Exactly. Just imagine if - without Benn - Boris had not had the internal leverage to get his new deal agreed by the ERG and was staring No Deal in the face today with no alternative but Revoke... he'd have been destroyed either way.
So the Benn Act actually saved him and the Conservative Party, as the Benn family has been doing for generations. Thanks guys!
My view entirely. Absent the (ill judged) Benn Act he would have had to own the choice for 31 Oct of a WTO Brexit or seeking an extension. Rock. Hard place.
I am hoping that come 31 Jan that IS where Labour put him. Let's out-Dom Dom.
The main reason for the Benn Act was to stop no deal not destroy the PM. It has worked, no deal was seen as a realistic proposition from the ERG and co in the summer, it is now very unlikely.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
So what did the "do or die" pledge mean?
Well he tried to get this session of Parliament to die to get the mandate from the country, but the cowards hid behind the sofa. They can't keep doing that forever.
Maybe not but as @Gallowgate notes, there wasn't a codicil to Boris' pledge. Do or die..rather die in a ditch...
Or was it a wholly unwarranted, ignorant, showboating claim that has now been exposed (not that his supporters seem to care) and was said on the spur of the moment without an understanding of its implications?
Exactly. Just imagine if - without Benn - Boris had not had the internal leverage to get his new deal agreed by the ERG and was staring No Deal in the face today with no alternative but Revoke... he'd have been destroyed either way.
So the Benn Act actually saved him and the Conservative Party, as the Benn family has been doing for generations. Thanks guys!
My view entirely. Absent the (ill judged) Benn Act he would have had to own the choice for 31 Oct of a WTO Brexit or seeking an extension. Rock. Hard place.
I am hoping that come 31 Jan that IS where Labour put him. Let's out-Dom Dom.
That kind of appeals to me. Let 31st Jan roll round and see what he does.
It could mean No Deal, but even that idea is growing on me. We would at least get to see is Project Fear is truly a myth, and if it isn't, we would all learn what happens when a Nation votes for what it wishes without due care and consideration.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
Why does that mean an election is needed? A Prime Minister who was not elected leading a government without a majority cannot expect to get a policy that no one voted for through on a deadline that he has chosen without the sanction of the electorate.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But he didn’t say he’d try his best. He said he’d rather die in a ditch than extend article 50.
As everything Boris says it was complete bollocks.
Yes. I don’t think people expected him to literally die but the choice of words used did lead to a reasonable expectation that he would resign rather than send the letter.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
So what did the "do or die" pledge mean?
Well he tried to get this session of Parliament to die to get the mandate from the country, but the cowards hid behind the sofa. They can't keep doing that forever.
Maybe not but as @Gallowgate notes, there wasn't a codicil to Boris' pledge. Do or die..rather die in a ditch...
Or was it a wholly unwarranted, ignorant, showboating claim that has now been exposed (not that his supporters seem to care) and was said on the spur of the moment without an understanding of its implications?
Was it that?
Die in a ditch is a metaphor.
It was his opinion but we don't have elected dictatorship and his opinion doesn't override Parliament or the law.
I think Johnson would win the Deal / No Deal / Revoke poker game against the other forces of Parliament. If the Benn act hadn't mandated an application for an extension (still not granted) he would have won the battle to leave on 31/10/19.
The fear of No Deal or the consequences (electoral) of revoke would have given him the winning hand holding his shiny new deal card. The battle of WDA amendments would not have been pretty!
Perhaps. But I think it would have led to Johnson seeking an extension if the opposition held their nerve. Let's see what happens for 31 Jan if we get that far.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But he didn’t say he’d try his best. He said he’d rather die in a ditch than extend article 50.
As everything Boris says it was complete bollocks.
Yes. I don’t think people expected him to literally die but the choice of words used did lead to a reasonable expectation that he would resign rather than send the letter.
I don’t think that “train to Orkney” is so outrageous. Before the Tunnel opened I think rail travel was expected to involve a certain amount of time on a ferry if you were going anywhere outside the GB mainland.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
Why does that mean an election is needed? A Prime Minister who was not elected leading a government without a majority cannot expect to get a policy that no one voted for through on a deadline that he has chosen without the sanction of the electorate.
That would be why he is seeking the sanction of the electorate.
If Parliament doesn't want the PM's policies it should VONC and choose a new PM, or we should go to the polls and let the public sort it out.
Exactly. Just imagine if - without Benn - Boris had not had the internal leverage to get his new deal agreed by the ERG and was staring No Deal in the face today with no alternative but Revoke... he'd have been destroyed either way.
So the Benn Act actually saved him and the Conservative Party, as the Benn family has been doing for generations. Thanks guys!
My view entirely. Absent the (ill judged) Benn Act he would have had to own the choice for 31 Oct of a WTO Brexit or seeking an extension. Rock. Hard place.
I am hoping that come 31 Jan that IS where Labour put him. Let's out-Dom Dom.
The main reason for the Benn Act was to stop no deal not destroy the PM. It has worked, no deal was seen as a realistic proposition from the ERG and co in the summer, it is now very unlikely.
The legalities have worked, the politics less so.
But remember it could not have passed with the votes of Clarke, Letwin, Stewart, Hammond etc. These are not people who are anti the Conservative party, they are anti no deal.
There is a clear majority in parliament to do everything to stop no deal. The majority actually against the govt is possibly non existant and wafer thin if it does exist.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But he didn’t say he’d try his best. He said he’d rather die in a ditch than extend article 50.
As everything Boris says it was complete bollocks.
Yes. I don’t think people expected him to literally die but the choice of words used did lead to a reasonable expectation that he would resign rather than send the letter.
The main reason for the Benn Act was to stop no deal not destroy the PM. It has worked, no deal was seen as a realistic proposition from the ERG and co in the summer, it is now very unlikely.
Yes. But I don't think Johnson would, at the death, have had the stomach for No Deal. Therefore absent the Benn Act HE would have sought an extension. That is much much better for Labour.
PS: I'm in my Labour rather than Remainer persona here.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
Why does that mean an election is needed? A Prime Minister who was not elected leading a government without a majority cannot expect to get a policy that no one voted for through on a deadline that he has chosen without the sanction of the electorate.
I am sure Mr Meeks can see that his own eloquent description of the state of affairs is a very precise analysis to lots of people of why an election is needed; exactly so that what happens has 'the sanction of the electorate'.
I don’t think that “train to Orkney” is so outrageous. Before the Tunnel opened I think rail travel was expected to involve a certain amount of time on a ferry if you were going anywhere outside the GB mainland.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
So what did the "do or die" pledge mean?
Well he tried to get this session of Parliament to die to get the mandate from the country, but the cowards hid behind the sofa. They can't keep doing that forever.
Maybe not but as @Gallowgate notes, there wasn't a codicil to Boris' pledge. Do or die..rather die in a ditch...
