Wasn’t sending the letter supposed to humiliate Boris?
How do you humiliate someone without shame? It is not possible.
The forcing him to extend only worked when he didn't have a deal. Now he has pulled the rabbit out the hat, Leavers are thinking "What else more is he supposed to do? He has got a deal against all odds, but MPs are STILL sabotaging him..."
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.
Deeply unhelpful answer from me - you do not need to worry about a No Deal Brexit, either this year or at any time. It just will not happen unless some complete lunatic becomes our PM, and even then such a PM would need an equally lunatic parliament - i.e. not this one - to allow it.
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 dunno. He spends a lot of time in the open Ayr.
But you can't always see the Skye from there
It's not too bad there if Malcy is in the coastal zone of Ayrshire - the rain doesn't really dump till it gets to the higher ground, relatively. It's more like the East Coast than the West in that rsespect. (Also BTW one reason for opening Prestwick as a major transatlantic airport - less fog). But it has been a dreich summer even on the East.
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.
But in the case of treaties of importance, the 21 day period is a long standing convention which was enshrined in the 2010 legislation. And there is hardly an example of more importance, affecting every citizen of this nation, than this one.
As I said, the only justification for setting it aside is Johnson’s ego.
That he has persuaded many leavers that setting it aside is a matter of principle is quite remarkable. And not in a good sense.
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 dunno. He spends a lot of time in the open Ayr.
But you can't always see the Skye from there
It's not too bad there if Malcy is in the coastal zone of Ayrshire - the rain doesn't really dump till it gets to the higher ground, relatively. It's more like the East Coast than the West in that rsespect. (Also BTW one reason for opening Prestwick as a major transatlantic airport - less fog). But it has been a dreich summer even on the East.
Having been living in Scotland for a while, I was acclimatised. I nearly died from the heat this summer. It was up in the high 30s in the south of England in July. Give me dreich over that, any time.
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 dunno. He spends a lot of time in the open Ayr.
But you can't always see the Skye from there
OK, I think that’s enough Scottish place name puns, Ailsa we might wander off topic.
Ah, interesting! If the program motion gets down, I assume it can't be voted on again?
The government can put forward a different one , Bercow has to allow that because the motion will be different as it will be including an alternative timetable .
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.
But in the case of treaties of importance, the 21 day period is a long standing convention which was enshrined in the 2010 legislation. And there is hardly an example of more importance, affecting every citizen of this nation, than this one.
As I said, the only justification for setting it aside is Johnson’s ego.
That he has persuaded many leavers that setting it aside is a matter of principle is quite remarkable. And not in a good sense.
Leavers are deeply suspicious that further delay is just an excuse to find yet more mechanisms with which to ultimately stop Brexit.
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.
Not as far ahead as that. Ted Heath very nearly called the first 1974 election for 7th February. The very latest this year is probably 12th December. Beyond that no election is likely before 23rd January.
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 dunno. He spends a lot of time in the open Ayr.
But you can't always see the Skye from there
It's not too bad there if Malcy is in the coastal zone of Ayrshire - the rain doesn't really dump till it gets to the higher ground, relatively. It's more like the East Coast than the West in that rsespect. (Also BTW one reason for opening Prestwick as a major transatlantic airport - less fog). But it has been a dreich summer even on the East.
Having been living in Scotland for a while, I was acclimatised. I nearly died from the heat this summer. It was up in the high 30s in the south of England in July. Give me dreich over that, any time.
Oh, absolutely. I hate London between late May and mid-September. Anjd I'm pale, gingery and freckly - hate the sun almost as much as Count Dracula.
Some very interesting comments this afternoon by the way, on a range of topics.
Labour MPs for a deal have a choice which I suspect is being made clear to them by the whip .
By all means vote for the deal if you have to , but to back the programme motion is a bridge too far .
It would be a craven sellout for which IMO they should lose the whip.
I’ve not been asking for them to lose the whip for backing the deal but to deliver a huge victory for Johnson in terms of the 31 st October and on top of that to rubberstamp just 2 and a half days to debate the biggest change in 40 years would be disgraceful .
If they do that the whip should be removed , no ifs no buts .
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.
