politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Some in the Shadow Cabinet want an early election but Corbyn,
Comments
-
I am so don’t care if the deal goes through . I’d be quite happy but if it needs a delay then fine.GIN1138 said:
I thought you was all for stuffing the DUP?nico67 said:Sammy Wilson ripping into the government.
Not often I agree with him but clearly Bozo has lied to the DUP.
And in terms of UK trade deals NI can’t take part unless that trade deal doesn’t conflict with the Irish protocol . So that will be never then !
The DUP have been screwed and have only themselves to blame . However Sammy Wilson’s portrayal of the deal for NI is correct .
0 -
Well, that's a thought!Richard_Tyndall said:
The sad fact is that you have not threatened to kill people. The message that is being sent by allowing one solution for NI and not extending that to other parts of the UK if they desire is that the threats of violence work.Carnyx said:
But if it is good enough for NI why not us Scots? We DID vote against Brexit, you know.Philip_Thompson said:
If Scotland and Wales wish to rejoin the EU they should hold a referendum on exiting the UK then begin negotiations on accession to the EU.Gabs2 said:
Scotland, Wales and London are not being put inside some EU laws, so there is nothing of a scale needed to consent to.noneoftheabove said:
And London please!Carnyx said:
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?Philip_Thompson said:
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.eek said:
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increasePhilip_Thompson said:
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.eristdoof said:
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.Philip_Thompson said:
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.0 -
If the EU volunteers to give Scotland the same arrangements and if the Scottish Parliament votes to accept them I'd have no qualms whatsoever over that. The EU hasn't done that and we can't speak for them.Carnyx said:
Not yet, and that's another factor to contemplate - the dynamic changes when UK or rather GB leaves the EU.Philip_Thompson said:
Because the EU wanted NI. They've not asked for you guys.Carnyx said:But if it is good enough for NI why not us Scots? We DID vote against Brexit, you know.
0 -
0
-
Would Bercow allow that? I thought only the official opposition was allowed to submit a VoNCSunnyJim said:
Deal would get pulled rather than enable the ridiculous grandstanding of remainers in parliament.eek said:
An extension to January 31st is automatically accepted if the EU offer it - so why would they offer anything else.
But equally why would anyone push for an election immediately they could easily spend 2 weeks pulling Boris's deal apart line by line before calling such an election.
And such a delay moves it into early January which would do wonders for Boris.
Pull the bill and allow the SNP to submit the VoNC.0 -
Dominic Grieve also said he wouldn't be in Parliament to stop the next phase of Brexit. So he knows he's leaving at the next election.Philip_Thompson said:Dominic Grieve voting against the deal at both second reading and programme motion. So much for being against "no deal", he's got no credibility he is just against any Brexit not no deal.
Grieve should never get the whip restored after this, anyone who has lost the whip but votes for the deal should get the whip back.
Do you agree @Big_G_NorthWales ?0 -
The EU can easily scupper Boris's threats by offering a conditional extension like last time.Richard_Nabavi said:Interesting if right. I'm not sure whether this is an empty threat, and what would happen next if it is not:
https://twitter.com/GeorgeWParker/status/11866638989692641320 -
Anyone gets to table it, only LOTO gets automatic acceptance by speaker.Richard_Tyndall said:
Would Bercow allow that? I thought only the official opposition was allowed to submit a VoNCSunnyJim said:
Deal would get pulled rather than enable the ridiculous grandstanding of remainers in parliament.eek said:
An extension to January 31st is automatically accepted if the EU offer it - so why would they offer anything else.
But equally why would anyone push for an election immediately they could easily spend 2 weeks pulling Boris's deal apart line by line before calling such an election.
And such a delay moves it into early January which would do wonders for Boris.
Pull the bill and allow the SNP to submit the VoNC.0 -
AFAIK only the official opposition is automatically given time for a VoNC but if the government provided time for an SNP VoNC then it could be held.Richard_Tyndall said:
Would Bercow allow that? I thought only the official opposition was allowed to submit a VoNCSunnyJim said:
Deal would get pulled rather than enable the ridiculous grandstanding of remainers in parliament.eek said:
An extension to January 31st is automatically accepted if the EU offer it - so why would they offer anything else.
But equally why would anyone push for an election immediately they could easily spend 2 weeks pulling Boris's deal apart line by line before calling such an election.
And such a delay moves it into early January which would do wonders for Boris.
Pull the bill and allow the SNP to submit the VoNC.
Under normal circumstances the government wouldn't give a minor party time for that.1 -
Reality of an imminent general election smacking him upside the head.blueblue said:
Perhaps the utter tool could have thought of this before he laid his wrecking amendment?SouthamObserver said:Looks like the government will get its timetable through ...
https://twitter.com/oletwinofficial/status/1186659454118514690
There's going to be a lot of Remainers wondering if they have spent the last couple of years being smart arse clowns when Brexit gets over the line.
Spolier: yes, they have.0 -
Quite - an interesting thought. You wouldn't expect them to do anything like that while the UK still is, and might well remain, a member state.Philip_Thompson said:
If the EU volunteers to give Scotland the same arrangements and if the Scottish Parliament votes to accept them I'd have no qualms whatsoever over that. The EU hasn't done that and we can't speak for them.Carnyx said:
Not yet, and that's another factor to contemplate - the dynamic changes when UK or rather GB leaves the EU.Philip_Thompson said:
Because the EU wanted NI. They've not asked for you guys.Carnyx said:But if it is good enough for NI why not us Scots? We DID vote against Brexit, you know.
