The only way now to stop No Deal has been spelt out by Cummings in massive six foot letters:
1) Do not press the trigger unless you have the votes for an alternative PM e.g. Clarke ( who can be in place within the 14 days).
2) Do it on 3 or 4 the September - any later means probable that Johnson can No Deal during a GE (even those days are tight).
The Sane MPs must press the trigger the day they walk back in September.
They must ignore Jezza's weaselly vacillating dither and get the job done.
I know there is a minimum time before an election is called (25 working days so around 33-35 days in total depending on when weekends fall) but is there a maximum defined in the FTPA?
I don't think so. Another glaring error in our informal constitution.
However, iirc the PM gets to recommend a dissolution date to the Queen. I think she has the final decision (but of course will hate and resist being dragged into this murk).
I am beginning to think that our Queen may be about to perform one of her last major roles in a very long reign and inject some sanity into all this nonsense.
If parliament is ethical and refuses to put a Jew-killer commemorating Marxist in No 10, and they can't agree on anyone else, why can't they just pass the withdrawal agreement over Boris' head?
There is no majority for the WA in Parliament and won't be one just because the openly racist and homophobic and Islamophobic PM puts a gun to its head.
Ok, but just to be clear, it is perfectly possible for parliament to avoid a No Deal Brexit via the WA route, even if the PM opposes it? I am just trying to understand the alternatives MPs have when the option comes up to sell out British Jews and put an anti-Semite in charge of us.
The Lib Dems will be left with nothing. Their only policy is 'don't pass us the ball'. The nationalist parties won't fare much better. How can a party that seeks 'independence' have a policy of giving up control over fisheries?
How can a party that seeks sovereignty and control contemplate entering into an FTA with a country which will insist on secret trade tribunals with the power to override what Parliament wants?
Parliament is quite able to limit, should it so choose, the executive's general trade deal making powers, the extent to which ISDS is used in those deals, any policy carve-out from ISDS jurisdiction, and even an individual deal itself. (I hasten to add that it shouldn't, as these are rightly exec powers).
If the breadth of the ISDS jurisdiction the counterparty seeks is unacceptable to HMG then it won't sign the deal. It can, after all, be quietly confident that the ISDS court will not grant itself a series of further competencies.
On topic, here are some manifesto stocking filler policies for life outside the EU. Take your pick, PBers;
1. Zero-rating or exemption for VAT on sanitary goods 2. No tariffs on Chinese solar panels 3. No tariffs on Chinese electric bikes 4. No tariffs on bananas. 4a. Massive tariffs on bananas. F*ck bananas. 5. Points based immigration 6. Open-door immigration 7. No immigration. 8. Proportionality requirement for calling strikes 9. A toughened proportionality requirement for calling strikes. 10. No proportionality requirement for calling strikes. 11. Replicate EU state aid rules 12. More prohibitive state aid rules. 13. Looser state aid rules. 14. Everyone has to carry a plastic bag.
Does 14 have to be plastic? I have a go-bag made of neoprene lined woven polyester with a padded air-mesh back with vents to let moisture escape but prevent water from entering. I'd hate to have to swap it for a plaggy bag from Tesco...
1. No Deal Brexit in October. 2. Some form of constitutional crisis in October. 3. What else ...... a financial crisis? Some sort of small war somewhere? A terrorist outrage somewhere nearby? The real IRA kicking off again?
There are several stories that I'd like to hear more about.
(1) When will the NCA investigation into the funding by Arron Banks' companies of Leave.EU be concluded? (2) What was Priti Patel doing with the Israelis that she felt she needed to lie about it to the PM? (3) What was Dominic Cummings doing in Russia for several years? I've read that he was trying to start an airline, which sounds bizarre to me.
If parliament is ethical and refuses to put a Jew-killer commemorating Marxist in No 10, and they can't agree on anyone else, why can't they just pass the withdrawal agreement over Boris' head?
There is no majority for the WA in Parliament and won't be one just because the openly racist and homophobic and Islamophobic PM puts a gun to its head.
Ok, but just to be clear, it is perfectly possible for parliament to avoid a No Deal Brexit via the WA route, even if the PM opposes it? I am just trying to understand the alternatives MPs have when the option comes up to sell out British Jews and put an anti-Semite in charge of us.
Unfortunately I am not sure it is. And I would be quite happy with the WA as it stands. My understanding (and I am quite prepared to see Doug or another lawyer shoot me down on this) is that the agreement of the WA with the EU is covered by Royal Prerogative and as such the PM cannot be forced to submit it. He would have to be removed.
I have no idea if it is bollocks or not but if he is considering it then he is even madder than I thought.
The papers are losing the plot. Maybe their main pol staff are on the beach?
If Johnson loses a VoNC he can stay as PM for up to 14 days. But only if no one else can command majority. If no other individual has persuaded the Queen through the usual channels, or has won a formal confidence vote, then Johnson does get to decide the date of GE.
The way the papers are writing this is that he will be No Confidenced and then still stay in Downing Street for ever and a day, ignoring parliament and trashing the constitution.
Ridiculous spin. No doubt guided by Steve Hilton Mini Me.
The answer is obvious. The sane MPs bring down Johnson and then make sure they have someone within the 14 days who commands the majority.
In that case, Cummings and Johnson would be on their way to the Tower if they refused to hand over the Seals of Office.
I think they are betting that parliament won't be able to agree an alternative PM to take over before an election. I don't know whether that will be the case or not, but it is easy to imagine it happening (eg Labour won't accept a GONU not headed by Corbyn, the Lib Dems refuse to support one with Corbyn as PM, not enough Tories are willing to commit political suicide and defect). To crash out of the EU during an election campaign with Johnson as caretaker PM would be a constitutional abomination though, and I am not sure our democracy and union could survive it. There would I am sure be violence.
That's what I thought as well but the article clearly says he would intend to stay on even if a viable alternative Government with the support of the House had been put forward.
That would be a coup and would invite serious violence as well as putting HMQ in a very difficult position. If that is his plan then he is even more dangerous than I thought he was.
Who edits the Times? Shouldn't they be fully aware of the import of their lead story? I assume, therefore, it is no error. Only conclusion is as I have been saying. Cummings is a Leninist. He has seized the levers of power, and will need them prized out. With the Brexit backing press giving him a standing ovation as he does it.
LD policy before Brexit will remain stay in the EU.
If we Leave, especially with No Deal, it would likely switch to rejoin the single market first as a platform to rejoin the full EU if public opinion shifts in that direction. Labour would be similar but focused on rejoining the Customs Union first.
The Tories will still aim for a Canada style FTA and technical solution for the Irish border
“So which taxes will rise or cuts will be made to pay the £15Bn annual membership of the EU when you rejoin Ms Swinson?”
Which tax rises or cuts made will pay for the vastly bigger costs of Brexit?
We will have £39Bn to put in the kitty..
£39 billion one off savings over more than a decade versus £20 billion (and rising) of revenue foregone each and every year thanks to Brexit - and that's before we even leave.
Very bad deal.
Your £20 billion of revenue is utterly unproven. What is proven is that we will no longer be paying in excess of £9 billion a year net to the EU in contributions. Membership of the EU is indeed a very bad deal.
By “unproven” it just means you it causes you cognitive dissonance.
You’ve agreed that Brexit weakens the Union. You should agree it creates an economic hit as well, at least in the short term.
I have not agreed that it weakens the Union. I have said my hope is that it ends the Union. There is a huge difference there.
There may be an economic hit from leaving but it will be no where near as bad as claimed and in the long run I believe there will be an economic benefit.
Is this JRM’s thirty five year long run?
There's already an economic benefit for those who work in wealth creating sectors.
Wealth consuming oldies who have lots of foreign holidays might not be doing so well though.
What do you class as the wealth creating sectors that are already seeing an economic benefit?
I have no idea if it is bollocks or not but if he is considering it then he is even madder than I thought.
The papers are losing the plot. Maybe their main pol staff are on the beach?
If Johnson loses a VoNC he can stay as PM for up to 14 days. But only if no one else can command majority. If no other individual has persuaded the Queen through the usual channels, or has won a formal confidence vote, then Johnson does get to decide the date of GE.
The way the papers are writing this is that he will be No Confidenced and then still stay in Downing Street for ever and a day, ignoring parliament and trashing the constitution.
Ridiculous spin. No doubt guided by Steve Hilton Mini Me.
The answer is obvious. The sane MPs bring down Johnson and then make sure they have someone within the 14 days who commands the majority.
In that case, Cummings and Johnson would be on their way to the Tower if they refused to hand over the Seals of Office.