Deeply unhelpful answer from me - you do not need to worry about a No Deal Brexit, either this year or at any time. It just will not happen unless some complete lunatic becomes our PM, and even then such a PM would need an equally lunatic parliament - i.e. not this one - to allow it.
Unfortunately I have some emotional investment in the question. I am a reasonably intelligent adult, I have forewarning of a potentially bad event, so I wish to apply my skill to construct a defence against it. It would strike at my core values to just trust to luck as I believe that adulthood entails responsibility: never pack a bag you can't carry, never write a cheque you can't cash, and so on. As you can imagine, I am zero fun at parties...
So although I hope you are correct, I don't have the personality to take the risk. Hence the question.
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.
But in the case of treaties of importance, the 21 day period is a long standing convention which was enshrined in the 2010 legislation. And there is hardly an example of more importance, affecting every citizen of this nation, than this one.
As I said, the only justification for setting it aside is Johnson’s ego.
That he has persuaded many leavers that setting it aside is a matter of principle is quite remarkable. And not in a good sense.
Leavers are deeply suspicious that further delay is just an excuse to find yet more mechanisms with which to ultimately stop Brexit.
Everyone’s deeply suspicious of the other side’s motives, and with good reason.
But the idea that Boris should get his blank cheque/rubber stamp without scrutiny is a ridiculous thing to ask of anyone but his enthusiastic acolytes. The passage of the bill relies on the backing of those who are lending their support with deep reluctance (and I know how they feel, as that is pretty well my position). The government should recognise that.
I’ve not been asking for them to lose the whip for backing the deal but to deliver a huge victory for Johnson in terms of the 31 st October and on top of that to rubberstamp just 2 and a half days to debate the biggest change in 40 years would be disgraceful .
If they do that the whip should be removed , no ifs no buts .
Zackly.
No Labour MP worthy of that privileged position should act as an enabler of a Tory government which is planning to open its flies, post Brexit, and piss all over the very people the Labour Party exists to protect.
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.
But in the case of treaties of importance, the 21 day period is a long standing convention which was enshrined in the 2010 legislation. And there is hardly an example of more importance, affecting every citizen of this nation, than this one.
As I said, the only justification for setting it aside is Johnson’s ego.
That he has persuaded many leavers that setting it aside is a matter of principle is quite remarkable. And not in a good sense.
Leavers are deeply suspicious that further delay is just an excuse to find yet more mechanisms with which to ultimately stop Brexit.
Everyone’s deeply suspicious of the other side’s motives, and with good reason.
But the idea that Boris should get his blank cheque/rubber stamp without scrutiny is a ridiculous thing to ask of anyone but his enthusiastic acolytes. The passage of the bill relies on the backing of those who are lending their support with deep reluctance (and I know how they feel, as that is pretty well my position). The government should recognise that.
I don’t really have any time for the “lack of time to scrutinise” point. MPs always subcontract their thinking to lobby groups and the party machines anyway. If there aren’t already a million briefing packs and draft amendments available, there will be by morning.
An election on 5 Dec will be as popular as a fart at a cocktail party. It’s going to be next year isn’t it?
Apparently >30% of Brits get winter depression. Does that mainly mean a) they're less motivated to vote or b) they're more likely to support the Monster Raving Loony Party?
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.
Not as far ahead as that. Ted Heath very nearly called the first 1974 election for 7th February. The very latest this year is probably 12th December. Beyond that no election is likely before 23rd January.
To get anybody to answer the door to canvassers, we're going to have to bloody well carol sing aren't we?
Boles is shitting it. Whatever happens from here I think the way he makes himself look an arse on twitter will ensure his career in the commons is at an end. I expect the people of Grantham are embarrassed by his excuses.
There’s simply no justification for the Hitler stuff. And it’s completely counterproductive to your side of the argument.
With respect, I have not accused anyone of being a Nazi! People on here frequently compare Corbyn and Mcdonell to Lenin & Trotsky with very few objecting. I can assure you that were I an MP , I would happily get up in the Chamber and make the comparison with the Enabling Act.
Boles is shitting it. Whatever happens from here I think the way he makes himself look an arse on twitter will ensure his career in the commons is at an end. I expect the people of Grantham are embarrassed by his excuses.
I think he is just in a permanently angry mindset at the moment. Being on Twitter so much probably doesn't help his mental health at all.
