If Cummings plan really is to get Parliament to save Johnson’s premiership, and potentially create the circumstances to enable an extension to allow for a comprehensive renegotiation, then it really would be sensible for the Govt to be discussing this with Tory rebels to ensure it comes about, wouldn’t it? Much safer than leaving it to chance.
The article says they no longer have the power by forcing an election, which is correct.
They still have the power to elect an alternative but that is a different matter. Before now they had the power to force an election before Brexit, now they don't.
It depends on whether the Queen asks someone else to form a government before the 14 days is up. If she does, then Boris won't be PM any more.
If I say it enough times, will it sink in?
Yes of course but the Queen won't ask someone else until the Commons backs someone else. When will that sink in?
You keep seeming to think someone gets to become PM, lose their vote but remain PM but that scenario can't happen. Boris will only resign as PM and the Queen will only call a successor if they've already demonstrated they can win their vote, making the vote afterwards a formality.
We are missing an obvious point here. There is literally no point VONC ing Boris without a replacement. Surely, during any VONC debate, potential replacements will be mooted? Of course Corbyn will think it should be him, but that seems implausible. The mood of the House can be tested during the debate itself. If the name of Ken Clarke or Starmer, the 2 most likely in my view, we will have a pretty good idea of their support already. We'll be at the last minute anyway. And the idea Corbyn could veto Starmer is ludicrous. Most Labour MPs would jump at the chance!
Ken Clarke as last minute PM who saves the UK's membership of the EU! Whodathunk it. But not impossible.
I think he is more papabile than Starmer. Any Tory MP that voted for a cancel-Brexit caretaker Labour PM would be committing immediate career suicide. Which is one enormous problem with this scenario of "an alternative government".
Ken Clarke might just be tolerable to Tory members? In extremis. Maybe.
However, it seems there is a massive depth charge buried within the FTPA, which could be what Cummings (Rasputin) is on about:
"If a new Government cannot be formed within this time period, then dissolution is triggered. There is no provision for an extension of the 14 day period. Dissolution need not follow immediately on a triggering event, as section 2(7) allows for the Prime Minister to recommend a suitable polling day to the Crown ."
Wow. Just Wow. Who wrote this crap????
Boris can breeze past 31st Oct unless Queen objects to the recommendation of the date?
Or have I missed something?
The FTPA is a shambles. Cheers Dave. However, as I say below, the House would realise, surely, that there is no point VONC ing, unless there is a successor. And, if it does, they would have 2 weeks. They would be FORCED to agree someone, if there is a majority for No Deal.
A one line bill to terminate the FTPA presumably still needs to be laid by the Govt.?
However, it seems there is a massive depth charge buried within the FTPA, which could be what Cummings (Rasputin) is on about:
"If a new Government cannot be formed within this time period, then dissolution is triggered. There is no provision for an extension of the 14 day period. Dissolution need not follow immediately on a triggering event, as section 2(7) allows for the Prime Minister to recommend a suitable polling day to the Crown ."
Wow. Just Wow. Who wrote this crap????
Boris can breeze past 31st Oct unless Queen objects to the recommendation of the date?
Or have I missed something?
That's the whole point of what Cummings is claiming, isn't it?
But it depends on no one else being asked to form a government.
Indeed, but why would anyone else be asked to form a government?
That's the whole point of the FTPA!
No, it is not!
It is to give the Commons a chance to agree someone else who can form a government within 14 days. Unless they do that, the Queen does nothing.
We are a Constitutional Monarchy, the Queen doesn't act unilaterally. There must be a first mover elsewhere.
We are missing an obvious point here. There is literally no point VONC ing Boris without a replacement. Surely, during any VONC debate, potential replacements will be mooted? Of course Corbyn will think it should be him, but that seems implausible. The mood of the House can be tested during the debate itself. If the name of Ken Clarke or Starmer, the 2 most likely in my view, we will have a pretty good idea of their support already. We'll be at the last minute anyway. And the idea Corbyn could veto Starmer is ludicrous. Most Labour MPs would jump at the chance!
It is time that Betfair put a 'Next PM' market back up.
Betfair already have a next prime minister market up. Corbyn is favourite with Swinson second favourite
Ah. Yes. Sorry. Buried under the category 'Next General Election'.
That Telegraph story is fascinating. Has Cummings already outsmarted the Remainers? It looks like it.
He’s cleverer than that. The content of the story is not as important as the reason why it is there. It’s all to goad the anti-no-dealers into action and make sure Bozo is headed off before he gets to no deal. He wants to be the victim of a Commons ambush as it’s the only way out of the disastrous position he has put himself in. An election after his being stopped from leaving by others is his only possible escape.
That is how i have read things so far. Set up it up as the "establishment" stopping brexit, then going for a GE as the only one who can deliver it.
But he can't call a general election on his own. He needs to be VONC'd or get 2/3rd of parliament to agree to one. The opposition might not oblige, but just tell him to get to Brussels to revoke or ask for an extension.
However, it seems there is a massive depth charge buried within the FTPA, which could be what Cummings (Rasputin) is on about:
"If a new Government cannot be formed within this time period, then dissolution is triggered. There is no provision for an extension of the 14 day period. Dissolution need not follow immediately on a triggering event, as section 2(7) allows for the Prime Minister to recommend a suitable polling day to the Crown ."
Wow. Just Wow. Who wrote this crap????
Boris can breeze past 31st Oct unless Queen objects to the recommendation of the date?
Or have I missed something?
That's the whole point of what Cummings is claiming, isn't it?
But it depends on no one else being asked to form a government.
Indeed, but why would anyone else be asked to form a government?
That's the whole point of the FTPA!
Not really. The main point of the FTPA was to prevent the PM being able to call an election at will. The VoNC conditions were effectively an addendum, codifying the current situation.
The FTPA keeps having an election [as Callaghan did] as an option, it just adds a 14 day 'cooling off period' essentially where the Commons can choose a new PM instead of an election. Unless it does that, then like Callaghan the outgoing PM will remain PM barring their voluntarily resigning until a successor is clear.
So going back to Cumming's cumming plan: all parliament would have to do is agree on an immediate replacement for a VONCed Boris - some temporary neutral - who can then toddle off to Brussels and get an extension. We can then have our GE without the danger of No Deal. Job done.
Yes the Commons does have to do that.
Easier said than done. Are Luciana Berger, Chuka, Grieves etc going to back Corbyn? If no, he can't become PM.
Is Corbyn going to back Clarke, or Starmer? If no, they can't become PM.
It is easier to agree what you don't want, than what you do want.
Yes, but saying it's too late for the Commons to do anything about it because if Johnson is VONCed he will have the power to fix an election date after 31 October is sheer nonsense.
Johnson will have that power unless the Commons agrees an alternative, something it conspicuously so far rules out. Luciana Berger and others have said they could not countenance Corbyn as PM. Corbyn would not countenance anyone bar him as PM.
Simply VONC'ing Johnson is not enough. And the idea Corbyn can become PM and request an extension without the support of the Commons for Corbyn being PM is not true.
Oh come off it. Saying the House of Commons no longer has the power is nonsense. It clearly does have the power.
Whether it has the will is a different matter.
The article says they no longer have the power by forcing an election, which is correct.
They still have the power to elect an alternative but that is a different matter. Before now they had the power to force an election before Brexit, now they don't.
It depends on whether the Queen asks someone else to form a government before the 14 days is up. If she does, then Boris won't be PM any more.
If I say it enough times, will it sink in?
I suggest you read Mr Smithson’s and Mr Palmers posts. Repeating something incorrect does not make it correct.
The Tories really don’t want to fight an election in the middle of a no deal Brexit. They would be far better off scheduling it beforehand. Remember Johnson doesn’t want to be PM to deliver Brexit. He wants to deliver Brexit to become/remain PM. There is no benefit to him in ensuring a chaotic no deal Brexit if the consequence is that he gets hammered in an election as it is happening...
Actually based on Comres yesterday No Deal in the middle of a general election campaign is the only way to ensure a Tory majority for Boris
Absolutely meaningless unless you believe that no deal will be largely benign, and/or the real world effects of it happening will have no impact on voting intention.
Not meaningless at all, especially as No Deal would likely happen in the middle of an autumn general election before any negative effects had time to really filter through and with Leave voters in full 'deliver Brexit and respect the will of the people' mode
Why do you assume negative effects wouldn’t have become apparent? If an election is scheduled post Oct 31st, effectively ensuring no deal happens, then the consequences will start to become apparent long before Oct 31st.
No they won't, not siemainers
So they say, but the whole point is that many no dealers flatly reject the idea that there will be significant economic or other consequences. They will need to experience an alternative reality to change their minds. And I think you underestimate how rapidly the effects could be felt. If an election is called in mid September to be scheduled post Oct 31st then that is a large amount of time for a currency crash, stockpiling, hike in fuel prices, shortfalls on the shelves to happen. If anything the negative effects could be exaggerated, making the timing of the election even worse.
You are extremely blasé if you think that might not have an effect on your polling figures.
Diehard Remainers are extremely blasé if they think Leavers are not spitting blood at the contempt they have shown for their democratic vote to Leave the EU which they have still refused to respect. Diehard Remainers having refused to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement asked for No Deal and that is what Leavers will ensure they get.
"Too clever by half, Mr. Grieve" does come to mind....
We are missing an obvious point here. There is literally no point VONC ing Boris without a replacement. Surely, during any VONC debate, potential replacements will be mooted? Of course Corbyn will think it should be him, but that seems implausible. The mood of the House can be tested during the debate itself. If the name of Ken Clarke or Starmer, the 2 most likely in my view, we will have a pretty good idea of their support already. We'll be at the last minute anyway. And the idea Corbyn could veto Starmer is ludicrous. Most Labour MPs would jump at the chance!
Ken Clarke as last minute PM who saves the UK's membership of the EU! Whodathunk it. But not impossible.
I think he is more papabile than Starmer. Any Tory MP that voted for a cancel-Brexit caretaker Labour PM would be committing immediate career suicide. Which is one enormous problem with this scenario of "an alternative government".
Ken Clarke might just be tolerable to Tory members? In extremis. Maybe.
Any Tory or Labour MP who voted for anyone other than Boris or Corbyn to be PM, without their leaders consent, would be committing immediate career suicide. Boris can veto his MPs voting for anyone else but him, Corbyn can do the same.
That Telegraph story is fascinating. Has Cummings already outsmarted the Remainers? It looks like it.
He’s cleverer than that. The content of the story is not as important as the reason why it is there. It’s all to goad the anti-no-dealers into action and make sure Bozo is headed off before he gets to no deal. He wants to be the victim of a Commons ambush as it’s the only way out of the disastrous position he has put himself in. An election after his being stopped from leaving by others is his only possible escape.
