Discussion:
Parliament has legislated retrospectively in the past
Add Reply
MM
2019-08-09 10:29:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that

"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."

The full article (paywall) is available here:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz

MM
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-08-09 10:48:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present
controls the past.
Keema's Nan
2019-08-09 12:12:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnso
ns-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present
controls the past.
Why would anyone want to extend the Brexit date *again*?

We have already done that and it hasn’t got us anywhere. The simple
equation is that the country voted by a majority to leave, but the
establishment (who are used to getting their own way irrespective of our sham
democracy) don’t want us to leave.

The establishment tried to frighten us into remaining in the EU before the
referendum, and that failed; so the only tactic they have left is to bully
MPs into doing the opposite of what the country voted for while pretending
this is democracy in action.

MPs are so thick and power hungry they fell for it, and so there is only one
leave option left; which is to ignore our undemocratic parliament and force
through the wishes of the people 4 years after they voted.
R. Mark Clayton
2019-08-09 12:44:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Friday, 9 August 2019 13:12:33 UTC+1, Keema's Nan wrote:
SNIP
Post by Keema's Nan
Why would anyone want to extend the Brexit date *again*?
To revoke the notice under article 50 of course.
Post by Keema's Nan
We have already done that and it hasn’t got us anywhere. The simple
equation is that the country voted by a majority to leave, but the
establishment (who are used to getting their own way irrespective of our sham
democracy) don’t want us to leave.
The establishment tried to frighten us into remaining in the EU before the
referendum, and that failed; so the only tactic they have left is to bully
MPs into doing the opposite of what the country voted for while pretending
this is democracy in action.
Now that the shambles that Brexit is in the open, why not have another vote on the final deal [or no deal] just a Rees-Mogg recommended to parliament.

Surely a vote to day is worth more and more meaningful than a votes three years ago?
Post by Keema's Nan
MPs are so thick and power hungry they fell for it, and so there is only one
leave option left; which is to ignore our undemocratic parliament and force
through the wishes of the people 4 years after they voted.
but who says it is [still] the wish of the people now - best ask them...
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-08-09 13:12:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnso
ns-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present
controls the past.
Why would anyone want to extend the Brexit date *again*?
Increases the chance of it not happening, I'd guess. Never mind the
cost to the country's soul.
Post by Keema's Nan
We have already done that and it hasn’t got us anywhere. The simple
equation is that the country voted by a majority to leave, but the
establishment (who are used to getting their own way irrespective of our sham
democracy) don’t want us to leave.
The establishment tried to frighten us into remaining in the EU before the
referendum, and that failed; so the only tactic they have left is to bully
MPs into doing the opposite of what the country voted for while pretending
this is democracy in action.
MPs are so thick and power hungry they fell for it, and so there is only one
leave option left; which is to ignore our undemocratic parliament and force
through the wishes of the people 4 years after they voted.
Norman Wells
2019-08-09 14:38:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.

But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.

And I see a little bit of a problem with that. You see, Labour got 40%
of the popular vote last time but are hovering around 20% now in the
polls. That means they would lose a huge number of seats and would
suffer a corresponding loss of influence and power if they were
unfortunate enough to win on no confidence and force an election. So,
for all their bluster about it, it's not looking a good strategy at all
from their point of view.

In the meantime, since Brexit will have happened in your scenario, the
Brexit Party will have had its fox shot by the Tories who would hoover
up a large majority of their votes in any general election. They'd
attract even more through the Boris effect, while Labour, the LibDems,
the SNP and the Greens will continue to squabble amongst themselves and
split each other's vote.

I wouldn't take it for granted then that there will be a vote of no
confidence, nor that there will be a general election, nor that a Remain
party will win it, at any time soon. And if it comes in 2022 as
scheduled, I think that will be just a little late to pass retrospective
legislation saying we didn't leave at all in 2019.
Incubus
2019-08-09 15:36:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
Both sides could play at that game - we can pass a retrospective law saying
that we never even joined the EU!
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-08-09 16:07:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
Both sides could play at that game - we can pass a retrospective law saying
that we never even joined the EU!
I have to say that that was the first thing I thought of, but some games
are too dirty to play.
Incubus
2019-08-09 16:18:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
Both sides could play at that game - we can pass a retrospective law saying
that we never even joined the EU!
I have to say that that was the first thing I thought of, but some games
are too dirty to play.
Not for the Left and Remoaners in general, I have come to learn. Sometimes,
taking the moral high ground is a serious disadvantage.
Norman Wells
2019-08-09 18:06:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
Both sides could play at that game - we can pass a retrospective law saying
that we never even joined the EU!
I have to say that that was the first thing I thought of, but some games
are too dirty to play.
Not for the Left and Remoaners in general, I have come to learn. Sometimes,
taking the moral high ground is a serious disadvantage.
But you cannot allow yourself to be dragged down to their level. You
must retain your integrity.
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-08-09 23:05:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
Both sides could play at that game - we can pass a retrospective law saying
that we never even joined the EU!
I have to say that that was the first thing I thought of, but some games
are too dirty to play.
Not for the Left and Remoaners in general, I have come to learn. Sometimes,
taking the moral high ground is a serious disadvantage.
Alinsky said that one must hold the enemy to their own rules. But I'm
guessing that he was of a leftist persuasion.
MM
2019-08-10 11:13:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 15:36:23 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
Both sides could play at that game - we can pass a retrospective law saying
that we never even joined the EU!
Or the MPs against Brexit (approx. 75% of 'em) could gently remind the
Speaker that the referendum result was advisory only, so
"retrospective" law beckons simply on the basis of the Referendum Act.
All they need do is revoke Article 50 and by lunchtime it would all be
over. Well, bar the civil war that would inevitably break out across
the whole country -- although only after the latest epsiode of
Eastenders, of course.

MM
Norman Wells
2019-08-10 17:41:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 15:36:23 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
Both sides could play at that game - we can pass a retrospective law saying
that we never even joined the EU!
Or the MPs against Brexit (approx. 75% of 'em) could gently remind the
Speaker that the referendum result was advisory only, so
"retrospective" law beckons simply on the basis of the Referendum Act.
No, the Speaker will tell them in no uncertain terms I do not care one
iota whether the referendum was advisory or not. Even if it was, the
advice given was taken and acted upon by both the government and
Parliament. It does not matter in the slightest if the government could
have rejected the advice. It didn't, and that's an end to it. We've
all moved on.
Post by MM
All they need do is revoke Article 50 and by lunchtime it would all be
over.
How's that going to happen then? Do say.
Post by MM
Well, bar the civil war that would inevitably break out across
the whole country
Everyone's quaking, aren't they?
R. Mark Clayton
2019-08-10 17:49:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 15:36:23 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
Both sides could play at that game - we can pass a retrospective law saying
that we never even joined the EU!
Or the MPs against Brexit (approx. 75% of 'em) could gently remind the
Speaker that the referendum result was advisory only, so
"retrospective" law beckons simply on the basis of the Referendum Act.
No, the Speaker will tell them in no uncertain terms I do not care one
iota whether the referendum was advisory or not. Even if it was, the
advice given was taken and acted upon by both the government and
Parliament. It does not matter in the slightest if the government could
have rejected the advice. It didn't, and that's an end to it. We've
all moved on.
Post by MM
All they need do is revoke Article 50 and by lunchtime it would all be
over.
How's that going to happen then? Do say.
Post by MM
Well, bar the civil war that would inevitably break out across
the whole country
Everyone's quaking, aren't they?
Everyone, well IMO a majority is angry at this farce.

Six million signed a petition in a week, over a million took to the streets.
Norman Wells
2019-08-10 18:47:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 15:36:23 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
Both sides could play at that game - we can pass a retrospective law saying
that we never even joined the EU!
Or the MPs against Brexit (approx. 75% of 'em) could gently remind the
Speaker that the referendum result was advisory only, so
"retrospective" law beckons simply on the basis of the Referendum Act.
No, the Speaker will tell them in no uncertain terms I do not care one
iota whether the referendum was advisory or not. Even if it was, the
advice given was taken and acted upon by both the government and
Parliament. It does not matter in the slightest if the government could
have rejected the advice. It didn't, and that's an end to it. We've
all moved on.
Post by MM
All they need do is revoke Article 50 and by lunchtime it would all be
over.
How's that going to happen then? Do say.
Post by MM
Well, bar the civil war that would inevitably break out across
the whole country
Everyone's quaking, aren't they?
Everyone, well IMO a majority is angry at this farce.
Not necessarily angry, just fed up with it and bored by it.

But at last they can see an end in sight, and most will be glad of that.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Six million signed a petition in a week, over a million took to the streets.
So what? What did those losers' activities achieve?
JNugent
2019-08-09 15:55:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see.  Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be?  The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems.
Joe Swanson, isn't it?

He used to be in "Family Guy". Now he identifies as a woman.
Pamela
2019-08-10 10:17:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-
thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
And I see a little bit of a problem with that. You see, Labour got 40%
of the popular vote last time but are hovering around 20% now in the
polls. That means they would lose a huge number of seats and would
suffer a corresponding loss of influence and power if they were
unfortunate enough to win on no confidence and force an election. So,
for all their bluster about it, it's not looking a good strategy at all
from their point of view.
In the meantime, since Brexit will have happened in your scenario, the
Brexit Party will have had its fox shot by the Tories who would hoover
up a large majority of their votes in any general election. They'd
attract even more through the Boris effect, while Labour, the LibDems,
the SNP and the Greens will continue to squabble amongst themselves and
split each other's vote.
I wouldn't take it for granted then that there will be a vote of no
confidence, nor that there will be a general election, nor that a Remain
party will win it, at any time soon. And if it comes in 2022 as
scheduled, I think that will be just a little late to pass retrospective
legislation saying we didn't leave at all in 2019.
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
Keema's Nan
2019-08-10 10:37:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-
thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
And I see a little bit of a problem with that. You see, Labour got 40%
of the popular vote last time but are hovering around 20% now in the
polls. That means they would lose a huge number of seats and would
suffer a corresponding loss of influence and power if they were
unfortunate enough to win on no confidence and force an election. So,
for all their bluster about it, it's not looking a good strategy at all
from their point of view.
In the meantime, since Brexit will have happened in your scenario, the
Brexit Party will have had its fox shot by the Tories who would hoover
up a large majority of their votes in any general election. They'd
attract even more through the Boris effect, while Labour, the LibDems,
the SNP and the Greens will continue to squabble amongst themselves and
split each other's vote.
I wouldn't take it for granted then that there will be a vote of no
confidence, nor that there will be a general election, nor that a Remain
party will win it, at any time soon. And if it comes in 2022 as
scheduled, I think that will be just a little late to pass retrospective
legislation saying we didn't leave at all in 2019.
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.

That way parliament would be suspended for weeks leading up to the election,
and would have no say on no-deal Brexit.

By the time the HoC reconvened, we would be out and the new MPs would have to
carry on regardless. I’m not sure if that is what Boris is considering, but
it would stick two fingers up to those MPs who think they can force chaos
onto leaving the EU and undermine our position even further.
Yellow
2019-08-10 12:17:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.

