So why is Boris Johnson not even trying for an early election? Because he doesn't really want one?
Because the only chance was getting Corbyn to agree before Labour backbenchers could explain to him what a spectacularly rubbish idea that was. Now that's off the table, there's no point in flogging the dead horse.
Have you any idea how pathetic that sounds as an excuse for not trying a route that needs a simple majority of MPs, given that Labour has only 247 MPs out of 650?
For those PBers getting their nether regions garments in a frenzy about royal assent here is what happens to bills passed by parliament when prorogation occurs :
"Any bills that have completed all their parliamentary stages at the point Parliament is prorogued, but have not yet been given Royal Assent (needed for a bill to become an Act of Parliament), receive Royal Assent as part of the prorogation ceremony. During the ceremony, the Clerk of the Crown announces each bill to receive Royal Assent. As each bill is announced, the Clerk of the Parliament then declares "Le Reyne le veult" (the Queen wishes it in Norman French), signifying Assent has been given."
Actually, sorry, if Johnson agrees to the extension it will not go well. If he plonked Mays Deal, tarted up a bit, to the public as Tory policy in a GE before Nov, Brexit Party would be wiped out I reckon.
Yes. Agree. FWIW the only way out of this for the country, and for Boris, is to bring back a TUMD (Tarted Up May Deal). Or "rolled in glitter" as is becoming the vernacular. ...
As in "We can't do much with Boris Johnson, but we can try rolling him in glitter"?
For those PBers getting their nether regions garments in a frenzy about royal assent here is what happens to bills passed by parliament when prorogation occurs :
"Any bills that have completed all their parliamentary stages at the point Parliament is prorogued, but have not yet been given Royal Assent (needed for a bill to become an Act of Parliament), receive Royal Assent as part of the prorogation ceremony. During the ceremony, the Clerk of the Crown announces each bill to receive Royal Assent. As each bill is announced, the Clerk of the Parliament then declares "Le Reyne le veult" (the Queen wishes it in Norman French), signifying Assent has been given."
Mr. Eagles, will it include a list of the pro-EU MPs who voted to leave the EU and trigger Article 50, then voted against a deal repeatedly?
I am sure we could all list the pro-Brexit MPs who had an opportunity to pass a bill to leave but then chose not to. It will surprise you to note that it includes members of the front bench.
Mr. Eagles, worth noting the EU permitted no discussion at all ahead of triggering Article 50.
But Article 50 itself places the negotiation after the notification.
Just more evidence of the breathtaking ignorance of Brexiteers about the procedures they wanted to set in motion.
We just assumed the EU wouldn't be so pig-headedly stupid as to actually follow the letter of their ineptly written rules.
Which is sort of weird, since the EU's habitual blind adherence to bad ideas is a key facet of why we wanted out in the first place.
You're saying Brexiteers made that pledge based on an understanding that the rules would make it impossible, but an assumption that the rules would be broken? Is that meant to be a good thing to do?
Neither is continued membership of organisations whose rules make it impossible to leave in an orderly fashion!
As I recall, the assumption was that the rules would be bent rather than broken (via an "understanding" around the shape of the final deal, followed by two years to negotiate the details). Which seems eminently sensible to me, only the EU refused point blank to play ball, and then compounded the error by insisting on sequencing the talks backwards (an error they've now admitted to).
It's sort of win-win for Leavers: the mess the EU made over Article 50 is a pretty good microcosm of why we wanted to leave it.
Actually, sorry, if Johnson agrees to the extension it will not go well. If he plonked Mays Deal, tarted up a bit, to the public as Tory policy in a GE before Nov, Brexit Party would be wiped out I reckon.
Yes. Agree. FWIW the only way out of this for the country, and for Boris, is to bring back a TUMD (Tarted Up May Deal). Or "rolled in glitter" as is becoming the vernacular. And because, country aside, it incidentally saves Boris is why it should be front runner.
I happen to continue to believe it will happen.
How does it save him, though? It will split the Tories evwn further as the ERG would all march off and it would regalvinise Farage. And I doubt that many on the other side of the argument would be that impressed either. It would expose Johnson to everyone as a complete chancer in it only for himself. At the moment, there are still 35% or so of voters who do not view him that way.
Challenge Labour not to back the deal, throw out the ERG-ers (he would have to as it's not Brexit to them), welcome or not the 21 back. And then leave on Oct 31st.
And then call the election. Which Lab would have to support.
At this point remainer Tories would be relieved we didn't have No Deal, and could more willingly vote Cons vs LD or Lab; Leaver Tories would be happy that we'd left. I think there would be enough BXP-ers to realise that we'd left so that would leave Nigel with a hollowed out rump. And meanwhile Jezza would be there frightening the horses to a Cons minority or even majority (I'll leave @HYUFD to work up the numbers).
BXP + ERG probably equals 30% or so in the country -m and there's the BXP takeover of CCPs on top. If there were an eleciton after a May-like deal was voted through many Tory MPs would stand on a platform opposing it. That's the problem. That said, I think Labour would support May's deal if it came with a ratification referendum with Remain as the other option.
For those PBers getting their nether regions garments in a frenzy about royal assent here is what happens to bills passed by parliament when prorogation occurs :
"Any bills that have completed all their parliamentary stages at the point Parliament is prorogued, but have not yet been given Royal Assent (needed for a bill to become an Act of Parliament), receive Royal Assent as part of the prorogation ceremony. During the ceremony, the Clerk of the Crown announces each bill to receive Royal Assent. As each bill is announced, the Clerk of the Parliament then declares "Le Reyne le veult" (the Queen wishes it in Norman French), signifying Assent has been given."
Mr. Foremain, I've said for a long time that Boris Johnson isn't fit to be in Cabinet, and excoriated those MPs who foolishly supported his leadership bid.
That does not mean other MPs get to abdicate their responsibility and bemoan no deal having voted in such a way as to make that the legal default option.
So why is Boris Johnson not even trying for an early election? Because he doesn't really want one?
Because the only chance was getting Corbyn to agree before Labour backbenchers could explain to him what a spectacularly rubbish idea that was. Now that's off the table, there's no point in flogging the dead horse.
Have you any idea how pathetic that sounds as an excuse for not trying a route that needs a simple majority of MPs, given that Labour has only 247 MPs out of 650?
AIUI he needs a two-thirds majority to vote directly for an early election. A vote of No Confidence is the one that needs a simple majority.
Yes, MPs have refused to vote for Brexit with a Deal or with No Deal despite the Leave win
They are just trying to honour the Leave campaign pledge that we would Leave with a deal.
TSE in full on lie mode again.