That is how i have read things so far. Set up it up as the "establishment" stopping brexit, then going for a GE as the only one who can deliver it.
But he can't call a general election on his own. He needs to be VONC'd or get 2/3rd of parliament to agree to one. The opposition might not oblige, but just tell him to get to Brussels to revoke or ask for an extension.
The Tories really don’t want to fight an election in the middle of a no deal Brexit. They would be far better off scheduling it beforehand. Remember Johnson doesn’t want to be PM to deliver Brexit. He wants to deliver Brexit to become/remain PM. There is no benefit to him in ensuring a chaotic no deal Brexit if the consequence is that he gets hammered in an election as it is happening...
Actually based on Comres yesterday No Deal in the middle of a general election campaign is the only way to ensure a Tory majority for Boris
Absolutely meaningless unless you believe that no deal will be largely benign, and/or the real world effects of it happening will have no impact on voting intention.
Not meaningless at all, especially as No Deal would likely happen in the middle of an autumn general election before any negative effects had time to really filter through and with Leave voters in full 'deliver Brexit and respect the will of the people' mode
Why do you assume negative effects wouldn’t have become apparent? If an election is scheduled post Oct 31st, effectively ensuring no deal happens, then the consequences will start to become apparent long before Oct 31st.
No they won't, not siemainers
So they say, but the whole point is that many no dealers flatly reject the idea that there will be significant economic or other consequences. They will need to experience an alternative reality to change their minds. And I think you underestimate how rapidly the effects could be felt. If an election is called in mid September to be scheduled post Oct 31st then that is a large amount of time for a currency crash, stockpiling, hike in fuel prices, shortfalls on the shelves to happen. If anything the negative effects could be exaggerated, making the timing of the election even worse.
You are extremely blasé if you think that might not have an effect on your polling figures.
Diehard Remainers are extremely blasé if they think Leavers are not spitting blood at the contempt they have shown for their democratic vote to Leave the EU which they have still refused to respect. Diehard Remainers having refused to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement asked for No Deal and that is what Leavers will ensure they get.
I asked before, but I don’t think you replied. Is it possible for a Leave voter to be a Diehard remainer?
I wonder if the temporary GoNAfaE would really be temporary.
Say Con+BXP looks like it would win on 40% of the vote, thanks to the magic of FPTP, and everyone believes they'd really do No Deal, and Lab incumbents were in serious danger. That seems to be where we are now. Also assume there are enough Remainiac Tories prepared to go kamikaze. Now run two scenarios:
1) Parliament picked a caretaker, like Grieve or Clarke. The caretaker is probably way more popular than Corbyn or Boris. Does Corbyn pull the plug? He's going to lose MPs and end his career. That seems bad, isn't it better to hang on and hope things improve?
2) Parliament picked Corbyn. He'll do the PV to stay in office. Now think about it from the PoV of Swinson or a Remainiac Tory. Do you gamble on an election, where all the options are worse? Boris wins and you get No Deal. Corbyn wins outright and you get an unrestrained Corbyn. Your best outcome is Corbyn but without a majority, but that's what you've got now... And if you're a Remainiac Tory, you lose your job whoever wins...
We are missing an obvious point here. There is literally no point VONC ing Boris without a replacement. Surely, during any VONC debate, potential replacements will be mooted? Of course Corbyn will think it should be him, but that seems implausible. The mood of the House can be tested during the debate itself. If the name of Ken Clarke or Starmer, the 2 most likely in my view, we will have a pretty good idea of their support already. We'll be at the last minute anyway. And the idea Corbyn could veto Starmer is ludicrous. Most Labour MPs would jump at the chance!
Ken Clarke as last minute PM who saves the UK's membership of the EU! Whodathunk it. But not impossible.
I think he is more papabile than Starmer. Any Tory MP that voted for a cancel-Brexit caretaker Labour PM would be committing immediate career suicide. Which is one enormous problem with this scenario of "an alternative government".
Ken Clarke might just be tolerable to Tory members? In extremis. Maybe.
Ken Clarke might be acceptable to a surprising number of Labour MPs too. They already have a Tory PM anyways. It simply means exchanging one they violently disagree with, for one they agree with on the major issue of the day! Ken gets to be PM, revokes, calls an election, then retires from politics to some smoky jazz club to be quite extraordinarily smug, and justifiably so. Having shafted his foes!
We are missing an obvious point here. There is literally no point VONC ing Boris without a replacement. Surely, during any VONC debate, potential replacements will be mooted? Of course Corbyn will think it should be him, but that seems implausible. The mood of the House can be tested during the debate itself. If the name of Ken Clarke or Starmer, the 2 most likely in my view, we will have a pretty good idea of their support already. We'll be at the last minute anyway. And the idea Corbyn could veto Starmer is ludicrous. Most Labour MPs would jump at the chance!
Ken Clarke as last minute PM who saves the UK's membership of the EU! Whodathunk it. But not impossible.
I think he is more papabile than Starmer. Any Tory MP that voted for a cancel-Brexit caretaker Labour PM would be committing immediate career suicide. Which is one enormous problem with this scenario of "an alternative government".
Ken Clarke might just be tolerable to Tory members? In extremis. Maybe.
Any Tory or Labour MP who voted for anyone other than Boris or Corbyn to be PM, without their leaders consent, would be committing immediate career suicide. Boris can veto his MPs voting for anyone else but him, Corbyn can do the same.
Party discipline may have totally broken down by mid October.
We are missing an obvious point here. There is literally no point VONC ing Boris without a replacement. Surely, during any VONC debate, potential replacements will be mooted? Of course Corbyn will think it should be him, but that seems implausible. The mood of the House can be tested during the debate itself. If the name of Ken Clarke or Starmer, the 2 most likely in my view, we will have a pretty good idea of their support already. We'll be at the last minute anyway. And the idea Corbyn could veto Starmer is ludicrous. Most Labour MPs would jump at the chance!
Ken Clarke as last minute PM who saves the UK's membership of the EU! Whodathunk it. But not impossible.
I think he is more papabile than Starmer. Any Tory MP that voted for a cancel-Brexit caretaker Labour PM would be committing immediate career suicide. Which is one enormous problem with this scenario of "an alternative government".
Ken Clarke might just be tolerable to Tory members? In extremis. Maybe.
Any Tory or Labour MP who voted for anyone other than Boris or Corbyn to be PM, without their leaders consent, would be committing immediate career suicide. Boris can veto his MPs voting for anyone else but him, Corbyn can do the same.
Actually, I think we are approaching a kind of Constitutional Chernobyl, where all the normal rules and regs cease to apply, as the British political system goes into total, unprecedented meltdown, potentially poisoning all of western politics for a hundred years. Or not. BECAUSE NO ONE KNOWS.
If this is the case, it turns out Donald Tusk's most ludicrous assertion was possibly right.
That Telegraph story is fascinating. Has Cummings already outsmarted the Remainers? It looks like it.
He’s cleverer than that. The content of the story is not as important as the reason why it is there. It’s all to goad the anti-no-dealers into action and make sure Bozo is headed off before he gets to no deal. He wants to be the victim of a Commons ambush as it’s the only way out of the disastrous position he has put himself in. An election after his being stopped from leaving by others is his only possible escape.
That is how i have read things so far. Set up it up as the "establishment" stopping brexit, then going for a GE as the only one who can deliver it.
But he can't call a general election on his own. He needs to be VONC'd or get 2/3rd of parliament to agree to one. The opposition might not oblige, but just tell him to get to Brussels to revoke or ask for an extension.
In which case he says no, then what?
The 14 day clock runs down and out - most likely without anyone being able to command a majority in the house. Parliament is dissolved and Boris calls a GE for Nov 1.....
That Telegraph story is fascinating. Has Cummings already outsmarted the Remainers? It looks like it.
He’s cleverer than that. The content of the story is not as important as the reason why it is there. It’s all to goad the anti-no-dealers into action and make sure Bozo is headed off before he gets to no deal. He wants to be the victim of a Commons ambush as it’s the only way out of the disastrous position he has put himself in. An election after his being stopped from leaving by others is his only possible escape.
That is how i have read things so far. Set up it up as the "establishment" stopping brexit, then going for a GE as the only one who can deliver it.
But he can't call a general election on his own. He needs to be VONC'd or get 2/3rd of parliament to agree to one. The opposition might not oblige, but just tell him to get to Brussels to revoke or ask for an extension.
In which case he says no, then what?
The 14 day clock runs down and out - most likely without anyone being able to command a majority in the house. Parliament is dissolved and Boris calls a GE for Nov 1.....
Nov 1 would be a clever trick - it would be November 7th
Yes of course but the Queen won't ask someone else until the Commons backs someone else. When will that sink in?
It's no good just repeating your opinion over and over and over again as though it's a fact.
Why don't you read the briefing document that Nick Palmer posted a link to? You obviously haven't.
I've already quoted you the part referring for guidance to the procedure to be followed when no party wins a majority in an election.
I'll quote some more, emphasising that it isn't a simple of the Commons "backing someone else." Emphasising that it would be a "very uncertain process."
But I have a feeling you'll carry on believing just what you want to. ...............................................................................................................
Rt Hon Mark Harper MP said that, from his recollection of what was said at the time the Bill was making its passage through Parliament, the view was that there would be “political discussion” during the 14-day period. He continued: Clearly what occurs between that period—to go from having lost a motion of no confidence to being able to win a motion of confidence—is a political process. It will depend to some extent on the balance of forces in the House, whether it is because the Government do not have enough Members of Parliament or because a number of Members of the governing party have voted in a particular way. They are all political questions and the circumstances will vary. He also sounded a note of caution, saying: However, as to what exactly would happen, that would be a political question. It would be somewhat uncertain, and anyone voting against the Government in a motion of no confidence—who actually wished the Government well—ought to be minded to think about how uncertain that process would be. However, I think it would be a political question, not set out in the Act.
Ultimately, as Mr Harper told us, the Sovereign decides who to send for to attempt to form a government. The Sovereign would need to be given clear advice that a new Prime Minister could command the confidence of the House. Considering the prospect of several opposition parties grouping together, Mr Harper said: If that group of Opposition parties publicly set out a position that they would support a particular individual to be Prime Minister and they together commanded a majority, there would be a very clear choice there, but that may not be the case. Therefore it would be a very uncertain process and would ultimately be a political process. That is not set down in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act at all.
That Telegraph story is fascinating. Has Cummings already outsmarted the Remainers? It looks like it.
He’s cleverer than that. The content of the story is not as important as the reason why it is there. It’s all to goad the anti-no-dealers into action and make sure Bozo is headed off before he gets to no deal. He wants to be the victim of a Commons ambush as it’s the only way out of the disastrous position he has put himself in. An election after his being stopped from leaving by others is his only possible escape.
That is how i have read things so far. Set up it up as the "establishment" stopping brexit, then going for a GE as the only one who can deliver it.