The opposition then have two just two choices, for or against, and
voting against (or abstaining) would make Labour look pretty silly given
their claim that they do not in fact have confidence in Boris as PM.
Post by Keema's Nan
That way parliament would be suspended for weeks leading up to the election,
and would have no say on no-deal Brexit.
By the time the HoC reconvened, we would be out and the new MPs would have to
carry on regardless. I?m not sure if that is what Boris is considering, but
it would stick two fingers up to those MPs who think they can force chaos
onto leaving the EU and undermine our position even further.
tim...
2019-08-10 14:02:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.
not possible either (not in a binding way anyway)

tim
Yellow
2019-08-10 14:47:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.
not possible either (not in a binding way anyway)
tim
There are rules on who can call for a vote of no confidence in the PM?
tim...
2019-08-10 15:25:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election
before
2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.
not possible either (not in a binding way anyway)
tim
There are rules on who can call for a vote of no confidence in the PM?
I think it's convention

but it's only the leader of HM Official Opposition who can table a binding
VoC motion

tim
Keema's Nan
2019-08-10 15:40:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election
before
2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.
not possible either (not in a binding way anyway)
tim
There are rules on who can call for a vote of no confidence in the PM?
I think it's convention
but it's only the leader of HM Official Opposition who can table a binding
VoC motion
tim
Where does it state this?
tim...
2019-08-10 18:33:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election
before
2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.
not possible either (not in a binding way anyway)
tim
There are rules on who can call for a vote of no confidence in the PM?
I think it's convention
but it's only the leader of HM Official Opposition who can table a binding
VoC motion
tim
Where does it state this?
you'll have to ask that nice Mr Rees-Moog to explain

tim
Norman Wells
2019-08-10 20:49:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election
before
2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would
call > > > for a
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
vote of no confidence in myself.
not possible either (not in a binding way anyway)
tim
There are rules on who can call for a vote of no confidence in the PM?
I think it's convention
but it's only the leader of HM Official Opposition who can table a binding
VoC motion
tim
Where does it state this?
you'll have to ask that nice Mr Rees-Moog to explain
It's a matter of getting it on the order paper for the business of the
House.

The business of the House is normally dictated by the government, except
where there is an opposition day. However, I understand that there are
no more opposition days available before the end of October.
Accordingly, the opposition can only proceed by means of a no confidence
motion which by convention "will take precedence over normal
Parliamentary business for that day". For it to be allowed to do that
it will have to be tabled by the official opposition (ie Labour), or
with its backing.
Yellow
2019-08-10 21:56:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election
before
2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.
not possible either (not in a binding way anyway)
tim
There are rules on who can call for a vote of no confidence in the PM?
I think it's convention
but it's only the leader of HM Official Opposition who can table a binding
VoC motion
OK - I did not know that.
Keema's Nan
2019-08-10 15:37:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.
not possible either (not in a binding way anyway)
tim
There are rules on who can call for a vote of no confidence in the PM?
Oh?

And who are these people, as given by the rules you seem to have found?
Yellow
2019-08-10 21:55:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 16:37:53 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Yellow
Post by tim...
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before
2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.
not possible either (not in a binding way anyway)
tim
There are rules on who can call for a vote of no confidence in the PM?
Oh?
And who are these people, as given by the rules you seem to have found?
Do what?
Norman Wells
2019-08-10 17:25:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.
Good job you're not PM then :)

Anyway, Boris simply wouldn't be believed if he said he had no
confidence in himself or his government.
Post by Yellow
The opposition then have two just two choices, for or against, and
voting against (or abstaining) would make Labour look pretty silly given
their claim that they do not in fact have confidence in Boris as PM.
But he doesn't have to do what you say, and it's very unlikely he could
anyway under the constitution. If he wanted an early general election
he would merely do what Mrs May did in 2017 and propose one under the
provisions of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which would have the same
effect on the opposition as what you suggested.
tim...
2019-08-10 18:34:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.
Good job you're not PM then :)
Anyway, Boris simply wouldn't be believed if he said he had no confidence
in himself or his government.
Post by Yellow
The opposition then have two just two choices, for or against, and
voting against (or abstaining) would make Labour look pretty silly given
their claim that they do not in fact have confidence in Boris as PM.
But he doesn't have to do what you say, and it's very unlikely he could
anyway under the constitution. If he wanted an early general election he
would merely do what Mrs May did in 2017 and propose one under the
provisions of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which would have the same
effect on the opposition as what you suggested.
but I bet his backbenchers would vote against

tim
Norman Wells
2019-08-10 20:30:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:37:28 +0100 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
Yep, that's what I think too and if it was me as PM, I would call for a
vote of no confidence in myself.
Good job you're not PM then :)
Anyway, Boris simply wouldn't be believed if he said he had no
confidence in himself or his government.
Post by Yellow
The opposition then have two just two choices, for or against, and
voting against (or abstaining) would make Labour look pretty silly given
their claim that they do not in fact have confidence in Boris as PM.
But he doesn't have to do what you say, and it's very unlikely he
could anyway under the constitution.  If he wanted an early general
election he would merely do what Mrs May did in 2017 and propose one
under the provisions of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which would
have the same effect on the opposition as what you suggested.
but I bet his backbenchers would vote against
If that's a real concern, it's just another reason why he won't do it.

Now, if the polls showed a substantial lead for the Conservatives, his
backbenchers would almost certainly fall in line.

Except that that didn't work too well the last time in 2017.
Pamela
2019-08-10 12:29:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with
the agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem
Britain not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has
legislated retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War
Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-
thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have
to be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that
shrill woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But
that entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to
be proposed by the opposition.
And I see a little bit of a problem with that. You see, Labour got
40% of the popular vote last time but are hovering around 20% now in
the polls. That means they would lose a huge number of seats and
would suffer a corresponding loss of influence and power if they were
unfortunate enough to win on no confidence and force an election. So,
for all their bluster about it, it's not looking a good strategy at
all from their point of view.
In the meantime, since Brexit will have happened in your scenario,
the Brexit Party will have had its fox shot by the Tories who would
hoover up a large majority of their votes in any general election.
They'd attract even more through the Boris effect, while Labour, the
LibDems, the SNP and the Greens will continue to squabble amongst
themselves and split each other's vote.
I wouldn't take it for granted then that there will be a vote of no
confidence, nor that there will be a general election, nor that a
Remain party will win it, at any time soon. And if it comes in 2022
as scheduled, I think that will be just a little late to pass
retrospective legislation saying we didn't leave at all in 2019.
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before
2022 looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
That way parliament would be suspended for weeks leading up to the
election, and would have no say on no-deal Brexit.
By the time the HoC reconvened, we would be out and the new MPs would
have to carry on regardless. I'm not sure if that is what Boris is
considering, but it would stick two fingers up to those MPs who think
they can force chaos onto leaving the EU and undermine our position even
further.
It was obvious this parliamentary session wouldn't run the full term but,
despite this, poor Norman has consistently predicted it would not end
sooner. It was only a matter of time before he got egg on his face.
Norman Wells
2019-08-10 17:34:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
It was obvious this parliamentary session wouldn't run the full term
Parliamentary sessions do not have terms, full or otherwise. They run
until Parliament decides to adjourn them. And then they reconvene some
time later.
Post by Pamela
but, despite this, poor Norman has consistently predicted it would not end
sooner. It was only a matter of time before he got egg on his face.
Has an election been called then?

If it has, I do apologise. I'm afraid I must have missed it.
Ian Jackson
2019-08-10 12:49:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
That way parliament would be suspended for weeks leading up to the election,
and would have no say on no-deal Brexit.
In anticipation of a thumping defeat for a government hell-bent on using
a shit-or-bust procedure to prise us out of the EU, is there any reason
why the EU couldn't unilaterally decide to put our exit on hold until we
get a government that they know truly represents the majority of UK
citizens?
--
Ian
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
2019-08-10 13:12:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Keema's Nan
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
That way parliament would be suspended for weeks leading up to the election,
and would have no say on no-deal Brexit.
In anticipation of a thumping defeat for a government hell-bent on
using a shit-or-bust procedure to prise us out of the EU, is there any
reason why the EU couldn't unilaterally decide to put our exit on hold
until we get a government that they know truly represents the majority
of UK citizens?
Yes, of course there is. Article 50 states otherwise.
--
Evremonde
tim...
2019-08-10 14:04:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
That way parliament would be suspended for weeks leading up to the election,
and would have no say on no-deal Brexit.
In anticipation of a thumping defeat for a government hell-bent on using a
shit-or-bust procedure to prise us out of the EU, is there any reason why
the EU couldn't unilaterally decide to put our exit on hold until we get a
government that they know truly represents the majority of UK citizens?
an extension has to be unilaterally agreed - by both parties

tim
Pamela
2019-08-11 00:37:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Keema's Nan
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
That way parliament would be suspended for weeks leading up to the election,
and would have no say on no-deal Brexit.
In anticipation of a thumping defeat for a government hell-bent on
using a shit-or-bust procedure to prise us out of the EU, is there any
reason why the EU couldn't unilaterally decide to put our exit on hold
until we get a government that they know truly represents the majority
of UK citizens?
an extension has to be unilaterally agreed - by both parties
tim
So does the exit.
tim...
2019-08-10 14:05:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
That way parliament would be suspended for weeks leading up to the election,
and would have no say on no-deal Brexit.
In anticipation of a thumping defeat for a government hell-bent on using a
shit-or-bust procedure to prise us out of the EU,
do you mean in parliament

or in a GE

tim
Yellow
2019-08-10 14:44:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 13:49:14 +0100 Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Keema's Nan
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
That way parliament would be suspended for weeks leading up to the election,
and would have no say on no-deal Brexit.
In anticipation of a thumping defeat for a government hell-bent on using
a shit-or-bust procedure to prise us out of the EU, is there any reason
why the EU couldn't unilaterally decide to put our exit on hold until we
get a government that they know truly represents the majority of UK
citizens?
Oh! Yes please. :-)

And I'll get the popcorn.
tim...
2019-08-10 14:01:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-
thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
And I see a little bit of a problem with that. You see, Labour got 40%
of the popular vote last time but are hovering around 20% now in the
polls. That means they would lose a huge number of seats and would
suffer a corresponding loss of influence and power if they were
unfortunate enough to win on no confidence and force an election. So,
for all their bluster about it, it's not looking a good strategy at all
from their point of view.
In the meantime, since Brexit will have happened in your scenario, the
Brexit Party will have had its fox shot by the Tories who would hoover
up a large majority of their votes in any general election. They'd
attract even more through the Boris effect, while Labour, the LibDems,
the SNP and the Greens will continue to squabble amongst themselves and
split each other's vote.
I wouldn't take it for granted then that there will be a vote of no
confidence, nor that there will be a general election, nor that a Remain
party will win it, at any time soon. And if it comes in 2022 as
scheduled, I think that will be just a little late to pass
retrospective
legislation saying we didn't leave at all in 2019.
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
It would make sense to call an election for Nov 1st.
can't be done like that anymore

There either has to be a lost VoC or a vote of the whole house to have one

Can't see the majority or Tories backing their leader in this plan, even
leavers want a cleaner solution

tim
Norman Wells
2019-08-10 17:19:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-
thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
And I see a little bit of a problem with that. You see, Labour got 40%
of the popular vote last time but are hovering around 20% now in the
polls. That means they would lose a huge number of seats and would
suffer a corresponding loss of influence and power if they were
unfortunate enough to win on no confidence and force an election. So,
for all their bluster about it, it's not looking a good strategy at all
from their point of view.
In the meantime, since Brexit will have happened in your scenario, the
Brexit Party will have had its fox shot by the Tories who would hoover
up a large majority of their votes in any general election. They'd
attract even more through the Boris effect, while Labour, the LibDems,
the SNP and the Greens will continue to squabble amongst themselves and
split each other's vote.
I wouldn't take it for granted then that there will be a vote of no
confidence, nor that there will be a general election, nor that a Remain
party will win it, at any time soon. And if it comes in 2022 as
scheduled, I think that will be just a little late to pass retrospective
legislation saying we didn't leave at all in 2019.
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
How is it going to come about sooner then?

Is Labour, whose support in the polls is currently about 20% compared
with the 40% it achieved in the last general election, going to risk one
by forcing a motion of no confidence, when it is certain to lose a large
number of seats?