I think they are betting that parliament won't be able to agree an alternative PM to take over before an election. I don't know whether that will be the case or not, but it is easy to imagine it happening (eg Labour won't accept a GONU not headed by Corbyn, the Lib Dems refuse to support one with Corbyn as PM, not enough Tories are willing to commit political suicide and defect). To crash out of the EU during an election campaign with Johnson as caretaker PM would be a constitutional abomination though, and I am not sure our democracy and union could survive it. There would I am sure be violence.
That's what I thought as well but the article clearly says he would intend to stay on even if a viable alternative Government with the support of the House had been put forward.
That would be a coup and would invite serious violence as well as putting HMQ in a very difficult position. If that is his plan then he is even more dangerous than I thought he was.
Who edits the Times? Shouldn't they be fully aware of the import of their lead story? I assume, therefore, it is no error. Only conclusion is as I have been saying. Cummings is a Leninist. He has seized the levers of power, and will need them prized out. With the Brexit backing press giving him a standing ovation as he does it.
I'm betting on the Crown, if it is some wannaba IT nerd from Durham versus Her Majesty over who controls the constitution when the chips are down.
Corbyn and the Stalinist death culters running him want crash Brexit. A crisis in capitalism so that they can wheel out "true socialism". They don't care what happens after Brexit, the crisis is their golden opportunity to reshape a golden age in Britain that resembles the heady heights of the Belarus SSR
The only way now to stop No Deal has been spelt out by Cummings in massive six foot letters:
1) Do not press the trigger unless you have the votes for an alternative PM e.g. Clarke ( who can be in place within the 14 days).
2) Do it on 3 or 4 the September - any later means probable that Johnson can No Deal during a GE (even those days are tight).
The Sane MPs must press the trigger the day they walk back in September.
They must ignore Jezza's weaselly vacillating dither and get the job done.
I know there is a minimum time before an election is called (25 working days so around 33-35 days in total depending on when weekends fall) but is there a maximum defined in the FTPA?
I don't think so. Another glaring error in our informal constitution.
However, iirc the PM gets to recommend a dissolution date to the Queen. I think she has the final decision (but of course will hate and resist being dragged into this murk).
I am beginning to think that our Queen may be about to perform one of her last major roles in a very long reign and inject some sanity into all this nonsense.
LD policy before Brexit will remain stay in the EU.
If we Leave, especially with No Deal, it would likely switch to rejoin the single market first as a platform to rejoin the full EU if public opinion shifts in that direction. Labour would be similar but focused on rejoining the Customs Union first.
The Tories will still aim for a Canada style FTA and technical solution for the Irish border
“So which taxes will rise or cuts will be made to pay the £15Bn annual membership of the EU when you rejoin Ms Swinson?”
Which tax rises or cuts made will pay for the vastly bigger costs of Brexit?
We will have £39Bn to put in the kitty..
£39 billion one off savings over more than a decade versus £20 billion (and rising) of revenue foregone each and every year thanks to Brexit - and that's before we even leave.
Very bad deal.
Your £20 billion of revenue is utterly unproven. What is proven is that we will no longer be paying in excess of £9 billion a year net to the EU in contributions. Membership of the EU is indeed a very bad deal.
By “unproven” it just means you it causes you cognitive dissonance.
You’ve agreed that Brexit weakens the Union. You should agree it creates an economic hit as well, at least in the short term.
I have not agreed that it weakens the Union. I have said my hope is that it ends the Union. There is a huge difference there.
There may be an economic hit from leaving but it will be no where near as bad as claimed and in the long run I believe there will be an economic benefit.
Is this JRM’s thirty five year long run?
There's already an economic benefit for those who work in wealth creating sectors.
Wealth consuming oldies who have lots of foreign holidays might not be doing so well though.
What do you class as the wealth creating sectors that are already seeing an economic benefit?
On topic: Nick asks a very good question: what would/should the various parties propose in the event of a crash-out?
To be fair to our politicians, it's hard enough figuring out what to do before such a disaster, and I'm not sure that they do need to try to come up with an answer now about what to do afterwards. We can just about predict the immediate aftermath of a crash-out (it won't be pretty..), but the exact scale, scope and duration of the disaster, and the reaction of the EU, of businesses, and of the rest of the world is completely unknown: no-one can do much planning for this, because there is no precedent and in any case it all depends how others react.
If there is an early post-crash-out election, though, I think the positions of the four main parties is fairly predictable:
Conservatives: We did what we promised, let's pretend Brexit is done now and try to change the subject, and by the way we're throwing money at every conceivable problem.
Labour: The vicious incompetent Tories have wrecked the economy and screwed up Brexit. Vote Labour for cuddly nationalised industries and free unicorns, and we'll negotiate a new settlement with the EU which will magically solve all problems, without actually changing anything.
LibDems: It's an unmitigated disaster, caused by insane right-wing Tories and the lickspittle Labour leadership which did nothing to prevent it. Vote for us as the only adults left, and we'll try to negotiate something sensible, involving a closer relationship with our EU friends.
Brexit Party: The Tories have completely screwed up Brexit because they didn't really believe in it. Vote for us and we'll do it properly.
I think they are betting that parliament won't be able to agree an alternative PM to take over before an election. I don't know whether that will be the case or not, but it is easy to imagine it happening (eg Labour won't accept a GONU not headed by Corbyn, the Lib Dems refuse to support one with Corbyn as PM, not enough Tories are willing to commit political suicide and defect). To crash out of the EU during an election campaign with Johnson as caretaker PM would be a constitutional abomination though, and I am not sure our democracy and union could survive it. There would I am sure be violence.
That's what I thought as well but the article clearly says he would intend to stay on even if a viable alternative Government with the support of the House had been put forward.
That would be a coup and would invite serious violence as well as putting HMQ in a very difficult position. If that is his plan then he is even more dangerous than I thought he was.
I would have to say that I would find Brexit under those circumstances unacceptable as well. Whatever is done must be legal or it is unsustainable and immoral.
I am sure you are genuine when you say that.
But the trouble is that we have had Ministers in this government, most notably the PM, saying that Brexit must be done "no matter what", "do or die" etc and some of the wilder supporters claiming that the end justifies any means that I cannot be certain that the No Deal Brexiteers in government would take the same position as you.
I also disagree - as will come as no surprise to you - that simply ensuring that Brexit is done legally will be sufficient to render it sustainable or moral. Real consent is needed not simply de jure legality. But we were arguing about this earlier and disagreed so I will leave that point there. We are not going to convince each other on this.
I have no idea if it is bollocks or not but if he is considering it then he is even madder than I thought.
The papers are losing the plot. Maybe their main pol staff are on the beach?
If Johnson loses a VoNC he can stay as PM for up to 14 days. But only if no one else can command majority. If no other individual has persuaded the Queen through the usual channels, or has won a formal confidence vote, then Johnson does get to decide the date of GE.
The way the papers are writing this is that he will be No Confidenced and then still stay in Downing Street for ever and a day, ignoring parliament and trashing the constitution.
Ridiculous spin. No doubt guided by Steve Hilton Mini Me.
The answer is obvious. The sane MPs bring down Johnson and then make sure they have someone within the 14 days who commands the majority.
In that case, Cummings and Johnson would be on their way to the Tower if they refused to hand over the Seals of Office.
I think they are betting that parliament won't be able to agree an alternative PM to take over before an election. I don't know whether that will be the case or not, but it is easy to imagine it happening (eg Labour won't accept a GONU not headed by Corbyn, the Lib Dems refuse to support one with Corbyn as PM, not enough Tories are willing to commit political suicide and defect). To crash out of the EU during an election campaign with Johnson as caretaker PM would be a constitutional abomination though, and I am not sure our democracy and union could survive it. There would I am sure be violence.
That's what I thought as well but the article clearly says he would intend to stay on even if a viable alternative Government with the support of the House had been put forward.
That would be a coup and would invite serious violence as well as putting HMQ in a very difficult position. If that is his plan then he is even more dangerous than I thought he was.
I would have to say that I would find Brexit under those circumstances unacceptable as well. Whatever is done must be legal or it is unsustainable and immoral.
The most likely explanation I think we have is that desperate to persuade the Brussels team that they really, really, really mean No Deal, the Cummings Government is briefing all sorts of utter crap.
1. No Deal Brexit in October. 2. Some form of constitutional crisis in October. 3. What else ...... a financial crisis? Some sort of small war somewhere? A terrorist outrage somewhere nearby? The real IRA kicking off again?
There are several stories that I'd like to hear more about.
