Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Brussels ups the the ante over the Johnson/Cummings EU deal ov

13567

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 34,017
    edited September 10
    Maybe Cummings has wargamed this to death, and expects the Internal Markets Bill gets voted down.

    He will therefore have gotten Boris's Brexit credentials burnished, without the UK actually breaking a whole bunch of international treaties.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 18,337
    It does feel that Boris Cummings have u pinned a hand grenade expecting Labour to leap on it for them and Starmer is just wandering in the other direction saying it was a bad idea.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,949
    eek said:

    The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.

    Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.

    This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.

    I suspect he will be remembered in history - the problem is that it won't be glorious - far more Eden than Churchill.
    He looks more like Henry Addington than either to me.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,651
    Omnium said:

    It's ugly but we have to back the PM.

    No we do not. Our PM is, in my opinion, an incompetent, lazy, a*sehole with delusions of grandeur and is currently way, way, way above his correct pay grade.

    Omnium said:

    There can be no place for foreign intervention in UK politics no matter how mad they get.

    Well then, speak to Boris the Clown and his Keystone Cops (aka the ERG) because they provided the basis for an intervention.
    Omnium said:


    Happily the EU is going to back down.

    Why should they? I have no doubt that you would like them to back them, but what is in it for them? Appeasing a Rogue Govt? Last time that was tried, the (jack)boot was on the other foot.

    There is no upside for the EU in dancing to Boris's tune.
  • fox327 said:

    I believe the House of Lords has the power to delay this legislation for a year. The Salisbury Convention does not apply, as this measure was not in the Conservative manifesto in 2019. A lot can happen in a year. What is the House of Lords for anyway?

    And, in any case, the Salisbury Convention was derived from a Parliament more than half a century ago. We are told that no Parliament may bind is successor, in any case, so the Lords are free to do as they choose.
    And the Commons would be entitled to abolish the Lords.
    Good luck persuading the Conservative Party to destroy the House of Lords where it enjoys a permanent majority. Dominic Cummings is not a Conservative but the MPs are (by definition).
    248 out of 777 is a permanent majority?
  • novanova Posts: 280
    eek said:

    MY view is that the Cummmings/Johnson move to flout international law was actually a wheeze to screw Starmer - only the LAB leader didn't play ball. They wanted him to launch high handed attacks on their plan but got instead silence. I can't think of any other explanation.

    Yes, Starmer is playing a blinder, so far. Silence is golden. Do not interfere when the enemy is tearing itself apart, which it is. He will stick the knife in when the time is ripe, I think - but that's not yet.
    People on here have a lot of faith in SKS's political abilities forgetting the disaster that he presided over last year in Labour's anti Brexit policy
    What disaster - he was in a position where he was trying to defend both a large number of Red Wall Brexit seats (didn't work out well) and remain voting seats. In reality he had little choice but to try to keep both sides happy which meant an impossible balancing act.
    Agreed. Given that the approach to Brexit at the last election managed to split John McDonnell and Corbyn, I'm not sure what other options Labour had. While some of the polling predictions have been shown to be iffy, it's clear that a lot of red wall seats would have gone blue with a pro-Brexit policy too.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 4,208
    Tech issue: I`m sure this has been flagged - but over the last couple of months when I try to access PB.com on my iphone a spam site comes up instead - "yourprizewinnings" or some such shite. I usually get through to the correct webpage on the fourth or fifth attempt.

    Any cure?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 12,580
    Alistair said:

    The way to build trillion dollar tech companies in the UK is surely to stop selling them to any passing American when they're million dollar tech companies.
    We sold Skyscanner to the Chinese when it was a billion pound company.
    :lol: The point still applies.
  • A voter who was told she couldn’t wear an anti-Trump shirt at a polling place because it violated electioneering rules simply whipped it off and did her civic duty topless.

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/topless-anti-trump-voter-new-hampshire_n_5f593958c5b62874bc17cf79?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000016&section=politics
  • HYUFD said:
    That flashback shows why Biden should have >90% chance of winning.

    No candidate I can think of in recent decades has gone backwards in their poll share from here, they normally both go forwards in share. Biden's share starting at 51% . . . Trump is not POTUS if Biden gets >51% of the vote realistically.

    Watch the share not the lead.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 5,755

    fox327 said:

    I believe the House of Lords has the power to delay this legislation for a year. The Salisbury Convention does not apply, as this measure was not in the Conservative manifesto in 2019. A lot can happen in a year. What is the House of Lords for anyway?

    And, in any case, the Salisbury Convention was derived from a Parliament more than half a century ago. We are told that no Parliament may bind is successor, in any case, so the Lords are free to do as they choose.
    And the Commons would be entitled to abolish the Lords.
    I have been staying away for a few days as the accumulation of Covid, Brexit, mass stabbing rampages, wildfires that turn the sky orange and sundry other emergencies and disasters is bad news for my sanity.

    All I'll say at this juncture is that (a) I hope that the Lords do indeed frustrate the Government on this one (if the Commons don't do it in the first place, which would be the ideal outcome,) and (b) if they have a massive fit of pique over the matter then they still can't attempt to get rid of the Lords for a year following publication of the relevant legislation, any more than they can get the Internal Market Bill through in less than a year if the Lords block it.

    If the Government feels it wants to walk away without a trade deal then that is its prerogative, but it really ought to stick to the agreement that it has already signed. Otherwise it shouldn't have signed it. Clearly even this basic level of consistency is now too much to ask for - although, sadly, this also comes as no surprise.

    And with that, I am off to make dinner, after which I shall be making a list of items to restock my societal collapse hoarding box.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,923
    Is it possible that COVID-19 has left the Tory leadership clinically insane?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,949

    HYUFD said:

    The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.

    Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.

    This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.

    The problem is there is no satisfactory Brexit for everyone.

    Diehard Remainers stlll oppose Brexit completely and want to rejoin the EU. Moderate Remainers and moderate Leavers may accept an EEA or EEA style FTA compromise which is the most the EU will give us but most Leavers would prefer No Deal WTO terms Brexit to that
    There never was going to be a satisfactory outcome for everyone. That is the nature of politics. But this has nothing to do with that. This is all about personal aggrandisement by Johnson.
    Hi Richard

    I know we have very different views on Cummings, although we agreed over his eye test. You’re a big admirer. I’m not.

    I have to say I see Cummings’ hand in this. It’s exactly the sort of thing he’s done before. Come up with an idea that sounds incredibly brilliant in isolation, and will never survive contact with reality, and then drive it through to show you can. Prorogation springs to mind. (I should mention I thought that was legal, although I also thought it was a very bad idea.)

    I speak from my experience of working in a sector he tried to reform, with disastrous results. You, on the other hand, have a much more detailed knowledge of his written work than I do.