Is Boris going to suggest one off his own bat when his current position
of having an overall majority with DUP support, albeit small, is very
unlikely to be replicated or even approached?

Don't deceive yourself. The polls are what matter, nothing else. And
they don't look at all favourable at present for either Labour or the
Conservatives.

So, do tell us your scenario and the rationale for it. We could do with
a laugh.
R. Mark Clayton
2019-08-10 17:37:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-
thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government
isn't going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to
be a new one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill
woman whose name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that
entails a motion of no confidence being passed, and that has to be
proposed by the opposition.
And I see a little bit of a problem with that. You see, Labour got 40%
of the popular vote last time but are hovering around 20% now in the
polls. That means they would lose a huge number of seats and would
suffer a corresponding loss of influence and power if they were
unfortunate enough to win on no confidence and force an election. So,
for all their bluster about it, it's not looking a good strategy at all
from their point of view.
In the meantime, since Brexit will have happened in your scenario, the
Brexit Party will have had its fox shot by the Tories who would hoover
up a large majority of their votes in any general election. They'd
attract even more through the Boris effect, while Labour, the LibDems,
the SNP and the Greens will continue to squabble amongst themselves and
split each other's vote.
I wouldn't take it for granted then that there will be a vote of no
confidence, nor that there will be a general election, nor that a Remain
party will win it, at any time soon. And if it comes in 2022 as
scheduled, I think that will be just a little late to pass retrospective
legislation saying we didn't leave at all in 2019.
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
How is it going to come about sooner then?
Is Labour, whose support in the polls is currently about 20% compared
with the 40% it achieved in the last general election, going to risk one
by forcing a motion of no confidence, when it is certain to lose a large
number of seats?
Is Boris going to suggest one off his own bat when his current position
of having an overall majority with DUP support, albeit small, is very
unlikely to be replicated or even approached?
Ah so you agree - this hard Brexit line is very unpopular?
Post by Norman Wells
Don't deceive yourself. The polls are what matter, nothing else. And
they don't look at all favourable at present for either Labour or the
Conservatives.
So, do tell us your scenario and the rationale for it. We could do with
a laugh.
Corbyn 'retires' - or at least that is the public story - removing the main thing crippling Labour in the polls.

One can't see the government lasting that long anyway - by elections will remove its majority quite quickly.

so for Tory moderates it looks like this: -

1. If they hang on they may well get deselected.
2. If they are in a marginal seat then they may well lose anyway.
3. If they think a hard Brexit would be a disaster

then they may 'cut their losses' and vote against the government anyway.
Norman Wells
2019-08-10 20:21:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before 2022
looks like floundering.
How is it going to come about sooner then?
Is Labour, whose support in the polls is currently about 20% compared
with the 40% it achieved in the last general election, going to risk one
by forcing a motion of no confidence, when it is certain to lose a large
number of seats?
Is Boris going to suggest one off his own bat when his current position
of having an overall majority with DUP support, albeit small, is very
unlikely to be replicated or even approached?
Ah so you agree - this hard Brexit line is very unpopular?
I'm only going on what the polls say.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Don't deceive yourself. The polls are what matter, nothing else. And
they don't look at all favourable at present for either Labour or the
Conservatives.
So, do tell us your scenario and the rationale for it. We could do with
a laugh.
Corbyn 'retires' - or at least that is the public story - removing the main thing crippling Labour in the polls.
That's just fantastical nonsense and wishful thinking on your part.
There's no reason why it would even cross his mind. He's very popular
with those who elect their leader.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
One can't see the government lasting that long anyway - by elections will remove its majority quite quickly.
Maybe they'll increase it. Who knows, especially without knowing when
and where? Apart from you of course.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
so for Tory moderates it looks like this: -
1. If they hang on they may well get deselected.
2. If they are in a marginal seat then they may well lose anyway.
3. If they think a hard Brexit would be a disaster
then they may 'cut their losses' and vote against the government anyway.
I don't see why they should bring any of that on themselves now when in
three years' time, if they hold on, Brexit will be a done deal, the
Brexit Party will be as nothing, Labour may have self-destructed through
one scandal or another, the LibDems will once again have been
marginalised as simply not credible, and the only sensible choice for
middle Britain is once again the Conservatives, this time under an
attractive, dynamic, optimistic and visionary leader.

Even a week is a long time in politics.
Pamela
2019-08-11 00:40:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before
2022 looks like floundering.
How is it going to come about sooner then?
Is Labour, whose support in the polls is currently about 20% compared
with the 40% it achieved in the last general election, going to risk
one by forcing a motion of no confidence, when it is certain to lose a
large number of seats?
Is Boris going to suggest one off his own bat when his current
position of having an overall majority with DUP support, albeit small,
is very unlikely to be replicated or even approached?
Ah so you agree - this hard Brexit line is very unpopular?
I'm only going on what the polls say.
Presumably you fully believe the polls or you wouldn't use them to prop up your
argument.
Norman Wells
2019-08-11 07:58:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before
2022 looks like floundering.
How is it going to come about sooner then?
Is Labour, whose support in the polls is currently about 20% compared
with the 40% it achieved in the last general election, going to risk
one by forcing a motion of no confidence, when it is certain to lose a
large number of seats?
Is Boris going to suggest one off his own bat when his current
position of having an overall majority with DUP support, albeit small,
is very unlikely to be replicated or even approached?
Ah so you agree - this hard Brexit line is very unpopular?
I'm only going on what the polls say.
Presumably you fully believe the polls or you wouldn't use them to prop up your
argument.
The polls are what will determine whether there is a motion of no
confidence or if Boris proposes an early general election himself.

And the polls have been pretty consistent as regards voting intentions
lately.

However much you get on your knees at bedtime, screw up your eyes and
pray fervently to God that there's a general election before we leave
the EU, or even shortly afterwards, it's the polls that will decide,
nothing else.

And they ain't looking favourable.

Get real and, rather than just avoid the issue, tell us how *you* think
an early general election will come about.
Ian Jackson
2019-08-11 09:50:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election before
2022 looks like floundering.
How is it going to come about sooner then?
Is Labour, whose support in the polls is currently about 20% compared
with the 40% it achieved in the last general election, going to risk
one by forcing a motion of no confidence, when it is certain to lose a
large number of seats?
Is Boris going to suggest one off his own bat when his current
position of having an overall majority with DUP support, albeit small,
is very unlikely to be replicated or even approached?
Ah so you agree - this hard Brexit line is very unpopular?
I'm only going on what the polls say.
Presumably you fully believe the polls or you wouldn't use them to prop up your
argument.
The polls are what will determine whether there is a motion of no
confidence or if Boris proposes an early general election himself.
And the polls have been pretty consistent as regards voting intentions
lately.
However much you get on your knees at bedtime, screw up your eyes and
pray fervently to God that there's a general election before we leave
the EU, or even shortly afterwards, it's the polls that will decide,
nothing else.
And they ain't looking favourable.
Get real and, rather than just avoid the issue, tell us how *you* think
an early general election will come about.
Do you really think that willing a general election to be delayed long
enough for the UK to be forced to carry a highly controversial (and, for
much of the population, highly undesirable) action is really honouring
TWOTP? Please bear in mind that the guy pushing this through is only
able to do so because 92,153 Conservative members (0.13 per cent of the
British population) voted him into the position he now holds.
--
Ian
Norman Wells
2019-08-11 10:37:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
The polls are what will determine whether there is a motion of no
confidence or if Boris proposes an early general election himself.
And the polls have been pretty consistent as regards voting intentions
lately.
However much you get on your knees at bedtime, screw up your eyes and
pray fervently to God that there's a general election before we leave
the EU, or even shortly afterwards, it's the polls that will decide,
nothing else.
And they ain't looking favourable.
Get real and, rather than just avoid the issue, tell us how *you*
think an early general election will come about.
Do you really think that willing a general election to be delayed long
enough for the UK to be forced to carry a highly controversial (and, for
much of the population, highly undesirable) action is really honouring
TWOTP? Please bear in mind that the guy pushing this through is only
able to do so because 92,153 Conservative members (0.13 per cent of the
British population) voted him into the position he now holds.
Would you like to answer the question now?
Ian Jackson
2019-08-11 12:02:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Get real and, rather than just avoid the issue, tell us how *you*
think an early general election will come about.
Do you really think that willing a general election to be delayed
long enough for the UK to be forced to carry a highly controversial
(and, for much of the population, highly undesirable) action is
really honouring TWOTP? Please bear in mind that the guy pushing this
through is only able to do so because 92,153 Conservative members
(0.13 per cent of the British population) voted him into the position
he now holds.
Would you like to answer the question now?
I actually don't know at the moment, as my crystal ball needs new
batteries. However, I believe that others (who are far better equipped
than I am) are presently engaged in finding a way of stopping the gang
of rogues in charge pursuing a game of chicken under the guise of
'democracy'.
--
Ian
Fredxx
2019-08-11 12:13:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Get real and, rather than just avoid the issue, tell us how *you*
think an early general election will come about.
 Do you really think that willing a general election to be delayed
long  enough for the UK to be forced to carry a highly controversial
(and, for  much of the population, highly undesirable) action is
really honouring  TWOTP? Please bear in mind that the guy pushing
this through is only  able to do so because 92,153 Conservative
members (0.13 per cent of the  British population) voted him into the
position he now holds.
Would you like to answer the question now?
I actually don't know at the moment, as my crystal ball needs new
batteries. However, I believe that others (who are far better equipped
than I am) are presently engaged in finding a way of stopping the gang
of rogues in charge pursuing a game of chicken under the guise of
'democracy'.
Ah, perhaps you should be better directing your efforts to the unelected
EU Commission, who seem bent on us leaving without a deal.

They seem utterly oblivious to the point that either way there will be
no internal border foisted on the UK by these bureaucrats.
R. Mark Clayton
2019-08-11 15:22:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Get real and, rather than just avoid the issue, tell us how *you*
think an early general election will come about.
 Do you really think that willing a general election to be delayed
long  enough for the UK to be forced to carry a highly controversial
(and, for  much of the population, highly undesirable) action is
really honouring  TWOTP? Please bear in mind that the guy pushing
this through is only  able to do so because 92,153 Conservative
members (0.13 per cent of the  British population) voted him into the
position he now holds.
Would you like to answer the question now?
I actually don't know at the moment, as my crystal ball needs new
batteries. However, I believe that others (who are far better equipped
than I am) are presently engaged in finding a way of stopping the gang
of rogues in charge pursuing a game of chicken under the guise of
'democracy'.
Ah, perhaps you should be better directing your efforts to the unelected
EU Commission, who seem bent on us leaving without a deal.
Sorry - who chose to leave?

Who chose to leave the customs union?

Who chose not to accept the deal May's ministers negotiated?

Who has said either the EU changes what was agreed or the UK leaves without a deal?

Blaming the EU for the bind the UK is in is both transparent and pathetic.
Post by Fredxx
They seem utterly oblivious to the point that either way there will be
no internal border foisted on the UK by these bureaucrats.
No there will be an internal border in Ireland foisted on the Irish (against their strongly expressed will) and breaching previous agreement by bloody minded UK politicians.
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
2019-08-11 18:38:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
No there will be an internal border in Ireland
There will be no internal border in any jurisdiction called Ireland.