(1) When will the NCA investigation into the funding by Arron Banks' companies of Leave.EU be concluded? (2) What was Priti Patel doing with the Israelis that she felt she needed to lie about it to the PM? (3) What was Dominic Cummings doing in Russia for several years? I've read that he was trying to start an airline, which sounds bizarre to me.
Also, who the hell leaked the US Ambassador story?
Please don’t tell me we are supposed to believe it was that 19-yr-old “reporter” who apparently “heard it in a restaurant”.
The only way now to stop No Deal has been spelt out by Cummings in massive six foot letters:
1) Do not press the trigger unless you have the votes for an alternative PM e.g. Clarke ( who can be in place within the 14 days).
2) Do it on 3 or 4 the September - any later means probable that Johnson can No Deal during a GE (even those days are tight).
The Sane MPs must press the trigger the day they walk back in September.
They must ignore Jezza's weaselly vacillating dither and get the job done.
Cummings is presumably hoping that (1) nobody from the remain side really fancies it, which is a long shot (2) anyone who does can't carry the house,a which is shorter (3) they can tempt anyone who might to poke their heads up ahead of any VONC. If only one stands up, give them a bad 24 hours with the whips and the media. If two or more, play them off against one another.
Corbyn and the Stalinist death culters running him want crash Brexit. A crisis in capitalism so that they can wheel out "true socialism". They don't care what happens after Brexit, the crisis is their golden opportunity to reshape a golden age in Britain that resembles the heady heights of the Belarus SSR
LD policy before Brexit will remain stay in the EU.
If we Leave, especially with No Deal, it would likely switch to rejoin the single market first as a platform to rejoin the full EU if public opinion shifts in that direction. Labour would be similar but focused on rejoining the Customs Union first.
The Tories will still aim for a Canada style FTA and technical solution for the Irish border
“So which taxes will rise or cuts will be made to pay the £15Bn annual membership of the EU when you rejoin Ms Swinson?”
Which tax rises or cuts made will pay for the vastly bigger costs of Brexit?
We will have £39Bn to put in the kitty..
£39 billion one off savings over more than a decade versus £20 billion (and rising) of revenue foregone each and every year thanks to Brexit - and that's before we even leave.
Very bad deal.
Your £20 billion of revenue is utterly unproven. What is proven is that we will no longer be paying in excess of £9 billion a year net to the EU in contributions. Membership of the EU is indeed a very bad deal.
By “unproven” it just means you it causes you cognitive dissonance.
You’ve agreed that Brexit weakens the Union. You should agree it creates an economic hit as well, at least in the short term.
I have not agreed that it weakens the Union. I have said my hope is that it ends the Union. There is a huge difference there.
There may be an economic hit from leaving but it will be no where near as bad as claimed and in the long run I believe there will be an economic benefit.
Is this JRM’s thirty five year long run?
There's already an economic benefit for those who work in wealth creating sectors.
Wealth consuming oldies who have lots of foreign holidays might not be doing so well though.
What do you class as the wealth creating sectors that are already seeing an economic benefit?
He hasn’t got a Danny.
Most people using the term 'wealth creators' are really describing wealth accumulators.
1. No Deal Brexit in October. 2. Some form of constitutional crisis in October. 3. What else ...... a financial crisis? Some sort of small war somewhere? A terrorist outrage somewhere nearby? The real IRA kicking off again?
There are several stories that I'd like to hear more about.
(1) When will the NCA investigation into the funding by Arron Banks' companies of Leave.EU be concluded? (2) What was Priti Patel doing with the Israelis that she felt she needed to lie about it to the PM? (3) What was Dominic Cummings doing in Russia for several years? I've read that he was trying to start an airline, which sounds bizarre to me.
Also, who the hell leaked the US Ambassador story?
Please don’t tell me we are supposed to believe it was that 19-yr-old “reporter” who apparently “heard it in a restaurant”.
Oh yes, and how the police investigation is going. 19 year-old reporter indeed. Such a transparently made up story.
Tyndall is literally in the position of the supposed peace-loving Communist who rather regrets the invasion of Hungary but can’t see what it is to do with his beloved ideology.
1. No Deal Brexit in October. 2. Some form of constitutional crisis in October. 3. What else ...... a financial crisis? Some sort of small war somewhere? A terrorist outrage somewhere nearby? The real IRA kicking off again?
There are several stories that I'd like to hear more about.
(1) When will the NCA investigation into the funding by Arron Banks' companies of Leave.EU be concluded? (2) What was Priti Patel doing with the Israelis that she felt she needed to lie about it to the PM? (3) What was Dominic Cummings doing in Russia for several years? I've read that he was trying to start an airline, which sounds bizarre to me.
Also, who the hell leaked the US Ambassador story?
Please don’t tell me we are supposed to believe it was that 19-yr-old “reporter” who apparently “heard it in a restaurant”.
I’ll have a go at number 2. Banging their big guns.
Could Johnson avoid a VONC by calling a general election first?
No. Well yes, but only if he can persuade 2/3 of the house to agree to one.
Who knows what the individual decisions of MPs will be on that one, seeing as they could lose their jobs.
The whole of the opposition would be in favour of an election I assume, so Johnson would have to persuade 50% of his own MPs to support it. I can't remember how many Tory MPs are on the government payroll but it must be close to 50%.
The only way now to stop No Deal has been spelt out by Cummings in massive six foot letters:
1) Do not press the trigger unless you have the votes for an alternative PM e.g. Clarke ( who can be in place within the 14 days).
2) Do it on 3 or 4 the September - any later means probable that Johnson can No Deal during a GE (even those days are tight).
The Sane MPs must press the trigger the day they walk back in September.
They must ignore Jezza's weaselly vacillating dither and get the job done.
I know there is a minimum time before an election is called (25 working days so around 33-35 days in total depending on when weekends fall) but is there a maximum defined in the FTPA?
I don't think so. Another glaring error in our informal constitution.
However, iirc the PM gets to recommend a dissolution date to the Queen. I think she has the final decision ...
The FTPA says "the polling day for the election is to be the day appointed by Her Majesty by proclamation on the recommendation of the Prime Minister."
I have no idea if it is bollocks or not but if he is considering it then he is even madder than I thought.
The papers are losing the plot. Maybe their main pol staff are on the beach
The way the papers are writing this is that he will be No Confidenced and then still stay in Downing Street for ever and a day, ignoring parliament and trashing the constitution.
Ridiculous spin. No doubt guided by Steve Hilton Mini Me.
The answer is obvious. The sane MPs bring down Johnson and then make sure they have someone within the 14 days who commands the majority.
In that case, Cummings and Johnson would be on their way to the Tower if they refused to hand over the Seals of Office.
I think they are betting that parliament won't be able to agree an alternative PM to take over before an election. I don't know whether that will be the case or not, but it is easy to imagine it happening (eg Labour won't accept a GONU not headed by Corbyn, the Lib Dems refuse to support one with Corbyn as PM, not enough Tories are willing to commit political suicide and defect). To crash out of the EU during an election campaign with Johnson as caretaker PM would be a constitutional abomination though, and I am not sure our democracy and union could survive it. There would I am sure be violence.
That's what I thought as well but the article clearly says he would intend to stay on even if a viable alternative Government with the support of the House had been put forward.
That would be a coup and would invite serious violence as well as putting HMQ in a very difficult position. If that is his plan then he is even more dangerous than I thought he was.
I would have to say that I would find Brexit under those circumstances unacceptable as well. Whatever is done must be legal or it is unsustainable and immoral.
The most likely explanation I think we have is that desperate to persuade the Brussels team that they really, really, really mean No Deal, the Cummings Government is briefing all sorts of utter crap.
Barely more than a week in, and decision to let Cummings do the driving is beginning to look a bit, as say in yes minister, courageous.
Margaret Beckett would be a decent GONU PM, relatively acceptable across the house and to both wings of the Labour Party I would have thought.
Hell will freeze over before Corbyn whips his MPs to back anyone other than himself as PM. And why should he? If No Deal's so bad, and he's the only one who can stop it, they should be begging him to become PM, not scheming to find ways to deny him.
There was a header a while back from the wonderful Mr Meeks which pointed out that Britain was at risk of being a new Argentina i.e. that from a good position economically, socially etc it ended up a mess as a result of very poor decisions and a useless political class. The result was that, far from fulfilling its promise, it ended up a sort of violent, reactionary Ruritania run by ludicrous but corrupt and malicious populists and generals and ended up as a third rate state rather than the state it could have been.
