinced it serves the SNP's interests to be seen as paving the way to a Tory election win, if they don't have the cover of Labour also agreeing to an election.
The sad fact is that you have not threatened to kill people. The message that is being sent by allowing one solution for NI and not extending that to other parts of the UK if they desire is that the threats of violence work.
It is possible that there would be violence had there been physical border infrastructure placed on the island of Ireland. The British government understood this and decided against pursuing that plan.
Is that the same as a threat of violence?
You miss my point. I wasn't arguing in favour of one solution or another. But the fact is we would not be considering NI as a problem at all were it not for its history of violence and the implicit threat of it returning. That applies to both sides and apparently all solutions.
The NI issue isn't to do with violence in Northern Ireland it's more the impossibility of securing a border where a lot of people already know how to cross it without being noticed.
one thing I've noticed travelling along the border in Ireland is that you can cross it 10-15 times without noticing in a short journey. Buying a car once I'm sure we crossed the border 8 times in a 3 mile journey.
Securing that border would be no issue at all were it not for the history of violence and the subsequent need to have no border infrastructure. If it were not for that fact it would be no bigger a problem Than the Swiss border or the Norway/Sweden border.
It is specifically the history of violence that makes it problematic.
Having travelled an awful lot over the past few years it's remarkable how few entry points a lot of countries have on their borders. Ireland is very much an exception.
And once again it's not the violence that is the issue - it was the EU ensuring Ireland got what they wanted from the deal..
As some of you may recall, I bought Euros earlier in the year to guard against a currency crash. As an added precaution I also placed bets on NoDeal at long odds. But those bets expire on January 1st and a defeat today lays open the possibility of a NoDeal Brexit in 2020. What would be the best wager to ensure against such an outcome? I should imagine the 2020 exit odds are shortening as we speak.
Are MPs going to vote on the programme motion first?
Nope:-
Second reading vote - determines that the bill is worthy of very discussion. Programming motion then determines the speed at which it will be processed.
Which would involve setting aside the legislation which mandates a minimum of 21 days Parliamentary consideration for any international treaty.
Given the only justification for this is Boris’ ego, I’m not convinced.
Are MPs going to vote on the programme motion first?
Nope:-
Second reading vote - determines that the bill is worthy of very discussion. Programming motion then determines the speed at which it will be processed.
It is intriguing if not surprising that many of the same posters who decry parliament for needlessly delaying brexit are now cheering for a needless two month delay to have an election instead of a couple of days extra scrutiny of the bill.
Are MPs going to vote on the programme motion first?
Nope:-
Second reading vote - determines that the bill is worthy of very discussion. Programming motion then determines the speed at which it will be processed.
Which would involve setting aside the legislation which mandates a minimum of 21 days Parliamentary consideration for any international treaty.
Given the only justification for this is Boris’ ego, I’m not convinced.
In the governance act it says that the 21 days can be bypassed if a minister thinks it is warranted. There would still have to be a motion passed, it just removes the minimum time requirement.
Redwood has said recently that the best way out was to leave on 31st October and conclude negotiations after that, and that the different route favoured by the government represents a "sub optimal choice". However, that hardly means that he would prefer remaining to leaving under Johnson's route.
What is remarkable is how with few exceptions leavers of all persuasions have come together to back Johnson's deal as the best way to unite to implement the result of the referendum even if they can't get the specific outcome that they would prefer. Some remainers are also prepared to live with it on the grounds that there has to be some outcome that implements the referendum result. And yet there is a minority, which happens to be a majority on this site, that considers that the referendum result on its own means nothing until they have had a second go at stopping us leaving.
It is intriguing if not surprising that many of the same posters who decry parliament for needlessly delaying brexit are now cheering for a needless two month delay to have an election instead of a couple of days extra scrutiny of the bill.
Is it? They think the new parliament will be much more agreeable to their viewpoint. So it's hardly surprising they want one.
Crunch time coming up...deal or GE, take your pick.
Why do we get a general election.
The default is for things to continue on with the can being kicked further what's actually changed to stop that can kicking.
Johnson resigns as PM ‘in protest’ at losing a program motion...
If the Lib Dems refuse to put Corbyn in No.10, then election it is.
It’s quite clear Johnson is looking for an excuse to do so without damaging his polling ratings, and he thinks this is it.
