Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

SunnyJim said:

HYUFD said:

The Queen will not be intervening on the side of Remainers, merely respecting the will of Parliament.

It is also constitutionally sound, since the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution our unwritten constitution and constitutional monarchy has been based on the principle the monarch accepts the will of Parliament and the Queen knows that absolutely.


The idea the Queen will put whatever May wants over what Parliament wants when May does not even have a majority in Parliament is absurd. In any case May last week effectively said it was up to Parliament to set the way forward after rejecting her Deal

Why would the Queen put whatever a few hundred MP's want over the what the majority of her subjects voted for?

Aside from the fact that no-one seems to know precisely what they voted for, the Queen's involvement nowadays is purely formal; she follows whatever parliament has decided.

Indeed and Parliament has decided to make May PM. Parliament has decided to invoke Article 50. So as things stand that's where we are.

If Parliament decides to replace May with a PM that will revoke Article 50 and if Parliament votes to give May's successor that power then that is within Parliaments rights.

Parliament won't revoke Article 50 on its own, it will return that power to the voters in an EUref2 reverse Brexit and Remain v Leave with Deal referendum

It is funny how often you make these statements of fact which then turn out to be completely wrong.

Penddu said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

SunnyJim said:

HYUFD said:

The Queen will not be intervening on the side of Remainers, merely respecting the will of Parliament.

It is also constitutionally sound, since the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution our unwritten constitution and constitutional monarchy has been based on the principle the monarch accepts the will of Parliament and the Queen knows that absolutely.


The idea the Queen will put whatever May wants over what Parliament wants when May does not even have a majority in Parliament is absurd. In any case May last week effectively said it was up to Parliament to set the way forward after rejecting her Deal

Why would the Queen put whatever a few hundred MP's want over the what the majority of her subjects voted for?

Aside from the fact that no-one seems to know precisely what they voted for, the Queen's involvement nowadays is purely formal; she follows whatever parliament has decided.

Indeed and Parliament has decided to make May PM. Parliament has decided to invoke Article 50. So as things stand that's where we are.

If Parliament decides to replace May with a PM that will revoke Article 50 and if Parliament votes to give May's successor that power then that is within Parliaments rights.

Parliament won't revoke Article 50 on its own, it will return that power to the voters in an EUref2 reverse Brexit and Remain v Leave with Deal referendum

It is funny how often you make these statements of fact which then turn out to be completely wrong.

Parliament can revoke A50 on its own but probably doesnt want to. It would prefer a referendum to justify it.
May can probably revoke A50 on her own but wont want to unless there is no alternative by 28 March.

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Only 100 to 150 MPs back No Deal, 300 MPs odd back Remain, 202 MPs back the Deal.

In my view a Remain v Deal referendum is more likely than No Deal and of course the Commons could well vote to force May to extend Article 50 if no Deal is agreed by mid February this week too based on Grieve and Cooper's proposals

And how will Parliament force the EU to extend (remember they need the agreement of every one of those 27 countries) if there is no prospect of a deal being sorted in the medium term? Remember the EU have made very clear they will only accept an extension for a second referendum or a GE - though they will probably agree one to facilitate a deal if it has already been completely agreed before March 29th.

Basically no matter what Grieve does, there will be a No Deal if something else is not there to replace it.

It will be an extension merely to EUref2, Remain v Deal, so the EU will agree that. ]

A Remain v Deal EUref is the likeliest option now

Really? I see nothing at all to indicate that is likely and it will be fought all the way by the Leave side. You like to believe that it will happen but it is likely there will be a Deal vs No Deal ballot

500 MPs back Remain or Deal, you only need 326 for a majority, thus it only takes a handful of Deal backers to switch to a Remain v Deal EUref2 after the Deal alone was rejected for EUref2 to have a majority.