Perhaps by "Ireland" you mean here "the geographical island known as
Ireland", but since that area contains two jurisdictions, the border
between them is not an internal one.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
foisted on the Irish (against their strongly expressed will)
The will of some of them, perhaps.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
and breaching previous agreement by bloody minded UK politicians.
As has been pointed out to you by many, including the BBC, previous
agreements do not state that there will be no customs border between
Northern Ireland and the Republic.
--
Evremonde
MM
2019-08-13 09:23:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 08:22:19 -0700 (PDT), "R. Mark Clayton"
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Fredxx
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Get real and, rather than just avoid the issue, tell us how *you*
think an early general election will come about.
 Do you really think that willing a general election to be delayed
long  enough for the UK to be forced to carry a highly controversial
(and, for  much of the population, highly undesirable) action is
really honouring  TWOTP? Please bear in mind that the guy pushing
this through is only  able to do so because 92,153 Conservative
members (0.13 per cent of the  British population) voted him into the
position he now holds.
Would you like to answer the question now?
I actually don't know at the moment, as my crystal ball needs new
batteries. However, I believe that others (who are far better equipped
than I am) are presently engaged in finding a way of stopping the gang
of rogues in charge pursuing a game of chicken under the guise of
'democracy'.
Ah, perhaps you should be better directing your efforts to the unelected
EU Commission, who seem bent on us leaving without a deal.
Sorry - who chose to leave?
Who chose to leave the customs union?
Who chose not to accept the deal May's ministers negotiated?
Who has said either the EU changes what was agreed or the UK leaves without a deal?
Blaming the EU for the bind the UK is in is both transparent and pathetic.
But unfortunately it's a bandwagon most of the British media will be
only too happy to jump on.

MM
Pamela
2019-08-11 17:02:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Ah, perhaps you should be better directing your efforts to the unelected
EU Commission, who seem bent on us leaving without a deal.
Would the representative EU Commission do?
Post by Fredxx
They seem utterly oblivious to the point that either way there will be
no internal border foisted on the UK by these bureaucrats.
Which internal UK border would that be?
R. Mark Clayton
2019-08-11 17:20:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Ah, perhaps you should be better directing your efforts to the unelected
EU Commission, who seem bent on us leaving without a deal.
Would the representative EU Commission do?
Well it is representative in a way - each state has one commissioner - like each US state has two senators.

Neither will defy the EU parliament and I very much doubt the parliament will throw Ireland to the wolves.
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
They seem utterly oblivious to the point that either way there will be
no internal border foisted on the UK by these bureaucrats.
Which internal UK border would that be?
He means triaging trade between NI and UK - much easier logistically than any other solution, but politically impossible at the moment because the government relies on the "never, never, never..." DUP despite their declining popularity.
tim...
2019-08-12 08:27:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Ah, perhaps you should be better directing your efforts to the unelected
EU Commission, who seem bent on us leaving without a deal.
Would the representative EU Commission do?
weasel words

just because it has been given the task of being representative doesn't make
it democratically elected

It is undeniably an unelected body
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
They seem utterly oblivious to the point that either way there will be
no internal border foisted on the UK by these bureaucrats.
Which internal UK border would that be?
the proposed one in teh Irish Sea
Pamela
2019-08-12 17:51:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
Ah, perhaps you should be better directing your efforts to the
unelected EU Commission, who seem bent on us leaving without a deal.
Would the representative EU Commission do?
weasel words
just because it has been given the task of being representative doesn't
make it democratically elected
It is undeniably an unelected body
The EU Commission is like the United Nations in that it comprises of
delegates selected by the (often democratic) countries they represent. It's
perfectly democratic enough for its purposes.
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by Fredxx
They seem utterly oblivious to the point that either way there will be
no internal border foisted on the UK by these bureaucrats.
Which internal UK border would that be?
the proposed one in teh Irish Sea
The EU is not foisting such a border on the UK.
MM
2019-08-13 09:22:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Get real and, rather than just avoid the issue, tell us how *you*
think an early general election will come about.
 Do you really think that willing a general election to be delayed
long  enough for the UK to be forced to carry a highly controversial
(and, for  much of the population, highly undesirable) action is
really honouring  TWOTP? Please bear in mind that the guy pushing
this through is only  able to do so because 92,153 Conservative
members (0.13 per cent of the  British population) voted him into the
position he now holds.
Would you like to answer the question now?
I actually don't know at the moment, as my crystal ball needs new
batteries. However, I believe that others (who are far better equipped
than I am) are presently engaged in finding a way of stopping the gang
of rogues in charge pursuing a game of chicken under the guise of
'democracy'.
Ah, perhaps you should be better directing your efforts to the unelected
EU Commission, who seem bent on us leaving without a deal.
If we leave without a deal, that is OUR choice. Didn't you Brexiters
want Britain to have total sovereignty?

But I see you are unboxing your Blame the EU Game early. This game
will be played with increasing frenzy by Tory cabinet ministers over
the nexr few months.
Post by Fredxx
They seem utterly oblivious to the point that either way there will be
no internal border foisted on the UK by these bureaucrats.
If you're talking about the border between the two Irelands, that
won't be an internal border any more.

MM
Pamela
2019-08-13 09:36:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Fredxx
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Get real and, rather than just avoid the issue, tell us how *you*
think an early general election will come about.
 Do you really think that willing a general election to be delayed
long  enough for the UK to be forced to carry a highly controversial
(and, for  much of the population, highly undesirable) action is
really honouring  TWOTP? Please bear in mind that the guy pushing
this through is only  able to do so because 92,153 Conservative
members (0.13 per cent of the  British population) voted him into
the position he now holds.
Would you like to answer the question now?
I actually don't know at the moment, as my crystal ball needs new
batteries. However, I believe that others (who are far better equipped
than I am) are presently engaged in finding a way of stopping the gang
of rogues in charge pursuing a game of chicken under the guise of
'democracy'.
Ah, perhaps you should be better directing your efforts to the unelected
EU Commission, who seem bent on us leaving without a deal.
If we leave without a deal, that is OUR choice. Didn't you Brexiters
want Britain to have total sovereignty?
But I see you are unboxing your Blame the EU Game early. This game will
be played with increasing frenzy by Tory cabinet ministers over the nexr
few months.
The Brexit blame game will be played for years to come. Brexiteers will
be in too much denial to realise they caused the mess.
Post by MM
Post by Fredxx
They seem utterly oblivious to the point that either way there will be
no internal border foisted on the UK by these bureaucrats.
If you're talking about the border between the two Irelands, that won't
be an internal border any more.
MM
Ian Jackson
2019-08-13 09:45:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
If we leave without a deal, that is OUR choice. Didn't you Brexiters
want Britain to have total sovereignty?
But I see you are unboxing your Blame the EU Game early. This game
will be played with increasing frenzy by Tory cabinet ministers over
the nexr few months.
Don't forget the part that the evil, traitorous Remoaners have been
playing. They have been doing their very best to thwart TWOTP. If they
had only kept their noses out of things, and let the Bold Brexiteers get
on with the process of leaving the EU, it would all have been done and
dusted over two years ago. By now, we would have all been well on our
way, speeding along the broad highway to the Sunny Uplands, and trying
to see how many unicorns we could count as they playfully gambolled in
the fields we passed.
--
Ian
Norman Wells
2019-08-13 10:16:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
If we leave without a deal, that is OUR choice. Didn't you Brexiters
want Britain to have total sovereignty?
But I see you are unboxing your Blame the EU Game early. This game
will be played with increasing frenzy by Tory cabinet ministers over
the nexr few months.
Don't forget the part that the evil, traitorous Remoaners have been
playing. They have been doing their very best to thwart TWOTP. If they
had only kept their noses out of things, and let the Bold Brexiteers get
on with the process of leaving the EU, it would all have been done and
dusted over two years ago. By now, we would have all been well on our
way, speeding along the broad highway to the Sunny Uplands, and trying
to see how many unicorns we could count as they playfully gambolled in
the fields we passed.
There is much truth and little to argue with in what you say.

Apart from the unicorns gambolling of course. I'm not sure they do that.
Pamela
2019-08-13 10:29:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
If we leave without a deal, that is OUR choice. Didn't you Brexiters
want Britain to have total sovereignty?
But I see you are unboxing your Blame the EU Game early. This game
will be played with increasing frenzy by Tory cabinet ministers over
the nexr few months.
Don't forget the part that the evil, traitorous Remoaners have been
playing. They have been doing their very best to thwart TWOTP. If they
had only kept their noses out of things, and let the Bold Brexiteers get
on with the process of leaving the EU, it would all have been done and
dusted over two years ago. By now, we would have all been well on our
way, speeding along the broad highway to the Sunny Uplands, and trying
to see how many unicorns we could count as they playfully gambolled in
the fields we passed.
There is much truth and little to argue with in what you say.
Apart from the unicorns gambolling of course. I'm not sure they do that.
Did you use a dictionary?
Norman Wells
2019-08-13 10:33:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
If we leave without a deal, that is OUR choice. Didn't you Brexiters
want Britain to have total sovereignty?
But I see you are unboxing your Blame the EU Game early. This game
will be played with increasing frenzy by Tory cabinet ministers over
the nexr few months.
Don't forget the part that the evil, traitorous Remoaners have been
playing. They have been doing their very best to thwart TWOTP. If they
had only kept their noses out of things, and let the Bold Brexiteers get
on with the process of leaving the EU, it would all have been done and
dusted over two years ago. By now, we would have all been well on our
way, speeding along the broad highway to the Sunny Uplands, and trying
to see how many unicorns we could count as they playfully gambolled in
the fields we passed.
There is much truth and little to argue with in what you say.
Apart from the unicorns gambolling of course. I'm not sure they do that.
Did you use a dictionary?
Eh?
Ian Jackson
2019-08-13 12:24:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
If we leave without a deal, that is OUR choice. Didn't you Brexiters
want Britain to have total sovereignty?
But I see you are unboxing your Blame the EU Game early. This game
will be played with increasing frenzy by Tory cabinet ministers over
the nexr few months.
Don't forget the part that the evil, traitorous Remoaners have been
playing. They have been doing their very best to thwart TWOTP. If they
had only kept their noses out of things, and let the Bold Brexiteers get
on with the process of leaving the EU, it would all have been done and
dusted over two years ago. By now, we would have all been well on our
way, speeding along the broad highway to the Sunny Uplands, and trying
to see how many unicorns we could count as they playfully gambolled in
the fields we passed.
There is much truth and little to argue with in what you say.
Apart from the unicorns gambolling of course. I'm not sure they do that.
Did you use a dictionary?
Unicorns gambol - and Brexiteers gamble (with the UK economy, people's
jobs, the value of the pound etc).
--
Ian
Pamela
2019-08-13 10:31:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
If we leave without a deal, that is OUR choice. Didn't you Brexiters
want Britain to have total sovereignty?
But I see you are unboxing your Blame the EU Game early. This game
will be played with increasing frenzy by Tory cabinet ministers over
the nexr few months.
Don't forget the part that the evil, traitorous Remoaners have been
playing. They have been doing their very best to thwart TWOTP. If they
had only kept their noses out of things, and let the Bold Brexiteers get
on with the process of leaving the EU, it would all have been done and
dusted over two years ago. By now, we would have all been well on our
way, speeding along the broad highway to the Sunny Uplands, and trying
to see how many unicorns we could count as they playfully gambolled in
the fields we passed.
I wonder how long Brexiters expect it will take for Britain to become a land
of milk and honey with high wages, low prices, fewer foreigners, better
public services and better international trade.
Norman Wells
2019-08-11 12:52:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Get real and, rather than just avoid the issue, tell us how *you*
think an early general election will come about.
 Do you really think that willing a general election to be delayed
long  enough for the UK to be forced to carry a highly controversial
(and, for  much of the population, highly undesirable) action is
really honouring  TWOTP? Please bear in mind that the guy pushing
this through is only  able to do so because 92,153 Conservative
members (0.13 per cent of the  British population) voted him into the
position he now holds.
Would you like to answer the question now?
I actually don't know at the moment,
Join everyone else here then. They have no idea either.
Post by Ian Jackson
as my crystal ball needs new
batteries. However, I believe that others (who are far better equipped
than I am) are presently engaged in finding a way of stopping the gang
of rogues in charge pursuing a game of chicken under the guise of
'democracy'.
The words 'needle', 'haystack', 'hopeless' and 'quest' come inexplicably
to mind.
Pamela
2019-08-11 17:12:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election
before 2022 looks like floundering.
How is it going to come about sooner then?
Is Labour, whose support in the polls is currently about 20%
compared with the 40% it achieved in the last general election,
going to risk one by forcing a motion of no confidence, when it is
certain to lose a large number of seats?
Is Boris going to suggest one off his own bat when his current
position of having an overall majority with DUP support, albeit
small, is very unlikely to be replicated or even approached?
Ah so you agree - this hard Brexit line is very unpopular?
I'm only going on what the polls say.
Presumably you fully believe the polls or you wouldn't use them to prop
up your argument.
The polls are what will determine whether there is a motion of no
confidence
I doubt that.
Post by Norman Wells
or if Boris proposes an early general election himself.
And the polls have been pretty consistent as regards voting intentions
lately.
However much you get on your knees at bedtime, screw up your eyes and
pray fervently to God that there's a general election before we leave
the EU, or even shortly afterwards, it's the polls that will decide,
nothing else.
Boris may call an election even if the polls don't favour him -- as the
least bad option. Boris has got himself in a right pickle and it's not
clear how he'll get out of it, if at all.

