Discussion:
Dying in a ditch news
Add Reply
RH156RH
2019-09-06 21:16:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
How should Boris Johnson deal with the Bill which states that the Prime Minister must seek a further extension from the EU which should be on the Statute Book by Monday 9th Occtober?
Robert Henderson

I suggest this. Boris Johnson keeps on with his indeterminate reposes such as "I would rather die in a ditch " ? to the question "What will you do if Parliament passes a Bill which obligates you as PM to go to the EU and seek an extension to the leaving date?

At no point before 31st should Johnson say that he will ignore the new law. Rather, he simply carries on making indeterminate statements . It is important that Johnson does this for two reasons: (1) because if he says he will not obey the law he will almost certainly prompt legal action from the likes of Gina Miller and John Major and (2) because he will not have flouted the new law at or said he will flout it at any point up to the 31st October , it will be difficult for the Westminster remainer gang to take any political action against Johnson until the 31st October arrives.

On 31st October Johnson simply fails too ask the EU for a further extension. That should get us out of the EU with a NO DEAL. Brexit because remainer gang will not be able to act quickly enough to stop the UK leaving the EU by default.

At that point Johnson would on the face of it have failed to obey the law,. But what penalty could he suffer? It is a fair bet that there will not be any penalty included in the Act he disobeys. Nor is it easy to see what other criminal offence Johnson might have committed. That being so all the Commons could do would be to launch and win a vote of No Confidence in Johnson which even if he lost would only mean no more than Johnson losing the post of PM.

It is of course possible that remainers will guess what Johnson is up to or simply mistrust Johnson generally before the 31st October is reached. But what if they do? . The only thing that the remainers could do if Johnson behaves as I have suggested is call for a vote of No Confidence.

A vote of No Confidence would do no more than punish Johnson by removing him from No 10. But it could also easily result a general election, the very thing most remainers fear, if no new government can be found within 14 days of the No Confidence vote.

But whatever happens after the 31st October, using the strategy I have laid out one thing is utterly certain: the UK would have left the EU indubitably and could only be put back into it by a future UK government making a request to the EU to rejoin. Moreover, it is difficult politically to see how any new application to join could be made without a new referendum being held, both because it would be a momentous matter and t because he decision to leave was made by a referendum .

Telegraph
Boris Johnson set to defy the law rather than ask for Brexit delay
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/06/boris-johnson-set-defy-law-rather-ask-brexit-delay/#
Norman Wells
2019-09-06 21:34:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
How should Boris Johnson deal with the Bill which states that the Prime Minister must seek a further extension from the EU which should be on the Statute Book by Monday 9th Occtober?
Robert Henderson
I suggest this. Boris Johnson keeps on with his indeterminate reposes such as "I would rather die in a ditch " ? to the question "What will you do if Parliament passes a Bill which obligates you as PM to go to the EU and seek an extension to the leaving date?
At no point before 31st should Johnson say that he will ignore the new law. Rather, he simply carries on making indeterminate statements . It is important that Johnson does this for two reasons: (1) because if he says he will not obey the law he will almost certainly prompt legal action from the likes of Gina Miller and John Major and (2) because he will not have flouted the new law at or said he will flout it at any point up to the 31st October , it will be difficult for the Westminster remainer gang to take any political action against Johnson until the 31st October arrives.
On 31st October Johnson simply fails too ask the EU for a further extension. That should get us out of the EU with a NO DEAL. Brexit because remainer gang will not be able to act quickly enough to stop the UK leaving the EU by default.
Perhaps Mr Henderson should actually read the Bill passed by Parliament.
Boris is obliged by Section 1(3) of that to request the prescribed
extension not by 31st October but by 19th October.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0433/cbill_2017-20190433_en_2.htm#l1g1

That leaves plenty of time for anyone else to discover whether he has,
and to force his hand if not.

So, that cunning plan is a dead duck.
Post by RH156RH
At that point Johnson would on the face of it have failed to obey the law,. But what penalty could he suffer? It is a fair bet that there will not be any penalty included in the Act he disobeys. Nor is it easy to see what other criminal offence Johnson might have committed. That being so all the Commons could do would be to launch and win a vote of No Confidence in Johnson which even if he lost would only mean no more than Johnson losing the post of PM.
Is that not sufficient disincentive?

I'm sure he won't deliberately seek to flout the law.
Post by RH156RH
It is of course possible that remainers will guess what Johnson is up to or simply mistrust Johnson generally before the 31st October is reached. But what if they do? . The only thing that the remainers could do if Johnson behaves as I have suggested is call for a vote of No Confidence.
A vote of No Confidence would do no more than punish Johnson by removing him from No 10.
No it doesn't. Mr Henderson needs to read the Fixed-term Parliaments
Act to see the consequences of a no confidence vote.