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.
But in the case of treaties of importance, the 21 day period is a long standing convention which was enshrined in the 2010 legislation. And there is hardly an example of more importance, affecting every citizen of this nation, than this one.
As I said, the only justification for setting it aside is Johnson’s ego.
That he has persuaded many leavers that setting it aside is a matter of principle is quite remarkable. And not in a good sense.
Leavers are deeply suspicious that further delay is just an excuse to find yet more mechanisms with which to ultimately stop Brexit.
Everyone’s deeply suspicious of the other side’s motives, and with good reason.
But the idea that Boris should get his blank cheque/rubber stamp without scrutiny is a ridiculous thing to ask of anyone but his enthusiastic acolytes. The passage of the bill relies on the backing of those who are lending their support with deep reluctance (and I know how they feel, as that is pretty well my position). The government should recognise that.
I don’t really have any time for the “lack of time to scrutinise” point. MPs always subcontract their thinking to lobby groups and the party machines anyway. If there aren’t already a million briefing packs and draft amendments available, there will be by morning.
Your side of the argument does tend to be impatient with settled constitutional law and convention, that is true.
There’s simply no justification for the Hitler stuff. And it’s completely counterproductive to your side of the argument.
With respect, I have not accused anyone of being a Nazi! People on here frequently compare Corbyn and Mcdonell to Lenin & Trotsky with very few objecting. I can assure you that were I an MP , I would happily get up in the Chamber and make the comparison with the Enabling Act.
Justin.
With respect you do need to tone down the references to Hitler
You are causing offence and I hope the moderators will look into your posts if you continue to disregard the consensus on here
There’s simply no justification for the Hitler stuff. And it’s completely counterproductive to your side of the argument.
With respect, I have not accused anyone of being a Nazi! People on here frequently compare Corbyn and Mcdonell to Lenin & Trotsky with very few objecting. I can assure you that were I an MP , I would happily get up in the Chamber and make the comparison with the Enabling Act.
Justin.
With respect you do need to tone down the references to Hitler
You are causing offence and I hope the moderators will look into your posts if you continue to disregard the consensus on here
I am pretty horrified at the lack of action already. At least other people on here have stepped up. Sadly anti-Semitism is being normalised again in the UK.
Damage to the PM from the Benn Act being activated? Zero.....
Of course.
There's a world of difference in voters minds between BJ asking for an extension because he was talking shit about wanting to be out on 31 October, and having Parliament force an extension on him.
People "gaming it" because they thought BJ would see his popularity plummet are idiots.
Boles is shitting it. Whatever happens from here I think the way he makes himself look an arse on twitter will ensure his career in the commons is at an end. I expect the people of Grantham are embarrassed by his excuses.
Nick Boles is standing down at the next election so he’s not going to lose any sleep over threats from the government.
That's ridiculous. If anything, a foolish attempt to change the law by removing worker rights from British people would cause a big Labour majority. That would end up with worker protections being strengthened.
Unfortunately I have some emotional investment in the question. I am a reasonably intelligent adult, I have forewarning of a potentially bad event, so I wish to apply my skill to construct a defence against it. It would strike at my core values to just trust to luck as I believe that adulthood entails responsibility: never pack a bag you can't carry, never write a cheque you can't cash, and so on. As you can imagine, I am zero fun at parties...
So although I hope you are correct, I don't have the personality to take the risk. Hence the question.
OK, understood. Quite right too. But I think an accurate assessment of the (political) risk of a No Deal Brexit is close to zero. That has driven my betting on it - against it rather - for the last year or so and I claim skill not luck for the consequential profits.
There’s simply no justification for the Hitler stuff. And it’s completely counterproductive to your side of the argument.
With respect, I have not accused anyone of being a Nazi! People on here frequently compare Corbyn and Mcdonell to Lenin & Trotsky with very few objecting. I can assure you that were I an MP , I would happily get up in the Chamber and make the comparison with the Enabling Act.
Justin.
With respect you do need to tone down the references to Hitler
You are causing offence and I hope the moderators will look into your posts if you continue to disregard the consensus on here
I've seen open racism and directed threats of violence go unpunished on here. Are we saying that the consensus is mentioning Hitler is worth a ban, but saying the kinds of things Hitler said is not?
