politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Just a little bit of history repeating?
Comments
-
I’m more pointing out to Leavers why Boris’s deal isn’t what they think it is.Noo said:
I thought he was quitting as an MP toodyedwoolie said:I wonder what the commons mics will pick up when citizen Bercow rises for his first backbench offering? Much rudeness I suspect
0 -
In almost all countries there has to be a head of government at all times, and it is gross negligence to resign without being clear who the sucessor is, even if it is under the agreement that the person taking over is doing so as caretaker. This is why you often have a PM (or equivalent) remaining in position months or years after having lost an election.Sandpit said:
Yes, we are in uncharted waters with the FTPA, it's a messy piece of legislation that is noteable for what it doesn't say as much as what it does.pm215 said:
What does it actually mean for the 'government to resign' post-FTPA? Johnson could resign as PM, of course, and he could presumably also tell the Queen he didn't think any other Tory MP would have the confidence of the house (implying that she should call for the LOTO). Does governmental resignation mean anything more than just doing that?Sandpit said:
At some point, if the Opposition won't vote for an election, the government is going to have little choice but to resign. If they survive this week they need to get the budget passed next month.
We've been around it here a few times and I think the consensus is that, as you suggest, the PM resigns to HMQ and either suggests nobody or suggests the LotO. It would then be up to Corbyn to tell the Queen whether or not he thinks he can survive a vote of confidence.
Johnson won't resign as Conservative Party Leader and will take the Conservatives into Opposition, immediately calling for a vote of no confidence in whoever has been appointed, to start the FTPA 14-day clock to a dissolution and election.
Some on here (not me) are of the opinion that Johnson can't actually resign until it becomes clear who would replace him, in which case he might try and call a vote of confidence in his own government.
Gordon Brown was only able to get away with resigning before the next govenment had been agreed, as it was clear that whether or not a coalition could be formed, that David Cameron was the only sensible PM.0 -
Great defending (and a little luck) from the Japanese. This match is surprisingly very much open at half time.0
-
Parliament can’t limit the sovereignty of the people. It only has delegated authorityalex. said:
Except the legislation said that the referendum was advisory. That people argued differently during the campaign does not change that. It was not a legally binding vote.Charles said:
Nope. There’s an important distinction between elections and referendumsalex. said:
They have a mandate to leave (which is much weaker now than before), not an instruction. Important distinction.
Just as an elected Government has a mandate to deliver things in its manifesto. The strength of the mandate (initially) may depend on how prominent the issue was during an election campaign. But the mandate may diminish over time, to the extent that a Government does not feel it can continue with the plan without a renewed mandate.
Democratic votes give mandates, not instructions. The only real exception would be post legislative votes as automatic triggers. A la Scottish and Welsh Devolution referendums.
1. An election involves people competing to be a representative of an area. They do this on the basis of a statement of principles and objectives (manifesto). However, manifestos have no legal standing because under Burkean theory MPs are representatives not delegates
2. A referendum involves the sovereign authority being asked a specific question (should I stay or should I go in this case). The answer was clear: Leave. The sovereign authority did not provide any instruction on how, (which is a matter for delegated representatives)
(The way to square the results of the referendum and the election is that the people wanted a soft Brexit. Unfortunately May and the various extreme Remainers have created a situation where that is not likely. However, Boris’s deal is still compliant with the referendum and - assuming it is passed by Parliament - would be compliant with the election result as well)0 -
He was a pal of Epstein tbf, like a lot of people. Looks like the accusations about asking him a favour whilst he was banged up for kiddy fiddling is from an upcoming Dispatcheskinabalu said:
That is rather unexpected. Can't recall the last time the Mail published loosely sourced dirt on a quintessential member of the metropolitan liberal Remainer elite.dyedwoolie said:I see the Mail have a 'friend of Epstein' story about the disgusting slug Mandelson
How very surprising0 -
Presumably the DUP would support this, too.
https://twitter.com/GloriaDePiero/status/11858522759332208650 -
We are not talking about 'almost all countries'. We are talking about the specifics of our country. And here there is no impediment to the PM resigning without there being an immediate successor.eristdoof said:
In almost all countries there has to be a head of government at all times, and it is gross negligence to resign without being clear who the sucessor is, even if it is under the agreement that the person taking over is doing so as caretaker. This is why you often have a PM (or equivalent) remaining in position months or years after having lost an election.Sandpit said:
Yes, we are in uncharted waters with the FTPA, it's a messy piece of legislation that is noteable for what it doesn't say as much as what it does.pm215 said:
What does it actually mean for the 'government to resign' post-FTPA? Johnson could resign as PM, of course, and he could presumably also tell the Queen he didn't think any other Tory MP would have the confidence of the house (implying that she should call for the LOTO). Does governmental resignation mean anything more than just doing that?Sandpit said:
At some point, if the Opposition won't vote for an election, the government is going to have little choice but to resign. If they survive this week they need to get the budget passed next month.
We've been around it here a few times and I think the consensus is that, as you suggest, the PM resigns to HMQ and either suggests nobody or suggests the LotO. It would then be up to Corbyn to tell the Queen whether or not he thinks he can survive a vote of confidence.
Johnson won't resign as Conservative Party Leader and will take the Conservatives into Opposition, immediately calling for a vote of no confidence in whoever has been appointed, to start the FTPA 14-day clock to a dissolution and election.
Some on here (not me) are of the opinion that Johnson can't actually resign until it becomes clear who would replace him, in which case he might try and call a vote of confidence in his own government.
Gordon Brown was only able to get away with resigning before the next govenment had been agreed, as it was clear that whether or not a coalition could be formed, that David Cameron was the only sensible PM.0 -
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.DougSeal said:
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.Philip_Thompson said:
Victim blaming?OldKingCole said:
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.Big_G_NorthWales said:
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugsOldKingCole said:
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better.dyedwoolie said:A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?0 -
Dura_Ace: "No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit."
I`ve only just caught up with your comments. Were you joking?
Retaining the cultural identity of one`s country does not necessarily make one racist.0 -
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’sfelix said:
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.DougSeal said:
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.Philip_Thompson said:
Victim blaming?OldKingCole said:
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.Big_G_NorthWales said:
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugsOldKingCole said:
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better.dyedwoolie said:A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?0 -
Are we going to have to refer to Hobbes again? My copy of Leviathan is within easy reach.Charles said:
Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?Cyclefree said:
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.Charles said:
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.0 -
I know the answer (in my view).kle4 said:
Where do you think it comes from? And is that view based on the law or morals?Charles said:
Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?Cyclefree said:
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.Charles said:
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.
I’m interested in whether either @Cyclefree or @Scott_P have a deep understanding of constitutional theory0 -
I cannot quite believe we are still arguing over the legal status of the referendum. That was settled as part of the A50 case bloody years ago, and is completely irrelevant given parliament then acted to start things off anyway. Your statement seems to go completely against the concept of parliamentary sovereignty.Charles said:
Parliament can’t limit the sovereignty of the people. It only has delegated authorityalex. said:
Except the legislation said that the referendum was advisory. That people argued differently during the campaign does not change that. It was not a legally binding vote.Charles said:
Nope. There’s an important distinction between elections and referendumsalex. said:
They have a mandate to leave (which is much weaker now than before), not an instruction. Important distinction.
Just as an elected Government has a mandate to deliver things in its manifesto. The strength of the mandate (initially) may depend on how prominent the issue was during an election campaign. But the mandate may diminish over time, to the extent that a Government does not feel it can continue with the plan without a renewed mandate.
Democratic votes give mandates, not instructions. The only real exception would be post legislative votes as automatic triggers. A la Scottish and Welsh Devolution referendums.