Sorry I have to agree with TSE, every time Project Fear said we would / could leave without a deal, Leave stated we would get a (great, awesome, world's easiest) deal .
Its called politicking. Both sides do it. Show me this mystical pledge.
The official Vote Leave leaflet (and it's still on their website) contained the immortal line:
There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it.
Should I embarrass Tyndall even more by posting videos of all the times Leavers said we would leave with a deal and No Deal was just project fear?
No need. Us more sensible Leavers did believe the documents put together, and knew what we were voting for. A DEAL exit, in sensible stages.... like the one TM negotiated.
Right, I need to write the afternoon thread in the next 40 mins, then around 4 pm I'll post some stuff reminding us all of the times Leavers said No Deal was Project Fear and/or them saying we'd Leave with a deal.
For a group who get terribly exercised about the details of the manifestos various parties ran on at the last election, the more vocal leavers are remarkably insouciant about their own prospectus from the referendum.
So what is going to happen over the next month, in the lead up to the EU council meeting, in the absence of parliament sitting, with all the great governmental authority of a -45 seat majority ?
Yes, MPs have refused to vote for Brexit with a Deal or with No Deal despite the Leave win
They are just trying to honour the Leave campaign pledge that we would Leave with a deal.
TSE in full on lie mode again.
No you're confusing me for Vote Leave.
Now pay particular attention to the top and bottom bullet points.
I thought it was bad that we lost to a bus. Now I realise that we lost to a burger made out of money.
It would of course have been sensible for us to negotiate the deal with the EU before serving the Article 50 notice but they refused to do so. Hindsight is 20:20 but I suspect they regret that almost as much as us.
(Putting my cheeky hat on for a minute, I thought we were going to skip the Commission and negotiate directly with the Germans?)
Mr. Eagles, worth noting the EU permitted no discussion at all ahead of triggering Article 50.
But Article 50 itself places the negotiation after the notification.
Just more evidence of the breathtaking ignorance of Brexiteers about the procedures they wanted to set in motion.
We just assumed the EU wouldn't be so pig-headedly stupid as to actually follow the letter of their ineptly written rules.
Which is sort of weird, since the EU's habitual blind adherence to bad ideas is a key facet of why we wanted out in the first place.
You're saying Brexiteers made that pledge based on an understanding that the rules would make it impossible, but an assumption that the rules would be broken? Is that meant to be a good thing to do?
Neither is continued membership of organisations whose rules make it impossible to leave in an orderly fashion!
As I recall, the assumption was that the rules would be bent rather than broken (via an "understanding" around the shape of the final deal, followed by two years to negotiate the details). ...
And you think it was fair to represent that process by saying: "we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave"?
I just think it's useful to know people's opinions about these things, when they're still posting here. Because it will give us an idea of their own attitudes towards truthfulness.
Actually, sorry, if Johnson agrees to the extension it will not go well. If he plonked Mays Deal, tarted up a bit, to the public as Tory policy in a GE before Nov, Brexit Party would be wiped out I reckon.
Yes. Agree. FWIW the only way out of this for the country, and for Boris, is to bring back a TUMD (Tarted Up May Deal). Or "rolled in glitter" as is becoming the vernacular. And because, country aside, it incidentally saves Boris is why it should be front runner.
I happen to continue to believe it will happen.
How does it save him, though? It will split the Tories evwn further as the ERG would all march off and it would regalvinise Farage. And I doubt that many on the other side of the argument would be that impressed either. It would expose Johnson to everyone as a complete chancer in it only for himself. At the moment, there are still 35% or so of voters who do not view him that way.
Challenge Labour not to back the deal, throw out the ERG-ers (he would have to as it's not Brexit to them), welcome or not the 21 back. And then leave on Oct 31st.
And then call the election. Which Lab would have to support.
At this point remainer Tories would be relieved we didn't have No Deal, and could more willingly vote Cons vs LD or Lab; Leaver Tories would be happy that we'd left. I think there would be enough BXP-ers to realise that we'd left so that would leave Nigel with a hollowed out rump. And meanwhile Jezza would be there frightening the horses to a Cons minority or even majority (I'll leave @HYUFD to work up the numbers).
BXP + ERG probably equals 30% or so in the country -m and there's the BXP takeover of CCPs on top. If there were an eleciton after a May-like deal was voted through many Tory MPs would stand on a platform opposing it. That's the problem. That said, I think Labour would support May's deal if it came with a ratification referendum with Remain as the other option.
Pre-leaving BXP + ERG would be 30% (high imo but we'll go with it). Post-leaving that figure plummets. Have people (not Farage, normal people) really got the energy to worry about what type of leaving a WA may entail? Not so sure. We will have left and then the fight is who will negotiate the future trade agreement. Hence the GE. And yes of course there will be some residual BXPers but many more will want to move on plus there is always Jezza as a backstop to reluctant Cons/BXP waverers.
Would Lab accept it? Well of course that's the key but I think they would upset many of their supporters (leave and remain alike) if they continued to hold out. We've all been living with the prospect of No Deal and I believe the WA would come as a welcome relief to many.
UNS would imply 12 Tory gains from Labour offset by 17 losses to LDs and circa 10 to SNP giving a total of 302. & of the 12 Labour seats at risk would enjoy first term incumbency so the Tories would struggle to exceed 300. Labour would lose 4 to LDs and 6 to SNP - though in reality only Sheffield Hallam would be likely to fall to LDs.That would give Labour 240 - 245 seats. LDs would end up on 30 - 35 seats.
Actually, sorry, if Johnson agrees to the extension it will not go well. If he plonked Mays Deal, tarted up a bit, to the public as Tory policy in a GE before Nov, Brexit Party would be wiped out I reckon.
Yes. Agree. FWIW the only way out of this for the country, and for Boris, is to bring back a TUMD (Tarted Up May Deal). Or "rolled in glitter" as is becoming the vernacular. And because, country aside, it incidentally saves Boris is why it should be front runner.
I happen to continue to believe it will happen.
How does it save him, though? It will split the Tories evwn further as the ERG would all march off and it would regalvinise Farage. And I doubt that many on the other side of the argument would be that impressed either. It would expose Johnson to everyone as a complete chancer in it only for himself. At the moment, there are still 35% or so of voters who do not view him that way.
Challenge Labour not to back the deal, throw out the ERG-ers (he would have to as it's not Brexit to them), welcome or not the 21 back. And then leave on Oct 31st.
And then call the election. Which Lab would have to support.