Damage to the PM from the Benn Act being activated? Zero.....
Of course.
There's a world of difference in voters minds between BJ asking for an extension because he was talking shit about wanting to be out on 31 October, and having Parliament force an extension on him.
People "gaming it" because they thought BJ would see his popularity plummet are idiots.
Now. Can we please have an election and move on?
Apparently not, because there are people who still believe that "leaving Johnson to stew in his juices" or "leaving Johnson hanging in the wind" will cause his vote share to plummet.
I suspect the opposite is much more likely to be true.
There’s simply no justification for the Hitler stuff. And it’s completely counterproductive to your side of the argument.
With respect, I have not accused anyone of being a Nazi! People on here frequently compare Corbyn and Mcdonell to Lenin & Trotsky with very few objecting. I can assure you that were I an MP , I would happily get up in the Chamber and make the comparison with the Enabling Act.
Justin.
With respect you do need to tone down the references to Hitler
You are causing offence and I hope the moderators will look into your posts if you continue to disregard the consensus on here
I've seen open racism and directed threats of violence go unpunished on here. Are we saying that the consensus is mentioning Hitler is worth a ban, but saying the kinds of things Hitler said is not?
There’s simply no justification for the Hitler stuff. And it’s completely counterproductive to your side of the argument.
With respect, I have not accused anyone of being a Nazi! People on here frequently compare Corbyn and Mcdonell to Lenin & Trotsky with very few objecting. I can assure you that were I an MP , I would happily get up in the Chamber and make the comparison with the Enabling Act.
Justin.
With respect you do need to tone down the references to Hitler
You are causing offence and I hope the moderators will look into your posts if you continue to disregard the consensus on here
I've seen open racism and directed threats of violence go unpunished on here. Are we saying that the consensus is mentioning Hitler is worth a ban, but saying the kinds of things Hitler said is not?
It is not mentions of Hitler. It is the deliberate minimization of the Holocaust by equating the WA to it. It is Holocaust denial.
According to the BBC, far from "vetoing" an extension, the French are if anything inclined to push for an even longer extension than the Benn Act suggests:
Some people think it should be longer, that includes people like the French who are exasperated by the thought of another extension but want to make sure that if they are forced to give one, that it's long enough to allow some kind of political solution to emerge on the British side of the Channel.
There’s simply no justification for the Hitler stuff. And it’s completely counterproductive to your side of the argument.
With respect, I have not accused anyone of being a Nazi! People on here frequently compare Corbyn and Mcdonell to Lenin & Trotsky with very few objecting. I can assure you that were I an MP , I would happily get up in the Chamber and make the comparison with the Enabling Act.
Justin.
With respect you do need to tone down the references to Hitler
You are causing offence and I hope the moderators will look into your posts if you continue to disregard the consensus on here
Big G, If I had accused you - or anyone else- of being a Nazi, I could understand the offence caused , but I have done no such thing.
There’s simply no justification for the Hitler stuff. And it’s completely counterproductive to your side of the argument.
With respect, I have not accused anyone of being a Nazi! People on here frequently compare Corbyn and Mcdonell to Lenin & Trotsky with very few objecting. I can assure you that were I an MP , I would happily get up in the Chamber and make the comparison with the Enabling Act.
Justin.
With respect you do need to tone down the references to Hitler
You are causing offence and I hope the moderators will look into your posts if you continue to disregard the consensus on here
Big G, If I had accused you - or anyone else- of being a Nazi, I could understand the offence caused , but I have done no such thing.
Damage to the PM from the Benn Act being activated? Zero.....
Of course.
There's a world of difference in voters minds between BJ asking for an extension because he was talking shit about wanting to be out on 31 October, and having Parliament force an extension on him.
People "gaming it" because they thought BJ would see his popularity plummet are idiots.
Now. Can we please have an election and move on?
Apparently not, because there are people who still believe that "leaving Johnson to stew in his juices" or "leaving Johnson hanging in the wind" will cause his vote share to plummet.
I suspect the opposite is much more likely to be true.
Indeed. We need to leave Boris to stew until he’s polling 40%+, that’ll learn ‘im!