1. An election involves people competing to be a representative of an area. They do this on the basis of a statement of principles and objectives (manifesto). However, manifestos have no legal standing because under Burkean theory MPs are representatives not delegates
2. A referendum involves the sovereign authority being asked a specific question (should I stay or should I go in this case). The answer was clear: Leave. The sovereign authority did not provide any instruction on how, (which is a matter for delegated representatives)
(The way to square the results of the referendum and the election is that the people wanted a soft Brexit. Unfortunately May and the various extreme Remainers have created a situation where that is not likely. However, Boris’s deal is still compliant with the referendum and - assuming it is passed by Parliament - would be compliant with the election result as well)0 -
Even more difficult under FPTP.OblitusSumMe said:
You have the option of standing yourself if you can find enough of your fellow constituents to sign your nomination papers and the money for a deposit.alex. said:
None of the above was not an option on the ballot paperDougSeal said:
We elected it.Morris_Dancer said:Those backing a customs union amendment are morons. The deal is what it is. Back it, or don't. Go for a second referendum, or an election.
But you can't unilaterally alter a deal which requires both sides to support it, nor compel the PM or Government to back something they clearly don't.
An honest decision to revoke or have a referendum or have an election having rejected the deal is a legitimate perspective. Trying to deliberately scuttle the deal without voting against it via stupid, meaningless amendments is cowardly, foolish, and pathetic.
This Parliament is wretched.
Democracy isn't easy, as a fictional US President once said.
For a very large number of people, it is consistently a choice between the least crap of two options.0 -
Thank goodness we have you here to judge if that is the case.Charles said:
I know the answer (in my view).kle4 said:
Where do you think it comes from? And is that view based on the law or morals?Charles said:
Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?Cyclefree said:
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.Charles said:
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.
I’m interested in whether either @Cyclefree or @Scott_P have a deep understanding of constitutional theory2 -
And when is the Sovereign sovereign?Charles said:
Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?Cyclefree said:
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.Charles said:
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.0 -
Epstein seemed to know an awful lot of powerful people. The unravelling of the evidence he's left behind is going to be a huge story for years to come.dyedwoolie said:
He was a pal of Epstein tbf, like a lot of people. Looks like the accusations about asking him a favour whilst he was banged up for kiddy fiddling is from an upcoming Dispatcheskinabalu said:
That is rather unexpected. Can't recall the last time the Mail published loosely sourced dirt on a quintessential member of the metropolitan liberal Remainer elite.dyedwoolie said:I see the Mail have a 'friend of Epstein' story about the disgusting slug Mandelson
How very surprising0 -
Hmmm, you're being a bit loose here. "Can't limit the sovereignty of the people"? Depends what you mean by "sovereignty of the people". Refusing to hold a referendum on an issue is, in one sense, limiting the sovereignty of the people. But that's probably not what you mean. So, what exactly do you mean?Charles said:
Parliament can’t limit the sovereignty of the people. It only has delegated authorityalex. said:
Except the legislation said that the referendum was advisory. That people argued differently during the campaign does not change that. It was not a legally binding vote.Charles said:
Nope. There’s an important distinction between elections and referendumsalex. said:
They have a mandate to leave (which is much weaker now than before), not an instruction. Important distinction.
Just as an elected Government has a mandate to deliver things in its manifesto. The strength of the mandate (initially) may depend on how prominent the issue was during an election campaign. But the mandate may diminish over time, to the extent that a Government does not feel it can continue with the plan without a renewed mandate.
Democratic votes give mandates, not instructions. The only real exception would be post legislative votes as automatic triggers. A la Scottish and Welsh Devolution referendums.
1. An election involves people competing to be a representative of an area. They do this on the basis of a statement of principles and objectives (manifesto). However, manifestos have no legal standing because under Burkean theory MPs are representatives not delegates
2. A referendum involves the sovereign authority being asked a specific question (should I stay or should I go in this case). The answer was clear: Leave. The sovereign authority did not provide any instruction on how, (which is a matter for delegated representatives)
(The way to square the results of the referendum and the election is that the people wanted a soft Brexit. Unfortunately May and the various extreme Remainers have created a situation where that is not likely. However, Boris’s deal is still compliant with the referendum and - assuming it is passed by Parliament - would be compliant with the election result as well)0 -
Oh massive. Lots of people stand to be rightly destroyed by itSandpit said:
Epstein seemed to know an awful lot of powerful people. The unravelling of the evidence he's left behind is going to be a huge story for years to come.dyedwoolie said:
He was a pal of Epstein tbf, like a lot of people. Looks like the accusations about asking him a favour whilst he was banged up for kiddy fiddling is from an upcoming Dispatcheskinabalu said:
That is rather unexpected. Can't recall the last time the Mail published loosely sourced dirt on a quintessential member of the metropolitan liberal Remainer elite.dyedwoolie said:I see the Mail have a 'friend of Epstein' story about the disgusting slug Mandelson
How very surprising1 -
0
-
Parliament has every right to do so, constitutionally. (It would be interesting to see you argue otherwise in a court.)Charles said:
I know the answer (in my view).kle4 said:
Where do you think it comes from? And is that view based on the law or morals?Charles said:
Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?Cyclefree said:
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.Charles said:
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.
I’m interested in whether either @Cyclefree or @Scott_P have a deep understanding of constitutional theory
The electorate get to punish them at the next election, if they think their wishes have been flouted.
0 -
Those who bet only decide if it's a "good call" once they know what the odds being offered are.Big_G_NorthWales said:Amber Rudd's support for the deal, notwithstanding her voting with Letwin, in a direct conversation with Boris does give rise to the likelyhood of the whip being restored and her standing in the next GE in a safe seat
For those who bet, Amber for next conservative leader could be a good call
0 -
there can happen no breach of Covenant on the part of the Soveraigne; and consequently none of his Subjects, by any pretence of forfeiture, can be freed from his Subjection.SandyRentool said:
Are we going to have to refer to Hobbes again? My copy of Leviathan is within easy reach.Charles said:
Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?Cyclefree said:
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.Charles said:
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.0 -
The DUP oppose remaining in the Customs Union.nico67 said:Some Labour Leavers are likely to support a Customs Union Amendment.
And the DUP might support this as a way of reducing the border issue . Labour MPs supporting the deal want some cover .
But this is now going to cause the ERG to start moaning .
The drama isn’t over yet !0 -
Maybe legally, but being prime minister does come one or two responsibilities. Ensuring you don't leave the country dangling without a leader is certainly one of them.Richard_Tyndall said:
We are not talking about 'almost all countries'. We are talking about the specifics of our country. And here there is no impediment to the PM resigning without there being an immediate successor.eristdoof said:
In almost all countries there has to be a head of government at all times, and it is gross negligence to resign without being clear who the sucessor is, even if it is under the agreement that the person taking over is doing so as caretaker. This is why you often have a PM (or equivalent) remaining in position months or years after having lost an election.Sandpit said:
Yes, we are in uncharted waters with the FTPA, it's a messy piece of legislation that is noteable for what it doesn't say as much as what it does.pm215 said:
What does it actually mean for the 'government to resign' post-FTPA? Johnson could resign as PM, of course, and he could presumably also tell the Queen he didn't think any other Tory MP would have the confidence of the house (implying that she should call for the LOTO). Does governmental resignation mean anything more than just doing that?Sandpit said:
At some point, if the Opposition won't vote for an election, the government is going to have little choice but to resign. If they survive this week they need to get the budget passed next month.
We've been around it here a few times and I think the consensus is that, as you suggest, the PM resigns to HMQ and either suggests nobody or suggests the LotO. It would then be up to Corbyn to tell the Queen whether or not he thinks he can survive a vote of confidence.
Johnson won't resign as Conservative Party Leader and will take the Conservatives into Opposition, immediately calling for a vote of no confidence in whoever has been appointed, to start the FTPA 14-day clock to a dissolution and election.