Or was it a wholly unwarranted, ignorant, showboating claim that has now been exposed (not that his supporters seem to care) and was said on the spur of the moment without an understanding of its implications?
Was it that?
Die in a ditch is a metaphor.
It was his opinion but we don't have elected dictatorship and his opinion doesn't override Parliament or the law.
Ah I see so he didn't really mean it. In fact, despite his frequent and repeated pledges to leave by October 31st he knew he couldn't make good and it was just a rhetorical device. Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But he didn’t say he’d try his best. He said he’d rather die in a ditch than extend article 50.
As everything Boris says it was complete bollocks.
Yes. I don’t think people expected him to literally die but the choice of words used did lead to a reasonable expectation that he would resign rather than send the letter.
Exactly. Just imagine if - without Benn - Boris had not had the internal leverage to get his new deal agreed by the ERG and was staring No Deal in the face today with no alternative but Revoke... he'd have been destroyed either way.
So the Benn Act actually saved him and the Conservative Party, as the Benn family has been doing for generations. Thanks guys!
My view entirely. Absent the (ill judged) Benn Act he would have had to own the choice for 31 Oct of a WTO Brexit or seeking an extension. Rock. Hard place.
I am hoping that come 31 Jan that IS where Labour put him. Let's out-Dom Dom.
The main reason for the Benn Act was to stop no deal not destroy the PM. It has worked, no deal was seen as a realistic proposition from the ERG and co in the summer, it is now very unlikely.
No Deal is still the default (currently set for 31/10/19) if no other result is implemented. So it is hard to say it has succeeded in doing anything (apart from pointless arguments about who wrote a letter), yet.
The main reason for the Benn Act was to stop no deal not destroy the PM. It has worked, no deal was seen as a realistic proposition from the ERG and co in the summer, it is now very unlikely.
Yes. But I don't think Johnson would, at the death, have had the stomach for No Deal. Therefore absent the Benn Act HE would have sought an extension. That is much much better for Labour.
PS: I'm in my Labour rather than Remainer persona here.
Labour do not have anything like a majority in parliament. Blocking no deal does. The objective of the Benn act was to stop no deal.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But he didn’t say he’d try his best. He said he’d rather die in a ditch than extend article 50.
As everything Boris says it was complete bollocks.
Yes. I don’t think people expected him to literally die but the choice of words used did lead to a reasonable expectation that he would resign rather than send the letter.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But Parliament has given the WAIB a Second Reading - Johnson is now preventing it proceeding further.
Justin.
I believe you are being naive on the WAIB. It passed the second reading on the votes of 19 labour mps who then played games with the programme motion hoping to amend the deal in committee stage to include a customs union or referendum.
In that act Boris would have no choice but to withdraw the deal and see a GE. Those in no 10 can see through this gaming and have come to the conclusion the deal could not survive the committee stage
Hence the very strong possibility of Boris calling a GE sometime this weekend or before.
That kind of appeals to me. Let 31st Jan roll round and see what he does.
It could mean No Deal, but even that idea is growing on me. We would at least get to see is Project Fear is truly a myth, and if it isn't, we would all learn what happens when a Nation votes for what it wishes without due care and consideration.
Yay!
And we stop playing the "Boris Johnson Project" on his terms.
Exactly. Just imagine if - without Benn - Boris had not had the internal leverage to get his new deal agreed by the ERG and was staring No Deal in the face today with no alternative but Revoke... he'd have been destroyed either way.
So the Benn Act actually saved him and the Conservative Party, as the Benn family has been doing for generations. Thanks guys!
My view entirely. Absent the (ill judged) Benn Act he would have had to own the choice for 31 Oct of a WTO Brexit or seeking an extension. Rock. Hard place.
I am hoping that come 31 Jan that IS where Labour put him. Let's out-Dom Dom.
The main reason for the Benn Act was to stop no deal not destroy the PM. It has worked, no deal was seen as a realistic proposition from the ERG and co in the summer, it is now very unlikely.
No Deal is still the default (currently set for 31/10/19) if no other result is implemented. So it is hard to say it has succeeded in doing anything (apart from pointless arguments about who wrote a letter), yet.
True but I'd expect the EU to give us an extension. Probably till 30th January but could be shorter.
The main reason for the Benn Act was to stop no deal not destroy the PM. It has worked, no deal was seen as a realistic proposition from the ERG and co in the summer, it is now very unlikely.
Yes. But I don't think Johnson would, at the death, have had the stomach for No Deal. Therefore absent the Benn Act HE would have sought an extension. That is much much better for Labour.
PS: I'm in my Labour rather than Remainer persona here.
I think you're right. Short of an election it would have been an impossible choice. By removing his choice, they removed his responsibility.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
Why does that mean an election is needed? A Prime Minister who was not elected leading a government without a majority cannot expect to get a policy that no one voted for through on a deadline that he has chosen without the sanction of the electorate.
What the government is being blocked on is pretty irrelevant. Our system is sort of predicated on the government being able to command a majority of the HoC. If they can't, there are two solutions - VoNC to replace with an alternative administration that can command support, or GE, to see if that changes the parliamentary arithmetic. That Brexit is the crunch issue is pretty much by the by.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
Why does that mean an election is needed? A Prime Minister who was not elected leading a government without a majority cannot expect to get a policy that no one voted for through on a deadline that he has chosen without the sanction of the electorate.
I am sure Mr Meeks can see that his own eloquent description of the state of affairs is a very precise analysis to lots of people of why an election is needed; exactly so that what happens has 'the sanction of the electorate'.
Fake Prime Ministers with no authority can't expect to get elections at their convenience. They should be seeking to construct a majority with the resources at hand, not demanding to pull the handle of the fruit machine.
Exactly. Just imagine if - without Benn - Boris had not had the internal leverage to get his new deal agreed by the ERG and was staring No Deal in the face today with no alternative but Revoke... he'd have been destroyed either way.
So the Benn Act actually saved him and the Conservative Party, as the Benn family has been doing for generations. Thanks guys!
My view entirely. Absent the (ill judged) Benn Act he would have had to own the choice for 31 Oct of a WTO Brexit or seeking an extension. Rock. Hard place.
I am hoping that come 31 Jan that IS where Labour put him. Let's out-Dom Dom.
The main reason for the Benn Act was to stop no deal not destroy the PM. It has worked, no deal was seen as a realistic proposition from the ERG and co in the summer, it is now very unlikely.
No Deal is still the default (currently set for 31/10/19) if no other result is implemented. So it is hard to say it has succeeded in doing anything (apart from pointless arguments about who wrote a letter), yet.
According to Betfair no deal was a 40% chance in 2019 for much of the year, it is now down to 5%. That is wonderful progress for which I am very grateful to Mr Benn and his friends.
I don’t think that “train to Orkney” is so outrageous. Before the Tunnel opened I think rail travel was expected to involve a certain amount of time on a ferry if you were going anywhere outside the GB mainland.
Describing Orkney and the SW as obscure might be more damaging.