    Do you think Cummings has anything to do with this? I’m genuinely interested in hearing your views. Because if he did, he will surely have to quit if the government is defeated - and if he didn’t, it suggests he’s lost a lot of personal influence although his style clearly remains intact.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 12,580

    Scott_xP said:
    So US is totally bizarre, EU an evil superstate, China a rogue superpower threat - who exactly is global Britain hoping to trade with? South Korea, Canada and Switzerland?
    We trade with all those countries - in the case of the US, very successfully. Apart from the EU, with no trade deal in sight. Why do remainers always try to conflate 'trade deals' with 'trade' and expect everyone to buy it like we're 5 years old?
    Because a key deliverable of the Brexit project is and was a US-UK trade deal. Not trade, but a trade deal.
    For some people, not all. Unease about TTIP was a big reason why many voted *for* Brexit.

    I have never been in favour of signing up to huge trade deals in the midst of leaving another. I favoured breathing space and quiet reflection, and a few years period of trading with other nations with tariff arrangements as they stood, before carefully and slowly entering in to any post-Brexit commitments.

    This would also have calmed expectations - all the 'fear' and its effect on the markets would be done with in one go - the rest would be completely known.

    I still think Brexit would have won had that been the plan.
    Well it is a key deliverable for the government regardless of your personal opinion. It is quite right for the public to hold the government to account and scrutiny on their promises and they promised a fantastic UK-US trade deal (I think expected by the year end.....) not continued UK-US trade.
    Well I have not been aware of that promise, and if such a thing was in the manifesto, then it was extremely stupid, as a 'deal' is clearly made up of two parties, and the US side could not be guaranteed. Another argument in favour of my period of self-imposed trade singledom.
    "Our goals for British trade are
    accordingly ambitious. We aim to have
    80 per cent of UK trade covered by
    free trade agreements within the next
    three years, starting with the USA"

    Finally we agree, the manifesto and its authors were stupid.
    We can agree that that passage is foolish (though to be fair, it does mention goals and ambitions, not promises) - I've already said what my policy would have been, and it's diametrically opposed to that, so naturally I don't agree with it.
  • eek said:

    The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.

    Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.

    This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.

    I suspect he will be remembered in history - the problem is that it won't be glorious - far more Eden than Churchill.
    There's a pious story that Pontius Pilate desperately wanted people to know his name for centuries to come.

    So God gave him what he wanted.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 4,666

    fox327 said:

    I believe the House of Lords has the power to delay this legislation for a year. The Salisbury Convention does not apply, as this measure was not in the Conservative manifesto in 2019. A lot can happen in a year. What is the House of Lords for anyway?

    And, in any case, the Salisbury Convention was derived from a Parliament more than half a century ago. We are told that no Parliament may bind is successor, in any case, so the Lords are free to do as they choose.
    And the Commons would be entitled to abolish the Lords.
    Good luck persuading the Conservative Party to destroy the House of Lords where it enjoys a permanent majority. Dominic Cummings is not a Conservative but the MPs are (by definition).
    The Lords is in effect a LD stronghold. They're there themselves, but there's a wet bias in the Tory ranks and a smug bias in those of the Labour contingent that mean it's LD central.
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 2,099
    By all means then. War it is.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,949

    A voter who was told she couldn’t wear an anti-Trump shirt at a polling place because it violated electioneering rules simply whipped it off and did her civic duty topless.

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/topless-anti-trump-voter-new-hampshire_n_5f593958c5b62874bc17cf79?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000016&section=politics

    Tits out to get the tit out?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 36,731
    edited September 10
    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

  • RH1992RH1992 Posts: 278
    rcs1000 said:

    Maybe Cummings has wargamed this to death, and expects the Internal Markets Bill gets voted down.

    He will therefore have gotten Boris's Brexit credentials burnished, without the UK actually breaking a whole bunch of international treaties.

    It's definitely 4D Chess when Cummings thinks the PM, a man whose word has the value of less than nothing here, should then trash what was left of his reputation with every friendly nation.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 12,580
    Alistair said:

    It does feel that Boris Cummings have u pinned a hand grenade expecting Labour to leap on it for them and Starmer is just wandering in the other direction saying it was a bad idea.

    This would have been a good post in which to use the name 'Doris' - a portmanteau word for 'Dom and Boris' that I invented.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Maybe Cummings has wargamed this to death, and expects the Internal Markets Bill gets voted down.

    He will therefore have gotten Boris's Brexit credentials burnished, without the UK actually breaking a whole bunch of international treaties.

    So what does the government do in the scenario where Parliament doesn't oblige?
    I think you're right about Plan A, but the next hit baffles me.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,624
    edited September 10
    My guess is that there will be a smallish Conservative rebellion. Starmer will oppose the bill with a "On the side of those that respect the law against those that break it" line. Quite effective. The bill will carry. The EU will effectively sit on its hands and run down the clock. No Deal. Maximum chaos. Meanwhile the epidemic rages and the NHS does its WInter collapse but even more so.

    But who knows?
  • eekeek Posts: 9,612
    edited September 10

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
  • LadyG said:

    By all means then. War it is.

    So you'll be joining the armed forces?

    Or are you lacking balls?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,949
    LadyG said:

    By all means then. War it is.

    Ummm...is there some context to that post?

    Or have you just started a bit early tonight?
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 2,643

    eek said:

    The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.

    Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.

    This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.

    I suspect he will be remembered in history - the problem is that it won't be glorious - far more Eden than Churchill.
    There's a pious story that Pontius Pilate desperately wanted people to know his name for centuries to come.

    So God gave him what he wanted.
    No Pontius Pilate, no Cross, no Resurrection, no Christianity. Are you sure you've thought this one through?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,506

    HYUFD said:
    That flashback shows why Biden should have >90% chance of winning.

    No candidate I can think of in recent decades has gone backwards in their poll share from here, they normally both go forwards in share. Biden's share starting at 51% . . . Trump is not POTUS if Biden gets >51% of the vote realistically.

    Watch the share not the lead.
    They have after the debates, which are still to come.

    However while Biden will almost certainly win the popular vote, even if he gets 51% if Trump gets 47% or 48% he still has a chance of winning the EC
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 34,017
    Stocky said:

    Tech issue: I`m sure this has been flagged - but over the last couple of months when I try to access PB.com on my iphone a spam site comes up instead - "yourprizewinnings" or some such shite. I usually get through to the correct webpage on the fourth or fifth attempt.

    Any cure?

    My fault.

    I'm struggling to reproduce it, and therefore solve the issue.

    WHich is REALLY ANNOYING
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 4,666

    Omnium said:

    It's ugly but we have to back the PM.

    No we do not. Our PM is, in my opinion, an incompetent, lazy, a*sehole with delusions of grandeur and is currently way, way, way above his correct pay grade.

    Omnium said:

    There can be no place for foreign intervention in UK politics no matter how mad they get.

    Well then, speak to Boris the Clown and his Keystone Cops (aka the ERG) because they provided the basis for an intervention.
    Omnium said:


    Happily the EU is going to back down.

    Why should they? I have no doubt that you would like them to back them, but what is in it for them? Appeasing a Rogue Govt? Last time that was tried, the (jack)boot was on the other foot.

    There is no upside for the EU in dancing to Boris's tune.
    1.Boris - perhaps but he's the PM.

