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.
I think everybody knows that parliament will table so many wrecking amendments as to ensure the bill is withdrawn.
It would probably hammer a few more nails in Labours coffin to allow them to very publicly waste time but is actually unnecessary in my view.
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.
Of course Boris Johnson can change course if Boris Johnson wants to change course.
If Parliament isn't happy with Boris Johnson's course it can VONC 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
He cannot call it before Monday! Moreover the HOC does not trust him to allow reasonable scrutiny of the WAIB. He was clearly trying to bounce MPs into pushing it through simply to meet his artificial self imposed 31st October deadline.
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.
@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?
No. In this analogy the Prime Minister was you and the UK Permanent Representative to the EU the Royal Mail. Yes, you sent the letter via the Royal Mail, and the PM sent the letter via our people in Brussels. Maybe the content of the letter was determined by someone else but you could have chosen not to be the the person sending the letter. Indeed if Johnson didn’t send it he was breaking the law. Are you saying that he was in contempt of Parliament by “not sending” the letter?
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.
It is perhaps a little more complex, but certainly not much. What you are expressing is your subjective preference. The values that we imbue nationalisms with are largely in the eye of the beholder. It is easy for us to look favourably upon Kurdish nationalism because Kurdish nationalists have been dealt an unfair hand, and because Kurdish nationalism carries no threat. But objectively, the phenomenon itself is not morally superior to its Russian, Syrian, Turkish or American counterparts. The aim should surely be to be proud of your own country whilst also respecting others who have different or even overlapping loyalties.
I disagree with much of that. Yes it's subjective, but there is nonetheless a qualitative difference between a nationalism that seeks liberation (e.g. Kurdish), a nationalism that seeks integration (e.g. Italy in C19th), and a nationalism that seeks dominance (Nazi expansionism). The reason for these differences is that the goals are separate. In the Kurdish case, it's liberation from regimes that poorly represent the interests of the Kurds (in fact, they murder Kurds). In the Italian case, well, that was in part a response to the imperial ambitions of neighbouring states (so, collective defence but also identity). In the Nazi case, it was a mix of economic aggrandisement and ethnic chauvinism. The fact that these disparate goals share an aspect -- namely the identification of a nation and the attempt to organise the state to deliver some perceived good to that nation -- means they deserve a common term, nationalism. But you can't begin to place them in the same ethical bucket. At least, not unless you adopt an extremist relativist stance.
The problem comes when one nationalism masquerades as another. The English or British nationalism that is Brexit certainly purports to be one of liberation, but its opponents reject that characterisation as sheep's clothing. You know my feelings on that and I know yours, so we can just acknowledge that without endorsing either perspective. Probably most of us agree that ethnic chauvinism is bad, but people tend to shy away from that description even when it accurately sums up their policies. India's Modi is an example.
My own view on nationalism is that it has no place when a country is relatively independent and relatively secure. That is why I can sympathise with Kurdish nationalism but cannot even begin to understand American nationalism.
And, for what it's worth, I'm baffled by people who feel "proud" of their country. Never understood it, never will. It's like being proud of your fridge. It might be new, old, efficient, conking out, sleek, ugly, well-stocked with goodness or a festering box of nastiness. You be happy or sad about its form and function, but pride? Doesn't make a shred of sense to me.
@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?
No. In this analogy the Prime Minister was you and the UK Permanent Representative to the EU the Royal Mail. Yes, you sent the letter via the Royal Mail, and the PM sent the letter via our people in Brussels. Maybe the content of the letter was determined by someone else but you could have chosen not to be the the person sending the letter. Indeed if Johnson didn’t send it he was breaking the law. Are you saying that he was in contempt of Parliament by “not sending” the letter?
So you're saying Johnson's letterhead was on the letter and he wrote it?
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.
Underwater in Parliament, but soaring in the polls - hence an election
@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.
Our antiquated electoral system might deliver him a parliamentary majority with 35% of the votes but as fas as Brexit is concerned it won't constitute a "mandate" for anything. That is why leavers are desperate for an election rather than any sort of referendum.
Wow that is shocking. It means that half the PB Leavers don't believe that homosexual people should be treated just like other people.
That is very unnerving.
Or they want to treat them just like other people, by voting intention. If they vote Tory, they’re acceptable.
I expect PB is more socially liberal than the general population on this. At least I'd hope so, does anyone here not put themselves in the "very strongly" camp ?
@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?
Fwiw, Philip, it was on Police Letterhead and it was from PC Plod. He hadn't signed it personally, but obviously it was him acting on behalf of the Authority and in accordance with the law. Had I replied, I would have addressed my letter to him, although I expect it would have been dealt with by one of his oiks.
Any attempt to act the fool over the signature would receive pretty short shrift, I'm sure.
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.
Is there a reason for excluding Remainers who fall into that category?
@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?
No. In this analogy the Prime Minister was you and the UK Permanent Representative to the EU the Royal Mail. Yes, you sent the letter via the Royal Mail, and the PM sent the letter via our people in Brussels. Maybe the content of the letter was determined by someone else but you could have chosen not to be the the person sending the letter. Indeed if Johnson didn’t send it he was breaking the law. Are you saying that he was in contempt of Parliament by “not sending” the letter?
So you're saying Johnson's letterhead was on the letter and he wrote it?
Are you going to answer my question rather than deflect with one of your own?
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.
Underwater in Parliament, but soaring in the polls - hence an election
Going back to my previous point, you're confusing the interests of Boris Johnson with those of the country. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act is doing its work and good work it is too.