Deal or No Deal supporters number about 300-350 combined but even then a number of No Dealers will stick to No Deal regardless not EUref2 unless they think the Deal or a Deal v No Deal poll is the only way of stopping a Deal v Remain poll

You forget that to actually get to the referendum the question has to be approved by the Electoral Commission and then will be subject to a series of legal challenges. The idea that Parliament just decides to ignore a third of the population and no one objects is for the fairies.

And if it did get to the referendum on that basis then you can expect the whole thing to be fatally undermined by a boycott. The referendum might be legally accepted but the result would be rendered worthless as a means of settling the question.

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Only 100 to 150 MPs back No Deal, 300 MPs odd back Remain, 202 MPs back the Deal.

In my view a Remain v Deal referendum is more likely than No Deal and of course the Commons could well vote to force May to extend Article 50 if no Deal is agreed by mid February this week too based on Grieve and Cooper's proposals

And how will Parliament force the EU to extend (remember they need the agreement of every one of those 27 countries) if there is no prospect of a deal being sorted in the medium term? Remember the EU have made very clear they will only accept an extension for a second referendum or a GE - though they will probably agree one to facilitate a deal if it has already been completely agreed before March 29th.

Basically no matter what Grieve does, there will be a No Deal if something else is not there to replace it.

It will be an extension merely to EUref2, Remain v Deal, so the EU will agree that. ]

A Remain v Deal EUref is the likeliest option now

Really? I see nothing at all to indicate that is likely and it will be fought all the way by the Leave side. You like to believe that it will happen but it is likely there will be a Deal vs No Deal ballot

y of stopping a Deal v Remain poll

You forget that to actually get to the referendum the question has to be approved by the Electoral Commission and then will be subject to a series of legal challenges. The idea that Parliament just decides to ignore a third of the population and no one objects is for the fairies.

And if it did get to the referendum on that basis then you can expect the whole thing to be fatally undermined by a boycott. The referendum might be legally accepted but the result would be rendered worthless as a means of settling the question.

nico67 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

nico67 said:

This has been covered many times . Legally May does not need approval of the Commons to revoke or extend article 50.

The Gina Miller case was won because Royal Perogative cannot be used to remove rights of citizens without approval of Parliament .

Revoking or extending article 50 does not remove rights of citizens . If it ended up back in court that is the key point . Of course politically that’s a different issue altogether .

TM has to have 'constututional' approval to revoke A50 as set out by the ECJ

There is no UK constitution. May has to adhere with the correct legal procedures . The Supreme Court dealt with the abrogation of rights . Those rights when triggering Article 50 would automatically fall away that’s why the government lost .

The case defined what is allowed using the Royal Perogative , the disgraceful smearing of Gina Miller by some Leavers showed how clueless most of then where re the fundamental importance of her winning .

If the government had won they could in future at the stroke of a pen change UK citizens rights . But the disgusting right wing media were too busy peddling lies and calling her everything under the sun .

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

nico67 said:

This has been covered many times . Legally May does not need approval of the Commons to revoke or extend article 50.

The Gina Miller case was won because Royal Perogative cannot be used to remove rights of citizens without approval of Parliament .

Revoking or extending article 50 does not remove rights of citizens . If it ended up back in court that is the key point . Of course politically that’s a different issue altogether .

I really don't think it is as clear cut as that. The point of the Miller case was that a government cannot amend substantive law in the UK by treaty without the agreement of Parliament. Our substantive law now includes the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 passed by Parliament. In my opinion the logic of Miller is that the government cannot overrule an Act such as that without the express approval of Parliament.

I am not saying that it is impossible to make a counter argument, I am simply saying this is not clear cut.

Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.

As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

SunnyJim said:

HYUFD said:

Parliament remains sovereign, Grieve and Bercow know the law and the constitution back to front and that if they can get Parliament to vote to extend Article 50 this week they are now in control not the PM.

Does Parliament have the actual authority to extend A50?

Or does that authority remain with the executive regardless of what parliament may demand?

