politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The next Speaker
Comments
-
Yep. That's the shit the electorate landed us with when they voted for Brexit by a narrow margin in 2016, when they crippled May's ability to implement their previous decision in 2017, and who knows what the fruits of their sublime genius will be in 2019?AndyJS said:"At the end of the day it’s a no-deal Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn
Daniel Finkelstein
Leaving the EU without an agreement will damage the country but it’s still just about preferable to the alternative" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/at-the-end-of-the-day-its-no-deal-or-corbyn-k6wg69tzt0 -
We aim to dissolve the Union, not repair it.Casino_Royale said:Jesus. Fucking Ian Blackford.
I know he's SNP but every time he stands up it's Scotland this.. Scotland that.. Pushing SNP propaganda and attack lines.
Always divides the House rather than seeking to influence it to his greater advantage.0 -
Oh, there's very much certainly a difference.kle4 said:
I see no difference. Happily, it is a good time to live in a safe seat as my vote one way or the other won't contribute meaningfully to either outcome.Casino_Royale said:
That's my view.AndyJS said:"At the end of the day it’s a no-deal Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn
Daniel Finkelstein
Leaving the EU without an agreement will damage the country but it’s still just about preferable to the alternative" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/at-the-end-of-the-day-its-no-deal-or-corbyn-k6wg69tzt
No Deal Brexit is crazy but it's still better than putting Corbyn in charge of Britain for even 5 minutes.
If you can't see one you're not looking or thinking hard enough, and falling back on whataboutism instead (because it's easier).0 -
Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.0
-
How heavily have you laid it?AlastairMeeks said:
Number 10 would like an election. However, I think they’re going to be disappointed.numbertwelve said:
I don’t think he actually wants to win to be honest. Number 10 have already accepted an election, it seems.AlastairMeeks said:
That said, it is Robert Peston, so what odds that the government squeaks home now!0 -
Not always inclined to give MPs the benefit of the doubt, but paraphrasing Gary Gibbons on C4, many of them on the edge and the whole place radiates (if depression can be radiated) clinical depression.
Not the best atmosphere for clear headed decision making.0 -
Odious. And, also, deeply unimpressive.TheScreamingEagles said:Remember JRM’s hissy fit when Mrs May won the VONC?
JRM is a deeply unpleasant man.0 -
Anne was the last monarch to refuse assent iircDanny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
0 -
Blackford happy to ignore referendums - won’t be so sanguine if that happens in the unlikely event he ever wins one.Casino_Royale said:Jesus. Fucking Ian Blackford.
I know he's SNP but every time he stands up it's Scotland this.. Scotland that.. Pushing SNP propaganda and attack lines.
Always divides the House rather than seeking to influence it to his greater advantage.0 -
I am laying but I’m being cautious. An election could happen more or less by accident.Casino_Royale said:
How heavily have you laid it?AlastairMeeks said:
Number 10 would like an election. However, I think they’re going to be disappointed.numbertwelve said:
I don’t think he actually wants to win to be honest. Number 10 have already accepted an election, it seems.AlastairMeeks said:
That said, it is Robert Peston, so what odds that the government squeaks home now!
2020 looks likelier than 2019 now.0 -
That would be unprecedented and severely undermine the monarchy. I hope Liz tells him where to go.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
0 -
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.0 -
Boris will lose a VONC very soon especially if he sacks 16 mps from the party. It's likely someone will be put into bat with a one line QS, seek extension and call an electionAlastairMeeks said:
I am laying but I’m being cautious. An election could happen more or less by accident.Casino_Royale said:
How heavily have you laid it?AlastairMeeks said:
Number 10 would like an election. However, I think they’re going to be disappointed.numbertwelve said:
I don’t think he actually wants to win to be honest. Number 10 have already accepted an election, it seems.AlastairMeeks said:
That said, it is Robert Peston, so what odds that the government squeaks home now!
2020 looks likelier than 2019 now.0 -
Paul Masterton is not one of the rebels:
https://twitter.com/pm4eastren/status/1168960672786472961?s=210 -
Yes, but this vote is about stopping a No Deal Brexit.StuartDickson said:
We aim to dissolve the Union, not repair it.Casino_Royale said:Jesus. Fucking Ian Blackford.
I know he's SNP but every time he stands up it's Scotland this.. Scotland that.. Pushing SNP propaganda and attack lines.
Always divides the House rather than seeking to influence it to his greater advantage.
Are the SNP interested in reaching out to stop that across party lines,or not?0 -
The fruits will be endless future threads arguing about Brexit.blueblue said:
Yep. That's the shit the electorate landed us with when they voted for Brexit by a narrow margin in 2016, when they crippled May's ability to implement their previous decision in 2017, and who knows what the fruits of their sublime genius will be in 2019?AndyJS said:"At the end of the day it’s a no-deal Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn
Daniel Finkelstein
Leaving the EU without an agreement will damage the country but it’s still just about preferable to the alternative" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/at-the-end-of-the-day-its-no-deal-or-corbyn-k6wg69tzt0 -
Refusal of royal assent would be the end of monarchy, or the catalyst that begins that endingnumbertwelve said:
That would be unprecedented and severely undermine the monarchy. I hope Liz tells him where to go.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
0 -
No one will want to launch a vote of no confidence till his credibility is shot. So not before November.dyedwoolie said:
Boris will lose a VONC very soon especially if he sacks 16 mps from the party. It's likely someone will be put into bat with a one line QS, seek extension and call an electionAlastairMeeks said:
I am laying but I’m being cautious. An election could happen more or less by accident.Casino_Royale said:
How heavily have you laid it?AlastairMeeks said:
Number 10 would like an election. However, I think they’re going to be disappointed.numbertwelve said:
I don’t think he actually wants to win to be honest. Number 10 have already accepted an election, it seems.AlastairMeeks said:
That said, it is Robert Peston, so what odds that the government squeaks home now!
2020 looks likelier than 2019 now.0 -
She is a puppet, she shouldn't tell him anything.numbertwelve said:
That would be unprecedented and severely undermine the monarchy. I hope Liz tells him where to go.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
The Commons has consented to Boris as PM and if it rejects an election will have confirmed its desire to keep him as PM. He is entitled to exercise the monarch's veto powers.
It would be unprecedented but I can't think of any precedent of the Commons passing a bill directly against the PM's ambitions. If the House acts in an unprecedented manner, the PM can reply in kind.0 -
Cummings plan c is stealing the mace0
-
Congratulations to Philip on his debut piece0
-
0
-
No. It could happen without No Deal as a temporary caretaker role for Corbyn legitimises him prior to calling his own election.williamglenn said:
Do you buy this argument?Casino_Royale said:
That's my view.AndyJS said:"At the end of the day it’s a no-deal Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn
Daniel Finkelstein
Leaving the EU without an agreement will damage the country but it’s still just about preferable to the alternative" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/at-the-end-of-the-day-its-no-deal-or-corbyn-k6wg69tzt
No Deal Brexit is crazy but it's still better than putting Corbyn in charge of Britain for even 5 minutes.
https://twitter.com/MariosRichards/status/1168931527226482688
https://twitter.com/MariosRichards/status/1168932148109295616
And I think a longer Parliament following a new election (which he lost) would result in his removal.0 -
No, that's not right. Whether a bill requires royal consent is decided by the Clerk, not the Speaker.Philip_Thompson said:
Speaker determines if a bill requires royal consent. If it does the PM advises HMQ whether to grant consent or not.Chris said:
Well, in any case royal consent and royal assent are two different things, and as far as I know the speaker isn't involved in either.Philip_Thompson said:
This bill arguably affects royal prerogative.Chris said:
I think you're confusing royal consent for legislation that affects the royal prerogative with royal assent for legislation in general. They are two different things.dyedwoolie said:
If he ruled benn cannot be refused consent as it does not infringe royal prerogative that could be challenged in courtNigelb said:
Which one indeed ?dyedwoolie said:
Which one? Yes in theory to most things thoughralphmalph said:Quick question, if the Govts decision to prorogue can be taken to court, Can The Speakers decision also be taken to court?