If Boris Johnson wants to get Brexit done, he needs to start putting the flex into Brexit.
@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.
If you are right then VONC followed by government under sensible leader with well founded properly supported Brexit plan should be with us within days. Hope you are right. If not it should be (but won't be) election. There's no point in holding Johnson hostage if someone else can solve it well.
That poll implies ~30% of the population is homophobic. Shameful
Someone this morning posted an Ashcroft poll taken shortly after the referendum showing how remain and leave voters differ on a range of issues including climate change, feminism etc so this poll is not all that suprising
I expect PB is more socially liberal than the general population on this. At least I'd hope so, does anyone here not put themselves in the "very strongly" camp ?
Not sure I'd go as far as saying I was very strongly camp.....
@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?
This is why I find your comments so frustrating. In many ways you're very sharp and perceptive, but then you waste your time and credibility on this kind of utter dreck
Some difference of opinion is to be expected, but those results are stark in the extreme.
Doubt Nigel Farage will be attending gay pride anytime soon certainly
How many in Labour's South Asian heritage heartlands have bought into gay marriage?
I would expect you would find a lot of overlap between Muslim Labour voters and Brexit Party voters on social issues, notice Labour voters are also notably less liberal on homosexuality than LD voters
@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?
No. In this analogy the Prime Minister was you and the UK Permanent Representative to the EU the Royal Mail. Yes, you sent the letter via the Royal Mail, and the PM sent the letter via our people in Brussels. Maybe the content of the letter was determined by someone else but you could have chosen not to be the the person sending the letter. Indeed if Johnson didn’t send it he was breaking the law. Are you saying that he was in contempt of Parliament by “not sending” the letter?
So you're saying Johnson's letterhead was on the letter and he wrote it?
See below, it requires compliance by the PM “sending” a letter. Did Johnson so comply or not? If yes, then he sent a letter. If no then he broke the law. Which is it!
Fwiw, Philip, it was on Police Letterhead and it was from PC Plod. He hadn't signed it personally, but obviously it was him acting on behalf of the Authority and in accordance with the law. Had I replied, I would have addressed my letter to him, although I expect it would have been dealt with by one of his oiks.
Any attempt to act the fool over the signature would receive pretty short shrift, I'm sure.
That's quite reasonable to think it was from the Police given it was on Police Letterhead I completely agree.
So Parliament's letter - was it on 10 Downing Street or Parliamentary Letterhead?
Going back to my previous point, you're confusing the interests of Boris Johnson with those of the country. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act is doing its work and good work it is too.
If Boris Johnson wants to get Brexit done, he needs to start putting the flex into Brexit.
Why does he need to start putting 'flex' into Brexit?
He has got a deal.
A deal parliament do not seem inclined to vote through without wrecking amendments.
Bill gets withdrawn.
Extension to 31/01.
No way does parliament not call a GE to resolve the impasse at that point.
It is the remainers who need to read the writing on the wall and vote through the deal.
Or don't...I care not either way because the end result will be the same.
@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?
No. In this analogy the Prime Minister was you and the UK Permanent Representative to the EU the Royal Mail. Yes, you sent the letter via the Royal Mail, and the PM sent the letter via our people in Brussels. Maybe the content of the letter was determined by someone else but you could have chosen not to be the the person sending the letter. Indeed if Johnson didn’t send it he was breaking the law. Are you saying that he was in contempt of Parliament by “not sending” the letter?
So you're saying Johnson's letterhead was on the letter and he wrote it?
Are you going to answer my question rather than deflect with one of your own?
No, I am saying he complied with the law and Parliament sent its letter via him. He was a glorified messenger boy for Parliament's letter and had no choice in the matter.
@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?
No. In this analogy the Prime Minister was you and the UK Permanent Representative to the EU the Royal Mail. Yes, you sent the letter via the Royal Mail, and the PM sent the letter via our people in Brussels. Maybe the content of the letter was determined by someone else but you could have chosen not to be the the person sending the letter. Indeed if Johnson didn’t send it he was breaking the law. Are you saying that he was in contempt of Parliament by “not sending” the letter?
So you're saying Johnson's letterhead was on the letter and he wrote it?
See below, it requires compliance by the PM “sending” a letter. Did Johnson so comply or not? If yes, then he sent a letter. If no then he broke the law. Which is it!
Oh course he sent it along in the same way as the Royal Mail sends along letters I post.
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.
I think everybody knows that parliament will table so many wrecking amendments as to ensure the bill is withdrawn.
It would probably hammer a few more nails in Labours coffin to allow them to very publicly waste time but is actually unnecessary in my view.
Remainers have had their chance.
To do what vote for EFTA/EEA as we were promised by a lot of leavers?
Going back to my previous point, you're confusing the interests of Boris Johnson with those of the country. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act is doing its work and good work it is too.
If Boris Johnson wants to get Brexit done, he needs to start putting the flex into Brexit.
Why does he need to start putting 'flex' into Brexit?
He has got a deal.
A deal parliament do not seem inclined to vote through without wrecking amendments.
Bill gets withdrawn.
Extension to 31/01.
No way does parliament not call a GE to resolve the impasse at that point.
It is the remainers who need to read the writing on the wall and vote through the deal.
Or don't...I care not either way because the end result will be the same.
@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?