Yes, the Crown in Parliament is sovereign, so if the Commons and Lords votes for it that will likely be what happens as the Queen will then almost certainly approve it.

Never forget the executive is ultimately the Queen, May and her Cabinet are merely the Queen's chief ministers in Parliament

No, the Sovereign is the Sovereign. The clue's in the name. The executive are those who exercise power and execute decisions on behalf of the sovereign. That is also one where the clue's in the name.

No, the Crown is not sovereign, we are not an absolute monarchy, the Crown in Parliament is sovereign as we are a constitutional monarchy. Therefore the Crown ultimately has to have a majority in Parliament to function and the Crown therefore always bows to the will of Parliament in the end, as has been the case since the Civil War and Glorious Revolution. The Queen will thus accept whatever has a majority in Parliament.

Theresa May is NOT the Crown in any case, merely a Minister of the Crown, the Queen remains the Crown and the Queen remains the executive at the end of the day.

The Queen won't get involved. Her authority is vested in the Prime Minister who has the Confidence of Parliament.

The Bill authorising Article 50 invocation did not have the Queen invoke it, it gave the authority to the PM.

If Parliament wants to replace the executive then they can do so.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Floater said:

HYUFD said:

Hilary Benn on Marr confirms he will shift to back EUref2 if the PM does not move to propose permanent Customs Union membership

Is that Labour's official position, or just one of several?

Of course it is not. Labour are saying all kinds of different things and ignoring the outright rejection of a referendum by a large number of labour mps in leave areas, as expressed by Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy yesterday

Flint and Nandy are ignoring settled party policy, 90% of members, and 2/3 of party supporters.

Not just Flint and Nandy but many more, indeed sufficient with conservative mps, to ensure a referendum has nowhere near enough mps to pass it, a position recently confirmed by Chuka Umunna

Indeed David Lammy is so alarmed by this he is actively saying labour could split

rural_voter said:

Matthew Parris, on R4 now.

'... People blame MPs for failing to solve the insoluble ...'

Quite.

Barnesian said:

ydoethur said:

SunnyJim said:

HYUFD said:

Yes, Parliament is sovereign, so if the Commons and Lords votes for it that will likely be what happens as the Queen will then almost certainly approve it.

Never forget the executive is ultimately the Queen, May and her Cabinet are merely the Queen's chief ministers in Parliament

So are you saying that in a situation where...

1. MP's vote for extending A50

2. The Lords support

3. May refuses

We will see the then Queen intervene on the side of remainers?

I'm no constitutional expert (that much is clear) but this sounds ludicrous.

It might also be worth pointing out at this juncture that it has long been rumoured that Her Maj ain't a big fan of the EU. While she has generally (with very rare exceptions) had the sense to keep her views on controversial matters private, that seems plausible to me. The Commonwealth has always been where she's directed her energies. I can't therefore see her going against the advice of her Ministers under such circumstances and any such claim is wishful thinking.

The only option then left to Parliament would be to remove the Ministers in question and put in place ones who will act on Parliament's orders.

Oh, that's right, they can't do that, Corbyn having the brains of a retarded dung beetle or Andrew Bridgen has shot his bolt on confidence motions.

What a shambles.

Is the Queen wearing an EU hat?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-40356113

It is rumoured that the Queen chooses her hats with care.

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Only 100 to 150 MPs back No Deal, 300 MPs odd back Remain, 202 MPs back the Deal.

In my view a Remain v Deal referendum is more likely than No Deal and of course the Commons could well vote to force May to extend Article 50 if no Deal is agreed by mid February this week too based on Grieve and Cooper's proposals

And how will Parliament force the EU to extend (remember they need the agreement of every one of those 27 countries) if there is no prospect of a deal being sorted in the medium term? Remember the EU have made very clear they will only accept an extension for a second referendum or a GE - though they will probably agree one to facilitate a deal if it has already been completely agreed before March 29th.

Basically no matter what Grieve does, there will be a No Deal if something else is not there to replace it.