But he can't call a general election on his own. He needs to be VONC'd or get 2/3rd of parliament to agree to one. The opposition might not oblige, but just tell him to get to Brussels to revoke or ask for an extension.
In which case he says no, then what?
The 14 day clock runs down and out - most likely without anyone being able to command a majority in the house. Parliament is dissolved and Boris calls a GE for Nov 1.....
The pound collapses, fuel prices go through the roof, the Nhs runs out of medicine, Mars bars disappear from the shelves, Johnson asks the EU for an extension mid campaign...
And then they realise that there is no Parliament in place to ratify the extension...
We are missing an obvious point here. There is literally no point VONC ing Boris without a replacement. Surely, during any VONC debate, potential replacements will be mooted? Of course Corbyn will think it should be him, but that seems implausible. The mood of the House can be tested during the debate itself. If the name of Ken Clarke or Starmer, the 2 most likely in my view, we will have a pretty good idea of their support already. We'll be at the last minute anyway. And the idea Corbyn could veto Starmer is ludicrous. Most Labour MPs would jump at the chance!
Ken Clarke as last minute PM who saves the UK's membership of the EU! Whodathunk it. But not impossible.
I think he is more papabile than Starmer. Any Tory MP that voted for a cancel-Brexit caretaker Labour PM would be committing immediate career suicide. Which is one enormous problem with this scenario of "an alternative government".
Ken Clarke might just be tolerable to Tory members? In extremis. Maybe.
Any Tory or Labour MP who voted for anyone other than Boris or Corbyn to be PM, without their leaders consent, would be committing immediate career suicide. Boris can veto his MPs voting for anyone else but him, Corbyn can do the same.
Actually, I think we are approaching a kind of Constitutional Chernobyl, where all the normal rules and regs cease to apply, as the British political system goes into total, unprecedented meltdown, potentially poisoning all of western politics for a hundred years. Or not. BECAUSE NO ONE KNOWS.
If this is the case, it turns out Donald Tusk's most ludicrous assertion was possibly right.
I think even Alistair Meeks and William Glenn would not go quite as far as Tusk's assertion that "As a historian I fear Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also Western political civilisation in its entirety," he told the German newspaper Bild.
Brexit may lead to heated debate but it is not the fall of Rome
I wonder if the temporary GoNAfaE would really be temporary.
Say Con+BXP looks like it would win on 40% of the vote, thanks to the magic of FPTP, and everyone believes they'd really do No Deal, and Lab incumbents were in serious danger. That seems to be where we are now. Also assume there are enough Remainiac Tories prepared to go kamikaze. Now run two scenarios:
1) Parliament picked a caretaker, like Grieve or Clarke. The caretaker is probably way more popular than Corbyn or Boris. Does Corbyn pull the plug? He's going to lose MPs and end his career. That seems bad, isn't it better to hang on and hope things improve?
2) Parliament picked Corbyn. He'll do the PV to stay in office. Now think about it from the PoV of Swinson or a Remainiac Tory. Do you gamble on an election, where all the options are worse? Boris wins and you get No Deal. Corbyn wins outright and you get an unrestrained Corbyn. Your best outcome is Corbyn but without a majority, but that's what you've got now... And if you're a Remainiac Tory, you lose your job whoever wins...
Fascinatingly possible.
It occurs to me that Killing Brexit (if it is ever to happen) can only happen if it is like Killing Caesar. i.e. Everyone's fingerprints must be on the assassin's knife, so no individual can take the blame.
That is to say: hundreds of MPs from all parties will have to conspire together and be seen as conspiring, for the blame to be diluted and dispersed, relatively harmlessly. A GONAFAE might be one means of doing that.
But, I doubt the wit and intelligence of Remainers to organise this. They have shown themselves the equal of the dimmest, stupidest, most arrogant Leavers, in all departments. Cf the TIGGERS.
The Tories really don’t want to fight an election in the middle of a no deal Brexit. They would be far better off scheduling it beforehand. Remember Johnson doesn’t want to be PM to deliver Brexit. He wants to deliver Brexit to become/remain PM. There is no benefit to him in ensuring a chaotic no deal Brexit if the consequence is that he gets hammered in an election as it is happening...
Actually based on Comres yesterday No Deal in the middle of a general election campaign is the only way to ensure a Tory majority for Boris
Absolutely meaningless unless you believe that no deal will be largely benign, and/or the real world effects of it happening will have no impact on voting intention.
Not meaningless at all, especially as No Deal would likely happen in the middle of an autumn general election before any negative effects had time to really filter through and with Leave voters in full 'deliver Brexit and respect the will of the people' mode
Why do you assume negative effects wouldn’t have become apparent? If an election is scheduled post Oct 31st, effectively ensuring no deal happens, then the consequences will start to become apparent long before Oct 31st.
No they won't, not siemainers
So they sayremely blasé if you think that might not have an effect on your polling figures.
Diehard Remainers are extremely blasé if they think Leavers are not spitting blood at the contempt they have shown for their democratic vote to Leave the EU which they have still refused to respect. Diehard Remainers having refused to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement asked for No Deal and that is what Leavers will ensure they get.
I asked before, but I don’t think you replied. Is it possible for a Leave voter to be a Diehard remainer?
If they voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and against No Deal yes, though in reality no Leave backing MP did
The FTPA keeps having an election [as Callaghan did] as an option, it just adds a 14 day 'cooling off period' essentially where the Commons can choose a new PM instead of an election. Unless it does that, then like Callaghan the outgoing PM will remain PM barring their voluntarily resigning until a successor is clear.
So going back to Cumming's cumming plan: all parliament would have to do is agree on an immediate replacement for a VONCed Boris - some temporary neutral - who can then toddle off to Brussels and get an extension. We can then have our GE without the danger of No Deal. Job done.
Yes the Commons does have to do that.
Easier said than done. Are Luciana Berger, Chuka, Grieves etc going to back Corbyn? If no, he can't become PM.
Is Corbyn going to back Clarke, or Starmer? If no, they can't become PM.
It is easier to agree what you don't want, than what you do want.
Yes, but saying it's too late for the Commons to do anything about it because if Johnson is VONCed he will have the power to fix an election date after 31 October is sheer nonsense.
Johnson will have that power unless the Commons agrees an alternative, something it conspicuously so far rules out. Luciana Berger and others have said they could not countenance Corbyn as PM. Corbyn would not countenance anyone bar him as PM.
Simply VONC'ing Johnson is not enough. And the idea Corbyn can become PM and request an extension without the support of the Commons for Corbyn being PM is not true.
Oh come off it. Saying the House of Commons no longer has the power is nonsense. It clearly does have the power.
Whether it has the will is a different matter.
The article says they no longer have the power by forcing an election, which is correct.
They still have the power to elect an alternative but that is a different matter. Before now they had the power to force an election before Brexit, now they don't.
It depends on whether the Queen asks someone else to form a government before the 14 days is up. If she does, then Boris won't be PM any more.
If I say it enough times, will it sink in?
I suggest you read Mr Smithson’s and Mr Palmers posts. Repeating something incorrect does not make it correct.
You think that Boris Johnson would remain PM after the Queen asked someone else to form a government? Wow.
My brain hurts. This is like one of those games of world championship chess, where you can follow the opening, but as the pieces get gradually removed, it becomes ever more complex. Till there are only six pieces left, the clock is running down, and you can't follow the players hands, let alone know what they are thinking. Then. After the game is done, experts go back over it, and identify the key blunder/brilliant move no one spotted at the time.
That Telegraph story is fascinating. Has Cummings already outsmarted the Remainers? It looks like it.
He’s cleverer than that. The content of the story is not as important as the reason why it is there. It’s all to goad the anti-no-dealers into action and make sure Bozo is headed off before he gets to no deal. He wants to be the victim of a Commons ambush as it’s the only way out of the disastrous position he has put himself in. An election after his being stopped from leaving by others is his only possible escape.
That is how i have read things so far. Set up it up as the "establishment" stopping brexit, then going for a GE as the only one who can deliver it.
But he can't call a general election on his own. He needs to be VONC'd or get 2/3rd of parliament to agree to one. The opposition might not oblige, but just tell him to get to Brussels to revoke or ask for an extension.
In which case he says no, then what?
The 14 day clock runs down and out - most likely without anyone being able to command a majority in the house. Parliament is dissolved and Boris calls a GE for Nov 1.....
The pound collapses, fuel prices go through the roof, the Nhs runs out of medicine, Mars bars disappear from the shelves, Johnson asks the EU for an extension mid campaign...
And then they realise that there is no Parliament in place to ratify the extension...
Parliament doesn't need to "ratify the extension," thankfully.
I wonder if the temporary GoNAfaE would really be temporary.
Say Con+BXP looks like it would win on 40% of the vote, thanks to the magic of FPTP, and everyone believes they'd really do No Deal, and Lab incumbents were in serious danger. That seems to be where we are now. Also assume there are enough Remainiac Tories prepared to go kamikaze. Now run two scenarios:
1) Parliament picked a caretaker, like Grieve or Clarke. The caretaker is probably way more popular than Corbyn or Boris. Does Corbyn pull the plug? He's going to lose MPs and end his career. That seems bad, isn't it better to hang on and hope things improve?
2) Parliament picked Corbyn. He'll do the PV to stay in office. Now think about it from the PoV of Swinson or a Remainiac Tory. Do you gamble on an election, where all the options are worse? Boris wins and you get No Deal. Corbyn wins outright and you get an unrestrained Corbyn. Your best outcome is Corbyn but without a majority, but that's what you've got now... And if you're a Remainiac Tory, you lose your job whoever wins...
Fascinatingly possible.
It occurs to me that Killing Brexit (if it is ever to happen) can only happen if it is like Killing Caesar. i.e. Everyone's fingerprints must be on the assassin's knife, so no individual can take the blame.
That is to say: hundreds of MPs from all parties will have to conspire together and be seen as conspiring, for the blame to be diluted and dispersed, relatively harmlessly. A GONAFAE might be one means of doing that.
But, I doubt the wit and intelligence of Remainers to organise this. They have shown themselves the equal of the dimmest, stupidest, most arrogant Leavers, in all departments. Cf the TIGGERS.
And the only beneficiary of that would be Farage who would get an SNP 2015 style surge to the Brexit Party
The Tories really don’t want to fight an election in the middle of a no deal Brexit. They would be far better off scheduling it beforehand. Remember Johnson doesn’t want to be PM to deliver Brexit. He wants to deliver Brexit to become/remain PM. There is no benefit to him in ensuring a chaotic no deal Brexit if the consequence is that he gets hammered in an election as it is happening...
Actually based on Comres yesterday No Deal in the middle of a general election campaign is the only way to ensure a Tory majority for Boris
Absolutely meaningless unless you believe that no deal will be largely benign, and/or the real world effects of it happening will have no impact on voting intention.