'Hello good people of this obscure place, I'd like to ask for your vote in the upcoming election. I promise you I will not trouble you with my presence ever again.'
I don’t think that “train to Orkney” is so outrageous. Before the Tunnel opened I think rail travel was expected to involve a certain amount of time on a ferry if you were going anywhere outside the GB mainland.
Change at Thurso and Scrabster. At some times of year I think you can change at Aberdeen. My objection is describing it, or the South West, as 'obscure'. Not the word which comes to mind when at St Magnus Cathedral or Skara Brae; or Bath abbey come to that.
As for the letter thing I will simply say, which I think will bring both sides together, that I would rather associate, have a drink, and be a fellow traveller with someone who, looking at the events, makes the assessment that Boris sent the letter than someone who thinks he didn't send the letter.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But Parliament has given the WAIB a Second Reading - Johnson is now preventing it proceeding further.
Justin.
I believe you are being naive on the WAIB. It passed the second reading on the votes of 19 labour mps who then played games with the programme motion hoping to amend the deal in committee stage to include a customs union or referendum.
In that act Boris would have no choice but to withdraw the deal and see a GE. Those in no 10 can see through this gaming and have come to the conclusion the deal could not survive the committee stage
Hence the very strong possibility of Boris calling a GE sometime this weekend or before.
He simply does not trust this HOC to pass brexit
Why shouldn't parliament amend the WAB, they are our elected representatives? If they don't like bits of this deal, or would like to add bits to it, that is their prerogative.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
Why does that mean an election is needed? A Prime Minister who was not elected leading a government without a majority cannot expect to get a policy that no one voted for through on a deadline that he has chosen without the sanction of the electorate.
What the government is being blocked on is pretty irrelevant. Our system is sort of predicated on the government being able to command a majority of the HoC. If they can't, there are two solutions - VoNC to replace with an alternative administration that can command support, or GE, to see if that changes the parliamentary arithmetic. That Brexit is the crunch issue is pretty much by the by.
Neither the present nor the last government has sought to construct a majority. Both have expected one to emerge on their terms. Rather than give over to a thrashing tantrum, the government should simply try harder.
The main reason for the Benn Act was to stop no deal not destroy the PM. It has worked, no deal was seen as a realistic proposition from the ERG and co in the summer, it is now very unlikely.
Yes. But I don't think Johnson would, at the death, have had the stomach for No Deal. Therefore absent the Benn Act HE would have sought an extension. That is much much better for Labour.
PS: I'm in my Labour rather than Remainer persona here.
I think you're right. Short of an election it would have been an impossible choice. By removing his choice, they removed his responsibility.
The main reason for the Benn Act was to stop no deal not destroy the PM. It has worked, no deal was seen as a realistic proposition from the ERG and co in the summer, it is now very unlikely.
Yes. But I don't think Johnson would, at the death, have had the stomach for No Deal. Therefore absent the Benn Act HE would have sought an extension. That is much much better for Labour.
PS: I'm in my Labour rather than Remainer persona here.
I think you're right. Short of an election it would have been an impossible choice. By removing his choice, they removed his responsibility.
It is unlikely Johnson has much appreciation of what No Deal would really mean in practice. He's not an economist, you know.
I've just been looking back at how MPs voted on the Lisbon treaty referendum bill. Corbyn, McDonnell and Bercow all voted for the referendum, as did all the SNP MPs. Abbott and almost all of the LDs abstained, as did a Tory called John Maples.
I didn't know anything about Maples, so looked him up. He was Nadhim Zahawi's predecessor in Stratford-on-Avon. In the expenses scandal it came to light that his primary residence was declared as 89 Pall Mall; the Royal Automobile Club! Don't remember that from the time.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
Why does that mean an election is needed? A Prime Minister who was not elected leading a government without a majority cannot expect to get a policy that no one voted for through on a deadline that he has chosen without the sanction of the electorate.
What the government is being blocked on is pretty irrelevant. Our system is sort of predicated on the government being able to command a majority of the HoC. If they can't, there are two solutions - VoNC to replace with an alternative administration that can command support, or GE, to see if that changes the parliamentary arithmetic. That Brexit is the crunch issue is pretty much by the by.
Neither the present nor the last government has sought to construct a majority. Both have expected one to emerge on their terms. Rather than give over to a thrashing tantrum, the government should simply try harder.
Exactly this.
I just wonder how many people here would agree with a Corbyn premiership on the same numbers trying to do whatever he wanted with the same tactics as Johnson...
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But he didn’t say he’d try his best. He said he’d rather die in a ditch than extend article 50.
As everything Boris says it was complete bollocks.
Yes. I don’t think people expected him to literally die but the choice of words used did lead to a reasonable expectation that he would resign rather than send the letter.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
Why does that mean an election is needed? A Prime Minister who was not elected leading a government without a majority cannot expect to get a policy that no one voted for through on a deadline that he has chosen without the sanction of the electorate.
I am sure Mr Meeks can see that his own eloquent description of the state of affairs is a very precise analysis to lots of people of why an election is needed; exactly so that what happens has 'the sanction of the electorate'.
And were that to result in another hung Parliament ?
Exactly. Just imagine if - without Benn - Boris had not had the internal leverage to get his new deal agreed by the ERG and was staring No Deal in the face today with no alternative but Revoke... he'd have been destroyed either way.
So the Benn Act actually saved him and the Conservative Party, as the Benn family has been doing for generations. Thanks guys!
My view entirely. Absent the (ill judged) Benn Act he would have had to own the choice for 31 Oct of a WTO Brexit or seeking an extension. Rock. Hard place.
I am hoping that come 31 Jan that IS where Labour put him. Let's out-Dom Dom.
Have you missed the part where Labour is comprised of absolute cowards?
Having established the precedent, they can now never refuse to pass another Benn Act, because there's always the chance Boris would take us over the cliff without one, in which case Labour's Remain base will never forgive them for not stopping him...
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But Parliament has given the WAIB a Second Reading - Johnson is now preventing it proceeding further.
Justin.
I believe you are being naive on the WAIB. It passed the second reading on the votes of 19 labour mps who then played games with the programme motion hoping to amend the deal in committee stage to include a customs union or referendum.
In that act Boris would have no choice but to withdraw the deal and see a GE. Those in no 10 can see through this gaming and have come to the conclusion the deal could not survive the committee stage
Hence the very strong possibility of Boris calling a GE sometime this weekend or before.
He simply does not trust this HOC to pass brexit
Why shouldn't parliament amend the WAB, they are our elected representatives? If they don't like bits of this deal, or would like to add bits to it, that is their prerogative.
The whole mess is down to two PMs deciding only they can interpret the meaning of the leave vote, and believing that their interpretation of the leave vote trumps parliaments simply because they are PM. That is just not our constitution (and rightly so). They should have worked across the house to deliver leave.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
Why does that mean an election is needed? A Prime Minister who was not elected leading a government without a majority cannot expect to get a policy that no one voted for through on a deadline that he has chosen without the sanction of the electorate.