It will be an extension merely to EUref2, Remain v Deal, so the EU will agree that. ]

A Remain v Deal EUref is the likeliest option now

Really? I see nothing at all to indicate that is likely and it will be fought all the way by the Leave side. You like to believe that it will happen but it is likely there will be a Deal vs No Deal ballot

500 MPs back Remain or Deal, you only need 326 for a majority, thus it only takes a handful of Deal backers to switch to a Remain v Deal EUref2 after the Deal alone was rejected for EUref2 to have a majority.

Deal or No Deal supporters number about 300-350 combined but even then a number of No Dealers will stick to No Deal regardless not EUref2 unless they think the Deal or a Deal v No Deal poll is the only way of stopping a Deal v Remain poll

You forget that to actually get to the referendum the question has to be approved by the Electoral Commission and then will be subject to a series of legal challenges. The idea that Parliament just decides to ignore a third of the population and no one objects is for the fairies.

And if it did get to the referendum on that basis then you can expect the whole thing to be fatally undermined by a boycott. The referendum might be legally accepted but the result would be rendered worthless as a means of settling the question.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

nico67 said:

This has been covered many times . Legally May does not need approval of the Commons to revoke or extend article 50.

The Gina Miller case was won because Royal Perogative cannot be used to remove rights of citizens without approval of Parliament .

Revoking or extending article 50 does not remove rights of citizens . If it ended up back in court that is the key point . Of course politically that’s a different issue altogether .

I really don't think it is as clear cut as that. The point of the Miller case was that a government cannot amend substantive law in the UK by treaty without the agreement of Parliament. Our substantive law now includes the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 passed by Parliament. In my opinion the logic of Miller is that the government cannot overrule an Act such as that without the express approval of Parliament.

I am not saying that it is impossible to make a counter argument, I am simply saying this is not clear cut.

Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.

As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.

As am I and it seems to be gaining popular support day by day

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Only 100 to 150 MPs back No Deal, 300 MPs odd back Remain, 202 MPs back the Deal.

In my view a Remain v Deal referendum is more likely than No Deal and of course the Commons could well vote to force May to extend Article 50 if no Deal is agreed by mid February this week too based on Grieve and Cooper's proposals

And how will Parliament force the EU to extend (remember they need the agreement of every one of those 27 countries) if there is no prospect of a deal being sorted in the medium term? Remember the EU have made very clear they will only accept an extension for a second referendum or a GE - though they will probably agree one to facilitate a deal if it has already been completely agreed before March 29th.

Basically no matter what Grieve does, there will be a No Deal if something else is not there to replace it.

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

nico67 said:

This has been covered many times . Legally May does not need approval of the Commons to revoke or extend article 50.

The Gina Miller case was won because Royal Perogative cannot be used to remove rights of citizens without approval of Parliament .

Revoking or extending article 50 does not remove rights of citizens . If it ended up back in court that is the key point . Of course politically that’s a different issue altogether .

I really don't think it is as clear cut as that. The point of the Miller case was that a government cannot amend substantive law in the UK by treaty without the agreement of Parliament. Our substantive law now includes the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 passed by Parliament. In my opinion the logic of Miller is that the government cannot overrule an Act such as that without the express approval of Parliament.

I am not saying that it is impossible to make a counter argument, I am simply saying this is not clear cut.

Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.

As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.

As am I and it seems to be gaining popular support day by day

Most Leavers think it's crying wolf again.

I happen to think No Deal is when the wolf actually comes but it might take some months to emerge and it won't be manifested via food or medicine shortages (which are used because of their emotional traction) but in significant business and macroeconomic trading problems.

FF43 said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

nico67 said:

This has been covered many times . Legally May does not need approval of the Commons to revoke or extend article 50.

The Gina Miller case was won because Royal Perogative cannot be used to remove rights of citizens without approval of Parliament .

Revoking or extending article 50 does not remove rights of citizens . If it ended up back in court that is the key point . Of course politically that’s a different issue altogether .