Some on here (not me) are of the opinion that Johnson can't actually resign until it becomes clear who would replace him, in which case he might try and call a vote of confidence in his own government.
Gordon Brown was only able to get away with resigning before the next govenment had been agreed, as it was clear that whether or not a coalition could be formed, that David Cameron was the only sensible PM.0 -
As recently as 2005 the highest court in the land held that “ The bedrock of the British Constitution is … the Supremacy of the Crown in Parliament” (R (Jackson) v Attorney-General). Unless you have a democratically elected Crown then democracy is, in principal, fettered by an undemocratic source of sovereignty within in Parliament. Okay, I admit that Hobbes would say that the Crown’s power comes from a transfer of right from the people but I think one who maintains that the 2016 referendum was a transfer back need to back up that assertion with more than they have hitherto. Such a fundamental movement of such a Constitutional “bedrock” would, in my view, have been expressly flagged in advance.Charles said:1 -
'To make Covenant with bruit Beasts is impossible; because not understanding our speech, they understand not...'Noo said:
there can happen no breach of Covenant on the part of the Soveraigne; and consequently none of his Subjects, by any pretence of forfeiture, can be freed from his Subjection.SandyRentool said:
Are we going to have to refer to Hobbes again? My copy of Leviathan is within easy reach.Charles said:
Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?Cyclefree said:
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.Charles said:
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.
So no deals with the ERG.0 -
Poppycock, Charles. The sovereignty of the people is a too-high-level-to-be-useful theory of the sort political theorists dream up to shore up the whole system. There is no reason to think it true or useful, and other theories are available - i.e. that the system governs by divine right, or (the correct one), because it can.Charles said:
Parliament can’t limit the sovereignty of the people. It only has delegated authorityalex. said:
Except the legislation said that the referendum was advisory. That people argued differently during the campaign does not change that. It was not a legally binding vote.Charles said:
Nope. There’s an important distinction between elections and referendumsalex. said:
They have a mandate to leave (which is much weaker now than before), not an instruction. Important distinction.
Just as an elected Government has a mandate to deliver things in its manifesto. The strength of the mandate (initially) may depend on how prominent the issue was during an election campaign. But the mandate may diminish over time, to the extent that a Government does not feel it can continue with the plan without a renewed mandate.
Democratic votes give mandates, not instructions. The only real exception would be post legislative votes as automatic triggers. A la Scottish and Welsh Devolution referendums.
1. An election involves people competing to be a representative of an area. They do this on the basis of a statement of principles and objectives (manifesto). However, manifestos have no legal standing because under Burkean theory MPs are representatives not delegates
2. A referendum involves the sovereign authority being asked a specific question (should I stay or should I go in this case). The answer was clear: Leave. The sovereign authority did not provide any instruction on how, (which is a matter for delegated representatives)
(The way to square the results of the referendum and the election is that the people wanted a soft Brexit. Unfortunately May and the various extreme Remainers have created a situation where that is not likely. However, Boris’s deal is still compliant with the referendum and - assuming it is passed by Parliament - would be compliant with the election result as well)
How, for instance, would the people revoke the delegation of its authority? Candidates need not invoke the death of Magna Carta in their answers.1 -
-
Rioters are criminals and the police going on riot control duty are going to deal with criminals.DougSeal said:
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’sfelix said:
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.DougSeal said:
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.Philip_Thompson said:
Victim blaming?OldKingCole said:
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.Big_G_NorthWales said:
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugsOldKingCole said:
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better.dyedwoolie said:A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?0 -
and to have stronger, and more vehement Passions for any thing, than is ordinarily seen in others, is that which men call MADNESSE.SandyRentool said:
'To make Covenant with bruit Beasts is impossible; because not understanding our speech, they understand not...'Noo said:
there can happen no breach of Covenant on the part of the Soveraigne; and consequently none of his Subjects, by any pretence of forfeiture, can be freed from his Subjection.SandyRentool said:
Are we going to have to refer to Hobbes again? My copy of Leviathan is within easy reach.Charles said:
Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?Cyclefree said:
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.Charles said:
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.
So no deals with the ERG.
I'm afraid that's probably all of us on here0 -
-
'Sovereignty of the people' is a noble sounding phrase but is essentially meaningless without definition. And the only definition which suffices is an accurate and concise summary of what the British Constitution, written and unwritten, entails.Noo said:Hmmm, you're being a bit loose here. "Can't limit the sovereignty of the people"? Depends what you mean by "sovereignty of the people". Refusing to hold a referendum on an issue is, in one sense, limiting the sovereignty of the people. But that's probably not what you mean. So, what exactly do you mean?
That will be my next post.
See you in a bit.0 -
Scatological hyperbole is a consistent theme of @Dura_Ace ‘s writing.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you get pleasure in writing that kind of insultDura_Ace said:
No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit.Big_G_NorthWales said:Amber Rudd's support for the deal, notwithstanding her voting with Letwin, in a direct conversation with Boris does give rise to the likelyhood of the whip being restored and her standing in the next GE in a safe seat
For those who bet, Amber for next conservative leader could be a good call
A constant diet of it would be tiring, but he is fairly sparing in its deployment.
1 -
The weak link being the ERG being 'disappointed' as he terms it.dyedwoolie said:
And of course notes the big problem - if they can hang together on the Bill, the DUP can back a VONC from Labour and as seen on here and in that thread it is anticipated the Labour rebels would fall in line...thus torpedoing the thing they just fought to see happen.0 -
More than they oppose the Johnson deal?OblitusSumMe said:
The DUP oppose remaining in the Customs Union.nico67 said:Some Labour Leavers are likely to support a Customs Union Amendment.
And the DUP might support this as a way of reducing the border issue . Labour MPs supporting the deal want some cover .
But this is now going to cause the ERG to start moaning .
The drama isn’t over yet !0 -
Cameron managed to inflict three years of that on us.eristdoof said:
Maybe legally, but being prime minister does come one or two responsibilities. Ensuring you don't leave the country dangling without a leader is certainly one of them.Richard_Tyndall said:
We are not talking about 'almost all countries'. We are talking about the specifics of our country. And here there is no impediment to the PM resigning without there being an immediate successor.eristdoof said:
In almost all countries there has to be a head of government at all times, and it is gross negligence to resign without being clear who the sucessor is, even if it is under the agreement that the person taking over is doing so as caretaker. This is why you often have a PM (or equivalent) remaining in position months or years after having lost an election.Sandpit said:
Yes, we are in uncharted waters with the FTPA, it's a messy piece of legislation that is noteable for what it doesn't say as much as what it does.pm215 said:
What does it actually mean for the 'government to resign' post-FTPA? Johnson could resign as PM, of course, and he could presumably also tell the Queen he didn't think any other Tory MP would have the confidence of the house (implying that she should call for the LOTO). Does governmental resignation mean anything more than just doing that?Sandpit said:
At some point, if the Opposition won't vote for an election, the government is going to have little choice but to resign. If they survive this week they need to get the budget passed next month.
We've been around it here a few times and I think the consensus is that, as you suggest, the PM resigns to HMQ and either suggests nobody or suggests the LotO. It would then be up to Corbyn to tell the Queen whether or not he thinks he can survive a vote of confidence.
Johnson won't resign as Conservative Party Leader and will take the Conservatives into Opposition, immediately calling for a vote of no confidence in whoever has been appointed, to start the FTPA 14-day clock to a dissolution and election.
Some on here (not me) are of the opinion that Johnson can't actually resign until it becomes clear who would replace him, in which case he might try and call a vote of confidence in his own government.
Gordon Brown was only able to get away with resigning before the next govenment had been agreed, as it was clear that whether or not a coalition could be formed, that David Cameron was the only sensible PM.