    3. Just see (and just my guess). All of the 'not that' things you mention.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 4,208
    FF43 said:

    My guess is that there will be a smallish Conservative rebellion. Starmer will oppose the bill with a "On the side of those that respect the law against those that break it" line. Quite effective. The bill will carry. The EU will effectively sit on its hands and run down the clock. No Deal. Maximum chaos. Meanwhile the epidemic rages and the NHS does its WInter collapse but even more so.

    But who knows?

    I think Starmer will abstain.
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 2,099

    LadyG said:

    By all means then. War it is.

    So you'll be joining the armed forces?

    Or are you lacking balls?
    I have already put our feelers to the nascent Lesbian Newt Painters' Regiment. A bit like the Artists' Regiment in WW1, but with more Hitachi Magic Wands.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,949

    LadyG said:

    By all means then. War it is.

    So you'll be joining the armed forces?

    Or are you lacking balls?
    Surely he’s overage?

    Serious question actually - are transgender people allowed to serve in the armed forces? Would appreciate knowing the answer as it’s relevant to something I’m teaching.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,612
    LadyG said:

    By all means then. War it is.

    But with whom Oceania, Eurasia or Eastasia?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,949

    eek said:

    The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.

    Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.

    This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.

    I suspect he will be remembered in history - the problem is that it won't be glorious - far more Eden than Churchill.
    There's a pious story that Pontius Pilate desperately wanted people to know his name for centuries to come.

    So God gave him what he wanted.
    No Pontius Pilate, no Cross, no Resurrection, no Christianity. Are you sure you've thought this one through?
    Good tree.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 34,017
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    That flashback shows why Biden should have >90% chance of winning.

    No candidate I can think of in recent decades has gone backwards in their poll share from here, they normally both go forwards in share. Biden's share starting at 51% . . . Trump is not POTUS if Biden gets >51% of the vote realistically.

    Watch the share not the lead.
    They have after the debates, which are still to come.

    However while Biden will almost certainly win the popular vote, even if he gets 51% if Trump gets 47% or 48% he still has a chance of winning the EC
    He has a chance, sure. But don't forget that once he gets a lead of 3% in the popular vote - according to the tweet you shared from Nate Silver - then he gets up to a 75% chance. And he's still a 50-50 shot in the 2-3% lead range.
  • Tories gonna lie.
  • LadyG said:

    LadyG said:

    By all means then. War it is.

    So you'll be joining the armed forces?

    Or are you lacking balls?
    I have already put our feelers to the nascent Lesbian Newt Painters' Regiment. A bit like the Artists' Regiment in WW1, but with more Hitachi Magic Wands.
    You'd desert or surrender like a Frenchman on your first day.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,636

    eek said:


    eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:
    That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.

    The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.

    Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.

    Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's

    Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.

    This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
    You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.

    The consequences of which we will find out.
    The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
    You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?

    Laughable.

    You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
    All that matters is what Parliament does.

    Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first.
    Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.

    The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
    The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.

    The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.

    You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
    But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .

    The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
    I don't think there is any Supreme Court judgement that says that - as the judgement you are looking at doesn't look into international law and was purely about UK law..
    Because that is the law.

    International law is about international relations, there is no International Supreme Court to settle this.
    You once again miss the point of my statement - when presented with a case that has international aspects, firstly the Supreme court will have a reason to listen to it (as precedent hasn't been set) and secondly the end result may be different..

    You think the Supreme Court could rule that Parliament is not sovereign?

    That would be rather a landmark ruling. I find that hard to believe they would do that.
    That isn't what the Supreme court said last time round (regardless of the fact that is what you think they said) it it wouldn't be what they said this time around.

    What they would be saying is that the Internal Market Bill is illegal because of its disregard to International Treaties.
    Parliament has to have the right to disregard international treaties or we cease to be a sovereign democracy.
    I've got the sovereign right to smash my own windows this evening, doesn't mean it'd be a good idea.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,397
    Omnium said:

    fox327 said:

    I believe the House of Lords has the power to delay this legislation for a year. The Salisbury Convention does not apply, as this measure was not in the Conservative manifesto in 2019. A lot can happen in a year. What is the House of Lords for anyway?

    And, in any case, the Salisbury Convention was derived from a Parliament more than half a century ago. We are told that no Parliament may bind is successor, in any case, so the Lords are free to do as they choose.
    And the Commons would be entitled to abolish the Lords.
    Good luck persuading the Conservative Party to destroy the House of Lords where it enjoys a permanent majority. Dominic Cummings is not a Conservative but the MPs are (by definition).
    The Lords is in effect a LD stronghold. They're there themselves, but there's a wet bias in the Tory ranks and a smug bias in those of the Labour contingent that mean it's LD central.
    Good. At least there is sanity somewhere in the system.
  • eek said:

    The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.

    Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.

    This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.

    I suspect he will be remembered in history - the problem is that it won't be glorious - far more Eden than Churchill.
    There's a pious story that Pontius Pilate desperately wanted people to know his name for centuries to come.

    So God gave him what he wanted.
    No Pontius Pilate, no Cross, no Resurrection, no Christianity. Are you sure you've thought this one through?
    I'm just relating a story. And Christianity is comfortable with the idea of a happy sin that allows God's grace to be shown.

    But ask yourself- would you want to be remembered the way Pilate is remembered?
  • eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,921

    MY view is that the Cummmings/Johnson move to flout international law was actually a wheeze to screw Starmer - only the LAB leader didn't play ball. They wanted him to launch high handed attacks on their plan but got instead silence. I can't think of any other explanation.

    Quite right Mike. Apparently Boris was absolutely furious when Sir Keir destroyed him at PMQs - was shouting and screaming at minions etc. - so was probably out for revenge. However anger is not a suitable emotion from which to launch a political manoeuvre, hence the poor judgement and shambolic execution.
    Is that what this government has reduced us to? Trashing our international reputation and, by the look of it, our currency and credit rating, purely as a political gimmick aimed at an opposition that so far doesn’t even command a poll lead?

    I expected Boris to be bad, having personal experience to bring to bear, but never that bad.
  • ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.

    Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.

    This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.

    The problem is there is no satisfactory Brexit for everyone.

    Diehard Remainers stlll oppose Brexit completely and want to rejoin the EU. Moderate Remainers and moderate Leavers may accept an EEA or EEA style FTA compromise which is the most the EU will give us but most Leavers would prefer No Deal WTO terms Brexit to that
    There never was going to be a satisfactory outcome for everyone. That is the nature of politics. But this has nothing to do with that. This is all about personal aggrandisement by Johnson.
    Hi Richard

    I know we have very different views on Cummings, although we agreed over his eye test. You’re a big admirer. I’m not.

    I have to say I see Cummings’ hand in this. It’s exactly the sort of thing he’s done before. Come up with an idea that sounds incredibly brilliant in isolation, and will never survive contact with reality, and then drive it through to show you can. Prorogation springs to mind. (I should mention I thought that was legal, although I also thought it was a very bad idea.)