Most probably cannot - if he is supported by a majority in the House, which determines its own procedures, it’s hard to see how that might be justiciable outside of the House.
If this bill requires consent and Bercow says so then Boris can veto it via withholding consent. If it should require consent but Bercow claims it doesn't, it is hard to see how that can be remedied.0 -
Thank youRochdalePioneers said:Congratulations to Philip on his debut piece
0 -
-
-
I disagree. Remember I have always favoured the EFTA route out of the EU and the idea of a long, slow process with safeguards to make sure it could not be undermined. I supported May's deal in spite of its flaws.stodge said:
Brexit won't die if your man fails to deliver it on 31/10. You seem to assume everyone who is opposed to a No Deal Brexit is opposed to Brexit but that simply isn't the case.HYUFD said:
Certainly, the fury of Leavers will be unbound and if Boris cannot deliver Brexit Deal or No Deal the odds on a Farage led Brexit Party achieving an SNP 2015 style surge, especially in Labour Leave seats would be very high
There are plenty who reject No Deal and want to leave with something approaching a reasonable WA which May's clearly wasn't.
The diehard Leave fanatics will froth on Facebook and will flock to BP which will take over the Leave mantle from the failed Conservatives but ther eis an opportunity to strike a sensible deal which works for the country once the Tories are out of the way.
But I genuinely believe the aim of the majority of the House is to somehow reverse the referendum result whikst avoiding getting blamed for it. Indeed plenty of those who once dishonestly claimed to support the result of the referendum are now quite open in their support for cancelling it.
What reason should anyone have to trust any if these people voting against No Deal tonight when so many of them have already broken their promises to their own electorates.0 -
Are you sure? Everyone said Speaker earlier.Chris said:
No, that's not right. Whether a bill requires royal consent is decided by the Clerk, not the Speaker.Philip_Thompson said:
Speaker determines if a bill requires royal consent. If it does the PM advises HMQ whether to grant consent or not.Chris said:
Well, in any case royal consent and royal assent are two different things, and as far as I know the speaker isn't involved in either.Philip_Thompson said:
This bill arguably affects royal prerogative.Chris said:
I think you're confusing royal consent for legislation that affects the royal prerogative with royal assent for legislation in general. They are two different things.dyedwoolie said:
If he ruled benn cannot be refused consent as it does not infringe royal prerogative that could be challenged in courtNigelb said:
Which one indeed ?dyedwoolie said:
Which one? Yes in theory to most things thoughralphmalph said:Quick question, if the Govts decision to prorogue can be taken to court, Can The Speakers decision also be taken to court?
Most probably cannot - if he is supported by a majority in the House, which determines its own procedures, it’s hard to see how that might be justiciable outside of the House.
If this bill requires consent and Bercow says so then Boris can veto it via withholding consent. If it should require consent but Bercow claims it doesn't, it is hard to see how that can be remedied.
And what happens if the Speaker overrules the Clerk as he did in January?0 -
There's nothing that would satisfy Steve Baker. Just as I worked out some time ago the same about Peter Hitchens.TheScreamingEagles said:
He's disappeared up his own arsehole.1 -
Everything will be decided before prorogation imoAlastairMeeks said:
No one will want to launch a vote of no confidence till his credibility is shot. So not before November.dyedwoolie said:
Boris will lose a VONC very soon especially if he sacks 16 mps from the party. It's likely someone will be put into bat with a one line QS, seek extension and call an electionAlastairMeeks said:
I am laying but I’m being cautious. An election could happen more or less by accident.Casino_Royale said:
How heavily have you laid it?AlastairMeeks said:
Number 10 would like an election. However, I think they’re going to be disappointed.numbertwelve said:
I don’t think he actually wants to win to be honest. Number 10 have already accepted an election, it seems.AlastairMeeks said:
That said, it is Robert Peston, so what odds that the government squeaks home now!
2020 looks likelier than 2019 now.0 -
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.0 -
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.Casino_Royale said:
There's nothing that would satisfy Steve Baker. Just as I worked out some time ago the same about Peter Hitchens.TheScreamingEagles said:
He's disappeared up his own arsehole.
The deal should be a confidence issue and if he rebels on a deal he should lose the whip. No ifs, no buts.0 -
Speaker takes advice from the clerk, going against it would be grounds for court action I'd sayPhilip_Thompson said:
Are you sure? Everyone said Speaker earlier.Chris said:
No, that's not right. Whether a bill requires royal consent is decided by the Clerk, not the Speaker.Philip_Thompson said:
Speaker determines if a bill requires royal consent. If it does the PM advises HMQ whether to grant consent or not.Chris said:
Well, in any case royal consent and royal assent are two different things, and as far as I know the speaker isn't involved in either.Philip_Thompson said:
This bill arguably affects royal prerogative.Chris said:
I think you're confusing royal consent for legislation that affects the royal prerogative with royal assent for legislation in general. They are two different things.dyedwoolie said:
If he ruled benn cannot be refused consent as it does not infringe royal prerogative that could be challenged in courtNigelb said:
Which one indeed ?dyedwoolie said:
Which one? Yes in theory to most things thoughralphmalph said:Quick question, if the Govts decision to prorogue can be taken to court, Can The Speakers decision also be taken to court?
Most probably cannot - if he is supported by a majority in the House, which determines its own procedures, it’s hard to see how that might be justiciable outside of the House.
If this bill requires consent and Bercow says so then Boris can veto it via withholding consent. If it should require consent but Bercow claims it doesn't, it is hard to see how that can be remedied.
And what happens if the Speaker overrules the Clerk as he did in January?0 -
Hey, we were looking to the Ruth Davidson Party mps "to be standing up for Scotland's interests from within the Conservative party". Isn't that happening any more?Casino_Royale said:
Yes, but this vote is about stopping a No Deal Brexit.StuartDickson said:
We aim to dissolve the Union, not repair it.Casino_Royale said:Jesus. Fucking Ian Blackford.
I know he's SNP but every time he stands up it's Scotland this.. Scotland that.. Pushing SNP propaganda and attack lines.
Always divides the House rather than seeking to influence it to his greater advantage.