Refusing to give Parliament time to discuss the most complex and significant change in UK law in 40 years - one that is likely to break the union with Northern Ireland is a very strange hill to willing die on..
It is ridiculous, of course.
But a (perhaps not ?) surprising number of people seem to be buying it.
Are MPs going to vote on the programme motion first?
Nope:-
Second reading vote - determines that the bill is worthy of very discussion. Programming motion then determines the speed at which it will be processed.
Which would involve setting aside the legislation which mandates a minimum of 21 days Parliamentary consideration for any international treaty.
Given the only justification for this is Boris’ ego, I’m not convinced.
On the subject of a possible election date following a vote in parliament, it's worth bearing in mind that the timetables which people have correctly been quoting are the minimum times between a vote (explicitly for a GE, or a VONC plus14 days) and the GE. The outgoing PM has discretion to schedule the election later than that minimum time dictates, so in practice would avoid getting tangled up with Christmas/New Year or any other inconvenient date.
It's a fair point. Why should NI get a sweetheart deal and Scotland not?
Wales is different. It voted Leave.
It's also not unlike the deal the SNP suggested right at the start, in late 2016 IIRC (I have a feeling the Scottish Pmt also approved it, but can't remember the details).
I'm not whinging here, so much as thinking out objectively some other ways in which the NI deal could affect politics in Scotland to add to the points made by Burgessian.
Burgessian is just crapping it as the union is bust, desperate to believe there are still enough idiots to retain the union.
I am not an idiot am I Malc and are you not on your way to Lanzarotte today
Hello G. basking in the sun beside the pool, cold beer in hand. Just having an odd dip in here when I need to get into the shade.
Are MPs going to vote on the programme motion first?
Nope:-
Second reading vote - determines that the bill is worthy of very discussion. Programming motion then determines the speed at which it will be processed.
Which would involve setting aside the legislation which mandates a minimum of 21 days Parliamentary consideration for any international treaty.
Given the only justification for this is Boris’ ego, I’m not convinced.
Didn't know about that 21 day bit - thanks.
There is a get out clause, and I think you could argue these are exceptional circumstances.
1)Section 20 does not apply to a treaty if a Minister of the Crown is of the opinion that, exceptionally, the treaty should be ratified without the requirements of that section having been met.
It's a fair point. Why should NI get a sweetheart deal and Scotland not?
Wales is different. It voted Leave.
It's also not unlike the deal the SNP suggested right at the start, in late 2016 IIRC (I have a feeling the Scottish Pmt also approved it, but can't remember the details).
I'm not whinging here, so much as thinking out objectively some other ways in which the NI deal could affect politics in Scotland to add to the points made by Burgessian.
Burgessian is just crapping it as the union is bust, desperate to believe there are still enough idiots to retain the union.
I am not an idiot am I Malc and are you not on your way to Lanzarotte today
Hello G. basking in the sun beside the pool, cold beer in hand. Just having an odd dip in here when I need to get into the shade.
It's a fair point. Why should NI get a sweetheart deal and Scotland not?
Wales is different. It voted Leave.
It's also not unlike the deal the SNP suggested right at the start, in late 2016 IIRC (I have a feeling the Scottish Pmt also approved it, but can't remember the details).
I'm not whinging here, so much as thinking out objectively some other ways in which the NI deal could affect politics in Scotland to add to the points made by Burgessian.
Burgessian is just crapping it as the union is bust, desperate to believe there are still enough idiots to retain the union.
I am not an idiot am I Malc and are you not on your way to Lanzarotte today
Hello G. basking in the sun beside the pool, cold beer in hand. Just having an odd dip in here when I need to get into the shade.
Hello Malcy. Have a nice time. Don't get sunburnt - you won't have had much practice at home this summer.
It is intriguing if not surprising that many of the same posters who decry parliament for needlessly delaying brexit are now cheering for a needless two month delay to have an election instead of a couple of days extra scrutiny of the bill.
Is it? They think the new parliament will be much more agreeable to their viewpoint. So it's hardly surprising they want one.
Well if they think the politicians should maximise party advantage rather than be concerned about the speed of Brexit perhaps they might like to consider some consistency?
Much of this Yellowhammer shtick is just for show. As a civil servant I’m angry about that – and so should you be. There’s a risk, though, of anger giving way to boredom. Even this week, the prime minister is counting on MPs just being too bored to scrutinise the dense legalese of the 110-page withdrawal agreement bill within three backbreaking days.