In view of the above lacunae in the author's knowledge of the law, I
really can't be bothered to consider anything more he says.
Fredxx
2019-09-06 22:36:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
How should Boris Johnson deal with the Bill which states that the
Prime Minister must seek a further extension from the EU which
should be on the Statute Book by Monday 9th Occtober? Robert
Henderson
I think he should deal with it in the same a Muslim would treat a law to
consume pork.

Would it not be against his human rights to insist he asks for an
extension? Perhaps the EHCR should intervene.
R. Mark Clayton
2019-09-07 08:43:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by RH156RH
How should Boris Johnson deal with the Bill which states that the
Prime Minister must seek a further extension from the EU which
should be on the Statute Book by Monday 9th Occtober? Robert
Henderson
I think he should deal with it in the same a Muslim would treat a law to
consume pork.
Maybe it is, but then again he doesn't need to remain PM.
Post by Fredxx
Would it not be against his human rights to insist he asks for an
extension? Perhaps the EHCR should intervene.
Interesting concession that Bretremism is a religion...
Norman Wells
2019-09-07 09:20:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Fredxx
Post by RH156RH
How should Boris Johnson deal with the Bill which states that the
Prime Minister must seek a further extension from the EU which
should be on the Statute Book by Monday 9th Occtober? Robert
Henderson
I think he should deal with it in the same a Muslim would treat a law to
consume pork.
Maybe it is, but then again he doesn't need to remain PM.
It's a big if, but 'if' he were to put a no-deal Brexit before anything
else, he could resign as Prime Minister on 18 October, ie one day before
he is due to send the letter Parliament has dictated. That would leave
the country without a Prime Minister, and therefore without anyone
mandated to sign the letter or lick the stamp.

And we would remain Prime Ministerless until and unless there emerged
someone who can command a majority in the House of Commons whom the
Queen could legitimately appoint in his place. And that person may be
rather difficult to find. Another Tory would be the first choice since
they are still the largest party in the Commons, but they don't have a
majority now, even with DUP support. And Corbyn has already tried and
failed to form a coalition around him of Labour and associated bits and
bobs of other parties and deserters. He's not everyone's cup of tea
even amongst them, so he's unlikely to be that person either.

That leaves us in a bit of a muddle that will take some time to sort
out. And of course if it can't be sorted out in the 13 days left before
the end of October, we will not have requested any extension and will
therefore leave on that date with no deal.

Meanwhile, Boris could remain as Leader of the Conservative Party, and
could lead it, quite possibly successfully, into and through any
subsequent general election that would be needed to resolve the matter.

Just a thought.
R. Mark Clayton
2019-09-07 09:31:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Fredxx
Post by RH156RH
How should Boris Johnson deal with the Bill which states that the
Prime Minister must seek a further extension from the EU which
should be on the Statute Book by Monday 9th Occtober? Robert
Henderson
I think he should deal with it in the same a Muslim would treat a law to
consume pork.
Maybe it is, but then again he doesn't need to remain PM.
It's a big if, but 'if' he were to put a no-deal Brexit before anything
else, he could resign as Prime Minister on 18 October, ie one day before
he is due to send the letter Parliament has dictated. That would leave
the country without a Prime Minister, and therefore without anyone
mandated to sign the letter or lick the stamp.
Oh dear. Who would appoint a replacement - er perhaps they could find a nice inoffensive old lady (the sort everyone loves) living in a big house to do that...
Post by Norman Wells
And we would remain Prime Ministerless until and unless there emerged
someone who can command a majority in the House of Commons whom the
Queen could legitimately appoint in his place. And that person may be
rather difficult to find. Another Tory would be the first choice since
they are still the largest party in the Commons, but they don't have a
majority now, even with DUP support. And Corbyn has already tried and
failed to form a coalition around him of Labour and associated bits and
bobs of other parties and deserters. He's not everyone's cup of tea
even amongst them, so he's unlikely to be that person either.
That leaves us in a bit of a muddle that will take some time to sort
out. And of course if it can't be sorted out in the 13 days left before
the end of October, we will not have requested any extension and will
therefore leave on that date with no deal.
Meanwhile, Boris could remain as Leader of the Conservative Party, and
could lead it, quite possibly successfully, into and through any
subsequent general election that would be needed to resolve the matter.
Just a thought.
Oh they probably will settle on a caretaker (Clark or Harman), although all those important ministerial roles would be a problem, given the numpties on the Labour front bench (Abbot, McDonkey, Thornberry etc.)
Norman Wells
2019-09-07 10:11:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Fredxx
Post by RH156RH
How should Boris Johnson deal with the Bill which states that the
Prime Minister must seek a further extension from the EU which
should be on the Statute Book by Monday 9th Occtober? Robert
Henderson
I think he should deal with it in the same a Muslim would treat a law to
consume pork.
Maybe it is, but then again he doesn't need to remain PM.
It's a big if, but 'if' he were to put a no-deal Brexit before anything
else, he could resign as Prime Minister on 18 October, ie one day before
he is due to send the letter Parliament has dictated. That would leave
the country without a Prime Minister, and therefore without anyone
mandated to sign the letter or lick the stamp.
Oh dear. Who would appoint a replacement - er perhaps they could find a nice inoffensive old lady (the sort everyone loves) living in a big house to do that...
The problem is not who would appoint a Prime Minister but whom she might
appoint.

