LDs confirm they will support VONC even if no unity govt can be formed
Are we finally moving to an election?
Lab say non
If SNP join Libs it will put the pressure on Labour surely?
It should, and I think BBC are reporting both want to VoNC. Possible Bercow might call it if the 3rd and 4th parties are tabling it together. Labour would then be in a massive bind, as there is a reasonable chance the VoNC succeeds. A number of the '21' might either abstain, or in the case of Gyimah, would actively support the VoNC.
Thinking back, I was surprised at the size of the A50 majority in the Commons initially. I considered everyone who voted for A50 to be pretty much duty bound to subsequently vote EU withdrawal through no matter the deal (Which is why the A50 numbers were so shockingly high), or be prepared to leave without a deal.
Fair play to those MPs that didn't vote through A50, and even more kudos to those remainers that didn't vote through the original referendum.
I think some were can kicking, with the hope to throw it out later on. But, at that stage, more felt duty bound to honour it.
The politics changed most notably after GE2017 when the Parliamentary arithmetic changed.
It provided a platform for stalemate and Brexit was then seriously ground down in trench warfare throughout the rest of 2017 in dull discussions over the divorce bill, which was sniped at by both sides.
May totally failed to lead the debate, so she was already a wounded beast and in a poor position when she tried to fatten the pig on market day in November 2018.
Even in May's worst days, didn't polling usually say that she shouldn't resign (because even a section of voters who disapproved of her didn't want more chaos and/or feared the alternatives more).
Fairly bad, but I wonder whether those numbers would have been much different a week ago - there must be a minority who would still vote Conservative even with Johnson in charge but would very much like him gone.
Wonder what the equivalent figures for Corbyn would be with Labour voters?
Probably much worse, but someone "resigning as PM" is always going to seem a scarier prospect to voters than someone "resigning as LotO", because the former implies a vacuum with God knows what chaos. Again, I refer you to how May always did better on the "should she resign" questions than on personal approval ratings (or standard voting intention).
True, there's a distinction there. I wonder whether all those surveyed appreciated it.
What a silly question. What do I know about uk constitutional law? Do you like it is a better question.
It would be more helpful if they clarified why people thought the judgment was wrong in law. Whether people felt the use of the royal prerogative was not justiciable in principle, whether they thought the judges had applied the wrong criterion in deciding whether the action lay within the lawful scope of the royal prerogative, and so on.
That’s well worth reading. Very well written and understandable for a layman, as opposed to the usual legalese that comes from court documents.
Lady Hale was also very eloquent in her statement this morning explaining the reasoning behind the decision.
I agree. It seems difficult to argue with - which is obviously reflected by the fact that none of the 11 judges dissented. I think I'm right in saying two of the present judges dissented from the Gina Miller judgment in 2017.
Yes, two of the judges on this panel ruled against Miller, and I think another one ruled against her from a lower court.
As you say, a unanimous verdict from eleven judges in our top court is difficult to argue against, so the government have to deal with the decision and get on with the job.
I’m expecting them to table a recess next week to coincide with the Con party conference, followed by a very short proroguing and a Queen’s Speech the following week.
If the opposition don’t table a vote of no confidence tomorrow, then I’m not sure what the role of the opposition is supposed to be.
I'm trying to see this whole sorry mess from the point of view of a Conservative MP whose general outlook is one of quiet competence in government (if there any of them left). Where do they stand now, and what do they do? My opinion is that they should see to it that Boris disappears as quickly and quietly as possible. The PM should fall, but the government doesn't need to. The government only becomes culpable if they allow the PM to stumble on despite this catastrophic verdict. They have a couple of days at most. If they can lock Boris in a room with the metaphorical revolver, things can move on. If the cannot or will not, they have condoned the very thing they are against, chaos and mismanagement.
This is now D-Day fight for the soul of the Conservative & Unionist Party. If they blink, their side has lost the war. Moderates, do not resile. Your party needs you.
chortle
yesterday I watched the bleating of Labour MPs who disagree fundamentally with their boss but tamely go down his road to perdition without the balls to leave.
Irrelevant to my point. I'm not a Labour voter.
Irrelevant to reality. The action you advocate would guarantee a Labour Government.
Huh? Offing the PM and preserving the government neuters a VONC. If the Conservative Party removes the person who caused this problem, they wash their hands clean. This is exactly the way to prevent an alternative government!
Sky News saying Attorney-General told Boris that what he was doing WAS lawful. Could be some difficult questions for him from both sides.
Yes Cox's position specifically is untenable I think.
A number of judges agreed with Cox - admittedly not those in the Supreme Court, but still there are senior members of our judiciary who believed it was not a matter for them to consider.
Legal opinions will always vary and I do not believe that Cox would have given his advice without serious consideration. In the end, the Supreme Court did not agree with Cox - but that happens all the time in the courts - both sides of the argument can't win.