Not meaningless at all, especially as No Deal would likely happen in the middle of an autumn general election before any negative effects had time to really filter through and with Leave voters in full 'deliver Brexit and respect the will of the people' mode
Why do you assume negative effects wouldn’t have become apparent? If an election is scheduled post Oct 31st, effectively ensuring no deal happens, then the consequences will start to become apparent long before Oct 31st.
No they won't, not siemainers
So they say, but the whole point is that many no dealers flatly reject the idea that there will be significant economic or other consequences. They will need to experience an alternative reality to change their minds. And I think you underestimate how rapidly the effects could be felt. If an election is called in mid September to be scheduled post Oct 31st then that is a large amount of time for a currency crash, stockpiling, hike in fuel prices, shortfalls on the shelves to happen. If anything the negative effects could be exaggerated, making the timing of the election even worse.
You are extremely blasé if you think that might not have an effect on your polling figures.
Diehard Remainers are extremely blasé if they think Leavers are not spitting blood at the contempt they have shown for their democratic vote to Leave the EU which they have still refused to respect. Diehard Remainers having refused to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement asked for No Deal and that is what Leavers will ensure they get.
"Too clever by half, Mr. Grieve" does come to mind....
That Telegraph story is fascinating. Has Cummings already outsmarted the Remainers? It looks like it.
He’s cleverer than that. The content of the story is not as important as the reason why it is there. It’s all to goad the anti-no-dealers into action and make sure Bozo is headed off before he gets to no deal. He wants to be the victim of a Commons ambush as it’s the only way out of the disastrous position he has put himself in. An election after his being stopped from leaving by others is his only possible escape.
That is how i have read things so far. Set up it up as the "establishment" stopping brexit, then going for a GE as the only one who can deliver it.
But he can't call a general election on his own. He needs to be VONC'd or get 2/3rd of parliament to agree to one. The opposition might not oblige, but just tell him to get to Brussels to revoke or ask for an extension.
In which case he says no, then what?
The 14 day clock runs down and out - most likely without anyone being able to command a majority in the house. Parliament is dissolved and Boris calls a GE for Nov 1.....
The pound collapses, fuel prices go through the roof, the Nhs runs out of medicine, Mars bars disappear from the shelves, Johnson asks the EU for an extension mid campaign...
And then they realise that there is no Parliament in place to ratify the extension...
Parliament doesn't need to "ratify the extension," thankfully.
Are you sure? There was legislation passed pre March 31st.
My brain hurts. This is like one of those games of world championship chess, where you can follow the opening, but as the pieces get gradually removed, it becomes ever more complex. Till there are only six pieces left, the clock is running down, and you can't follow the players hands, let alone know what they are thinking. Then. After the game is done, experts go back over it, and identify the key blunder/brilliant move no one spotted at the time.
An excellent analogy. To which I'd add: in that case, the game goes to the smartest guy in the tournament.
As of right now, that SEEMS to be Dominic Cummings, until there is evidence to the contrary.
That Telegraph story is fascinating. Has Cummings already outsmarted the Remainers? It looks like it.
He’s cleverer than that. The content of the story is not as important as the reason why it is there. It’s all to goad the anti-no-dealers into action and make sure Bozo is headed off before he gets to no deal. He wants to be the victim of a Commons ambush as it’s the only way out of the disastrous position he has put himself in. An election after his being stopped from leaving by others is his only possible escape.
That is how i have read things so far. Set up it up as the "establishment" stopping brexit, then going for a GE as the only one who can deliver it.
But he can't call a general election on his own. He needs to be VONC'd or get 2/3rd of parliament to agree to one. The opposition might not oblige, but just tell him to get to Brussels to revoke or ask for an extension.
In which case he says no, then what?
The 14 day clock runs down and out - most likely without anyone being able to command a majority in the house. Parliament is dissolved and Boris calls a GE for Nov 1.....
The pound collapses, fuel prices go through the roof, the Nhs runs out of medicine, Mars bars disappear from the shelves, Johnson asks the EU for an extension mid campaign...
And then they realise that there is no Parliament in place to ratify the extension...
Parliament doesn't need to "ratify the extension," thankfully.
It does under domestic legislation. Parliament ratified the 31 October extension.
The Tories really don’t want to fight an election in the middle of a no deal Brexit. They would be far better off scheduling it beforehand. Remember Johnson doesn’t want to be PM to deliver Brexit. He wants to deliver Brexit to become/remain PM. There is no benefit to him in ensuring a chaotic no deal Brexit if the consequence is that he gets hammered in an election as it is happening...
Actually based on Comres yesterday No Deal in the middle of a general election campaign is the only way to ensure a Tory majority for Boris
Absolutely meaningless unless you believe that no deal will be largely benign, and/or the real world effects of it happening will have no impact on voting intention.
Not meaningless at all, especially as No Deal would likely happen in the middle of an autumn general election before any negative effects had time to really filter through and with Leave voters in full 'deliver Brexit and respect the will of the people' mode
Why do you assume negative effects wouldn’t have become apparent? If an election is scheduled post Oct 31st, effectively ensuring no deal happens, then the consequences will start to become apparent long before Oct 31st.
No they won't, not siemainers
So they sayremely blasé if you think that might not have an effect on your polling figures.
Diehard Remainers are extremely blasé if they think Leavers are not spitting blood at the contempt they have shown for their democratic vote to Leave the EU which they have still refused to respect. Diehard Remainers having refused to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement asked for No Deal and that is what Leavers will ensure they get.
I asked before, but I don’t think you replied. Is it possible for a Leave voter to be a Diehard remainer?
If they voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and against No Deal yes, though in reality no Leave backing MP did
Not sure that’s true. Eg. Leave backing Labour MPs?
However, it seems there is a massive depth charge buried within the FTPA, which could be what Cummings (Rasputin) is on about:
"If a new Government cannot be formed within this time period, then dissolution is triggered. There is no provision for an extension of the 14 day period. Dissolution need not follow immediately on a triggering event, as section 2(7) allows for the Prime Minister to recommend a suitable polling day to the Crown ."
Wow. Just Wow. Who wrote this crap????
Boris can breeze past 31st Oct unless Queen objects to the recommendation of the date?
Or have I missed something?
That's the whole point of what Cummings is claiming, isn't it?
But it depends on no one else being asked to form a government.
Indeed, but why would anyone else be asked to form a government?
That's the whole point of the FTPA!
Not really. The main point of the FTPA was to prevent the PM being able to call an election at will. The VoNC conditions were effectively an addendum, codifying the current situation.
But equally to prevent parliament being dissolved prematurely if an alternative government could be formed. Remember it was a protection measure for the Liberal Democrats in case of the Coalition breaking down.
So going back to Cumming's cumming plan: all parliament would have to do is agree on an immediate replacement for a VONCed Boris - some temporary neutral - who can then toddle off to Brussels and get an extension. We can then have our GE without the danger of No Deal. Job done.
Yes the Commons does have to do that.
Easier said than done. Are Luciana Berger, Chuka, Grieves etc going to back Corbyn? If no, he can't become PM.
Is Corbyn going to back Clarke, or Starmer? If no, they can't become PM.
It is easier to agree what you don't want, than what you do want.
Yes, but saying it's too late for the Commons to do anything about it because if Johnson is VONCed he will have the power to fix an election date after 31 October is sheer nonsense.
Johnson will have that power unless the Commons agrees an alternative, something it conspicuously so far rules out. Luciana Berger and others have said they could not countenance Corbyn as PM. Corbyn would not countenance anyone bar him as PM.
Simply VONC'ing Johnson is not enough. And the idea Corbyn can become PM and request an extension without the support of the Commons for Corbyn being PM is not true.
Oh come off it. Saying the House of Commons no longer has the power is nonsense. It clearly does have the power.
Whether it has the will is a different matter.
The article says they no longer have the power by forcing an election, which is correct.
They still have the power to elect an alternative but that is a different matter. Before now they had the power to force an election before Brexit, now they don't.
It depends on whether the Queen asks someone else to form a government before the 14 days is up. If she does, then Boris won't be PM any more.
If I say it enough times, will it sink in?
I suggest you read Mr Smithson’s and Mr Palmers posts. Repeating something incorrect does not make it correct.
You think that Boris Johnson would remain PM after the Queen asked someone else to form a government? Wow.
The Queen wouldn’t ask someone else to form a government until it was clear they commanded a majority in the house.
That Telegraph story is fascinating. Has Cummings already outsmarted the Remainers? It looks like it.
He’s cleverer than that. The content of the story is not as important as the reason why it is there. It’s all to goad the anti-no-dealers into action and make sure Bozo is headed off before he gets to no deal. He wants to be the victim of a Commons ambush as it’s the only way out of the disastrous position he has put himself in. An election after his being stopped from leaving by others is his only possible escape.
That is how i have read things so far. Set up it up as the "establishment" stopping brexit, then going for a GE as the only one who can deliver it.
But he can't call a general election on his own. He needs to be VONC'd or get 2/3rd of parliament to agree to one. The opposition might not oblige, but just tell him to get to Brussels to revoke or ask for an extension.
In which case he says no, then what?
The 14 day clock runs down and out - most likely without anyone being able to command a majority in the house. Parliament is dissolved and Boris calls a GE for Nov 1.....
The pound collapses, fuel prices go through the roof, the Nhs runs out of medicine, Mars bars disappear from the shelves, Johnson asks the EU for an extension mid campaign...
And then they realise that there is no Parliament in place to ratify the extension...
Parliament doesn't need to "ratify the extension," thankfully.
Are you sure? There was legislation passed pre March 31st.
Primary legislation? I think we established previously that the leaving date could be changed by regulations.
So going back to Cumming's cumming plan: all parliament would have to do is agree on an immediate replacement for a VONCed Boris - some temporary neutral - who can then toddle off to Brussels and get an extension. We can then have our GE without the danger of No Deal. Job done.
Yes the Commons does have to do that.
Easier said than done. Are Luciana Berger, Chuka, Grieves etc going to back Corbyn? If no, he can't become PM.
Is Corbyn going to back Clarke, or Starmer? If no, they can't become PM.
It is easier to agree what you don't want, than what you do want.
Yes, but saying it's too late for the Commons to do anything about it because if Johnson is VONCed he will have the power to fix an election date after 31 October is sheer nonsense.
Johnson will have that power unless the Commons agrees an alternative, something it conspicuously so far rules out. Luciana Berger and others have said they could not countenance Corbyn as PM. Corbyn would not countenance anyone bar him as PM.
Simply VONC'ing Johnson is not enough. And the idea Corbyn can become PM and request an extension without the support of the Commons for Corbyn being PM is not true.
Oh come off it. Saying the House of Commons no longer has the power is nonsense. It clearly does have the power.