According to the constitution, that has to be someone who can command a
majority in the House of Commons. And there are no obvious candidates.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
And we would remain Prime Ministerless until and unless there emerged
someone who can command a majority in the House of Commons whom the
Queen could legitimately appoint in his place. And that person may be
rather difficult to find. Another Tory would be the first choice since
they are still the largest party in the Commons, but they don't have a
majority now, even with DUP support. And Corbyn has already tried and
failed to form a coalition around him of Labour and associated bits and
bobs of other parties and deserters. He's not everyone's cup of tea
even amongst them, so he's unlikely to be that person either.
That leaves us in a bit of a muddle that will take some time to sort
out. And of course if it can't be sorted out in the 13 days left before
the end of October, we will not have requested any extension and will
therefore leave on that date with no deal.
Meanwhile, Boris could remain as Leader of the Conservative Party, and
could lead it, quite possibly successfully, into and through any
subsequent general election that would be needed to resolve the matter.
Just a thought.
Oh they probably will settle on a caretaker (Clark or Harman),
Just who are 'they' in that? And what authority do 'they' have?

Do you think either of those you mention would be able to command a
majority in the Commons? Neither is even the leader of their own party.
And if they can't, they shouldn't be Prime Minister. And what happens
to their party leaders?

Another point, would a 'caretaker' actually be 'Prime Minister'? If
not, he or she would not be the person mandated by the Act to request an
extension, nor probably have any authority to do so anyway.

If the 'caretaker' would be Prime Minister then why use the term
'caretaker'?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
although all those important ministerial roles would be a problem, given the numpties on the Labour front bench (Abbot, McDonkey, Thornberry etc.)
You have to have a legitimate Prime Minister first. He or she makes
all the appointments.
pensive hamster
2019-09-07 18:52:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
It's a big if, but 'if' he were to put a no-deal Brexit before anything
else, he could resign as Prime Minister on 18 October, ie one day before
he is due to send the letter Parliament has dictated. That would leave
the country without a Prime Minister, and therefore without anyone
mandated to sign the letter or lick the stamp.
Oh dear. Who would appoint a replacement - er perhaps they could find a nice inoffensive old lady (the sort everyone loves) living in a big house to do that...
The problem is not who would appoint a Prime Minister but whom she might
appoint.
According to the constitution, that has to be someone who can command a
majority in the House of Commons.
Boris doesn't seem to be someone who can command a majority
in the House of Commons.

Does that mean that, according to the constitution, Boris is not
qualified to be PM?
Post by Norman Wells
And there are no obvious candidates.
[...]
Norman Wells
2019-09-07 22:08:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
It's a big if, but 'if' he were to put a no-deal Brexit before anything
else, he could resign as Prime Minister on 18 October, ie one day before
he is due to send the letter Parliament has dictated. That would leave
the country without a Prime Minister, and therefore without anyone
mandated to sign the letter or lick the stamp.
Oh dear. Who would appoint a replacement - er perhaps they could find a nice inoffensive old lady (the sort everyone loves) living in a big house to do that...
The problem is not who would appoint a Prime Minister but whom she might
appoint.
According to the constitution, that has to be someone who can command a
majority in the House of Commons.
Boris doesn't seem to be someone who can command a majority
in the House of Commons.
Does that mean that, according to the constitution, Boris is not
qualified to be PM?
Once it's proven in two votes in Parliament, no. Unless of course he
wins the subsequent general election, in which case the answer is yes..
R. Mark Clayton
2019-09-08 16:11:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
It's a big if, but 'if' he were to put a no-deal Brexit before anything
else, he could resign as Prime Minister on 18 October, ie one day before
he is due to send the letter Parliament has dictated. That would leave
the country without a Prime Minister, and therefore without anyone
mandated to sign the letter or lick the stamp.
Oh dear. Who would appoint a replacement - er perhaps they could find a nice inoffensive old lady (the sort everyone loves) living in a big house to do that...
The problem is not who would appoint a Prime Minister but whom she might
appoint.
According to the constitution, that has to be someone who can command a
majority in the House of Commons.
Boris doesn't seem to be someone who can command a majority
in the House of Commons.
Does that mean that, according to the constitution, Boris is not
qualified to be PM?
He hasn't lost a vote of confidence, that might be his next trick, but the opposition is unlikely to fall for it and what would it say if the Tories voted no confidence to cause it?
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
And there are no obvious candidates.
[...]
Norman Wells
2019-09-08 17:50:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
It's a big if, but 'if' he were to put a no-deal Brexit before anything
else, he could resign as Prime Minister on 18 October, ie one day before
he is due to send the letter Parliament has dictated. That would leave
the country without a Prime Minister, and therefore without anyone
mandated to sign the letter or lick the stamp.
Oh dear. Who would appoint a replacement - er perhaps they could find a nice inoffensive old lady (the sort everyone loves) living in a big house to do that...
The problem is not who would appoint a Prime Minister but whom she might
appoint.
According to the constitution, that has to be someone who can command a
majority in the House of Commons.
Boris doesn't seem to be someone who can command a majority
in the House of Commons.
Does that mean that, according to the constitution, Boris is not
qualified to be PM?
He hasn't lost a vote of confidence, that might be his next trick, but the opposition is unlikely to fall for it and what would it say if the Tories voted no confidence to cause it?
That won't happen. No-one, especially Boris, says publicly they have no
confidence in themselves.