I am sure Mr Meeks can see that his own eloquent description of the state of affairs is a very precise analysis to lots of people of why an election is needed; exactly so that what happens has 'the sanction of the electorate'.
Fake Prime Ministers with no authority can't expect to get elections at their convenience. They should be seeking to construct a majority with the resources at hand, not demanding to pull the handle of the fruit machine.
As for the letter thing I will simply say, which I think will bring both sides together, that I would rather associate, have a drink, and be a fellow traveller with someone who, looking at the events, makes the assessment that Boris sent the letter than someone who thinks he didn't send the letter.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
Why does that mean an election is needed? A Prime Minister who was not elected leading a government without a majority cannot expect to get a policy that no one voted for through on a deadline that he has chosen without the sanction of the electorate.
What the government is being blocked on is pretty irrelevant. Our system is sort of predicated on the government being able to command a majority of the HoC. If they can't, there are two solutions - VoNC to replace with an alternative administration that can command support, or GE, to see if that changes the parliamentary arithmetic. That Brexit is the crunch issue is pretty much by the by.
Neither the present nor the last government has sought to construct a majority. Both have expected one to emerge on their terms. Rather than give over to a thrashing tantrum, the government should simply try harder.
Exactly this.
I just wonder how many people here would agree with a Corbyn premiership on the same numbers trying to do whatever he wanted with the same tactics as Johnson...
What if there were a referendum won to nationalise everything, then Corbyn got in and tried to do so but parliament blocked it?
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But Parliament has given the WAIB a Second Reading - Johnson is now preventing it proceeding further.
Justin.
I believe you are being naive on the WAIB. It passed the second reading on the votes of 19 labour mps who then played games with the programme motion hoping to amend the deal in committee stage to include a customs union or referendum.
In that act Boris would have no choice but to withdraw the deal and see a GE. Those in no 10 can see through this gaming and have come to the conclusion the deal could not survive the committee stage
Hence the very strong possibility of Boris calling a GE sometime this weekend or before.
He simply does not trust this HOC to pass brexit
Why shouldn't parliament amend the WAB, they are our elected representatives? If they don't like bits of this deal, or would like to add bits to it, that is their prerogative.
It depends on the amendments. Custom union or referendum are not possible in this deal as this is the only deal available and the referendum is impossible in the timeframe
Of course workers rights, environment protections, etc are not a problem to be fair
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But Parliament has given the WAIB a Second Reading - Johnson is now preventing it proceeding further.
Justin.
I believe you are being naive on the WAIB. It passed the second reading on the votes of 19 labour mps who then played games with the programme motion hoping to amend the deal in committee stage to include a customs union or referendum.
In that act Boris would have no choice but to withdraw the deal and see a GE. Those in no 10 can see through this gaming and have come to the conclusion the deal could not survive the committee stage
Hence the very strong possibility of Boris calling a GE sometime this weekend or before.
He simply does not trust this HOC to pass brexit
Why would he have to withdraw the bill if he wants to leave?
Exactly. Just imagine if - without Benn - Boris had not had the internal leverage to get his new deal agreed by the ERG and was staring No Deal in the face today with no alternative but Revoke... he'd have been destroyed either way.
So the Benn Act actually saved him and the Conservative Party, as the Benn family has been doing for generations. Thanks guys!
My view entirely. Absent the (ill judged) Benn Act he would have had to own the choice for 31 Oct of a WTO Brexit or seeking an extension. Rock. Hard place.
I am hoping that come 31 Jan that IS where Labour put him. Let's out-Dom Dom.
The main reason for the Benn Act was to stop no deal not destroy the PM. It has worked, no deal was seen as a realistic proposition from the ERG and co in the summer, it is now very unlikely.
No Deal is still the default (currently set for 31/10/19) if no other result is implemented. So it is hard to say it has succeeded in doing anything (apart from pointless arguments about who wrote a letter), yet.
According to Betfair no deal was a 40% chance in 2019 for much of the year, it is now down to 5%. That is wonderful progress for which I am very grateful to Mr Benn and his friends.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But he didn’t say he’d try his best. He said he’d rather die in a ditch than extend article 50.
As everything Boris says it was complete bollocks.
Yes. I don’t think people expected him to literally die but the choice of words used did lead to a reasonable expectation that he would resign rather than send the letter.
Parliament sent the letter though.
Who wrote the letter?
Whose letterhead was on Parliament's letter?
Who sent the letter?
Parliament.
Bits in bold highlighted fyi
“Dear Mr President,
The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty's Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
Why does that mean an election is needed? A Prime Minister who was not elected leading a government without a majority cannot expect to get a policy that no one voted for through on a deadline that he has chosen without the sanction of the electorate.
I am sure Mr Meeks can see that his own eloquent description of the state of affairs is a very precise analysis to lots of people of why an election is needed; exactly so that what happens has 'the sanction of the electorate'.
Fake Prime Ministers with no authority can't expect to get elections at their convenience. They should be seeking to construct a majority with the resources at hand, not demanding to pull the handle of the fruit machine.
What is a fake Prime Minister?
One installed by a minority of MPs, with no mandate for his claimed programme, who has sought to suspend democracy rather than to deal with it and who now demands an election because he is too inept to broker deals that are there to be brokered.
Exactly. Just imagine if - without Benn - Boris had not had the internal leverage to get his new deal agreed by the ERG and was staring No Deal in the face today with no alternative but Revoke... he'd have been destroyed either way.
So the Benn Act actually saved him and the Conservative Party, as the Benn family has been doing for generations. Thanks guys!
My view entirely. Absent the (ill judged) Benn Act he would have had to own the choice for 31 Oct of a WTO Brexit or seeking an extension. Rock. Hard place.
I am hoping that come 31 Jan that IS where Labour put him. Let's out-Dom Dom.
The main reason for the Benn Act was to stop no deal not destroy the PM. It has worked, no deal was seen as a realistic proposition from the ERG and co in the summer, it is now very unlikely.
No Deal is still the default (currently set for 31/10/19) if no other result is implemented. So it is hard to say it has succeeded in doing anything (apart from pointless arguments about who wrote a letter), yet.
According to Betfair no deal was a 40% chance in 2019 for much of the year, it is now down to 5%. That is wonderful progress for which I am very grateful to Mr Benn and his friends.
Are Betting Markets always right?
(I think no deal is very unlikely too)
Not at all, but they are a guide that can be referred to. If you are confident they are wrong there is plenty of money to be made with over £3m traded on that particular market.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But he didn’t say he’d try his best. He said he’d rather die in a ditch than extend article 50.
As everything Boris says it was complete bollocks.
Yes. I don’t think people expected him to literally die but the choice of words used did lead to a reasonable expectation that he would resign rather than send the letter.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But Parliament has given the WAIB a Second Reading - Johnson is now preventing it proceeding further.