    I speak from my experience of working in a sector he tried to reform, with disastrous results. You, on the other hand, have a much more detailed knowledge of his written work than I do.

    Do you think Cummings has anything to do with this? I’m genuinely interested in hearing your views. Because if he did, he will surely have to quit if the government is defeated - and if he didn’t, it suggests he’s lost a lot of personal influence although his style clearly remains intact.
    I would like to think not but I suspect that even if he didn't come up with the idea he must have at least agreed to it and game played it.

    As I said, although it is of course pure speculation, I see the driving force here being Johnson. I think he is desperate for this to be a fight rather than a negotiation and for him to come out as the conquering hero. He believes that whatever fallout there might be will be ancient history by the time the next election comes around. He also has a well deserved reputation for being scornful of the law, whether it is international or domestic. I assume this stems from a horrendous sense of privilege.

    So yes I think Cummings must have had something to do with this but unlike the previous 'wheezes' I think the driving force and the origins of this one lie firmly with Johnson.

    As an aside is Cummings even back at Number 10 at the moment? I know he was out because of his much delayed operation at the start of the month.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,949

    eek said:

    The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.

    Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.

    This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.

    I suspect he will be remembered in history - the problem is that it won't be glorious - far more Eden than Churchill.
    There's a pious story that Pontius Pilate desperately wanted people to know his name for centuries to come.

    So God gave him what he wanted.
    No Pontius Pilate, no Cross, no Resurrection, no Christianity. Are you sure you've thought this one through?
    I'm just relating a story. And Christianity is comfortable with the idea of a happy sin that allows God's grace to be shown.

    But ask yourself- would you want to be remembered the way Pilate is remembered?
    Well, we’re actually all being encouraged to wash our hands more often, so I’d say he was ahead of his time there.
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 2,099

    LadyG said:

    LadyG said:

    By all means then. War it is.

    So you'll be joining the armed forces?

    Or are you lacking balls?
    I have already put our feelers to the nascent Lesbian Newt Painters' Regiment. A bit like the Artists' Regiment in WW1, but with more Hitachi Magic Wands.
    You'd desert or surrender like a Frenchman on your first day.
    I really wouldn't. Really. I am 57. I will die soon enough anyway, and besides, the world is ending. Fuck it, let us go down fighting for British independence from the vile EU. There are few worthier causes.

    I feel like a German airman in Le Chabanais circa 1943. Give me one more night of young women and fine amphetamines, then let me fly to my noble death, taking down some of the enemies as I burn.
  • ydoethur said:

    LadyG said:

    By all means then. War it is.

    So you'll be joining the armed forces?

    Or are you lacking balls?
    Surely he’s overage?

    Serious question actually - are transgender people allowed to serve in the armed forces? Would appreciate knowing the answer as it’s relevant to something I’m teaching.
    Yes. See
    https://apply.army.mod.uk/what-we-offer/what-we-stand-for/lgbt
    Googling RAF and RN policy is left as an exercise for the reader.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,777
    He really is!
  • eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
    Yes. I expect he will frame it, quite correctly, in terms of Boris wrecking the chances of the deal which Boris said he'd negotiate, thus setting up to blame Boris when this stuff becomes real in January. It will be richly deserved blame.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,612

    eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
    Why Starmer is damned if he opposes and damned if he abstains - but if he abstains he can't be blamed for the consequences which he would be if the Commons blocked the act.

    At the moment it's best to let Boris own this mess - as Starmer said earlier this week get Brexit done..
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 548
    LadyG said:

    LadyG said:

    LadyG said:

    By all means then. War it is.

    So you'll be joining the armed forces?

    Or are you lacking balls?
    I have already put our feelers to the nascent Lesbian Newt Painters' Regiment. A bit like the Artists' Regiment in WW1, but with more Hitachi Magic Wands.
    You'd desert or surrender like a Frenchman on your first day.
    I really wouldn't. Really. I am 57. I will die soon enough anyway, and besides, the world is ending. Fuck it, let us go down fighting for British independence from the vile EU. There are few worthier causes.

    I feel like a German airman in Le Chabanais circa 1943. Give me one more night of young women and fine amphetamines, then let me fly to my noble death, taking down some of the enemies as I burn.
    This is why my twenty and thirty something friends are convinced that there's been a bad batch of viagra or statins or something because this is grade A bonkers.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    That flashback shows why Biden should have >90% chance of winning.

    No candidate I can think of in recent decades has gone backwards in their poll share from here, they normally both go forwards in share. Biden's share starting at 51% . . . Trump is not POTUS if Biden gets >51% of the vote realistically.

    Watch the share not the lead.
    They have after the debates, which are still to come.

    However while Biden will almost certainly win the popular vote, even if he gets 51% if Trump gets 47% or 48% he still has a chance of winning the EC
    Name one candidate in recent decades please who has gone backwards in absolute share from here to election day?

    The lead can change absolutely but both candidates shares normally go up. If the lead changes its normally by one candidate getting the bulk of the "others" share, not because of a direct swing from here.
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
    Why Starmer is damned if he opposes and damned if he abstains - but if he abstains he can't be blamed for the consequences which he would be if the Commons blocked the act.

    At the moment it's best to let Boris own this mess - as Starmer said earlier this week get Brexit done..
    On an issue as important as this if Starmer fails to vote against he prostitutes his legal profession and trashes his integrity
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,949

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.

    Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.

    This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.

    The problem is there is no satisfactory Brexit for everyone.

    Diehard Remainers stlll oppose Brexit completely and want to rejoin the EU. Moderate Remainers and moderate Leavers may accept an EEA or EEA style FTA compromise which is the most the EU will give us but most Leavers would prefer No Deal WTO terms Brexit to that
    There never was going to be a satisfactory outcome for everyone. That is the nature of politics. But this has nothing to do with that. This is all about personal aggrandisement by Johnson.
    Hi Richard

    I know we have very different views on Cummings, although we agreed over his eye test. You’re a big admirer. I’m not.

    I have to say I see Cummings’ hand in this. It’s exactly the sort of thing he’s done before. Come up with an idea that sounds incredibly brilliant in isolation, and will never survive contact with reality, and then drive it through to show you can. Prorogation springs to mind. (I should mention I thought that was legal, although I also thought it was a very bad idea.)

    I speak from my experience of working in a sector he tried to reform, with disastrous results. You, on the other hand, have a much more detailed knowledge of his written work than I do.

    Do you think Cummings has anything to do with this? I’m genuinely interested in hearing your views. Because if he did, he will surely have to quit if the government is defeated - and if he didn’t, it suggests he’s lost a lot of personal influence although his style clearly remains intact.
    I would like to think not but I suspect that even if he didn't come up with the idea he must have at least agreed to it and game played it.

    As I said, although it is of course pure speculation, I see the driving force here being Johnson. I think he is desperate for this to be a fight rather than a negotiation and for him to come out as the conquering hero. He believes that whatever fallout there might be will be ancient history by the time the next election comes around. He also has a well deserved reputation for being scornful of the law, whether it is international or domestic. I assume this stems from a horrendous sense of privilege.