At this point remainer Tories would be relieved we didn't have No Deal, and could more willingly vote Cons vs LD or Lab; Leaver Tories would be happy that we'd left. I think there would be enough BXP-ers to realise that we'd left so that would leave Nigel with a hollowed out rump. And meanwhile Jezza would be there frightening the horses to a Cons minority or even majority (I'll leave @HYUFD to work up the numbers).
BXP + ERG probably equals 30% or so in the country -m and there's the BXP takeover of CCPs on top. If there were an eleciton after a May-like deal was voted through many Tory MPs would stand on a platform opposing it. That's the problem. That said, I think Labour would support May's deal if it came with a ratification referendum with Remain as the other option.
You think Labour would campaign for the deal? Emily Thornberry would campaign for Remain against her own deal, let alone an evil Tory one
That said, I think Labour would support May's deal if it came with a ratification referendum with Remain as the other option.
That's the option May wanted to allow a vote on before she was finally toppled by Leadsom.
It's possible we would be in the campaign period for that referendum now, with a clear path to resolving this mess, in or out, if May had been allowed to press forward with that.
Mind you the Brexit Party would probably be leading in the polls, we'd have a lot more Farage on the TV, so you can see why Tory MPs mostly didn't want to go for it.
So why is Boris Johnson not even trying for an early election? Because he doesn't really want one?
Because the only chance was getting Corbyn to agree before Labour backbenchers could explain to him what a spectacularly rubbish idea that was. Now that's off the table, there's no point in flogging the dead horse.
Have you any idea how pathetic that sounds as an excuse for not trying a route that needs a simple majority of MPs, given that Labour has only 247 MPs out of 650?
AIUI he needs a two-thirds majority to vote directly for an early election. A vote of No Confidence is the one that needs a simple majority.
Sorry - I thought you might have been following the discussions.
The other possibilities, apart from a 2/3 vote, are: (1) A bill to hold an election on a specific date, (2) A vote of no confidence in the government, engineering by the government.
That said, I think Labour would support May's deal if it came with a ratification referendum with Remain as the other option.
That's the option May wanted to allow a vote on before she was finally toppled by Leadsom.
It's possible we would be in the campaign period for that referendum now, with a clear path to resolving this mess, in or out, if May had been allowed to press forward with that.
Mind you the Brexit Party would probably be leading in the polls, we'd have a lot more Farage on the TV, so you can see why Tory MPs mostly didn't want to go for it.
Why would Farage be on TV - what option out of May's Deal v remain would he be supporting.
Actually, sorry, if Johnson agrees to the extension it will not go well. If he plonked Mays Deal, tarted up a bit, to the public as Tory policy in a GE before Nov, Brexit Party would be wiped out I reckon.
Yes. Agree. FWIW the only way out of this for the country, and for Boris, is to bring back a TUMD (Tarted Up May Deal). Or "rolled in glitter" as is becoming the vernacular. And because, country aside, it incidentally saves Boris is why it should be front runner.
I happen to continue to believe it will happen.
How
Challenge Labour not to back the deal, throw out the ERG-ers (he would have to as it's not Brexit to them), welcome or not the 21 back. And then leave on Oct 31st.
And then call the election. Which Lab would have to support.
At this point remainer Tories would be relieved we didn't have No Deal, and could more willingly vote Cons vs LD or Lab; Leaver Tories would be happy that we'd left. I think there would be enough BXP-ers to realise that we'd left so that would leave Nigel with a hollowed out rump. And meanwhile Jezza would be there frightening the horses to a Cons minority or even majority (I'll leave @HYUFD to work up the numbers).
BXP + ERG probably equals 30% or so in the country -m and there's the BXP takeover of CCPs on top. If there were an eleciton after a May-like deal was voted through many Tory MPs would stand on a platform opposing it. That's the problem. That said, I think Labour would support May's deal if it came with a ratification referendum with Remain as the other option.
Pre-leaving BXP + ERG would be 30% (high imo but we'll go with it). Post-leaving that figure plummets. Have people (not Farage, normal people) really got the energy to worry about what type of leaving a WA may entail? Not so sure. We will have left and then the fight is who will negotiate the future trade agreement. Hence the GE. And yes of course there will be some residual BXPers but many more will want to move on plus there is always Jezza as a backstop to reluctant Cons/BXP waverers.
Would Lab accept it? Well of course that's the key but I think they would upset many of their supporters (leave and remain alike) if they continued to hold out. We've all been living with the prospect of No Deal and I believe the WA would come as a welcome relief to many.
I find it amazing that anyone would think leave inclined public would be angry at a deal that meant we had left with control over immigration.
For those PBers getting their nether regions garments in a frenzy about royal assent here is what happens to bills passed by parliament when prorogation occurs :
"Any bills that have completed all their parliamentary stages at the point Parliament is prorogued, but have not yet been given Royal Assent (needed for a bill to become an Act of Parliament), receive Royal Assent as part of the prorogation ceremony. During the ceremony, the Clerk of the Crown announces each bill to receive Royal Assent. As each bill is announced, the Clerk of the Parliament then declares "Le Reyne le veult" (the Queen wishes it in Norman French), signifying Assent has been given."
This seems to be the crux: ‘the predominant academic view… is that the Sovereign… must act upon the advice of responsible ministers
Although the article has a rather more technical definition of "responsible ministers" than the colloquial one, I think both the academic and the layperson would probably conclude that the current government is bereft of such.
UNS would imply 12 Tory gains from Labour offset by 17 losses to LDs and circa 10 to SNP giving a total of 302. & of the 12 Labour seats at risk would enjoy first term incumbency so the Tories would struggle to exceed 300. Labour would lose 4 to LDs and 6 to SNP - though in reality only Sheffield Hallam would be likely to fall to LDs.That would give Labour 240 - 245 seats. LDs would end up on 30 - 35 seats.
But which Tories are we talking about? Rory Stewart's "Real Conservatives" or the Johnsonite Brexit Party-lite English Nationalist Conservatives"?
Yes, MPs have refused to vote for Brexit with a Deal or with No Deal despite the Leave win
They are just trying to honour the Leave campaign pledge that we would Leave with a deal.
TSE in full on lie mode again.
Sorry I have to agree with TSE, every time Project Fear said we would / could leave without a deal, Leave stated we would get a (great, awesome, world's easiest) deal .
Its called politicking. Both sides do it. Show me this mystical pledge.
The official Vote Leave leaflet (and it's still on their website) contained the immortal line:
There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it.
Yep, and Iceland is a member of the EEA and EFTA (and no other "European free trade zone" that I am aware of. So the key Vote Leave people, if they believe in democracy at all, should definitely be going for the UK leaving the EU and heading for EEA/EFTA. That's Johnson, Gove and Cummings. But we should all already know these people don't believe in democracy at all.