What happened to the Conservative Party? A few years ago, if someone said this sort of thing was going to happen, the last party you'd have guessed would do it is the Conservatives. Brexit truly has driven the Conservatives mad on their own terms. Unrecognisable.
It's a fair point. Why should NI get a sweetheart deal and Scotland not?
Wales is different. It voted Leave.
It's also not unlike the deal the SNP suggested right at the start, in late 2016 IIRC (I have a feeling the Scottish Pmt also approved it, but can't remember the details).
I'm not whinging here, so much as thinking out objectively some other ways in which the NI deal could affect politics in Scotland to add to the points made by Burgessian.
Burgessian is just crapping it as the union is bust, desperate to believe there are still enough idiots to retain the union.
I am not an idiot am I Malc and are you not on your way to Lanzarotte today
Hello G. basking in the sun beside the pool, cold beer in hand. Just having an odd dip in here when I need to get into the shade.
Hello Malcy. Have a nice time. Don't get sunburnt - you won't have had much practice at home this summer.
I suspect any conservative not supporting the vote will have the whip withdrawn on the spot
Actually, that's a good point - Caroline Spelman abstained on Sat, but I assume she'll vote with the govt tonight, so that makes the margin 317-311.
By saying he will call a GE if the vote falls this is a defacto vonc in the government
Yes, but making the programme motion a de facto confidence vote might have a parallel impact on wavering Labour MPs, just like it did with the Benn Bill (which even Caroline Flint voted for).
Especially since the programme motion comes after the Second Reading vote, which will give those Lab MPs the opportunity to "virtue signal" to their constituents that they were willing to vote for Brexit, without actually having to take an impactful vote.
It's a fair point. Why should NI get a sweetheart deal and Scotland not?
Wales is different. It voted Leave.
It's also not unlike the deal the SNP suggested right at the start, in late 2016 IIRC (I have a feeling the Scottish Pmt also approved it, but can't remember the details).
I'm not whinging here, so much as thinking out objectively some other ways in which the NI deal could affect politics in Scotland to add to the points made by Burgessian.
Burgessian is just crapping it as the union is bust, desperate to believe there are still enough idiots to retain the union.
I am not an idiot am I Malc and are you not on your way to Lanzarotte today
Hello G. basking in the sun beside the pool, cold beer in hand. Just having an odd dip in here when I need to get into the shade.
Hello Malcy. Have a nice time. Don't get sunburnt - you won't have had much practice at home this summer.
The sad fact is that you have not threatened to kill people. The message that is being sent by allowing one solution for NI and not extending that to other parts of the UK if they desire is that the threats of violence work.
It is possible that there would be violence had there been physical border infrastructure placed on the island of Ireland. The British government understood this and decided against pursuing that plan.
Is that the same as a threat of violence?
You miss my point. I wasn't arguing in favour of one solution or another. But the fact is we would not be considering NI as a problem at all were it not for its history of violence and the implicit threat of it returning. That applies to both sides and apparently all solutions.
The NI issue isn't to do with violence in Northern Ireland it's more the impossibility of securing a border where a lot of people already know how to cross it without being noticed.
one thing I've noticed travelling along the border in Ireland is that you can cross it 10-15 times without noticing in a short journey. Buying a car once I'm sure we crossed the border 8 times in a 3 mile journey.
Securing that border would be no issue at all were it not for the history of violence and the subsequent need to have no border infrastructure. If it were not for that fact it would be no bigger a problem Than the Swiss border or the Norway/Sweden border.
It is specifically the history of violence that makes it problematic.
Having travelled an awful lot over the past few years it's remarkable how few entry points a lot of countries have on their borders. Ireland is very much an exception.
And once again it's not the violence that is the issue - it was the EU ensuring Ireland got what they wanted from the deal..
Comments
The DUP have been screwed and have only themselves to blame . However Sammy Wilson’s portrayal of the deal for NI is correct .
Is another ruse starting to backfire on Letwin just like the Poll Tax?
Under normal circumstances the government wouldn't give a minor party time for that.
There's going to be a lot of Remainers wondering if they have spent the last couple of years being smart arse clowns when Brexit gets over the line.
Spolier: yes, they have.
We are into the following week already if there is a VONC instead.
Is that the same as a threat of violence?