The more important point is what does it say about Labour that they
haven't tried it themselves when it's obvious to all and sundry that
they'd win it?

It says one thing and one thing olly. They're running scared of the
electorate.
R. Mark Clayton
2019-09-08 16:09:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
SNIP
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Oh they probably will settle on a caretaker (Clark or Harman),
Just who are 'they' in that? And what authority do 'they' have?
Do you need every little thing spelt out.

Oh the MP's probably will settle on a caretaker (Clark or Harman),

Happy now?
Post by Norman Wells
Do you think either of those you mention would be able to command a
majority in the Commons?
We would not know until they voted.
Post by Norman Wells
Neither is even the leader of their own party.
And if they can't, they shouldn't be Prime Minister. And what happens
to their party leaders?
Carry on probably.
Post by Norman Wells
Another point, would a 'caretaker' actually be 'Prime Minister'?
Up the HM Queen in the end, but yes.
Post by Norman Wells
If
not, he or she would not be the person mandated by the Act to request an
extension, nor probably have any authority to do so anyway.
If the 'caretaker' would be Prime Minister then why use the term
'caretaker'?
Because they would be taking care of the government in the same way that normally a PM carries on during a general election. In this case it would be whilst the request to the EU was agreed (very likely) and a General Election or second referendum held. Apart from the request and responding to events there would be no major initiatives.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
although all those important ministerial roles would be a problem, given the numpties on the Labour front bench (Abbot, McDonkey, Thornberry etc.)
You have to have a legitimate Prime Minister first. He or she makes
all the appointments.
Yes, I think we have already covered that.
MM
2019-09-07 12:32:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Fredxx
Post by RH156RH
How should Boris Johnson deal with the Bill which states that the
Prime Minister must seek a further extension from the EU which
should be on the Statute Book by Monday 9th Occtober? Robert
Henderson
I think he should deal with it in the same a Muslim would treat a law to
consume pork.
Maybe it is, but then again he doesn't need to remain PM.
It's a big if, but 'if' he were to put a no-deal Brexit before anything
else, he could resign as Prime Minister on 18 October, ie one day before
he is due to send the letter Parliament has dictated. That would leave
the country without a Prime Minister, and therefore without anyone
mandated to sign the letter or lick the stamp.
The Queen would simply appoint someone else, whether it be Corbyn,
Clarke, Harman et al.