Are the SNP interested in reaching out to stop that across party lines,or not?0 -
It wouldn't when voters opposed further extension by 47% to 41% with Survation at the weekend and backed the Queen asserting to proroguing Parliament by a 20% margin.dyedwoolie said:
Refusal of royal assent would be the end of monarchy, or the catalyst that begins that endingnumbertwelve said:
That would be unprecedented and severely undermine the monarchy. I hope Liz tells him where to go.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
Indeed Monarchists, the Queen's base, voted 56% Leave while republicans voted 65% Remain.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists
The Queen rightly should not aid the Commons defy the will of the people0 -
Nope. He just gave the electorate a choice. It is the Remainers who have chosen to ignore that choice and so undermine the basic principles of democracy. I assume ftom your comments a future Parliament should ignore any future Indy ReferendumStuartDickson said:
It was a Tory who did the sowing: David Cameron.Richard_Tyndall said:
There have been plenty of us warning this would happen for months. I go further and say if Brexit is dead then so is democracy in this country. You will reap what you sowed.StuartDickson said:
A first? First time I’ve seen a Leaver admit that Brexit is dead.Richard_Tyndall said:
The Renainers really are dumb. They are going to kill Brexit just in time for a major recession which every Leave supporting politician will take great pleasure in pinning on them. So with economic hardship and a betrayal narrative we are going to see a huge increase in support for the real extremist parties and a backlash against the politicians like you can't imagine.rcs1000 said:As an aside, the Markit PMIs are sub 50 now in:
the US
the UK
the Eurozone
Canada
Mexico
Japan
China is marginally above.
If you want to have an election, I'd have it now. Because those PMIs tend to lead changes in unemployment rates by six months.1 -
Yes, thank you Philip, for an interesting piece. Might follow your advice, or at least take a sharper and better informed look at that market.Philip_Thompson said:0 -
See here:Philip_Thompson said:
Are you sure? Everyone said Speaker earlier.Chris said:
No, that's not right. Whether a bill requires royal consent is decided by the Clerk, not the Speaker.Philip_Thompson said:
Speaker determines if a bill requires royal consent. If it does the PM advises HMQ whether to grant consent or not.Chris said:
Well, in any case royal consent and royal assent are two different things, and as far as I know the speaker isn't involved in either.Philip_Thompson said:
This bill arguably affects royal prerogative.Chris said:
I think you're confusing royal consent for legislation that affects the royal prerogative with royal assent for legislation in general. They are two different things.dyedwoolie said:
If he ruled benn cannot be refused consent as it does not infringe royal prerogative that could be challenged in courtNigelb said:
Which one indeed ?dyedwoolie said:
Which one? Yes in theory to most things thoughralphmalph said:Quick question, if the Govts decision to prorogue can be taken to court, Can The Speakers decision also be taken to court?
Most probably cannot - if he is supported by a majority in the House, which determines its own procedures, it’s hard to see how that might be justiciable outside of the House.
If this bill requires consent and Bercow says so then Boris can veto it via withholding consent. If it should require consent but Bercow claims it doesn't, it is hard to see how that can be remedied.
And what happens if the Speaker overrules the Clerk as he did in January?
"... the final decision on whether Consent is needed is made by the Clerks of Legislation in both Houses."
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmpolcon/784/784.pdf0 -
The only precedent (I think) is the Cooper Letwin Bill. The government allowed consent there and should do so again.DougSeal said:
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.0 -
Stopping No Deal Brexit is merely a step on the journey. We have bigger, more important goals. Pursuing, always, the interests of the Scottish nation.Casino_Royale said:
Yes, but this vote is about stopping a No Deal Brexit.StuartDickson said:
We aim to dissolve the Union, not repair it.Casino_Royale said:Jesus. Fucking Ian Blackford.
I know he's SNP but every time he stands up it's Scotland this.. Scotland that.. Pushing SNP propaganda and attack lines.
Always divides the House rather than seeking to influence it to his greater advantage.
Are the SNP interested in reaching out to stop that across party lines,or not?0 -
I would say that since the FTPA there is no such thing as a confidence issue, as it used to be understood anyway, anymorePhilip_Thompson said:
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.Casino_Royale said:
There's nothing that would satisfy Steve Baker. Just as I worked out some time ago the same about Peter Hitchens.TheScreamingEagles said:
He's disappeared up his own arsehole.
The deal should be a confidence issue and if he rebels on a deal he should lose the whip. No ifs, no buts.0 -
VoNC in speaker called, passes (or is so close that, like MM, he quits), Bercow doesn't fancy being a backbencher is another variable. At evens I'd still say he wins the next election.Philip_Thompson said:
Too many combos at work.rcs1000 said:
If you want £10 on the result, I think it might be fun.Philip_Thompson said:
I think it tells you more about how useless Farage is at FPTP elections.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because the LibDems, Labour and Green won't stand, and the Brexit Party would.Philip_Thompson said:
You really think Bercow would win in Buckingham against a Conservative candidate?rcs1000 said:On topic, I wouldn't play this market. Why?
I think Bercow will stand at the coming General Election, and - even if the Conservatives stand against him - will win. This means there is a fair likelihood the bet will not payout for some time.
It requires, effectively, the Conservatives to win enough of a majority that they wish to take on the Speaker. Possible? Yes. But anything other than a decent majority (i.e. 25+) sees him stay in place.
Also, when it was Bercow vs John Stevens vs Nigel Farage, then John Stevens comfortably beat Farage, which tells you quite a lot about the seat.
The Conservatives know how to fight a FPTP election and would have the data and organisation etc that Farage lacks.
There are lots of combos at work. Will he get shunted off to the Lords as ex-Speakers are want to be? If not, who will stand against him? When will the election be?
Bercow wins Buckingham at the next General Election, I win.
Anybody else, you win.
Will he retire? If so, he's gone. 5% maybe?
Will they stand against him? 50% maybe? Depends upon what triggers the election and how vitriolic it is.
If they stand will they win? I'd make this 50/50 - Bercow has the name, Tories have the organisation.
Overall then I'd say roughly 25% chance he's defeated at an election. Which is very high by historical terms.0 -
AFAIK Queen Anne is the most recent precedent, which AFAIK is the most recent time that Parliament has passed a bill that the government then wanted to veto.DougSeal said:
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.
Petrol has been getting poured all year and neither side wants to be the side to lose.0 -
No, once that cat is out of the bag it's too late. It makes the monarchy unsustainable, how can you have am unelected hereditary monarch refusing to enact law passed by her subjects elected representatives? There a reason nobody since Anne has done soHYUFD said:
It wouldn't when voters oppose further extension by 47% to 41% with Survation at the weekend and backed the Queen asserting to proroguing Parliament by a 20% margin.dyedwoolie said:
Refusal of royal assent would be the end of monarchy, or the catalyst that begins that endingnumbertwelve said:
That would be unprecedented and severely undermine the monarchy. I hope Liz tells him where to go.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
The Queen rightly should not aid the Commons defy the will of the people0 -
I'm not sure Dunt was meant to be JRMs target audiance...AndyJS said:
Oh and has someone told him to down down the "Fs"? (Dunt that is not JRM
) 0 -
It's the nature of Parliamentary democracy that there are always ifs and buts.Philip_Thompson said:
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.Casino_Royale said:
There's nothing that would satisfy Steve Baker. Just as I worked out some time ago the same about Peter Hitchens.TheScreamingEagles said:
He's disappeared up his own arsehole.
The deal should be a confidence issue and if he rebels on a deal he should lose the whip. No ifs, no buts.