Justin.
I believe you are being naive on the WAIB. It passed the second reading on the votes of 19 labour mps who then played games with the programme motion hoping to amend the deal in committee stage to include a customs union or referendum.
In that act Boris would have no choice but to withdraw the deal and see a GE. Those in no 10 can see through this gaming and have come to the conclusion the deal could not survive the committee stage
Hence the very strong possibility of Boris calling a GE sometime this weekend or before.
He simply does not trust this HOC to pass brexit
Why would he have to withdraw the bill if he wants to leave?
Because this deal is the only deal and it was about to be filleted by mps and made void
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But Parliament has given the WAIB a Second Reading - Johnson is now preventing it proceeding further.
Justin.
I believe you are being naive on the WAIB. It passed the second reading on the votes of 19 labour mps who then played games with the programme motion hoping to amend the deal in committee stage to include a customs union or referendum.
In that act Boris would have no choice but to withdraw the deal and see a GE. Those in no 10 can see through this gaming and have come to the conclusion the deal could not survive the committee stage
Hence the very strong possibility of Boris calling a GE sometime this weekend or before.
He simply does not trust this HOC to pass brexit
Why would he have to withdraw the bill if he wants to leave?
Because this deal is the only deal and it was about to be filleted by mps and made void
Maybe Boris should have negotiated a deal he knew Parliament would support?
The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty's Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”
Parliament wrote that, not the PM.
Sincerely, TOPPING
PS you can see this post was sent by me not TOPPING as it has my 'letterhead' on it to the side, despite the fact I wrote TOPPING. On the letter Parliament wrote and in which they wrote Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland whose letterhead appears to demonstrate who it came from?
The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty's Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”
Parliament wrote that, not the PM.
Sincerely, TOPPING
PS you can see this post was sent by me not TOPPING as it has my 'letterhead' on it to the side, despite the fact I wrote TOPPING. On the letter Parliament wrote and in which they wrote Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland whose letterhead appears to demonstrate who it came from?
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But he didn’t say he’d try his best. He said he’d rather die in a ditch than extend article 50.
As everything Boris says it was complete bollocks.
Yes. I don’t think people expected him to literally die but the choice of words used did lead to a reasonable expectation that he would resign rather than send the letter.
Exactly. Just imagine if - without Benn - Boris had not had the internal leverage to get his new deal agreed by the ERG and was staring No Deal in the face today with no alternative but Revoke... he'd have been destroyed either way.
So the Benn Act actually saved him and the Conservative Party, as the Benn family has been doing for generations. Thanks guys!
My view entirely. Absent the (ill judged) Benn Act he would have had to own the choice for 31 Oct of a WTO Brexit or seeking an extension. Rock. Hard place.
I am hoping that come 31 Jan that IS where Labour put him. Let's out-Dom Dom.
Have you missed the part where Labour is comprised of absolute cowards?
Having established the precedent, they can now never refuse to pass another Benn Act, because there's always the chance Boris would take us over the cliff without one, in which case Labour's Remain base will never forgive them for not stopping him...
That is not fair. Don't be beastly to our Labour friends. Every one of them on here has accepted that as it stands, Labour are unelectable. So they are in the middle of a crisis whereby they have to reconcile that understanding, with somehow wanting to be in power to save the poor.
Any solution which you or I might suggest, involving the words: "Corbyn" "of" "rid" "get" is pooh-poohed.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But Parliament has given the WAIB a Second Reading - Johnson is now preventing it proceeding further.
Justin.
I believe you are being naive on the WAIB. It passed the second reading on the votes of 19 labour mps who then played games with the programme motion hoping to amend the deal in committee stage to include a customs union or referendum.
In that act Boris would have no choice but to withdraw the deal and see a GE. Those in no 10 can see through this gaming and have come to the conclusion the deal could not survive the committee stage
Hence the very strong possibility of Boris calling a GE sometime this weekend or before.
He simply does not trust this HOC to pass brexit
Why would he have to withdraw the bill if he wants to leave?
Because this deal is the only deal and it was about to be filleted by mps and made void
Staying in the customs union would be agreed in a heartbeat, a customs union would be more difficult if not impossible.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
Why does that mean an election is needed? A Prime Minister who was not elected leading a government without a majority cannot expect to get a policy that no one voted for through on a deadline that he has chosen without the sanction of the electorate.
I am sure Mr Meeks can see that his own eloquent description of the state of affairs is a very precise analysis to lots of people of why an election is needed; exactly so that what happens has 'the sanction of the electorate'.
Fake Prime Ministers with no authority can't expect to get elections at their convenience. They should be seeking to construct a majority with the resources at hand, not demanding to pull the handle of the fruit machine.
What is a fake Prime Minister?
One installed by a minority of MPs, with no mandate for his claimed programme, who has sought to suspend democracy rather than to deal with it and who now demands an election because he is too inept to broker deals that are there to be brokered.
I don't think we can claim that Johnson is a Fake PM, our system does allow this.
The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty's Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”
Parliament wrote that, not the PM.
Sincerely, TOPPING
PS you can see this post was sent by me not TOPPING as it has my 'letterhead' on it to the side, despite the fact I wrote TOPPING. On the letter Parliament wrote and in which they wrote Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland whose letterhead appears to demonstrate who it came from?
Stop it now. Its unbecoming.
If you won't stop saying silly things, expect them to be called out.
Parliament wrote a letter and signed it with the PM's title. Parliament wrote the letter, Parliament passed the letter, Parliament put its letterhead on the letter and then it got sent by an Act of Parliament.
But yeah its the PM's letter *rolleyes*
Its like talking with a brick wall, why do I bother?
Is there any betting on who in the House of Fools will introduce the next Surrender Act to stop us leaving on the 31st January 2020? I see that Jared O'Mara and Keith Vaz are still in the Commons voting against the government. Can I bet on one of those putting his name to the next Surrender Act? Or as an outsider Lord Bercow of Buckingham?
The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty's Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”
Parliament wrote that, not the PM.
Sincerely, TOPPING
PS you can see this post was sent by me not TOPPING as it has my 'letterhead' on it to the side, despite the fact I wrote TOPPING. On the letter Parliament wrote and in which they wrote Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland whose letterhead appears to demonstrate who it came from?
"I am writing"
Parliament sure enough made him send it, but he sent it.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
Why does that mean an election is needed? A Prime Minister who was not elected leading a government without a majority cannot expect to get a policy that no one voted for through on a deadline that he has chosen without the sanction of the electorate.
I am sure Mr Meeks can see that his own eloquent description of the state of affairs is a very precise analysis to lots of people of why an election is needed; exactly so that what happens has 'the sanction of the electorate'.
Fake Prime Ministers with no authority can't expect to get elections at their convenience. They should be seeking to construct a majority with the resources at hand, not demanding to pull the handle of the fruit machine.