0 -
It's only 5th December if 430 MPS vote for an election.GIN1138 said:
5th December is like the latest eariest date I think is still viable.RobD said:
Agreed - there's no way that a campaign will be fought over the christmas break. If it isn't in November, it isn't going to be until late Feb, maybe March?Anabobazina said:
A Christmas election ain't gonna happen IMO. Nor one on 9 Jan, which would necessitate a farcical campaign when most of Britain is lying semi-comatose on the sofa watching reruns of Del Boy.eek said:
A VoNC anytime after this week makes it incredibly likely.Anabobazina said:
An election campaign over Christmas would be an utter fiasco.eek said:
That allows the bill to come back.Pulpstar said:Could the Gov't put the bill "on hold" instead of pulling it completely ?
If Boris pulls it I don't think it can come back this session which means No Deal returns as the default.
Called tomorrow an election not via a VoNC could be on November 28thOblitusSumMe said:
I think the 19th is not logistically possible, the 5th is, and the 12th is marginal. I don't think this will be the chief determinant of the timing, so that's why I expect the 12th.Anabobazina said:
Headmistresses nationwide say "no can do"...OblitusSumMe said:
I see we are in agreement. I expect an election on the 12th December.Philip_Thompson said:On Topic I suspect the suggested rule that the Opposition must always agree to an election request still stands. The circumstances recently where an election was rejected under the guise of preventing no deal was unique.
Once we have either extended or exited that line falls away. I suspect the government if we get out soon will seek to let the dust settle and get an election next Spring, but the Opposition will have nowhere to hide by claiming it was due to preventing a no deal exit anymore.
Johnson might even call it "glorious".
After tomorrow i think it's the December 5th if Boris calls it or 19th if via a VoNC.
Thanks to the 25 working day rules we rapidly enter Christmas and then rapidly hit Jan 9th due to bank holidays over Christmas.
After that it's late February/early March.
I think it'll be 5th December.
We are into the following week already if there is a VONC instead.0 -
They say David Willets has two brains, perhaps he took Letwin's one.blueblue said:
Perhaps the utter tool could have thought of this before he laid his wrecking amendment?SouthamObserver said:Looks like the government will get its timetable through ...
https://twitter.com/oletwinofficial/status/11866594541185146900 -
So been out all day. What are the indicators for the 2 motions tonight??0
-
It is possible that there would be violence had there been physical border infrastructure placed on the island of Ireland. The British government understood this and decided against pursuing that plan.Richard_Tyndall said:The sad fact is that you have not threatened to kill people. The message that is being sent by allowing one solution for NI and not extending that to other parts of the UK if they desire is that the threats of violence work.
Is that the same as a threat of violence?0 -
Technically, we post at the whim of the site owner, a Mr Mike Smithson, colloquially known as "OGH" or "Our Genial Host". It's an absolute monarchy and he can wield the banhammer how he pleases. In practice these powers are delegated to the moderators (or "mods") whose identity is not fixed, although I'm sure they will make themselves known to you.justin124 said:
Which rules have been broken?El_Capitano said:
You do have free expression of opinion insofar as you can host your own site and put your own opinions on it. But when you're posting on someone else's site, you play by their rules.justin124 said:
Your respect for free expression of opinion is clearly pretty limited.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What is wrong with you.justin124 said:I am sure that many MPs today will feel empathy for members of the Reichstag facing pressure to pass Hitler's Enabling Act in March 1933.
Time is coming for the moderators to consider your constant references to Hitler.
I remember the immediate aftermath of the concentration camps as a child and it is seared into my memory. Your comments are unnecessary
The site tolerates a wide range of opinions but contributions thought to be gratuitously offensive and politically naive may be banned. Indeed, one of the most skilful contributors was banned for sneaking progressively more obvious Hitler-idolatory references into his posts. Doxxing - revealing the identity of anonymous posters - is also frowned upon and can result in a rapid ban. Posts that lay the site owners open to legal action are also bad.
In your specific example, the point is not just that the post is offensive, it's also politically naive: whatever Boris's defects (and I bow to no one in my excoriation of him) he is not Hitler, and however bad the latest Deal is, it is not a carte blanche.0 -
Jezza will whip Labour to vote for it because Nicola will force his hand.eek said:
It's only 5th December if 430 MPS vote for an election.GIN1138 said:
5th December is like the latest eariest date I think is still viable.RobD said:
Agreed - there's no way that a campaign will be fought over the christmas break. If it isn't in November, it isn't going to be until late Feb, maybe March?Anabobazina said:
A Christmas election ain't gonna happen IMO. Nor one on 9 Jan, which would necessitate a farcical campaign when most of Britain is lying semi-comatose on the sofa watching reruns of Del Boy.eek said:
A VoNC anytime after this week makes it incredibly likely.Anabobazina said:
An election campaign over Christmas would be an utter fiasco.eek said:
That allows the bill to come back.Pulpstar said:Could the Gov't put the bill "on hold" instead of pulling it completely ?
If Boris pulls it I don't think it can come back this session which means No Deal returns as the default.
Called tomorrow an election not via a VoNC could be on November 28thOblitusSumMe said:
I think the 19th is not logistically possible, the 5th is, and the 12th is marginal. I don't think this will be the chief determinant of the timing, so that's why I expect the 12th.Anabobazina said:
Headmistresses nationwide say "no can do"...OblitusSumMe said:
I see we are in agreement. I expect an election on the 12th December.Philip_Thompson said:On Topic I suspect the suggested rule that the Opposition must always agree to an election request still stands. The circumstances recently where an election was rejected under the guise of preventing no deal was unique.
Once we have either extended or exited that line falls away. I suspect the government if we get out soon will seek to let the dust settle and get an election next Spring, but the Opposition will have nowhere to hide by claiming it was due to preventing a no deal exit anymore.
Johnson might even call it "glorious".