But it doesn't help the arithmetic when everyone has dug their trenches as deep as they will go and care nothing for the consequences.0 -
You're right. By convention, the Queen always acts on the advice of Survation.HYUFD said:
It wouldn't when voters oppose further extension by 47% to 41% with Survation at the weekend and backed the Queen asserting to proroguing Parliament by a 20% margin.dyedwoolie said:
Refusal of royal assent would be the end of monarchy, or the catalyst that begins that endingnumbertwelve said:
That would be unprecedented and severely undermine the monarchy. I hope Liz tells him where to go.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
Indeed Monarchists, the Queen's base, voted 56% Leave while republicans voted 65% Remain.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists
The Queen rightly should not aid the Commons defy the will of the people0 -
I don't think Cooper-Letwin required consent (Speaker ruled it did not) but a subsequent legal ruling has cast doubt on whether that was technically correct.numbertwelve said:
The only precedent (I think) is the Cooper Letwin Bill. The government allowed consent there and should do so again.DougSeal said:
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.0 -
Oh, they don't have the same effect, but the impact seems little different.Casino_Royale said:
Oh, there's very much certainly a difference.kle4 said:
I see no difference. Happily, it is a good time to live in a safe seat as my vote one way or the other won't contribute meaningfully to either outcome.Casino_Royale said:
That's my view.AndyJS said:"At the end of the day it’s a no-deal Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn
Daniel Finkelstein
Leaving the EU without an agreement will damage the country but it’s still just about preferable to the alternative" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/at-the-end-of-the-day-its-no-deal-or-corbyn-k6wg69tzt
No Deal Brexit is crazy but it's still better than putting Corbyn in charge of Britain for even 5 minutes.
If you can't see one you're not looking or thinking hard enough, and falling back on whataboutism instead (because it's easier).
I'm sorry, but reliant on 'Corbyn is a boogeyman' is just plain laziness. I cannot stand the man, I voted Tory for the first time in large part because of that, but the Tories no longer care about anything other than no deal Brexit in order to preserve their party, and no deal Brexit appears to me to have a high chance of unacceptable impacts which will not be mitigated even if they can be. Corbyn will, I am sure, be terrible, but I need a bit more than an appeal to fear of an incompetent old trot to back a no deal Brexit.0 -
The only possible way this country will deliver a majority Corbyn govt is no deal.Casino_Royale said:
That's my view.AndyJS said:"At the end of the day it’s a no-deal Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn
Daniel Finkelstein
Leaving the EU without an agreement will damage the country but it’s still just about preferable to the alternative" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/at-the-end-of-the-day-its-no-deal-or-corbyn-k6wg69tzt
No Deal Brexit is crazy but it's still better than putting Corbyn in charge of Britain for even 5 minutes.
No Deal Brexit is major collateral damage in ideogically pursuing a single policy. Corbyn is a political, economic, security and social nuclear suicide weapon who'd actively seek to tear down as much as he could, rather than mitigate it.
The choice is not no deal vs Corbyn but no deal followed by a Corbyn majority govt vs a Corbyn coalition govt.
That is where the conservatives have led us. A triumphant achievements thinks the party cheerleader!0 -
English constitutional principle: parliamentary sovereignty.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. He just gave the electorate a choice. It is the Remainers who have chosen to ignore that choice and so undermine the basic principles of democracy. I assume ftom your comments a future Parliament should ignore any future Indy ReferendumStuartDickson said:
It was a Tory who did the sowing: David Cameron.Richard_Tyndall said:
There have been plenty of us warning this would happen for months. I go further and say if Brexit is dead then so is democracy in this country. You will reap what you sowed.StuartDickson said:
A first? First time I’ve seen a Leaver admit that Brexit is dead.Richard_Tyndall said:
The Renainers really are dumb. They are going to kill Brexit just in time for a major recession which every Leave supporting politician will take great pleasure in pinning on them. So with economic hardship and a betrayal narrative we are going to see a huge increase in support for the real extremist parties and a backlash against the politicians like you can't imagine.rcs1000 said:As an aside, the Markit PMIs are sub 50 now in:
the US
the UK
the Eurozone
Canada
Mexico
Japan
China is marginally above.
If you want to have an election, I'd have it now. Because those PMIs tend to lead changes in unemployment rates by six months.
Scottish constitutional principle: popular sovereignty.
You stick to your principles. We’ll stick to ours.0 -
It didn't as it mandated the PM to have to seek an extension, it did not state she had to accept, and was superceded by events. Its having to accept any extension offered that affects prerogativeSirNorfolkPassmore said:
I don't think Cooper-Letwin required consent (Speaker ruled it did not) but a subsequent legal ruling has cast doubt on whether that was technically correct.numbertwelve said:
The only precedent (I think) is the Cooper Letwin Bill. The government allowed consent there and should do so again.DougSeal said:
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.0 -
Criticises threat to sack those who oppose a deal? That should be a fascinating read, given the elation he no doubt has toward sacking those who rebel tonight. It's always good for a laugh to see ideologues tie themselves in knotts trying to justify themselves.Scott_P said:0 -
The only way we get Corbyn is if Boris extends again, so precisely the opposite.TheScreamingEagles said:
I think we’ll hit the jackpot, No Deal followed by Corbyn.Casino_Royale said:
That's my view.AndyJS said:"At the end of the day it’s a no-deal Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn
Daniel Finkelstein
Leaving the EU without an agreement will damage the country but it’s still just about preferable to the alternative" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/at-the-end-of-the-day-its-no-deal-or-corbyn-k6wg69tzt
No Deal Brexit is crazy but it's still better than putting Corbyn in charge of Britain for even 5 minutes.
No Deal Brexit is major collateral damage in ideogically pursuing a single policy. Corbyn is a political, economic, security and social nuclear suicide weapon who'd actively seek to tear down as much as he could, rather than mitigate it.
Though there is a small chance of PM Farage more likely the Brexit Party splits the Leave vote with the Tories and lets Corbyn through the middle (Though there is still a chance Swinson would veto a Corbyn Premiership).
0 -
Thanks. I've gone in fairly heavy (by my standards) against GE2019 and am about £100 underwater at present.AlastairMeeks said:
I am laying but I’m being cautious. An election could happen more or less by accident.Casino_Royale said:
How heavily have you laid it?AlastairMeeks said:
Number 10 would like an election. However, I think they’re going to be disappointed.numbertwelve said:
I don’t think he actually wants to win to be honest. Number 10 have already accepted an election, it seems.AlastairMeeks said:
That said, it is Robert Peston, so what odds that the government squeaks home now!
2020 looks likelier than 2019 now.
Hoping my gamble (for it is very much one) pays off.0 -
Well from JRMs point of view, everything he said about May at the time of the VONC was right wasn't it?TheScreamingEagles said:Remember JRM’s hissy fit when Mrs May won the VONC?
JRM is a deeply unpleasant man.
If she'd lost the VONC there's a very good chance we'd have left on 29th March.
Everything that's happened this year stems from the Tories bottling removing May in December.0 -
That’s absurd. YouGov and Survation are fine organisation but are you seriously suggesting that the Queen should withold consent to a bill passed by the legislature based on an opinion poll? Seriously? That’s insane.HYUFD said:
It wouldn't when voters opposed further extension by 47% to 41% with Survation at the weekend and backed the Queen asserting to proroguing Parliament by a 20% margin.dyedwoolie said:
Refusal of royal assent would be the end of monarchy, or the catalyst that begins that endingnumbertwelve said:
That would be unprecedented and severely undermine the monarchy. I hope Liz tells him where to go.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
Indeed Monarchists, the Queen's base, voted 56% Leave while republicans voted 65% Remain.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists
The Queen rightly should not aid the Commons defy the will of the people0 -
Queen Anne did not have a Prime Minister.Philip_Thompson said:
AFAIK Queen Anne is the most recent precedent, which AFAIK is the most recent time that Parliament has passed a bill that the government then wanted to veto.DougSeal said:
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.