Actually, sorry, if Johnson agrees to the extension it will not go well. If he plonked Mays Deal, tarted up a bit, to the public as Tory policy in a GE before Nov, Brexit Party would be wiped out I reckon.
Yes. Agree. FWIW the only way out of this for the country, and for Boris, is to bring back a TUMD (Tarted Up May Deal). Or "rolled in glitter" as is becoming the vernacular. And because, country aside, it incidentally saves Boris is why it should be front runner.
I happen to continue to believe it will happen.
How
Challenge Labour not to back the deal, throw out the ERG-ers (he would have to as it's not Brexit to them), welcome or not the 21 back. And then leave on Oct 31st.
And then call the election. Which Lab would have to support.
At this point remainer Tories would be relieved we didn't have No Deal, and could more willingly vote Cons vs LD or Lab; Leaver Tories would be happy that we'd left. I think there would be enough BXP-ers to realise that we'd left so that would leave Nigel with a hollowed out rump. And meanwhile Jezza would be there frightening the horses to a Cons minority or even majority (I'll leave @HYUFD to work up the numbers).
BXP + ERG probably equals 30% or so in the country -m and there's the BXP takeover of CCPs on top. If there were an eleciton after a May-like deal was voted through many Tory MPs would stand on a platform opposing it. That's the problem. That said, I think Labour would support May's deal if it came with a ratification referendum with Remain as the other option.
Pre-leaving BXP + ERG would be 30% (high imo but we'll go with it). Post-leaving that figure plummets. Have people (not Farage, normal people) really got the energy to worry about what type of leaving a WA may entail? Not so sure. We will have left and then the fight is who will negotiate the future trade agreement. Hence the GE. And yes of course there will be some residual BXPers but many more will want to move on plus there is always Jezza as a backstop to reluctant Cons/BXP waverers.
Would Lab accept it? Well of course that's the key but I think they would upset many of their supporters (leave and remain alike) if they continued to hold out. We've all been living with the prospect of No Deal and I believe the WA would come as a welcome relief to many.
I find it amazing that anyone would think leave inclined public would be angry at a deal that meant we had left with control over immigration.
I mean Lab might decide on an open door come all ye policy in their negotiation if they win the GE but that's all in the game.
For those PBers getting their nether regions garments in a frenzy about royal assent here is what happens to bills passed by parliament when prorogation occurs :
"Any bills that have completed all their parliamentary stages at the point Parliament is prorogued, but have not yet been given Royal Assent (needed for a bill to become an Act of Parliament), receive Royal Assent as part of the prorogation ceremony. During the ceremony, the Clerk of the Crown announces each bill to receive Royal Assent. As each bill is announced, the Clerk of the Parliament then declares "Le Reyne le veult" (the Queen wishes it in Norman French), signifying Assent has been given."
Via The Institute of Government.
What deep irony that it's all in Norman French.
But it rather makes my point about the Court cases. How does the Supreme Court undo all of this on the 17th?
Proroguation is insane. Parliament should be sitting every bloody day until this is sorted, and Johnson's attempts to shut down dissent absolutely angers me.
Parliament has had vote after vote after vote. Debate after debate after debate. It has not achieved anything close to an understanding of what is necessary to deliver on referendum result and the manifesto commitments given at the last election.
More time isn't what they need.
Personally I would kick them all out and not let any current (or former MP) stand again.
A fresh start is what we need.
Harsh, but difficult to argue that more time wont help. They ve had plenty
For those PBers getting their nether regions garments in a frenzy about royal assent here is what happens to bills passed by parliament when prorogation occurs :
"Any bills that have completed all their parliamentary stages at the point Parliament is prorogued, but have not yet been given Royal Assent (needed for a bill to become an Act of Parliament), receive Royal Assent as part of the prorogation ceremony. During the ceremony, the Clerk of the Crown announces each bill to receive Royal Assent. As each bill is announced, the Clerk of the Parliament then declares "Le Reyne le veult" (the Queen wishes it in Norman French), signifying Assent has been given."
This seems to be the crux: ‘the predominant academic view… is that the Sovereign… must act upon the advice of responsible ministers
Although the article has a rather more technical definition of "responsible ministers" than the colloquial one, I think both the academic and the layperson would probably conclude that the current government is bereft of such.
Being serious, I took the article to imply that opinion was divided, but the refusal of the royal assent at prorogation would be dodgier than otherwise, because the sanction of a vote of no confidence wouldn't be available then.
That said, I think Labour would support May's deal if it came with a ratification referendum with Remain as the other option.
That's the option May wanted to allow a vote on before she was finally toppled by Leadsom.
It's possible we would be in the campaign period for that referendum now, with a clear path to resolving this mess, in or out, if May had been allowed to press forward with that.
Mind you the Brexit Party would probably be leading in the polls, we'd have a lot more Farage on the TV, so you can see why Tory MPs mostly didn't want to go for it.
Why would Farage be on TV - what option out of May's Deal v remain would he be supporting.
If he was leading the polls, on a platform of boycotting the referendum, then he would be on the TV.
For those PBers getting their nether regions garments in a frenzy about royal assent here is what happens to bills passed by parliament when prorogation occurs :
"Any bills that have completed all their parliamentary stages at the point Parliament is prorogued, but have not yet been given Royal Assent (needed for a bill to become an Act of Parliament), receive Royal Assent as part of the prorogation ceremony. During the ceremony, the Clerk of the Crown announces each bill to receive Royal Assent. As each bill is announced, the Clerk of the Parliament then declares "Le Reyne le veult" (the Queen wishes it in Norman French), signifying Assent has been given."
Via The Institute of Government.
Is this as watertight as it sounds? What if the Clerk of the Crown does not read out the name of the bill, following advice to HMQ from the government? I am not saying that it *will* happen, but can we be sure that it *can't* happen?
Actually, sorry, if Johnson agrees to the extension it will not go well. If he plonked Mays Deal, tarted up a bit, to the public as Tory policy in a GE before Nov, Brexit Party would be wiped out I reckon.
Yes. Agree. FWIW the only way out of this for the country, and for Boris, is to bring back a TUMD (Tarted Up May Deal). Or "rolled in glitter" as is becoming the vernacular. And because, country aside, it incidentally saves Boris is why it should be front runner.
I happen to continue to believe it will happen.
How
Challenge Labour not to back the deal, throw out the ERG-ers (he would have to as it's not Brexit to them), welcome or not the 21 back. And then leave on Oct 31st.
And then call the election. Which Lab would have to support.