After tomorrow i think it's the December 5th if Boris calls it or 19th if via a VoNC.
Thanks to the 25 working day rules we rapidly enter Christmas and then rapidly hit Jan 9th due to bank holidays over Christmas.
After that it's late February/early March.
I think it'll be 5th December.
We are into the following week already if there is a VONC instead.
0 -
0
-
My understanding is the government just needs to allow time for the SNP to table.Drutt said:
Anyone gets to table it, only LOTO gets automatic acceptance by speaker.
I cannot conceive of any justification for a speaker to attempt to impede...even one as utterly appalling as the present incumbent.0 -
-
I think Sammy likes a drink... Or ten.williamglenn said: 0 -
Has Letwin's tweet endeared him to both remainers and leavers alike ?0
-
You miss my point. I wasn't arguing in favour of one solution or another. But the fact is we would not be considering NI as a problem at all were it not for its history of violence and the implicit threat of it returning. That applies to both sides and apparently all solutions.TOPPING said:
It is possible that there would be violence had there been physical border infrastructure placed on the island of Ireland. The British government understood this and decided against pursuing that plan.Richard_Tyndall said:The sad fact is that you have not threatened to kill people. The message that is being sent by allowing one solution for NI and not extending that to other parts of the UK if they desire is that the threats of violence work.
Is that the same as a threat of violence?
0 -
I am pretty sure there would be a lot of opposition to it given the separatist movement in Catalonia. Which is a shame because it seems a perfectly reasonable idea.Carnyx said:
Quite - an interesting thought. You wouldn't expect them to do anything like that while the UK still is, and might well remain, a member state.Philip_Thompson said:
If the EU volunteers to give Scotland the same arrangements and if the Scottish Parliament votes to accept them I'd have no qualms whatsoever over that. The EU hasn't done that and we can't speak for them.Carnyx said:
Not yet, and that's another factor to contemplate - the dynamic changes when UK or rather GB leaves the EU.Philip_Thompson said:
Because the EU wanted NI. They've not asked for you guys.Carnyx said:But if it is good enough for NI why not us Scots? We DID vote against Brexit, you know.
0 -
Burgessian is just crapping it as the union is bust, desperate to believe there are still enough idiots to retain the union.Carnyx said:[snip]
It's also not unlike the deal the SNP suggested right at the start, in late 2016 IIRC (I have a feeling the Scottish Pmt also approved it, but can't remember the details).Peter_the_Punter said:
It's a fair point. Why should NI get a sweetheart deal and Scotland not?
Wales is different. It voted Leave.
I'm not whinging here, so much as thinking out objectively some other ways in which the NI deal could affect politics in Scotland to add to the points made by Burgessian.0 -
A final final conditional extension?williamglenn said:
The EU can easily scupper Boris's threats by offering a conditional extension like last time.Richard_Nabavi said:Interesting if right. I'm not sure whether this is an empty threat, and what would happen next if it is not:
https://twitter.com/GeorgeWParker/status/11866638989692641320 -
Ah yes. That is so.Richard_Tyndall said:
You miss my point. I wasn't arguing in favour of one solution or another. But the fact is we would not be considering NI as a problem at all were it not for its history of violence and the implicit threat of it returning. That applies to both sides and apparently all solutions.TOPPING said:
It is possible that there would be violence had there been physical border infrastructure placed on the island of Ireland. The British government understood this and decided against pursuing that plan.Richard_Tyndall said:The sad fact is that you have not threatened to kill people. The message that is being sent by allowing one solution for NI and not extending that to other parts of the UK if they desire is that the threats of violence work.
Is that the same as a threat of violence?0 -
Yes.Danny565 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you convinced the SNP would support the early-election motion in September, too?GIN1138 said:
Jezza will whip Labour to vote for it because Nicola will force his hand.
But things developed singificantly yesterday when the SNP put down a motion calling for an election. Labour accused them of "abandoning a people's vote"
The Rabble Alliance has split! 0 -
I think we are still in the 'no one has a clue but leaning towards Government defeat' territory.bigjohnowls said:So been out all day. What are the indicators for the 2 motions tonight??
1 -
CheersPhilip_Thompson said:
AFAIK only the official opposition is automatically given time for a VoNC but if the government provided time for an SNP VoNC then it could be held.Richard_Tyndall said:
Would Bercow allow that? I thought only the official opposition was allowed to submit a VoNCSunnyJim said:
Deal would get pulled rather than enable the ridiculous grandstanding of remainers in parliament.eek said:
An extension to January 31st is automatically accepted if the EU offer it - so why would they offer anything else.
But equally why would anyone push for an election immediately they could easily spend 2 weeks pulling Boris's deal apart line by line before calling such an election.
And such a delay moves it into early January which would do wonders for Boris.
Pull the bill and allow the SNP to submit the VoNC.
Under normal circumstances the government wouldn't give a minor party time for that.
Edit: and to Drutt for the same clarification1 -
Good riddance.eek said:
Dominic Grieve also said he wouldn't be in Parliament to stop the next phase of Brexit. So he knows he's leaving at the next election.Philip_Thompson said:Dominic Grieve voting against the deal at both second reading and programme motion. So much for being against "no deal", he's got no credibility he is just against any Brexit not no deal.
Grieve should never get the whip restored after this, anyone who has lost the whip but votes for the deal should get the whip back.
Do you agree @Big_G_NorthWales ?0 -
The issue is I think, Blackford in particular seems to be far more interested in remaining in the EU than seeking Scottish independence.Danny565 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you convinced the SNP would support the early-election motion in September, too?GIN1138 said:
Jezza will whip Labour to vote for it because Nicola will force his hand.
This isn't the case with Sturgeon.0 -
Crunch time coming up...deal or GE, take your pick.