Whether it has the will is a different matter.
The article says they no longer have the power by forcing an election, which is correct.
They still have the power to elect an alternative but that is a different matter. Before now they had the power to force an election before Brexit, now they don't.
It depends on whether the Queen asks someone else to form a government before the 14 days is up. If she does, then Boris won't be PM any more.
If I say it enough times, will it sink in?
I suggest you read Mr Smithson’s and Mr Palmers posts. Repeating something incorrect does not make it correct.
You think that Boris Johnson would remain PM after the Queen asked someone else to form a government? Wow.
The Queen wouldn’t ask someone else to form a government until it was clear they commanded a majority in the house.
I suggest you read Mr Smithson’s and Mr Palmers posts. Repeating something incorrect does not make it correct.
You think that Boris Johnson would remain PM after the Queen asked someone else to form a government? Wow.
No, Boris remains PM until there is an alternative for the Queen to ask who can command the Commons.
The Queen doesn't ask anyone until she knows they can command the Commons. Without that, Boris remains until the clock runs out on day 14.
Why you keep thinking The Queen is going to against 67 years of her reign and suddenly get involved in politics is beyond me. The Queen does nothing until the politicians have agreed it, at which point she does it then the politicians ratify that they agree it.
My brain hurts. This is like one of those games of world championship chess, where you can follow the opening, but as the pieces get gradually removed, it becomes ever more complex. Till there are only six pieces left, the clock is running down, and you can't follow the players hands, let alone know what they are thinking. Then. After the game is done, experts go back over it, and identify the key blunder/brilliant move no one spotted at the time.
An excellent analogy. To which I'd add: in that case, the game goes to the smartest guy in the tournament.
As of right now, that SEEMS to be Dominic Cummings, until there is evidence to the contrary.
To extend the analogy. He's been phenomenally successful, trouncing a series of opponents in lesser tournaments. Can he handle the very biggest stage? Will his all-out attacking style prevail? Or will it lead to an irrevocable blunder? We shall see.
Remember when chess used to be on free-to-air TV? In fact I seem to remember it was on 2 of the 4 channels because Carol Vorderman was presenting the Channel 4 shows while Peter Snow presented the BBC2 programmes.
I suggest you read Mr Smithson’s and Mr Palmers posts. Repeating something incorrect does not make it correct.
You think that Boris Johnson would remain PM after the Queen asked someone else to form a government? Wow.
No, Boris remains PM until there is an alternative for the Queen to ask who can command the Commons.
The Queen doesn't ask anyone until she knows they can command the Commons. Without that, Boris remains until the clock runs out on day 14.
Why you keep thinking The Queen is going to against 67 years of her reign and suddenly get involved in politics is beyond me. The Queen does nothing until the politicians have agreed it, at which point she does it then the politicians ratify that they agree it.
OK, again:
IF the Queen asks someone else to form a government, Boris Johnson will no longer be prime minister.
Would it help if I wrote it ten times in succession?
The Tories really don’t want to fight an election in the middle of a no deal Brexit. They would be far better off scheduling it beforehand. Remember Johnson doesn’t want to be PM to deliver Brexit. He wants to deliver Brexit to become/remain PM. There is no benefit to him in ensuring a chaotic no deal Brexit if the consequence is that he gets hammered in an election as it is happening...
Actually based on Comres yesterday No Deal in the middle of a general election campaign is the only way to ensure a Tory majority for Boris
Absolutely meaningless unless you believe that no deal will be largely benign, and/or the real world effects of it happening will have no impact on voting intention.
Not meaningless at all, especially as No Deal would likely happen in the middle of an autumn general election before any negative effects had time to really filter through and with Leave voters in full 'deliver Brexit and respect the will of the people' mode
Why do you assume negative effects wouldn’t have become apparent? If an election is scheduled post Oct 31st, effectively ensuring no deal happens, then the consequences will start to become apparent long before Oct 31st.
No they won't, not siemainers
So they sayremely blasé if you think that might not have an effect on your polling figures.
Diehard Remainers are extremely blasé if they think Leavers are not spitting blood at the contempt they have shown for their democratic vote to Leave the EU which they have still refused to respect. Diehard Remainers having refused to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement asked for No Deal and that is what Leavers will ensure they get.
I asked before, but I don’t think you replied. Is it possible for a Leave voter to be a Diehard remainer?
If they voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and against No Deal yes, though in reality no Leave backing MP did
Not sure that’s true. Eg. Leave backing Labour MPs?
Of the Labour Leave MPs, Stringer, Hopkins,Campbell, Godsiff, Hoey and Field, Field voted for the Withdrawal Agreement and all voted against Letwin-Cooper and trying to stop No Deal
That Telegraph story is fascinating. Has Cummings already outsmarted the Remainers? It looks like it.
He’s cleverer than that. The content of the story is not as important as the reason why it is there. It’s all to goad the anti-no-dealers into action and make sure Bozo is headed off before he gets to no deal. He wants to be the victim of a Commons ambush as it’s the only way out of the disastrous position he has put himself in. An election after his being stopped from leaving by others is his only possible escape.
That is how i have read things so far. Set up it up as the "establishment" stopping brexit, then going for a GE as the only one who can deliver it.
But he can't call a general election on his own. He needs to be VONC'd or get 2/3rd of parliament to agree to one. The opposition might not oblige, but just tell him to get to Brussels to revoke or ask for an extension.
In which case he says no, then what?
The 14 day clock runs down and out - most likely without anyone being able to command a majority in the house. Parliament is dissolved and Boris calls a GE for Nov 1.....
The pound collapses, fuel prices go through the roof, the Nhs runs out of medicine, Mars bars disappear from the shelves, Johnson asks the EU for an extension mid campaign...
And then they realise that there is no Parliament in place to ratify the extension...
Parliament doesn't need to "ratify the extension," thankfully.
Are you sure? There was legislation passed pre March 31st.
Primary legislation? I think we established previously that the leaving date could be changed by regulations.
Regulations that must be laid in the Commons.
They can't be laid if the Commons has been dissolved, which means that under domestic law the provisions of the EU Withdrawal Act would kick in at 11pm on 31 October and the European Communities Act 1972 would be repealed.
However, it seems there is a massive depth charge buried within the FTPA, which could be what Cummings (Rasputin) is on about:
"If a new Government cannot be formed within this time period, then dissolution is triggered. There is no provision for an extension of the 14 day period. Dissolution need not follow immediately on a triggering event, as section 2(7) allows for the Prime Minister to recommend a suitable polling day to the Crown ."
Wow. Just Wow. Who wrote this crap????
Boris can breeze past 31st Oct unless Queen objects to the recommendation of the date?
Or have I missed something?
The FTPA is a shambles. Cheers Dave. However, as I say below, the House would realise, surely, that there is no point VONC ing, unless there is a successor. And, if it does, they would have 2 weeks. They would be FORCED to agree someone, if there is a majority for No Deal.
A one line bill to terminate the FTPA presumably still needs to be laid by the Govt.?
Just repealing the FTPA doesn't take us back to how things were before, as I think was discussed on here the other day. One would need to enact a new act detailing how parliament was to be dissolved, otherwise there would be mechanism to do this.
I suggest you read Mr Smithson’s and Mr Palmers posts. Repeating something incorrect does not make it correct.
You think that Boris Johnson would remain PM after the Queen asked someone else to form a government? Wow.
No, Boris remains PM until there is an alternative for the Queen to ask who can command the Commons.
The Queen doesn't ask anyone until she knows they can command the Commons. Without that, Boris remains until the clock runs out on day 14.
Why you keep thinking The Queen is going to against 67 years of her reign and suddenly get involved in politics is beyond me. The Queen does nothing until the politicians have agreed it, at which point she does it then the politicians ratify that they agree it.
OK, again:
IF the Queen asks someone else to form a government, Boris Johnson will no longer be prime minister.
Would it help if I wrote it ten times in succession?
I suggest you read Mr Smithson’s and Mr Palmers posts. Repeating something incorrect does not make it correct.
You think that Boris Johnson would remain PM after the Queen asked someone else to form a government? Wow.
No, Boris remains PM until there is an alternative for the Queen to ask who can command the Commons.
The Queen doesn't ask anyone until she knows they can command the Commons. Without that, Boris remains until the clock runs out on day 14.
Why you keep thinking The Queen is going to against 67 years of her reign and suddenly get involved in politics is beyond me. The Queen does nothing until the politicians have agreed it, at which point she does it then the politicians ratify that they agree it.
OK, again:
IF the Queen asks someone else to form a government, Boris Johnson will no longer be prime minister.
Would it help if I wrote it ten times in succession?
THE QUEEN WON'T ASK ANYONE ELSE THOUGH until the Commons has agreed upon them.
Would it help if I wrote it ten times in succession?
What you are writing is no more relevant than saying if the sun rises in the West tomorrow.
My brain hurts. This is like one of those games of world championship chess, where you can follow the opening, but as the pieces get gradually removed, it becomes ever more complex. Till there are only six pieces left, the clock is running down, and you can't follow the players hands, let alone know what they are thinking. Then. After the game is done, experts go back over it, and identify the key blunder/brilliant move no one spotted at the time.
An excellent analogy. To which I'd add: in that case, the game goes to the smartest guy in the tournament.
As of right now, that SEEMS to be Dominic Cummings, until there is evidence to the contrary.
To extend the analogy. He's been phenomenally successful, trouncing a series of opponents in lesser tournaments. Can he handle the very biggest stage? Will his all-out attacking style prevail? Or will it lead to an irrevocable blunder? We shall see.
What is masterminding the biggest vote for anything in postwar British history but the 'very biggest stage'
I suggest you read Mr Smithson’s and Mr Palmers posts. Repeating something incorrect does not make it correct.
You think that Boris Johnson would remain PM after the Queen asked someone else to form a government? Wow.
No, Boris remains PM until there is an alternative for the Queen to ask who can command the Commons.
The Queen doesn't ask anyone until she knows they can command the Commons. Without that, Boris remains until the clock runs out on day 14.
Why you keep thinking The Queen is going to against 67 years of her reign and suddenly get involved in politics is beyond me. The Queen does nothing until the politicians have agreed it, at which point she does it then the politicians ratify that they agree it.
OK, again:
IF the Queen asks someone else to form a government, Boris Johnson will no longer be prime minister.
Would it help if I wrote it ten times in succession?
What precedence do you cite for this happening?
When was the last time we had two prime ministers at once? Ye Gods!
I suggest you read Mr Smithson’s and Mr Palmers posts. Repeating something incorrect does not make it correct.
You think that Boris Johnson would remain PM after the Queen asked someone else to form a government? Wow.
No, Boris remains PM until there is an alternative for the Queen to ask who can command the Commons.