At this point remainer Tories would be relieved we didn't have No Deal, and could more willingly vote Cons vs LD or Lab; Leaver Tories would be happy that we'd left. I think there would be enough BXP-ers to realise that we'd left so that would leave Nigel with a hollowed out rump. And meanwhile Jezza would be there frightening the horses to a Cons minority or even majority (I'll leave @HYUFD to work up the numbers).
BXP
Pre-leaving BXP + ERG would be 30% (high imo but we'll go with it). Post-leaving that figure plummets. Have people (not Farage, normal people) really got the energy to worry about what type of leaving a WA may entail? Not so sure. We will have left and then the fight is who will negotiate the future trade agreement. Hence the GE. And yes of course there will be some residual BXPers but many more will want to move on plus there is always Jezza as a backstop to reluctant Cons/BXP waverers.
Would Lab accept it? Well of course that's the key but I think they would upset many of their supporters (leave and remain alike) if they continued to hold out. We've all been living with the prospect of No Deal and I believe the WA would come as a welcome relief to many.
I find it amazing that anyone would think leave inclined public would be angry at a deal that meant we had left with control over immigration.
I mean Lab might decide on an open door come all ye policy in their negotiation if they win the GE but that's all in the game.
Corbyn would very quickly remove all sorts of immigration controls, IMHO.
And the direction of travel will have a real impact if we're going to go into an extended "zombie" period now, with parliament prorogued but the government vastly weakened.
For those PBers getting their nether regions garments in a frenzy about royal assent here is what happens to bills passed by parliament when prorogation occurs :
"Any bills that have completed all their parliamentary stages at the point Parliament is prorogued, but have not yet been given Royal Assent (needed for a bill to become an Act of Parliament), receive Royal Assent as part of the prorogation ceremony. During the ceremony, the Clerk of the Crown announces each bill to receive Royal Assent. As each bill is announced, the Clerk of the Parliament then declares "Le Reyne le veult" (the Queen wishes it in Norman French), signifying Assent has been given."
Via The Institute of Government.
Is this as watertight as it sounds? What if the Clerk of the Crown does not read out the name of the bill, following advice to HMQ from the government? I am not saying that it *will* happen, but can we be sure that it *can't* happen?
Yes - that may just be describing the practice as it has been over the last 300 years.
Actually, sorry, if Johnson agrees to the extension it will not go well. If he plonked Mays Deal, tarted up a bit, to the public as Tory policy in a GE before Nov, Brexit Party would be wiped out I reckon.
Yes. Agree. FWIW the only way out of this for the country, and for Boris, is to bring back a TUMD (Tarted Up May Deal). Or "rolled in glitter" as is becoming the vernacular. And because, country aside, it incidentally saves Boris is why it should be front runner.
I happen to continue to believe it will happen.
How
Challenge Labour not to back the deal, throw out the ERG-ers (he would have to as it's not Brexit to them), welcome or not the 21 back. And then leave on Oct 31st.
And then call the election. Which Lab would have to support.
At this point remainer Tories would be y that we'd left. I think there would be enough BXP-ers to realise that we'd left so that would leave Nigel with a hollowed out rump. And meanwhile Jezza would be there frightening the horses to a Cons minority or even majority (I'll leave @HYUFD to work up the numbers).
BXP
Pre-leaving BXP + ERG would be 30% (high imo but we'll go with it). Post-leaving that figure plummets. Have people (not Farage, normal people) really got the energy to worry about what type of leaving a WA may entail? Not so sure. We will have left and then the fight is who will negotiate the future trade agreement. Hence the GE. And yes of course there will be some residual BXPers but many more will want to move on plus there is always Jezza as a backstop to reluctant Cons/BXP waverers.
Would Lab accept it? Well of course that's the key but I think they would upset many of their supporters (leave and remain alike) if they continued to hold out. We've all been living with the prospect of No Deal and I believe the WA would come as a welcome relief to many.
I find it amazing that anyone would think leave inclined public would be angry at a deal that meant we had left with control over immigration.
I mean Lab might decide on an open door come all ye policy in their negotiation if they win the GE but that's all in the game.
Corbyn would very quickly remove all sorts of immigration controls, IMHO.
In his view it’s the more the merrier.
Yes and if that floats your boat you could vote that way in the GE. Not you, obvs, but I'm sure there are many who share that view.
Mr. Foremain, I've said for a long time that Boris Johnson isn't fit to be in Cabinet, and excoriated those MPs who foolishly supported his leadership bid.
That does not mean other MPs get to abdicate their responsibility and bemoan no deal having voted in such a way as to make that the legal default option.
But there are those pesky Tory gains from the SNP in Scotland again!!
So what, the Tories would still be about 70 seats ahead of Labour even if they lost every Scottish seat to the SNP (Labour will lose 6 seats to the SNP too)
The key thing is the majority. If we have an election at which Johnson tells everyone the opposition is intent on keeping the UK in the EU and the opposition ends up with a majority of seats, then by Leaver logic there will be a mandate to Remain.
Possibly though on those figures the DUP could still hold the balance of power giving a majority for Brexit, while if Swinson holds the balance of power as is the only alternative on those numbers she would in her own words refuse to vote for a Corbyn Premiership
The LD's would support whoever in return for a promise off a referendum...since that is more likely to come from Labour a NOM outcome where the LD's hold the balance of power will almost certainly lead to Corbyn being next PM....
The LDs will vote down a Corbyn Premiership, they do not need it if they have the numbers for a referendum while it kills them in Tory Remain seats.
Swinson will only vote for Harman etc as PM
Usual, me me me , from the Lib Dems. Feck the country it is me me me.
And the direction of travel will have a real impact if we're going to go into an extended "zombie" period now, with parliament prorogued but with the government vastly weakened.
What if Boris ends up with fewer Tory MPs following his whip than Labour? Another 40 moderate MPs gone and he’s there.
Such a block of 60-65 one nation Tories would be bigger than the SNP and Lib Dems combined. It’d arguably make them the kingmakers between Tory and Labour and the power to choose the PM.
What would have happened if; 1. Gov had VONC itself on Thursday 2. Played for time for 2 weeks/ refused to resign 3. Election kicked in. 4. Minimum 25 working days before election 5. Election happens on or after 31st Oct making no deal nailed on.
I know we're prorogued now so not possible, but what could have stopped the government doing this?
Looks good. Have we seen all the best bits in the trailer, though? Shades of Four Lions, obvs, which, if it is even 1% as good, would make it an excellent film.
Yes, MPs have refused to vote for Brexit with a Deal or with No Deal despite the Leave win
They are just trying to honour the Leave campaign pledge that we would Leave with a deal.