0 -
Who let Ken Livingstone loose on PB comments?0
-
Rome is on the telephono. It would like a verbum.rcs1000 said:
Damn right.malcolmg said:
London is not a country no matter how much idiots on here pretend AND WOULD NOT LAST 5 MINUTES ONCE IT DID NOT HAVE THE REST OF THE COUNTRY FUNNELLING RESOURCES AND MONEY INTO IT.Gabs2 said:
Scotland, Wales and London are not being put inside some EU laws, so there is nothing of a scale needed to consent to.noneoftheabove said:
And London please!Carnyx said:
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?Philip_Thompson said:
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.eek said:
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increasePhilip_Thompson said:
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.eristdoof said:
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.Philip_Thompson said:
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
If there's one thing history has taught us, it's that there's no such thing as a successful city state.0 -
Looking at the voting record from Saturday.. I think Letwin, Rudd, Gauke, Hammond will all flip to the government's side. I'll lean towards Stephen Lloyd sticking to opposition, but I'm not 100%. I think the rest of the ex-Tories (Bebb, Boles, Greening, Sandbach) will vote against again.
I'll assume the DUP and Lady Hermon will vote against, though again it's not 100%.
I'm not sure there'll be any more Labour rebels on the programme motion - a few like De Piero have said they'll vote for the second reading, but want a lot of time to debate/amend.
I'll assume O'Mara will abstain this time, unlike Saturday.
I make it that the programme motion fails 317-310, but obviously very tight. And if the DUP abstain rather than vote against (still possible I think?) then it scrapes through.1 -
The point is however that the UK (or what is left of it even then) would not be an EU member. No veto. Nothing. Which does change the dynamic. The main Spanish criterion is whether the referendum is constitutional - not whether (say) Catalunya is to become an EU member or not. Of course, the Madrid Gmt might be difficult about that, as Mr Cameron might have tried to veto an independent Scotland jkoining the EU. But, again, that does not apply.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am pretty sure there would be a lot of opposition to it given the separatist movement in Catalonia. Which is a shame because it seems a perfectly reasonable idea.Carnyx said:
Quite - an interesting thought. You wouldn't expect them to do anything like that while the UK still is, and might well remain, a member state.Philip_Thompson said:
If the EU volunteers to give Scotland the same arrangements and if the Scottish Parliament votes to accept them I'd have no qualms whatsoever over that. The EU hasn't done that and we can't speak for them.Carnyx said:
Not yet, and that's another factor to contemplate - the dynamic changes when UK or rather GB leaves the EU.Philip_Thompson said:
Because the EU wanted NI. They've not asked for you guys.Carnyx said:But if it is good enough for NI why not us Scots? We DID vote against Brexit, you know.
I'll be very interested to see if a NI-Scotland Fixed Link (sbridge, tunnel or floating causeway) is ever built, and with whose money.0 -
-
Grieve shouldn't have been in this parliament.eek said:
Dominic Grieve also said he wouldn't be in Parliament to stop the next phase of Brexit. So he knows he's leaving at the next election.
He campaigned on delivering Brexit when he clearly had no intention of doing so.
The honourable thing would have been to stand down, or at the very least make it very clear that there would be no type of Brexit he would support.0 -
The NI issue isn't to do with violence in Northern Ireland it's more the impossibility of securing a border where a lot of people already know how to cross it without being noticed.Richard_Tyndall said:
You miss my point. I wasn't arguing in favour of one solution or another. But the fact is we would not be considering NI as a problem at all were it not for its history of violence and the implicit threat of it returning. That applies to both sides and apparently all solutions.TOPPING said:
It is possible that there would be violence had there been physical border infrastructure placed on the island of Ireland. The British government understood this and decided against pursuing that plan.Richard_Tyndall said:The sad fact is that you have not threatened to kill people. The message that is being sent by allowing one solution for NI and not extending that to other parts of the UK if they desire is that the threats of violence work.
Is that the same as a threat of violence?
one thing I've noticed travelling along the border in Ireland is that you can cross it 10-15 times without noticing in a short journey. Buying a car once I'm sure we crossed the border 8 times in a 3 mile journey.0 -
Just come back from Town and Stephen Gethins confirmed on the radio the SNP will back Boris if he calls an election. Please tell me how Corbyn says no in that climateeek said:
Why do we get a general election.SunnyJim said:Crunch time coming up...deal or GE, take your pick.
The default is for things to continue on with the can being kicked further what's actually changed to stop that can kicking.0 -
Johnson resigns as PM ‘in protest’ at losing a program motion...eek said:
Why do we get a general election.SunnyJim said:Crunch time coming up...deal or GE, take your pick.
The default is for things to continue on with the can being kicked further what's actually changed to stop that can kicking.
If the Lib Dems refuse to put Corbyn in No.10, then election it is.
It’s quite clear Johnson is looking for an excuse to do so without damaging his polling ratings, and he thinks this is it.0 -
If the bill gets pulled it will be the government green light for the SNP to table a VoNC.eek said:
Why do we get a general election.
The default is for things to continue on with the can being kicked further what's actually changed to stop that can kicking.
I am yet to read a convincing argument as to how Labour will stop this.0 -
Interesting you think that, as it's not a perception some people have. However, in fairness, it could simply be a matter of the relative emphasis of the two legislatures at present.Pulpstar said:
The issue is I think, Blackford in particular seems to be far more interested in remaining in the EU than seeking Scottish independence.Danny565 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you convinced the SNP would support the early-election motion in September, too?GIN1138 said:
Jezza will whip Labour to vote for it because Nicola will force his hand.