The Queen doesn't ask anyone until she knows they can command the Commons. Without that, Boris remains until the clock runs out on day 14.
Why you keep thinking The Queen is going to against 67 years of her reign and suddenly get involved in politics is beyond me. The Queen does nothing until the politicians have agreed it, at which point she does it then the politicians ratify that they agree it.
OK, again:
IF the Queen asks someone else to form a government, Boris Johnson will no longer be prime minister.
Would it help if I wrote it ten times in succession?
What precedence do you cite for this happening?
When was the last time we had two prime ministers at once? Ye Gods!
Never, just as the Queen has never done what you're suggesting. And never will.
The Queen will call a replacement for Boris if and only if the Commons has already indicated they endorse him. The Queen won't randomly start calling replacements prior to a Commons majority being found.
People are misunderstanding the FTPA. If there is a successful VONC tabled by the LOTO in the exact format laid down in the act then a general election would be triggered unless that VONC was rescinded within 14 days. Assuming that doesn't happen then the election is triggered with BJohnson still PM leading his party into the country. There may or may not be talk on trying for form an alternative government but Johnson can just sit tight and wait for the election to happen.
No, that's not correct, as I understand it. If it "becomes clear" (and we can debate how that might be, but an Opposition Day motion would do it) that a different person X has the confidence of the House (however temporary and conditional), the Queen must call X and invite him to replace Johnson as PM. He cannot simply sit tight for 14 days, unless the Commons VONC him but are unable to agree on a successor.
I suggest you read Mr Smithson’s and Mr Palmers posts. Repeating something incorrect does not make it correct.
You think that Boris Johnson would remain PM after the Queen asked someone else to form a government? Wow.
No, Boris remains PM until there is an alternative for the Queen to ask who can command the Commons.
The Queen doesn't ask anyone until she knows they can command the Commons. Without that, Boris remains until the clock runs out on day 14.
Why you keep thinking The Queen is going to against 67 years of her reign and suddenly get involved in politics is beyond me. The Queen does nothing until the politicians have agreed it, at which point she does it then the politicians ratify that they agree it.
OK, again:
IF the Queen asks someone else to form a government, Boris Johnson will no longer be prime minister.
Would it help if I wrote it ten times in succession?
What precedence do you cite for this happening?
When was the last time we had two prime ministers at once? Ye Gods!
When did the Queen appoint a PM who could not command the confidence of the house?
You think that Boris Johnson would remain PM after the Queen asked someone else to form a government? Wow.
The Queen wouldn’t ask someone else to form a government until it was clear they commanded a majority in the house.
So?
So Boris remains PM since nobody else is called.
OK. WE'll try it ten times now.
Johnson remains PM IF no one else is asked to form a government?
Johnson remains PM IF no one else is asked to form a government?
Johnson remains PM IF no one else is asked to form a government?
Johnson remains PM IF no one else is asked to form a government?
Johnson remains PM IF no one else is asked to form a government?
Johnson remains PM IF no one else is asked to form a government?
Johnson remains PM IF no one else is asked to form a government?
Johnson remains PM IF no one else is asked to form a government?
Johnson remains PM IF no one else is asked to form a government?
Johnson remains PM IF no one else is asked to form a government?
Yes.
And no one else is asked unless they can already demonstrate they command a majority. So Boris is PM until the election until a majority in the Commons backs an alternative BEFORE the Queen acts.
My brain hurts. This is like one of those games of world championship chess, where you can follow the opening, but as the pieces get gradually removed, it becomes ever more complex. Till there are only six pieces left, the clock is running down, and you can't follow the players hands, let alone know what they are thinking. Then. After the game is done, experts go back over it, and identify the key blunder/brilliant move no one spotted at the time.
An excellent analogy. To which I'd add: in that case, the game goes to the smartest guy in the tournament.
As of right now, that SEEMS to be Dominic Cummings, until there is evidence to the contrary.
To extend the analogy. He's been phenomenally successful, trouncing a series of opponents in lesser tournaments. Can he handle the very biggest stage? Will his all-out attacking style prevail? Or will it lead to an irrevocable blunder? We shall see.
What is masterminding the biggest vote for anything in postwar British history but the 'very biggest stage'
Its an analogy. Which I was quite chuffed with. Don't pick it to pieces, please.
I suggest you read Mr Smithson’s and Mr Palmers posts. Repeating something incorrect does not make it correct.
You think that Boris Johnson would remain PM after the Queen asked someone else to form a government? Wow.
No, Boris remains PM until there is an alternative for the Queen to ask who can command the Commons.
The Queen doesn't ask anyone until she knows they can command the Commons. Without that, Boris remains until the clock runs out on day 14.
Why you keep thinking The Queen is going to against 67 years of her reign and suddenly get involved in politics is beyond me. The Queen does nothing until the politicians have agreed it, at which point she does it then the politicians ratify that they agree it.
OK, again:
IF the Queen asks someone else to form a government, Boris Johnson will no longer be prime minister.
Would it help if I wrote it ten times in succession?
What precedence do you cite for this happening?
When was the last time we had two prime ministers at once? Ye Gods!
Never, just as the Queen has never done what you're suggesting. And never will.
The Queen will call a replacement for Boris if and only if the Commons has already indicated they endorse him. The Queen won't randomly start calling replacements prior to a Commons majority being found.
The Queen has never asked someone to form a government?
I'm sorry, I don't wish to be rude, but I can't fathom the depths of your stupidity.
I suggest you read Mr Smithson’s and Mr Palmers posts. Repeating something incorrect does not make it correct.
You think that Boris Johnson would remain PM after the Queen asked someone else to form a government? Wow.
No, Boris remains PM until there is an alternative for the Queen to ask who can command the Commons.
The Queen doesn't ask anyone until she knows they can command the Commons. Without that, Boris remains until the clock runs out on day 14.
Why you keep thinking The Queen is going to against 67 years of her reign and suddenly get involved in politics is beyond me. The Queen does nothing until the politicians have agreed it, at which point she does it then the politicians ratify that they agree it.
OK, again:
IF the Queen asks someone else to form a government, Boris Johnson will no longer be prime minister.
Would it help if I wrote it ten times in succession?
What precedence do you cite for this happening?
When was the last time we had two prime ministers at once? Ye Gods!
When did the Queen appoint a PM who could not command the confidence of the house?
Probably, but that doesn't seem that different in reality to what it has been for quite some time, given revoking or referendum to revoke have procedural hurdles in front of them, and a deal has been dead for some time. People are just catching up to that no deal or revoke are the options.
People are misunderstanding the FTPA. If there is a successful VONC tabled by the LOTO in the exact format laid down in the act then a general election would be triggered unless that VONC was rescinded within 14 days. Assuming that doesn't happen then the election is triggered with BJohnson still PM leading his party into the country. There may or may not be talk on trying for form an alternative government but Johnson can just sit tight and wait for the election to happen.
I suggest you read Mr Smithson’s and Mr Palmers posts. Repeating something incorrect does not make it correct.
You think that Boris Johnson would remain PM after the Queen asked someone else to form a government? Wow.
No, Boris remains PM until there is an alternative for the Queen to ask who can command the Commons.
The Queen doesn't ask anyone until she knows they can command the Commons. Without that, Boris remains until the clock runs out on day 14.
Why you keep thinking The Queen is going to against 67 years of her reign and suddenly get involved in politics is beyond me. The Queen does nothing until the politicians have agreed it, at which point she does it then the politicians ratify that they agree it.
OK, again:
IF the Queen asks someone else to form a government, Boris Johnson will no longer be prime minister.
Would it help if I wrote it ten times in succession?
What precedence do you cite for this happening?
When was the last time we had two prime ministers at once? Ye Gods!
Never, just as the Queen has never done what you're suggesting. And never will.
The Queen will call a replacement for Boris if and only if the Commons has already indicated they endorse him. The Queen won't randomly start calling replacements prior to a Commons majority being found.
The Queen has never asked someone to form a government?
I'm sorry, I don't wish to be rude, but I can't fathom the depths of your stupidity.
Good night.
Are you seriously that stupid!?
The Queen has never replaced a sitting PM with a replacement PM who can't command a majority of the Commons. Every PM she has ever called has already demonstrated they command a majority of the Commons.
I'd say the EU blinking and us getting a deal is a 70% chance. The Irish and the EU don't want No Deal and they thought the UK wouldn't seriously countenance it so they could bully us into the backstop.
If the UK is deadly serious about No Deal being the alternative, then the EU must either eat humble pie and change the deal, or accept No Deal - which is exactly what the backstop was meant to prevent in the future.
I suggest you read Mr Smithson’s and Mr Palmers posts. Repeating something incorrect does not make it correct.
You think that Boris Johnson would remain PM after the Queen asked someone else to form a government? Wow.
No, Boris remains PM until there is an alternative for the Queen to ask who can command the Commons.
The Queen doesn't ask anyone until she knows they can command the Commons. Without that, Boris remains until the clock runs out on day 14.
Why you keep thinking The Queen is going to against 67 years of her reign and suddenly get involved in politics is beyond me. The Queen does nothing until the politicians have agreed it, at which point she does it then the politicians ratify that they agree it.
OK, again:
IF the Queen asks someone else to form a government, Boris Johnson will no longer be prime minister.
Would it help if I wrote it ten times in succession?
What precedence do you cite for this happening?
When was the last time we had two prime ministers at once? Ye Gods!
Never, just as the Queen has never done what you're suggesting. And never will.
The Queen will call a replacement for Boris if and only if the Commons has already indicated they endorse him. The Queen won't randomly start calling replacements prior to a Commons majority being found.
The Queen has never asked someone to form a government?
I'm sorry, I don't wish to be rude, but I can't fathom the depths of your stupidity.
Good night.
I would attend to the beam in your own eye before fretting about the mote in other’s...
I suggest you read Mr Smithson’s and Mr Palmers posts. Repeating something incorrect does not make it correct.
You think that Boris Johnson would remain PM after the Queen asked someone else to form a government? Wow.
No, Boris remains PM until there is an alternative for the Queen to ask who can command the Commons.
The Queen doesn't ask anyone until she knows they can command the Commons. Without that, Boris remains until the clock runs out on day 14.
Why you keep thinking The Queen is going to against 67 years of her reign and suddenly get involved in politics is beyond me. The Queen does nothing until the politicians have agreed it, at which point she does it then the politicians ratify that they agree it.
OK, again:
IF the Queen asks someone else to form a government, Boris Johnson will no longer be prime minister.
Would it help if I wrote it ten times in succession?
What precedence do you cite for this happening?
When was the last time we had two prime ministers at once? Ye Gods!
Never, just as the Queen has never done what you're suggesting. And never will.
The Queen will call a replacement for Boris if and only if the Commons has already indicated they endorse him. The Queen won't randomly start calling replacements prior to a Commons majority being found.
The Queen has never asked someone to form a government?