    So yes I think Cummings must have had something to do with this but unlike the previous 'wheezes' I think the driving force and the origins of this one lie firmly with Johnson.

    As an aside is Cummings even back at Number 10 at the moment? I know he was out because of his much delayed operation at the start of the month.
    Thanks.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 4,666

    Omnium said:

    fox327 said:

    I believe the House of Lords has the power to delay this legislation for a year. The Salisbury Convention does not apply, as this measure was not in the Conservative manifesto in 2019. A lot can happen in a year. What is the House of Lords for anyway?

    And, in any case, the Salisbury Convention was derived from a Parliament more than half a century ago. We are told that no Parliament may bind is successor, in any case, so the Lords are free to do as they choose.
    And the Commons would be entitled to abolish the Lords.
    Good luck persuading the Conservative Party to destroy the House of Lords where it enjoys a permanent majority. Dominic Cummings is not a Conservative but the MPs are (by definition).
    The Lords is in effect a LD stronghold. They're there themselves, but there's a wet bias in the Tory ranks and a smug bias in those of the Labour contingent that mean it's LD central.
    Good. At least there is sanity somewhere in the system.
    When they propel you to the Lords Mike it'll be even better.

    I think it is good, but there are so many poor choices and few good ones in terms of those appointed.

  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 3,200

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.

    Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.

    This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.

    The problem is there is no satisfactory Brexit for everyone.

    Diehard Remainers stlll oppose Brexit completely and want to rejoin the EU. Moderate Remainers and moderate Leavers may accept an EEA or EEA style FTA compromise which is the most the EU will give us but most Leavers would prefer No Deal WTO terms Brexit to that
    There never was going to be a satisfactory outcome for everyone. That is the nature of politics. But this has nothing to do with that. This is all about personal aggrandisement by Johnson.
    Hi Richard

    I know we have very different views on Cummings, although we agreed over his eye test. You’re a big admirer. I’m not.

    I have to say I see Cummings’ hand in this. It’s exactly the sort of thing he’s done before. Come up with an idea that sounds incredibly brilliant in isolation, and will never survive contact with reality, and then drive it through to show you can. Prorogation springs to mind. (I should mention I thought that was legal, although I also thought it was a very bad idea.)

    I speak from my experience of working in a sector he tried to reform, with disastrous results. You, on the other hand, have a much more detailed knowledge of his written work than I do.

    Do you think Cummings has anything to do with this? I’m genuinely interested in hearing your views. Because if he did, he will surely have to quit if the government is defeated - and if he didn’t, it suggests he’s lost a lot of personal influence although his style clearly remains intact.
    I would like to think not but I suspect that even if he didn't come up with the idea he must have at least agreed to it and game played it.

    As I said, although it is of course pure speculation, I see the driving force here being Johnson. I think he is desperate for this to be a fight rather than a negotiation and for him to come out as the conquering hero. He believes that whatever fallout there might be will be ancient history by the time the next election comes around. He also has a well deserved reputation for being scornful of the law, whether it is international or domestic. I assume this stems from a horrendous sense of privilege.

    So yes I think Cummings must have had something to do with this but unlike the previous 'wheezes' I think the driving force and the origins of this one lie firmly with Johnson.

    As an aside is Cummings even back at Number 10 at the moment? I know he was out because of his much delayed operation at the start of the month.
    The driving force of this is not Cummings or Johnson, its Farage.

    The tories don;t fear Roger irrelevant Keir Starmer.

    They fear a revival of the Brexit party, powered by a 'stab in the back' brexit and a mounting list of conservative voter grievances.

    A bad brexit or a cave in finishes Johnson's government, and it finishes the tories for a generation or more.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 11,355
    Starmer should whip against only if he thinks he can win. Otherwise no point getting involved.
  • OnboardG1 said:

    LadyG said:

    LadyG said:

    LadyG said:

    By all means then. War it is.

    So you'll be joining the armed forces?

    Or are you lacking balls?
    I have already put our feelers to the nascent Lesbian Newt Painters' Regiment. A bit like the Artists' Regiment in WW1, but with more Hitachi Magic Wands.
    You'd desert or surrender like a Frenchman on your first day.
    I really wouldn't. Really. I am 57. I will die soon enough anyway, and besides, the world is ending. Fuck it, let us go down fighting for British independence from the vile EU. There are few worthier causes.

    I feel like a German airman in Le Chabanais circa 1943. Give me one more night of young women and fine amphetamines, then let me fly to my noble death, taking down some of the enemies as I burn.
    This is why my twenty and thirty something friends are convinced that there's been a bad batch of viagra or statins or something because this is grade A bonkers.
    He does this from time to time. A few years ago he wanted to see bombs dropping on Hyde Park.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 548

    eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
    I think the eminent barrister who has spent his life upholding the rule of law will probably vote against. As well as that, I don't think the "Admit breaking the law while imposing more restrictions on people's social lives" strat is going down especially well. It has gone down like a lead baloon amongst my mostly Tory family. Again, anecdotes, but tory voters generally like law and order... and this ain't.
  • Starmer should whip against only if he thinks he can win. Otherwise no point getting involved.

    Starmer is a lawyer, anything other than voting against is a disgrace on him and his profession
  • LadyG said:

    LadyG said:

    LadyG said:

    By all means then. War it is.

    So you'll be joining the armed forces?

    Or are you lacking balls?
    I have already put our feelers to the nascent Lesbian Newt Painters' Regiment. A bit like the Artists' Regiment in WW1, but with more Hitachi Magic Wands.
    You'd desert or surrender like a Frenchman on your first day.
    I really wouldn't. Really. I am 57. I will die soon enough anyway, and besides, the world is ending. Fuck it, let us go down fighting for British independence from the vile EU. There are few worthier causes.

    I feel like a German airman in Le Chabanais circa 1943. Give me one more night of young women and fine amphetamines, then let me fly to my noble death, taking down some of the enemies as I burn.
    Yeah this isn't Sean ... 🤣
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 3,200

    eek said:

    eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
    Why Starmer is damned if he opposes and damned if he abstains - but if he abstains he can't be blamed for the consequences which he would be if the Commons blocked the act.

    At the moment it's best to let Boris own this mess - as Starmer said earlier this week get Brexit done..
    On an issue as important as this if Starmer fails to vote against he prostitutes his legal profession and trashes his integrity
    Vote against and Starmer knows he can wave goodbye to those red wall seats he wants to win back.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 11,355

    Starmer should whip against only if he thinks he can win. Otherwise no point getting involved.