The fact that we are reading stories about PMs possibly hanging on in the face of VoNC and alternative governments and of opposition MPs desperately trying to find ways of overthrowing the government, of elections being held in the middle of country-changing events, of advisors taunting MPs that they can do nothing to stop matters, of the possibility of Parliament being prorogued or of no legislation being brought to stop Parliament doing its job etc etc - even allowing for spin and journalists not understanding and the silly season - does suggest that maybe our political institutions are not quite as fit for purpose as we would like to think.
Maybe the line between being a reasonably sensible well-run state and one which ends up prey to all sorts of nonsense is much thinner than we all realised.
Could Johnson avoid a VONC by calling a general election first?
No. Well yes, but only if he can persuade 2/3 of the house to agree to one.
Who knows what the individual decisions of MPs will be on that one, seeing as they could lose their jobs.
The whole of the opposition would be in favour of an election I assume, so Johnson would have to persuade 50% of his own MPs to support it. I can't remember how many Tory MPs are on the government payroll but it must be close to 50%.
Exactly. Plus he'd be whipping it - those on his own side who voted against would risk having the whip withdrawn, thus their position as PPC; few would take that gamble.
Could Johnson avoid a VONC by calling a general election first?
No. Well yes, but only if he can persuade 2/3 of the house to agree to one.
Who knows what the individual decisions of MPs will be on that one, seeing as they could lose their jobs.
The whole of the opposition would be in favour of an election I assume, so Johnson would have to persuade 50% of his own MPs to support it. I can't remember how many Tory MPs are on the government payroll but it must be close to 50%.
But in that case Johnson really would be able to choose the date of the election.
1. No Deal Brexit in October. 2. Some form of constitutional crisis in October. 3. What else ...... a financial crisis? Some sort of small war somewhere? A terrorist outrage somewhere nearby? The real IRA kicking off again?
There are several stories that I'd like to hear more about.
(1) When will the NCA investigation into the funding by Arron Banks' companies of Leave.EU be concluded? (2) What was Priti Patel doing with the Israelis that she felt she needed to lie about it to the PM? (3) What was Dominic Cummings doing in Russia for several years? I've read that he was trying to start an airline, which sounds bizarre to me.
Also, who the hell leaked the US Ambassador story?
Please don’t tell me we are supposed to believe it was that 19-yr-old “reporter” who apparently “heard it in a restaurant”.
I’ll have a go at number 2. Banging their big guns.
Does "banging their big guns" mean what I think it means?
You'd think the EU might extend the date of the UK leaving if there's going to be a general election, in order to encourage voters to support parties that want to stay in the EU. But they'd only announce it after the date of the election has been revealed.
Could Johnson avoid a VONC by calling a general election first?
No. Well yes, but only if he can persuade 2/3 of the house to agree to one.
Who knows what the individual decisions of MPs will be on that one, seeing as they could lose their jobs.
The whole of the opposition would be in favour of an election I assume, so Johnson would have to persuade 50% of his own MPs to support it. I can't remember how many Tory MPs are on the government payroll but it must be close to 50%.
But in that case Johnson really would be able to choose the date of the election.
Assuming parliament doesn't find a way of mandating otherwise.
I actually think there's a chance the SNP might be the spanner in the works in preventing the formation of a GNU. If Sturgeon asks for Indyref2 in return for supporting it, there's a good chance the entire thing won't be able to get off the ground... as either some unionist anti-no dealers vote it down along with the rump of the Tory party to prevent another Indyref, or the SNP vote it down if the prospective caretaker PM refuses them.
There was a header a while back from the wonderful Mr Meeks which pointed out that Britain was at risk of being a new Argentina i.e. that from a good position economically, socially etc it ended up a mess as a result of very poor decisions and a useless political class. The result was that, far from fulfilling its promise, it ended up a sort of violent, reactionary Ruritania run by ludicrous but corrupt and malicious populists and generals and ended up as a third rate state rather than the state it could have been.
The fact that we are reading stories about PMs possibly hanging on in the face of VoNC and alternative governments and of opposition MPs desperately trying to find ways of overthrowing the government, of elections being held in the middle of country-changing events, of advisors taunting MPs that they can do nothing to stop matters, of the possibility of Parliament being prorogued or of no legislation being brought to stop Parliament doing its job etc etc - even allowing for spin and journalists not understanding and the silly season - does suggest that maybe our political institutions are not quite as fit for purpose as we would like to think.
Maybe the line between being a reasonably sensible well-run state and one which ends up prey to all sorts of nonsense is much thinner than we all realised.
1. No Deal Brexit in October. 2. Some form of constitutional crisis in October. 3. What else ...... a financial crisis? Some sort of small war somewhere? A terrorist outrage somewhere nearby? The real IRA kicking off again?
There are several stories that I'd like to hear more about.
(1) When will the NCA investigation into the funding by Arron Banks' companies of Leave.EU be concluded? (2) What was Priti Patel doing with the Israelis that she felt she needed to lie about it to the PM? (3) What was Dominic Cummings doing in Russia for several years? I've read that he was trying to start an airline, which sounds bizarre to me.
Also, who the hell leaked the US Ambassador story?
Please don’t tell me we are supposed to believe it was that 19-yr-old “reporter” who apparently “heard it in a restaurant”.
I’ll have a go at number 2. Banging their big guns.
Does "banging their big guns" mean what I think it means?
Yes. She was guest of the military and went on manoeuvres with them.
Could Johnson avoid a VONC by calling a general election first?
No. Well yes, but only if he can persuade 2/3 of the house to agree to one.
Who knows what the individual decisions of MPs will be on that one, seeing as they could lose their jobs.
The whole of the opposition would be in favour of an election I assume, so Johnson would have to persuade 50% of his own MPs to support it. I can't remember how many Tory MPs are on the government payroll but it must be close to 50%.
But in that case Johnson really would be able to choose the date of the election.
Assuming parliament doesn't find a way of mandating otherwise.
I mean under the FTPA the date is recommended by the PM. To mandate otherwise, parliament would have to amend the FTPA.
I actually think there's a chance the SNP might be the spanner in the works in preventing the formation of a GNU. If Sturgeon asks for Indyref2 in return for supporting it, there's a good chance the entire thing won't be able to get off the ground... as either some unionist anti-no dealers vote it down along with the rump of the Tory party to prevent another Indyref, or the SNP vote it down if the prospective caretaker PM refuses them.
Maybe. But a GONU would likely play well with SNP supporters on its own terms.
You'd think the EU might extend the date of the UK leaving if there's going to be a general election, in order to encourage voters to support parties that want to stay in the EU. But they'd only announce it after the date of the election has been revealed.
They can't unilaterally extend the date. It has to be by unanimous consent of the EU27 plus the UK.
They might well make it very clear that they'd be prepared to extend the date, in order to avoid blame for the disaster, but they can't force it on us.
The question, therefore, is whether parliament could take control and insist on asking for an extension. That is unclear, since normally it's the Executive who gets to negotiate such things. But parliament might try to change that.
Margaret Beckett would be a decent GONU PM, relatively acceptable across the house and to both wings of the Labour Party I would have thought.
Hell will freeze over before Corbyn whips his MPs to back anyone other than himself as PM. And why should he? If No Deal's so bad, and he's the only one who can stop it, they should be begging him to become PM, not scheming to find ways to deny him.
All things are relative and everyone has their own priorities, known or unknown. Good luck sorting that out with MPs.
1. No Deal Brexit in October. 2. Some form of constitutional crisis in October. 3. What else ...... a financial crisis? Some sort of small war somewhere? A terrorist outrage somewhere nearby? The real IRA kicking off again?
There are several stories that I'd like to hear more about.
(1) When will the NCA investigation into the funding by Arron Banks' companies of Leave.EU be concluded? (2) What was Priti Patel doing with the Israelis that she felt she needed to lie about it to the PM? (3) What was Dominic Cummings doing in Russia for several years? I've read that he was trying to start an airline, which sounds bizarre to me.
Also, who the hell leaked the US Ambassador story?
Please don’t tell me we are supposed to believe it was that 19-yr-old “reporter” who apparently “heard it in a restaurant”.
I’ll have a go at number 2. Banging their big guns.
Does "banging their big guns" mean what I think it means?
Yes. She was guest of the military and went on manoeuvres with them.
Why? What was in it for her? What was in it for the Israelis? Or other parties?
You'd think the EU might extend the date of the UK leaving if there's going to be a general election, in order to encourage voters to support parties that want to stay in the EU. But they'd only announce it after the date of the election has been revealed.
They can't unilaterally extend the date. It has to be by unanimous consent of the EU27 plus the UK.
They might well make it very clear that they'd be prepared to extend the date, in order to avoid blame for the disaster, but they can't force it on us.