TSE in full on lie mode again.
Sorry I have to agree with TSE, every time Project Fear said we would / could leave without a deal, Leave stated we would get a (great, awesome, world's easiest) deal .
Its called politicking. Both sides do it. Show me this mystical pledge.
The official Vote Leave leaflet (and it's still on their website) contained the immortal line:
There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it.
I suspect that most of them would have settled for that at the time. It was only after they won, and realising that the simplistic nature of the vote could be manipulated in retrospect, they pushed for more and more extreme versions of Brexit while claiming it was "the-will-o-the-people", whilst knowing full well it was nothing of the sort
Looks good. Have we seen all the best bits in the trailer, though? Shades of Four Lions, obvs, which, if it is even 1% as good, would make it an excellent film.
What would have happened if; 1. Gov had VONC itself on Thursday 2. Played for time for 2 weeks/ refused to resign 3. Election kicked in. 4. Minimum 25 working days before election 5. Election happens on or after 31st Oct making no deal nailed on.
I know we're prorogued now so not possible, but what could have stopped the government doing this?
Once the Government has been VoNCed, then control passes out of their hands. If 300+ MPs posted to Twitter saying they'd accept Sylvia Harmon as PM, then the Queen would be forced to allow her a shot at a confidence vote.
So why is Boris Johnson not even trying for an early election? Because he doesn't really want one?
Because the only chance was getting Corbyn to agree before Labour backbenchers could explain to him what a spectacularly rubbish idea that was. Now that's off the table, there's no point in flogging the dead horse.
Have you any idea how pathetic that sounds as an excuse for not trying a route that needs a simple majority of MPs, given that Labour has only 247 MPs out of 650?
AIUI he needs a two-thirds majority to vote directly for an early election. A vote of No Confidence is the one that needs a simple majority.
Sorry - I thought you might have been following the discussions.
The other possibilities, apart from a 2/3 vote, are: (1) A bill to hold an election on a specific date, (2) A vote of no confidence in the government, engineering by the government.
Those are theoretical possibilities, true. In practice, (2) is ridiculous (and I'm not even sure it works in practice, since I think the Speaker can ignore any motion not laid down by the officical LOTO). (1) doesn't survive contact with the reality that is the Lords refusing to allow it passage.
The one thing I have to say is that with all these conservatives standing down, and indeed all those who voted with their principles and lost the whip, does demonstrate to me that the labour party mps who put up with Corbyn and fail to do the same have no backbone whatsoever
I support all these mps and expect the new conservative party, post the GE, to be a very much more a euro septic party
It will be a long time to me seeking membership again by the looks of it
Actually, sorry, if Johnson agrees to the extension it will not go well. If he plonked Mays Deal, tarted up a bit, to the public as Tory policy in a GE before Nov, Brexit Party would be wiped out I reckon.
Yes. Agree. FWIW the only way out of this for the country, and for Boris, is to bring back a TUMD (Tarted Up May Deal). Or "rolled in glitter" as is becoming the vernacular. And because, country aside, it incidentally saves Boris is why it should be front runner.
I happen to continue to believe it will happen.
How
Challenge Labour not to back the deal, throw out the ERG-ers (he would have to as it's not Brexit to them), welcome or not the 21 back. And then leave on Oct 31st.
And then call the election. Which Lab would have to support.
At this point remainer Tories would be y that we'd left. I think there would be enough BXP-ers to realise that we'd left so that would leave Nigel with a hollowed out rump. And meanwhile Jezza would be there frightening the horses to a Cons minority or even majority (I'll leave @HYUFD to work up the numbers).
BXP
any.
I find it amazing that anyone would think leave inclined public would be angry at a deal that meant we had left with control over immigration.
I mean Lab might decide on an open door come all ye policy in their negotiation if they win the GE but that's all in the game.
Corbyn would very quickly remove all sorts of immigration controls, IMHO.
In his view it’s the more the merrier.
Yes and if that floats your boat you could vote that way in the GE. Not you, obvs, but I'm sure there are many who share that view.
We’d end up with large shanty towns around most major conurbations in south-east England, and a spike in street homelessness. We’d get riots, vigilantism from our lot and probably a spike in petty crime from theirs, perhaps including some tabloid headline sexual and violent offences as well.
I’m not sure that’s going to prove a huge vote winner. It’d also kick out the existing domestic “struggling” electorate further to the far right as they compete for affordable housing and low skill jobs.
What would have happened if; 1. Gov had VONC itself on Thursday 2. Played for time for 2 weeks/ refused to resign 3. Election kicked in. 4. Minimum 25 working days before election 5. Election happens on or after 31st Oct making no deal nailed on.
I know we're prorogued now so not possible, but what could have stopped the government doing this?
I think it's step 2. There would have been ways for the no deal majority to communicate that they supported an alternative MP as PM - then the Queen would have had no option but to dismiss Johnson and appoint the replacement.
One mechanism that has been suggested is a humble address motion in the Commons.
Mr. Eagles, worth noting the EU permitted no discussion at all ahead of triggering Article 50.
But Article 50 itself places the negotiation after the notification.
Just more evidence of the breathtaking ignorance of Brexiteers about the procedures they wanted to set in motion.
We just assumed the EU wouldn't be so pig-headedly stupid as to actually follow the letter of their ineptly written rules.
Which is sort of weird, since the EU's habitual blind adherence to bad ideas is a key facet of why we wanted out in the first place.
You're saying Brexiteers made that pledge based on an understanding that the rules would make it impossible, but an assumption that the rules would be broken? Is that meant to be a good thing to do?
Neither is continued membership of organisations whose rules make it impossible to leave in an orderly fashion!
As I recall, the assumption was that the rules would be bent rather than broken (via an "understanding" around the shape of the final deal, followed by two years to negotiate the details). ...
And you think it was fair to represent that process by saying: "we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave"?
I just think it's useful to know people's opinions about these things, when they're still posting here. Because it will give us an idea of their own attitudes towards truthfulness.
I understood the issues involved at the time, and couldn't believe that it wouldn't be possible to negotiate the deal via backdoor channels, on the basis that a) no-one had ever tested the practicalities of Article 50 before; b) that seemed to be the way the EU does business in general; and c) it was obviously in everyone's best interests to do so. As I say, the fact that we tried it to no avail makes me more in favour of leaving, not less.
The one thing I have to say is that with all these conservatives standing down, and indeed all those who voted with their principles and lost the whip, does demonstrate to me that the labour party mps who put up with Corbyn and fail to do the same have no backbone whatsoever
I support all these mps and expect the new conservative party, post the GE, to be a very much more a euro septic party
It will be a long time to me seeking membership again by the looks of it
ditto me. I hope it stimulates a wider One Nation movement though.