MM
Grikbahhar®™
2019-09-07 12:47:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Fredxx
Post by RH156RH
How should Boris Johnson deal with the Bill which states that the
Prime Minister must seek a further extension from the EU which
should be on the Statute Book by Monday 9th Occtober? Robert
Henderson
I think he should deal with it in the same a Muslim would treat a law to
consume pork.
Maybe it is, but then again he doesn't need to remain PM.
It's a big if, but 'if' he were to put a no-deal Brexit before anything
else, he could resign as Prime Minister on 18 October, ie one day before
he is due to send the letter Parliament has dictated. That would leave
the country without a Prime Minister, and therefore without anyone
mandated to sign the letter or lick the stamp.
The Queen would simply appoint someone else, whether it be Corbyn,
Clarke, Harman et al.
That GBLTPQC+ hag Jess Phillips has more chance than Corbyn or
Harperson.
Peeler
2019-09-07 17:31:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 05:47:09 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbahhar®™
Post by MM
The Queen would simply appoint someone else, whether it be Corbyn,
Clarke, Harman et al.
That GBLTPQC+ hag Jess Phillips has more chance than Corbyn or
Harperson.
As long as they are not as clinically insane and perverted as you are, for
sure!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID: <FnMUE.676068$***@usenetxs.com>
Norman Wells
2019-09-07 16:10:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Fredxx
Post by RH156RH
How should Boris Johnson deal with the Bill which states that the
Prime Minister must seek a further extension from the EU which
should be on the Statute Book by Monday 9th Occtober? Robert
Henderson
I think he should deal with it in the same a Muslim would treat a law to
consume pork.
Maybe it is, but then again he doesn't need to remain PM.
It's a big if, but 'if' he were to put a no-deal Brexit before anything
else, he could resign as Prime Minister on 18 October, ie one day before
he is due to send the letter Parliament has dictated. That would leave
the country without a Prime Minister, and therefore without anyone
mandated to sign the letter or lick the stamp.
The Queen would simply appoint someone else, whether it be Corbyn,
Clarke, Harman et al.
On what basis? Eeny-meeny-miny-moe? Or something perhaps a little more
constitutional?

And would Corbyn have to step down as Labour leader if the Queen
appoints Harman?
R. Mark Clayton
2019-09-08 16:13:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Fredxx
Post by RH156RH
How should Boris Johnson deal with the Bill which states that the
Prime Minister must seek a further extension from the EU which
should be on the Statute Book by Monday 9th Occtober? Robert
Henderson
I think he should deal with it in the same a Muslim would treat a law to
consume pork.
Maybe it is, but then again he doesn't need to remain PM.
It's a big if, but 'if' he were to put a no-deal Brexit before anything
else, he could resign as Prime Minister on 18 October, ie one day before
he is due to send the letter Parliament has dictated. That would leave
the country without a Prime Minister, and therefore without anyone
mandated to sign the letter or lick the stamp.
The Queen would simply appoint someone else, whether it be Corbyn,
Clarke, Harman et al.
On what basis? Eeny-meeny-miny-moe? Or something perhaps a little more
constitutional?
And would Corbyn have to step down as Labour leader if the Queen
appoints Harman?
No.

She can also appoint a peer, although it is over a century since this last happened. OTOH Lord Carrington was FM.
Norman Wells
2019-09-08 17:52:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Fredxx
Post by RH156RH
How should Boris Johnson deal with the Bill which states that the
Prime Minister must seek a further extension from the EU which
should be on the Statute Book by Monday 9th Occtober? Robert
Henderson
I think he should deal with it in the same a Muslim would treat a law to
consume pork.
Maybe it is, but then again he doesn't need to remain PM.
It's a big if, but 'if' he were to put a no-deal Brexit before anything
else, he could resign as Prime Minister on 18 October, ie one day before
he is due to send the letter Parliament has dictated. That would leave
the country without a Prime Minister, and therefore without anyone
mandated to sign the letter or lick the stamp.
The Queen would simply appoint someone else, whether it be Corbyn,
Clarke, Harman et al.
On what basis? Eeny-meeny-miny-moe? Or something perhaps a little more
constitutional?
And would Corbyn have to step down as Labour leader if the Queen
appoints Harman?
No.
She can also appoint a peer, although it is over a century since this last happened. OTOH Lord Carrington was FM.
Er, HM the Q is supposed to appoint someone who can command a majority
in the House of *Commons*. Bit difficult that if you're not even
allowed in.
MM
2019-09-09 08:02:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Fredxx
Post by RH156RH
How should Boris Johnson deal with the Bill which states that the
Prime Minister must seek a further extension from the EU which
should be on the Statute Book by Monday 9th Occtober? Robert
Henderson
I think he should deal with it in the same a Muslim would treat a law to
consume pork.
Maybe it is, but then again he doesn't need to remain PM.
It's a big if, but 'if' he were to put a no-deal Brexit before anything
else, he could resign as Prime Minister on 18 October, ie one day before
he is due to send the letter Parliament has dictated. That would leave
the country without a Prime Minister, and therefore without anyone
mandated to sign the letter or lick the stamp.
The Queen would simply appoint someone else, whether it be Corbyn,
Clarke, Harman et al.
On what basis? Eeny-meeny-miny-moe? Or something perhaps a little more
constitutional?
And would Corbyn have to step down as Labour leader if the Queen
appoints Harman?
No.
She can also appoint a peer, although it is over a century since this last happened. OTOH Lord Carrington was FM.
Er, HM the Q is supposed to appoint someone who can command a majority
in the House of *Commons*. Bit difficult that if you're not even
allowed in.
I should think the Downing Street cat would command a bigger majority
than Boris Johnson, who has a "majority" of -45 at the last count. If
he were an army general with such a track record, he'd have been
cashiered or court-martialed by now.