According to the BBC, far from "vetoing" an extension, the French are if anything inclined to push for an even longer extension than the Benn Act suggests:
Some people think it should be longer, that includes people like the French who are exasperated by the thought of another extension but want to make sure that if they are forced to give one, that it's long enough to allow some kind of political solution to emerge on the British side of the Channel.
You can see their point. The last thing they want is this irritation to keep repeating every few weeks.
There’s simply no justification for the Hitler stuff. And it’s completely counterproductive to your side of the argument.
With respect, I have not accused anyone of being a Nazi! People on here frequently compare Corbyn and Mcdonell to Lenin & Trotsky with very few objecting. I can assure you that were I an MP , I would happily get up in the Chamber and make the comparison with the Enabling Act.
Justin.
With respect you do need to tone down the references to Hitler
You are causing offence and I hope the moderators will look into your posts if you continue to disregard the consensus on here
I've seen open racism and directed threats of violence go unpunished on here. Are we saying that the consensus is mentioning Hitler is worth a ban, but saying the kinds of things Hitler said is not?
I think the matter has been dealt with
I'm not sure what you mean. Some of those involved have been posting here in the last day or two.
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.
Sort of Singapore but it wasn’t exactly a huff. It was fundamental political disagreements with Malaysia.
City States can do quite well for quite a long time but when the chips are down they can’t really defend or protect themselves for very long, and are easily gobbled up by bigger powers.
To get anybody to answer the door to canvassers, we're going to have to bloody well carol sing aren't we?
Curiously, I was already canvassed at the weekend !!
Two boys who looked 14 years old, probably were 10 years old, had the cherubic innocence of 6 year olds and the mental capacity of 4 year olds, canvassed me at the weekend in the LibDem cause.
They asked me how I was planning to vote on the forthcoming General Election.
I pointed out that no such election had yet been called. As I am always so sweet to the LibDems, I then simply shut the door.
So, whatever the LibDems on pb.com say, it is clear that the LibDem army of child soldiers is out battling in the marginals, expecting a General Election soon.
There’s simply no justification for the Hitler stuff. And it’s completely counterproductive to your side of the argument.
With respect, I have not accused anyone of being a Nazi! People on here frequently compare Corbyn and Mcdonell to Lenin & Trotsky with very few objecting. I can assure you that were I an MP , I would happily get up in the Chamber and make the comparison with the Enabling Act.
Justin.
With respect you do need to tone down the references to Hitler
You are causing offence and I hope the moderators will look into your posts if you continue to disregard the consensus on here
Big G, If I had accused you - or anyone else- of being a Nazi, I could understand the offence caused , but I have done no such thing.
No comment.
Would you like to see the Moderators intervene when a comment is next made here associating Corbyn or McDonnell with Lenin and Trosky? There is much humbug and hypocrisy around.
There’s simply no justification for the Hitler stuff. And it’s completely counterproductive to your side of the argument.
With respect, I have not accused anyone of being a Nazi! People on here frequently compare Corbyn and Mcdonell to Lenin & Trotsky with very few objecting. I can assure you that were I an MP , I would happily get up in the Chamber and make the comparison with the Enabling Act.
Justin.
With respect you do need to tone down the references to Hitler
You are causing offence and I hope the moderators will look into your posts if you continue to disregard the consensus on here
I've seen open racism and directed threats of violence go unpunished on here. Are we saying that the consensus is mentioning Hitler is worth a ban, but saying the kinds of things Hitler said is not?
I think the matter has been dealt with
I'm not sure what you mean. Some of those involved have been posting here in the last day or two.
Damage to the PM from the Benn Act being activated? Zero.....
Of course.
There's a world of difference in voters minds between BJ asking for an extension because he was talking shit about wanting to be out on 31 October, and having Parliament force an extension on him.
People "gaming it" because they thought BJ would see his popularity plummet are idiots.
Now. Can we please have an election and move on?
Apparently not, because there are people who still believe that "leaving Johnson to stew in his juices" or "leaving Johnson hanging in the wind" will cause his vote share to plummet.
I suspect the opposite is much more likely to be true.
Indeed. We need to leave Boris to stew until he’s polling 40%+, that’ll learn ‘im!
Damage to the PM from the Benn Act being activated? Zero.....
Of course.