But there are those pesky Tory gains from the SNP in Scotland again!!
So what, the Tories would still be about 70 seats ahead of Labour even if they lost every Scottish seat to the SNP (Labour will lose 6 seats to the SNP too)
The key thing is the majority. If we have an election at which Johnson tells everyone the opposition is intent on keeping the UK in the EU and the opposition ends up with a majority of seats, then by Leaver logic there will be a mandate to Remain.
Possibly though on those figures the DUP could still hold the balance of power giving a majority for Brexit, while if Swinson holds the balance of power as is the only alternative on those numbers she would in her own words refuse to vote for a Corbyn Premiership
The LD's would support whoever in return for a promise off a referendum...since that is more likely to come from Labour a NOM outcome where the LD's hold the balance of power will almost certainly lead to Corbyn being next PM....
The LDs will vote down a Corbyn Premiership, they do not need it if they have the numbers for a referendum while it kills them in Tory Remain seats.
Swinson will only vote for Harman etc as PM
Usual, me me me , from the Lib Dems. Feck the country it is me me me.
Absolutely. 2010 was all about increasing lib Dem seats in 2015
The one thing I have to say is that with all these conservatives standing down, and indeed all those who voted with their principles and lost the whip, does demonstrate to me that the labour party mps who put up with Corbyn and fail to do the same have no backbone whatsoever
I support all these mps and expect the new conservative party, post the GE, to be a very much more a euro septic party
It will be a long time to me seeking membership again by the looks of it
So Corbyn is putting forward a motion about "the rule of law".. Interesting.
"Taking advantage of the Speaker’s decision to allow SO24 motions to be used not just for neutral motions (ie, ones with no practical effect), Grieve has used the process to table a “humble address” that would be force the government to release written material. And he is asking for not just one batch of material, but two: all private correspondence relating to the decision to prorogue parliament, and the Operation Yellowhammer government no-deal planning documents. Corbyn’s motion is about the rule of law, but I have not seen the text yet. "
Great preview review of David Cameron’s book by Peter Hitchens (who hasn’t read it)
“A brief hors d’oeurve of chest beating and self flagellation followed by a vast turgid lake of self justification”
I know you like him, but I've never seen the appeal of Peter Hitchens. He doesn't have his later brother's turn of phrase, and just seems to repeat the same thing week-after-week. At least with Christopher there was a crazy arc of beliefs stretching and changing over a quarter century.
And Christopher also got himself water boarded for a Vanity Fair article. (Which I would highly recommend reading, btw)
The one thing I have to say is that with all these conservatives standing down, and indeed all those who voted with their principles and lost the whip, does demonstrate to me that the labour party mps who put up with Corbyn and fail to do the same have no backbone whatsoever
I support all these mps and expect the new conservative party, post the GE, to be a very much more a euro septic party
It will be a long time to me seeking membership again by the looks of it
ditto me. I hope it stimulates a wider One Nation movement though.
Septic is the word, I think. Disgusting people, all of them.
Why the f*** don't all the pre-Thatcherites leave and form a One Nation Party taking most of the business funding with them and advocating a move to PR to put an end to unfair election results? I've never been a Tory supporter but I can understand the viewpoints of those who hold views like Clarke (or his mentor, Heath.)
The Tory right who've given us B***t and want free-er international capital movement - not less of it as they told the plebs in 2016 - seem to lack any understanding of what it means to be poor and one benefit cheque or one pay cheque away from eviction and destitution.
Signal and Telegram are both apps with levels of encryption that make it near impossible for authorities to intercept, which is interesting. I know that both have interesting reputations... Telegram specifically is used amongst far right and literal neo nazi groups (although so is twitter, so this isn't to tarnish everyone who uses it) and Signal is used by environmental protesters like Green Peace and XR quite a bit.
Great preview review of David Cameron’s book by Peter Hitchens (who hasn’t read it)
“A brief hors d’oeurve of chest beating and self flagellation followed by a vast turgid lake of self justification”
I know you like him, but I've never seen the appeal of Peter Hitchens. He doesn't have his later brother's turn of phrase, and just seems to repeat the same thing week-after-week. At least with Christopher there was a crazy arc of beliefs stretching and changing over a quarter century.
And Christopher also got himself water boarded for a Vanity Fair article. (Which I would highly recommend reading, btw)
I like that he is proud to be considered stuffy and old fashioned in a world where everyone else is desperate to be seen to be jumping on the latest bandwagon. Saying the same thing every week is a part of that I suppose.
Great preview review of David Cameron’s book by Peter Hitchens (who hasn’t read it)
“A brief hors d’oeurve of chest beating and self flagellation followed by a vast turgid lake of self justification”
I know you like him, but I've never seen the appeal of Peter Hitchens. He doesn't have his later brother's turn of phrase, and just seems to repeat the same thing week-after-week. At least with Christopher there was a crazy arc of beliefs stretching and changing over a quarter century.
And Christopher also got himself water boarded for a Vanity Fair article. (Which I would highly recommend reading, btw)
I think he's a brilliant essayist. Almost as good as Theodore Dalrymple.
Actually, sorry, if Johnson agrees to the extension it will not go well. If he plonked Mays Deal, tarted up a bit, to the public as Tory policy in a GE before Nov, Brexit Party would be wiped out I reckon.
Yes. Agree. FWIW the only way out of this for the country, and for Boris, is to bring back a TUMD (Tarted Up May Deal). Or "rolled in glitter" as is becoming the vernacular. And because, country aside, it incidentally saves Boris is why it should be front runner.
I happen to continue to believe it will happen.
How does it save him, though? It will split the Tories evwn further as the ERG would all march off and it would regalvinise Farage. And I doubt that many on the other side of the argument would be that impressed either. It would expose Johnson to everyone as a complete chancer in it only for himself. At the moment, there are still 35% or so of voters who do not view him that way.
Challenge Labour not to back the deal, throw out the ERG-ers (he would have to as it's not Brexit to them), welcome or not the 21 back. And then leave on Oct 31st.
And then call the election. Which Lab would have to support.
At this point remainer Tories would be relieved we didn't have No Deal, and could more willingly vote Cons vs LD or Lab; Leaver Tories would be happy that we'd left. I think there would be enough BXP-ers to realise that we'd left so that would leave Nigel with a hollowed out rump. And meanwhile Jezza would be there frightening the horses to a Cons minority or even majority (I'll leave @HYUFD to work up the numbers).