Petrol has been getting poured all year and neither side wants to be the side to lose.0 -
And most came back eventuallyHYUFD said:
Well one thing the Corn Laws did was purge the Tory party of those who were really liberals not conservatives, if Brexit does the same thing so be it.GIN1138 said:
Possibly.rottenborough said:We are watching the Corn Laws Redux. History is being written tonight as the Tory party splits before our eyes.
Although keep in mind the numbers voting against Boris actually quite small and consist mostly of the old guard.
The direction of the Tory Party has been clear since Thatchers Bruges speech so in a lot of ways this is a final roll of the dice of the EU-Loving Old Guard.
Once they're out the Party tonight the Tories will almost certainly coalesce around whatever it is they become under Boris (or whoever follows him)
Tonight is the final act of a drama that began with the knifing of Mrs Thacther.
The Peelites in the Tories ended up with the Whigs in the Liberals and if more diehard Remainers like Lee today join the LDs fair enough0 -
Busy on here tonight, I am normally just a lurker, but here goes.
I am a pensioner, some would say well off, former MD of a successful company, I voted remain, and deplore the polarisation of both remainers and leavers, I am not an old thickie, or a Remoniac.
I was a supporter of Boris, and a Con voter, but not any more, I now have nowhere to go, Corbyn, definitely not, Libdems, no. Greens absolutely not, despite the fact I spent my career in recycling and environmental matters.
I mainly live in a marginal Con/Lab, but close to a Libdem hotspot, I could also vote for Rory as I also could have my main residence in his constituency. Think I will change my residence and vote Rory, as a likely independent.0 -
And that extension can be voted down by the HOC as included in the bill but deliberately left out by the loonies in their publicitydyedwoolie said:
It didn't as it mandated the PM to have to seek an extension, it did not state she had to accept, and was superceded by events. Its having to accept any extension offered that affects prerogativeSirNorfolkPassmore said:
I don't think Cooper-Letwin required consent (Speaker ruled it did not) but a subsequent legal ruling has cast doubt on whether that was technically correct.numbertwelve said:
The only precedent (I think) is the Cooper Letwin Bill. The government allowed consent there and should do so again.DougSeal said:
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.0 -
What makes you think the dials will shift following No Deal?noneoftheabove said:
The only possible way this country will deliver a majority Corbyn govt is no deal.Casino_Royale said:
That's my view.AndyJS said:"At the end of the day it’s a no-deal Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn
Daniel Finkelstein
Leaving the EU without an agreement will damage the country but it’s still just about preferable to the alternative" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/at-the-end-of-the-day-its-no-deal-or-corbyn-k6wg69tzt
No Deal Brexit is crazy but it's still better than putting Corbyn in charge of Britain for even 5 minutes.
No Deal Brexit is major collateral damage in ideogically pursuing a single policy. Corbyn is a political, economic, security and social nuclear suicide weapon who'd actively seek to tear down as much as he could, rather than mitigate it.
The choice is not no deal vs Corbyn but no deal followed by a Corbyn majority govt vs a Corbyn coalition govt.
That is where the conservatives have led us. A triumphant achievements thinks the party cheerleader!
Views are so entrenched now that I wouldn't expect meaningful movement on it for months after a No Deal Brexit. Everyone has their pantomime villains to blame (which won't be them) and will be looking for evidence to validate their confirmation bias.0 -
0
-
How can you have a monarchy defying the will of the people and 17 million people and aiding a coup by die hard Remainers to refuse to implement the will of the people?dyedwoolie said:
No, once that cat is out of the bag it's too late. It makes the monarchy unsustainable, how can you have am unelected hereditary monarch refusing to enact law passed by her subjects elected representatives? There a reason nobody since Anne has done soHYUFD said:
It wouldn't when voters oppose further extension by 47% to 41% with Survation at the weekend and backed the Queen asserting to proroguing Parliament by a 20% margin.dyedwoolie said:
Refusal of royal assent would be the end of monarchy, or the catalyst that begins that endingnumbertwelve said:
That would be unprecedented and severely undermine the monarchy. I hope Liz tells him where to go.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
The Queen rightly should not aid the Commons defy the will of the people
In the civil war we are now beginning most Monarchists are on the Leave side, most Republicans on the die hard Remainer side and it will now continue in that vein0 -
Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.
How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?0 -
-
Anne refused assent to the scottish militia bill of 1708 on advice of her ministers as she feared the Scots may be disloyal. Prior to that William of orange vetoed 6 times and before that Charles and James 2nd tried rule by decree0
-
The people of Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 using that popular sovereignty principleStuartDickson said:
English constitutional principle: parliamentary sovereignty.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. He just gave the electorate a choice. It is the Remainers who have chosen to ignore that choice and so undermine the basic principles of democracy. I assume ftom your comments a future Parliament should ignore any future Indy ReferendumStuartDickson said:
It was a Tory who did the sowing: David Cameron.Richard_Tyndall said:
There have been plenty of us warning this would happen for months. I go further and say if Brexit is dead then so is democracy in this country. You will reap what you sowed.StuartDickson said:
A first? First time I’ve seen a Leaver admit that Brexit is dead.Richard_Tyndall said:
The Renainers really are dumb. They are going to kill Brexit just in time for a major recession which every Leave supporting politician will take great pleasure in pinning on them. So with economic hardship and a betrayal narrative we are going to see a huge increase in support for the real extremist parties and a backlash against the politicians like you can't imagine.rcs1000 said:As an aside, the Markit PMIs are sub 50 now in:
the US
the UK
the Eurozone
Canada
Mexico
Japan
China is marginally above.
If you want to have an election, I'd have it now. Because those PMIs tend to lead changes in unemployment rates by six months.
Scottish constitutional principle: popular sovereignty.
You stick to your principles. We’ll stick to ours.0 -
As I said, lining up to be a good boy and nod No Deal through whilst trying to pin the blame on others.AlastairMeeks said:Paul Masterton is not one of the rebels:
https://twitter.com/pm4eastren/status/1168960672786472961?s=210 -
Cumming's Plan 9 from Outer Space is to have Brexit supporting aliens inhabiting the skins of politicians...dyedwoolie said:Cummings plan c is stealing the mace
https://youtu.be/unORPOtavqM?t=470 -
Because no deal is shit.Casino_Royale said:
What makes you think the dials will shift following No Deal?noneoftheabove said:
The only possible way this country will deliver a majority Corbyn govt is no deal.Casino_Royale said:
That's my view.AndyJS said:"At the end of the day it’s a no-deal Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn
Daniel Finkelstein
Leaving the EU without an agreement will damage the country but it’s still just about preferable to the alternative" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/at-the-end-of-the-day-its-no-deal-or-corbyn-k6wg69tzt
No Deal Brexit is crazy but it's still better than putting Corbyn in charge of Britain for even 5 minutes.
No Deal Brexit is major collateral damage in ideogically pursuing a single policy. Corbyn is a political, economic, security and social nuclear suicide weapon who'd actively seek to tear down as much as he could, rather than mitigate it.
The choice is not no deal vs Corbyn but no deal followed by a Corbyn majority govt vs a Corbyn coalition govt.
That is where the conservatives have led us. A triumphant achievements thinks the party cheerleader!