There's a world of difference in voters minds between BJ asking for an extension because he was talking shit about wanting to be out on 31 October, and having Parliament force an extension on him.
People "gaming it" because they thought BJ would see his popularity plummet are idiots.
Now. Can we please have an election and move on?
Apparently not, because there are people who still believe that "leaving Johnson to stew in his juices" or "leaving Johnson hanging in the wind" will cause his vote share to plummet.
I suspect the opposite is much more likely to be true.
Indeed. We need to leave Boris to stew until he’s polling 40%+, that’ll learn ‘im!
I think it works both ways. Boris will get support for standing up to the remainers and trying hard to get it through against opposition, however there comes a point if he continues to fail to where that support will go. At what point he moves from hero to failure I don't know and it will be different for different people.
Boles is shitting it. Whatever happens from here I think the way he makes himself look an arse on twitter will ensure his career in the commons is at an end. I expect the people of Grantham are embarrassed by his excuses.
Nick Boles is standing down at the next election so he’s not going to lose any sleep over threats from the government.
Damage to the PM from the Benn Act being activated? Zero.....
Of course.
There's a world of difference in voters minds between BJ asking for an extension because he was talking shit about wanting to be out on 31 October, and having Parliament force an extension on him.
People "gaming it" because they thought BJ would see his popularity plummet are idiots.
Now. Can we please have an election and move on?
Apparently not, because there are people who still believe that "leaving Johnson to stew in his juices" or "leaving Johnson hanging in the wind" will cause his vote share to plummet.
I suspect the opposite is much more likely to be true.
Indeed. We need to leave Boris to stew until he’s polling 40%+, that’ll learn ‘im!
If he's still in place in 2022, he is going to be polling 50:15:15......
There’s simply no justification for the Hitler stuff. And it’s completely counterproductive to your side of the argument.
With respect, I have not accused anyone of being a Nazi! People on here frequently compare Corbyn and Mcdonell to Lenin & Trotsky with very few objecting. I can assure you that were I an MP , I would happily get up in the Chamber and make the comparison with the Enabling Act.
Justin.
With respect you do need to tone down the references to Hitler
You are causing offence and I hope the moderators will look into your posts if you continue to disregard the consensus on here
I am pretty horrified at the lack of action already. At least other people on here have stepped up. Sadly anti-Semitism is being normalised again in the UK.
In Justin's defence I don't think he's gone into directly anti-Semitic territory. Further, I don't think his choice of references are motivated by anything more sinister than being party to the eVeRYoNe oN tHe INternTs iS a nAzi meme. His recent Reichstag allegories have been crass and needlessly provocative, and he should wind it in immediately, not least because it details the threads, but let's not go overboard here.
There’s simply no justification for the Hitler stuff. And it’s completely counterproductive to your side of the argument.
With respect, I have not accused anyone of being a Nazi! People on here frequently compare Corbyn and Mcdonell to Lenin & Trotsky with very few objecting. I can assure you that were I an MP , I would happily get up in the Chamber and make the comparison with the Enabling Act.
Justin.
With respect you do need to tone down the references to Hitler
You are causing offence and I hope the moderators will look into your posts if you continue to disregard the consensus on here
I've seen open racism and directed threats of violence go unpunished on here. Are we saying that the consensus is mentioning Hitler is worth a ban, but saying the kinds of things Hitler said is not?
I think the matter has been dealt with
I'm not sure what you mean. Some of those involved have been posting here in the last day or two.
The matter is closed as far as I am concerned
I'm not sure what all this cryptic nonsense is. Either spit it out or don't say anything.
There’s simply no justification for the Hitler stuff. And it’s completely counterproductive to your side of the argument.
With respect, I have not accused anyone of being a Nazi! People on here frequently compare Corbyn and Mcdonell to Lenin & Trotsky with very few objecting. I can assure you that were I an MP , I would happily get up in the Chamber and make the comparison with the Enabling Act.
Justin.
With respect you do need to tone down the references to Hitler
You are causing offence and I hope the moderators will look into your posts if you continue to disregard the consensus on here
I've seen open racism and directed threats of violence go unpunished on here. Are we saying that the consensus is mentioning Hitler is worth a ban, but saying the kinds of things Hitler said is not?