No. In this analogy the Prime Minister was you and the UK Permanent Representative to the EU the Royal Mail. Yes, you sent the letter via the Royal Mail, and the PM sent the letter via our people in Brussels. Maybe the content of the letter was determined by someone else but you could have chosen not to be the the person sending the letter. Indeed if Johnson didn’t send it he was breaking the law. Are you saying that he was in contempt of Parliament by “not sending” the letter?
So you're saying Johnson's letterhead was on the letter and he wrote it?
Are you going to answer my question rather than deflect with one of your own?
No, I am saying he complied with the law and Parliament sent its letter via him. He was a glorified messenger boy for Parliament's letter and had no choice in the matter.
The law required the PM to comply by “sending” the letter himself. So did the PM comply by “sending” the letter or not? Yes or no?
I expect PB is more socially liberal than the general population on this. At least I'd hope so, does anyone here not put themselves in the "very strongly" camp ?
Not sure I'd go as far as saying I was very strongly camp.....
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.
@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?
No. In this analogy the Prime Minister was you and the UK Permanent Representative to the EU the Royal Mail. Yes, you sent the letter via the Royal Mail, and the PM sent the letter via our people in Brussels. Maybe the content of the letter was determined by someone else but you could have chosen not to be the the person sending the letter. Indeed if Johnson didn’t send it he was breaking the law. Are you saying that he was in contempt of Parliament by “not sending” the letter?
So you're saying Johnson's letterhead was on the letter and he wrote it?
See below, it requires compliance by the PM “sending” a letter. Did Johnson so comply or not? If yes, then he sent a letter. If no then he broke the law. Which is it!
Oh course he sent it along in the same way as the Royal Mail sends along letters I post.
So he sent the letter. Not Parliament. Thank you for your concession.
Macron was bizarrely gushing about Johnson at the EuCo summit so it’s not impossible they have come to an understanding.
That would be hilarious - asking France to bail him out! Sadly, Macron wouldn't dream of doing it. He would no more throw Ireland under the bus than Boris would the Unionists.
@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?
This is why I find your comments so frustrating. In many ways you're very sharp and perceptive, but then you waste your time and credibility on this kind of utter dreck
If people would just be honest and refer to Parliament's letter as Parliament's letter rather than trying to pretend it came from the PM we could have a more honest conversation.
Anyway that's enough banging my head against a wall, I need to go. Bye.
@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?
This is why I find your comments so frustrating. In many ways you're very sharp and perceptive, but then you waste your time and credibility on this kind of utter dreck
If people would just be honest and refer to Parliament's letter as Parliament's letter rather than trying to pretend it came from the PM we could have a more honest conversation.
Anyway that's enough banging my head against a wall, I need to go. Bye.
I Didn't think EU would drop backstop Ii Thought Boris do or die pledge would mean he had to resign
I was genuinely surprised that, duplicitous shit as we know him to be, he could have thrown the DUP under the bus with such ease. He is playing fast and loose with the Union in a way that I thought, together with Johnson himself, no British Prime Minister would or could eve do. Certainly no Prime Minister from the Conservative and Unionist Party.
Can you actually add the '...and Unionist' bit any more?
I am not sure. It is quite an extraordinary move and I see Dom's fingerprints all over it because I think he doesn't give a damn. The PM I had thought might.
Hardly any of the frontbench or backbench parliamentary Tory party give a damn either, to judge by their actions and omissions. Not a single one has resigned a job or the whip denouncing it as wrong to tell the party on whose support the government has relied for the past two years to go to hell.
Boris Johnson's reference to the IRA during PMQ was intended as a signal to the DUP that he's still on their side really, but they won't have heard it like that.
Arlene Foster met the UDA and UVF last week (source: Belfast Telegraph) to discuss Brexit. The government wants to allow foreign customs officials to station themselves in NI ports to check goods coming in from GB? There is absolutely no way that's going to happen.
As for "Dom", I couldn't find anything in his scribblings to indicate that he knows much about Northern Ireland, but in his time at the notorious Klute nightclub perhaps he had some dealings, friendly or otherwise, with Irish interests. In Durham as everywhere else it's gangs that control nightclub "doors" (a euphemism), and in several British cities there is an Irish presence in that world, and not one you could call ecumenical. What I'm saying is he may possibly know a lot more about the IRA, INLA, UDA and UVF than the average Tory MP.
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.
Is there a reason for excluding Remainers who fall into that category?
Can anyone timeline between now and Jan 31 to include:
(1) The few more days for the EU to confirm expected extension (2) Wash up, dissolution, GE (I expect GE will be close to 25 working days from dissolution, much more would be another clear misuse of prerogative powers and probably illegal) (3) Queen's Speech for new parliament (4) Christmas recess (5) The 21 days to pass an international treaty.
Or will we, in January, be trying to guillotine the bill through in 3 days again (albeit having had much longer visibility of the WAIB)?
Going back to my previous point, you're confusing the interests of Boris Johnson with those of the country. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act is doing its work and good work it is too.
If Boris Johnson wants to get Brexit done, he needs to start putting the flex into Brexit.
Why does he need to start putting 'flex' into Brexit?
He has got a deal.
A deal parliament do not seem inclined to vote through without wrecking amendments.
Bill gets withdrawn.
Extension to 31/01.
No way does parliament not call a GE to resolve the impasse at that point.
It is the remainers who need to read the writing on the wall and vote through the deal.
Or don't...I care not either way because the end result will be the same.
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?
No. In this analogy the Prime Minister was you and the UK Permanent Representative to the EU the Royal Mail. Yes, you sent the letter via the Royal Mail, and the PM sent the letter via our people in Brussels. Maybe the content of the letter was determined by someone else but you could have chosen not to be the the person sending the letter. Indeed if Johnson didn’t send it he was breaking the law. Are you saying that he was in contempt of Parliament by “not sending” the letter?