BXP + ERG probably equals 30% or so in the country -m and there's the BXP takeover of CCPs on top. If there were an eleciton after a May-like deal was voted through many Tory MPs would stand on a platform opposing it. That's the problem. That said, I think Labour would support May's deal if it came with a ratification referendum with Remain as the other option.
You think Labour would campaign for the deal? Emily Thornberry would campaign for Remain against her own deal, let alone an evil Tory one
There was a lot of excitable pearl clutching about this last week.
Weird. Because it’s a perfectly reasonable position.
Remain vs viable non-unicorn Leave. I prefer Remain but we’ll put a viable Leave on the ballot for those that disagree.
Mr. B, German disapproval of a Nazi comedy is not necessarily a sign it's bad, though.
I think Wolfenstein has to do funny things with facial hair to get released in Germany due to depictions of Hitler being legally iffy sometimes.
Indeed - they didn't much like The Producers, either.
You can see their point of view, without having to share it.
I feel this video will do the rounds again on YTube once this film is out, but I agree with it pretty much in its entirety. I trust Taika Waititi, and from the trailer alone you can see it won't fall into the traps of films like Fight Club which are supposed to be satires, but in the end seem to aggrandise the thing they're satirising instead...
Comments
"Any bills that have completed all their parliamentary stages at the point Parliament is prorogued, but have not yet been given Royal Assent (needed for a bill to become an Act of Parliament), receive Royal Assent as part of the prorogation ceremony. During the ceremony, the Clerk of the Crown announces each bill to receive Royal Assent. As each bill is announced, the Clerk of the Parliament then declares "Le Reyne le veult" (the Queen wishes it in Norman French), signifying Assent has been given."
Via The Institute of Government.
Your emotional connection to particular packets of it is neither here nor there.
As I recall, the assumption was that the rules would be bent rather than broken (via an "understanding" around the shape of the final deal, followed by two years to negotiate the details). Which seems eminently sensible to me, only the EU refused point blank to play ball, and then compounded the error by insisting on sequencing the talks backwards (an error they've now admitted to).
It's sort of win-win for Leavers: the mess the EU made over Article 50 is a pretty good microcosm of why we wanted to leave it.
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/01/22/robert-craig-could-the-government-advise-the-queen-to-refuse-royal-assent-to-a-backbench-bill/
That does not mean other MPs get to abdicate their responsibility and bemoan no deal having voted in such a way as to make that the legal default option.
There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it.
All very odd and unsustainable.
Damned Brexit
"we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave"?
I just think it's useful to know people's opinions about these things, when they're still posting here. Because it will give us an idea of their own attitudes towards truthfulness.
Would Lab accept it? Well of course that's the key but I think they would upset many of their supporters (leave and remain alike) if they continued to hold out. We've all been living with the prospect of No Deal and I believe the WA would come as a welcome relief to many.
I'd be happy with a lifetime ban from politics but i'm sure others would see their treasonous actions as warranting far more serious punishment.
The typical low information remainer on PB can be excused their ignorance but senior public figures certainly cannot.
It's possible we would be in the campaign period for that referendum now, with a clear path to resolving this mess, in or out, if May had been allowed to press forward with that.
Mind you the Brexit Party would probably be leading in the polls, we'd have a lot more Farage on the TV, so you can see why Tory MPs mostly didn't want to go for it.
The other possibilities, apart from a 2/3 vote, are:
(1) A bill to hold an election on a specific date,
(2) A vote of no confidence in the government, engineering by the government.
Leave: 47%
Remain: 53%
http://www.deltapoll.co.uk/polls/brexit-government-resigations
‘the predominant academic view… is that the Sovereign… must act upon the advice of responsible ministers
Although the article has a rather more technical definition of "responsible ministers" than the colloquial one, I think both the academic and the layperson would probably conclude that the current government is bereft of such.
In his view it’s the more the merrier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL4McUzXfFI
Such a block of 60-65 one nation Tories would be bigger than the SNP and Lib Dems combined. It’d arguably make them the kingmakers between Tory and Labour and the power to choose the PM.
That’d be a real problem for him.
I know we're prorogued now so not possible, but what could have stopped the government doing this?
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1171050167413481472
I think Wolfenstein has to do funny things with facial hair to get released in Germany due to depictions of Hitler being legally iffy sometimes.
I support all these mps and expect the new conservative party, post the GE, to be a very much more a euro septic party
It will be a long time to me seeking membership again by the looks of it
I’m not sure that’s going to prove a huge vote winner. It’d also kick out the existing domestic “struggling” electorate further to the far right as they compete for affordable housing and low skill jobs.
Happy days.
One mechanism that has been suggested is a humble address motion in the Commons.
http://britainelects.com/2019/09/07/poll-tories-will-struggle-in-an-election-if-brexit-delayed/
You can see their point of view, without having to share it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_N5P8DLb7I
Con 34%
Lab 25%
LD 18%
BRX 12%
Green 5%
(£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/uk-general-election-polls-latest-who-would-win-odds-20hs7psgp
“A brief hors d’oeurve of chest beating and self flagellation followed by a vast turgid lake of self justification”
Though his fourth paragraph does suggest that he'd be a willing audience for any potential compromise.
They transformed a 20 point lead into losing seats.
"Taking advantage of the Speaker’s decision to allow SO24 motions to be used not just for neutral motions (ie, ones with no practical effect), Grieve has used the process to table a “humble address” that would be force the government to release written material. And he is asking for not just one batch of material, but two: all private correspondence relating to the decision to prorogue parliament, and the Operation Yellowhammer government no-deal planning documents. Corbyn’s motion is about the rule of law, but I have not seen the text yet. "
And Christopher also got himself water boarded for a Vanity Fair article. (Which I would highly recommend reading, btw)
Disgusting people, all of them.
Why the f*** don't all the pre-Thatcherites leave and form a One Nation Party taking most of the business funding with them and advocating a move to PR to put an end to unfair election results? I've never been a Tory supporter but I can understand the viewpoints of those who hold views like Clarke (or his mentor, Heath.)
The Tory right who've given us B***t and want free-er international capital movement - not less of it as they told the plebs in 2016 - seem to lack any understanding of what it means to be poor and one benefit cheque or one pay cheque away from eviction and destitution.
I think he is quite witty too.
He also gave the greatest ever comeback on QT
https://youtu.be/puMqlj0QRjA
I watched Christopher debate Religion with Stephen Fry on his side vs a bishop and someone whose name escapes me once, in Bloomsbury.
Weird. Because it’s a perfectly reasonable position.
Remain vs viable non-unicorn Leave. I prefer Remain but we’ll put a viable Leave on the ballot for those that disagree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62cPPSyoQkE