The question, therefore, is whether parliament could take control and insist on asking for an extension. That is unclear, since normally it's the Executive who gets to negotiate such things. But parliament might try to change that.
There was talk, wasn't there, of parliament petitioning the Queen as head of state to request an extension. Difficult to take that seriously, though.
The only way now to stop No Deal has been spelt out by Cummings in massive six foot letters:
1) Do not press the trigger unless you have the votes for an alternative PM e.g. Clarke ( who can be in place within the 14 days).
2) Do it on 3 or 4 the September - any later means probable that Johnson can No Deal during a GE (even those days are tight).
The Sane MPs must press the trigger the day they walk back in September.
They must ignore Jezza's weaselly vacillating dither and get the job done.
Cummings is presumably hoping that (1) nobody from the remain side really fancies it, which is a long shot (2) anyone who does can't carry the house,a which is shorter (3) they can tempt anyone who might to poke their heads up ahead of any VONC. If only one stands up, give them a bad 24 hours with the whips and the media. If two or more, play them off against one another.
We can also be confident that Corbyn would whip Labour MPs not support a vote of confidence in a government led by anyone other than Corbyn. Disregard Corbyn's public statements of convenience on the EU since becoming leader - what matters is that he wanted the UK to leave for the entirity of his parliamentary career as a backbencher and still does. And for the UK to leave without any agreement in place would suit him, for it would then provide a clean slate upon which a government he led could negotiate the sort of agreement he wanted post 31st October as incoming PM.
The flaw in Corbyn's reasoning is that the electorate may not share his optimism that he could win a general election in November and become PM. But that won't stop him following the course above.
There was a header a while back from the wonderful Mr Meeks which pointed out that Britain was at risk of being a new Argentina i.e. that from a good position economically, socially etc it ended up a mess as a result of very poor decisions and a useless political class. The result was that, far from fulfilling its promise, it ended up a sort of violent, reactionary Ruritania run by ludicrous but corrupt and malicious populists and generals and ended up as a third rate state rather than the state it could have been.
The fact that we are reading stories about PMs possibly hanging on in the face of VoNC and alternative governments and of opposition MPs desperately trying to find ways of overthrowing the government, of elections being held in the middle of country-changing events, of advisors taunting MPs that they can do nothing to stop matters, of the possibility of Parliament being prorogued or of no legislation being brought to stop Parliament doing its job etc etc - even allowing for spin and journalists not understanding and the silly season - does suggest that maybe our political institutions are not quite as fit for purpose as we would like to think.
Maybe the line between being a reasonably sensible well-run state and one which ends up prey to all sorts of nonsense is much thinner than we all realised.
"It couldn't happen here."
Quite. It feels as if it might.
"you must believe in Brexit" "Do or die" "whatever it takes" "you can't stop us" "people vs Parliament"
Has there ever been a case of a charismatic journalist with a gift for communication moving into politics and becoming his country's leader?
You'd think the EU might extend the date of the UK leaving if there's going to be a general election, in order to encourage voters to support parties that want to stay in the EU. But they'd only announce it after the date of the election has been revealed.
They can't unilaterally extend the date. It has to be by unanimous consent of the EU27 plus the UK.
They might well make it very clear that they'd be prepared to extend the date, in order to avoid blame for the disaster, but they can't force it on us.
The question, therefore, is whether parliament could take control and insist on asking for an extension. That is unclear, since normally it's the Executive who gets to negotiate such things. But parliament might try to change that.
There was talk, wasn't there, of parliament petitioning the Queen as head of state to request an extension. Difficult to take that seriously, though.
Yes, that sounds like a fantasy. But there is presumably a route by a new Act of parliament, which given the success of the Cooper-Letwin bill looks like a possibility.
There was a header a while back from the wonderful Mr Meeks which pointed out that Britain was at risk of being a new Argentina i.e. that from a good position economically, socially etc it ended up a mess as a result of very poor decisions and a useless political class. The result was that, far from fulfilling its promise, it ended up a sort of violent, reactionary Ruritania run by ludicrous but corrupt and malicious populists and generals and ended up as a third rate state rather than the state it could have been.
The fact that we are reading stories about PMs possibly hanging on in the face of VoNC and alternative governments and of opposition MPs desperately trying to find ways of overthrowing the government, of elections being held in the middle of country-changing events, of advisors taunting MPs that they can do nothing to stop matters, of the possibility of Parliament being prorogued or of no legislation being brought to stop Parliament doing its job etc etc - even allowing for spin and journalists not understanding and the silly season - does suggest that maybe our political institutions are not quite as fit for purpose as we would like to think.
Maybe the line between being a reasonably sensible well-run state and one which ends up prey to all sorts of nonsense is much thinner than we all realised.
I think you can scrub "maybe" in your final para. It has always been a thin line.
I actually think there's a chance the SNP might be the spanner in the works in preventing the formation of a GNU. If Sturgeon asks for Indyref2 in return for supporting it, there's a good chance the entire thing won't be able to get off the ground... as either some unionist anti-no dealers vote it down along with the rump of the Tory party to prevent another Indyref, or the SNP vote it down if the prospective caretaker PM refuses them.
Don't think she would tie indyref2 to that. For one, the argument has always been that majorities at Holyrood give legitimacy to indyref, noy Westminster. secondly she would risk being blamed for no deal if it all fell apart, which is extremely unpopular in Scotland, too big a risk politically.
Margaret Beckett would be a decent GONU PM, relatively acceptable across the house and to both wings of the Labour Party I would have thought.
Ed M. Acceptable to the majority of Labour MPs. Presumably to the majority of Tories too, as they have been enthusiastically enacting his domestic policies recently.
Margaret Beckett would be a decent GONU PM, relatively acceptable across the house and to both wings of the Labour Party I would have thought.
Hell will freeze over before Corbyn whips his MPs to back anyone other than himself as PM. And why should he? If No Deal's so bad, and he's the only one who can stop it, they should be begging him to become PM, not scheming to find ways to deny him.
All things are relative and everyone has their own priorities, known or unknown. Good luck sorting that out with MPs.
At least we can be sure Jezza would not No Deal if he was PM. The strategy is for Johnson or another Tory to be the No Deal merchant.
Margaret Beckett would be a decent GONU PM, relatively acceptable across the house and to both wings of the Labour Party I would have thought.
Hell will freeze over before Corbyn whips his MPs to back anyone other than himself as PM. And why should he? If No Deal's so bad, and he's the only one who can stop it, they should be begging him to become PM, not scheming to find ways to deny him.
I agree with your first sentence - see my 11.24 post sent simultaneously.
But don't assume that Corbyn is averse to No Deal in practice, whatever he says in public. It amounts to the UK leaving (Corbyn's preferred outcome) with a blank slate on which Corbyn could subsequently try and negotiate a new agreement with the EU, rather than being tied to the terms of one negotiated by a Tory PM.
Can't see this latest news that he would hang on after a vonc as serious, if it came to it he risks being fired by the Queen, he would be forever known as the PM who attempted a coup, and all this just to get brexit through? He doesn't even believe in the project.
There was a header a while back from the wonderful Mr Meeks which pointed out that Britain was at risk of being a new Argentina i.e. that from a good position economically, socially etc it ended up a mess as a result of very poor decisions and a useless political class. The result was that, far from fulfilling its promise, it ended up a sort of violent, reactionary Ruritania run by ludicrous but corrupt and malicious populists and generals and ended up as a third rate state rather than the state it could have been.
The fact that we are reading stories about PMs possibly hanging on in the face of VoNC and alternative governments and of opposition MPs desperately trying to find ways of overthrowing the government, of elections being held in the middle of country-changing events, of advisors taunting MPs that they can do nothing to stop matters, of the possibility of Parliament being prorogued or of no legislation being brought to stop Parliament doing its job etc etc - even allowing for spin and journalists not understanding and the silly season - does suggest that maybe our political institutions are not quite as fit for purpose as we would like to think.
Maybe the line between being a reasonably sensible well-run state and one which ends up prey to all sorts of nonsense is much thinner than we all realised.
This is a bit silly. Boris wouldn't be hanging on to power against the law. He would be instead putting the issue to a general election. Johnson is a clown but he is no wannabe dictator. I do wonder whether this hyperbole plays into his hands.
There was a header a while back from the wonderful Mr Meeks which pointed out that Britain was at risk of being a new Argentina i.e. that from a good position economically, socially etc it ended up a mess as a result of very poor decisions and a useless political class. The result was that, far from fulfilling its promise, it ended up a sort of violent, reactionary Ruritania run by ludicrous but corrupt and malicious populists and generals and ended up as a third rate state rather than the state it could have been.