So you're saying Johnson's letterhead was on the letter and he wrote it?
Are you going to answer my question rather than deflect with one of your own?
No, I am saying he complied with the law and Parliament sent its letter via him. He was a glorified messenger boy for Parliament's letter and had no choice in the matter.
The law required the PM to comply by “sending” the letter himself. So did the PM comply by “sending” the letter or not? Yes or no?
I propose a compromise: - Parliament sent the letter; and - Boris Johnson let them because he's a useless loser.
I Didn't think EU would drop backstop Ii Thought Boris do or die pledge would mean he had to resign
I was genuinely surprised that, duplicitous shit as we know him to be, he could have thrown the DUP under the bus with such ease. He is playing fast and loose with the Union in a way that I thought, together with Johnson himself, no British Prime Minister would or could eve do. Certainly no Prime Minister from the Conservative and Unionist Party.
Can you actually add the '...and Unionist' bit any more?
I am not sure. It is quite an extraordinary move and I see Dom's fingerprints all over it because I think he doesn't give a damn. The PM I had thought might.
Hardly any of the frontbench or backbench parliamentary Tory party give a damn either, to judge by their actions and omissions. Not a single one has resigned a job or the whip denouncing it as wrong to tell the party on whose support the government has relied for the past two years to go to hell.
Boris Johnson's reference to the IRA during PMQ was intended as a signal to the DUP that he's still on their side really, but they won't have heard it like that.
Arlene Foster met the UDA and UVF last week (source: Belfast Telegraph) to discuss Brexit. The government wants to allow foreign customs officials to station themselves in NI ports to check goods coming in from GB? There is absolutely no way that's going to happen.
As for "Dom", I couldn't find anything in his scribblings to indicate that he knows much about Northern Ireland, but in his career history perhaps he has had some dealings, friendly or otherwise, with Irish interests. In Durham as everywhere else, it's gangs that control the nightclub doors, and in several British cities there is an Irish presence in that world, and not one that's ecumenical.
Dom probably thinks it is all an academic theoretical exercise just as many (even some on here) thought that it would be fine to put a border in NI because other countries have borders and it all works well there.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Underwater in Parliament, but soaring in the polls - hence an election
Going back to my previous point, you're confusing the interests of Boris Johnson with those of the country. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act is doing its work and good work it is too.
If Boris Johnson wants to get Brexit done, he needs to start putting the flex into Brexit.
Umm, no. The FTPA is ensuring legislative paralysis. There are many times, Alistair, when your headers and comments are incisive, and make me and others reflect on and revisit our opinions, and the routes we took to arrive there. This is not one of them. Your argument is transparently self serving and specious. I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the better part of your intellect is currently engaged in chargeable client work.
@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.
Our antiquated electoral system might deliver him a parliamentary majority with 35% of the votes but as fas as Brexit is concerned it won't constitute a "mandate" for anything. That is why leavers are desperate for an election rather than any sort of referendum.
True , the most sensible post , I have read on here today.
Can anyone timeline between now and Jan 31 to include:
(1) The few more days for the EU to confirm expected extension (2) Wash up, dissolution, GE (I expect GE will be close to 25 working days from dissolution, much more would be another clear misuse of prerogative powers and probably illegal) (3) Queen's Speech for new parliament (4) Christmas recess (5) The 21 days to pass an international treaty.
Or will we, in January, be trying to guillotine the bill through in 3 days again (albeit having had much longer visibility of the WAIB)?
5) is not an issue, there is a clause in the act that allows a minister to decide if the situation warrants no 21 day period.
Macron was bizarrely gushing about Johnson at the EuCo summit so it’s not impossible they have come to an understanding.
That would be hilarious - asking France to bail him out! Sadly, Macron wouldn't dream of doing it. He would no more throw Ireland under the bus than Boris would the Unionists.
'Ere, hang on.....
If is trying to this he is breaking his written undertakings in his own name given to the Scottish court and could be in breach of that court.
That poll implies ~30% of the population is homophobic. Shameful
Extraordinary difference between Leavers and Remainers.
Very saddening to see such widespread bigotry.
So Conservatives are not only apologists for a racist PM, but are fifty-fifty homophobes too?
On those stats a quarter of Remainers are homophobes too.
Homophobia isn't OK whether Leave or Remain. We should all be able to agree on that.
Thre's no link to the full findings, but to be fair there was probably an 'agree' caegory too. For some, maybe elderly with no openly gay close family/friends it just might not seem like that much of an issue. I can imagine my parents ticking 'agree' but they are not homophobic (at least, they seem to like my gay brother in law and ask after him and his partner often). The disagree columns are, I hope, tiny.
I'd put strongly agree, in fact the question itself seems ridiculous - strip out sexuality, which should be irrelevant to how we treat each other and it becomes "should people be treated like people?"
Macron was bizarrely gushing about Johnson at the EuCo summit so it’s not impossible they have come to an understanding.
That would be hilarious - asking France to bail him out! Sadly, Macron wouldn't dream of doing it. He would no more throw Ireland under the bus than Boris would the Unionists.
'Ere, hang on.....
If is trying to this he is breaking his written undertakings in his own name given to the Scottish court and could be in breach of that court.
Well this is why he's gone in in person and not done it via WhatsApp...………..
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.
I think everybody knows that parliament will table so many wrecking amendments as to ensure the bill is withdrawn.