You are confusing two things: the wishes of the PM and the good of the country. An election is needed not because it may suit the convenience of Corbyn, Johnson or anyone else but because no other route out has been found. If a majority can be constructed out of this parliament and Boris can't or won't do it then a simple route of VONC + 14 days for Corbyn or someone to construct one exists. They have not used it. So it should be (but won't be) an election. For the convenience of the poor long suffering voter.
The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty's Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”
Parliament wrote that, not the PM.
Sincerely, TOPPING
PS you can see this post was sent by me not TOPPING as it has my 'letterhead' on it to the side, despite the fact I wrote TOPPING. On the letter Parliament wrote and in which they wrote Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland whose letterhead appears to demonstrate who it came from?
"I am writing"
Parliament sure enough made him send it, but he sent it.
Parliament wrote "I am writing" not him. Doesn't matter what words you quote from Parliament's letter, they wrote it and passed it in an Act of Parliament - not an Act of the Prime Minister.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But Parliament has given the WAIB a Second Reading - Johnson is now preventing it proceeding further.
Justin.
I believe you are being naive on the WAIB. It passed the second reading on the votes of 19 labour mps who then played games with the programme motion hoping to amend the deal in committee stage to include a customs union or referendum.
In that act Boris would have no choice but to withdraw the deal and see a GE. Those in no 10 can see through this gaming and have come to the conclusion the deal could not survive the committee stage
Hence the very strong possibility of Boris calling a GE sometime this weekend or before.
He simply does not trust this HOC to pass brexit
I don't buy it.
I don't believe the Labour rebels are simply or even mainly placed for a CU wrecking amendment, these are people in the main who now do want Brexit done (and thus erred in rejecting May). I don't believe CU has the numbers. Also, on the Ken Clarke side, voting for a CU in an indicative vote is a very different proposition to voting for a CU that actually brings the bill down.
I think Boris is throwing his hand when he does have the numbers to get the deal through essentially intact.
The programme motion loss to give proper scrutiny was, frankly, a no brainer.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
Why does that mean an election is needed? A Prime Minister who was not elected leading a government without a majority cannot expect to get a policy that no one voted for through on a deadline that he has chosen without the sanction of the electorate.
I am sure Mr Meeks can see that his own eloquent description of the state of affairs is a very precise analysis to lots of people of why an election is needed; exactly so that what happens has 'the sanction of the electorate'.
Fake Prime Ministers with no authority can't expect to get elections at their convenience. They should be seeking to construct a majority with the resources at hand, not demanding to pull the handle of the fruit machine.
What is a fake Prime Minister?
One installed by a minority of MPs, with no mandate for his claimed programme, who has sought to suspend democracy rather than to deal with it and who now demands an election because he is too inept to broker deals that are there to be brokered.
I don't recognise that as an established or legitimate description of a Prime Minister.
All PMs are installed by a minority of MPs, if we are taking the point of election to Party leader as the reference point.
We don't have a GNU, which rather implies that no other candidate has a majority of MPs supporting them.
I'll let you enjoy the suspend democracy schtick, although the High Court didn't find against him, so whilst the SC were unanimous there were other opinions available at the time.
He has got closer to brokering a deal as at least the 2nd reading passed, so a questionable point.
When nobody has a clear majority of mandate, an election seems like a reasonable suggestion.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
Why does that mean an election is needed? A Prime Minister who was not elected leading a government without a majority cannot expect to get a policy that no one voted for through on a deadline that he has chosen without the sanction of the electorate.
I am sure Mr Meeks can see that his own eloquent description of the state of affairs is a very precise analysis to lots of people of why an election is needed; exactly so that what happens has 'the sanction of the electorate'.
Fake Prime Ministers with no authority can't expect to get elections at their convenience. They should be seeking to construct a majority with the resources at hand, not demanding to pull the handle of the fruit machine.
You are confusing two things: the wishes of the PM and the good of the country. An election is needed not because it may suit the convenience of Corbyn, Johnson or anyone else but because no other route out has been found. If a majority can be constructed out of this parliament and Boris can't or won't do it then a simple route of VONC + 14 days for Corbyn or someone to construct one exists. They have not used it. So it should be (but won't be) an election. For the convenience of the poor long suffering voter.
I think you're confusing those two things.
It is now quite apparent that there is a majority in this Parliament for Brexit and that could be got through quite smoothly. It is not, however, the one that Boris Johnson is currently pursuing. Rather than reward Boris Johnson for his high-handed ineptness, the current Parliament should persevere to conclude the major task for which it was elected.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
Why does that mean an election is needed? A Prime Minister who was not elected leading a government without a majority cannot expect to get a policy that no one voted for through on a deadline that he has chosen without the sanction of the electorate.
I am sure Mr Meeks can see that his own eloquent description of the state of affairs is a very precise analysis to lots of people of why an election is needed; exactly so that what happens has 'the sanction of the electorate'.
Fake Prime Ministers with no authority can't expect to get elections at their convenience. They should be seeking to construct a majority with the resources at hand, not demanding to pull the handle of the fruit machine.
What is a fake Prime Minister?
One installed by a minority of MPs, with no mandate for his claimed programme, who has sought to suspend democracy rather than to deal with it and who now demands an election because he is too inept to broker deals that are there to be brokered.
I don't think we can claim that Johnson is a Fake PM, our system does allow this.
Agreed, it is up to the HoC to remove him if they so desire.
The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty's Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”
Parliament wrote that, not the PM.
Sincerely, TOPPING
PS you can see this post was sent by me not TOPPING as it has my 'letterhead' on it to the side, despite the fact I wrote TOPPING. On the letter Parliament wrote and in which they wrote Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland whose letterhead appears to demonstrate who it came from?
"I am writing"
Parliament sure enough made him send it, but he sent it.
Parliament wrote "I am writing" not him. Doesn't matter what words you quote from Parliament's letter, they wrote it and passed it in an Act of Parliament - not an Act of the Prime Minister.
They passed an Act of Parliament saying the Prime Minister should send the letter and the letter was sent. By the Prime Minister, because that is what the law said. You are saying that Boris didn't send it which would be fine except for the fact that Boris is also the Prime Minister and he knew that the letter would have to be sent in his name and indeed it was. So he was party to the agreement. Otherwise he could have resigned as Prime Minister and the problem would have been solved. But whoever was Prime Minister was compelled to send the letter and indeed did so.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But he didn’t say he’d try his best. He said he’d rather die in a ditch than extend article 50.
As everything Boris says it was complete bollocks.
Yes. I don’t think people expected him to literally die but the choice of words used did lead to a reasonable expectation that he would resign rather than send the letter.
Parliament sent the letter though.
Parliament instructed someone to send the letter. It instructed the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister acceded to that instruction. Ergo he sent the f***ing letter.
I've never seen such desperate nonsense written about the letter. It was addressed to someone, it had the PMs name and position at the end of it and it had a request in it starting with the word 'I' and was sent. For goodness sake that is a letter.