I think the matter has been dealt with
I'm not sure what you mean. Some of those involved have been posting here in the last day or two.
The matter is closed as far as I am concerned
I'm not sure what all this cryptic nonsense is. Either spit it out or don't say anything.
With respect I have made my views known and the matter is now closed
Would you like to see the Moderators intervene when a comment is next made here associating Corbyn or McDonnell with Lenin and Trosky? There is much humbug and hypocrisy around.
Why on earth could anyone possibly object to associating Corbyn or McDonnell with Lenin and Trotsky, since they themselves are very happy with such an association?
There’s simply no justification for the Hitler stuff. And it’s completely counterproductive to your side of the argument.
With respect, I have not accused anyone of being a Nazi! People on here frequently compare Corbyn and Mcdonell to Lenin & Trotsky with very few objecting. I can assure you that were I an MP , I would happily get up in the Chamber and make the comparison with the Enabling Act.
Justin.
With respect you do need to tone down the references to Hitler
You are causing offence and I hope the moderators will look into your posts if you continue to disregard the consensus on here
Big G, If I had accused you - or anyone else- of being a Nazi, I could understand the offence caused , but I have done no such thing.
No comment.
Would you like to see the Moderators intervene when a comment is next made here associating Corbyn or McDonnell with Lenin and Trosky? There is much humbug and hypocrisy around.
Please don't take this as general support, because I don't like what you're up to with all this Hitler stuff, but on this point you're spot on. This place is crawling with hypocrisy.
Damage to the PM from the Benn Act being activated? Zero.....
Of course.
There's a world of difference in voters minds between BJ asking for an extension because he was talking shit about wanting to be out on 31 October, and having Parliament force an extension on him.
People "gaming it" because they thought BJ would see his popularity plummet are idiots.
Now. Can we please have an election and move on?
Apparently not, because there are people who still believe that "leaving Johnson to stew in his juices" or "leaving Johnson hanging in the wind" will cause his vote share to plummet.
I suspect the opposite is much more likely to be true.
Indeed. We need to leave Boris to stew until he’s polling 40%+, that’ll learn ‘im!
I think it works both ways. Boris will get support for standing up to the remainers and trying hard to get it through against opposition, however there comes a point if he continues to fail to where that support will go. At what point he moves from hero to failure I don't know and it will be different for different people.
He’ll move from hero to failure when any of his opponents come up with a better idea for moving on from this than a perfectly viable negotiated deal with the EU.
There’s zero chance of that happening on current evidence.
Until then, his opponents will shed support every time they block him.
There’s simply no justification for the Hitler stuff. And it’s completely counterproductive to your side of the argument.
With respect, I have not accused anyone of being a Nazi! People on here frequently compare Corbyn and Mcdonell to Lenin & Trotsky with very few objecting. I can assure you that were I an MP , I would happily get up in the Chamber and make the comparison with the Enabling Act.
Justin.
With respect you do need to tone down the references to Hitler
You are causing offence and I hope the moderators will look into your posts if you continue to disregard the consensus on here
Big G, If I had accused you - or anyone else- of being a Nazi, I could understand the offence caused , but I have done no such thing.
No comment.
Would you like to see the Moderators intervene when a comment is next made here associating Corbyn or McDonnell with Lenin and Trosky? There is much humbug and hypocrisy around.
Please don't take this as general support, because I don't like what you're up to with all this Hitler stuff, but on this point you're spot on. This place is crawling with hypocrisy.
Lenin and Trotsky didn't try to exterminate a race of people, and succeed a good chunk of the way in doing it.
An election on 5 Dec will be as popular as a fart at a cocktail party. It’s going to be next year isn’t it?
Apparently >30% of Brits get winter depression. Does that mainly mean a) they're less motivated to vote or b) they're more likely to support the Monster Raving Loony Party?
Don't forget the 48% who are going to get Brexit depression when it happens....
Got a horrible feeling we might get caught in a doom loop here.
Passes at 2nd reading (House agrees on Brexit in principle), CU is added to Bill at Committee stage (making it basically May’s Deal again, with a permanent backstop) leading to it failing at 3rd reading as the ERG pull support.
Got a horrible feeling we might get caught in a doom loop here.