The fact that we are reading stories about PMs possibly hanging on in the face of VoNC and alternative governments and of opposition MPs desperately trying to find ways of overthrowing the government, of elections being held in the middle of country-changing events, of advisors taunting MPs that they can do nothing to stop matters, of the possibility of Parliament being prorogued or of no legislation being brought to stop Parliament doing its job etc etc - even allowing for spin and journalists not understanding and the silly season - does suggest that maybe our political institutions are not quite as fit for purpose as we would like to think.
Maybe the line between being a reasonably sensible well-run state and one which ends up prey to all sorts of nonsense is much thinner than we all realised.
1. No Deal Brexit in October. 2. Some form of constitutional crisis in October. 3. What else ...... a financial crisis? Some sort of small war somewhere? A terrorist outrage somewhere nearby? The real IRA kicking off again?
There are several stories that I'd like to hear more about.
(1) When will the NCA investigation into the funding by Arron Banks' companies of Leave.EU be concluded? (2) What was Priti Patel doing with the Israelis that she felt she needed to lie about it to the PM? (3) What was Dominic Cummings doing in Russia for several years? I've read that he was trying to start an airline, which sounds bizarre to me.
Also, who the hell leaked the US Ambassador story?
Please don’t tell me we are supposed to believe it was that 19-yr-old “reporter” who apparently “heard it in a restaurant”.
I’ll have a go at number 2. Banging their big guns.
Does "banging their big guns" mean what I think it means?
Yes. She was guest of the military and went on manoeuvres with them.
Why? What was in it for her? What was in it for the Israelis? Or other parties?
As overseas aid and development secretary it may seem odd spending so much time with Israeli military. The likely reasoning is this is the kind of ‘player” she thought herself as, and using “British cabinet minister” as the ticket to ride. She tried to keep it quiet with a little white lie but that was an error of judgement.
Anyhow, she’s in a nice plum job now, where the Tory press and party are certainly warming to her. Those supporters who always claimed she’s got a certain X factor, as well as those critics who would say “x factor, what are you babbling on about, are you crazy?” Are going to get their confirmation either way.
Margaret Beckett would be a decent GONU PM, relatively acceptable across the house and to both wings of the Labour Party I would have thought.
Hell will freeze over before Corbyn whips his MPs to back anyone other than himself as PM. And why should he? If No Deal's so bad, and he's the only one who can stop it, they should be begging him to become PM, not scheming to find ways to deny him.
All things are relative and everyone has their own priorities, known or unknown. Good luck sorting that out with MPs.
At least we can be sure Jezza would not No Deal if he was PM. The strategy is for Johnson or another Tory to be the No Deal merchant.
"No deal" is the default option. Unless a deal is agreed that is what will happen, unless there are perpetual extensions. Now that would be the fuck up to out fuck all fuck ups.
Can't see this latest news that he would hang on after a vonc as serious, if it came to it he risks being fired by the Queen, he would be forever known as the PM who attempted a coup, and all this just to get brexit through? He doesn't even believe in the project.
Can anyone really imagine Boris Johnson having the courage to attempt a coup? He didn't even have the courage to attend a leadership debate.
Can't see this latest news that he would hang on after a vonc as serious, if it came to it he risks being fired by the Queen, he would be forever known as the PM who attempted a coup, and all this just to get brexit through? He doesn't even believe in the project.
Can anyone really imagine Boris Johnson having the courage to attempt a coup? He didn't even have the courage to attend a leadership debate.
I am still struggling to see how a Prime Minister going for a general election is a coup.
Margaret Beckett would be a decent GONU PM, relatively acceptable across the house and to both wings of the Labour Party I would have thought.
Hell will freeze over before Corbyn whips his MPs to back anyone other than himself as PM. And why should he? If No Deal's so bad, and he's the only one who can stop it, they should be begging him to become PM, not scheming to find ways to deny him.
I agree with your first sentence - see my 11.24 post sent simultaneously.
But don't assume that Corbyn is averse to No Deal in practice, whatever he says in public. It amounts to the UK leaving (Corbyn's preferred outcome) with a blank slate on which Corbyn could subsequently try and negotiate a new agreement with the EU, rather than being tied to the terms of one negotiated by a Tory PM.
I think he doesn't care. If No Deal helps him become PM, he's all for it (albeit quietly). If it'll make no difference but will lose him support then he's against. The goal is a radical socialist government enacting worker friendly policies; all else is secondary.
Can't see this latest news that he would hang on after a vonc as serious, if it came to it he risks being fired by the Queen, he would be forever known as the PM who attempted a coup, and all this just to get brexit through? He doesn't even believe in the project.
Can anyone really imagine Boris Johnson having the courage to attempt a coup? He didn't even have the courage to attend a leadership debate.
I am still struggling to see how a Prime Minister going for a general election is a coup.
Err. Because if he loses a VONC and there is another person who could command a majority, he must resign. If he refuses to name that person to HMQ, that is a coup d'etat. Simple.
There was a header a while back from the wonderful Mr Meeks which pointed out that Britain was at risk of being a new Argentina i.e. that from a good position economically, socially etc it ended up a mess as a result of very poor decisions and a useless political class. The result was that, far from fulfilling its promise, it ended up a sort of violent, reactionary Ruritania run by ludicrous but corrupt and malicious populists and generals and ended up as a third rate state rather than the state it could have been.
The fact that we are reading stories about PMs possibly hanging on in the face of VoNC and alternative governments and of opposition MPs desperately trying to find ways of overthrowing the government, of elections being held in the middle of country-changing events, of advisors taunting MPs that they can do nothing to stop matters, of the possibility of Parliament being prorogued or of no legislation being brought to stop Parliament doing its job etc etc - even allowing for spin and journalists not understanding and the silly season - does suggest that maybe our political institutions are not quite as fit for purpose as we would like to think.
Maybe the line between being a reasonably sensible well-run state and one which ends up prey to all sorts of nonsense is much thinner than we all realised.
"It couldn't happen here."
Quite. It feels as if it might.
"you must believe in Brexit" "Do or die" "whatever it takes" "you can't stop us" "people vs Parliament"
Has there ever been a case of a charismatic journalist with a gift for communication moving into politics and becoming his country's leader?
Mussolini was a political journalist before assuming power. He pursued policies based on expansion, social conservatism and fiscal incontinence. His power eventually collapsed because he failed to pay attention to logistics and the practical steps necessary for his vainglorious scheme. History records him as a buffoon but one who caused considerable damage to his country before he could be stopped.
Can't see this latest news that he would hang on after a vonc as serious, if it came to it he risks being fired by the Queen, he would be forever known as the PM who attempted a coup, and all this just to get brexit through? He doesn't even believe in the project.
Can anyone really imagine Boris Johnson having the courage to attempt a coup? He didn't even have the courage to attend a leadership debate.
I am still struggling to see how a Prime Minister going for a general election is a coup.
Err. Because if he loses a VONC and there is another person who could command a majority, he must resign. If he refuses to name that person to HMQ, that is a coup d'etat. Simple.
Unless Corbyn would prefer to have an election instead of trying to govern with the current distribution of MPs.
Can't see this latest news that he would hang on after a vonc as serious, if it came to it he risks being fired by the Queen, he would be forever known as the PM who attempted a coup, and all this just to get brexit through? He doesn't even believe in the project.
But Cummings does. Fervently. Whether Boris believes in Cummings, or is using him, is the unanswered question.
Corbyn and the Stalinist death culters running him want crash Brexit. A crisis in capitalism so that they can wheel out "true socialism". They don't care what happens after Brexit, the crisis is their golden opportunity to reshape a golden age in Britain that resembles the heady heights of the Belarus SSR
There was a header a while back from the wonderful Mr Meeks which pointed out that Britain was at risk of being a new Argentina i.e. that from a good position economically, socially etc it ended up a mess as a result of very poor decisions and a useless political class. The result was that, far from fulfilling its promise, it ended up a sort of violent, reactionary Ruritania run by ludicrous but corrupt and malicious populists and generals and ended up as a third rate state rather than the state it could have been.
The fact that we are reading stories about PMs possibly hanging on in the face of VoNC and alternative governments and of opposition MPs desperately trying to find ways of overthrowing the government, of elections being held in the middle of country-changing events, of advisors taunting MPs that they can do nothing to stop matters, of the possibility of Parliament being prorogued or of no legislation being brought to stop Parliament doing its job etc etc - even allowing for spin and journalists not understanding and the silly season - does suggest that maybe our political institutions are not quite as fit for purpose as we would like to think.