Sky News saying Attorney-General told Boris that what he was doing WAS lawful. Could be some difficult questions for him from both sides.
I am sure that the Attorney General acted in good faith and felt that his interpretation was perfectly reasonable.
If so, it just shows what a horlicks our system of governance has become now that the Supreme Court has seen fit to intervene in the political arena without having a written constitution there to limit the scope of their judgements. Without a rule book to act as guidance and to limit their reach, constitutional law turns into a matter of subjective interpretation and the predictability of rulings turns on a toss of a coin.
Sky News saying Attorney-General told Boris that what he was doing WAS lawful. Could be some difficult questions for him from both sides.
Yes Cox's position specifically is untenable I think.
A number of judges agreed with Cox - admittedly not those in the Supreme Court, but still there are senior members of our judiciary who believed it was not a matter for them to consider.
Legal opinions will always vary and I do not believe that Cox would have given his advice without serious consideration. In the end, the Supreme Court did not agree with Cox - but that happens all the time in the courts - both sides of the argument can't win.
Yes I know I know, but at least one head needs to roll for this - and it'll likely be Cox's. Johnson will accept his resignation letter signalling that he will be able to return to Gov't later. It'll be one of those good mannered resignations.
I think today has cemented Boris’ position as the voice of Leave and The BP will be sidelined
Farage joins the long list of traitors and Quislings. Amusing - I thought he would outlast Boris.
Brexiteers are starting to (I know I know) sniff out that personal vendettas and keeping on the EU gravy train are more important to him than leaving the EU.
Even before the vote Farage was more interested in attacking erstwhile competitors on the Leave side than those he professed to fundamentally disagree with. The campaign was full of friendly fire between him/Banks and Cummings, and there is absolutely no love lost there. It’s personal.
It’s pretty obvious to me that he craves to be right on the inside but, failing that, he wants to be the only big swinging dick on the outside, harvesting grievance for a living.
I'm trying to see this whole sorry mess from the point of view of a Conservative MP whose general outlook is one of quiet competence in government (if there any of them left). Where do they stand now, and what do they do? My opinion is that they should see to it that Boris disappears as quickly and quietly as possible. The PM should fall, but the government doesn't need to. The government only becomes culpable if they allow the PM to stumble on despite this catastrophic verdict. They have a couple of days at most. If they can lock Boris in a room with the metaphorical revolver, things can move on. If the cannot or will not, they have condoned the very thing they are against, chaos and mismanagement.
This is now D-Day fight for the soul of the Conservative & Unionist Party. If they blink, their side has lost the war. Moderates, do not resile. Your party needs you.
chortle
yesterday I watched the bleating of Labour MPs who disagree fundamentally with their boss but tamely go down his road to perdition without the balls to leave.
Irrelevant to my point. I'm not a Labour voter.
Irrelevant to reality. The action you advocate would guarantee a Labour Government.
Huh? Offing the PM and preserving the government neuters a VONC. If the Conservative Party removes the person who caused this problem, they wash their hands clean. This is exactly the way to prevent an alternative government!
It also crashes their poll ratings by jettisoning a popular (by present standards) leader and destroying the government's policy. Which guarantees a loss in an upcoming GE.
I think today has cemented Boris’ position as the voice of Leave and The BP will be sidelined
Advising the Queen to break the law and having a unanimous judgement against you by the Supreme Court is now seen as proof of being a good egg by Leavers.
I guess it fits with all the other madness.
Not this leaver. The problem with some Remainers is they tar all those who voted Leave with the same brush. In their eyes, all Leavers are racist gammon.
Some leavers are racist gammon. So are some Remainers. Don't think there aren't Leavers who think Johnson isn't a complete idiot. I know he is.
That's very easy. They will look after number one, or twenty seven/twenty eight. They want us to remain. It's not our pretty face, it's the 10 billion net contribution which would be impossible to replace.
That means that if they keep quiet, and make no serious attempt to negotiate, the UK MPs will do their work for them. Hence, any extension will be agreed despite the uncertainty causing temporary problems.
I see the government is mouthing words of respect while sources do the opposite. So typical. Any guesses for daily mail headline? It's going to be ugly and the government will gleefully support it while pretending they dont
I'm trying to see this whole sorry mess from the point of view of a Conservative MP whose general outlook is one of quiet competence in government (if there any of them left). Where do they stand now, and what do they do? My opinion is that they should see to it that Boris disappears as quickly and quietly as possible. The PM should fall, but the government doesn't need to. The government only becomes culpable if they allow the PM to stumble on despite this catastrophic verdict. They have a couple of days at most. If they can lock Boris in a room with the metaphorical revolver, things can move on. If the cannot or will not, they have condoned the very thing they are against, chaos and mismanagement.
This is now D-Day fight for the soul of the Conservative & Unionist Party. If they blink, their side has lost the war. Moderates, do not resile. Your party needs you.
chortle
yesterday I watched the bleating of Labour MPs who disagree fundamentally with their boss but tamely go down his road to perdition without the balls to leave.