After Boris delivers Brexit, the famously ruthless Tory party could get
their knives out. Boris likes a bit of Latin and will understand "Et tu,
Brute". Boris divides the electorate and, ag=fter Brexit, Jeremy Hunt
might be preferred as a unity candidate.
Post by Norman Wells
And they ain't looking favourable.
Get real and, rather than just avoid the issue, tell us how *you* think
an early general election will come about.
Events, dear boy. As one experienced commentator said recently, you may
think it was lively in the Commons earlier this year but you ain't seen
nothing yet.
Norman Wells
2019-08-11 18:23:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election
before 2022 looks like floundering.
How is it going to come about sooner then?
Is Labour, whose support in the polls is currently about 20%
compared with the 40% it achieved in the last general election,
going to risk one by forcing a motion of no confidence, when it is
certain to lose a large number of seats?
Is Boris going to suggest one off his own bat when his current
position of having an overall majority with DUP support, albeit
small, is very unlikely to be replicated or even approached?
The polls are what will determine whether there is a motion of no
confidence
I doubt that.
Then you're just demonstrating you know nothing about politics.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
However much you get on your knees at bedtime, screw up your eyes and
pray fervently to God that there's a general election before we leave
the EU, or even shortly afterwards, it's the polls that will decide,
nothing else.
Boris may call an election even if the polls don't favour him -- as the
least bad option.
Don't be daft. The polls are everything.
Post by Pamela
Boris has got himself in a right pickle and it's not
clear how he'll get out of it, if at all.
I don't think he thinks he's in a pickle at all. Why do you?
Post by Pamela
After Boris delivers Brexit, the famously ruthless Tory party could get
their knives out.
Why? The party elected him very recently to do just that, deliver
Brexit, as he promised.
Post by Pamela
Boris likes a bit of Latin and will understand "Et tu,
Brute". Boris divides the electorate and, ag=fter Brexit, Jeremy Hunt
might be preferred as a unity candidate.
But he wasn't elected. In a straight fight with Boris, Boris won hands
down. And he's far more popular with the electorate than Hunt, whom the
majority would have difficulty in even identifying.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
And they ain't looking favourable.
Get real and, rather than just avoid the issue, tell us how *you* think
an early general election will come about.
Events, dear boy. As one experienced commentator said recently, you may
think it was lively in the Commons earlier this year but you ain't seen
nothing yet.
So, no sensible answer then, only speculation that Boris might commit
political suicide. Won't Corbyn risk committing political suicide by
forcing a vote of no confidence that he might, if he's unlucky, actually
win?
Pamela
2019-08-11 19:57:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election
before 2022 looks like floundering.
How is it going to come about sooner then?
Is Labour, whose support in the polls is currently about 20%
compared with the 40% it achieved in the last general election,
going to risk one by forcing a motion of no confidence, when it is
certain to lose a large number of seats?
Is Boris going to suggest one off his own bat when his current
position of having an overall majority with DUP support, albeit
small, is very unlikely to be replicated or even approached?
The polls are what will determine whether there is a motion of no
confidence
I doubt that.
Then you're just demonstrating you know nothing about politics.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
However much you get on your knees at bedtime, screw up your eyes and
pray fervently to God that there's a general election before we leave
the EU, or even shortly afterwards, it's the polls that will decide,
nothing else.
Boris may call an election even if the polls don't favour him -- as the
least bad option.
Don't be daft. The polls are everything.
lol
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Boris has got himself in a right pickle and it's not clear how he'll
get out of it, if at all.
I don't think he thinks he's in a pickle at all. Why do you?
Boris has promised far more than he can deliver.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
After Boris delivers Brexit, the famously ruthless Tory party could get
their knives out.
Why? The party elected him very recently to do just that, deliver
Brexit, as he promised.
Post by Pamela
Boris likes a bit of Latin and will understand "Et tu, Brute". Boris
divides the electorate and, ag=fter Brexit, Jeremy Hunt might be
preferred as a unity candidate.
But he wasn't elected. In a straight fight with Boris, Boris won hands
down. And he's far more popular with the electorate than Hunt, whom the
majority would have difficulty in even identifying.
Once Brexit is done, Boris's appeal to Leavers fades and Remainers will
hesitate to vote for him. Hunt would have a greater appeal to all sides.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
And they ain't looking favourable.
Get real and, rather than just avoid the issue, tell us how *you*
think an early general election will come about.
Events, dear boy. As one experienced commentator said recently, you
may think it was lively in the Commons earlier this year but you ain't
seen nothing yet.
So, no sensible answer then, only speculation that Boris might commit
political suicide.
Was Julius Caesar's death a suicide?
Post by Norman Wells
Won't Corbyn risk committing political suicide by forcing a vote of no
confidence that he might, if he's unlucky, actually win?
Who knows exactly how the cards will fall after Boris is gone. Some will
say they don't care provided Boris leaves.
Norman Wells
2019-08-11 21:41:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Once Brexit is done, Boris's appeal to Leavers fades and Remainers will
hesitate to vote for him. Hunt would have a greater appeal to all sides.
You don't think he'll be hailed as a Hero of the Revolution then and
given the title of Supreme Ruler of the United Kingdom for as long as he
shall live?

That's a bit harsh.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
And they ain't looking favourable.
Get real and, rather than just avoid the issue, tell us how *you*
think an early general election will come about.
Events, dear boy. As one experienced commentator said recently, you
may think it was lively in the Commons earlier this year but you ain't
seen nothing yet.
So, no sensible answer then, only speculation that Boris might commit
political suicide.
Was Julius Caesar's death a suicide?
No. It's not parallel either.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Won't Corbyn risk committing political suicide by forcing a vote of no
confidence that he might, if he's unlucky, actually win?
Who knows exactly how the cards will fall after Boris is gone. Some will
say they don't care provided Boris leaves.
But we're talking about the process that might make him leave. And the
only thing I can see that would make him do that is if Corbyn tables a
motion of no confidence which he wins and a general election follows.
The question is whether Corbyn dares risk forcing a general election
when Labour's support in the polls is about 20% when it actually
achieved 40% in the last election. Labour would stand to lose an awful
lot of seats, and I haven't yet heard any sensible argument as to why it
would risk that.
Pamela
2019-08-12 17:56:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Once Brexit is done, Boris's appeal to Leavers fades and Remainers will
hesitate to vote for him. Hunt would have a greater appeal to all sides.
You don't think he'll be hailed as a Hero of the Revolution then and
given the title of Supreme Ruler of the United Kingdom for as long as he
shall live?
That's a bit harsh.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
And they ain't looking favourable.
Get real and, rather than just avoid the issue, tell us how *you*
think an early general election will come about.
Events, dear boy. As one experienced commentator said recently, you
may think it was lively in the Commons earlier this year but you
ain't seen nothing yet.
So, no sensible answer then, only speculation that Boris might commit
political suicide.
Was Julius Caesar's death a suicide?
No. It's not parallel either.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Won't Corbyn risk committing political suicide by forcing a vote of no
confidence that he might, if he's unlucky, actually win?
Who knows exactly how the cards will fall after Boris is gone. Some
will say they don't care provided Boris leaves.
But we're talking about the process that might make him leave. And the
only thing I can see that would make him do that is if Corbyn tables a
motion of no confidence which he wins and a general election follows.
The question is whether Corbyn dares risk forcing a general election
when Labour's support in the polls is about 20% when it actually
achieved 40% in the last election. Labour would stand to lose an awful
lot of seats, and I haven't yet heard any sensible argument as to why it
would risk that.
What a poor analysis. Labour was polling 25% when the 2017 election was
called and the Tories over 40%. Look how that turned out for Theresa May.
Norman Wells
2019-08-12 20:22:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Once Brexit is done, Boris's appeal to Leavers fades and Remainers will
hesitate to vote for him. Hunt would have a greater appeal to all sides.
You don't think he'll be hailed as a Hero of the Revolution then and
given the title of Supreme Ruler of the United Kingdom for as long as he
shall live?
That's a bit harsh.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
And they ain't looking favourable.
Get real and, rather than just avoid the issue, tell us how *you*
think an early general election will come about.
Events, dear boy. As one experienced commentator said recently, you
may think it was lively in the Commons earlier this year but you
ain't seen nothing yet.
So, no sensible answer then, only speculation that Boris might commit
political suicide.
Was Julius Caesar's death a suicide?
No. It's not parallel either.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Won't Corbyn risk committing political suicide by forcing a vote of no
confidence that he might, if he's unlucky, actually win?
Who knows exactly how the cards will fall after Boris is gone. Some
will say they don't care provided Boris leaves.
But we're talking about the process that might make him leave. And the
only thing I can see that would make him do that is if Corbyn tables a
motion of no confidence which he wins and a general election follows.
The question is whether Corbyn dares risk forcing a general election
when Labour's support in the polls is about 20% when it actually
achieved 40% in the last election. Labour would stand to lose an awful
lot of seats, and I haven't yet heard any sensible argument as to why it
would risk that.
What a poor analysis. Labour was polling 25% when the 2017 election was
called and the Tories over 40%. Look how that turned out for Theresa May.
Doesn't mean it will happen again, or is even likely to. It's not
exactly a precedent that demands to be followed.

In fact, it's a huge risk.

Corbyn's in a bit of a dilemma. He'd love of course to go for and win a
motion of no confidence - wouldn't that be wonderful? However, if that
results in a general election, he risks three things:

One is that Boris will set the election date for after the end of
October, by when we will have formally left the EU with no simple way back.

The second is that there is always a 25 day period before a general
election during which Parliament does not sit. That means 25 days off
the Brexit hook for Boris, for which he will probably be rather grateful.

The third is that, as things stand in the polls, he risks reducing his
party in Parliament to a rump.