Passes at 2nd reading (House agrees on Brexit in principle), CU is added to Bill at Committee stage (making it basically May’s Deal again, with a permanent backstop) leading to it failing at 3rd reading as the ERG pull support.
Rinse and re-fucking-peat.
Can the Govt. still pull during Committee stage and go for an election?
Would you like to see the Moderators intervene when a comment is next made here associating Corbyn or McDonnell with Lenin and Trosky? There is much humbug and hypocrisy around.
Why on earth could anyone possibly object to associating Corbyn or McDonnell with Lenin and Trotsky, since they themselves are very happy with such an association?
Comments
By all means vote for the deal if you have to , but to back the programme motion is a bridge too far .
As I said, the only justification for setting it aside is Johnson’s ego.
That he has persuaded many leavers that setting it aside is a matter of principle is quite remarkable. And not in a good sense.
Some very interesting comments this afternoon by the way, on a range of topics.
There’s simply no justification for the Hitler stuff. And it’s completely counterproductive to your side of the argument.
If they do that the whip should be removed , no ifs no buts .
So although I hope you are correct, I don't have the personality to take the risk. Hence the question.
But the idea that Boris should get his blank cheque/rubber stamp without scrutiny is a ridiculous thing to ask of anyone but his enthusiastic acolytes.
The passage of the bill relies on the backing of those who are lending their support with deep reluctance (and I know how they feel, as that is pretty well my position).
The government should recognise that.
“Oh I voted for the deal but then I voted against the timetable so instead of brexiting we’re out fighting this election”?
No Labour MP worthy of that privileged position should act as an enabler of a Tory government which is planning to open its flies, post Brexit, and piss all over the very people the Labour Party exists to protect.
It should not even be up for debate.
Labour's chief whip has written to the government to say they are open to a different timetable
No 10 says no
Who is blinking first
https://twitter.com/labourwhips/status/1186684679396745216
It’s still the sensible thing to do.
True - Lecter was in fact a man of his word. Old school.
The government refused to compromise so are you really going to back their programme motion .
With respect you do need to tone down the references to Hitler
You are causing offence and I hope the moderators will look into your posts if you continue to disregard the consensus on here
There's a world of difference in voters minds between BJ asking for an extension because he was talking shit about wanting to be out on 31 October, and having Parliament force an extension on him.
People "gaming it" because they thought BJ would see his popularity plummet are idiots.
Now. Can we please have an election and move on?
I suspect the opposite is much more likely to be true.
Some people think it should be longer, that includes people like the French who are exasperated by the thought of another extension but want to make sure that if they are forced to give one, that it's long enough to allow some kind of political solution to emerge on the British side of the Channel.
If I had accused you - or anyone else- of being a Nazi, I could understand the offence caused , but I have done no such thing.
https://twitter.com/douglascarswell/status/1186672805133389829?s=21
City States can do quite well for quite a long time but when the chips are down they can’t really defend or protect themselves for very long, and are easily gobbled up by bigger powers.
Two boys who looked 14 years old, probably were 10 years old, had the cherubic innocence of 6 year olds and the mental capacity of 4 year olds, canvassed me at the weekend in the LibDem cause.
They asked me how I was planning to vote on the forthcoming General Election.
I pointed out that no such election had yet been called. As I am always so sweet to the LibDems, I then simply shut the door.
So, whatever the LibDems on pb.com say, it is clear that the LibDem army of child soldiers is out battling in the marginals, expecting a General Election soon.
Letwin the accidental hero.
Stewart Hosie of the SNP. If the SNP back this aswell as the rest of the opposition and the DUP it has a chance of getting through .
The Tory MPs against this deal could also back this . Many Labour Leave MPs want a CU.
It gives them a chance to say we’re trying to get the best deal for our constituents.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/78174/jeremy-corbyn-called-complete-rehabilitation-leon
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/03/exclusive-john-mcdonnell-named-lenin-and-trotsky-his-biggest-influences-2006
There’s zero chance of that happening on current evidence.
Until then, his opponents will shed support every time they block him.
Passes at 2nd reading (House agrees on Brexit in principle), CU is added to Bill at Committee stage (making it basically May’s Deal again, with a permanent backstop) leading to it failing at 3rd reading as the ERG pull support.
Rinse and re-fucking-peat.