Maybe the line between being a reasonably sensible well-run state and one which ends up prey to all sorts of nonsense is much thinner than we all realised.
This is a bit silly. Boris wouldn't be hanging on to power against the law. He would be instead putting the issue to a general election. Johnson is a clown but he is no wannabe dictator. I do wonder whether this hyperbole plays into his hands.
He is saying and apparently allowing his close advisor to say things that suggest that perhaps he - and his advisor - do not understand the limits that any PM in Britain faces.
No sensible politician would or should allow the appearance to be created that he is willing to do whatever it takes to push a policy through, no matter what.
The idea of proroguing Parliament would simply not have been contemplated. Now at least two Cabinet Ministers, one of them a lawyer, felt able to say that they might well do this to push a policy through in defiance of Parliament.
Dictatorship does not always come dressed up in a uniform ranting and threatening war. Sometimes it - or more likely a disregard for the well-established conventions that make our democracy work - can creep up on us in baby steps and before we know it we have, on the one hand, a PM unwilling to rule out the suspension of Parliament and, on the other, a leader of the Opposition who runs a party being formally investigated for possible anti-semitism. And this is - apparently - the new normal in British politics.
If it is - and I hope I turn out to be wrong - it is a normal that I dislike intensely.
There was a header a while back from the wonderful Mr Meeks which pointed out that Britain was at risk of being a new Argentina i.e. that from a good position economically, socially etc it ended up a mess as a result of very poor decisions and a useless political class. The result was that, far from fulfilling its promise, it ended up a sort of violent, reactionary Ruritania run by ludicrous but corrupt and malicious populists and generals and ended up as a third rate state rather than the state it could have been.
The fact that we are reading stories about PMs possibly hanging on in the face of VoNC and alternative governments and of opposition MPs desperately trying to find ways of overthrowing the government, of elections being held in the middle of country-changing events, of advisors taunting MPs that they can do nothing to stop matters, of the possibility of Parliament being prorogued or of no legislation being brought to stop Parliament doing its job etc etc - even allowing for spin and journalists not understanding and the silly season - does suggest that maybe our political institutions are not quite as fit for purpose as we would like to think.
Maybe the line between being a reasonably sensible well-run state and one which ends up prey to all sorts of nonsense is much thinner than we all realised.
"It couldn't happen here."
Quite. It feels as if it might.
"you must believe in Brexit" "Do or die" "whatever it takes" "you can't stop us" "people vs Parliament"
Has there ever been a case of a charismatic journalist with a gift for communication moving into politics and becoming his country's leader?
Mussolini was a political journalist before assuming power. He pursued policies based on expansion, social conservatism and fiscal incontinence. His power eventually collapsed because he failed to pay attention to logistics and the practical steps necessary for his vainglorious scheme. History records him as a buffoon but one who caused considerable damage to his country before he could be stopped.
So entirely unlike Boris, then...
Throwing in his lot with Adolf was his downfall though. Franco and Salazar lasted till the 70's. No reason, other than catastrophic military defeat, why Benito couldn't have gone on and on.
Can't see this latest news that he would hang on after a vonc as serious, if it came to it he risks being fired by the Queen, he would be forever known as the PM who attempted a coup, and all this just to get brexit through? He doesn't even believe in the project.
Can anyone really imagine Boris Johnson having the courage to attempt a coup? He didn't even have the courage to attend a leadership debate.
I am still struggling to see how a Prime Minister going for a general election is a coup.
He can go for an election, that wouldn't be a coup. The process for that is to put a motion to parliament recommending an election, and for them to vote for it.
However if he is instead sacked by parliament, and parliament agrees on his successor, and he refuses to leave, that would be a coup. Or rather an *attempted* coup, because ultimately if all else failed I suppose the monarch would publicly sack him and appoint the new guy, and the army and police would take directions from that guy.
Can't see this latest news that he would hang on after a vonc as serious, if it came to it he risks being fired by the Queen, he would be forever known as the PM who attempted a coup, and all this just to get brexit through? He doesn't even believe in the project.
Can anyone really imagine Boris Johnson having the courage to attempt a coup? He didn't even have the courage to attend a leadership debate.
I am still struggling to see how a Prime Minister going for a general election is a coup.
Err. Because if he loses a VONC and there is another person who could command a majority, he must resign. If he refuses to name that person to HMQ, that is a coup d'etat. Simple.
Unless Corbyn would prefer to have an election instead of trying to govern with the current distribution of MPs.
Also, who the hell leaked the US Ambassador story?
Please don’t tell me we are supposed to believe it was that 19-yr-old “reporter” who apparently “heard it in a restaurant”.
I’ll have a go at number 2. Banging their big guns.
Does "banging their big guns" mean what I think it means?
Yes. She was guest of the military and went on manoeuvres with them.
Why? What was in it for her? What was in it for the Israelis? Or other parties?
As overseas aid and development secretary it may seem odd spending so much time with Israeli military. The likely reasoning is this is the kind of ‘player” she thought herself as, and using “British cabinet minister” as the ticket to ride. She tried to keep it quiet with a little white lie but that was an error of judgement.
Anyhow, she’s in a nice plum job now, where the Tory press and party are certainly warming to her. Those supporters who always claimed she’s got a certain X factor, as well as those critics who would say “x factor, what are you babbling on about, are you crazy?” Are going to get their confirmation either way.
That explains why she wanted to do it. It does not explain why the Israelis would give her the time of day. They are a pretty hard-headed bunch at the best of times, a fortiori the Israeli military. Why the hell would they waste time with her? Especially as it would have been easy enough to check whether this was an officially sanctioned visit. So why agree to an unofficial one?
It has a touch of the Jonathan Aitken story about it to me. Remember that? We all became so entranced about the lie he told about his Paris hotel visit and him getting his daughter to lie too and his conviction for perjury that we forgot to ask what he was doing with those nice Middle Eastern gentlemen.
Maybe there's nothing there. She lied for no good reason. And was caught out. But I wonder. People generally lie for a reason. I'd like to know what the reason was.
I actually think there's a chance the SNP might be the spanner in the works in preventing the formation of a GNU. If Sturgeon asks for Indyref2 in return for supporting it, there's a good chance the entire thing won't be able to get off the ground... as either some unionist anti-no dealers vote it down along with the rump of the Tory party to prevent another Indyref, or the SNP vote it down if the prospective caretaker PM refuses them.
Margaret Beckett would be a decent GONU PM, relatively acceptable across the house and to both wings of the Labour Party I would have thought.
Hell will freeze over before Corbyn whips his MPs to back anyone other than himself as PM. And why should he? If No Deal's so bad, and he's the only one who can stop it, they should be begging him to become PM, not scheming to find ways to deny him.
All things are relative and everyone has their own priorities, known or unknown. Good luck sorting that out with MPs.
At least we can be sure Jezza would not No Deal if he was PM. The strategy is for Johnson or another Tory to be the No Deal merchant.
"No deal" is the default option. Unless a deal is agreed that is what will happen, unless there are perpetual extensions. Now that would be the fuck up to out fuck all fuck ups.
Not at all. Instead of focusing on the situation on 1st November, focus on what happens in the weeks and months immediately beyond that in a context in which both sides had called each others bluff. Negotiations would begin between a UK government and the EU to change a situation which was the preferred outcome of neither of them. That will happen whatever the political colour of the UK government. An agreement could also be reached relatively quickly. Both sides know that, and the prospect of the "no deal" scenario being a very short term one is a reason why both are in practice prepared if necessary to go to the wire rather than give ground at this point.
In the EU's case, there is no reason to budge at this point unless it feels that it is all but certain that Johnson has a foolproof mechanism to get us out without a deal on 31st October. (A perception that Cummings is clearly trying to foster.) And even then it might not back down if it felt that the general election would most likely deliver a government led by a Remain PM who would be willing to accept very poor terms as the price of the UK rejoining.
Can't see this latest news that he would hang on after a vonc as serious, if it came to it he risks being fired by the Queen, he would be forever known as the PM who attempted a coup, and all this just to get brexit through? He doesn't even believe in the project.
Can anyone really imagine Boris Johnson having the courage to attempt a coup? He didn't even have the courage to attend a leadership debate.
I am still struggling to see how a Prime Minister going for a general election is a coup.
Err. Because if he loses a VONC and there is another person who could command a majority, he must resign. If he refuses to name that person to HMQ, that is a coup d'etat. Simple.
If Boris is trying to stop diehard Remainers trying to prevent the delivery of Brexit which 17 million people voted for by installing a technocrat PM to extend Article 50 again the coup d'état is from diehard Remainers not Boris trying to deny the will of the people
Outrageous if true! PM without mandate stays in office even when he cannot command a majority. The UK is in real trouble...