Decisions, decisions, eh? Who'd be a politician?
Pamela
2019-08-12 20:37:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Once Brexit is done, Boris's appeal to Leavers fades and Remainers
will hesitate to vote for him. Hunt would have a greater appeal to
all sides.
You don't think he'll be hailed as a Hero of the Revolution then and
given the title of Supreme Ruler of the United Kingdom for as long as
he shall live?
That's a bit harsh.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
And they ain't looking favourable.
Get real and, rather than just avoid the issue, tell us how *you*
think an early general election will come about.
Events, dear boy. As one experienced commentator said recently,
you may think it was lively in the Commons earlier this year but
you ain't seen nothing yet.
So, no sensible answer then, only speculation that Boris might
commit political suicide.
Was Julius Caesar's death a suicide?
No. It's not parallel either.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Won't Corbyn risk committing political suicide by forcing a vote of
no confidence that he might, if he's unlucky, actually win?
Who knows exactly how the cards will fall after Boris is gone. Some
will say they don't care provided Boris leaves.
But we're talking about the process that might make him leave. And
the only thing I can see that would make him do that is if Corbyn
tables a motion of no confidence which he wins and a general election
follows. The question is whether Corbyn dares risk forcing a general
election when Labour's support in the polls is about 20% when it
actually achieved 40% in the last election. Labour would stand to
lose an awful lot of seats, and I haven't yet heard any sensible
argument as to why it would risk that.
What a poor analysis. Labour was polling 25% when the 2017 election
was called and the Tories over 40%. Look how that turned out for
Theresa May.
Doesn't mean it will happen again, or is even likely to. It's not
exactly a precedent that demands to be followed.
In fact, it's a huge risk.
Why see this in black and white certainties?

Corbyn has nothing to lose. A 10% chance of being PM would be enough to
motivate him.
Post by Norman Wells
Corbyn's in a bit of a dilemma. He'd love of course to go for and win a
motion of no confidence - wouldn't that be wonderful? However, if that
One is that Boris will set the election date for after the end of
October, by when we will have formally left the EU with no simple way back.
The second is that there is always a 25 day period before a general
election during which Parliament does not sit. That means 25 days off
the Brexit hook for Boris, for which he will probably be rather grateful.
In those same last days before her election Theresa May saw Labour support
surge. Wikipedia has a chart.
Post by Norman Wells
The third is that, as things stand in the polls, he risks reducing his
party in Parliament to a rump.
Decisions, decisions, eh? Who'd be a politician?
Boris has created this by his Brexit deadline and spendthrift promises.
Coupled to Boris's perceived incompetence, second only to Michael Foot,
this has become a high risk game entirely of his making.
Norman Wells
2019-08-12 21:03:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Once Brexit is done, Boris's appeal to Leavers fades and Remainers
will hesitate to vote for him. Hunt would have a greater appeal to
all sides.
You don't think he'll be hailed as a Hero of the Revolution then and
given the title of Supreme Ruler of the United Kingdom for as long as
he shall live?
That's a bit harsh.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
And they ain't looking favourable.
Get real and, rather than just avoid the issue, tell us how *you*
think an early general election will come about.
Events, dear boy. As one experienced commentator said recently,
you may think it was lively in the Commons earlier this year but
you ain't seen nothing yet.
So, no sensible answer then, only speculation that Boris might
commit political suicide.
Was Julius Caesar's death a suicide?
No. It's not parallel either.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Won't Corbyn risk committing political suicide by forcing a vote of
no confidence that he might, if he's unlucky, actually win?
Who knows exactly how the cards will fall after Boris is gone. Some
will say they don't care provided Boris leaves.
But we're talking about the process that might make him leave. And
the only thing I can see that would make him do that is if Corbyn
tables a motion of no confidence which he wins and a general election
follows. The question is whether Corbyn dares risk forcing a general
election when Labour's support in the polls is about 20% when it
actually achieved 40% in the last election. Labour would stand to
lose an awful lot of seats, and I haven't yet heard any sensible
argument as to why it would risk that.
What a poor analysis. Labour was polling 25% when the 2017 election
was called and the Tories over 40%. Look how that turned out for
Theresa May.
Doesn't mean it will happen again, or is even likely to. It's not
exactly a precedent that demands to be followed.
In fact, it's a huge risk.
Why see this in black and white certainties?
Your English seesm to be giving you trouble again. 'Risk' is not
certainty but uncertainty.
Post by Pamela
Corbyn has nothing to lose. A 10% chance of being PM would be enough to
motivate him.
Oh, I see. You think he's in it solely for himself, and that trumps any
concern he has for his own party? Funny how things come full circle,
isn't it? It was Boris who used to be accused of that.

But I don't think only a 10% chance would in fact motivate him. In the
vast majority of cases the leader of the losing party in a general
election rather swiftly loses his job and rapidly becomes a non-entity.

It's a huge risk for him, his career and his ambitions.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Corbyn's in a bit of a dilemma. He'd love of course to go for and win a
motion of no confidence - wouldn't that be wonderful? However, if that
One is that Boris will set the election date for after the end of
October, by when we will have formally left the EU with no simple way back.
The second is that there is always a 25 day period before a general
election during which Parliament does not sit. That means 25 days off
the Brexit hook for Boris, for which he will probably be rather grateful.
In those same last days before her election Theresa May saw Labour support
surge. Wikipedia has a chart.
Post by Norman Wells
The third is that, as things stand in the polls, he risks reducing his
party in Parliament to a rump.
Decisions, decisions, eh? Who'd be a politician?
Boris has created this by his Brexit deadline and spendthrift promises.
Coupled to Boris's perceived incompetence, second only to Michael Foot,
this has become a high risk game entirely of his making.
It's not a problem for Boris. It's a problem for Corbyn. He's the one
who has to decide his next step.
Pamela
2019-08-13 09:15:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Once Brexit is done, Boris's appeal to Leavers fades and Remainers
will hesitate to vote for him. Hunt would have a greater appeal to
all sides.
You don't think he'll be hailed as a Hero of the Revolution then and
given the title of Supreme Ruler of the United Kingdom for as long
as he shall live?
That's a bit harsh.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
And they ain't looking favourable.
Get real and, rather than just avoid the issue, tell us how
*you* think an early general election will come about.
Events, dear boy. As one experienced commentator said recently,
you may think it was lively in the Commons earlier this year but
you ain't seen nothing yet.
So, no sensible answer then, only speculation that Boris might
commit political suicide.
Was Julius Caesar's death a suicide?
No. It's not parallel either.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Won't Corbyn risk committing political suicide by forcing a vote
of no confidence that he might, if he's unlucky, actually win?
Who knows exactly how the cards will fall after Boris is gone.
Some will say they don't care provided Boris leaves.
But we're talking about the process that might make him leave. And
the only thing I can see that would make him do that is if Corbyn
tables a motion of no confidence which he wins and a general
election follows. The question is whether Corbyn dares risk forcing
a general election when Labour's support in the polls is about 20%
when it actually achieved 40% in the last election. Labour would
stand to lose an awful lot of seats, and I haven't yet heard any
sensible argument as to why it would risk that.
What a poor analysis. Labour was polling 25% when the 2017 election
was called and the Tories over 40%. Look how that turned out for
Theresa May.
Doesn't mean it will happen again, or is even likely to. It's not
exactly a precedent that demands to be followed.
In fact, it's a huge risk.
Why see this in black and white certainties?
Your English seesm to be giving you trouble again. 'Risk' is not
certainty but uncertainty.
Post by Pamela
Corbyn has nothing to lose. A 10% chance of being PM would be enough
to motivate him.
Oh, I see. You think he's in it solely for himself, and that trumps any
concern he has for his own party? Funny how things come full circle,
isn't it? It was Boris who used to be accused of that.
But I don't think only a 10% chance would in fact motivate him. In the
vast majority of cases the leader of the losing party in a general
election rather swiftly loses his job and rapidly becomes a non-entity.
You have contradicted what you wrote in the previous paragraph.
Post by Norman Wells
It's a huge risk for him, his career and his ambitions.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Corbyn's in a bit of a dilemma. He'd love of course to go for and win
a motion of no confidence - wouldn't that be wonderful? However, if
One is that Boris will set the election date for after the end of
October, by when we will have formally left the EU with no simple way back.
The second is that there is always a 25 day period before a general
election during which Parliament does not sit. That means 25 days off
the Brexit hook for Boris, for which he will probably be rather grateful.
In those same last days before her election Theresa May saw Labour
support surge. Wikipedia has a chart.
Post by Norman Wells
The third is that, as things stand in the polls, he risks reducing his
party in Parliament to a rump.
Decisions, decisions, eh? Who'd be a politician?
Boris has created this by his Brexit deadline and spendthrift promises.
Coupled to Boris's perceived incompetence, second only to Michael Foot,
this has become a high risk game entirely of his making.
It's not a problem for Boris. It's a problem for Corbyn. He's the one
who has to decide his next step.
The putcome is not inherently a problem for a person who decides the next
step.
tim...
2019-08-13 12:59:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
It's not a problem for Boris. It's a problem for Corbyn. He's the one
who has to decide his next step.
The putcome is not inherently a problem for a person who decides the next
step.
It is if it leads to him losing his position of influence.

He's not ideologically interested in being PM, he's ideologically interested
in spouting his message

He can do that as leader of the opposition, he can't do it sitting on the
back benches (or more realistically given his age, back in his front room)

tim

tim...
2019-08-12 08:37:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election
before 2022 looks like floundering.
How is it going to come about sooner then?
Is Labour, whose support in the polls is currently about 20%
compared with the 40% it achieved in the last general election,
going to risk one by forcing a motion of no confidence, when it is
certain to lose a large number of seats?
Is Boris going to suggest one off his own bat when his current
position of having an overall majority with DUP support, albeit
small, is very unlikely to be replicated or even approached?
The polls are what will determine whether there is a motion of no
confidence
I doubt that.
Then you're just demonstrating you know nothing about politics.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
However much you get on your knees at bedtime, screw up your eyes and
pray fervently to God that there's a general election before we leave
the EU, or even shortly afterwards, it's the polls that will decide,
nothing else.
Boris may call an election even if the polls don't favour him -- as the
least bad option.
Don't be daft. The polls are everything.
lol
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Boris has got himself in a right pickle and it's not clear how he'll
get out of it, if at all.
I don't think he thinks he's in a pickle at all. Why do you?
Boris has promised far more than he can deliver.
perhaps

but he wont get found out for ages

tim
tim...
2019-08-12 08:36:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Your last dead cert prediction that there would be no election
before 2022 looks like floundering.
How is it going to come about sooner then?
Is Labour, whose support in the polls is currently about 20%
compared with the 40% it achieved in the last general election,
going to risk one by forcing a motion of no confidence, when it is
certain to lose a large number of seats?
Is Boris going to suggest one off his own bat when his current
position of having an overall majority with DUP support, albeit
small, is very unlikely to be replicated or even approached?
Ah so you agree - this hard Brexit line is very unpopular?
I'm only going on what the polls say.
Presumably you fully believe the polls or you wouldn't use them to prop
up your argument.
The polls are what will determine whether there is a motion of no
confidence
I doubt that.
Post by Norman Wells
or if Boris proposes an early general election himself.
And the polls have been pretty consistent as regards voting intentions
lately.
However much you get on your knees at bedtime, screw up your eyes and
pray fervently to God that there's a general election before we leave
the EU, or even shortly afterwards, it's the polls that will decide,
nothing else.
Boris may call an election even if the polls don't favour him -- as the
least bad option.
As I see it:

the least bad option is leaving without a deal

and then having a GE

That policy still contains the option of a solution with the EU backing
down.

anything else just leaves us trying choose between three choices that no-one
wants to chose between, all it does is change the person charged with trying
to make the choice
Post by Pamela
Boris has got himself in a right pickle and it's not
clear how he'll get out of it, if at all.
Apart from being the person who volunteered to take over the poisoned
chalice,

I can't really fathom what it is that Boris has done that has created "his"
pickle
Post by Pamela
After Boris delivers Brexit, the famously ruthless Tory party could get
their knives out.
Nonsense

tim
MM
2019-08-10 11:08:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
It's not undemocratic since a sovereign parliament would be doing the
legislating.