Views are so entrenched now that I wouldn't expect meaningful movement on it for months after a No Deal Brexit. Everyone has their pantomime villains to blame (which won't be them) and will be looking for evidence to validate their confirmation bias.0 -
Please don't put ideas into people's heads.dyedwoolie said:Anne refused assent to the scottish militia bill of 1708 on advice of her ministers as she feared the Scots may be disloyal. Prior to that William of orange vetoed 6 times and before that Charles and James 2nd tried rule by decree
0 -
Interesting. Thanks.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
I don't think Cooper-Letwin required consent (Speaker ruled it did not) but a subsequent legal ruling has cast doubt on whether that was technically correct.numbertwelve said:
The only precedent (I think) is the Cooper Letwin Bill. The government allowed consent there and should do so again.DougSeal said:
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.
I have, maybe naively, always thought that the giving of royal consent is one of the sole prerogatives reserved to the monarch acting independently of government. But perhaps I’m wrong and the advice of government always overrides. Would be a complete clusterf**k of epic proportions though, I can’t see the palace being happy at all if they’re dragged into this particular quagmire.0 -
I see you've decided to respond to hyperbolic references to a coup by trying to use it yourself. How very adult of you.HYUFD said:
How can you have a monarchy defying the will of the people and 17 million people and aiding a coup by die hard Remainers to refuse to implement the will of the people?dyedwoolie said:
No, once that cat is out of the bag it's too late. It makes the monarchy unsustainable, how can you have am unelected hereditary monarch refusing to enact law passed by her subjects elected representatives? There a reason nobody since Anne has done soHYUFD said:
It wouldn't when voters oppose further extension by 47% to 41% with Survation at the weekend and backed the Queen asserting to proroguing Parliament by a 20% margin.dyedwoolie said:
Refusal of royal assent would be the end of monarchy, or the catalyst that begins that endingnumbertwelve said:
That would be unprecedented and severely undermine the monarchy. I hope Liz tells him where to go.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
The Queen rightly should not aid the Commons defy the will of the people
In the civil war we are now beginning most Monarchists are on the Leave side, most Republicans on the die hard Remainer side and it will now continue in that vein0 -
And voted to stay in the EU in 2016...HYUFD said:
The people of Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 using that popular sovereignty principleStuartDickson said:
English constitutional principle: parliamentary sovereignty.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. He just gave the electorate a choice. It is the Remainers who have chosen to ignore that choice and so undermine the basic principles of democracy. I assume ftom your comments a future Parliament should ignore any future Indy ReferendumStuartDickson said:
It was a Tory who did the sowing: David Cameron.Richard_Tyndall said:
There have been plenty of us warning this would happen for months. I go further and say if Brexit is dead then so is democracy in this country. You will reap what you sowed.StuartDickson said:
A first? First time I’ve seen a Leaver admit that Brexit is dead.Richard_Tyndall said:
The Renainers really are dumb. They are going to kill Brexit just in time for a major recession which every Leave supporting politician will take great pleasure in pinning on them. So with economic hardship and a betrayal narrative we are going to see a huge increase in support for the real extremist parties and a backlash against the politicians like you can't imagine.rcs1000 said:As an aside, the Markit PMIs are sub 50 now in:
the US
the UK
the Eurozone
Canada
Mexico
Japan
China is marginally above.
If you want to have an election, I'd have it now. Because those PMIs tend to lead changes in unemployment rates by six months.
Scottish constitutional principle: popular sovereignty.
You stick to your principles. We’ll stick to ours.0 -
One example: Corbyn would do his utmost (for ideological reasons) to inhibit aspects of the work of our security services from day one, and start to dismantle parts of our military. He would ignore advice and warnings that conflicted with his worldview. He'd share confidential advice with our enemies. He'd undermine NATO. He could easily get people killed.kle4 said:
Oh, they don't have the same effect, but the impact seems little different.Casino_Royale said:
Oh, there's very much certainly a difference.kle4 said:
I see no difference. Happily, it is a good time to live in a safe seat as my vote one way or the other won't contribute meaningfully to either outcome.Casino_Royale said:
That's my view.AndyJS said:"At the end of the day it’s a no-deal Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn
Daniel Finkelstein
Leaving the EU without an agreement will damage the country but it’s still just about preferable to the alternative" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/at-the-end-of-the-day-its-no-deal-or-corbyn-k6wg69tzt
No Deal Brexit is crazy but it's still better than putting Corbyn in charge of Britain for even 5 minutes.
If you can't see one you're not looking or thinking hard enough, and falling back on whataboutism instead (because it's easier).
I'm sorry, but reliant on 'Corbyn is a boogeyman' is just plain laziness. I cannot stand the man, I voted Tory for the first time in large part because of that, but the Tories no longer care about anything other than no deal Brexit in order to preserve their party, and no deal Brexit appears to me to have a high chance of unacceptable impacts which will not be mitigated even if they can be. Corbyn will, I am sure, be terrible, but I need a bit more than an appeal to fear of an incompetent old trot to back a no deal Brexit.
He would quickly move to nationalisations and currency controls. He would try an emergency budget and confiscate whatever assets he could. Including your pension. He would tax your income heavily and your house.
The Conservatives would never do any of that (even for a No Deal Brexit, which you're assuming Corbyn also secretly doesn't want) so I wouldn't put the man anywhere near Downing Street under any circumstances.0 -
Nothing is forever.HYUFD said:
The people of Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 using that popular sovereignty principleStuartDickson said:
English constitutional principle: parliamentary sovereignty.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. He just gave the electorate a choice. It is the Remainers who have chosen to ignore that choice and so undermine the basic principles of democracy. I assume ftom your comments a future Parliament should ignore any future Indy ReferendumStuartDickson said:
It was a Tory who did the sowing: David Cameron.Richard_Tyndall said:
There have been plenty of us warning this would happen for months. I go further and say if Brexit is dead then so is democracy in this country. You will reap what you sowed.StuartDickson said:
A first? First time I’ve seen a Leaver admit that Brexit is dead.Richard_Tyndall said:
The Renainers really are dumb. They are going to kill Brexit just in time for a major recession which every Leave supporting politician will take great pleasure in pinning on them. So with economic hardship and a betrayal narrative we are going to see a huge increase in support for the real extremist parties and a backlash against the politicians like you can't imagine.rcs1000 said:As an aside, the Markit PMIs are sub 50 now in:
the US
the UK
the Eurozone
Canada
Mexico
Japan
China is marginally above.
If you want to have an election, I'd have it now. Because those PMIs tend to lead changes in unemployment rates by six months.
Scottish constitutional principle: popular sovereignty.
You stick to your principles. We’ll stick to ours.0 -
Nope, Corbyn will never get a majority Government, indeed Swinson now leads Corbyn as preferred PM.noneoftheabove said:
The only possible way this country will deliver a majority Corbyn govt is no deal.Casino_Royale said:
That's my view.AndyJS said:"At the end of the day it’s a no-deal Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn
Daniel Finkelstein
Leaving the EU without an agreement will damage the country but it’s still just about preferable to the alternative" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/at-the-end-of-the-day-its-no-deal-or-corbyn-k6wg69tzt
No Deal Brexit is crazy but it's still better than putting Corbyn in charge of Britain for even 5 minutes.
No Deal Brexit is major collateral damage in ideogically pursuing a single policy. Corbyn is a political, economic, security and social nuclear suicide weapon who'd actively seek to tear down as much as he could, rather than mitigate it.
The choice is not no deal vs Corbyn but no deal followed by a Corbyn majority govt vs a Corbyn coalition govt.
That is where the conservatives have led us. A triumphant achievements thinks the party cheerleader!