Nothing to see here...just the PM’s spokesman briefing to the Times that he will essentially lead a coup d’etat to remain in power...
One of those lovely Brexit dividends Tyndall et al promised us.
We have not left yet - thanks to you anti-democratic Remainers.
I think you mean thanks to your nutty fellow travellers, the ERG.
Clearly you are having trouble with your maths again Mr Walker. If you think the 30 odd ERG idiots had more votes than the several hundred Remainer MPs who voted down the WA then we need to discuss your educational shortcomings.
Corbyn and the Stalinist death culters running him want crash Brexit. A crisis in capitalism so that they can wheel out "true socialism". They don't care what happens after Brexit, the crisis is their golden opportunity to reshape a golden age in Britain that resembles the heady heights of the Belarus SSR
Yes, the genius Corbyn has handled Brexit so well he has gone from 40% 2 years ago to polling worse than Michael Foot did in 1983 now
Comments
However, iirc the PM gets to recommend a dissolution date to the Queen. I think she has the final decision (but of course will hate and resist being dragged into this murk).
I am beginning to think that our Queen may be about to perform one of her last major roles in a very long reign and inject some sanity into all this nonsense.
Cummings vs Her Majesty.
I think I know who wins.
1. No Deal Brexit in October.
2. Some form of constitutional crisis in October.
3. What else ...... a financial crisis? Some sort of small war somewhere? A terrorist outrage somewhere nearby? The real IRA kicking off again?
There are several stories that I'd like to hear more about.
(1) When will the NCA investigation into the funding by Arron Banks' companies of Leave.EU be concluded?
(2) What was Priti Patel doing with the Israelis that she felt she needed to lie about it to the PM?
(3) What was Dominic Cummings doing in Russia for several years? I've read that he was trying to start an airline, which sounds bizarre to me.
Only conclusion is as I have been saying. Cummings is a Leninist. He has seized the levers of power, and will need them prized out. With the Brexit backing press giving him a standing ovation as he does it.
Cummings will lose and lose big time if he continues down this line, which is of course driven by his insane love of Silicon Valley's supposed mantra:
"Move fast and break things."
Not the Crown Dom. Not the Crown.
To be fair to our politicians, it's hard enough figuring out what to do before such a disaster, and I'm not sure that they do need to try to come up with an answer now about what to do afterwards. We can just about predict the immediate aftermath of a crash-out (it won't be pretty..), but the exact scale, scope and duration of the disaster, and the reaction of the EU, of businesses, and of the rest of the world is completely unknown: no-one can do much planning for this, because there is no precedent and in any case it all depends how others react.
If there is an early post-crash-out election, though, I think the positions of the four main parties is fairly predictable:
Conservatives: We did what we promised, let's pretend Brexit is done now and try to change the subject, and by the way we're throwing money at every conceivable problem.
Labour: The vicious incompetent Tories have wrecked the economy and screwed up Brexit. Vote Labour for cuddly nationalised industries and free unicorns, and we'll negotiate a new settlement with the EU which will magically solve all problems, without actually changing anything.
LibDems: It's an unmitigated disaster, caused by insane right-wing Tories and the lickspittle Labour leadership which did nothing to prevent it. Vote for us as the only adults left, and we'll try to negotiate something sensible, involving a closer relationship with our EU friends.
Brexit Party: The Tories have completely screwed up Brexit because they didn't really believe in it. Vote for us and we'll do it properly.
But the trouble is that we have had Ministers in this government, most notably the PM, saying that Brexit must be done "no matter what", "do or die" etc and some of the wilder supporters claiming that the end justifies any means that I cannot be certain that the No Deal Brexiteers in government would take the same position as you.
I also disagree - as will come as no surprise to you - that simply ensuring that Brexit is done legally will be sufficient to render it sustainable or moral. Real consent is needed not simply de jure legality. But we were arguing about this earlier and disagreed so I will leave that point there. We are not going to convince each other on this.
Please don’t tell me we are supposed to believe it was that 19-yr-old “reporter” who apparently “heard it in a restaurant”.
Who knows what the individual decisions of MPs will be on that one, seeing as they could lose their jobs.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/05/july-car-sales-britain-fall-diesel-brexit
To quote Kevin Keegan, I would love it if he tried to do that, because he would end up in prison.
But he's not going to risk it is he?
So that's a definite he will!!!
The fact that we are reading stories about PMs possibly hanging on in the face of VoNC and alternative governments and of opposition MPs desperately trying to find ways of overthrowing the government, of elections being held in the middle of country-changing events, of advisors taunting MPs that they can do nothing to stop matters, of the possibility of Parliament being prorogued or of no legislation being brought to stop Parliament doing its job etc etc - even allowing for spin and journalists not understanding and the silly season - does suggest that maybe our political institutions are not quite as fit for purpose as we would like to think.
Maybe the line between being a reasonably sensible well-run state and one which ends up prey to all sorts of nonsense is much thinner than we all realised.
They might well make it very clear that they'd be prepared to extend the date, in order to avoid blame for the disaster, but they can't force it on us.
The question, therefore, is whether parliament could take control and insist on asking for an extension. That is unclear, since normally it's the Executive who gets to negotiate such things. But parliament might try to change that.
The flaw in Corbyn's reasoning is that the electorate may not share his optimism that he could win a general election in November and become PM. But that won't stop him following the course above.
"you must believe in Brexit"
"Do or die"
"whatever it takes"
"you can't stop us"
"people vs Parliament"
Has there ever been a case of a charismatic journalist with a gift for communication moving into politics and becoming his country's leader?
A few months ago Tory MPs were going to prevent Boris from being in the final two.
A few weeks ago Westminster MPs were going to prevent Boris from exiting.
Now MPs may be able to find a way around the FTPA and stop Boris.
But don't assume that Corbyn is averse to No Deal in practice, whatever he says in public. It amounts to the UK leaving (Corbyn's preferred outcome) with a blank slate on which Corbyn could subsequently try and negotiate a new agreement with the EU, rather than being tied to the terms of one negotiated by a Tory PM.
https://twitter.com/davidyelland/status/1158490845429030918
Anyhow, she’s in a nice plum job now, where the Tory press and party are certainly warming to her. Those supporters who always claimed she’s got a certain X factor, as well as those critics who would say “x factor, what are you babbling on about, are you crazy?” Are going to get their confirmation either way.
So entirely unlike Boris, then...
No sensible politician would or should allow the appearance to be created that he is willing to do whatever it takes to push a policy through, no matter what.
The idea of proroguing Parliament would simply not have been contemplated. Now at least two Cabinet Ministers, one of them a lawyer, felt able to say that they might well do this to push a policy through in defiance of Parliament.
Dictatorship does not always come dressed up in a uniform ranting and threatening war. Sometimes it - or more likely a disregard for the well-established conventions that make our democracy work - can creep up on us in baby steps and before we know it we have, on the one hand, a PM unwilling to rule out the suspension of Parliament and, on the other, a leader of the Opposition who runs a party being formally investigated for possible anti-semitism. And this is - apparently - the new normal in British politics.
If it is - and I hope I turn out to be wrong - it is a normal that I dislike intensely.
However if he is instead sacked by parliament, and parliament agrees on his successor, and he refuses to leave, that would be a coup. Or rather an *attempted* coup, because ultimately if all else failed I suppose the monarch would publicly sack him and appoint the new guy, and the army and police would take directions from that guy.
That explains why she wanted to do it. It does not explain why the Israelis would give her the time of day. They are a pretty hard-headed bunch at the best of times, a fortiori the Israeli military. Why the hell would they waste time with her? Especially as it would have been easy enough to check whether this was an officially sanctioned visit. So why agree to an unofficial one?
It has a touch of the Jonathan Aitken story about it to me. Remember that? We all became so entranced about the lie he told about his Paris hotel visit and him getting his daughter to lie too and his conviction for perjury that we forgot to ask what he was doing with those nice Middle Eastern gentlemen.
Maybe there's nothing there. She lied for no good reason. And was caught out. But I wonder. People generally lie for a reason. I'd like to know what the reason was.
What, *the* Randall Flagg?
Oh thats just put the tin lid on it, that has...
In the EU's case, there is no reason to budge at this point unless it feels that it is all but certain that Johnson has a foolproof mechanism to get us out without a deal on 31st October. (A perception that Cummings is clearly trying to foster.) And even then it might not back down if it felt that the general election would most likely deliver a government led by a Remain PM who would be willing to accept very poor terms as the price of the UK rejoining.