I really don't think it is as clear cut as that. The point of the Miller case was that a government cannot amend substantive law in the UK by treaty without the agreement of Parliament. Our substantive law now includes the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 passed by Parliament. In my opinion the logic of Miller is that the government cannot overrule an Act such as that without the express approval of Parliament.

I am not saying that it is impossible to make a counter argument, I am simply saying this is not clear cut.

Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.

As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.

We can expect the level of support to drop significantly if No Deal actually happens.

FrancisUrquhart said:

In recent months, however, it has lost up to 150,000 members, according to three sources within the party. It is estimated that up to 100,000 are not up to date with their subs and enrolment has slumped to around 385,000.

A Labour insider said the downswing had already cost around £6m. “The party is skint,” the source said. “There have already been some recriminations about the amount spent on last summer’s botched music festival Labour Live.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/150-000-members-desert-labour-in-brexit-backlash-nvt8fgwfs

I doubt it is Brexit, but perhaps the Magic Grandpa shtick is rubbing off a bit. And I doubt skint, as Uncle Len will obviously wang them some dosh if required.

DavidL said:

rural_voter said:

Matthew Parris, on R4 now.

'... People blame MPs for failing to solve the insoluble ...'

Quite.

It is not insoluble. There is a perfectly good WA on the table.

IanB2 said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

nico67 said:

This has been covered many times . Legally May does not need approval of the Commons to revoke or extend article 50.

The Gina Miller case was won because Royal Perogative cannot be used to remove rights of citizens without approval of Parliament .

Revoking or extending article 50 does not remove rights of citizens . If it ended up back in court that is the key point . Of course politically that’s a different issue altogether .

I really don't think it is as clear cut as that. The point of the Miller case was that a government cannot amend substantive law in the UK by treaty without the agreement of Parliament. Our substantive law now includes the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 passed by Parliament. In my opinion the logic of Miller is that the government cannot overrule an Act such as that without the express approval of Parliament.

I am not saying that it is impossible to make a counter argument, I am simply saying this is not clear cut.

Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.

As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.

It's because no deal has become a totem for 'f**k the remainers'. They wont realise its true implications unless and until it actually comes to pass.

DavidL said:

rural_voter said:

Matthew Parris, on R4 now.

'... People blame MPs for failing to solve the insoluble ...'

Quite.

It is not insoluble. There is a perfectly good WA on the table.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Chris said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

nico67 said:

This has been covered many times . Legally May does not need approval of the Commons to revoke or extend article 50.

The Gina Miller case was won because Royal Perogative cannot be used to remove rights of citizens without approval of Parliament .

Revoking or extending article 50 does not remove rights of citizens . If it ended up back in court that is the key point . Of course politically that’s a different issue altogether .

TM has to have 'constututional' approval to revoke A50 as set out by the ECJ

The act of revoking A50 is under the sole jurisdiction of the ECJ who have made their ruling

The phrase in the judgment is "in accordance with its constitutional requirements". Nothing about "approval".

The UK's constitutional requirements would be a matter for the UK Supreme Court to rule on. With regard to revocation, the Supreme Court hasn't yet made a ruling.

I accept your correction but of course the idea TM can just take it on her own to revoke A50 is unthinkable

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

rural_voter said:

Matthew Parris, on R4 now.

'... People blame MPs for failing to solve the insoluble ...'

Quite.

It is not insoluble. There is a perfectly good WA on the table.

Depending upon your definition of good

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

SunnyJim said:

HYUFD said:

The Queen will not be intervening on the side of Remainers, merely respecting the will of Parliament.

It is also constitutionally sound, since the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution our unwritten constitution and constitutional monarchy has been based on the principle the monarch accepts the will of Parliament and the Queen knows that absolutely.