Though admittedly with the assistance of the Tory membership.0 -
Not all of them, and not rioting, but anyone who puts someone else at fear of their physical safety is liable in common assault or a section 4APublic Order Act offence. So any of the marchers who put JRM in fear of his safety are indeed criminals, yes, but not rioters which is a specific offence that did not occur here. Not all the marchers are criminals but any that made JRM or his son feel unsafe is potentially a criminal. I’m a Remainer but I will call out such behaviour from my “side” when I see it - as I would expect Leavers to do on theirs. And equally JRM should not have taken his son into that situation.Philip_Thompson said:
Rioters are criminals and the police going on riot control duty are going to deal with criminals.DougSeal said:
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’sfelix said:
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.DougSeal said:
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.Philip_Thompson said:
Victim blaming?OldKingCole said:
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.Big_G_NorthWales said:
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugsOldKingCole said:
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better.dyedwoolie said:A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?
*edit - sorry, section 4A0 -
Slight issue: there are truths hiding inside the constitution that aren't always spelled out.kinabalu said:
'Sovereignty of the people' is a noble sounding phrase but is essentially meaningless without definition. And the only definition which suffices is an accurate and concise summary of what the British Constitution, written and unwritten, entails.Noo said:Hmmm, you're being a bit loose here. "Can't limit the sovereignty of the people"? Depends what you mean by "sovereignty of the people". Refusing to hold a referendum on an issue is, in one sense, limiting the sovereignty of the people. But that's probably not what you mean. So, what exactly do you mean?
That will be my next post.
See you in a bit.
On question I have it what would result from a majority in parliament decreeing that all future elections would be cancelled. Would the courts strike such legislation down? I can imagine they would.
Perhaps the real answer is that there is no such thing as sovereignty, that we are all subjects of the dominion of others. And no bad thing, if so.
0 -
Thats the first time I've read Letwin described as "useful":
Oliver Letwin 'is Remainer QC's useful idiot':
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7592141/Lawyer-masterminded-Supreme-Court-humiliation-helped-draft-wrecking-amendment.html0 -
No, it does not. However, if one bumps into a person for whom retaining the cultural identity of their country is of such concern that it keeps them up at night and causes a certain animation in their conversation, then it is a reasonable deduction, and also my experience, that said person will be more infected than most with the blight of racism.Stocky said:Retaining the cultural identity of one`s country does not necessarily make one racist.
0 -
Four or five years ago a delegation of elderly people arrived at Priti Patel's constituency office. Can't recall what they were protesting about, I'm afraid. Some were in a wheelchairs and several those that were not had walking sticks. Patel complained that this demonstration had put her staff 'in fear'.DougSeal said:
Not all of them, and not rioting, but anyone who puts someone else at fear of their physical safety is liable in common assault or a section 5 Public Order Act offence. So any of the marchers who put JRM in fear of his safety are indeed criminals, yes, but not rioters which is a specific offence that did not occur here. Not all the marchers are criminals but any that made JRM or his son feel unsafe is potentially a criminal. I’m a Remainer but I will call out such behaviour from my “side” when I see it - as I would expect Leavers to do on theirs. And equally JRM should not have taken his son into that situation.Philip_Thompson said:
Rioters are criminals and the police going on riot control duty are going to deal with criminals.DougSeal said:
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’sfelix said:
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.DougSeal said:
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.Philip_Thompson said:
Victim blaming?OldKingCole said:
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.Big_G_NorthWales said:
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugsOldKingCole said:
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better.dyedwoolie said:A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?0 -
That’s fair (and I applaud the insertion of “potentially”).DougSeal said:
Not all of them, and not rioting, but anyone who puts someone else at fear of their physical safety is liable in common assault or a section 4APublic Order Act offence. So any of the marchers who put JRM in fear of his safety are indeed criminals, yes, but not rioters which is a specific offence that did not occur here. Not all the marchers are criminals but any that made JRM or his son feel unsafe is potentially a criminal. I’m a Remainer but I will call out such behaviour from my “side” when I see it - as I would expect Leavers to do on theirs. And equally JRM should not have taken his son into that situation.Philip_Thompson said:
Rioters are criminals and the police going on riot control duty are going to deal with criminals.DougSeal said:
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’sfelix said:
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.DougSeal said:
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.Philip_Thompson said:
Victim blaming?OldKingCole said:
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.Big_G_NorthWales said:
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugsOldKingCole said:
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better.dyedwoolie said:A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?
*edit - sorry, section 4A
One might think JRM irresponsible, even provocative, but that it no way removes him from the protection of the law. And nor should it.2 -
There is no such thing as a cultural identity of a country. Countries are in all cases made up of multiple cultures, many of which are partially shared with other countries.Stocky said:Dura_Ace: "No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit."
I`ve only just caught up with your comments. Were you joking?
Retaining the cultural identity of one`s country does not necessarily make one racist.0 -
Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.0 -
Yup. One suspects it would be only a matter of time before 'our Judeo-Christian heritage is under attack' barges its way into the convo.kinabalu said:
No, it does not. However, if one bumps into a person for whom retaining the cultural identity of their country is of such concern that it keeps them up at night and causes a certain animation in their conversation, then it is a reasonable deduction, and also my experience, that said person will be more infected than most with the blight of racism.Stocky said:Retaining the cultural identity of one`s country does not necessarily make one racist.
0 -
Indeed. Only a fool would say that Derry is more like Kent than Donegal.Noo said:
There is no such thing as a cultural identity of a country. Countries are in all cases made up of multiple cultures, many of which are partially shared with other countries.Stocky said:Dura_Ace: "No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit."
I`ve only just caught up with your comments. Were you joking?
Retaining the cultural identity of one`s country does not necessarily make one racist.0 -
Though to juggle it about a bit, Morningside is probably more like Hampstead than The Calton.DougSeal said:
Indeed. Only a fool would say that Derry is more like Kent than Donegal.Noo said:
There is no such thing as a cultural identity of a country. Countries are in all cases made up of multiple cultures, many of which are partially shared with other countries.Stocky said:Dura_Ace: "No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit."
I`ve only just caught up with your comments. Were you joking?
Retaining the cultural identity of one`s country does not necessarily make one racist.0 -
If the national leaders comeback and say you have a 1 month extension to pass the deal we have negotiated, then what will happen with the referendum.numbertwelve said:Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
I believe now that the national leaders have given up on the UK changing it's mind and decided that close cooperation economically and politically is the way to go for perhaps the next decade.0 -
Even by Tory standards she is a rank bad one.OldKingCole said:
Four or five years ago a delegation of elderly people arrived at Priti Patel's constituency office. Can't recall what they were protesting about, I'm afraid. Some were in a wheelchairs and several those that were not had walking sticks. Patel complained that this demonstration had put her staff 'in fear'.DougSeal said:
Not all of them, and not rioting, but anyone who puts someone else at fear of their physical safety is liable in common assault or a section 5 Public Order Act offence. So any of the marchers who put JRM in fear of his safety are indeed criminals, yes, but not rioters which is a specific offence that did not occur here. Not all the marchers are criminals but any that made JRM or his son feel unsafe is potentially a criminal. I’m a Remainer but I will call out such behaviour from my “side” when I see it - as I would expect Leavers to do on theirs. And equally JRM should not have taken his son into that situation.Philip_Thompson said:
Rioters are criminals and the police going on riot control duty are going to deal with criminals.DougSeal said:
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’sfelix said:
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.DougSeal said:
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.Philip_Thompson said:
Victim blaming?OldKingCole said:
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.Big_G_NorthWales said:
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugsOldKingCole said:
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better.dyedwoolie said:A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?0 -
The problem with a second referendum amendment, is that this amendment would not be sufficient by itself to hold the second referendum.numbertwelve said:Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
That would require fresh primary legislation, consultation periods etc. I won't say it's impossible, but it's going to be very difficult to get this through Parliament (both houses, and committees) against the wishes of the government, it's several days over a period of months. Government could also simply pull the Brexit Bill if it gets amended.0 -
Yeah. Similarly the posher parts of Dublin have a lot more in common with N London than rural Ireland.Theuniondivvie said:
Though to juggle it about a bit, Morningside is probably more like Hampstead than The Calton.DougSeal said:
Indeed. Only a fool would say that Derry is more like Kent than Donegal.Noo said:
There is no such thing as a cultural identity of a country. Countries are in all cases made up of multiple cultures, many of which are partially shared with other countries.Stocky said:Dura_Ace: "No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit."