It would probably hammer a few more nails in Labours coffin to allow them to very publicly waste time but is actually unnecessary in my view.
Remainers have had their chance.
To do what vote for EFTA/EEA as we were promised by a lot of leavers?
That poll implies ~30% of the population is homophobic. Shameful
Extraordinary difference between Leavers and Remainers.
Very saddening to see such widespread bigotry.
So Conservatives are not only apologists for a racist PM, but are fifty-fifty homophobes too?
On those stats a quarter of Remainers are homophobes too.
Homophobia isn't OK whether Leave or Remain. We should all be able to agree on that.
Thre's no link to the full findings, but to be fair there was probably an 'agree' caegory too. For some, maybe elderly with no openly gay close family/friends it just might not seem like that much of an issue. I can imagine my parents ticking 'agree' but they are not homophobic (at least, they seem to like my gay brother in law and ask after him and his partner often). The disagree columns are, I hope, tiny.
I'd put strongly agree, in fact the question itself seems ridiculous - strip out sexuality, which should be irrelevant to how we treat each other and it becomes "should people be treated like people?"
Agree - the usual idiot/suspect[s] so quick to jump on the outrage bus. I speak as a proud and out gay man since1975.
Can anyone timeline between now and Jan 31 to include:
(1) The few more days for the EU to confirm expected extension (2) Wash up, dissolution, GE (I expect GE will be close to 25 working days from dissolution, much more would be another clear misuse of prerogative powers and probably illegal) (3) Queen's Speech for new parliament (4) Christmas recess (5) The 21 days to pass an international treaty.
Or will we, in January, be trying to guillotine the bill through in 3 days again (albeit having had much longer visibility of the WAIB)?
5) is not an issue, there is a clause in the act that allows a minister to decide if the situation warrants no 21 day period.
We've all seen it is at discretion, but, given this week, 'not an issue' seems a stretch.
Say his post GE position is still a bit flaky. Would he be tempted to line up a bounce in the same way, given how well it worked this time?
Can anyone timeline between now and Jan 31 to include:
(1) The few more days for the EU to confirm expected extension (2) Wash up, dissolution, GE (I expect GE will be close to 25 working days from dissolution, much more would be another clear misuse of prerogative powers and probably illegal) (3) Queen's Speech for new parliament (4) Christmas recess (5) The 21 days to pass an international treaty.
Or will we, in January, be trying to guillotine the bill through in 3 days again (albeit having had much longer visibility of the WAIB)?
5) is not an issue, there is a clause in the act that allows a minister to decide if the situation warrants no 21 day period.
Which is another reason the WAIB is not fit for pupose
Can anyone timeline between now and Jan 31 to include:
(1) The few more days for the EU to confirm expected extension (2) Wash up, dissolution, GE (I expect GE will be close to 25 working days from dissolution, much more would be another clear misuse of prerogative powers and probably illegal) (3) Queen's Speech for new parliament (4) Christmas recess (5) The 21 days to pass an international treaty.
Or will we, in January, be trying to guillotine the bill through in 3 days again (albeit having had much longer visibility of the WAIB)?
5) is not an issue, there is a clause in the act that allows a minister to decide if the situation warrants no 21 day period.
Which is another reason the WAIB is not fit for pupose
What have the provisions of the governance act got to do with whether or not the withdrawal bill is fit for purpose?
I'm not sure how 31/01 vs Short Techinical stacks up for each side.
My feeling is that a short one blocks a GE/R2 and forces parliament in to a Deal vs No Deal scenario.
31/10 allows the government to graciously allow further debate on the WAB. It will be up to the opposition to either pass it with some tinkering around the edges or go for wrecking amendments and ensure it is pulled.
Can anyone timeline between now and Jan 31 to include:
(1) The few more days for the EU to confirm expected extension (2) Wash up, dissolution, GE (I expect GE will be close to 25 working days from dissolution, much more would be another clear misuse of prerogative powers and probably illegal) (3) Queen's Speech for new parliament (4) Christmas recess (5) The 21 days to pass an international treaty.
Or will we, in January, be trying to guillotine the bill through in 3 days again (albeit having had much longer visibility of the WAIB)?
5) is not an issue, there is a clause in the act that allows a minister to decide if the situation warrants no 21 day period.
Which is another reason the WAIB is not fit for pupose
What have the provisions of the governance act got to do with whether or not the withdrawal bill is fit for purpose?
I said the WAIB in which it is contained along with removing parliamentary scrutiny of any FTA and the ability to crash out with no deal
Can anyone timeline between now and Jan 31 to include:
(1) The few more days for the EU to confirm expected extension (2) Wash up, dissolution, GE (I expect GE will be close to 25 working days from dissolution, much more would be another clear misuse of prerogative powers and probably illegal) (3) Queen's Speech for new parliament (4) Christmas recess (5) The 21 days to pass an international treaty.
Or will we, in January, be trying to guillotine the bill through in 3 days again (albeit having had much longer visibility of the WAIB)?
5) is not an issue, there is a clause in the act that allows a minister to decide if the situation warrants no 21 day period.
Which is another reason the WAIB is not fit for pupose
What have the provisions of the governance act got to do with whether or not the withdrawal bill is fit for purpose?
I said the WAIB in which it is contained along with removing parliamentary scrutiny of any FTA and the ability to crash out with no deal
That poll implies ~30% of the population is homophobic. Shameful
Extraordinary difference between Leavers and Remainers.
Very saddening to see such widespread bigotry.