    Starmer is a lawyer, anything other than voting against is a disgrace on him and his profession
    Big G surely you must appreciate that creating a “People vs Remoaners” narrative again is only going to make the government’s position stronger on this?
  • OnboardG1 said:

    eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
    I think the eminent barrister who has spent his life upholding the rule of law will probably vote against. As well as that, I don't think the "Admit breaking the law while imposing more restrictions on people's social lives" strat is going down especially well. It has gone down like a lead baloon amongst my mostly Tory family. Again, anecdotes, but tory voters generally like law and order... and this ain't.
    It has appalled me and I want Boris gone

    No one can attempt to subvert an international treaty no matter who they are
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,624
    edited September 10
    Stocky said:

    FF43 said:

    My guess is that there will be a smallish Conservative rebellion. Starmer will oppose the bill with a "On the side of those that respect the law against those that break it" line. Quite effective. The bill will carry. The EU will effectively sit on its hands and run down the clock. No Deal. Maximum chaos. Meanwhile the epidemic rages and the NHS does its WInter collapse but even more so.

    But who knows?

    I think Starmer will abstain.
    He associates himself with breaking the law and the loonier of Brexiteers in that case. I think Starmer has to oppose the motion. Which is why Cummings etc have gone down this route in the first place. But he doesn't want Johnson to cast him as a diehard Remainer. I suspect he will declare late, allow Conservative rebels to make the running, and eventually take a moral highpoint of supporting the rule of law against those that want to break it.

    Another thing he would be blamed if the bill failed because he didn't vote. He does have a big Remainer constituency that he has to keep onside. Labour won't support SNP/Lib Dem amendments however.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,777

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.

    Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.

    This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.

    The problem is there is no satisfactory Brexit for everyone.

    Diehard Remainers stlll oppose Brexit completely and want to rejoin the EU. Moderate Remainers and moderate Leavers may accept an EEA or EEA style FTA compromise which is the most the EU will give us but most Leavers would prefer No Deal WTO terms Brexit to that
    There never was going to be a satisfactory outcome for everyone. That is the nature of politics. But this has nothing to do with that. This is all about personal aggrandisement by Johnson.
    Hi Richard

    I know we have very different views on Cummings, although we agreed over his eye test. You’re a big admirer. I’m not.

    I have to say I see Cummings’ hand in this. It’s exactly the sort of thing he’s done before. Come up with an idea that sounds incredibly brilliant in isolation, and will never survive contact with reality, and then drive it through to show you can. Prorogation springs to mind. (I should mention I thought that was legal, although I also thought it was a very bad idea.)

    I speak from my experience of working in a sector he tried to reform, with disastrous results. You, on the other hand, have a much more detailed knowledge of his written work than I do.

    Do you think Cummings has anything to do with this? I’m genuinely interested in hearing your views. Because if he did, he will surely have to quit if the government is defeated - and if he didn’t, it suggests he’s lost a lot of personal influence although his style clearly remains intact.
    I would like to think not but I suspect that even if he didn't come up with the idea he must have at least agreed to it and game played it.

    As I said, although it is of course pure speculation, I see the driving force here being Johnson. I think he is desperate for this to be a fight rather than a negotiation and for him to come out as the conquering hero. He believes that whatever fallout there might be will be ancient history by the time the next election comes around. He also has a well deserved reputation for being scornful of the law, whether it is international or domestic. I assume this stems from a horrendous sense of privilege.

    So yes I think Cummings must have had something to do with this but unlike the previous 'wheezes' I think the driving force and the origins of this one lie firmly with Johnson.

    As an aside is Cummings even back at Number 10 at the moment? I know he was out because of his much delayed operation at the start of the month.
    The driving force of this is not Cummings or Johnson, its Farage.

    The tories don;t fear Roger irrelevant Keir Starmer.

    They fear a revival of the Brexit party, powered by a 'stab in the back' brexit and a mounting list of conservative voter grievances.

    A bad brexit or a cave in finishes Johnson's government, and it finishes the tories for a generation or more.
    What is your definition of a bad Brexit?
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
    Why Starmer is damned if he opposes and damned if he abstains - but if he abstains he can't be blamed for the consequences which he would be if the Commons blocked the act.

    At the moment it's best to let Boris own this mess - as Starmer said earlier this week get Brexit done..
    A bit like Florida in the US election, Starmer's a bit irrelevant here. If 50ish Conservative MPs decide/announce that they must oppose this (which they blooming well should), then the bill is dead before the vote, and possibly the Johnson ministry with it and good riddance.

    Without that many defectors, the bill goes through the Commons anyway.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 4,666

    Starmer should whip against only if he thinks he can win. Otherwise no point getting involved.

    Starmer is a lawyer, anything other than voting against is a disgrace on him and his profession
    Starmer is a clever lawyer. He'll wait. He also knows that the Government is taking an entirely practical step.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,949
    edited September 10

    Starmer should whip against only if he thinks he can win. Otherwise no point getting involved.

    Starmer is a lawyer, anything other than voting against is a disgrace on him and his profession
    He can vote against without imposing a whip.

    He could say as Brexit is concluded by this deal there is no point in further party politics, and he leaves it up to the conscience of his MPs as to how they respond to the government’s criminality.
  • Starmer should whip against only if he thinks he can win. Otherwise no point getting involved.

    Starmer is a lawyer, anything other than voting against is a disgrace on him and his profession
    Big G surely you must appreciate that creating a “People vs Remoaners” narrative again is only going to make the government’s position stronger on this?
    You cannot be the former head of the CPS and not vote against this bill.

    If he does not vote against it how can anyone view his judgment on anything legal or otherwise

    It may prove difficult politically but what price integrity
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 7,963
    About 90% of the population will be appalled by this.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 3,200

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.

    Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.

    This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.

    The problem is there is no satisfactory Brexit for everyone.

    Diehard Remainers stlll oppose Brexit completely and want to rejoin the EU. Moderate Remainers and moderate Leavers may accept an EEA or EEA style FTA compromise which is the most the EU will give us but most Leavers would prefer No Deal WTO terms Brexit to that
    There never was going to be a satisfactory outcome for everyone. That is the nature of politics. But this has nothing to do with that. This is all about personal aggrandisement by Johnson.
    Hi Richard

    I know we have very different views on Cummings, although we agreed over his eye test. You’re a big admirer. I’m not.

    I have to say I see Cummings’ hand in this. It’s exactly the sort of thing he’s done before. Come up with an idea that sounds incredibly brilliant in isolation, and will never survive contact with reality, and then drive it through to show you can. Prorogation springs to mind. (I should mention I thought that was legal, although I also thought it was a very bad idea.)

    I speak from my experience of working in a sector he tried to reform, with disastrous results. You, on the other hand, have a much more detailed knowledge of his written work than I do.

    Do you think Cummings has anything to do with this? I’m genuinely interested in hearing your views. Because if he did, he will surely have to quit if the government is defeated - and if he didn’t, it suggests he’s lost a lot of personal influence although his style clearly remains intact.
    I would like to think not but I suspect that even if he didn't come up with the idea he must have at least agreed to it and game played it.

    As I said, although it is of course pure speculation, I see the driving force here being Johnson. I think he is desperate for this to be a fight rather than a negotiation and for him to come out as the conquering hero. He believes that whatever fallout there might be will be ancient history by the time the next election comes around. He also has a well deserved reputation for being scornful of the law, whether it is international or domestic. I assume this stems from a horrendous sense of privilege.