I`ve only just caught up with your comments. Were you joking?
Retaining the cultural identity of one`s country does not necessarily make one racist.0 -
If the existing treason laws aren't adequate, I agree.williamglenn said:Now the ERG want Letwin banged up.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7591983/Tory-MPs-push-law-threatening-JAIL-British-citizens-undermine-Government-talks-abroad.html
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.0 -
As a first step I would imagine if such an amendment is passed the EU would then offer an extension until mid 2020, on the grounds that parliament has given a pretty clear indication they want a referendum. That then gives time to either have the remainers agreed a Government for Remainer Unity, or have an election. If Boris wins that election he can pass his deal in peace, if he does not then a referendum is held by the others.Sandpit said:
The problem with a second referendum amendment, is that this amendment would not be sufficient by itself to hold the second referendum.numbertwelve said:Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
That would require fresh primary legislation, consultation periods etc. I won't say it's impossible, but it's going to be very difficult to get this through Parliament (both houses, and committees) against the wishes of the government, it's several days over a period of months. Government could also simply pull the Brexit Bill if it gets amended.0 -
I would not worry too much if I were you. The macro politics is behind this Deal. It will be passed - and most probably this year.isam said:What is there to negotiate? Our PM and the EU have agreed a deal that looked as if it would pass a vote in parliament. Yesterday was a really sad day, like when you give one more chance to someone you know is going to let you down. This was the Brexit blockers time to shine, prove they did accept the result, and that they would honour the pledge they made to get elected. Unfortunately they just cant do it.
Furthermore this outcome flows logically from the 2016 referendum - which was essentially an instruction to the UK government to take us out of the EU in an orderly fashion under the best exit terms that could in practice and in its view be achieved. There is no valid interpretation other than that. Everything else is special pleading.
So, OK, it is about to happen. Took a while but so what? It was always going to be difficult once parliament was granted an effective veto.
Australian style points system coming your way very very soon now.0 -
Valiant Japanese rugby players have finally met their match in the Springboks. A great addition to the tournament though, international rugby is in a better place for their emerging as a top side.0
-
'most probably this year'. Rather blows the government's optimistic timetable out of the water.kinabalu said:
I would not worry too much if I were you. The macro politics is behind this Deal. It will be passed - and most probably this year.isam said:What is there to negotiate? Our PM and the EU have agreed a deal that looked as if it would pass a vote in parliament. Yesterday was a really sad day, like when you give one more chance to someone you know is going to let you down. This was the Brexit blockers time to shine, prove they did accept the result, and that they would honour the pledge they made to get elected. Unfortunately they just cant do it.
0 -
We are definitely heading for an election whatever happens next week. If I were the Tories I’d see both benefits and drawbacks for going to the country either pre- or post-Brexit. If it takes place before, I think Labour are damaged but there’s a chance of a Brexit Party spoiler. If after, Labour could do better but the Lib Dems are likely to be a bit dented. Ho hum.kle4 said:
As a first step I would imagine if such an amendment is passed the EU would then offer an extension until mid 2020, on the grounds that parliament has given a pretty clear indication they want a referendum. That then gives time to either have the remainers agreed a Government for Remainer Unity, or have an election. If Boris wins that election he can pass his deal in peace, if he does not then a referendum is held by the others.Sandpit said:
The problem with a second referendum amendment, is that this amendment would not be sufficient by itself to hold the second referendum.numbertwelve said:Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
That would require fresh primary legislation, consultation periods etc. I won't say it's impossible, but it's going to be very difficult to get this through Parliament (both houses, and committees) against the wishes of the government, it's several days over a period of months. Government could also simply pull the Brexit Bill if it gets amended.0 -
'Is class the greatest signifier of cultural identity in C21st Britain? Use both sides of the paper if required.'DougSeal said:
Yeah. Similarly the posher parts of Dublin have a lot more in common with N London than rural Ireland.Theuniondivvie said:
Though to juggle it about a bit, Morningside is probably more like Hampstead than The Calton.DougSeal said:
Indeed. Only a fool would say that Derry is more like Kent than Donegal.Noo said:
There is no such thing as a cultural identity of a country. Countries are in all cases made up of multiple cultures, many of which are partially shared with other countries.Stocky said:Dura_Ace: "No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit."
I`ve only just caught up with your comments. Were you joking?
Retaining the cultural identity of one`s country does not necessarily make one racist.4 -
Your daily reminder that we already have an “Australian” points style system for people outside the EEA and, being charitable, it’s completely broken.kinabalu said:
I would not worry too much if I were you. The macro politics is behind this Deal. It will be passed - and most probably this year.isam said:What is there to negotiate? Our PM and the EU have agreed a deal that looked as if it would pass a vote in parliament. Yesterday was a really sad day, like when you give one more chance to someone you know is going to let you down. This was the Brexit blockers time to shine, prove they did accept the result, and that they would honour the pledge they made to get elected. Unfortunately they just cant do it.
Furthermore this outcome flows logically from the 2016 referendum - which was essentially an instruction to the UK government to take us out of the EU in an orderly fashion under the best exit terms that could in practice and in its view be achieved. There is no valid interpretation other than that. Everything else is special pleading.
So, OK, it is about to happen. Took a while but so what? It was always going to be difficult once parliament was granted an effective veto.
Australian style points system coming your way very very soon now.0 -
Remainer backlash has the potential to be an electoral threat. For example see Scotland after the failed referendum.numbertwelve said:
We are definitely heading for an election whatever happens next week. If I were the Tories I’d see both benefits and drawbacks for going to the country either pre- or post-Brexit. If it takes place before, I think Labour are damaged but there’s a chance of a Brexit Party spoiler. If after, Labour could do better but the Lib Dems are likely to be a bit dented. Ho hum.kle4 said:
As a first step I would imagine if such an amendment is passed the EU would then offer an extension until mid 2020, on the grounds that parliament has given a pretty clear indication they want a referendum. That then gives time to either have the remainers agreed a Government for Remainer Unity, or have an election. If Boris wins that election he can pass his deal in peace, if he does not then a referendum is held by the others.Sandpit said:
The problem with a second referendum amendment, is that this amendment would not be sufficient by itself to hold the second referendum.numbertwelve said:Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
That would require fresh primary legislation, consultation periods etc. I won't say it's impossible, but it's going to be very difficult to get this through Parliament (both houses, and committees) against the wishes of the government, it's several days over a period of months. Government could also simply pull the Brexit Bill if it gets amended.0 -
Would that include, say, asking Hungary to veto extensions?Luckyguy1983 said:
If the existing treason laws aren't adequate, I agree.williamglenn said:Now the ERG want Letwin banged up.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7591983/Tory-MPs-push-law-threatening-JAIL-British-citizens-undermine-Government-talks-abroad.html
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
Asking for a SPAD.....