This isn't the case with Sturgeon.0 -
I am not an idiot am I Malc and are you not on your way to Lanzarotte todaymalcolmg said:
Burgessian is just crapping it as the union is bust, desperate to believe there are still enough idiots to retain the union.Carnyx said:[snip]
It's also not unlike the deal the SNP suggested right at the start, in late 2016 IIRC (I have a feeling the Scottish Pmt also approved it, but can't remember the details).Peter_the_Punter said:
It's a fair point. Why should NI get a sweetheart deal and Scotland not?
Wales is different. It voted Leave.
I'm not whinging here, so much as thinking out objectively some other ways in which the NI deal could affect politics in Scotland to add to the points made by Burgessian.0 -
Are MPs going to vote on the programme motion first?0
-
Given Sammy Wilson’s comments I would be shocked if they abstained .Danny565 said:Looking at the voting record from Saturday.. I think Letwin, Rudd, Gauke, Hammond will all flip to the government's side. I'll lean towards Stephen Lloyd sticking to opposition, but I'm not 100%. I think the rest of the ex-Tories (Bebb, Boles, Greening, Sandbach) will vote against again.
I'll assume the DUP and Lady Hermon will vote against, though again it's not 100%.
I'm not sure there'll be any more Labour rebels on the programme motion - a few like De Piero have said they'll vote for the second reading, but want a lot of time to debate/amend.
I'll assume O'Mara will abstain this time, unlike Saturday.
I make it that the programme motion fails 317-310, but obviously very tight. And if the DUP abstain rather than vote against (still possible I think?) then it scrapes through.0 -
Refusing to give Parliament time to discuss the most complex and significant change in UK law in 40 years - one that is likely to break the union with Northern Ireland is a very strange hill to willing die on..Nigelb said:
Johnson resigns as PM ‘in protest’ at losing a program motion...eek said:
Why do we get a general election.SunnyJim said:Crunch time coming up...deal or GE, take your pick.
The default is for things to continue on with the can being kicked further what's actually changed to stop that can kicking.
If the Lib Dems refuse to put Corbyn in No.10, then election it is.
It’s quite clear Johnson is looking for an excuse to do so without damaging his polling ratings, and he thinks this is it.0 -
0
-
Securing that border would be no issue at all were it not for the history of violence and the subsequent need to have no border infrastructure. If it were not for that fact it would be no bigger a problem Than the Swiss border or the Norway/Sweden border.eek said:
The NI issue isn't to do with violence in Northern Ireland it's more the impossibility of securing a border where a lot of people already know how to cross it without being noticed.Richard_Tyndall said:
You miss my point. I wasn't arguing in favour of one solution or another. But the fact is we would not be considering NI as a problem at all were it not for its history of violence and the implicit threat of it returning. That applies to both sides and apparently all solutions.TOPPING said:
It is possible that there would be violence had there been physical border infrastructure placed on the island of Ireland. The British government understood this and decided against pursuing that plan.Richard_Tyndall said:The sad fact is that you have not threatened to kill people. The message that is being sent by allowing one solution for NI and not extending that to other parts of the UK if they desire is that the threats of violence work.
Is that the same as a threat of violence?
one thing I've noticed travelling along the border in Ireland is that you can cross it 10-15 times without noticing in a short journey. Buying a car once I'm sure we crossed the border 8 times in a 3 mile journey.
It is specifically the history of violence that makes it problematic.0 -
It was an empty gesture because they knew Bercow wouldn't allow the motion their amendment was for.GIN1138 said:
Yes.Danny565 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you convinced the SNP would support the early-election motion in September, too?GIN1138 said:
Jezza will whip Labour to vote for it because Nicola will force his hand.
But things developed singificantly yesterday when the SNP put down a motion calling for an election. Labour accused them of "abandoning a people's vote"
The Rabble Alliance has split!0 -
Has history given us any examples of a capital city cutting itself off from its hinterland in a huff ?rcs1000 said:
Damn right.malcolmg said:
London is not a country no matter how much idiots on here pretend AND WOULD NOT LAST 5 MINUTES ONCE IT DID NOT HAVE THE REST OF THE COUNTRY FUNNELLING RESOURCES AND MONEY INTO IT.Gabs2 said:
Scotland, Wales and London are not being put inside some EU laws, so there is nothing of a scale needed to consent to.noneoftheabove said:
And London please!Carnyx said:
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?Philip_Thompson said:
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.eek said:
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increasePhilip_Thompson said:
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
If there's one thing history has taught us, it's that there's no such thing as a successful city state.
It would be a radically hardball move, and the hinterland could exact some pretty hardball payback...
Wouldn’t end well for either.
0 -
Maybe but who knows. Back the bill and Nick may have a little more time in the HOCScott_P said:0 -
But the SNP were already saying back in September that they wanted an election, and that Labour were "running scared" of one, Sturgeon at one point even said they should get a date set before Parliament prorogued ... but they still refused to back Boris's election motion anyway.GIN1138 said:
Yes.Danny565 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you convinced the SNP would support the early-election motion in September, too?GIN1138 said:
Jezza will whip Labour to vote for it because Nicola will force his hand.
But things developed singificantly yesterday when the SNP put down a motion calling for an election. Labour accused them of "abandoning a people's vote"
The Rabble Alliance has split!