    So yes I think Cummings must have had something to do with this but unlike the previous 'wheezes' I think the driving force and the origins of this one lie firmly with Johnson.

    As an aside is Cummings even back at Number 10 at the moment? I know he was out because of his much delayed operation at the start of the month.
    The driving force of this is not Cummings or Johnson, its Farage.

    The tories don;t fear Roger irrelevant Keir Starmer.

    They fear a revival of the Brexit party, powered by a 'stab in the back' brexit and a mounting list of conservative voter grievances.

    A bad brexit or a cave in finishes Johnson's government, and it finishes the tories for a generation or more.
    What is your definition of a bad Brexit?
    One that Farage can spin as a betrayal. There are some kinds of deal he simply will not be able to do that with. He knows that and that's why he ain't in politics right now.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,949
    Andy_JS said:

    About 90% of the population will be appalled by this.
    Yeah, it didn’t go down well when the anti capitalist rioters in London in the late 90s defaced the Churchill statue and the cenotaph.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,777

    Starmer should whip against only if he thinks he can win. Otherwise no point getting involved.

    Starmer is a lawyer, anything other than voting against is a disgrace on him and his profession
    Maybe, but does that mean he falls headfirst into Johnson and Cummings' wizard wheeze elephant trap?
  • ydoethur said:

    Starmer should whip against only if he thinks he can win. Otherwise no point getting involved.

    Starmer is a lawyer, anything other than voting against is a disgrace on him and his profession
    He can vote against without imposing a whip.

    He could say as Brexit is concluded by this deal there is no point in further party politics, and he leaves it up to the conscience of his MPs as to how they respond to the government’s criminality.
    That is not leadership
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
    Why Starmer is damned if he opposes and damned if he abstains - but if he abstains he can't be blamed for the consequences which he would be if the Commons blocked the act.

    At the moment it's best to let Boris own this mess - as Starmer said earlier this week get Brexit done..
    A bit like Florida in the US election, Starmer's a bit irrelevant here. If 50ish Conservative MPs decide/announce that they must oppose this (which they blooming well should), then the bill is dead before the vote, and possibly the Johnson ministry with it and good riddance.

    Without that many defectors, the bill goes through the Commons anyway.
    Thank goodness Grieve and co excommunicated themselves last term.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,777

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.

    Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.

    This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.

    The problem is there is no satisfactory Brexit for everyone.

    Diehard Remainers stlll oppose Brexit completely and want to rejoin the EU. Moderate Remainers and moderate Leavers may accept an EEA or EEA style FTA compromise which is the most the EU will give us but most Leavers would prefer No Deal WTO terms Brexit to that
    There never was going to be a satisfactory outcome for everyone. That is the nature of politics. But this has nothing to do with that. This is all about personal aggrandisement by Johnson.
    Hi Richard

    I know we have very different views on Cummings, although we agreed over his eye test. You’re a big admirer. I’m not.

    I have to say I see Cummings’ hand in this. It’s exactly the sort of thing he’s done before. Come up with an idea that sounds incredibly brilliant in isolation, and will never survive contact with reality, and then drive it through to show you can. Prorogation springs to mind. (I should mention I thought that was legal, although I also thought it was a very bad idea.)

    I speak from my experience of working in a sector he tried to reform, with disastrous results. You, on the other hand, have a much more detailed knowledge of his written work than I do.

    Do you think Cummings has anything to do with this? I’m genuinely interested in hearing your views. Because if he did, he will surely have to quit if the government is defeated - and if he didn’t, it suggests he’s lost a lot of personal influence although his style clearly remains intact.
    I would like to think not but I suspect that even if he didn't come up with the idea he must have at least agreed to it and game played it.

    As I said, although it is of course pure speculation, I see the driving force here being Johnson. I think he is desperate for this to be a fight rather than a negotiation and for him to come out as the conquering hero. He believes that whatever fallout there might be will be ancient history by the time the next election comes around. He also has a well deserved reputation for being scornful of the law, whether it is international or domestic. I assume this stems from a horrendous sense of privilege.

    So yes I think Cummings must have had something to do with this but unlike the previous 'wheezes' I think the driving force and the origins of this one lie firmly with Johnson.

    As an aside is Cummings even back at Number 10 at the moment? I know he was out because of his much delayed operation at the start of the month.
    The driving force of this is not Cummings or Johnson, its Farage.

    The tories don;t fear Roger irrelevant Keir Starmer.

    They fear a revival of the Brexit party, powered by a 'stab in the back' brexit and a mounting list of conservative voter grievances.

    A bad brexit or a cave in finishes Johnson's government, and it finishes the tories for a generation or more.
    What is your definition of a bad Brexit?
    One that Farage can spin as a betrayal. There are some kinds of deal he simply will not be able to do that with. He knows that and that's why he ain't in politics right now.
    Isn't that a massive example of the tail wagging the dog?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,949

    ydoethur said:

    Starmer should whip against only if he thinks he can win. Otherwise no point getting involved.

    Starmer is a lawyer, anything other than voting against is a disgrace on him and his profession
    He can vote against without imposing a whip.

    He could say as Brexit is concluded by this deal there is no point in further party politics, and he leaves it up to the conscience of his MPs as to how they respond to the government’s criminality.
    That is not leadership
    would be quite shrewd though.

    Remember, Tony Blair and John Smith were both opportunistic cowards. Didn’t hurt them much.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,624

    eek said:

    eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
    Why Starmer is damned if he opposes and damned if he abstains - but if he abstains he can't be blamed for the consequences which he would be if the Commons blocked the act.

    At the moment it's best to let Boris own this mess - as Starmer said earlier this week get Brexit done..
    On an issue as important as this if Starmer fails to vote against he prostitutes his legal profession and trashes his integrity
    Vote against and Starmer knows he can wave goodbye to those red wall seats he wants to win back.
    The assumption here is that all Leave and Johnson voters are deranged fanatics. I think Starmer's tactics are to win over those that just wanted to make Brexit and the EU go away and leave the fanatics to Johnson.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 2,643
    edited September 10
    But of course it has. Because how could one possibly demonstrate on the issue of climate change without lumping in a load of far-left dogma along with it?
  • Starmer should whip against only if he thinks he can win. Otherwise no point getting involved.

    Starmer is a lawyer, anything other than voting against is a disgrace on him and his profession
    Maybe, but does that mean he falls headfirst into Johnson and Cummings' wizard wheeze elephant trap?
    It is not maybe.

    There are times you have to stand up for integrity and this is one of them

    The consequences of him not doing so could be profound and open the door to a full on attacks from the Lib Dems
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,260

    eek said:

    eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
    Why Starmer is damned if he opposes and damned if he abstains - but if he abstains he can't be blamed for the consequences which he would be if the Commons blocked the act.