The idea the Queen will put whatever May wants over what Parliament wants when May does not even have a majority in Parliament is absurd. In any case May last week effectively said it was up to Parliament to set the way forward after rejecting her Deal

Why would the Queen put whatever a few hundred MP's want over the what the majority of her subjects voted for?

Because she has to do what parliament wishes.

Yes, the Queen is sensible enough to know one of her ancestors, Charles 1st, was deposed when he tried to defy the will of Parliament and another, James IInd, was forced into exile.

The Queen has no interest in trying to enforce an absolute monarchy, she knows the monarchy relies on its position as being a constitutional monarchy which respects the will of Parliament

She won't know anything of the kind, as neither of those is an ancestor of hers.

Charles I was an ancestor of William, through Diana. I am not sure whether James II has any living descendants.

Chris said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Chris said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

nico67 said:

This has been covered many times . Legally May does not need approval of the Commons to revoke or extend article 50.

The Gina Miller case was won because Royal Perogative cannot be used to remove rights of citizens without approval of Parliament .

Revoking or extending article 50 does not remove rights of citizens . If it ended up back in court that is the key point . Of course politically that’s a different issue altogether .

TM has to have 'constututional' approval to revoke A50 as set out by the ECJ

The act of revoking A50 is under the sole jurisdiction of the ECJ who have made their ruling

The phrase in the judgment is "in accordance with its constitutional requirements". Nothing about "approval".

The UK's constitutional requirements would be a matter for the UK Supreme Court to rule on. With regard to revocation, the Supreme Court hasn't yet made a ruling.

I accept your correction but of course the idea TM can just take it on her own to revoke A50 is unthinkable

Yes, I agree. I think it's pretty unthinkable that MPs would take it on themselves to back revocation unless a referendum approved it.

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

SunnyJim said:

HYUFD said:

The Queen will not be intervening on the side of Remainers, merely respecting the will of Parliament.

It is also constitutionally sound, since the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution our unwritten constitution and constitutional monarchy has been based on the principle the monarch accepts the will of Parliament and the Queen knows that absolutely.


The idea the Queen will put whatever May wants over what Parliament wants when May does not even have a majority in Parliament is absurd. In any case May last week effectively said it was up to Parliament to set the way forward after rejecting her Deal

Why would the Queen put whatever a few hundred MP's want over the what the majority of her subjects voted for?

Because she has to do what parliament wishes.

Yes, the Queen is sensible enough to know one of her ancestors, Charles 1st, was deposed when he tried to defy the will of Parliament and another, James IInd, was forced into exile.

The Queen has no interest in trying to enforce an absolute monarchy, she knows the monarchy relies on its position as being a constitutional monarchy which respects the will of Parliament

She won't know anything of the kind, as neither of those is an ancestor of hers.

Charles I was an ancestor of William, through Diana. I am not sure whether James II has any living descendants.

The Queen's great great grandmother was Queen Victoria, whose great great grandfather was George 1st. George 1sts grandmother was Elizabeth Stuart of Bohemia, whose brother was Charles 1st and whose nephew was James IInd

viewcode said:

Casino_Royale said:

I've also been shocked by the level of bigotry on the ultra Remain side over recent weeks, which is more blatant and dark than I'd ever feared.

I sincerely hope you don't include me in that.

Nemtynakht said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

kle4 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

In recent months, however, it has lost up to 150,000 members, according to three sources within the party. It is estimated that up to 100,000 are not up to date with their subs and enrolment has slumped to around 385,000.

A Labour insider said the downswing had already cost around £6m. “The party is skint,” the source said. “There have already been some recriminations about the amount spent on last summer’s botched music festival Labour Live.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/150-000-members-desert-labour-in-brexit-backlash-nvt8fgwfs

I doubt it is Brexit, but perhaps the Magic Grandpa shtick is rubbing off a bit. And I doubt skint, as Uncle Len will obviously wang them some dosh if required.

Still massive.

I always find it amazing that they so many people to be behind on their subs. I mean most clubs if you don't pay your subs on time you are out.