0 -
A VONC to torpedo Brexit at the death = election = an utter destruction of those that did it. Boris would not be remotely worried about an 11th hour VONCkle4 said:
The weak link being the ERG being 'disappointed' as he terms it.dyedwoolie said:
And of course notes the big problem - if they can hang together on the Bill, the DUP can back a VONC from Labour and as seen on here and in that thread it is anticipated the Labour rebels would fall in line...thus torpedoing the thing they just fought to see happen.0 -
Boles absolutely spat his dummy out over it and threatened to withdraw deal support. Of course such a law will not be introduced nor even suggested by governmentLuckyguy1983 said:
If the existing treason laws aren't adequate, I agree.williamglenn said:Now the ERG want Letwin banged up.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7591983/Tory-MPs-push-law-threatening-JAIL-British-citizens-undermine-Government-talks-abroad.html
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.0 -
In the event, the difference was slim.felix said:
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.DougSeal said:
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.Philip_Thompson said:
Victim blaming?OldKingCole said:
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.Big_G_NorthWales said:
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugsOldKingCole said:
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better.dyedwoolie said:A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?0 -
Hopefully Hungary vetoes this one.Beibheirli_C said:
Would that include, say, asking Hungary to veto extensions?Luckyguy1983 said:
If the existing treason laws aren't adequate, I agree.williamglenn said:Now the ERG want Letwin banged up.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7591983/Tory-MPs-push-law-threatening-JAIL-British-citizens-undermine-Government-talks-abroad.html
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
Asking for a SPAD.....0 -
Well it was going to be quite a long post from me - relieved to be off the hook tbh - because as you say it would need to cover not only the unwritten parts but the erstwhile unspoken parts - the very subtle nuances - some of which cannot be known with any certainty to exist until they spring to life in a particular set of circumstances. So, yes, all told it is perhaps better to go with 'there is no such thing as sovereignty'. There is only something which is far more concrete and understandable. Power.Noo said:Slight issue: there are truths hiding inside the constitution that aren't always spelled out.
On question I have it what would result from a majority in parliament decreeing that all future elections would be cancelled. Would the courts strike such legislation down? I can imagine they would.
Perhaps the real answer is that there is no such thing as sovereignty, that we are all subjects of the dominion of others. And no bad thing, if so.0 -
Why should JRM not take his son into that situation? That is victim blaming. This was supposed to be a lawful situation - why should JRM's son not be free to walk the street lawfully in what is meant to be a lawful situation?DougSeal said:
Not all of them, and not rioting, but anyone who puts someone else at fear of their physical safety is liable in common assault or a section 4APublic Order Act offence. So any of the marchers who put JRM in fear of his safety are indeed criminals, yes, but not rioters which is a specific offence that did not occur here. Not all the marchers are criminals but any that made JRM or his son feel unsafe is potentially a criminal. I’m a Remainer but I will call out such behaviour from my “side” when I see it - as I would expect Leavers to do on theirs. And equally JRM should not have taken his son into that situation.Philip_Thompson said:
Rioters are criminals and the police going on riot control duty are going to deal with criminals.DougSeal said:
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’sfelix said:
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.DougSeal said:
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.Philip_Thompson said:
Victim blaming?OldKingCole said:
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.Big_G_NorthWales said:
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugsOldKingCole said:
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better.dyedwoolie said:A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?
*edit - sorry, section 4A
If any marchers broke the law then they are the criminals not JRM's son.1 -
And France and the Netherlands and . . .Luckyguy1983 said:
Hopefully Hungary vetoes this one.Beibheirli_C said:
Would that include, say, asking Hungary to veto extensions?Luckyguy1983 said:
If the existing treason laws aren't adequate, I agree.williamglenn said:Now the ERG want Letwin banged up.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7591983/Tory-MPs-push-law-threatening-JAIL-British-citizens-undermine-Government-talks-abroad.html
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
Asking for a SPAD.....0 -
Quite right. I bow to nobody in my dislike of JRM and everything he stands for, but anyone who threatens him with violence should have their collar felt. Even more so anyone who raises their fists to his poor benighted child.Nigelb said:
That’s fair (and I applaud the insertion of “potentially”).DougSeal said:
Not all of them, and not rioting, but anyone who puts someone else at fear of their physical safety is liable in common assault or a section 4APublic Order Act offence. So any of the marchers who put JRM in fear of his safety are indeed criminals, yes, but not rioters which is a specific offence that did not occur here. Not all the marchers are criminals but any that made JRM or his son feel unsafe is potentially a criminal. I’m a Remainer but I will call out such behaviour from my “side” when I see it - as I would expect Leavers to do on theirs. And equally JRM should not have taken his son into that situation.Philip_Thompson said:
Rioters are criminals and the police going on riot control duty are going to deal with criminals.DougSeal said:
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’sfelix said:
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.DougSeal said:
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.Philip_Thompson said:
Victim blaming?OldKingCole said:
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.Big_G_NorthWales said:
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugsOldKingCole said:
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better.dyedwoolie said:A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?
*edit - sorry, section 4A
One might think JRM irresponsible, even provocative, but that it no way removes him from the protection of the law. And nor should it.0 -
Can I throw in 'a monopoly on the legitimate use of force'. When that is seen to break down, so does power, sovereignty and everything else.kinabalu said:
Well it was going to be quite a long post from me - relieved to be off the hook tbh - because as you say it would need to cover not only the unwritten parts but the erstwhile unspoken parts - the very subtle nuances - some of which cannot be known with any certainty to exist until they spring to life in a particular set of circumstances. So, yes, all told it is perhaps better to go with 'there is no such thing as sovereignty'. There is only something which is far more concrete and understandable. Power.Noo said:Slight issue: there are truths hiding inside the constitution that aren't always spelled out.
On question I have it what would result from a majority in parliament decreeing that all future elections would be cancelled. Would the courts strike such legislation down? I can imagine they would.
Perhaps the real answer is that there is no such thing as sovereignty, that we are all subjects of the dominion of others. And no bad thing, if so.1 -
I would be surprised if they did veto it. It costs the EU nothing other than time to give us an extension. That way, when we hang ourselves with Brexit we cannot point the finger at them.Philip_Thompson said:
And France and the Netherlands and . . .Luckyguy1983 said:
Hopefully Hungary vetoes this one.Beibheirli_C said:
Would that include, say, asking Hungary to veto extensions?Luckyguy1983 said:
If the existing treason laws aren't adequate, I agree.williamglenn said:Now the ERG want Letwin banged up.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7591983/Tory-MPs-push-law-threatening-JAIL-British-citizens-undermine-Government-talks-abroad.html
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
Asking for a SPAD.....
Considering how often they where accused of interfereing in UK politics, they have been remarkably hands-off (apart from negotiations) in Brexit.
If it all goes horribly wrong, we will have no else to blame but ourselves.
0 -
You are so disingenuous. You are just repeating what you said before and not reading my post.. I’m not calling JRM or his son a criminal. I’m saying JRM was irresponsible, not criminal, to take his son into that situation. It is irresponsible to take a child into a combustible situation such as that where tempers run high. I would not take my child into a situation where tempers were that high. It’s like putting on a Union Jack top and a bowler hat and taking your child for a tour of the Falls Road while singing the Sash. It’s irresponsible, not criminal, but irresponsible and arguably provocative.Philip_Thompson said:
Why should JRM not take his son into that situation? That is victim blaming. This was supposed to be a lawful situation - why should JRM's son not be free to walk the street lawfully in what is meant to be a lawful situation?DougSeal said:
Not all of them, and not rioting, but anyone who puts someone else at fear of their physical safety is liable in common assault or a section 4APublic Order Act offence. So any of the marchers who put JRM in fear of his safety are indeed criminals, yes, but not rioters which is a specific offence that did not occur here. Not all the marchers are criminals but any that made JRM or his son feel unsafe is potentially a criminal. I’m a Remainer but I will call out such behaviour from my “side” when I see it - as I would expect Leavers to do on theirs. And equally JRM should not have taken his son into that situation.Philip_Thompson said:
Rioters are criminals and the police going on riot control duty are going to deal with criminals.DougSeal said:
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’sfelix said:
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.DougSeal said:
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.Philip_Thompson said:
Victim blaming?OldKingCole said:
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?