The SNP want an election for sure, and they do have a mutual interest with the Tories in trying to goad Labour into agreeing to one - but I'm not convinced it serves the SNP's interests to be seen as paving the way to a Tory election win, if they don't have the cover of Labour also agreeing to an election.0 -
Having travelled an awful lot over the past few years it's remarkable how few entry points a lot of countries have on their borders. Ireland is very much an exception.Richard_Tyndall said:
Securing that border would be no issue at all were it not for the history of violence and the subsequent need to have no border infrastructure. If it were not for that fact it would be no bigger a problem Than the Swiss border or the Norway/Sweden border.eek said:
The NI issue isn't to do with violence in Northern Ireland it's more the impossibility of securing a border where a lot of people already know how to cross it without being noticed.Richard_Tyndall said:
You miss my point. I wasn't arguing in favour of one solution or another. But the fact is we would not be considering NI as a problem at all were it not for its history of violence and the implicit threat of it returning. That applies to both sides and apparently all solutions.TOPPING said:
It is possible that there would be violence had there been physical border infrastructure placed on the island of Ireland. The British government understood this and decided against pursuing that plan.Richard_Tyndall said:The sad fact is that you have not threatened to kill people. The message that is being sent by allowing one solution for NI and not extending that to other parts of the UK if they desire is that the threats of violence work.
Is that the same as a threat of violence?
one thing I've noticed travelling along the border in Ireland is that you can cross it 10-15 times without noticing in a short journey. Buying a car once I'm sure we crossed the border 8 times in a 3 mile journey.
It is specifically the history of violence that makes it problematic.
And once again it's not the violence that is the issue - it was the EU ensuring Ireland got what they wanted from the deal..0 -
As some of you may recall, I bought Euros earlier in the year to guard against a currency crash. As an added precaution I also placed bets on NoDeal at long odds. But those bets expire on January 1st and a defeat today lays open the possibility of a NoDeal Brexit in 2020. What would be the best wager to ensure against such an outcome? I should imagine the 2020 exit odds are shortening as we speak.0
-
NoAndyJS said:Are MPs going to vote on the programme motion first?
0 -
And if the government makes time for the SNP to table a VoNC?williamglenn said:
It was an empty gesture because they knew Bercow wouldn't allow the motion their amendment was for.0 -
Which would involve setting aside the legislation which mandates a minimum of 21 days Parliamentary consideration for any international treaty.eek said:
Nope:-AndyJS said:Are MPs going to vote on the programme motion first?
Second reading vote - determines that the bill is worthy of very discussion.
Programming motion then determines the speed at which it will be processed.
Given the only justification for this is Boris’ ego, I’m not convinced.
0 -
It is intriguing if not surprising that many of the same posters who decry parliament for needlessly delaying brexit are now cheering for a needless two month delay to have an election instead of a couple of days extra scrutiny of the bill.0
-
In the governance act it says that the 21 days can be bypassed if a minister thinks it is warranted. There would still have to be a motion passed, it just removes the minimum time requirement.Nigelb said:
Which would involve setting aside the legislation which mandates a minimum of 21 days Parliamentary consideration for any international treaty.eek said:
Nope:-AndyJS said:Are MPs going to vote on the programme motion first?
Second reading vote - determines that the bill is worthy of very discussion.
Programming motion then determines the speed at which it will be processed.
Given the only justification for this is Boris’ ego, I’m not convinced.0 -
Redwood has said recently that the best way out was to leave on 31st October and conclude negotiations after that, and that the different route favoured by the government represents a "sub optimal choice". However, that hardly means that he would prefer remaining to leaving under Johnson's route.Scott_P said:
What is remarkable is how with few exceptions leavers of all persuasions have come together to back Johnson's deal as the best way to unite to implement the result of the referendum even if they can't get the specific outcome that they would prefer. Some remainers are also prepared to live with it on the grounds that there has to be some outcome that implements the referendum result. And yet there is a minority, which happens to be a majority on this site, that considers that the referendum result on its own means nothing until they have had a second go at stopping us leaving.0 -
Would Johnson risk paving the way for a rebel alliance government?SunnyJim said:
And if the government makes time for the SNP to table a VoNC?williamglenn said:
It was an empty gesture because they knew Bercow wouldn't allow the motion their amendment was for.0 -
Is it? They think the new parliament will be much more agreeable to their viewpoint. So it's hardly surprising they want one.noneoftheabove said:It is intriguing if not surprising that many of the same posters who decry parliament for needlessly delaying brexit are now cheering for a needless two month delay to have an election instead of a couple of days extra scrutiny of the bill.
0 -
It is ridiculous, of course.eek said:
Refusing to give Parliament time to discuss the most complex and significant change in UK law in 40 years - one that is likely to break the union with Northern Ireland is a very strange hill to willing die on..Nigelb said:
Johnson resigns as PM ‘in protest’ at losing a program motion...eek said:
Why do we get a general election.SunnyJim said:Crunch time coming up...deal or GE, take your pick.
The default is for things to continue on with the can being kicked further what's actually changed to stop that can kicking.
If the Lib Dems refuse to put Corbyn in No.10, then election it is.
It’s quite clear Johnson is looking for an excuse to do so without damaging his polling ratings, and he thinks this is it.
But a (perhaps not ?) surprising number of people seem to be buying it.
0 -
Didn't know about that 21 day bit - thanks.Nigelb said:
Which would involve setting aside the legislation which mandates a minimum of 21 days Parliamentary consideration for any international treaty.eek said:
Nope:-AndyJS said:Are MPs going to vote on the programme motion first?
Second reading vote - determines that the bill is worthy of very discussion.
Programming motion then determines the speed at which it will be processed.