But the good news is that people are now talking about impeaching him.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-49628435

MM
Norman Wells
2019-09-09 09:17:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
I should think the Downing Street cat would command a bigger majority
than Boris Johnson, who has a "majority" of -45 at the last count. If
he were an army general with such a track record, he'd have been
cashiered or court-martialed by now.
But the good news is that people are now talking about impeaching him.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-49628435
As usual, you fail to read what you cite:

"It is a method by which Parliament can try individuals for high treason
or other misdemeanours, but it is now considered to be obsolete."
Fredxx
2019-09-07 11:24:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Fredxx
Post by RH156RH
How should Boris Johnson deal with the Bill which states that the
Prime Minister must seek a further extension from the EU which
should be on the Statute Book by Monday 9th Occtober? Robert
Henderson
I think he should deal with it in the same a Muslim would treat a law to
consume pork.
Maybe it is, but then again he doesn't need to remain PM.
Very true, the Commons was given that opportunity but seems they still
want Boris as PM.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Fredxx
Would it not be against his human rights to insist he asks for an
extension? Perhaps the EHCR should intervene.
Interesting concession that Bretremism is a religion...
Does it really only cover personal religious beliefs?

There's a census in a couple of years time, what if Brexiters put
Bexitism as their religion?
MM
2019-09-07 12:35:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Fredxx
Post by RH156RH
How should Boris Johnson deal with the Bill which states that the
Prime Minister must seek a further extension from the EU which
should be on the Statute Book by Monday 9th Occtober? Robert
Henderson
I think he should deal with it in the same a Muslim would treat a law to
consume pork.
Maybe it is, but then again he doesn't need to remain PM.
Very true, the Commons was given that opportunity but seems they still
want Boris as PM.
Remind me when it was that the House of Commons elected Boris Johnson.

MM
Fredxx
2019-09-07 20:32:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Fredxx
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Fredxx
Post by RH156RH
How should Boris Johnson deal with the Bill which states that the
Prime Minister must seek a further extension from the EU which
should be on the Statute Book by Monday 9th Occtober? Robert
Henderson
I think he should deal with it in the same a Muslim would treat a law to
consume pork.
Maybe it is, but then again he doesn't need to remain PM.
Very true, the Commons was given that opportunity but seems they still
want Boris as PM.
Remind me when it was that the House of Commons elected Boris Johnson.
They have the ability to knock him off his perch. It seems Corbyn and
Remoaners don't have the balls required.

Do you need reminding they had the opportunity to vote no confidence in
Boris and his government? Instead they said they did have confidence in
him after all. Have you forgotten?
MM
2019-09-08 09:29:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by MM
Post by Fredxx
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Fredxx
Post by RH156RH
How should Boris Johnson deal with the Bill which states that the
Prime Minister must seek a further extension from the EU which
should be on the Statute Book by Monday 9th Occtober? Robert
Henderson
I think he should deal with it in the same a Muslim would treat a law to
consume pork.
Maybe it is, but then again he doesn't need to remain PM.
Very true, the Commons was given that opportunity but seems they still
want Boris as PM.
Remind me when it was that the House of Commons elected Boris Johnson.
They have the ability to knock him off his perch. It seems Corbyn and
Remoaners don't have the balls required.
Do you need reminding they had the opportunity to vote no confidence in
Boris and his government? Instead they said they did have confidence in
him after all. Have you forgotten?
How could anyone forget Johnson's ability to hoodwink his foes by
lying? But Labour, Lib Dems, the Greens and many Conservatives have
got wise to his Machiavellian attempts to undermine democracy, so they
mounted a counter-attack.

Second wave to come tomorrow!

MM
R. Mark Clayton
2019-09-08 16:17:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Fredxx
Post by RH156RH
How should Boris Johnson deal with the Bill which states that the
Prime Minister must seek a further extension from the EU which
should be on the Statute Book by Monday 9th Occtober? Robert
Henderson
I think he should deal with it in the same a Muslim would treat a law to
consume pork.
Maybe it is, but then again he doesn't need to remain PM.
Very true, the Commons was given that opportunity but seems they still
want Boris as PM.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Fredxx
Would it not be against his human rights to insist he asks for an
extension? Perhaps the EHCR should intervene.
Interesting concession that Bretremism is a religion...
Does it really only cover personal religious beliefs?
What?
Post by Fredxx
There's a census in a couple of years time, what if Brexiters put
Bexitism as their religion?
Just a few, they will go down as other, lots and then they might get a mention like the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon
MM
2019-09-07 12:30:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by RH156RH
How should Boris Johnson deal with the Bill which states that the
Prime Minister must seek a further extension from the EU which
should be on the Statute Book by Monday 9th Occtober? Robert
Henderson
I think he should deal with it in the same a Muslim would treat a law to
consume pork.
Would it not be against his human rights to insist he asks for an
extension? Perhaps the EHCR should intervene.
Perhaps the European Court of Justice should intervene, as we are
still an EU member and bound by its findings. Boris Johnson has
already received several comeuppances from Speaker Bercow this week.
Why not let him experience the wrath of 28 ECJ judges? Then perhaps
the blond arsehole would finally fuck off and let Ken Clarke take over
a caretaker government.