*edit - sorry, section 4A
If any marchers broke the law then they are the criminals not JRM's son.0 -
I'm loving some of the twitterati wanting the courts to determine that the PM is not allowed to express an opinion and should be locked up for doing so.0
-
I think it's quite revealing that all the things that Brexiteers want to introduce after Brexit - the "Australian points system" and the "Canada plus plus deal" - hark back to the (white) commonwealth. I confidently expect to see a "New Zealand style pet passport scheme" and a "Union of South Africa phytosanitary regime" added to the lexicon soon, and await the "Look Just Make It The Fucking 1950s Again (2019) Act" going on the statute book. It's all very retro, but also just a little bit sad.kinabalu said:
But this will be called an Australian style points system.DougSeal said:Your daily reminder that we already have an “Australian” points style system for people outside the EEA and, being charitable, it’s completely broken.
1 -
Not if it helps reduce the border issue . They might offer to back that in return of Labour backing something else they’d like.OblitusSumMe said:
The DUP oppose remaining in the Customs Union.nico67 said:Some Labour Leavers are likely to support a Customs Union Amendment.
And the DUP might support this as a way of reducing the border issue . Labour MPs supporting the deal want some cover .
But this is now going to cause the ERG to start moaning .
The drama isn’t over yet !
The DUP need to be seen to be doing everything to either alleviate Unionist concerns, they could call it damage limitation .
Quite something yesterday to see Dodd’s chatting with the Labour Chief Whip!
Don’t expect the DUP to go quietly , Johnson’s deal is seen by Unionists as doing more to bring about a United Ireland than the IRA.
They will do everything possible to kill the deal or amend it to help them . No amount of money from Bozo will change that .0 -
There is, however, a cost to individual EU countries. There are areas of Europe (Dordogne, Brittany, Costa del Sol, Canaries for examples) where ex-pat Brits make up an important component of the local economy and where Brexit is having a significant impact on household decisions (people choosing to emigrate or return to UK). This has a knock-on effect on housing/commerce and the lack of certainty is having a detrimental effect on these areas. I can well imagine the countries affected will want to force a decision one way or the other as soon as possible.Beibheirli_C said:
I would be surprised if they did veto it. It costs the EU nothing other than time to give us an extension. That way, when we hang ourselves with Brexit we cannot point the finger at them.Philip_Thompson said:
And France and the Netherlands and . . .Luckyguy1983 said:
Hopefully Hungary vetoes this one.Beibheirli_C said:
Would that include, say, asking Hungary to veto extensions?Luckyguy1983 said:
If the existing treason laws aren't adequate, I agree.williamglenn said:Now the ERG want Letwin banged up.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7591983/Tory-MPs-push-law-threatening-JAIL-British-citizens-undermine-Government-talks-abroad.html
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
Asking for a SPAD.....
Considering how often they where accused of interfereing in UK politics, they have been remarkably hands-off (apart from negotiations) in Brexit.
If it all goes horribly wrong, we will have no else to blame but ourselves.0 -
Plus the delay and the uncertainty around myriad "what happens if....?" under dozens of Referendum scenarios is not what the EU wants.Sandpit said:
The problem with a second referendum amendment, is that this amendment would not be sufficient by itself to hold the second referendum.numbertwelve said:Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
That would require fresh primary legislation, consultation periods etc. I won't say it's impossible, but it's going to be very difficult to get this through Parliament (both houses, and committees) against the wishes of the government, it's several days over a period of months. Government could also simply pull the Brexit Bill if it gets amended.1 -
So what do the EU do if parliament votes for a referendum amendment? Say 'tough, you've got one more week'?MarqueeMark said:
Plus the delay and the uncertainty around myriad "what happens if....?" under dozens of Referendum scenarios is not what the EU wants.Sandpit said:
The problem with a second referendum amendment, is that this amendment would not be sufficient by itself to hold the second referendum.numbertwelve said:Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
That would require fresh primary legislation, consultation periods etc. I won't say it's impossible, but it's going to be very difficult to get this through Parliament (both houses, and committees) against the wishes of the government, it's several days over a period of months. Government could also simply pull the Brexit Bill if it gets amended.0 -
Sadly a number of government ministers had to be escorted from Parliament by police yesterday. When there's a crowd in the six figures, it can be 99% peaceful but still have thousands of idiots involved.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Quite right. I bow to nobody in my dislike of JRM and everything he stands for, but anyone who threatens him with violence should have their collar felt. Even more so anyone who raises their fists to his poor benighted child.Nigelb said:
That’s fair (and I applaud the insertion of “potentially”).DougSeal said:
Not all of them, and not rioting, but anyone who puts someone else at fear of their physical safety is liable in common assault or a section 4APublic Order Act offence. So any of the marchers who put JRM in fear of his safety are indeed criminals, yes, but not rioters which is a specific offence that did not occur here. Not all the marchers are criminals but any that made JRM or his son feel unsafe is potentially a criminal. I’m a Remainer but I will call out such behaviour from my “side” when I see it - as I would expect Leavers to do on theirs. And equally JRM should not have taken his son into that situation.Philip_Thompson said:
Rioters are criminals and the police going on riot control duty are going to deal with criminals.DougSeal said:
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’sfelix said:
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.DougSeal said:
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.Philip_Thompson said:
Victim blaming?OldKingCole said:
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?
*edit - sorry, section 4A
One might think JRM irresponsible, even provocative, but that it no way removes him from the protection of the law. And nor should it.
What probably happened is that government people were identified by the crowd and a few idiots over-reacted, but thankfully the police intervened and no-one was hurt. It's a fine line between allowing people to protest the government and letting people get on with their business, we're not a democracy if people aren't allowed to shout at politicians in the street.
For all the criticism that gets levelled at the Met Police it appears they did a good job yesterday, with the event being mostly peaceful and good-natured.0 -
The UK is not one of them. Churchill was out of action due to a stroke, and there was a gap between Eden and Macmillan. Apart from certain functions (launching nukes, hiring/firing Ministers, some others), the Government can run without a head, at least for a while.eristdoof said:...In almost all countries there has to be a head of government at all times...
0 -
A referendum cannot happen without a change of government, an amendment just kicks the can and precipitates a GE, they will extend for a GE and to see if a referendum parliament is electedkle4 said:
So what do the EU do if parliament votes for a referendum amendment? Say 'tough, you've got one more week'?MarqueeMark said:
Plus the delay and the uncertainty around myriadi "what happens if....?" under dozens of Referendum scenarios is not what the EU wants.Sandpit said:
The problem with a second referendum amendment, is that this amendment would not be sufficient by itself to hold the second referendum.numbertwelve said:Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
That would require fresh primary legislation, consultation periods etc. I won't say it's impossible, but it's going to be very difficult to get this through Parliament (both houses, and committees) against the wishes of the government, it's several days over a period of months. Government could also simply pull the Brexit Bill if it gets amended.0 -
Immigrants, not ex-pats. They have moved there permanently, they aren't on a short-term work assignment.TudorRose said:
There is, however, a cost to individual EU countries. There are areas of Europe (Dordogne, Brittany, Costa del Sol, Canaries for examples) where ex-pat Brits make up an important component of the local economy and where Brexit is having a significant impact on household decisions (people choosing to emigrate or return to UK). This has a knock-on effect on housing/commerce and the lack of certainty is having a detrimental effect on these areas. I can well imagine the countries affected will want to force a decision one way or the other as soon as possible.Beibheirli_C said:
I would be surprised if they did veto it. It costs the EU nothing other than time to give us an extension. That way, when we hang ourselves with Brexit we cannot point the finger at them.Philip_Thompson said:
And France and the Netherlands and . . .Luckyguy1983 said:
Hopefully Hungary vetoes this one.Beibheirli_C said:
Would that include, say, asking Hungary to veto extensions?Luckyguy1983 said:
If the existing treason laws aren't adequate, I agree.williamglenn said:Now the ERG want Letwin banged up.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7591983/Tory-MPs-push-law-threatening-JAIL-British-citizens-undermine-Government-talks-abroad.html
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
Asking for a SPAD.....