Irrelevant to my point. I'm not a Labour voter.
Irrelevant to reality. The action you advocate would guarantee a Labour Government.
Huh? Offing the PM and preserving the government neuters a VONC. If the Conservative Party removes the person who caused this problem, they wash their hands clean. This is exactly the way to prevent an alternative government!
It also crashes their poll ratings by jettisoning a popular (by present standards) leader and destroying the government's policy. Which guarantees a loss in an upcoming GE.
Oh there are ways to spin this in the Tories' favour: we're the party of law and order, one person made a mistake and he paid for it, nobody's above the law, would Labour really have had the ethical backbone to do this if Corbyn had done this, etc. The alternative is the party is lost for good from the point of view of those moderate Tory MPs whose heads I was trying to get into. They have a chance to claw back the brand of being the unflashy competent stewards they used to enjoy. That image is an electoral asset.
I think today has cemented Boris’ position as the voice of Leave and The BP will be sidelined
Advising the Queen to break the law and having a unanimous judgement against you by the Supreme Court is now seen as proof of being a good egg by Leavers.
I guess it fits with all the other madness.
Not this leaver. The problem with some Remainers is they tar all those who voted Leave with the same brush. In their eyes, all Leavers are racist gammon.
Some leavers are racist gammon. So are some Remainers. Don't think there aren't Leavers who think Johnson isn't a complete idiot. I know he is.
It's all too easy to take twitter as representative of the world, instead of one particular slice of it. A fault easier to see in others than oneself.
I see the government is mouthing words of respect while sources do the opposite. So typical. Any guesses for daily mail headline? It's going to be ugly and the government will gleefully support it while pretending they dont
The Mail online has a thing where they toss a vaguely negative headline (For Brexit) up into the air, in the full knowledge that the comments section will absolubtely smash it out the park. Headline : Bozza humiliated Comments : Fuck off Corbyn
In other news I am in Gibraltar! Interesting place. Got talking to some people from the US and we had much in common in political terms! They were registered Democrats and hate Trump, they got bonus points because they think Boris is like Trump and Brexit is against the UK national interest! When they left I wished them well and they said they were working to get shot of Trump in Pennsylvania where they lived. It was an interesting conversation and maybe reflects a more motivated democratic base. Met some other Brits who were complaining in a bar about Brexit. So i joined in with them and connected with them. I am staying in Spain as the accomadation is half the price. The hard border is not so good. The first time i went through it i had drunk 10 pints! So the queue time went quickly, however this morning it went slow! Not that they even look at the passport! I can understand why they dont want a hard border in Ireland!
On a final note I am at the top of the rock and the people running away from the monkeys is very funny! One bloke went up a spiral staircase and tripped over in shock when he saw a monkey poised to pounce on him! I laughed out loud and the other people laughed too!
Sky News saying Attorney-General told Boris that what he was doing WAS lawful. Could be some difficult questions for him from both sides.
I am sure that the Attorney General acted in good faith and felt that his interpretation was perfectly reasonable.
If so, it just shows what a horlicks our system of governance has become now that the Supreme Court has seen fit to intervene in the political arena without having a written constitution there to limit the scope of their judgements. Without a rule book to act as guidance and to limit their reach, constitutional law turns into a matter of subjective interpretation and the predictability of rulings turns on a toss of a coin.
Just about everything from the Supreme Court judgement is fine, except its surprising use of the word “quashed”.
Quashed is almost colloquial and suggests a level of emotion behind its judgement against the Government’s actions.
Mr. kinabalu, you missed out the electorate giving the political class an instruction and said political class endorsing the referendum result in a vote in the Commons.
Having done that, honour would require they at least attempt to try and get a deal done.
Instead, MPs have opposed everything and agreed nothing.
Pretending this is a Conservative-only matter is to rewrite history and close one eye to the present situation. It was only yesterday Corbyn made his splinter-arsed policy a confidence matter, thereby securing his conference's support instead of losing and Labour adopting a Remain position.
Not 100% of the blame with the Tories - that's fair - but up there close. It is a Tory project gone wrong for Tory reasons.
Let's say 80%. And, yes, we can spray the other 20% across the rest of the - be still my pulsating brow - 'Political Class'.
MPs from across the house voted in triple figures in favour of various Brexit options, the Conservatives defeated every single one of them because it wasn't their Brexit.
How is that different to how everyone has acted?
It isn't.
But as it is Conservative voters who mainly seem to be angry that Brexit deals were not just voted through regardless of their content (because the people voted leave) I was just curious if this was a consistent position and they were annoyed at Conservatives for voting against all the options other parties or even Tory Ken Clarke came up with.
Or is it that MPs were supposed to blindly vote through only a Conservative Brexit?