A signature is irrelevant. I communicate solely by email and attach letters. For the last 7 years I have been involved in a campaign which involves me writing to government departments and ministers. I have never signed a single letter and many I receive are unsigned. It has no relevance.
Others suggesting he didn't send it but someone else did. Probably true, but it was sent with his authority and therefore from him. You have to be an idiot to think that letters you receive from say CEOs of large companies, etc were actually sent by them personally. If it was sent without his authority he should be declaring that an imposter sent it. He hasn't.
This is absolutely desperate pathetic stuff that borders on cult following.
It wasn't sent with his authority, it was sent with the authority of law.
It may have his title and the word I but he didn't write it, MPs did. Just because they put someone else's name in it doesn't make the letter belong to the person whose name they put on it.
He could have refused to send it. he didn't.
No he couldn't, that was against the law.
And when he said earlier that he would refuse to send it he knew that refusing to send it would be against the law.
He didn't send it. His aides sent Parliament's letter and he sent his own on his own letterheaded paper.
LOL
Whose letterhead was on Parliament's letter?
If I receive a letter then the letterhead normally says who that letter came from.
LOL
Nervous laughter when you know you've lost an argument is always awkward. My sympathies.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
Why does that mean an election is needed? A Prime Minister who was not elected leading a government without a majority cannot expect to get a policy that no one voted for through on a deadline that he has chosen without the sanction of the electorate.
I am sure Mr Meeks can see that his own eloquent description of the state of affairs is a very precise analysis to lots of people of why an election is needed; exactly so that what happens has 'the sanction of the electorate'.
Fake Prime Ministers with no authority can't expect to get elections at their convenience. They should be seeking to construct a majority with the resources at hand, not demanding to pull the handle of the fruit machine.
You are confusing two things: the wishes of the PM and the good of the country. An election is needed not because it may suit the convenience of Corbyn, Johnson or anyone else but because no other route out has been found. If a majority can be constructed out of this parliament and Boris can't or won't do it then a simple route of VONC + 14 days for Corbyn or someone to construct one exists. They have not used it. So it should be (but won't be) an election. For the convenience of the poor long suffering voter.
I think you're confusing those two things.
It is now quite apparent that there is a majority in this Parliament for Brexit and that could be got through quite smoothly. It is not, however, the one that Boris Johnson is currently pursuing. Rather than reward Boris Johnson for his high-handed ineptness, the current Parliament should persevere to conclude the major task for which it was elected.
Sure that's quite reasonable if there is an alternative majority in Parliament.
It should start be VONC'ing the current PM if they're not happy with him and then choosing a new PM who can command that majority you think exists. I'm curious from which parties it exists and how you get the numbers given Johnson commands 288 MPs and there's at least 70 "No Brexit" MPs where do you find your alternative majority from.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But he didn’t say he’d try his best. He said he’d rather die in a ditch than extend article 50.
As everything Boris says it was complete bollocks.
Yes. I don’t think people expected him to literally die but the choice of words used did lead to a reasonable expectation that he would resign rather than send the letter.
Parliament sent the letter though.
Who wrote the letter?
Whose letterhead was on Parliament's letter?
Who sent the letter?
Parliament.
It’s like talking to a flat-earther.
Whose letterhead is on the letter?
You're being silly, Philip. Drop the bone now, please.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But he didn’t say he’d try his best. He said he’d rather die in a ditch than extend article 50.
As everything Boris says it was complete bollocks.
Yes. I don’t think people expected him to literally die but the choice of words used did lead to a reasonable expectation that he would resign rather than send the letter.
Parliament sent the letter though.
Parliament instructed someone to send the letter. It instructed the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister acceded to that instruction. Ergo he sent the f***ing letter.
If I put a stamp on a letter and pop it in the post and then Royal Mail takes the letter I stamped and delivers it, did the Royal Mail send the letter?
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But he didn’t say he’d try his best. He said he’d rather die in a ditch than extend article 50.
As everything Boris says it was complete bollocks.
Yes. I don’t think people expected him to literally die but the choice of words used did lead to a reasonable expectation that he would resign rather than send the letter.
The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty's Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”
Parliament wrote that, not the PM.
Sincerely, TOPPING
PS you can see this post was sent by me not TOPPING as it has my 'letterhead' on it to the side, despite the fact I wrote TOPPING. On the letter Parliament wrote and in which they wrote Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland whose letterhead appears to demonstrate who it came from?
"I am writing"
Parliament sure enough made him send it, but he sent it.
Parliament wrote "I am writing" not him. Doesn't matter what words you quote from Parliament's letter, they wrote it and passed it in an Act of Parliament - not an Act of the Prime Minister.
They passed an Act of Parliament saying the Prime Minister should send the letter and the letter was sent. By the Prime Minister, because that is what the law said. You are saying that Boris didn't send it which would be fine except for the fact that Boris is also the Prime Minister and he knew that the letter would have to be sent in his name and indeed it was. So he was party to the agreement. Otherwise he could have resigned as Prime Minister and the problem would have been solved. But whoever was Prime Minister was compelled to send the letter and indeed did so.
I think you’re beginning to discover why it was futile arguing about the legitimacy of the May backstop with Philip.
PS to any PB Leaver who falls into the category of those who don't believe that homosexual people should be treated just like other people - go fuck yourselves.
That poll implies ~30% of the population is homophobic. Shameful
The proportion who think homosexuality is immoral has fallen from 40% to 13% over 30 years. That is great progress not shameful. Across so many issues we do not take time to recognise the progress we have made and I think that is part of the reason the country is so fractured. We do great things and are one of the best places in the world to live! Yes we need to improve further but not everything is black and white.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But he didn’t say he’d try his best. He said he’d rather die in a ditch than extend article 50.
As everything Boris says it was complete bollocks.
Yes. I don’t think people expected him to literally die but the choice of words used did lead to a reasonable expectation that he would resign rather than send the letter.
Parliament sent the letter though.
Parliament instructed someone to send the letter. It instructed the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister acceded to that instruction. Ergo he sent the f***ing letter.
If I put a stamp on a letter and pop it in the post and then Royal Mail takes the letter I stamped and delivers it, did the Royal Mail send the letter?
I am sure Mr Meeks can see that his own eloquent description of the state of affairs is a very precise analysis to lots of people of why an election is needed; exactly so that what happens has 'the sanction of the electorate'.
Fake Prime Ministers with no authority can't expect to get elections at their convenience. They should be seeking to construct a majority with the resources at hand, not demanding to pull the handle of the fruit machine.
You are confusing two things: the wishes of the PM and the good of the country. An election is needed not because it may suit the convenience of Corbyn, Johnson or anyone else but because no other route out has been found. If a majority can be constructed out of this parliament and Boris can't or won't do it then a simple route of VONC + 14 days for Corbyn or someone to construct one exists. They have not used it. So it should be (but won't be) an election. For the convenience of the poor long suffering voter.
I think you're confusing those two things.