Considering how often they where accused of interfereing in UK politics, they have been remarkably hands-off (apart from negotiations) in Brexit.
If it all goes horribly wrong, we will have no else to blame but ourselves.0 -
So you'll be putting Priti Patel in prison then.Luckyguy1983 said:
If the existing treason laws aren't adequate, I agree.williamglenn said:Now the ERG want Letwin banged up.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7591983/Tory-MPs-push-law-threatening-JAIL-British-citizens-undermine-Government-talks-abroad.html
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.0 -
I agree, but if parliament gives in the form of that an amendment an indication a majority of them want a referendum, the EU has been given a signal about how long to give us. If the government can look like it can pass its deal unamended then even if it won't be by 31 October it won't be much beyond it.dyedwoolie said:
A referendum cannot happen without a change of government, an amendment just kicks the can and precipitates a GEkle4 said:
So what do the EU do if parliament votes for a referendum amendment? Say 'tough, you've got one more week'?MarqueeMark said:
Plus the delay and the uncertainty around myriad "what happens if....?" under dozens of Referendum scenarios is not what the EU wants.Sandpit said:
The problem with a second referendum amendment, is that this amendment would not be sufficient by itself to hold the second referendum.numbertwelve said:Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
That would require fresh primary legislation, consultation periods etc. I won't say it's impossible, but it's going to be very difficult to get this through Parliament (both houses, and committees) against the wishes of the government, it's several days over a period of months. Government could also simply pull the Brexit Bill if it gets amended.
But the government will lose some amendments. How much are the ERG willing to slide on to get it through?
0 -
If she broke the law after it was put in place she'd be in trouble.viewcode said:
So you'll be putting Priti Patel in prison then.Luckyguy1983 said:
If the existing treason laws aren't adequate, I agree.williamglenn said:Now the ERG want Letwin banged up.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7591983/Tory-MPs-push-law-threatening-JAIL-British-citizens-undermine-Government-talks-abroad.html
MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
But it wont ever be brought forward as a bill0 -
Jester just cant help himselfwilliamglenn said:0 -
It's the expertise he brings to pb.com.....Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you get pleasure in writing that kind of insultDura_Ace said:
No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit.Big_G_NorthWales said:Amber Rudd's support for the deal, notwithstanding her voting with Letwin, in a direct conversation with Boris does give rise to the likelyhood of the whip being restored and her standing in the next GE in a safe seat
For those who bet, Amber for next conservative leader could be a good call0 -
Anything that isn't a total spoiler and allows the trade deal negotiations to proceed as per the current PD (any CU amendment will be dropped after a GE, but is on any case unlikely to pass)kle4 said:
I agree, but if parliament gives in the form of that an amendment an indication a majority of them want a referendum, the EU has been given a signal about how long to give us. If the government can look like it can pass its deal unamended then even if it won't be by 31 October it won't be much beyond it.dyedwoolie said:
A referendum cannot happen without a change of government, an amendment just kicks the can and precipitates a GEkle4 said:
So what do the EU do if parliament votes for a referendum amendment? Say 'tough, you've got one more week'?MarqueeMark said:
Plus the delay and the uncertainty around myriad "what happens if....?" under dozens of Referendum scenarios is not what the EU wants.Sandpit said:
The problem with a second referendum amendment, is that this amendment would not be sufficient by itself to hold the second referendum.numbertwelve said:Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
That would require fresh primary legislation, consultation periods etc. I won't say it's impossible, but it's going to be very difficult to get this through Parliament (both houses, and committees) against the wishes of the government, it's several days over a period of months. Government could also simply pull the Brexit Bill if it gets amended.
But the government will lose some amendments. How much are the ERG willing to slide on to get it through?0 -
I would think it probably is. Religion is still a factor, though, sometimes as a cypher for something else. For example, the militant atheist Richard Dawkins has said that he would feel more comfortable sitting in an English country church than in an urban Mosque - I would be seeking to get this into my answer in some fashion. Examining its implications could in itself hit up against the word limit if I was not careful, so exam technique would be key here.Theuniondivvie said:'Is class the greatest signifier of cultural identity in C21st Britain? Use both sides of the paper if required.'
0 -
Liars gonna lie.williamglenn said:0 -
Nice try, but both the timing of an election and the prospect of No Deal is still in Parliament's hands, not the government's.numbertwelve said:Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
Labour have nothing to lose by trying to bolt on a whole load of things to the Withdrawal Agreement (customs union, workers' rights, no exit from the transition without a full agreement, etc.). The one question mark for me is I'm not sure those amendments are going to get majority support - I can just see the Lib Dems and a few ultra-Remain Labour MPs playing silly buggers again with their "I'm not voting for a customs union because that's Brexit and any form of Brexit is the spawn of the devil" nonsense.0 -
.
Was there any threat of violence involved? Sounded more like booing and some verbal insults, not very different to the terms used by the PM and JRM about their opponents.Sandpit said:
Sadly a number of government ministers had to be escorted from Parliament by police yesterday. When there's a crowd in the six figures, it can be 99% peaceful but still have thousands of idiots involved.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Quite right. I bow to nobody in my dislike of JRM and everything he stands for, but anyone who threatens him with violence should have their collar felt. Even more so anyone who raises their fists to his poor benighted child.Nigelb said:
That’s fair (and I applaud the insertion of “potentially”).DougSeal said:
Not all of them, and not rioting, butPhilip_Thompson said:
Rioters are criminals and the police going on riot control duty are going to deal with criminals.DougSeal said:
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’sfelix said:
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.DougSeal said:
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.Philip_Thompson said:
Victim blaming?OldKingCole said:
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?
*edit - sorry, section 4A
One might think JRM irresponsible, even provocative, but that it no way removes him from the protection of the law. And nor should it.
What probably happened is that government people were identified by the crowd and a few idiots over-reacted, but thankfully the police intervened and no-one was hurt. It's a fine line between allowing people to protest the government and letting people get on with their business, we're not a democracy if people aren't allowed to shout at politicians in the street.
For all the criticism that gets levelled at the Met Police it appears they did a good job yesterday, with the event being mostly peaceful and good-natured.
Obviously threats of violence are out of order, but heckling of politicians is part of democratic protest.1 -
I wonder if Mogg was using his son as a kind of human shield? - rather like when a terrorist takes an innocent child hostage as a deterrent against being 'stormed' by the armed police who have him cornered.Philip_Thompson said:Why should JRM not take his son into that situation? That is victim blaming. This was supposed to be a lawful situation - why should JRM's son not be free to walk the street lawfully in what is meant to be a lawful situation?
Reprehensible if so.0 -
The Rees Mogg is like a terrorist angle. It's a view I supposekinabalu said:
I wonder if Mogg was using his son as a kind of human shield? - rather like when a terrorist takes an innocent child hostage as a deterrent against being 'stormed' by the armed police who have him cornered.Philip_Thompson said:Why should JRM not take his son into that situation? That is victim blaming. This was supposed to be a lawful situation - why should JRM's son not be free to walk the street lawfully in what is meant to be a lawful situation?
Reprehensible if so.0