I'm trying to see this whole sorry mess from the point of view of a Conservative MP whose general outlook is one of quiet competence in government (if there any of them left). Where do they stand now, and what do they do? My opinion is that they should see to it that Boris disappears as quickly and quietly as possible. The PM should fall, but the government doesn't need to. The government only becomes culpable if they allow the PM to stumble on despite this catastrophic verdict. They have a couple of days at most. If they can lock Boris in a room with the metaphorical revolver, things can move on. If the cannot or will not, they have condoned the very thing they are against, chaos and mismanagement.
This is now D-Day fight for the soul of the Conservative & Unionist Party. If they blink, their side has lost the war. Moderates, do not resile. Your party needs you.
chortle
yesterday I watched the bleating of Labour MPs who disagree fundamentally with their boss but tamely go down his road to perdition without the balls to leave.
Irrelevant to my point. I'm not a Labour voter.
Irrelevant to reality. The action you advocate would guarantee a Labour Government.
Huh? Offing the PM and preserving the government neuters a VONC. If the Conservative Party removes the person who caused this problem, they wash their hands clean. This is exactly the way to prevent an alternative government!
It also crashes their poll ratings by jettisoning a popular (by present standards) leader and destroying the government's policy. Which guarantees a loss in an upcoming GE.
Oh there are ways to spin this in the Tories' favour: we're the party of law and order, one person made a mistake and he paid for it, nobody's above the law, would Labour really have had the ethical backbone to do this if Corbyn had done this, etc. The alternative is the party is lost for good from the point of view of those moderate Tory MPs whose heads I was trying to get into. They have a chance to claw back the brand of being the unflashy competent stewards they used to enjoy. That image is an electoral asset.
Those days are gone - we're in a populist time now. Big blocs of voters on both left and right don't give the slightest shadow of a fuck how they get what they want, only that they get it.
Taking the moral high ground will win glowing editorials on PB and in a few broadsheets, but lose millions of votes. Thanks, but no thanks.
Having read the BBC account of the ruling only, it looks to be a very, very good ruling not only for the particulars of this case, but for the future of the Constitution.
Having read the BBC account of the ruling only, it looks to be a very, very good ruling not only for the particulars of this case, but for the future of the Constitution.
Indeed.
What a contrast to the ‘limited to the present circumstances only’ from another Supreme Court.
Why wouldn't ERG vote against again? Labour would because 'our deal would be better'.
A "confirmatory vote" is very misleading language. It means a second referendum to keep on asking the people until they give the right answer. An actual confirmatory vote would just be on the deal, not on the decision that has already be made.
The only way to fairly have a second referendum on membership is after the first has been abided by.
LDs confirm they will support VONC even if no unity govt can be formed
Are we finally moving to an election?
Lab say non
If SNP join Libs it will put the pressure on Labour surely?
It should, and I think BBC are reporting both want to VoNC. Possible Bercow might call it if the 3rd and 4th parties are tabling it together. Labour would then be in a massive bind, as there is a reasonable chance the VoNC succeeds. A number of the '21' might either abstain, or in the case of Gyimah, would actively support the VoNC.
I JUST HEARD IAN BLACKWELL
He said GE once it is impossible for Boris to get No Deal
Sky News saying Attorney-General told Boris that what he was doing WAS lawful. Could be some difficult questions for him from both sides.
I am sure that the Attorney General acted in good faith and felt that his interpretation was perfectly reasonable.
If so, it just shows what a horlicks our system of governance has become now that the Supreme Court has seen fit to intervene in the political arena without having a written constitution there to limit the scope of their judgements. Without a rule book to act as guidance and to limit their reach, constitutional law turns into a matter of subjective interpretation and the predictability of rulings turns on a toss of a coin.
Just about everything from the Supreme Court judgement is fine, except its surprising use of the word “quashed”.
Quashed is almost colloquial and suggests a level of emotion behind its judgement against the Government’s actions.
Quashed is a perfectly usual legal term in both civil and criminal proceedings.
Absolutely disgusting. They are now laughing at Jews having a problem with Anti-Semitism and doing what they can to celebrate and award anti-Semitic materials as prizes.
Anyone that votes Labour at the next election will have a moral stain upon them.
What a silly question. What do I know about uk constitutional law? Do you like it is a better question.
It would be more helpful if they clarified why people thought the judgment was wrong in law. Whether people felt the use of the royal prerogative was not justiciable in principle, whether they thought the judges had applied the wrong criterion in deciding whether the action lay within the lawful scope of the royal prerogative, and so on.
Not this leaver. The problem with some Remainers is they tar all those who voted Leave with the same brush. In their eyes, all Leavers are racist gammon.
Some leavers are racist gammon. So are some Remainers. Don't think there aren't Leavers who think Johnson isn't a complete idiot. I know he is.
Why wouldn't ERG vote against again? Labour would because 'our deal would be better'.