The only way Corbyn becomes PM is by listening to diehard Remainers like you, splitting the Leave vote between the Brexit Party and the Tories under FPTP and allowing Corbyn in the back door0 -
A step on the journey you will fail to take unless you can bury your myopic isolationist ideology.StuartDickson said:
Stopping No Deal Brexit is merely a step on the journey. We have bigger, more important goals. Pursuing, always, the interests of the Scottish nation.Casino_Royale said:
Yes, but this vote is about stopping a No Deal Brexit.StuartDickson said:
We aim to dissolve the Union, not repair it.Casino_Royale said:Jesus. Fucking Ian Blackford.
I know he's SNP but every time he stands up it's Scotland this.. Scotland that.. Pushing SNP propaganda and attack lines.
Always divides the House rather than seeking to influence it to his greater advantage.
Are the SNP interested in reaching out to stop that across party lines,or not?0 -
Hence why I used the word government. She did have a government did she not?AlastairMeeks said:
Queen Anne did not have a Prime Minister.Philip_Thompson said:
AFAIK Queen Anne is the most recent precedent, which AFAIK is the most recent time that Parliament has passed a bill that the government then wanted to veto.DougSeal said:
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.
Petrol has been getting poured all year and neither side wants to be the side to lose.
0 -
The referendum was advisory. If it had been binding the result would have been annulled by the courts. Due to Leave cheating.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. He just gave the electorate a choice. It is the Remainers who have chosen to ignore that choice and so undermine the basic principles of democracy. I assume ftom your comments a future Parliament should ignore any future Indy ReferendumStuartDickson said:
It was a Tory who did the sowing: David Cameron.Richard_Tyndall said:
There have been plenty of us warning this would happen for months. I go further and say if Brexit is dead then so is democracy in this country. You will reap what you sowed.StuartDickson said:
A first? First time I’ve seen a Leaver admit that Brexit is dead.Richard_Tyndall said:
The Renainers really are dumb. They are going to kill Brexit just in time for a major recession which every Leave supporting politician will take great pleasure in pinning on them. So with economic hardship and a betrayal narrative we are going to see a huge increase in support for the real extremist parties and a backlash against the politicians like you can't imagine.rcs1000 said:As an aside, the Markit PMIs are sub 50 now in:
the US
the UK
the Eurozone
Canada
Mexico
Japan
China is marginally above.
If you want to have an election, I'd have it now. Because those PMIs tend to lead changes in unemployment rates by six months.0 -
Speculation that O'Mara is still in Sheffield.
https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/11689661620608491530 -
Philip_Thompson said:
AFAIK Queen Anne is the most recent precedent, which AFAIK is the most recent time that Parliament has passed a bill that the government then wanted to veto.DougSeal said:
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.
Petrol has been getting poured all year and neither side wants to be the side to lose.
Yes but Queen Anne didn’t have a Prime Minister in the modern sense. Walpole was the first under George I. A Government used to resign when bills were passed they wanted to veto and request a dissolution of Parliament. The FTPA put a stop to that. These are uncharted waters.0 -
If it doesn't require Queen's Consent then the prerogative power is unaffected by the legislation. The PM could say he'd ignore it in so far as prerogative power was being exercised. That's why he said he'd uphold the constitution and the law when asked earlier. The only constitutional remedy would be a VoNC.Philip_Thompson said:
Speaker determines if a bill requires royal consent. If it does the PM advises HMQ whether to grant consent or not.Chris said:
Well, in any case royal consent and royal assent are two different things, and as far as I know the speaker isn't involved in either.Philip_Thompson said:
This bill arguably affects royal prerogative.Chris said:
I think you're confusing royal consent for legislation that affects the royal prerogative with royal assent for legislation in general. They are two different things.dyedwoolie said:
If he ruled benn cannot be refused consent as it does not infringe royal prerogative that could be challenged in courtNigelb said:
Which one indeed ?dyedwoolie said:
Which one? Yes in theory to most things thoughralphmalph said:Quick question, if the Govts decision to prorogue can be taken to court, Can The Speakers decision also be taken to court?
Most probably cannot - if he is supported by a majority in the House, which determines its own procedures, it’s hard to see how that might be justiciable outside of the House.
If this bill requires consent and Bercow says so then Boris can veto it via withholding consent. If it should require consent but Bercow claims it doesn't, it is hard to see how that can be remedied.0 -
The point being that a veto on the advice of a Prime Minister is literally without precedent.Philip_Thompson said:
Hence why I used the word government. She did have a government did she not?AlastairMeeks said:
Queen Anne did not have a Prime Minister.Philip_Thompson said:
AFAIK Queen Anne is the most recent precedent, which AFAIK is the most recent time that Parliament has passed a bill that the government then wanted to veto.DougSeal said:
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.
Petrol has been getting poured all year and neither side wants to be the side to lose.0 -
Thank you, that's high praisePeter_the_Punter said:@Philip_Thompson
Was that really your first piece, Philip? You should do more. 0 -
You can register to vote at both properties. You can vote in only one at a GE but both in locals. As far as I'm aware you don't have to nominate one.jayfdee said:Busy on here tonight, I am normally just a lurker, but here goes.
I am a pensioner, some would say well off, former MD of a successful company, I voted remain, and deplore the polarisation of both remainers and leavers, I am not an old thickie, or a Remoniac.
I was a supporter of Boris, and a Con voter, but not any more, I now have nowhere to go, Corbyn, definitely not, Libdems, no. Greens absolutely not, despite the fact I spent my career in recycling and environmental matters.
I mainly live in a marginal Con/Lab, but close to a Libdem hotspot, I could also vote for Rory as I also could have my main residence in his constituency. Think I will change my residence and vote Rory, as a likely independent.
Please someone correct me if I'm wrong.
0 -
A Tory calling someone else myopic, isolationist and an ideologue. Folk in glass houses...Casino_Royale said:
A step on the journey you will fail to take unless you can bury your myopic isolationist ideology.StuartDickson said:
Stopping No Deal Brexit is merely a step on the journey. We have bigger, more important goals. Pursuing, always, the interests of the Scottish nation.Casino_Royale said:
Yes, but this vote is about stopping a No Deal Brexit.StuartDickson said:
We aim to dissolve the Union, not repair it.Casino_Royale said:Jesus. Fucking Ian Blackford.
I know he's SNP but every time he stands up it's Scotland this.. Scotland that.. Pushing SNP propaganda and attack lines.
Always divides the House rather than seeking to influence it to his greater advantage.
Are the SNP interested in reaching out to stop that across party lines,or not?1 -
Why is Brexit not a myopic isolationist ideology?Casino_Royale said:
A step on the journey you will fail to take unless you can bury your myopic isolationist ideology.StuartDickson said:
Stopping No Deal Brexit is merely a step on the journey. We have bigger, more important goals. Pursuing, always, the interests of the Scottish nation.Casino_Royale said:
Yes, but this vote is about stopping a No Deal Brexit.StuartDickson said:
We aim to dissolve the Union, not repair it.Casino_Royale said:Jesus. Fucking Ian Blackford.
I know he's SNP but every time he stands up it's Scotland this.. Scotland that.. Pushing SNP propaganda and attack lines.
Always divides the House rather than seeking to influence it to his greater advantage.
Are the SNP interested in reaching out to stop that across party lines,or not?0 -
Byronic said:
Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.
How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?Byronic said:Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.
How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?Byronic said:Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.
How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?
In most circumstances, it wouldn't matter if they trusted him on the precise date. But in this situation, it's crucial.Byronic said:Thornberry on BBC apparently saying that Labour will never trust a Boris request for a GE. As he might shift the date.