Given the only justification for this is Boris’ ego, I’m not convinced.0 -
I suspect any conservative not supporting the vote will have the whip withdrawn on the spot0
-
On the subject of a possible election date following a vote in parliament, it's worth bearing in mind that the timetables which people have correctly been quoting are the minimum times between a vote (explicitly for a GE, or a VONC plus14 days) and the GE. The outgoing PM has discretion to schedule the election later than that minimum time dictates, so in practice would avoid getting tangled up with Christmas/New Year or any other inconvenient date.1
-
Hello G. basking in the sun beside the pool, cold beer in hand. Just having an odd dip in here when I need to get into the shade.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am not an idiot am I Malc and are you not on your way to Lanzarotte todaymalcolmg said:
Burgessian is just crapping it as the union is bust, desperate to believe there are still enough idiots to retain the union.Carnyx said:[snip]
It's also not unlike the deal the SNP suggested right at the start, in late 2016 IIRC (I have a feeling the Scottish Pmt also approved it, but can't remember the details).Peter_the_Punter said:
It's a fair point. Why should NI get a sweetheart deal and Scotland not?
Wales is different. It voted Leave.
I'm not whinging here, so much as thinking out objectively some other ways in which the NI deal could affect politics in Scotland to add to the points made by Burgessian.0 -
There is a get out clause, and I think you could argue these are exceptional circumstances.eek said:
Didn't know about that 21 day bit - thanks.Nigelb said:
Which would involve setting aside the legislation which mandates a minimum of 21 days Parliamentary consideration for any international treaty.eek said:
Nope:-AndyJS said:Are MPs going to vote on the programme motion first?
Second reading vote - determines that the bill is worthy of very discussion.
Programming motion then determines the speed at which it will be processed.
Given the only justification for this is Boris’ ego, I’m not convinced.
1)Section 20 does not apply to a treaty if a Minister of the Crown is of the opinion that, exceptionally, the treaty should be ratified without the requirements of that section having been met.0 -
Ken Clarke out again??Big_G_NorthWales said:I suspect any conservative not supporting the vote will have the whip withdrawn on the spot
0 -
williamglenn said:
Would Johnson risk paving the way for a rebel alliance government?
What's this 'rebel alliance'?
Is it the SNP who want an election?
Is it the LD's who know they will gut out Labour in a pre-Brexit GE?
Is it the few ex-Tories, none of whom would put Corbyn in Number 10?
Is it Corbyn who will reject anybody but himself?
We all know there isn't a 'rebel alliance' or whatever other ridiculous moniker for a collection of disparate entities who will never coalesce.
So the short answer to your original question is...Yes, bring it on.0 -
-
He is not in so he remains out but is standing downbigjohnowls said:
Ken Clarke out again??Big_G_NorthWales said:I suspect any conservative not supporting the vote will have the whip withdrawn on the spot
0 -
Sounds good and hot as well. Have a great timemalcolmg said:
Hello G. basking in the sun beside the pool, cold beer in hand. Just having an odd dip in here when I need to get into the shade.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am not an idiot am I Malc and are you not on your way to Lanzarotte todaymalcolmg said:
Burgessian is just crapping it as the union is bust, desperate to believe there are still enough idiots to retain the union.Carnyx said:[snip]
It's also not unlike the deal the SNP suggested right at the start, in late 2016 IIRC (I have a feeling the Scottish Pmt also approved it, but can't remember the details).Peter_the_Punter said:
It's a fair point. Why should NI get a sweetheart deal and Scotland not?
Wales is different. It voted Leave.
I'm not whinging here, so much as thinking out objectively some other ways in which the NI deal could affect politics in Scotland to add to the points made by Burgessian.0 -
Actually, that's a good point - Caroline Spelman abstained on Sat, but I assume she'll vote with the govt tonight, so that makes the margin 317-311.Big_G_NorthWales said:I suspect any conservative not supporting the vote will have the whip withdrawn on the spot
0 -
Hello Malcy. Have a nice time. Don't get sunburnt - you won't have had much practice at home this summer.malcolmg said:
Hello G. basking in the sun beside the pool, cold beer in hand. Just having an odd dip in here when I need to get into the shade.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am not an idiot am I Malc and are you not on your way to Lanzarotte todaymalcolmg said:
Burgessian is just crapping it as the union is bust, desperate to believe there are still enough idiots to retain the union.Carnyx said:[snip]
It's also not unlike the deal the SNP suggested right at the start, in late 2016 IIRC (I have a feeling the Scottish Pmt also approved it, but can't remember the details).Peter_the_Punter said:
It's a fair point. Why should NI get a sweetheart deal and Scotland not?
Wales is different. It voted Leave.
I'm not whinging here, so much as thinking out objectively some other ways in which the NI deal could affect politics in Scotland to add to the points made by Burgessian.0 -
Yes, all right.AndyJS said:0 -
Well if they think the politicians should maximise party advantage rather than be concerned about the speed of Brexit perhaps they might like to consider some consistency?RobD said:
Is it? They think the new parliament will be much more agreeable to their viewpoint. So it's hardly surprising they want one.noneoftheabove said:It is intriguing if not surprising that many of the same posters who decry parliament for needlessly delaying brexit are now cheering for a needless two month delay to have an election instead of a couple of days extra scrutiny of the bill.
0 -
0
-
By saying he will call a GE if the vote falls this is a defacto vonc in the governmentDanny565 said:
Actually, that's a good point - Caroline Spelman abstained on Sat, but I assume she'll vote with the govt tonight, so that makes the margin 317-311.Big_G_NorthWales said:I suspect any conservative not supporting the vote will have the whip withdrawn on the spot
0 -
Much of this Yellowhammer shtick is just for show. As a civil servant I’m angry about that – and so should you be. There’s a risk, though, of anger giving way to boredom. Even this week, the prime minister is counting on MPs just being too bored to scrutinise the dense legalese of the 110-page withdrawal agreement bill within three backbreaking days.