MM
Grikbahhar®™
2019-09-07 12:48:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Fredxx
Post by RH156RH
How should Boris Johnson deal with the Bill which states that the
Prime Minister must seek a further extension from the EU which
should be on the Statute Book by Monday 9th Occtober? Robert
Henderson
I think he should deal with it in the same a Muslim would treat a law to
consume pork.
Would it not be against his human rights to insist he asks for an
extension? Perhaps the EHCR should intervene.
Perhaps the European Court of Justice should intervene, as we are
still an EU member and bound by its findings. Boris Johnson has
already received several comeuppances from Speaker Bercow this week.
Why not let him experience the wrath of 28 ECJ judges? Then perhaps
the blond arsehole would finally fuck off and let Ken Clarke take over
a caretaker government.
Why don't YOU fuck off back to the mainland?
NEMO
2019-09-07 13:45:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbahhar®™
Why don't YOU fuck off back to the mainland?
PLEASE stop using foul language in this forum, you shiteating,
pissdrinking, donkeydicksucking, grannyfucking, jizzlicking,
motherless pile of sub-excrement nazoid PEDO filth who takes dozens
of muzzie dicks up his arse and throat on an hourly basis.

Thank you!
Peeler
2019-09-07 17:32:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 05:48:47 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbahhar®™
Post by MM
Perhaps the European Court of Justice should intervene, as we are
still an EU member and bound by its findings. Boris Johnson has
already received several comeuppances from Speaker Bercow this week.
Why not let him experience the wrath of 28 ECJ judges? Then perhaps
the blond arsehole would finally fuck off and let Ken Clarke take over
a caretaker government.
Why don't YOU fuck off back to the mainland?
Why don't YOU fuck off back to your stinking serbian farm, pedophilic
dreckserb?
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"That [referring to the term "consenting adults"] is just an outdated legal
construct. Are you telling me that a 13-year old who spends 15 hours a day
on Facebook is incapable of consent?"
MID: <Og0VE.1298131$***@usenetxs.com>
Pamela
2019-09-07 10:07:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
How should Boris Johnson deal with the Bill which states that the
Prime Minister must seek a further extension from the EU which should
be on the Statute Book by Monday 9th Occtober? Robert Henderson
I suggest this. Boris Johnson keeps on with his indeterminate reposes
such as "I would rather die in a ditch " ? to the question "What will
you do if Parliament passes a Bill which obligates you as PM to go to
the EU and seek an extension to the leaving date?
At no point before 31st should Johnson say that he will ignore the new
law. Rather, he simply carries on making indeterminate statements . It
is important that Johnson does this for two reasons: (1) because if he
says he will not obey the law he will almost certainly prompt legal
action from the likes of Gina Miller and John Major and (2) because
he will not have flouted the new law at or said he will flout it at any
point up to the 31st October , it will be difficult for the Westminster
remainer gang to take any political action against Johnson until the
31st October arrives.
On 31st October Johnson simply fails too ask the EU for a further
extension. That should get us out of the EU with a NO DEAL. Brexit
because remainer gang will not be able to act quickly enough to stop
the UK leaving the EU by default.
At that point Johnson would on the face of it have failed to obey the
law. But what penalty could he suffer? It is a fair bet that there
will not be any penalty included in the Act he disobeys. Nor is it easy
to see what other criminal offence Johnson might have committed.
Comptempt of Parliament is punishable by incarceration. A prisoner can
not stand as MP in an election.