    At the moment it's best to let Boris own this mess - as Starmer said earlier this week get Brexit done..
    On an issue as important as this if Starmer fails to vote against he prostitutes his legal profession and trashes his integrity
    Vote against and Starmer knows he can wave goodbye to those red wall seats he wants to win back.
    Do you think they understand or are even interested in this, brexit is done as far as they are concerned.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,777

    eek said:

    eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
    Why Starmer is damned if he opposes and damned if he abstains - but if he abstains he can't be blamed for the consequences which he would be if the Commons blocked the act.

    At the moment it's best to let Boris own this mess - as Starmer said earlier this week get Brexit done..
    A bit like Florida in the US election, Starmer's a bit irrelevant here. If 50ish Conservative MPs decide/announce that they must oppose this (which they blooming well should), then the bill is dead before the vote, and possibly the Johnson ministry with it and good riddance.

    Without that many defectors, the bill goes through the Commons anyway.
    Thank goodness Grieve and co excommunicated themselves last term.
    They are free to stir the pot any which way they please, which could be a minor embarrassment for Johnson.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 11,355
    edited September 10
    nichomar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
    Why Starmer is damned if he opposes and damned if he abstains - but if he abstains he can't be blamed for the consequences which he would be if the Commons blocked the act.

    At the moment it's best to let Boris own this mess - as Starmer said earlier this week get Brexit done..
    On an issue as important as this if Starmer fails to vote against he prostitutes his legal profession and trashes his integrity
    Vote against and Starmer knows he can wave goodbye to those red wall seats he wants to win back.
    Do you think they understand or are even interested in this, brexit is done as far as they are concerned.
    They’ll be interested when the headlines are “Labour remoaners votes to ruin our negotiating position” or similar.

    “Brexit would have been great if it wasn’t for Labour remoaner sabotage”.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,651

    ydoethur said:

    Starmer should whip against only if he thinks he can win. Otherwise no point getting involved.

    Starmer is a lawyer, anything other than voting against is a disgrace on him and his profession
    He can vote against without imposing a whip.

    He could say as Brexit is concluded by this deal there is no point in further party politics, and he leaves it up to the conscience of his MPs as to how they respond to the government’s criminality.
    That is not leadership
    This Boris's mess, the Tories mess. No one forced Boris or Cummings or whoever come up with this stupid bill that caused this shambles and destroyed the country's reputation.

    Give me one reason why Starmer should stand up and take the flak for you!
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,624

    Starmer should whip against only if he thinks he can win. Otherwise no point getting involved.

    Starmer is a lawyer, anything other than voting against is a disgrace on him and his profession
    Maybe, but does that mean he falls headfirst into Johnson and Cummings' wizard wheeze elephant trap?
    He falls into Cumming's elephant trap if he doesn't oppose it. Hence the trap and Cummings' cunning plan. What Starmer needs to do is to vote against the motion in such a way that doesn't come across as a bitter Remainer looking to thwart Brexit. I think he's capable of doing that and at the same time making Johnson look shabby.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,777

    Starmer should whip against only if he thinks he can win. Otherwise no point getting involved.

    Starmer is a lawyer, anything other than voting against is a disgrace on him and his profession
    Maybe, but does that mean he falls headfirst into Johnson and Cummings' wizard wheeze elephant trap?
    It is not maybe.

    There are times you have to stand up for integrity and this is one of them

    The consequences of him not doing so could be profound and open the door to a full on attacks from the Lib Dems
    Johnson thinks he is onto a sure-fire winner, so Starmer has to tread carefully. Although I would be surprised if Starmer didn't swing towards your point of view at least at the eleventh hour.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 3,200

    nichomar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    I suspect the EU legal threat is just what Boris and Cummings had wished for. It is time for Starmer to stand up for the law and whip his mps to vote against this legislation but having said that, that may just be Boris and Cummings hope so they can portray themselves as UK standing up against the EU and the labour party acting in collusion with them

    I have no idea where this goes but I hope it ends with Boris going

    And we have a pandemic that is becoming ever increasingly serious to deal with

    Nope Starmer should really decide on a day trip out to some other part of the country say to investigate the fishing industry in Scotland leaving the Tories to own this disaster...

    As we saw in the arguments earlier today where Labour was blamed for not letting May's deal go through - this time round Labour should be letting Boris do what he wants - if his party can't stop him why should the opposition try.
    If Starmer abstains on a vote of this importance he is tarred with the same brush as Boris

    Where is integrity - he has to oppose
    Why Starmer is damned if he opposes and damned if he abstains - but if he abstains he can't be blamed for the consequences which he would be if the Commons blocked the act.

    At the moment it's best to let Boris own this mess - as Starmer said earlier this week get Brexit done..
    On an issue as important as this if Starmer fails to vote against he prostitutes his legal profession and trashes his integrity
    Vote against and Starmer knows he can wave goodbye to those red wall seats he wants to win back.
    Do you think they understand or are even interested in this, brexit is done as far as they are concerned.
    They’ll be interested when the headlines are “Labour remoaners votes to ruin our negotiating position” or similar.

    “Brexit would have been great if it wasn’t for Labour remoaner sabotage”.
    Indeed and that is why labour should abstain.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,777
    FF43 said:

    Starmer should whip against only if he thinks he can win. Otherwise no point getting involved.

    Starmer is a lawyer, anything other than voting against is a disgrace on him and his profession
    Maybe, but does that mean he falls headfirst into Johnson and Cummings' wizard wheeze elephant trap?
    He falls into Cumming's elephant trap if he doesn't oppose it. Hence the trap and Cummings' cunning plan. What Starmer needs to do is to vote against the motion in such a way that doesn't come across as a bitter Remainer looking to thwart Brexit. I think he's capable of doing that and at the same time making Johnson look shabby.
    I think you are right.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 4,208
    Andy_JS said:

    About 90% of the population will be appalled by this.
    Only 90%? Shows how the left barmy fringe has infiltrated ER.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 12,580

    But of course it has. Because how could one possibly demonstrate on the subject of climate change without lumping in a load of far-left dogma along with it?
    It's an oddly irrelevant epithet to choose for a climate change rally. 'had a really big carbon footprint' would be more to the point. Perhaps someone turned up for the wrong rally.
  • ydoethur said:

    Starmer should whip against only if he thinks he can win. Otherwise no point getting involved.

    Starmer is a lawyer, anything other than voting against is a disgrace on him and his profession
    He can vote against without imposing a whip.

    He could say as Brexit is concluded by this deal there is no point in further party politics, and he leaves it up to the conscience of his MPs as to how they respond to the government’s criminality.
    That is not leadership
    This Boris's mess, the Tories mess. No one forced Boris or Cummings or whoever come up with this stupid bill that caused this shambles and destroyed the country's reputation.

    Give me one reason why Starmer should stand up and take the flak for you!
    Hang on

    I am calling for Boris to resign

    Starmer was the head of the CPS and abdicating a vote against this bill is just wrong on so many levels and will trash his integrity

    Also why is he taking flak for doing the right thing
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,949
    Stocky said:

    Andy_JS said:

    About 90% of the population will be appalled by this.
    Only 90%? Shows how the left barmy fringe has infiltrated ER.
    ‘Infiltrated?’ It was founded by them!
This discussion has been closed.