I'm sorry, I don't wish to be rude, but I can't fathom the depths of your stupidity.
Good night.
I would attend to the beam in your own eye before fretting about the mote in mine.....
In Chris's mind its apparently routine for Her Majesty to invite people who can't command the Commons to form a government.
The Queen has never replaced a sitting PM with a replacement PM who can't command a majority of the Commons. Every PM she has ever called has already demonstrated they command a majority of the Commons.
I suggest you read Mr Smithson’s and Mr Palmers posts. Repeating something incorrect does not make it correct.
You think that Boris Johnson would remain PM after the Queen asked someone else to form a government? Wow.
No, Boris remains PM until there is an alternative for the Queen to ask who can command the Commons.
The Queen doesn't ask anyone until she knows they can command the Commons. Without that, Boris remains until the clock runs out on day 14.
Why you keep thinking The Queen is going to against 67 years of her reign and suddenly get involved in politics is beyond me. The Queen does nothing until the politicians have agreed it, at which point she does it then the politicians ratify that they agree it.
OK, again:
IF the Queen asks someone else to form a government, Boris Johnson will no longer be prime minister.
Would it help if I wrote it ten times in succession?
What precedence do you cite for this happening?
When was the last time we had two prime ministers at once? Ye Gods!
Never, just as the Queen has never done what you're suggesting. And never will.
The Queen will call a replacement for Boris if and only if the Commons has already indicated they endorse him. The Queen won't randomly start calling replacements prior to a Commons majority being found.
The Queen has never asked someone to form a government?
I'm sorry, I don't wish to be rude, but I can't fathom the depths of your stupidity.
Chris is correct that if a majority emerges for X, then the Queen will replkace Boris with X. Philip is correct that if no majority emerges, then Boris can sit it out till the election Faisal is right that Boris can decide when the election will be, but that power is of limited benefit since he can't do anything significant in the meantime.
It is possible that Boris can hope to have the election after Oct 31. However, in order to call the election, VONC must be passed first, and then there are 14 days to find X (unless Boris can persuade 2/3 to call an election). He can't simply say "Oh, I've decided we'll have an election in November".
More plausibly, he can hope that No Deal will simply happen before Parliament has made up its mind. To prevent that, Parliament must:
(1) VONC Boris and (2) choose X to take over before Oct 31
with a clear instruction to X to seek a delay while the issue is resolved by election.
I'd say the EU blinking and us getting a deal is a 70% chance. The Irish and the EU don't want No Deal and they thought the UK wouldn't seriously countenance it so they could bully us into the backstop.
If the UK is deadly serious about No Deal being the alternative, then the EU must either eat humble pie and change the deal, or accept No Deal - which is exactly what the backstop was meant to prevent in the future.
I don't think you're right, sadly, I think we are headed for No Deal. The EU can't compromise the Single Market, the EU cannot afford to let a Leaver like Boris appear to "win". It would be fatal, long term, for them and the project.
But let's say you are right. What about these pig-headed ERG morons, such as Francois, who won't accept a Deal, even minus backstop?!?
If Dominic Grieve doesn't act now, what's the point of his anti-No Deal position?
He can't act now, parliament is on holiday. You might be able to show confidence in a new PM on Twitter but you can't VONC an old one. Hopefully this will be fixed next time the LibDems get in.
Diehard Remainers are extremely blasé if they think Leavers are not spitting blood at the contempt they have shown for their democratic vote to Leave the EU which they have still refused to respect. Diehard Remainers having refused to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement asked for No Deal and that is what Leavers will ensure they get.
This isn’t a manichean duality. It’s not a Western. If you are suggesting that most Leavers want to piss on the country economically just to piss off Europhiles the you are admitting they don’t deserve to run the country. You just sit there with your pyjamas on all day posting one of the buzz phrases you have been taught at whatever Leaver re-education camp you went to - “Diehard Remainer” - this mythical beast whose spectre you raise that you so sorely want everyone to join you in a two minute hate against. The MPs that voted for against the Withdrawal Agreement were from every corner of the House. Not just remainers.
If the Conservative Party really is setting up democraticallyelected MPs in a legislature that has a fresher mandate than the referendum as a scapegoat upon which to vent fury for defying the mythical “will of the people” then it is, and I’ve thought hard about posting this and do not do so lightly, proto-fascist. Economic damage is not the will of the people. The people have or spoken on the timing or form of Brexit save through their MPs. The insanity of Cameron’s choice was not calling a referendum per se but not making explicit what happened next. Someone on my Facebook feed, who now has EU stars in her profile pic, posted before the referendum that we should vote leave because we would still be in the Single Market. She was, perhaps, slightly delusional and completely uninformed, but she was, unlike you, an actual Leaver. The people she is spitting blood at are not “Diehard Remainers”.
If my description of the Tory Party may seem intemperate to you, please reflect yourself on your constant framing of this important debate in militaristic, violent, terms. “Diehard” suggests hard to kill and you say Leavers are “spitting blood”. Violent imagery like this are not just idioms in the context of real effects on people’s lives, particularly those of us who have personal experience of the effects of the violence in NI you are playing with.
If Dominic Grieve doesn't act now, what's the point of his anti-No Deal position?
He can't act now, parliament is on holiday. You might be able to show confidence in a new PM on Twitter but you can't VONC an old one. Hopefully this will be fixed next time the LibDems get in.
He can put pressure on the government by quitting the Conservative Party. Parliament may have to be recalled if it's clear they no longer command a majority of MPs.
I'd say the EU blinking and us getting a deal is a 70% chance. The Irish and the EU don't want No Deal and they thought the UK wouldn't seriously countenance it so they could bully us into the backstop.
If the UK is deadly serious about No Deal being the alternative, then the EU must either eat humble pie and change the deal, or accept No Deal - which is exactly what the backstop was meant to prevent in the future.
I don't think you're right, sadly, I think we are headed for No Deal. The EU can't compromise the Single Market, the EU cannot afford to let a Leaver like Boris appear to "win". It would be fatal, long term, for them and the project.
But let's say you are right. What about these pig-headed ERG morons, such as Francois, who won't accept a Deal, even minus backstop?!?
How does Boris neuter them?
He doesnt. He seems to know that which is why policy is to do what they want (if, as is likely, a new deal is not made) as theres still more of them than Grievers. Just as much arseholes, but one set is more powerful.
Chris is correct that if a majority emerges for X, then the Queen will replkace Boris with X. Philip is correct that if no majority emerges, then Boris can sit it out till the election Faisal is right that Boris can decide when the election will be, but that power is of limited benefit since he can't do anything significant in the meantime.
It is possible that Boris can hope to have the election after Oct 31. However, in order to call the election, VONC must be passed first, and then there are 14 days to find X (unless Boris can persuade 2/3 to call an election). He can't simply say "Oh, I've decided we'll have an election in November".
More plausibly, he can hope that No Deal will simply happen before Parliament has made up its mind. To prevent that, Parliament must:
(1) VONC Boris and (2) choose X to take over before Oct 31
with a clear instruction to X to seek a delay while the issue is resolved by election.
But exactly. It is very hard to see an X that can command the confidence of the house. Corbyn is just TOO tainted and insane (plus I cannot really see him compromising: offering an extension, referendum and a GE etc etc)
Who else? Who would Tory MPs vote for? Starmer? No. Swinson? No way. Who? Parliament is bitterly and precisely divided, any MP that voted for another party leader would be committing seppuku.
It seems that Dominic Cummings has this right, and MPs have left it too late to act. Either the EU blinks, or we exit with No Deal at Halloween.
Parliament may have to be recalled if it's clear they no longer command a majority of MPs.
Interesting, I guess the PM decides???
Tactically it probably makes more sense to hold off until parliament resumes and wait for the Boris bounce to subside and people spend some time staring into the No Deal abyss.
Chris is correct that if a majority emerges for X, then the Queen will replkace Boris with X. Philip is correct that if no majority emerges, then Boris can sit it out till the election Faisal is right that Boris can decide when the election will be, but that power is of limited benefit since he can't do anything significant in the meantime.
It is possible that Boris can hope to have the election after Oct 31. However, in order to call the election, VONC must be passed first, and then there are 14 days to find X (unless Boris can persuade 2/3 to call an election). He can't simply say "Oh, I've decided we'll have an election in November".
More plausibly, he can hope that No Deal will simply happen before Parliament has made up its mind. To prevent that, Parliament must:
(1) VONC Boris and (2) choose X to take over before Oct 31
with a clear instruction to X to seek a delay while the issue is resolved by election.
Which is why the rebel alliance must VONC on 3rd or 4th September.
The time for cutting ones figure nails while Rome burns is over.
Chris is correct that if a majority emerges for X, then the Queen will replkace Boris with X. Philip is correct that if no majority emerges, then Boris can sit it out till the election Faisal is right that Boris can decide when the election will be, but that power is of limited benefit since he can't do anything significant in the meantime.
It is possible that Boris can hope to have the election after Oct 31. However, in order to call the election, VONC must be passed first, and then there are 14 days to find X (unless Boris can persuade 2/3 to call an election). He can't simply say "Oh, I've decided we'll have an election in November".
More plausibly, he can hope that No Deal will simply happen before Parliament has made up its mind. To prevent that, Parliament must:
(1) VONC Boris and (2) choose X to take over before Oct 31
with a clear instruction to X to seek a delay while the issue is resolved by election.
Which is why the rebel alliance must VONC on 3rd or 4th September.
The time for cutting ones figure nails while Rome burns is over.
The PV weirdos are setting up the country for civil strife. Insanely stupid and dangerous. Respect democracy, you fuckwits.
The 2016 vote wasn’t democracy. There has never been a majority in UK for any kind of brexit let alone WTO terms. It’s not democracy to decide questions like that in a vote like that.
Quite simply Noone can claim every one of 2016 leave votes were voting on the in out question. It was one year after Osborne cammo stole election from Miliband, and Labour areas, to some degree taking a lead from their leader that it didn’t matter much how they voted, were voting heavily in 2016 to give Osborne and Cammo a kicking. That’s what got it over the line. there has never been a UK majority for Brexit. The majority of UK have always been against it, that’s why it isn’t going to happen.
I'd say the EU blinking and us getting a deal is a 70% chance. The Irish and the EU don't want No Deal and they thought the UK wouldn't seriously countenance it so they could bully us into the backstop.
If the UK is deadly serious about No Deal being the alternative, then the EU must either eat humble pie and change the deal, or accept No Deal - which is exactly what the backstop was meant to prevent in the future.
I don't think you're right, sadly, I think we are headed for No Deal. The EU can't compromise the Single Market, the EU cannot afford to let a Leaver like Boris appear to "win". It would be fatal, long term, for them and the project.
But let's say you are right. What about these pig-headed ERG morons, such as Francois, who won't accept a Deal, even minus backstop?!?