MM
Norman Wells
2019-08-10 17:48:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
It's not undemocratic since a sovereign parliament would be doing the
legislating.
Even a sovereign Parliament has to act within the constitution and rule
of law. If it doesn't, it's acting undemocratically.

"The rule of law requires that laws must not be retrospective"

https://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/the-rule-of-law/
MM
2019-08-11 09:49:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
It's not undemocratic since a sovereign parliament would be doing the
legislating.
Even a sovereign Parliament has to act within the constitution and rule
of law. If it doesn't, it's acting undemocratically.
"The rule of law requires that laws must not be retrospective"
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/the-rule-of-law/
Oh? So how come it has been done already, e.g. in the case of the War
Crimes Act 1991?

MM
Norman Wells
2019-08-11 11:10:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
It's not undemocratic since a sovereign parliament would be doing the
legislating.
Even a sovereign Parliament has to act within the constitution and rule
of law. If it doesn't, it's acting undemocratically.
"The rule of law requires that laws must not be retrospective"
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/the-rule-of-law/
Oh? So how come it has been done already, e.g. in the case of the War
Crimes Act 1991?
You tell me. It's your point.
MM
2019-08-13 09:31:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
It's not undemocratic since a sovereign parliament would be doing the
legislating.
Even a sovereign Parliament has to act within the constitution and rule
of law. If it doesn't, it's acting undemocratically.
"The rule of law requires that laws must not be retrospective"
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/the-rule-of-law/
Oh? So how come it has been done already, e.g. in the case of the War
Crimes Act 1991?
You tell me. It's your point.
Yes, it is, and it contradicts yours, namely "The rule of law requires
that laws must not be retrospective".

Who decides which is correct? The UK's Supreme Court, for example?

MM
Norman Wells
2019-08-13 10:27:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing
retrospective, undemocratic laws just to get your way.
It's not undemocratic since a sovereign parliament would be doing the
legislating.
Even a sovereign Parliament has to act within the constitution and rule
of law. If it doesn't, it's acting undemocratically.
"The rule of law requires that laws must not be retrospective"
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/the-rule-of-law/
Oh? So how come it has been done already, e.g. in the case of the War
Crimes Act 1991?
You tell me. It's your point.
Yes, it is, and it contradicts yours, namely "The rule of law requires
that laws must not be retrospective".
Who decides which is correct? The UK's Supreme Court, for example?
If it came to it, the Supreme Court would be the body that would decide
any case that came before it.

It would have regard to the Human Rights Act 1998, which says in Schedule 1:

"No punishment without law

1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of
any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under
national or international law at the time when it was committed."
tim...
2019-08-10 13:57:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
MM
Clutching at straws again I see. Now you're even proposing retrospective,
undemocratic laws just to get your way.
But how retrospective would they have to be? The current government isn't
going to do anything so fundamentally shabby, so it would have to be a new
one, presumably, you must think, led by Corbyn or that shrill woman whose
name I can never remember from the LibDems. But that entails a motion of
no confidence being passed, and that has to be proposed by the opposition.
And I see a little bit of a problem with that. You see, Labour got 40% of
the popular vote last time but are hovering around 20% now in the polls.
That means they would lose a huge number of seats and would suffer a
corresponding loss of influence and power if they were unfortunate enough
to win on no confidence and force an election. So, for all their bluster
about it, it's not looking a good strategy at all from their point of
view.
In the meantime, since Brexit will have happened in your scenario, the
Brexit Party will have had its fox shot by the Tories who would hoover up
a large majority of their votes in any general election. They'd attract
even more through the Boris effect, while Labour, the LibDems, the SNP and
the Greens will continue to squabble amongst themselves and split each
other's vote.
I wouldn't take it for granted then that there will be a vote of no
confidence,
Yep

he's the flaw in the Tory rebels plan

They need Corbyn to set the ball rolling

and as he wants to leave

why would he?

tim


tim
tim...
2019-08-10 13:46:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
Oh I'm sure that on November 1st a new government could go to the EU and say

please pretend that we didn't leave on Oct 30th

the point is

will they say "yes"

we have no control at all over that

tim
R. Mark Clayton
2019-08-10 17:43:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
Oh I'm sure that on November 1st a new government could go to the EU and say
please pretend that we didn't leave on Oct 30th
the point is
will they say "yes"
we have no control at all over that
tim
The EU has frequently adjusted dates in the past, so could decide to accept a letter dated 31st October from an incoming PM or just allow a few days leeway.

The EU doesn't want a hard Brexit, although it is not going to compromise on the Irish border - there are at least two "common sense" solutions Boris could adopt - stay in the Customs Union [at least until a better resolution is found] or allow NI to stay in it [with the Republic], but not GB. So the EU will turn a blind eye to a few days delay.

Boris is also fooling himself if he thinks pulling a stunt like delaying the election to force no deal is going to get him more votes.
Norman Wells
2019-08-10 18:43:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim...
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
Oh I'm sure that on November 1st a new government could go to the EU and say
please pretend that we didn't leave on Oct 30th
the point is
will they say "yes"
we have no control at all over that
The EU has frequently adjusted dates in the past, so could decide to accept a letter dated 31st October from an incoming PM or just allow a few days leeway.
I don't think it has any leeway. Under Article 50, 'The Treaties shall
cease to apply to the State in question' at the end of the agreed
extended period which is 31 October. That is mandatory, and means we
will de facto have left the EU. The Treaty cannot be rewritten or fudged.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The EU doesn't want a hard Brexit, although it is not going to compromise on the Irish border - there are at least two "common sense" solutions Boris could adopt -
Why should he? It's not his problem that the EU doesn't want a hard
Brexit, and he's under no obligation to solve their problems for them.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
stay in the Customs Union [at least until a better resolution is found] or allow NI to stay in it [with the Republic], but not GB. So the EU will turn a blind eye to a few days delay.
International Treaties are not susceptible to 'turning a blind eye'.
They mean what they say, and their terms have to be followed if they are
to mean anything at all.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Boris is also fooling himself if he thinks pulling a stunt like delaying the election to force no deal is going to get him more votes.
1) There isn't an election
2) If there is to be an election, there is no prescribed date for it.
it's entirely his prerogative to say when it shall be. The question of
'delay' doesn't therefore arise.
R. Mark Clayton
2019-08-11 10:11:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim...
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
Oh I'm sure that on November 1st a new government could go to the EU and say
please pretend that we didn't leave on Oct 30th
the point is
will they say "yes"
we have no control at all over that
The EU has frequently adjusted dates in the past, so could decide to accept a letter dated 31st October from an incoming PM or just allow a few days leeway.
I don't think it has any leeway. Under Article 50, 'The Treaties shall
cease to apply to the State in question' at the end of the agreed
extended period which is 31 October. That is mandatory, and means we
will de facto have left the EU. The Treaty cannot be rewritten or fudged.
It can't be rewritten, it can be fudged.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The EU doesn't want a hard Brexit, although it is not going to compromise on the Irish border - there are at least two "common sense" solutions Boris could adopt -
Why should he? It's not his problem that the EU doesn't want a hard
Brexit, and he's under no obligation to solve their problems for them.
Boris is under no obligation to create the problem - it's not the EU ejecting the UK.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
stay in the Customs Union [at least until a better resolution is found] or allow NI to stay in it [with the Republic], but not GB. So the EU will turn a blind eye to a few days delay.
International Treaties are not susceptible to 'turning a blind eye'.
They mean what they say, and their terms have to be followed if they are
to mean anything at all.
The EU has done it before, it can do it again.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Boris is also fooling himself if he thinks pulling a stunt like delaying the election to force no deal is going to get him more votes.
1) There isn't an election
Yet, but there will be sooner or later, probably sooner.
Post by Norman Wells
2) If there is to be an election, there is no prescribed date for it.
it's entirely his prerogative to say when it shall be. The question of
'delay' doesn't therefore arise.
Prerogative lies with HM Queen. If he does not have the confidence of Parliament he no longer speaks for it (and anyway that is someone else's job) nor for the people.
Norman Wells
2019-08-11 11:05:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim...
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
Oh I'm sure that on November 1st a new government could go to the EU and say
please pretend that we didn't leave on Oct 30th
the point is
will they say "yes"
we have no control at all over that
The EU has frequently adjusted dates in the past, so could decide to accept a letter dated 31st October from an incoming PM or just allow a few days leeway.
I don't think it has any leeway. Under Article 50, 'The Treaties shall
cease to apply to the State in question' at the end of the agreed
extended period which is 31 October. That is mandatory, and means we
will de facto have left the EU. The Treaty cannot be rewritten or fudged.
It can't be rewritten, it can be fudged.
Not if it wants to retain any international credibility. How can it be
trusted if it won't abide even by international treaties?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The EU doesn't want a hard Brexit, although it is not going to compromise on the Irish border - there are at least two "common sense" solutions Boris could adopt -
Why should he? It's not his problem that the EU doesn't want a hard
Brexit, and he's under no obligation to solve their problems for them.
Boris is under no obligation to create the problem - it's not the EU ejecting the UK.
That's not what we were considering though.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
stay in the Customs Union [at least until a better resolution is found] or allow NI to stay in it [with the Republic], but not GB. So the EU will turn a blind eye to a few days delay.
International Treaties are not susceptible to 'turning a blind eye'.
They mean what they say, and their terms have to be followed if they are
to mean anything at all.
The EU has done it before, it can do it again.
So, it's thoroughly disreputable and untrustworthy then.

If that's the way they behave, we're better off not having anything to
do with them.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Boris is also fooling himself if he thinks pulling a stunt like delaying the election to force no deal is going to get him more votes.
1) There isn't an election
Yet, but there will be sooner or later, probably sooner.
But *HOW* will it come about? Why do you keep swerving that rather
fundamental question?

Is it because you have no idea and no answer, and don't really believe it?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
2) If there is to be an election, there is no prescribed date for it.
it's entirely his prerogative to say when it shall be. The question of
'delay' doesn't therefore arise.
Prerogative lies with HM Queen.
The Queen doesn't set dates for elections. It's not her job.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
If he does not have the confidence of Parliament he no longer speaks for it (and anyway that is someone else's job) nor for the people.
If his government loses two successive votes of confidence in the
Commons, the outcome is a general election - on a date he decides.

Is Corbyn going to force the issue then, having regard to Labour's
standing in the polls at 20% compared with the 40% it got in the last
general election, and the prospect of losing a huge number of seats? Or
are you just crossing your fingers and hoping against hope that
something, anything, happens to make him self-destruct or go doolally?