The site tolerates a wide range of opinions but contributions thought to be gratuitously offensive and politically naive may be banned. Indeed, one of the most skilful contributors was banned for sneaking progressively more obvious Hitler-idolatory references into his posts. Doxxing - revealing the identity of anonymous posters - is also frowned upon and can result in a rapid ban. Posts that lay the site owners open to legal action are also bad.
In your specific example, the point is not just that the post is offensive, it's also politically naive: whatever Boris's defects (and I bow to no one in my excoriation of him) he is not Hitler, and however bad the latest Deal is, it is not a carte blanche.
https://www.xkcd.com/2218/
I cannot conceive of any justification for a speaker to attempt to impede...even one as utterly appalling as the present incumbent.
But things developed singificantly yesterday when the SNP put down a motion calling for an election. Labour accused them of "abandoning a people's vote"
The Rabble Alliance has split!
Edit: and to Drutt for the same clarification
This isn't the case with Sturgeon.
The default is for things to continue on with the can being kicked further what's actually changed to stop that can kicking.
I'll assume the DUP and Lady Hermon will vote against, though again it's not 100%.
I'm not sure there'll be any more Labour rebels on the programme motion - a few like De Piero have said they'll vote for the second reading, but want a lot of time to debate/amend.
I'll assume O'Mara will abstain this time, unlike Saturday.
I make it that the programme motion fails 317-310, but obviously very tight. And if the DUP abstain rather than vote against (still possible I think?) then it scrapes through.
I'll be very interested to see if a NI-Scotland Fixed Link (sbridge, tunnel or floating causeway) is ever built, and with whose money.
He campaigned on delivering Brexit when he clearly had no intention of doing so.
The honourable thing would have been to stand down, or at the very least make it very clear that there would be no type of Brexit he would support.
one thing I've noticed travelling along the border in Ireland is that you can cross it 10-15 times without noticing in a short journey. Buying a car once I'm sure we crossed the border 8 times in a 3 mile journey.
If the Lib Dems refuse to put Corbyn in No.10, then election it is.
It’s quite clear Johnson is looking for an excuse to do so without damaging his polling ratings, and he thinks this is it.
I am yet to read a convincing argument as to how Labour will stop this.
Too late now boys.
It is specifically the history of violence that makes it problematic.
Second reading vote - determines that the bill is worthy of very discussion.
Programming motion then determines the speed at which it will be processed.
It would be a radically hardball move, and the hinterland could exact some pretty hardball payback...
Wouldn’t end well for either.
The SNP want an election for sure, and they do have a mutual interest with the Tories in trying to goad Labour into agreeing to one - but I'm not convinced it serves the SNP's interests to be seen as paving the way to a Tory election win, if they don't have the cover of Labour also agreeing to an election.
And once again it's not the violence that is the issue - it was the EU ensuring Ireland got what they wanted from the deal..
Given the only justification for this is Boris’ ego, I’m not convinced.
What is remarkable is how with few exceptions leavers of all persuasions have come together to back Johnson's deal as the best way to unite to implement the result of the referendum even if they can't get the specific outcome that they would prefer. Some remainers are also prepared to live with it on the grounds that there has to be some outcome that implements the referendum result. And yet there is a minority, which happens to be a majority on this site, that considers that the referendum result on its own means nothing until they have had a second go at stopping us leaving.
But a (perhaps not ?) surprising number of people seem to be buying it.
1)Section 20 does not apply to a treaty if a Minister of the Crown is of the opinion that, exceptionally, the treaty should be ratified without the requirements of that section having been met.
What's this 'rebel alliance'?
Is it the SNP who want an election?
Is it the LD's who know they will gut out Labour in a pre-Brexit GE?
Is it the few ex-Tories, none of whom would put Corbyn in Number 10?
Is it Corbyn who will reject anybody but himself?
We all know there isn't a 'rebel alliance' or whatever other ridiculous moniker for a collection of disparate entities who will never coalesce.
So the short answer to your original question is...Yes, bring it on.
What happened to the Conservative Party? A few years ago, if someone said this sort of thing was going to happen, the last party you'd have guessed would do it is the Conservatives. Brexit truly has driven the Conservatives mad on their own terms. Unrecognisable.
https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/1186679816558395392
Especially since the programme motion comes after the Second Reading vote, which will give those Lab MPs the opportunity to "virtue signal" to their constituents that they were willing to vote for Brexit, without actually having to take an impactful vote.