Most clubs don’t want to claim they are the largest political party in Western Europe.

Casino_Royale said:

viewcode said:

Casino_Royale said:

I've also been shocked by the level of bigotry on the ultra Remain side over recent weeks, which is more blatant and dark than I'd ever feared.

I sincerely hope you don't include me in that.

Of course not. Cheering the death of the elderly, expressing unadulterated anger if a Remainer married a Leaver, openly calling Leavers Gammons and demanding the "salting of the slugs" are just some examples.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Nemtynakht said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

kle4 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

In recent months, however, it has lost up to 150,000 members, according to three sources within the party. It is estimated that up to 100,000 are not up to date with their subs and enrolment has slumped to around 385,000.

A Labour insider said the downswing had already cost around £6m. “The party is skint,” the source said. “There have already been some recriminations about the amount spent on last summer’s botched music festival Labour Live.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/150-000-members-desert-labour-in-brexit-backlash-nvt8fgwfs

I doubt it is Brexit, but perhaps the Magic Grandpa shtick is rubbing off a bit. And I doubt skint, as Uncle Len will obviously wang them some dosh if required.

Still massive.

I always find it amazing that they so many people to be behind on their subs. I mean most clubs if you don't pay your subs on time you are out.

Most clubs don’t want to claim they are the largest political party in Western Europe.

I wonder how long you can go without paying before you get the boot?

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Nemtynakht said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

kle4 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

In recent months, however, it has lost up to 150,000 members, according to three sources within the party. It is estimated that up to 100,000 are not up to date with their subs and enrolment has slumped to around 385,000.

A Labour insider said the downswing had already cost around £6m. “The party is skint,” the source said. “There have already been some recriminations about the amount spent on last summer’s botched music festival Labour Live.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/150-000-members-desert-labour-in-brexit-backlash-nvt8fgwfs

I doubt it is Brexit, but perhaps the Magic Grandpa shtick is rubbing off a bit. And I doubt skint, as Uncle Len will obviously wang them some dosh if required.

Still massive.

I always find it amazing that they so many people to be behind on their subs. I mean most clubs if you don't pay your subs on time you are out.

Most clubs don’t want to claim they are the largest political party in Western Europe.

I wonder how long you can go without paying before you get the boot?

In a socialist paradise, Comrade, payment will not be important. You will be a member of the Party whether or not you pay your subs.

Which is just as well as we will all be skint and starving.

FrancisUrquhart said:

In recent months, however, it has lost up to 150,000 members, according to three sources within the party. It is estimated that up to 100,000 are not up to date with their subs and enrolment has slumped to around 385,000.

A Labour insider said the downswing had already cost around £6m. “The party is skint,” the source said. “There have already been some recriminations about the amount spent on last summer’s botched music festival Labour Live.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/150-000-members-desert-labour-in-brexit-backlash-nvt8fgwfs

I doubt it is Brexit, but perhaps the Magic Grandpa shtick is rubbing off a bit. And I doubt skint, as Uncle Len will obviously wang them some dosh if required.

HYUFD said:

No I am absolutely right.


There has never been a conflict in recent times between the PM and Parliament such that Parliament has consistently voted down what the PM intends as most PMs have had a majority in Parliament and have never refused to bow to the will of Parliament.


If Parliament voted one way and the PM refused to implement it and in the unlikely event of the PM not then losing a VONC or resigning then the Queen would replace her chief minister with another one who could command the confidence of Parliament, as often happened in the 18th and early 19th centuries

Casino_Royale said:

viewcode said:

Casino_Royale said:

I've also been shocked by the level of bigotry on the ultra Remain side over recent weeks, which is more blatant and dark than I'd ever feared.

I sincerely hope you don't include me in that.

Of course not. Cheering the death of the elderly, expressing unadulterated anger if a Remainer married a Leaver, openly calling Leavers Gammons and demanding the "salting of the slugs" are just some examples.