Do say.
R. Mark Clayton
2019-08-11 15:29:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim...
Post by MM
Vernon Bogdanor writes in today's The Times that
"...a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the
agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain
not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated
retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz
Oh I'm sure that on November 1st a new government could go to the EU and say
please pretend that we didn't leave on Oct 30th
the point is
will they say "yes"
we have no control at all over that
The EU has frequently adjusted dates in the past, so could decide to accept a letter dated 31st October from an incoming PM or just allow a few days leeway.
I don't think it has any leeway. Under Article 50, 'The Treaties shall
cease to apply to the State in question' at the end of the agreed
extended period which is 31 October. That is mandatory, and means we
will de facto have left the EU. The Treaty cannot be rewritten or fudged.
It can't be rewritten, it can be fudged.
Not if it wants to retain any international credibility. How can it be
trusted if it won't abide even by international treaties?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The EU doesn't want a hard Brexit, although it is not going to compromise on the Irish border - there are at least two "common sense" solutions Boris could adopt -
Why should he? It's not his problem that the EU doesn't want a hard
Brexit, and he's under no obligation to solve their problems for them.
Boris is under no obligation to create the problem - it's not the EU ejecting the UK.
That's not what we were considering though.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
stay in the Customs Union [at least until a better resolution is found] or allow NI to stay in it [with the Republic], but not GB. So the EU will turn a blind eye to a few days delay.
International Treaties are not susceptible to 'turning a blind eye'.
They mean what they say, and their terms have to be followed if they are
to mean anything at all.
The EU has done it before, it can do it again.
So, it's thoroughly disreputable and untrustworthy then.
If that's the way they behave, we're better off not having anything to
do with them.
Adding a few days to complete negotiations - hardly.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Boris is also fooling himself if he thinks pulling a stunt like delaying the election to force no deal is going to get him more votes.
1) There isn't an election
Yet, but there will be sooner or later, probably sooner.
But *HOW* will it come about? Why do you keep swerving that rather
fundamental question?
Is it because you have no idea and no answer, and don't really believe it?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
2) If there is to be an election, there is no prescribed date for it.
it's entirely his prerogative to say when it shall be. The question of
'delay' doesn't therefore arise.
Prerogative lies with HM Queen.
The Queen doesn't set dates for elections. It's not her job.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
If he does not have the confidence of Parliament he no longer speaks for it (and anyway that is someone else's job) nor for the people.
If his government loses two successive votes of confidence in the
Commons, the outcome is a general election - on a date he decides.
Why does he decide -- he is not PM anymore?
Post by Norman Wells
Is Corbyn going to force the issue then, having regard to Labour's
standing in the polls at 20% compared with the 40% it got in the last
general election, and the prospect of losing a huge number of seats? Or
are you just crossing your fingers and hoping against hope that
something, anything, happens to make him self-destruct or go doolally?
Do say.
I did - I said Corbyn 'retires' or at least that is the official position, and someone sensible (Watson [officially], Hilary Benn, Starmer) takes over. This would likely return Labour to ~30% in the polls, mostly at the expense of the Greens.

Sure Boris gets back a lot of the UKIP and BP vote, but loses the remain Tory voters.

I suppose he wants Friday 1st November, because apart from the banks being closed, the disastrous effects of a hard Brexit won't have occured yet.
Ian Jackson
2019-08-11 15:46:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
If that's the way they behave, we're better off not having anything to
do with them.
Adding a few days to complete negotiations - hardly.
It's unbelievable that insisting on meeting an arbitrary deadline is
more important than getting the best result (unless, of course, you
don't really care what the result is).
--
Ian
Yellow
2019-08-11 16:40:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 16:46:22 +0100 Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
If that's the way they behave, we're better off not having anything to
do with them.
Adding a few days to complete negotiations - hardly.
It's unbelievable that insisting on meeting an arbitrary deadline is
more important than getting the best result (unless, of course, you
don't really care what the result is).
It is more unbelievable that some people think that if we carry on like
we have been that a "better result" will suddenly pop into being.
tim...
2019-08-12 08:24:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 16:46:22 +0100 Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
If that's the way they behave, we're better off not having anything to
do with them.
Adding a few days to complete negotiations - hardly.
It's unbelievable that insisting on meeting an arbitrary deadline is
more important than getting the best result (unless, of course, you
don't really care what the result is).
It is more unbelievable that some people think that if we carry on like
we have been that a "better result" will suddenly pop into being.
they're just waiting for the better result for them

which is everyone getting fed up with the whole thing and withdrawing A50

tim
Norman Wells
2019-08-11 17:23:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
If that's the way they behave, we're better off not having anything to
do with them.
Adding a few days to complete negotiations - hardly.
It's unbelievable that insisting on meeting an arbitrary deadline is
more important than getting the best result (unless, of course, you
don't really care what the result is).
It's not an arbitrary deadline at all. It's what was agreed by all 27
member states of the EU unanimously, and with considerable difficulty,
with dire warnings by that nice Mr Tusk 'not to waste this time' to get
a deal the UK parliament would agree. It's also enshrined in UK
legislation, which makes it as close to being written in stone as you
can get at reasonable expense.

We are no nearer getting a deal acceptable to Parliament at all. We
have made no progress in 6 months. Adding a few days will not by any
stretch of the imagination 'complete negotiations'. There is a
probability that there would be no further unanimity in the EU about any
further extension, in which case we're out on our ear anyway on 31 October.
Ian Jackson
2019-08-11 19:23:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
It's unbelievable that insisting on meeting an arbitrary deadline is
more important than getting the best result (unless, of course, you
don't really care what the result is).
It's not an arbitrary deadline at all. It's what was agreed by all 27
member states of the EU unanimously,
But it IS arbitrary in the sense that there was nothing special about 31
Oct. Apart from the EU deciding that "That ought to be long enough for
those daft buggers to get their act together", it could have been
earlier or later. Indeed, hasn't the new European Commission president
hinted that a modest extension would not be totally out of the question?
--
Ian
Norman Wells
2019-08-11 21:21:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
It's unbelievable that insisting on meeting an arbitrary deadline is
more important than getting the best result (unless, of course, you
don't really care what the result is).
It's not an arbitrary deadline at all.   It's what was agreed by all
27 member states of the EU unanimously,
But it IS arbitrary in the sense that there was nothing special about 31
Oct. Apart from the EU deciding that "That ought to be long enough for
those daft buggers to get their act together", it could have been
earlier or later. Indeed, hasn't the new European Commission president
hinted that a modest extension would not be totally out of the question?
Maybe it isn't. But, we would have to request it, which we will not do,
and it would have to be agreed unanimously by 27 different countries who
gave us the extension to 31 October purely in order for us to get the
Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament. That we spectacularly failed
to do.

There is no agreement in prospect, and therefore no reason why the EU
should agree to any further extension. 'For what?' would be a pertinent
question, to which of course we have no answer.

I think it's almost certain therefore that one country at least would
understandably say enough is enough, it's time to call a halt to this
farrago, and veto it.

As I say, though, that situation will not arise because Boris will not
request a further extension, and we will be out of the EU by the time
anyone else might be in a position to do anything.

Boris seems to have all the loose ends tied up however much some people
may bleat about how it's sooooo unfair.
tim...
2019-08-12 08:41:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
It's unbelievable that insisting on meeting an arbitrary deadline is
more important than getting the best result (unless, of course, you
don't really care what the result is).
It's not an arbitrary deadline at all. It's what was agreed by all 27
member states of the EU unanimously,
But it IS arbitrary in the sense that there was nothing special about 31
Oct. Apart from the EU deciding that "That ought to be long enough for
those daft buggers to get their act together", it could have been earlier
or later. Indeed, hasn't the new European Commission president hinted that
a modest extension would not be totally out of the question?
he has

but from our side, for what purpose?

None whatsoever as far as I can see. Unless they are actually at the
negotiating table the day before (having conceded to Boris' core demand)

tim
tim...
2019-08-12 08:39:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
If that's the way they behave, we're better off not having anything to
do with them.
Adding a few days to complete negotiations - hardly.
It's unbelievable that insisting on meeting an arbitrary deadline is more
important than getting the best result (unless, of course, you don't
really care what the result is).
It's not an arbitrary deadline at all. It's what was agreed by all 27
member states of the EU unanimously, and with considerable difficulty,
with dire warnings by that nice Mr Tusk 'not to waste this time'
ITYF that was code for

"go and have an election and decide to revoke"

tim
Yellow
2019-08-11 16:14:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 08:29:38 -0700 (PDT) R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Prerogative lies with HM Queen.
The Queen doesn't set dates for elections. It's not her job.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
If he does not have the confidence of Parliament he no longer speaks for it (and anyway that is someone else's job) nor for the people.
If his government loses two successive votes of confidence in the
Commons, the outcome is a general election - on a date he decides.
Why does he decide -- he is not PM anymore?
Apparently he is and will remain PM until the morning after the General
Election.

Unless of course he actively chooses to resign the post.
Norman Wells
2019-08-11 17:04:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The EU has frequently adjusted dates in the past, so could decide to accept a letter dated 31st October from an incoming PM or just allow a few days leeway.
I don't think it has any leeway. Under Article 50, 'The Treaties shall
cease to apply to the State in question' at the end of the agreed
extended period which is 31 October. That is mandatory, and means we
will de facto have left the EU. The Treaty cannot be rewritten or fudged.
It can't be rewritten, it can be fudged.
Not if it wants to retain any international credibility. How can it be
trusted if it won't abide even by international treaties?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
So the EU will turn a blind eye to a few days delay.
International Treaties are not susceptible to 'turning a blind eye'.
They mean what they say, and their terms have to be followed if they are
to mean anything at all.
The EU has done it before, it can do it again.
So, it's thoroughly disreputable and untrustworthy then.
If that's the way they behave, we're better off not having anything to
do with them.
Adding a few days to complete negotiations - hardly.
It isn't an option. It would be abrogating an international treaty.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Boris is also fooling himself if he thinks pulling a stunt like delaying the election to force no deal is going to get him more votes.
1) There isn't an election
Yet, but there will be sooner or later, probably sooner.
But *HOW* will it come about? Why do you keep swerving that rather
fundamental question?
Is it because you have no idea and no answer, and don't really believe it?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
2) If there is to be an election, there is no prescribed date for it.
it's entirely his prerogative to say when it shall be. The question of
'delay' doesn't therefore arise.
Prerogative lies with HM Queen.
The Queen doesn't set dates for elections. It's not her job.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
If he does not have the confidence of Parliament he no longer speaks for it (and anyway that is someone else's job) nor for the people.
If his government loses two successive votes of confidence in the
Commons, the outcome is a general election - on a date he decides.
Why does he decide -- he is not PM anymore?
Oh, but he is. He remains Prime Minister until he resigns, tenders his
resignation to the Queen, she accepts it and appoints someone else.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act says nothing about the Prime Minister
having to resign. The consequence of losing a no confidence vote in the
government (and later not getting it reversed in fact) is that there
will be a general election. He is perfectly entitled to stay in
position and lead his party through that election, which he undoubtedly
will. PaddyPower says that's 12 to 1 on.

Only if he loses the election and it is apparent that he is no longer
the person best placed to command a majority in the Commons does
convention demand that he resign.

It's wishful thinking, and somewhat ignorant of the procedure, to think
that he can be forced out of office or will resign without an election.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but them's the facts. You're stuck with
Boris for the time being, and he's entitled to do Prime Ministery things
like set the date of the election.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Is Corbyn going to force the issue then, having regard to Labour's
standing in the polls at 20% compared with the 40% it got in the last
general election, and the prospect of losing a huge number of seats? Or
are you just crossing your fingers and hoping against hope that
something, anything, happens to make him self-destruct or go doolally?
Do say.
I did - I said Corbyn 'retires' or at least that is the official position, and someone sensible (Watson [officially], Hilary Benn, Starmer) takes over. This would likely return Labour to ~30% in the polls, mostly at the expense of the Greens.
And what's the likelihood of that do you think?

I'd put it at no more than one in a thousand. He'd love to be Prime
Minister.

PaddyPower says it's 3 to 1 on that Corbyn will not be replaced this
year, let alone 'retire' which, surprisingly in view of your prediction,
they do not mention at all.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Sure Boris gets back a lot of the UKIP and BP vote, but loses the remain Tory voters.
I suppose he wants Friday 1st November, because apart from the banks being closed, the disastrous effects of a hard Brexit won't have occured yet.
You're jumping the gun a bit I think. Who says he wants an election at
all? I don't.

If there isn't a confidence motion and he isn't forced into an election,
why on earth would he risk it with the polls where they are?

Wishful thinking won't bring one about. Nor will your scenario.
Loading...