A "confirmatory vote" is very misleading language. It means a second referendum to keep on asking the people until they give the right answer. An actual confirmatory vote would just be on the deal, not on the decision that has already be made.
The only way to fairly have a second referendum on membership is after the first has been abided by.
It is surprising how few people have suggested deal vs extend as a referendum. It respects the orignal vote whilst also taking out the reckless no deal as a short term outcome.
It would particularly have suited T Mays government very well, forcing the ERG wing into being the ones asking for the extension, and been hard for Labour to refuse, Labour leavers could have got behind it too.
Absolutely disgusting. They are now laughing at Jews having a problem with Anti-Semitism and doing what they can to celebrate and award anti-Semitic materials as prizes.
Anyone that votes Labour at the next election will have a moral stain upon them.
Whereas anyone who votes for the in Trumps Pocket Law Breaking Racist Jester would be morally superior!!
If [Tory MPs] can lock Boris in a room with the metaphorical revolver, things can move on. If the cannot or will not, they have condoned the very thing they are against, chaos and mismanagement.
Is this possible? Understandably, it's highly likely most Tories - even if you include the real Conservatives, whom Johnson has withdrawn the whip from - won't force Johnson to resign if the alternative is Corbyn.
If the alternative is a Tory, it takes 6 weeks to elect a new leader - and it'd probably be another Johnsonite fanatic anyway, since YouGov is showing that 60% of Tory voters (and therefore a higher proportion of Tory members) think the SC is wrong. So we'd still get a Tory PM in favour of no deal. If anything most of them (Leadsome, Raab, etc) are worse than Johnson
So your plan only works if the Rebel Alliance can find a non-Tory, non-Corbyn, it'll all back. In the light of yesterday's Conference vote, that calls for an AWFUL lot of Labour Remain MPs to stab their leader in the back.
No sane Conservative could allow a far left takeover of the UK in the name of "playing fair" or "doing the right thing". It's not a game.
Fuck me, are you thick? I'm talking about how the Conservatives stay in government. Someone has to pay for this disaster. The Conservatives can make it the whole party, or they can make it Boris alone. No Boris = no VONC = no Corbyn government.
No. It's the PLP that has the whip hand in this, they are not at Corbyn's command and after the attempt to get rid of Watson they will be even more wary of supporting an early election if they aren't sure it will ultimately lead to remain. I think that calls for ref 2 will become louder over the next few weeks and I'd say the chances of that happening before a GE are rising rapidly.
Absolutely disgusting. They are now laughing at Jews having a problem with Anti-Semitism and doing what they can to celebrate and award anti-Semitic materials as prizes.
Anyone that votes Labour at the next election will have a moral stain upon them.
Whereas anyone who votes for the in Trumps Pocket Law Breaking Racist Jester would be morally superior!!
False equivalence is the go-to position of the Corbynites who can't defend the vile Anti-Semitism of Labour. Awarding anti-Semitic cartoons as competition prizes after the scandal is truly sickening.
Sky News saying Attorney-General told Boris that what he was doing WAS lawful. Could be some difficult questions for him from both sides.
Yes Cox's position specifically is untenable I think.
A number of judges agreed with Cox - admittedly not those in the Supreme Court, but still there are senior members of our judiciary who believed it was not a matter for them to consider.
Legal opinions will always vary and I do not believe that Cox would have given his advice without serious consideration. In the end, the Supreme Court did not agree with Cox - but that happens all the time in the courts - both sides of the argument can't win.
Very eminent judges in the High Court agreed with the government, so I don't think his position is untenable.
No. It's the PLP that has the whip hand in this, they are not at Corbyn's command and after the attempt to get rid of Watson they will be even more wary of supporting an early election if they aren't sure it will ultimately lead to remain. I think that calls for ref 2 will become louder over the next few weeks and I'd say the chances of that happening before a GE are rising rapidly.
well as was pointed out by the commentariat whats the point of a ref framed by HMG and administered by it if the vote is remain. Twaddle.
For those asking the question "why should Parliament sit if it doesn't have business", that is the wrong question, in my view.
The reason Parliament should sit is because it wants to. If it doesn't want to, then that is Parliament's choice to make. Again, Parliament is the place where democratic mandate sits. People vote for representatives to do business, and the government needs to have the confidence of those representatives to govern.
For those asking "why no GE" or "why no VoNC" the answer will be: because Parliament wishes that. It isn't politically satisfying, but it is constitutionally and democratically satisfying. If Parliament wants to repeal the FTPA, it can. If Parliament wants a different government, it can create one. If Parliament chooses, as it looks like it will, to keep this zombie government in place as punishment so that Parliament can enact policy on the government through defeat after defeat... well, Parliament can do that if the government refuses to resign. The government cannot refuse to enact the law passed by Parliament.
Is this normal? No. Is this good? I think not. Is this better than the executive being able to close parliament at the drop of a hat, cancelling any legislation it wishes that may have already passed certain hurdles of procedure and allowing policy to happen by executive dictat or default? Certainly.