So Conservatives are not only apologists for a racist PM, but are fifty-fifty homophobes too?
On those stats a quarter of Remainers are homophobes too.
Homophobia isn't OK whether Leave or Remain. We should all be able to agree on that.
Thre's no link to the full findings, but to be fair there was probably an 'agree' caegory too. For some, maybe elderly with no openly gay close family/friends it just might not seem like that much of an issue. I can imagine my parents ticking 'agree' but they are not homophobic (at least, they seem to like my gay brother in law and ask after him and his partner often). The disagree columns are, I hope, tiny.
I'd put strongly agree, in fact the question itself seems ridiculous - strip out sexuality, which should be irrelevant to how we treat each other and it becomes "should people be treated like people?"
Wow that is shocking. It means that half the PB Leavers don't believe that homosexual people should be treated just like other people.
That is very unnerving.
You're over-interpreting. That's a chart of "agree very strongly". Personally I find it very encouraging.
The full data isn't available - but the full report makes it very clear that Britain is a MUCH more "liberal" country than it was 30 years ago:
As in 1989, those aged 55 and above are today still most likely to oppose homosexual relationships, although tolerance within this age group has massively increased, and the gap in opinion between this group and other age categories is dramatically reduced.
What would happen in procedural terms were Corbyn to respond to any election motion by putting down his own VNOC? Would that have to be debated first - and if passed would delay any election for two weeks?
Can anyone timeline between now and Jan 31 to include:
(1) The few more days for the EU to confirm expected extension (2) Wash up, dissolution, GE (I expect GE will be close to 25 working days from dissolution, much more would be another clear misuse of prerogative powers and probably illegal) (3) Queen's Speech for new parliament (4) Christmas recess (5) The 21 days to pass an international treaty.
Or will we, in January, be trying to guillotine the bill through in 3 days again (albeit having had much longer visibility of the WAIB)?
14 Jan election, hung parliament, takes 10 days to form a weak govt....you can guess the rest.
Everything sounds better in French, but especially bullshit.
I had some work colleagues who favoured "Le testes de chien" as a mark of approval
I could listen to people talking French all day. I can't understand a word of it but it always sounds so sophisticated and eloquent. I imagine they're just talking the same kind of shit Anglophones do, but the illusion of intelligence is very strong.
Can anyone timeline between now and Jan 31 to include:
(1) The few more days for the EU to confirm expected extension (2) Wash up, dissolution, GE (I expect GE will be close to 25 working days from dissolution, much more would be another clear misuse of prerogative powers and probably illegal) (3) Queen's Speech for new parliament (4) Christmas recess (5) The 21 days to pass an international treaty.
Or will we, in January, be trying to guillotine the bill through in 3 days again (albeit having had much longer visibility of the WAIB)?
14 Jan election, hung parliament, takes 10 days to form a weak govt....you can guess the rest.
Discovery of cold fusion in barn in Barnsley. Development of new industries. Canonisation of Tony Blair. EU dissolved with member countries agreeing to be single constituencies in new United Kingdom of Great Britain and Some other Places. Victory in Eurovision song contest. David Cameron transitions and then marries the Prince of Wales.
It's all there if you just know how to read the signs.
That poll implies ~30% of the population is homophobic. Shameful
Extraordinary difference between Leavers and Remainers.
Very saddening to see such widespread bigotry.
So Conservatives are not only apologists for a racist PM, but are fifty-fifty homophobes too?
On those stats a quarter of Remainers are homophobes too.
Homophobia isn't OK whether Leave or Remain. We should all be able to agree on that.
Thre's no link to the full findings, but to be fair there was probably an 'agree' caegory too. For some, maybe elderly with no openly gay close family/friends it just might not seem like that much of an issue. I can imagine my parents ticking 'agree' but they are not homophobic (at least, they seem to like my gay brother in law and ask after him and his partner often). The disagree columns are, I hope, tiny.
I'd put strongly agree, in fact the question itself seems ridiculous - strip out sexuality, which should be irrelevant to how we treat each other and it becomes "should people be treated like people?"
Can anyone timeline between now and Jan 31 to include:
(1) The few more days for the EU to confirm expected extension (2) Wash up, dissolution, GE (I expect GE will be close to 25 working days from dissolution, much more would be another clear misuse of prerogative powers and probably illegal) (3) Queen's Speech for new parliament (4) Christmas recess (5) The 21 days to pass an international treaty.
Or will we, in January, be trying to guillotine the bill through in 3 days again (albeit having had much longer visibility of the WAIB)?
5) is not an issue, there is a clause in the act that allows a minister to decide if the situation warrants no 21 day period.
Which is another reason the WAIB is not fit for pupose
All problems lead back to Article 50 not being fit for purpose.
That poll implies ~30% of the population is homophobic. Shameful
Extraordinary difference between Leavers and Remainers.
Very saddening to see such widespread bigotry.
So Conservatives are not only apologists for a racist PM, but are fifty-fifty homophobes too?
On those stats a quarter of Remainers are homophobes too.
Homophobia isn't OK whether Leave or Remain. We should all be able to agree on that.
Thre's no link to the full findings, but to be fair there was probably an 'agree' caegory too. For some, maybe elderly with no openly gay close family/friends it just might not seem like that much of an issue. I can imagine my parents ticking 'agree' but they are not homophobic (at least, they seem to like my gay brother in law and ask after him and his partner often). The disagree columns are, I hope, tiny.