How does that work? Labour will never go for an election, ever?0 -
I am saying the Queen should resist the coup to defy the Leave vote and deny the will of the peopleDougSeal said:
That’s absurd. YouGov and Survation are fine organisation but are you seriously suggesting that the Queen should withold consent to a bill passed by the legislature based on an opinion poll? Seriously? That’s insane.HYUFD said:
It wouldn't when voters opposed further extension by 47% to 41% with Survation at the weekend and backed the Queen asserting to proroguing Parliament by a 20% margin.dyedwoolie said:
Refusal of royal assent would be the end of monarchy, or the catalyst that begins that endingnumbertwelve said:
That would be unprecedented and severely undermine the monarchy. I hope Liz tells him where to go.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
Indeed Monarchists, the Queen's base, voted 56% Leave while republicans voted 65% Remain.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists
The Queen rightly should not aid the Commons defy the will of the people0 -
Dawn Foster’s TV career just ended.0
-
The Nat say its ok to ignore referendums - precedent set. Twice.Casino_Royale said:
A step on the journey you will fail to take unless you can bury your myopic isolationist ideology.StuartDickson said:
Stopping No Deal Brexit is merely a step on the journey. We have bigger, more important goals. Pursuing, always, the interests of the Scottish nation.Casino_Royale said:
Yes, but this vote is about stopping a No Deal Brexit.StuartDickson said:
We aim to dissolve the Union, not repair it.Casino_Royale said:Jesus. Fucking Ian Blackford.
I know he's SNP but every time he stands up it's Scotland this.. Scotland that.. Pushing SNP propaganda and attack lines.
Always divides the House rather than seeking to influence it to his greater advantage.
Are the SNP interested in reaching out to stop that across party lines,or not?0 -
Another reason why FTPA is a ridiculous piece of legislation.Drutt said:
If it doesn't require Queen's Consent then the prerogative power is unaffected by the legislation. The PM could say he'd ignore it in so far as prerogative power was being exercised. That's why he said he'd uphold the constitution and the law when asked earlier. The only constitutional remedy would be a VoNC.Philip_Thompson said:
Speaker determines if a bill requires royal consent. If it does the PM advises HMQ whether to grant consent or not.Chris said:
Well, in any case royal consent and royal assent are two different things, and as far as I know the speaker isn't involved in either.Philip_Thompson said:
This bill arguably affects royal prerogative.Chris said:
I think you're confusing royal consent for legislation that affects the royal prerogative with royal assent for legislation in general. They are two different things.dyedwoolie said:
If he ruled benn cannot be refused consent as it does not infringe royal prerogative that could be challenged in courtNigelb said:
Which one indeed ?dyedwoolie said:
Which one? Yes in theory to most things thoughralphmalph said:Quick question, if the Govts decision to prorogue can be taken to court, Can The Speakers decision also be taken to court?
Most probably cannot - if he is supported by a majority in the House, which determines its own procedures, it’s hard to see how that might be justiciable outside of the House.
If this bill requires consent and Bercow says so then Boris can veto it via withholding consent. If it should require consent but Bercow claims it doesn't, it is hard to see how that can be remedied.0 -
Yes, and that disproves my point how?noneoftheabove said:
Because no deal is shit.Casino_Royale said:
What makes you think the dials will shift following No Deal?noneoftheabove said:
The only possible way this country will deliver a majority Corbyn govt is no deal.Casino_Royale said:
That's my view.AndyJS said:"At the end of the day it’s a no-deal Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn
Daniel Finkelstein
Leaving the EU without an agreement will damage the country but it’s still just about preferable to the alternative" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/at-the-end-of-the-day-its-no-deal-or-corbyn-k6wg69tzt
No Deal Brexit is crazy but it's still better than putting Corbyn in charge of Britain for even 5 minutes.
No Deal Brexit is major collateral damage in ideogically pursuing a single policy. Corbyn is a political, economic, security and social nuclear suicide weapon who'd actively seek to tear down as much as he could, rather than mitigate it.
The choice is not no deal vs Corbyn but no deal followed by a Corbyn majority govt vs a Corbyn coalition govt.
That is where the conservatives have led us. A triumphant achievements thinks the party cheerleader!
Views are so entrenched now that I wouldn't expect meaningful movement on it for months after a No Deal Brexit. Everyone has their pantomime villains to blame (which won't be them) and will be looking for evidence to validate their confirmation bias.0 -
Just as the Iraq War bill that Blair vetoed consent to would have passed the vote to the HOC.nichomar said:
And that extension can be voted down by the HOC as included in the bill but deliberately left out by the loonies in their publicitydyedwoolie said:
It didn't as it mandated the PM to have to seek an extension, it did not state she had to accept, and was superceded by events. Its having to accept any extension offered that affects prerogativeSirNorfolkPassmore said:
I don't think Cooper-Letwin required consent (Speaker ruled it did not) but a subsequent legal ruling has cast doubt on whether that was technically correct.numbertwelve said:
The only precedent (I think) is the Cooper Letwin Bill. The government allowed consent there and should do so again.DougSeal said:
Is there a precedent for a Prime Minister advising the Queen not to give assent to a bill passed by the legislature? To my knowledge there is none, the issue has never arisen, and those in the know are deeply divided as to whether it could happen. You want to pour petrol on the flames of a constitutional crisis? That’s how you do it.Philip_Thompson said:
Quite reasonable for Boris to do that if he has the Confidence of the House.Danny565 said:Apparently, the latest wheeze is that, even if Parliament passes the No Deal Bill, Boris will just stop Her Maj from signing it anyway.
If he doesn't, MPs should say so.
Transferring the decision from HMG to HOC affects royal prerogative and requires consent.
Would be hilarious if after all this the Clerk rules consent is required and Boris refuses to give it.0 -
It's my turn to disagree. MPs are representatives not delegates. Within the remit is the key part about using their judgement in the interests of the safety of the UK. There are clearly those who view No Deal as contrary to the better interests of the UK - that doesn't mean they don't support leaving the EU, just not on this basis.Richard_Tyndall said:
I disagree. Remember I have always favoured the EFTA route out of the EU and the idea of a long, slow process with safeguards to make sure it could not be undermined. I supported May's deal in spite of its flaws.
But I genuinely believe the aim of the majority of the House is to somehow reverse the referendum result whikst avoiding getting blamed for it. Indeed plenty of those who once dishonestly claimed to support the result of the referendum are now quite open in their support for cancelling it.
What reason should anyone have to trust any if these people voting against No Deal tonight when so many of them have already broken their promises to their own electorates.
It's this misunderstanding of an MP's role which poisons the debate. MPs can't be mandated - even if a majority of their constituents, for example, supported restoring the death penalty for the murder of a Police Officer, the MP isn't obliged to follow that if their conscience doesn't permit it.
I still believe there is a deal to be done but it may require starting all over again and being a lot clearer about Ulster and what we want. Go back to Theresa May's Lancaster House speech and you realise it's all generalities and platitudes - the real hard work hadn't been done before we jumped into A50 and I think her supporters believed with a landslide she could get any Deal she dished up through Parliament.0 -
Raffles the Gentleman ThugTheScreamingEagles said:Remember JRM’s hissy fit when Mrs May won the VONC?
JRM is a deeply unpleasant man.
http://viz.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Screen-Shot-2014-11-17-at-10.58.20.png0 -
Re VONC not being called before November. If consent is withheld it will be VONC the next day then the one line QS and election IF a candidate can be agreed in 14 days0