And what about the people? What about the fact that they were given manifestos and told what would happen and could now end up with something completely different. What about the fact that 1,000's of voters elected MPs to represent them from one party and have now ended up with an MP freelancing?
Can anyone say they have a mandate for any course of action right now?
Ultimately, we need a General Election to re-set parliament and to give a clear direction, whether that be hard Brexit, soft Brexit or Remain.
Your MP owes you his judgement, not his free will.
I've said it a few times, seemed fairly obvious to me. It is the reason all the parties didn't go for the election in the first place. Johnson cannot be trusted.
No sane Conservative could allow a far left takeover of the UK in the name of "playing fair" or "doing the right thing". It's not a game.
Fuck me, are you thick? I'm talking about how the Conservatives stay in government. Someone has to pay for this disaster. The Conservatives can make it the whole party, or they can make it Boris alone. No Boris = no VONC = no Corbyn government.
I'm afraid you're the thick one, unless you can explain what alternative Conservative leader with what alternative policy is going to perform better. And no, no one has to "pay" for this disaster - we just need to ride it out for a few news cycles and it will be forgotten when the next big news item comes around.
If Corbyn were to be installed by a VONC before an election, he will be far off a majority for his loony ideas, and an election will soon follow that Boris will have a pretty good chance of winning.
Sky News saying Attorney-General told Boris that what he was doing WAS lawful. Could be some difficult questions for him from both sides.
I am sure that the Attorney General acted in good faith and felt that his interpretation was perfectly reasonable.
If so, it just shows what a horlicks our system of governance has become now that the Supreme Court has seen fit to intervene in the political arena without having a written constitution there to limit the scope of their judgements. Without a rule book to act as guidance and to limit their reach, constitutional law turns into a matter of subjective interpretation and the predictability of rulings turns on a toss of a coin.
Just about everything from the Supreme Court judgement is fine, except its surprising use of the word “quashed”.
Quashed is almost colloquial and suggests a level of emotion behind its judgement against the Government’s actions.
Quashed is a perfectly usual legal term in both civil and criminal proceedings.
The one bit of the ruling that I felt was a bit iffy was in para 57, which said
"A fundamental change was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October 2019. Whether or not this is a good thing is not for this or any other court to judge"
While on the face of it that's a neutral comment, there's still a bit of an implication that "but if we were to judge, we'd say it was bloody stupid". It would have been better to have left the point out, not least because it adds nothing and no-one raised it as an issue.
No sane Conservative could allow a far left takeover of the UK in the name of "playing fair" or "doing the right thing". It's not a game.
Fuck me, are you thick? I'm talking about how the Conservatives stay in government. Someone has to pay for this disaster. The Conservatives can make it the whole party, or they can make it Boris alone. No Boris = no VONC = no Corbyn government.
I'm afraid you're the thick one, unless you can explain what alternative Conservative leader with what alternative policy is going to perform better. And no, no one has to "pay" for this disaster - we just need to ride it out for a few news cycles and it will be forgotten when the next big news item comes around.
If Corbyn were to be installed by a VONC before an election, he will be far off a majority for his loony ideas, and an election will soon follow that Boris will have a pretty good chance of winning.
As it is, there's no VONC coming because Corbyn is too cowardly to call one against Boris!
Sky News saying Attorney-General told Boris that what he was doing WAS lawful. Could be some difficult questions for him from both sides.
I am sure that the Attorney General acted in good faith and felt that his interpretation was perfectly reasonable.
If so, it just shows what a horlicks our system of governance has become now that the Supreme Court has seen fit to intervene in the political arena without having a written constitution there to limit the scope of their judgements. Without a rule book to act as guidance and to limit their reach, constitutional law turns into a matter of subjective interpretation and the predictability of rulings turns on a toss of a coin.
Just about everything from the Supreme Court judgement is fine, except its surprising use of the word “quashed”.
Quashed is almost colloquial and suggests a level of emotion behind its judgement against the Government’s actions.
Disagree, Casino. Dictionary definition.
quash: reject or void, especially by legal procedure
Absolutely disgusting. They are now laughing at Jews having a problem with Anti-Semitism and doing what they can to celebrate and award anti-Semitic materials as prizes.
Anyone that votes Labour at the next election will have a moral stain upon them.
The two main parties: One is anti-Semite, with an incompetent "leader", and the other is "led" by an incompetent liar and law breaker!
I've said it a few times, seemed fairly obvious to me. It is the reason all the parties didn't go for the election in the first place. Johnson cannot be trusted.
Fuck me, are you thick? I'm talking about how the Conservatives stay in government. Someone has to pay for this disaster. The Conservatives can make it the whole party, or they can make it Boris alone. No Boris = no VONC = no Corbyn government.
Why would the Tories want to deliver the extension request?