I'd put strongly agree, in fact the question itself seems ridiculous - strip out sexuality, which should be irrelevant to how we treat each other and it becomes "should people be treated like people?"
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?
No. In this analogy the Prime Minister was you and the UK Permanent Representative to the EU the Royal Mail. Yes, you sent the letter via the Royal Mail, and the PM sent the letter via our people in Brussels. Maybe the content of the letter was determined by someone else but you could have chosen not to be the the person sending the letter. Indeed if Johnson didn’t send it he was breaking the law. Are you saying that he was in contempt of Parliament by “not sending” the letter?
So you're saying Johnson's letterhead was on the letter and he wrote it?
Are you going to answer my question rather than deflect with one of your own?
No, I am saying he complied with the law and Parliament sent its letter via him. He was a glorified messenger boy for Parliament's letter and had no choice in the matter.
The law required the PM to comply by “sending” the letter himself. So did the PM comply by “sending” the letter or not? Yes or no?
I propose a compromise: - Parliament sent the letter; and - Boris Johnson let them because he's a useless loser.
I propose everybody STFU about the letter.
- Boris has had to send it - It hasn't been the stake through the heart that Remainers hoped.
Can anyone timeline between now and Jan 31 to include:
(1) The few more days for the EU to confirm expected extension (2) Wash up, dissolution, GE (I expect GE will be close to 25 working days from dissolution, much more would be another clear misuse of prerogative powers and probably illegal) (3) Queen's Speech for new parliament (4) Christmas recess (5) The 21 days to pass an international treaty.
Or will we, in January, be trying to guillotine the bill through in 3 days again (albeit having had much longer visibility of the WAIB)?
5) is not an issue, there is a clause in the act that allows a minister to decide if the situation warrants no 21 day period.
Which is another reason the WAIB is not fit for pupose
All problems lead back to Article 50 not being fit for purpose.
Its funny that if a referendum on the Lisbon treaty had been held and rejected, there would be no A50 and I think the only way to leave would be a no deal free for all.
Can anyone timeline between now and Jan 31 to include:
(1) The few more days for the EU to confirm expected extension (2) Wash up, dissolution, GE (I expect GE will be close to 25 working days from dissolution, much more would be another clear misuse of prerogative powers and probably illegal) (3) Queen's Speech for new parliament (4) Christmas recess (5) The 21 days to pass an international treaty.
Or will we, in January, be trying to guillotine the bill through in 3 days again (albeit having had much longer visibility of the WAIB)?
5) is not an issue, there is a clause in the act that allows a minister to decide if the situation warrants no 21 day period.
Which is another reason the WAIB is not fit for pupose
All problems lead back to Article 50 not being fit for purpose.
Its funny that if a referendum on the Lisbon treaty had been held and rejected, there would be no A50 and I think the only way to leave would be a no deal free for all.
Everything sounds better in French, but especially bullshit.
I had some work colleagues who favoured "Le testes de chien" as a mark of approval
I could listen to people talking French all day. I can't understand a word of it but it always sounds so sophisticated and eloquent. I imagine they're just talking the same kind of shit Anglophones do, but the illusion of intelligence is very strong.
They don't really talk the same rubbish as Anglophones. I always find it hilarious tuning in to a discussion programme on French radio or TV; the discussion always seems to comprise very eloquent debate about some totally abstract and largely meaningless proposition. It's much less about practicalities than the equivalent discussions here tend to be.
Can anyone timeline between now and Jan 31 to include:
(1) The few more days for the EU to confirm expected extension (2) Wash up, dissolution, GE (I expect GE will be close to 25 working days from dissolution, much more would be another clear misuse of prerogative powers and probably illegal) (3) Queen's Speech for new parliament (4) Christmas recess (5) The 21 days to pass an international treaty.
Or will we, in January, be trying to guillotine the bill through in 3 days again (albeit having had much longer visibility of the WAIB)?
5) is not an issue, there is a clause in the act that allows a minister to decide if the situation warrants no 21 day period.
Which is another reason the WAIB is not fit for pupose
All problems lead back to Article 50 not being fit for purpose.
Its funny that if a referendum on the Lisbon treaty had been held and rejected, there would be no A50 and I think the only way to leave would be a no deal free for all.
Can anyone timeline between now and Jan 31 to include:
(1) The few more days for the EU to confirm expected extension (2) Wash up, dissolution, GE (I expect GE will be close to 25 working days from dissolution, much more would be another clear misuse of prerogative powers and probably illegal) (3) Queen's Speech for new parliament (4) Christmas recess (5) The 21 days to pass an international treaty.
Or will we, in January, be trying to guillotine the bill through in 3 days again (albeit having had much longer visibility of the WAIB)?
14 Jan election, hung parliament, takes 10 days to form a weak govt....you can guess the rest.
Discovery of cold fusion in barn in Barnsley. Development of new industries. Canonisation of Tony Blair. EU dissolved with member countries agreeing to be single constituencies in new United Kingdom of Great Britain and Some other Places. Victory in Eurovision song contest. David Cameron transitions and then marries the Prince of Wales.
It's all there if you just know how to read the signs.
Does that mean Tony Blair has to be dead to be canonised? Just asking for a friend, like.....
Comments
It would probably hammer a few more nails in Labours coffin to allow them to very publicly waste time but is actually unnecessary in my view.
Remainers have had their chance.
If Parliament isn't happy with Boris Johnson's course it can VONC him.
We see the numbers for loads of hypothetical by-elections.
When was this decided? Why is this the first I have heard of this? From The Sun, of all places.