I hope Boris follows your advice and the martyr finds himself in chokey
while the country holds a general election.
Post by RH156RH
That being so all the Commons could do would be to launch and win a
vote of No Confidence in Johnson which even if he lost would only mean
no more than Johnson losing the post of PM.
It is of course possible that remainers will guess what Johnson is up
to or simply mistrust Johnson generally before the 31st October is
reached. But what if they do? . The only thing that the remainers could
do if Johnson behaves as I have suggested is call for a vote of No
Confidence.
A vote of No Confidence would do no more than punish Johnson by
removing him from No 10.
According to the press, that would allow alternative delegates to inform the
EU of the extension Parliament seeks.
Post by RH156RH
But it could also easily result a general election, the very thing
most remainers fear, if no new government can be found within 14 days
of the No Confidence vote.
But whatever happens after the 31st October, using the strategy I
have laid out one thing is utterly certain: the UK would have left the
EU indubitably and could only be put back into it by a future UK
government making a request to the EU to rejoin.
Very few commentators agree that the UK can avoid getting an extension.
Dream on.
Post by RH156RH
Moreover, it is difficult politically to see how any new application to
join could be made without a new referendum being held, both because it
would be a momentous matter and t because he decision to leave was made
by a referendum.
Telegraph Boris Johnson set to defy the law rather than ask for Brexit
delay
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/06/boris-johnson-set-
defy-law-rather-ask-brexit-delay/#
Not long ago politics was a matter of implementing the sovereign will
of the people's representative. Now politics has become legalistic and
full of dishonest liars breaking the rules like Boris Johnson.
MM
2019-09-07 12:24:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 14:16:00 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
But whatever happens after the 31st October, using the strategy I have laid out
one thing is utterly certain: the UK would have left the EU indubitably
No, because the new Bill prevents a no deal exit.

MM
Norman Wells
2019-09-07 15:48:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 14:16:00 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
But whatever happens after the 31st October, using the strategy I have laid out
one thing is utterly certain: the UK would have left the EU indubitably
No, because the new Bill prevents a no deal exit.
No, it doesn't. It just mandates the Prime Minister to write a letter.

It's not within Parliament's power to prevent a no deal exit. It
depends for one thing on an extension letter actually being sent, and
for another on 27 EU countries being unanimous in agreeing to any
extension requested in it.
The Todal
2019-09-07 17:10:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 14:16:00 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
But whatever happens   after the 31st October,  using the strategy I
have laid out
  one thing is utterly certain: the UK would have left the EU
indubitably
No, because the new Bill prevents a no deal exit.
No, it doesn't.  It just mandates the Prime Minister to write a letter.
It's not within Parliament's power to prevent a no deal exit.  It
depends for one thing on an extension letter actually being sent, and
for another on 27 EU countries being unanimous in agreeing to any
extension requested in it.
Yes, but don't cling too wildly to that hope. The letter will
undoubtedly be sent and the EU will undoubtedly agree the extension.

Our best hope is that Boris will be committed to a psychiatric ward
before he does any more damage to himself, his party or his country. His
next rash promises will probably be to find the secret of turning base
metal into gold and to put an Etonian on the moon by the end of the decade.
Norman Wells
2019-09-07 17:49:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 14:16:00 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
But whatever happens   after the 31st October,  using the strategy I
have laid out
  one thing is utterly certain: the UK would have left the EU
indubitably
No, because the new Bill prevents a no deal exit.
No, it doesn't.  It just mandates the Prime Minister to write a letter.
It's not within Parliament's power to prevent a no deal exit.  It
depends for one thing on an extension letter actually being sent, and
for another on 27 EU countries being unanimous in agreeing to any
extension requested in it.
Yes, but don't cling too wildly to that hope. The letter will
undoubtedly be sent and the EU will undoubtedly agree the extension.
Not if Boris resigns before he has to sign it.

Then we won't have a Prime Minister who can.

Until it's too late.
Post by The Todal
Our best hope is that Boris will be committed to a psychiatric ward
before he does any more damage to himself, his party or his country. His
next rash promises will probably be to find the secret of turning base
metal into gold and to put an Etonian on the moon by the end of the decade.
If that's *your* best hope, you've lost the argument.
Grikkbahar®™
2019-09-07 19:57:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 18:10:59 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 14:16:00 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
But whatever happens   after the 31st October,  using the strategy I
have laid out
  one thing is utterly certain: the UK would have left the EU
indubitably
No, because the new Bill prevents a no deal exit.
No, it doesn't.  It just mandates the Prime Minister to write a letter.
It's not within Parliament's power to prevent a no deal exit.  It
depends for one thing on an extension letter actually being sent, and
for another on 27 EU countries being unanimous in agreeing to any
extension requested in it.
Yes, but don't cling too wildly to that hope. The letter will
undoubtedly be sent and the EU will undoubtedly agree the extension.
Our best hope is that Boris will be committed to a psychiatric ward
before he does any more damage to himself, his party or his country. His
next rash promises will probably be to find the secret of turning base
metal into gold and to put an Etonian on the moon by the end of the decade.
Is jew humour, this?
Peeler
2019-09-07 20:18:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 12:57:27 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikkbahar®™
Is jew humour, this?
Is you psychotic asshole, Razovic?
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"That [referring to the term "consenting adults"] is just an outdated legal
construct. Are you telling me that a 13-year old who spends 15 hours a day
on Facebook is incapable of consent?"
MID: <Og0VE.1298131$***@usenetxs.com>
Loading...