How does Boris neuter them?
Everyone is now staring into the abyss and the abyss is staring back.
The Commons already voted once to pass the WDA if the backstop was stripped out, that was the Brady Amendment. If that is done again then I think the Commons will grasp that with both hands to lock this down and put this behind us.
One wants to react with compassion. Wants to intervene and show an alternate path. Hopes they will seek help. But, like someone drinking or drugging themselves to death, there is a limit to what you can do. Change can only come when they want they really want to change. So, what can one do, but shrug ones shoulders?
Comments
The Queen is 93. Prince Philip is 98.
You keep seeming to think someone gets to become PM, lose their vote but remain PM but that scenario can't happen. Boris will only resign as PM and the Queen will only call a successor if they've already demonstrated they can win their vote, making the vote afterwards a formality.
I think he is more papabile than Starmer. Any Tory MP that voted for a cancel-Brexit caretaker Labour PM would be committing immediate career suicide. Which is one enormous problem with this scenario of "an alternative government".
Ken Clarke might just be tolerable to Tory members? In extremis. Maybe.
It is to give the Commons a chance to agree someone else who can form a government within 14 days. Unless they do that, the Queen does nothing.
We are a Constitutional Monarchy, the Queen doesn't act unilaterally. There must be a first mover elsewhere.
An assumption by BF
Ken C is currently 1.01.
Say Con+BXP looks like it would win on 40% of the vote, thanks to the magic of FPTP, and everyone believes they'd really do No Deal, and Lab incumbents were in serious danger. That seems to be where we are now. Also assume there are enough Remainiac Tories prepared to go kamikaze. Now run two scenarios:
1) Parliament picked a caretaker, like Grieve or Clarke. The caretaker is probably way more popular than Corbyn or Boris. Does Corbyn pull the plug? He's going to lose MPs and end his career. That seems bad, isn't it better to hang on and hope things improve?
2) Parliament picked Corbyn. He'll do the PV to stay in office. Now think about it from the PoV of Swinson or a Remainiac Tory. Do you gamble on an election, where all the options are worse? Boris wins and you get No Deal. Corbyn wins outright and you get an unrestrained Corbyn. Your best outcome is Corbyn but without a majority, but that's what you've got now... And if you're a Remainiac Tory, you lose your job whoever wins...
Ken gets to be PM, revokes, calls an election, then retires from politics to some smoky jazz club to be quite extraordinarily smug, and justifiably so. Having shafted his foes!
If this is the case, it turns out Donald Tusk's most ludicrous assertion was possibly right.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36515680
On a similar note, mindhunters is back in 2 weeks...
Why don't you read the briefing document that Nick Palmer posted a link to? You obviously haven't.
I've already quoted you the part referring for guidance to the procedure to be followed when no party wins a majority in an election.
I'll quote some more, emphasising that it isn't a simple of the Commons "backing someone else." Emphasising that it would be a "very uncertain process."
But I have a feeling you'll carry on believing just what you want to.
...............................................................................................................
Rt Hon Mark Harper MP said that, from his recollection of what was said at the time the Bill was making its passage through Parliament, the view was that there would be “political discussion” during the 14-day period. He continued:
Clearly what occurs between that period—to go from having lost a motion of no confidence to being able to win a motion of confidence—is a political process. It will depend to some extent on the balance of forces in the House, whether it is because the Government do not have enough Members of Parliament or because a number of Members of the governing party have voted in a particular way. They are all political questions and the circumstances will vary.
He also sounded a note of caution, saying:
However, as to what exactly would happen, that would be a political question. It would be somewhat uncertain, and anyone voting against the Government in a motion of no confidence—who actually wished the Government well—ought to be minded to think about how uncertain that process would be. However, I think it would be a political question, not set out in the Act.
Ultimately, as Mr Harper told us, the Sovereign decides who to send for to attempt to form a government. The Sovereign would need to be given clear advice that a new Prime Minister could command the confidence of the House. Considering the prospect of several opposition parties grouping together, Mr Harper said:
If that group of Opposition parties publicly set out a position that they would support a particular individual to be Prime Minister and they together commanded a majority, there would be a very clear choice there, but that may not be the case. Therefore it would be a very uncertain process and would ultimately be a political process. That is not set down in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act at all.
And then they realise that there is no Parliament in place to ratify the extension...
Brexit may lead to heated debate but it is not the fall of Rome
It occurs to me that Killing Brexit (if it is ever to happen) can only happen if it is like Killing Caesar. i.e. Everyone's fingerprints must be on the assassin's knife, so no individual can take the blame.
That is to say: hundreds of MPs from all parties will have to conspire together and be seen as conspiring, for the blame to be diluted and dispersed, relatively harmlessly. A GONAFAE might be one means of doing that.
But, I doubt the wit and intelligence of Remainers to organise this. They have shown themselves the equal of the dimmest, stupidest, most arrogant Leavers, in all departments. Cf the TIGGERS.
Then. After the game is done, experts go back over it, and identify the key blunder/brilliant move no one spotted at the time.
https://twitter.com/Independent/status/1157781942491856896?s=20
As of right now, that SEEMS to be Dominic Cummings, until there is evidence to the contrary.
The Queen doesn't ask anyone until she knows they can command the Commons. Without that, Boris remains until the clock runs out on day 14.
Why you keep thinking The Queen is going to against 67 years of her reign and suddenly get involved in politics is beyond me. The Queen does nothing until the politicians have agreed it, at which point she does it then the politicians ratify that they agree it.
We shall see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbZU_uhZc2g
IF the Queen asks someone else to form a government, Boris Johnson will no longer be prime minister.
Would it help if I wrote it ten times in succession?
They can't be laid if the Commons has been dissolved, which means that under domestic law the provisions of the EU Withdrawal Act would kick in at 11pm on 31 October and the European Communities Act 1972 would be repealed.
Johnson remains PM IF no one else is asked to form a government?
Johnson remains PM IF no one else is asked to form a government?
Johnson remains PM IF no one else is asked to form a government?
Johnson remains PM IF no one else is asked to form a government?
Johnson remains PM IF no one else is asked to form a government?
Johnson remains PM IF no one else is asked to form a government?
Johnson remains PM IF no one else is asked to form a government?
Johnson remains PM IF no one else is asked to form a government?
Johnson remains PM IF no one else is asked to form a government?
Johnson remains PM IF no one else is asked to form a government?
Would it help if I wrote it ten times in succession?
What you are writing is no more relevant than saying if the sun rises in the West tomorrow.
The Queen will call a replacement for Boris if and only if the Commons has already indicated they endorse him. The Queen won't randomly start calling replacements prior to a Commons majority being found.
And no one else is asked unless they can already demonstrate they command a majority. So Boris is PM until the election until a majority in the Commons backs an alternative BEFORE the Queen acts.
No Deal now a 70% chance?
I'm sorry, I don't wish to be rude, but I can't fathom the depths of your stupidity.
Good night.
The Queen has never replaced a sitting PM with a replacement PM who can't command a majority of the Commons. Every PM she has ever called has already demonstrated they command a majority of the Commons.
If the UK is deadly serious about No Deal being the alternative, then the EU must either eat humble pie and change the deal, or accept No Deal - which is exactly what the backstop was meant to prevent in the future.
Chris is correct that if a majority emerges for X, then the Queen will replkace Boris with X.
Philip is correct that if no majority emerges, then Boris can sit it out till the election
Faisal is right that Boris can decide when the election will be, but that power is of limited benefit since he can't do anything significant in the meantime.
It is possible that Boris can hope to have the election after Oct 31. However, in order to call the election, VONC must be passed first, and then there are 14 days to find X (unless Boris can persuade 2/3 to call an election). He can't simply say "Oh, I've decided we'll have an election in November".
More plausibly, he can hope that No Deal will simply happen before Parliament has made up its mind. To prevent that, Parliament must:
(1) VONC Boris and
(2) choose X to take over before Oct 31
with a clear instruction to X to seek a delay while the issue is resolved by election.
I don't think you're right, sadly, I think we are headed for No Deal. The EU can't compromise the Single Market, the EU cannot afford to let a Leaver like Boris appear to "win". It would be fatal, long term, for them and the project.
But let's say you are right. What about these pig-headed ERG morons, such as Francois, who won't accept a Deal, even minus backstop?!?
How does Boris neuter them?
If the Conservative Party really is setting up democraticallyelected MPs in a legislature that has a fresher mandate than the referendum as a scapegoat upon which to vent fury for defying the mythical “will of the people” then it is, and I’ve thought hard about posting this and do not do so lightly, proto-fascist. Economic damage is not the will of the people. The people have or spoken on the timing or form of Brexit save through their MPs. The insanity of Cameron’s choice was not calling a referendum per se but not making explicit what happened next. Someone on my Facebook feed, who now has EU stars in her profile pic, posted before the referendum that we should vote leave because we would still be in the Single Market. She was, perhaps, slightly delusional and completely uninformed, but she was, unlike you, an actual Leaver. The people she is spitting blood at are not “Diehard Remainers”.
If my description of the Tory Party may seem intemperate to you, please reflect yourself on your constant framing of this important debate in militaristic, violent, terms. “Diehard” suggests hard to kill and you say Leavers are “spitting blood”. Violent imagery like this are not just idioms in the context of real effects on people’s lives, particularly those of us who have personal experience of the effects of the violence in NI you are playing with.
In UK - as close to zero % chance as matters.
In US - a little higher.
Who else? Who would Tory MPs vote for? Starmer? No. Swinson? No way. Who? Parliament is bitterly and precisely divided, any MP that voted for another party leader would be committing seppuku.
It seems that Dominic Cummings has this right, and MPs have left it too late to act. Either the EU blinks, or we exit with No Deal at Halloween.
Tactically it probably makes more sense to hold off until parliament resumes and wait for the Boris bounce to subside and people spend some time staring into the No Deal abyss.
Which is why the rebel alliance must VONC on 3rd or 4th September.
The time for cutting ones figure nails while Rome burns is over.
On the appointment of Boris successor it is Boris responsibility to recommend them to the Queen - as Mrs May recently did.
Quite simply Noone can claim every one of 2016 leave votes were voting on the in out question. It was one year after Osborne cammo stole election from Miliband, and Labour areas, to some degree taking a lead from their leader that it didn’t matter much how they voted, were voting heavily in 2016 to give Osborne and Cammo a kicking. That’s what got it over the line. there has never been a UK majority for Brexit. The majority of UK have always been against it, that’s why it isn’t going to happen.
The Commons already voted once to pass the WDA if the backstop was stripped out, that was the Brady Amendment. If that is done again then I think the Commons will grasp that with both hands to lock this down and put this behind us.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1157790215802687488?s=20
Change can only come when they want they really want to change. So, what can one do, but shrug ones shoulders?