It is now quite apparent that there is a majority in this Parliament for Brexit and that could be got through quite smoothly. It is not, however, the one that Boris Johnson is currently pursuing. Rather than reward Boris Johnson for his high-handed ineptness, the current Parliament should persevere to conclude the major task for which it was elected.
Sure that's quite reasonable if there is an alternative majority in Parliament.
It should start be VONC'ing the current PM if they're not happy with him and then choosing a new PM who can command that majority you think exists. I'm curious from which parties it exists and how you get the numbers given Johnson commands 288 MPs and there's at least 70 "No Brexit" MPs where do you find your alternative majority from.
There is an entirely different way through the morass. Boris Johnson could simply change course. But that thought seems not to have occurred either to you or to him. If he really wants to get Brexit done, he needs to learn to compromise, as befits a Prime Minister whose majority is not so much underwater but far in the bathypelagic zone.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
But he said we would definitely leave. No ifs or buts.
And he gave it his best but the numbers aren't there in Parliament which is why we will have an election as soon as the cowards agree to one.
But he didn’t say he’d try his best. He said he’d rather die in a ditch than extend article 50.
As everything Boris says it was complete bollocks.
Yes. I don’t think people expected him to literally die but the choice of words used did lead to a reasonable expectation that he would resign rather than send the letter.
Parliament sent the letter though.
Who wrote the letter?
Whose letterhead was on Parliament's letter?
Who sent the letter?
Parliament.
It’s like talking to a flat-earther.
Whose letterhead is on the letter?
You're being silly, Philip. Drop the bone, or you'll wind up as another Comical Ali.
I'm not being silly. I think it was you who mentioned receiving an unsigned letter from the Police earlier, how did you know it was from the Police? Did it have the Police's letterhead on it perhaps?
There were 3 letters sent. One was signed by the PM and had his letterhead on it. One was signed by an official. One was an Act of Parliament and had a corresponding letterhead. Which was sent by the PM?
Comments
He's not above the law.
Or was it a wholly unwarranted, ignorant, showboating claim that has now been exposed (not that his supporters seem to care) and was said on the spur of the moment without an understanding of its implications?
Was it that?
It could mean No Deal, but even that idea is growing on me. We would at least get to see is Project Fear is truly a myth, and if it isn't, we would all learn what happens when a Nation votes for what it wishes without due care and consideration.
you get very DUP when you visit Belfast
It was his opinion but we don't have elected dictatorship and his opinion doesn't override Parliament or the law.
I hope Ken Clarke is slightly friendlier towards him than Alan Duncan was.
There is a clear majority in parliament to do everything to stop no deal. The majority actually against the govt is possibly non existant and wafer thin if it does exist.
PS: I'm in my Labour rather than Remainer persona here.
"Trains to Orkney & Shetland"
Whose letterhead was on Parliament's letter?
I believe you are being naive on the WAIB. It passed the second reading on the votes of 19 labour mps who then played games with the programme motion hoping to amend the deal in committee stage to include a customs union or referendum.
In that act Boris would have no choice but to withdraw the deal and see a GE. Those in no 10 can see through this gaming and have come to the conclusion the deal could not survive the committee stage
Hence the very strong possibility of Boris calling a GE sometime this weekend or before.
He simply does not trust this HOC to pass brexit
And we stop playing the "Boris Johnson Project" on his terms.
'Hello good people of this obscure place, I'd like to ask for your vote in the upcoming election. I promise you I will not trouble you with my presence ever again.'
I didn't know anything about Maples, so looked him up. He was Nadhim Zahawi's predecessor in Stratford-on-Avon. In the expenses scandal it came to light that his primary residence was declared as 89 Pall Mall; the Royal Automobile Club! Don't remember that from the time.
I just wonder how many people here would agree with a Corbyn premiership on the same numbers trying to do whatever he wanted with the same tactics as Johnson...
Having established the precedent, they can now never refuse to pass another Benn Act, because there's always the chance Boris would take us over the cliff without one, in which case Labour's Remain base will never forgive them for not stopping him...
Of course workers rights, environment protections, etc are not a problem to be fair
(I think no deal is very unlikely too)
“Dear Mr President,
The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty's Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”
It’s like talking to a flat-earther.
Sincerely,
TOPPING
PS you can see this post was sent by me not TOPPING as it has my 'letterhead' on it to the side, despite the fact I wrote TOPPING. On the letter Parliament wrote and in which they wrote Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland whose letterhead appears to demonstrate who it came from?
Any solution which you or I might suggest, involving the words: "Corbyn" "of" "rid" "get" is pooh-poohed.
Parliament wrote a letter and signed it with the PM's title. Parliament wrote the letter, Parliament passed the letter, Parliament put its letterhead on the letter and then it got sent by an Act of Parliament.
But yeah its the PM's letter *rolleyes*
Its like talking with a brick wall, why do I bother?
Parliament sure enough made him send it, but he sent it.
I don't believe the Labour rebels are simply or even mainly placed for a CU wrecking amendment, these are people in the main who now do want Brexit done (and thus erred in rejecting May). I don't believe CU has the numbers. Also, on the Ken Clarke side, voting for a CU in an indicative vote is a very different proposition to voting for a CU that actually brings the bill down.
I think Boris is throwing his hand when he does have the numbers to get the deal through essentially intact.
The programme motion loss to give proper scrutiny was, frankly, a no brainer.
All PMs are installed by a minority of MPs, if we are taking the point of election to Party leader as the reference point.
We don't have a GNU, which rather implies that no other candidate has a majority of MPs supporting them.
I'll let you enjoy the suspend democracy schtick, although the High Court didn't find against him, so whilst the SC were unanimous there were other opinions available at the time.
He has got closer to brokering a deal as at least the 2nd reading passed, so a questionable point.
When nobody has a clear majority of mandate, an election seems like a reasonable suggestion.
Apart from that, you are spot on.
It is now quite apparent that there is a majority in this Parliament for Brexit and that could be got through quite smoothly. It is not, however, the one that Boris Johnson is currently pursuing. Rather than reward Boris Johnson for his high-handed ineptness, the current Parliament should persevere to conclude the major task for which it was elected.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1187353053751582720?s=20
That poll implies ~30% of the population is homophobic. Shameful
It should start be VONC'ing the current PM if they're not happy with him and then choosing a new PM who can command that majority you think exists. I'm curious from which parties it exists and how you get the numbers given Johnson commands 288 MPs and there's at least 70 "No Brexit" MPs where do you find your alternative majority from.
The Benn Act asking for an extension to 31st January killed it stone dead.
That is very unnerving.
WA (un-amended in any meaningful way)
GE
Seems to me to be realistically where we are.
Extraordinary difference between Leavers and Remainers.
Very saddening to see such widespread bigotry.
There were 3 letters sent. One was signed by the PM and had his letterhead on it. One was signed by an official. One was an Act of Parliament and had a corresponding letterhead. Which was sent by the PM?