What happened to the Conservative Party? A few years ago, if someone said this sort of thing was going to happen, the last party you'd have guessed would do it is the Conservatives. Brexit truly has driven the Conservatives mad on their own terms. Unrecognisable.0 -
He can't so it isn't.Big_G_NorthWales said:
By saying he will call a GE if the vote falls this is a defacto vonc in the governmentDanny565 said:
Actually, that's a good point - Caroline Spelman abstained on Sat, but I assume she'll vote with the govt tonight, so that makes the margin 317-311.Big_G_NorthWales said:I suspect any conservative not supporting the vote will have the whip withdrawn on the spot
0 -
If he's right, the programme motion fails quite clearly:
https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/11866798165583953920 -
As far as his side is concerned he can and conservative mps careers are on the lineNoo said:
He can't so it isn't.Big_G_NorthWales said:
By saying he will call a GE if the vote falls this is a defacto vonc in the governmentDanny565 said:
Actually, that's a good point - Caroline Spelman abstained on Sat, but I assume she'll vote with the govt tonight, so that makes the margin 317-311.Big_G_NorthWales said:I suspect any conservative not supporting the vote will have the whip withdrawn on the spot
0 -
I dunno. He spends a lot of time in the open Ayr.Carnyx said:
Hello Malcy. Have a nice time. Don't get sunburnt - you won't have had much practice at home this summer.malcolmg said:
Hello G. basking in the sun beside the pool, cold beer in hand. Just having an odd dip in here when I need to get into the shade.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am not an idiot am I Malc and are you not on your way to Lanzarotte todaymalcolmg said:
Burgessian is just crapping it as the union is bust, desperate to believe there are still enough idiots to retain the union.Carnyx said:[snip]
It's also not unlike the deal the SNP suggested right at the start, in late 2016 IIRC (I have a feeling the Scottish Pmt also approved it, but can't remember the details).Peter_the_Punter said:
It's a fair point. Why should NI get a sweetheart deal and Scotland not?
Wales is different. It voted Leave.
I'm not whinging here, so much as thinking out objectively some other ways in which the NI deal could affect politics in Scotland to add to the points made by Burgessian.0 -
Yes, but making the programme motion a de facto confidence vote might have a parallel impact on wavering Labour MPs, just like it did with the Benn Bill (which even Caroline Flint voted for).Big_G_NorthWales said:
By saying he will call a GE if the vote falls this is a defacto vonc in the governmentDanny565 said:
Actually, that's a good point - Caroline Spelman abstained on Sat, but I assume she'll vote with the govt tonight, so that makes the margin 317-311.Big_G_NorthWales said:I suspect any conservative not supporting the vote will have the whip withdrawn on the spot
Especially since the programme motion comes after the Second Reading vote, which will give those Lab MPs the opportunity to "virtue signal" to their constituents that they were willing to vote for Brexit, without actually having to take an impactful vote.0 -
But you can't always see the Skye from thereydoethur said:
I dunno. He spends a lot of time in the open Ayr.Carnyx said:
Hello Malcy. Have a nice time. Don't get sunburnt - you won't have had much practice at home this summer.malcolmg said:
Hello G. basking in the sun beside the pool, cold beer in hand. Just having an odd dip in here when I need to get into the shade.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am not an idiot am I Malc and are you not on your way to Lanzarotte todaymalcolmg said:
Burgessian is just crapping it as the union is bust, desperate to believe there are still enough idiots to retain the union.Carnyx said:[snip]
It's also not unlike the deal the SNP suggested right at the start, in late 2016 IIRC (I have a feeling the Scottish Pmt also approved it, but can't remember the details).Peter_the_Punter said:
It's a fair point. Why should NI get a sweetheart deal and Scotland not?
Wales is different. It voted Leave.
I'm not whinging here, so much as thinking out objectively some other ways in which the NI deal could affect politics in Scotland to add to the points made by Burgessian.0 -
Makes you wonder why they bothered in the first place?noneoftheabove said:
0 -
Ah, interesting! If the program motion gets down, I assume it can't be voted on again?AlastairMeeks said:If he's right, the programme motion fails quite clearly:
https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/11866798165583953920 -
It wouldn't be the first time you have shown an inclination to support the Tories including in the Lobbies tonight.bigjohnowls said:
Sorry Justin I agree with the PB Toriesjustin124 said:I am sure that many MPs today will feel empathy for members of the Reichstag facing pressure to pass Hitler's Enabling Act in March 1933.
Time for Mods to rake action if you cant drop the Hitler shite.0 -
This is just plain wrong on both counts.eek said:
Having travelled an awful lot over the past few years it's remarkable how few entry points a lot of countries have on their borders. Ireland is very much an exception.Richard_Tyndall said:
Securing that border would be no issue at all were it not for the history of violence and the subsequent need to have no border infrastructure. If it were not for that fact it would be no bigger a problem Than the Swiss border or the Norway/Sweden border.eek said:
The NI issue isn't to do with violence in Northern Ireland it's more the impossibility of securing a border where a lot of people already know how to cross it without being noticed.Richard_Tyndall said:
You miss my point. I wasn't arguing in favour of one solution or another. But the fact is we would not be considering NI as a problem at all were it not for its history of violence and the implicit threat of it returning. That applies to both sides and apparently all solutions.TOPPING said:
It is possible that there would be violence had there been physical border infrastructure placed on the island of Ireland. The British government understood this and decided against pursuing that plan.Richard_Tyndall said:The sad fact is that you have not threatened to kill people. The message that is being sent by allowing one solution for NI and not extending that to other parts of the UK if they desire is that the threats of violence work.
Is that the same as a threat of violence?
one thing I've noticed travelling along the border in Ireland is that you can cross it 10-15 times without noticing in a short journey. Buying a car once I'm sure we crossed the border 8 times in a 3 mile journey.
It is specifically the history of violence that makes it problematic.
And once again it's not the violence that is the issue - it was the EU ensuring Ireland got what they wanted from the deal..0