I would much rather see the government resign and Corbyn do the dirty before a GE.
I'm a Tory and I WANT a Labour PM to request the extension.
This is not going to end well. In normal times I’d be first to say a PM in this position should resign. However because of the Remain/Leave battle I’m now the first to say he needs to stay. I also now find myself hoping for a full throated Leave win when the election comes, and a democratic revolution that destroys everything the average Remain voter holds dear.
That it has come to this, and we couldn’t find a traditional British compromise is sad. But change is going to have to come. We might stay in the EU for now, but my god those who make that happen are going to reap what they have sown.
Johnson isn't going to resign as leader of the Tories. He might resign as PM.
Yup, and leave Corbyn to request the extension prior to a GE.
The next election is going to be RAGE.
I agree. It will be a RAGE against a Labour Party led by an anti-Semite and RAGE against a party led by an incompetent lying law breaker. Plenty to RAGE about that is far more important than the childish notion that is Brexit. No wonder the real "establishment" love Brexit so much. It creates the conditions where the most stupid rage against something that is less important than many other things they would rather were not noticed.
I've said it a few times, seemed fairly obvious to me. It is the reason all the parties didn't go for the election in the first place. Johnson cannot be trusted.
And because Boris would smash them
That wouldn't be a reason to put it back only 6 weeks.
I look forward to the chance to possibly boot the Blonde tyrant and his brown shirts out of office
I've said it a few times, seemed fairly obvious to me. It is the reason all the parties didn't go for the election in the first place. Johnson cannot be trusted.
And because Boris would smash them
Yea right. Keep believing your fantasies. Boris has fooled some of the people some of the time, and even maybe all of the people some of the time......
No sane Conservative could allow a far left takeover of the UK in the name of "playing fair" or "doing the right thing". It's not a game.
Fuck me, are you thick? I'm talking about how the Conservatives stay in government. Someone has to pay for this disaster. The Conservatives can make it the whole party, or they can make it Boris alone. No Boris = no VONC = no Corbyn government.
I'm afraid you're the thick one, unless you can explain what alternative Conservative leader with what alternative policy is going to perform better. And no, no one has to "pay" for this disaster - we just need to ride it out for a few news cycles and it will be forgotten when the next big news item comes around.
If Corbyn were to be installed by a VONC before an election, he will be far off a majority for his loony ideas, and an election will soon follow that Boris will have a pretty good chance of winning.
The Conservatives don't have to change policy. I'd like them to, but this case was not about policy. It was about the rule of law. A different leader who isn't tainted by the unlawful actions could pursue exactly the same policy. Actually, thinking about it, probably Dominic Raab is ruled out because he also wanted to prorogue parliament. As for "riding it out"... this is never going to go away. Boris Johnson will always be the PM who illegally suspended parliament. The Conservative Party can wash their hands of that action, or they can own it. If they choose to own it, so be it. It will always be used against them. If your calculation really is that this won't make any difference, then clearly owning it makes sense. But that is antithetical to the style and ideology of those moderates I was talking about from the start. That's not the way they see the world. And any election they stand in would be extremely uncomfortable because they would be forced to field questions about Boris's conduct. And either they have to disown their own leader, or they have to disown their own ideology about the importance of standards in public life and rule of law.
Comments
*sighs* And they were doing so fantastically well.
The politics changed most notably after GE2017 when the Parliamentary arithmetic changed.
It provided a platform for stalemate and Brexit was then seriously ground down in trench warfare throughout the rest of 2017 in dull discussions over the divorce bill, which was sniped at by both sides.
May totally failed to lead the debate, so she was already a wounded beast and in a poor position when she tried to fatten the pig on market day in November 2018.
As you say, a unanimous verdict from eleven judges in our top court is difficult to argue against, so the government have to deal with the decision and get on with the job.
I’m expecting them to table a recess next week to coincide with the Con party conference, followed by a very short proroguing and a Queen’s Speech the following week.
If the opposition don’t table a vote of no confidence tomorrow, then I’m not sure what the role of the opposition is supposed to be.
If the Conservative Party removes the person who caused this problem, they wash their hands clean. This is exactly the way to prevent an alternative government!
Legal opinions will always vary and I do not believe that Cox would have given his advice without serious consideration. In the end, the Supreme Court did not agree with Cox - but that happens all the time in the courts - both sides of the argument can't win.
If so, it just shows what a horlicks our system of governance has become now that the Supreme Court has seen fit to intervene in the political arena without having a written constitution there to limit the scope of their judgements. Without a rule book to act as guidance and to limit their reach, constitutional law turns into a matter of subjective interpretation and the predictability of rulings turns on a toss of a coin.
Johnson will accept his resignation letter signalling that he will be able to return to Gov't later.
It'll be one of those good mannered resignations.
It’s pretty obvious to me that he craves to be right on the inside but, failing that, he wants to be the only big swinging dick on the outside, harvesting grievance for a living.