The fact that these disparate goals share an aspect -- namely the identification of a nation and the attempt to organise the state to deliver some perceived good to that nation -- means they deserve a common term, nationalism. But you can't begin to place them in the same ethical bucket. At least, not unless you adopt an extremist relativist stance.
The problem comes when one nationalism masquerades as another. The English or British nationalism that is Brexit certainly purports to be one of liberation, but its opponents reject that characterisation as sheep's clothing. You know my feelings on that and I know yours, so we can just acknowledge that without endorsing either perspective. Probably most of us agree that ethnic chauvinism is bad, but people tend to shy away from that description even when it accurately sums up their policies. India's Modi is an example.
My own view on nationalism is that it has no place when a country is relatively independent and relatively secure. That is why I can sympathise with Kurdish nationalism but cannot even begin to understand American nationalism.
And, for what it's worth, I'm baffled by people who feel "proud" of their country. Never understood it, never will. It's like being proud of your fridge. It might be new, old, efficient, conking out, sleek, ugly, well-stocked with goodness or a festering box of nastiness. You be happy or sad about its form and function, but pride? Doesn't make a shred of sense to me.
Buckingham and Bassetlaw to be held on the same day ?
Any attempt to act the fool over the signature would receive pretty short shrift, I'm sure.
If Boris Johnson wants to get Brexit done, he needs to start putting the flex into Brexit.
So Parliament's letter - was it on 10 Downing Street or Parliamentary Letterhead?
He has got a deal.
A deal parliament do not seem inclined to vote through without wrecking amendments.
Bill gets withdrawn.
Extension to 31/01.
No way does parliament not call a GE to resolve the impasse at that point.
It is the remainers who need to read the writing on the wall and vote through the deal.
Or don't...I care not either way because the end result will be the same.
There is no way out for the opposition.
Revoke
Homophobia isn't OK whether Leave or Remain. We should all be able to agree on that.
'Ere, hang on.....
Anyway that's enough banging my head against a wall, I need to go. Bye.
Boris Johnson's reference to the IRA during PMQ was intended as a signal to the DUP that he's still on their side really, but they won't have heard it like that.
Arlene Foster met the UDA and UVF last week (source: Belfast Telegraph) to discuss Brexit. The government wants to allow foreign customs officials to station themselves in NI ports to check goods coming in from GB? There is absolutely no way that's going to happen.
As for "Dom", I couldn't find anything in his scribblings to indicate that he knows much about Northern Ireland, but in his time at the notorious Klute nightclub perhaps he had some dealings, friendly or otherwise, with Irish interests. In Durham as everywhere else it's gangs that control nightclub "doors" (a euphemism), and in several British cities there is an Irish presence in that world, and not one you could call ecumenical. What I'm saying is he may possibly know a lot more about the IRA, INLA, UDA and UVF than the average Tory MP.
(1) The few more days for the EU to confirm expected extension
(2) Wash up, dissolution, GE (I expect GE will be close to 25 working days from dissolution, much more would be another clear misuse of prerogative powers and probably illegal)
(3) Queen's Speech for new parliament
(4) Christmas recess
(5) The 21 days to pass an international treaty.
Or will we, in January, be trying to guillotine the bill through in 3 days again (albeit having had much longer visibility of the WAIB)?
- Parliament sent the letter; and
- Boris Johnson let them because he's a useless loser.
Or you may be better off going full-fat and backing the LD's.
https://twitter.com/mediaguido/status/1187328829116817408?s=21
I'd put strongly agree, in fact the question itself seems ridiculous - strip out sexuality, which should be irrelevant to how we treat each other and it becomes "should people be treated like people?"
It’s all about the duration .
Say his post GE position is still a bit flaky. Would he be tempted to line up a bounce in the same way, given how well it worked this time?
I'm not sure how 31/01 vs Short Techinical stacks up for each side.
My feeling is that a short one blocks a GE/R2 and forces parliament in to a Deal vs No Deal scenario.
31/10 allows the government to graciously allow further debate on the WAB. It will be up to the opposition to either pass it with some tinkering around the edges or go for wrecking amendments and ensure it is pulled.
So what
I like the German Quatsch though. Makes the point without rudeness.
13% of the population think homosexual relationships are morally wrong. (15-34yo 8%, 35-54yo 12%, 55+ 18%)
almost identical to
13% think having a child out of marriage is morally wrong. (15-34yo 9%, 35-54yo 11%, 55+ 18%)
As in 1989, those aged 55 and above are today still most likely to oppose homosexual relationships, although tolerance within this age group has massively increased, and the gap in opinion between this group and other age categories is dramatically reduced.
Homosexual relationships morally wrong (vs 1989):
15-34: 8% (-22)
35-54: 12% (-24)
55+: 18% (-36)
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/British-moral-attitudes.pdf
And those who write "Britain must be the most illiberal country in Europe except for Hungary" are simply wrong.
I wonder how the numbers would break out if the "agree" and "strongly agree" had been presented? Pity they're not available.
Thats the sort of understanding that lost the vote in the first place......
Development of new industries.
Canonisation of Tony Blair.
EU dissolved with member countries agreeing to be single constituencies in new United Kingdom of Great Britain and Some other Places.
Victory in Eurovision song contest.
David Cameron transitions and then marries the Prince of Wales.
It's all there if you just know how to read the signs.
Are there any figures for % of population who follow different religions?
- Boris has had to send it
- It hasn't been the stake through the heart that Remainers hoped.
Boo hoo. Next time try silver bullets.