Some leavers are racist gammon. So are some Remainers.
Don't think there aren't Leavers who think Johnson isn't a complete idiot. I know he is.
That's very easy. They will look after number one, or twenty seven/twenty eight. They want us to remain. It's not our pretty face, it's the 10 billion net contribution which would be impossible to replace.
That means that if they keep quiet, and make no serious attempt to negotiate, the UK MPs will do their work for them. Hence, any extension will be agreed despite the uncertainty causing temporary problems.
Does anyone suspect otherwise?
https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1176517570058444802
Labour would because 'our deal would be better'.
The alternative is the party is lost for good from the point of view of those moderate Tory MPs whose heads I was trying to get into. They have a chance to claw back the brand of being the unflashy competent stewards they used to enjoy. That image is an electoral asset.
Headline : Bozza humiliated
Comments : Fuck off Corbyn
Shame on the Tories if they keep a lawbreaker.
In other news I am in Gibraltar! Interesting place. Got talking to some people from the US and we had much in common in political terms! They were registered Democrats and hate Trump, they got bonus points because they think Boris is like Trump and Brexit is against the UK national interest! When they left I wished them well and they said they were working to get shot of Trump in Pennsylvania where they lived. It was an interesting conversation and maybe reflects a more motivated democratic base. Met some other Brits who were complaining in a bar about Brexit. So i joined in with them and connected with them. I am staying in Spain as the accomadation is half the price. The hard border is not so good. The first time i went through it i had drunk 10 pints! So the queue time went quickly, however this morning it went slow! Not that they even look at the passport! I can understand why they dont want a hard border in Ireland!
On a final note I am at the top of the rock and the people running away from the monkeys is very funny! One bloke went up a spiral staircase and tripped over in shock when he saw a monkey poised to pounce on him! I laughed out loud and the other people laughed too!
Quashed is almost colloquial and suggests a level of emotion behind its judgement against the Government’s actions.
Let's say 80%. And, yes, we can spray the other 20% across the rest of the - be still my pulsating brow - 'Political Class'.
I'm happy with that.
But as it is Conservative voters who mainly seem to be angry that Brexit deals were not just voted through regardless of their content (because the people voted leave) I was just curious if this was a consistent position and they were annoyed at Conservatives for voting against all the options other parties or even Tory Ken Clarke came up with.
Or is it that MPs were supposed to blindly vote through only a Conservative Brexit?
Taking the moral high ground will win glowing editorials on PB and in a few broadsheets, but lose millions of votes. Thanks, but no thanks.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1176519587745214464
Hope the evening walk is better than the early afternoon perambulation. Been a while since I had to wear waterproof trousers.
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1176211722408988675?s=20
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1176212391039787008?s=20
What a contrast to the ‘limited to the present circumstances only’ from another Supreme Court.
No sane Conservative could allow a far left takeover of the UK in the name of "playing fair" or "doing the right thing". It's not a game.
Just a trace.
The only way to fairly have a second referendum on membership is after the first has been abided by.
He said GE once it is impossible for Boris to get No Deal
The next election is going to be RAGE.
Anyone that votes Labour at the next election will have a moral stain upon them.
Is that not a tautology btw - racist gammon?
It would particularly have suited T Mays government very well, forcing the ERG wing into being the ones asking for the extension, and been hard for Labour to refuse, Labour leavers could have got behind it too.
It would be verging on a Fix.
If Corbyn were to be installed by a VONC before an election, he will be far off a majority for his loony ideas, and an election will soon follow that Boris will have a pretty good chance of winning.
"A fundamental change was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October 2019. Whether or not this is a good thing is not for this or any other court to judge"
While on the face of it that's a neutral comment, there's still a bit of an implication that "but if we were to judge, we'd say it was bloody stupid". It would have been better to have left the point out, not least because it adds nothing and no-one raised it as an issue.
NEW THREAD
quash: reject or void, especially by legal procedure
I would much rather see the government resign and Corbyn do the dirty before a GE.
I'm a Tory and I WANT a Labour PM to request the extension.
That it has come to this, and we couldn’t find a traditional British compromise is sad. But change is going to have to come. We might stay in the EU for now, but my god those who make that happen are going to reap what they have sown.
I look forward to the chance to possibly boot the Blonde tyrant and his brown shirts out of office
As for "riding it out"... this is never going to go away. Boris Johnson will always be the PM who illegally suspended parliament. The Conservative Party can wash their hands of that action, or they can own it. If they choose to own it, so be it. It will always be used against them.
If your calculation really is that this won't make any difference, then clearly owning it makes sense. But that is antithetical to the style and ideology of those moderates I was talking about from the start. That's not the way they see the world. And any election they stand in would be extremely uncomfortable because they would be forced to field questions about Boris's conduct. And either they have to disown their own leader, or they have to disown their own ideology about the importance of standards in public life and rule of law.